"What is bad they will throw away"

[Originally a homily for 7/30/2015--I hope to have an audio version of this up soon, as an experiment working with audio on this site]

Most of us have had this experience of going to a grocery store or fruit stand, wanting to buy something. We look at, for example, and apple. It has an attractive exterior and so we go over and pick it up, hold it in our hands, and rotate it. After all, we want to make sure we don't waste our twenty hard-earned cents.

But then, all of a sudden, we feel a soft spot or we notice an imperfection of some sort. So we throw it back on the pile and never look at it again or think of it again.

This is the same image Jesus offers as when he speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven, and in this particular example, we are the apples. At the end of the age God will come by and look at all of us--people in these pews like apples on a rack. From the outside we dress ourselves nicely in business suits, beautiful dresses, habits, chasubles, or clerical shirts. Yet all God has to do is pick us up, run his hand over us, and rotate us, and he'll be able to feel all the imperfections. Then He will decide whether or not He wants to spend His hard-earned twenty cents.

So what are we to do? We look to ourselves and how critical we are of minor imperfections on fruits and vegetables. If God is the same, how can anyone be saved?

Unlike the apple, I would argue that we do have some say in the matter. God has taught us how to be acceptable in His eyes. We can clothe ourselves with fancy things or dress our image with pious words, but it is better than we put the armor of faith (cf., Eph 6:11) and our Lord, Jesus Christ (cf., Rom 13:14). By this I mean we must put on a pious inner conviction. It is my view that we do this by heeding the first words out of Christ's mouth in the Gospel of Mark: "Repent, and believe in the gospel" (Mk 1:15).

It is by putting on a spirit of repentance that we cleanse ourselves of imperfection, asking God always to forgive us our sins and faults. Likewise, we must put on faith in the saving work of Christ, giving thanks to Him always for His goodness.

Humbled by repentance and inspired to love by His goodness, we likewise go out, ready to forgive the faults of others and call them to a better and higher way of life by our words and deeds. In doing so, for "love covers a multitude of sins," (1 Pet 4:8), we may hope with a Christian hope that God, at the end of the age, will walk by and see us. He will hold us in His hand, feel us, and rotate us. He will find that we are good and take us home with him.

Seeds and the Soul

[The was originally preached at Sunday mass, 7/13/2014. The readings for that day may be found here: USCCB.]

As the rain falls down it does not return to the heavens until it has accomplished its task. So it is with God's word which he sends down to earth constantly. In our mass this day we receive God's word twice. The first is through Scripture, which teaches us about the history of God's saving work and reveals to us who we are. The second is Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. When we receive Him, not just in word but fully, He dwells in us and we in Him.

But consider for a moment how rain falls upon the earth. When it rains it falls on every sort of terrain: fertile soil, dry and cracked earth, grasslands, and forests. While fertile soil receives rain and produces fruit, the other sorts of terrain will produce little more than what they already have. Fertile soil needs to be prepared to receive rain and produce fruit. As you receive God's word this day, how have you prepared yourself to receive it? What will you do once you receive it?

Perhaps this story will aid you in meditating upon these questions:

There were once three neighbors who each had a plot of land behind their houses. The land was set up to be a garden. Because each had many concerns they left their gardens for another time. As time went on wild grass and weeds covered the whole area. One day, each neighbor was inspired to dedicate time to making their garden look as each one desired. After many long hours of toil the land was cleared and prepared. They took many types of seed, planted them, and they quickly grew. But then came trouble:

The first man became distracted by other concerns again. When he saw some of the weeds growing and how they had flowers he assumed that this was what he planted and let them grow. While the seeds he planted indeed grew the weeds and grass also grew up and consumed the whole garden once more.

The second man was more attentive. He made sure to pull weeds and care for the land. He took care of what he had planted diligently. One day, however, he had to leave on urgent business and left the garden unattended for a week. When he returned, his hard work had prevented everything from being lost but his garden was a mess and he lost much of his progress. When he asked his family, “Why did you not care for my garden?” they replied, “You never asked us to help you.”

The third man was as attentive as the second one. He cared for the land with great fervor. When a crisis arose that distracted him he told his family, “I am troubled by what has happened but I also fear that while I am away my garden will be destroyed and overrun. Will you help me care for it?” His family all helped him. When the crisis passed and he was once again able to focus on his garden he found that the many plants he had cultivated had now matured. His family rejoiced with him as the garden produced vegetables, spices, and flowers. He shared his produce with his family and even his neighbors and all praised him for his work.

Are you confused at all, brothers and sisters, as to the meaning of this parable? The garden is our soul and the seeds planted in them is the Word, Jesus Christ, and all he taught. God has also planted in us many kinds of virtues and talents which require diligence and effort. God does not give us anything fully mature, but only as a little seed.

The weeds are the many sinful inclinations each of us have. Some of them are small and can be easily uprooted. Others need to be held with both hands and ripped out. Some grow because we are inattentive. Others grow because they appear good and attractive. Whether big or small, if we are inattentive to our sins and our bad habits, they can overwhelm the good we have and they can set us back.

And how often, brothers and sisters, does work, illness, family issues, and stress take us away from our garden? The second man did not ask for help and when life turned him away from his soul he found that he had sunk back into his old habits. The one who sought help, who asked his loved ones to keep him honest and attentive when he couldn't be, returned to find his soul at peace and in it more mature fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Let us not fool ourselves, however, and say that every good thing we have is the work of our hands. God has given us the seeds and he sends forth the rain, His grace, to aid us in our life. But God has also given us the capacity to work alongside Him, to cultivate and personally own the good He has given us.

He teaches us through Scripture, but we must own Scripture for ourselves too. He has given us the saints to inspire us, but we too are called to be saints through a life of faithful endurance. He has given us the Church to guide and protect us when we falter, but we must also choose to walk with her. And God has given us His only Son and, when we receive Him, do we mean what we say when we say “Amen”?

So this day, my brothers and sisters, do not delay in entering the garden of your soul, preparing it to produce many good things. Indeed we all have harvested many good things already. When we discern what is good and what is evil and sinful we can catch ourselves before we're overrun. Rely and trust on each other, for we are all brothers and sisters in this one house and in this one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It is then that we share in God's many gifts, being supported when we are burdened and supporting others who need us.

Apologetics Online II

Please forgive my absence from posting more regularly. Some bloggers keep up with a better regimen and react to news more quickly. I'm beginning to feel as if I'm more in St. John's camp. At the end of his second letter he states that he wishes to speak with his brothers face to face. I'm perhaps the same way.

As I work on other pieces during my break I thought it would be nice to share with you some of my other encounters online doing apologetics. These are a few selections from a number of various topics selected. I give them to you all for your scrutiny and hope we can discuss similar questions together. If you have any additional questions, please ask away.

Much obliged.

As with last time, the person who asks me a question/makes a comment will be in italics. My responses will be in plain text.

[1]

 When someone slags off the church (IE calling them paedophiles) what do you say to them?

Well, it's upsetting because it's ignorant--not ignorant in that there are no pedophiles in the clergy (sad and regrettable)--but sometimes these people only want to be listened to.

The ones who say it as a joke or as slander don't want to be told anything. The best response is patience, really,

Others simply have been hurt by it and need to be heard. Other than that there are plenty of statistics to show that the rate among clergy, especially Catholic clergy, is lower and less frequent than nearly any other populations (e.g., fathers, teachers, etc.).

[2] Note: the wide area a simple question opens up to. It shows, I think, how ready we have to be to approach these subjects specifically and then see the larger picture. In this instance infallibility opens up to questions about truth, veracity, certainty, (Medieval) history, philosophy, and Church procedures. It goes on and on.

(I've done some editing and down-sizing)

Do you believe the pope's word is infallible spiritually or otherwise and how con someone who allegedly have a direct link to an omniscient being be wrong about one thing and not another?

First and foremost Papal Infallibility is limited to the Pope speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals to the whole Church, not just one part. His comments on local affairs or specific concerns in a field, while they carry weight by virtue of his authority, are not considered infallible.

The "direct link" to Omniscience is not like a phone call to God. The Holy Spirit works in the Church and ultimately Christ, rather, the Trinity, leads the Church. The Pope is the living authority of the Church who by virtue of His stature, is said to be incapable of error or deceit when it comes to the contents of faith.

This has been misinterpreted for centuries, even after clarification in the 19th century, and has been taken to mean that whatever he says is free from error. The pope has only invoked infallibility according to our definition about 30 times in our whole history. Likewise, as Scripture states "the one who is wise seeks council." Very rarely, if ever, has the pope just come out and said "I infallibly say..." In fact he never has. He consults with his fellow bishops on matters of faith that concern the peoples from all over the world and when conflict arises they discuss this conflict's subject matter and how it relates to the whole of the faith. It's a very long process and never done flippantly.

Again isn't he supposed to be god's mouthpiece on Earth; why would he need to do all that if he can contact the "all mighty" himself?

Well we would first have to examine any assumptions one would make about it. First, I don't recall us calling him "God's mouthpiece." It's not an official or even theological title.

It assumes how God speaks to men or through men. It assumes how men listen for God. I wish I could give you a formula for how it happens but it's not subject to human control (or invocation). The Pope is elected as leader of the Church by his fellow brothers because they see in him a spirit of governance. He is not perfect, he's human. By virtue of his position he is given great responsibility but also a great number of graces--should he choose to accept him.

Describing how the Holy Spirit works through men is not an easy task, nor is it one many Christians wish to reflect on or think through.

I know it might be hard for you to process but has it ever occurred to you that it's most likely all made up?

Of course, but then again how much effort have you dedicated to seeing if it's true?

Most of my adolescence and all of my early adulthood. There is a logical tool that is used to determine the veracity of a claim called Occam's Razor. I'm sure you heard of it.It is a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct. [someone else, atheist it seems, steps in to say, "Not quite. Occam's Razor is more like "the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions is often correct".]

I've also found that that's the extent of people's knowledge of Ockham.

Let use it in an example then!

Which is the simpler claim: that someone can truly be infallible or that it's a lie?

Asking if he's claiming that it's more probable to tell the truth than a lie he response, "No it is much more likely that someone is telling a lie; especially when making an extraordinary a claim as "selective infallibility". If we are to believe any claim we require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." [I also ask if he's read Ockham]

Can you give me the probabilities on that? If you call what I described as "selective" you might as well call any truth claim "selective truth claiming."

As for evidence in general, who requires it and why? What makes a claim extraordinary? Likewise, are claims of logic, philosophy, or similar branches subject to the same criteria as the physical sciences, or are their various forms of demonstration according to their proper field?

I also like the notion of "extraordinary claims." Extraordinary has a very emotional ring to it, doesn't it?

You see, Ockham's Razor is very popular except people seem to have forgotten that he did believe in God--did he not follow his own rule? That, and his use of the "Razor" was more concerned with the discussion of universals than every time someone wanted to talk about God.

[Here it gets a bit more complicated:]

[1] Truth as most commonly defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

What you are claiming is that the pope isn't just selectively telling the truth but as I was getting at that the pope is allegedly capable of selectively dictating without error the word of an alleged all powerful being that created the universe.

[2] A claim that is mundane or a commonly observed or experienced occurrence (like: I walked my dog) is an easily determinable as either true or false there should be no reason to doubt me and if you do I could present to you evidence that I have a dog. Simply by presenting my dog. That would be considered ordinary.

Extraordinary (despite your attempt to call me on an appeal to emotion) is something that is as the word describes extra-ordinary. Which is defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.

Infallibility would fall under the category of an extraordinary claim.

[3] Because just like Sir Isaac Newton, Ockham's scientific contribution is irrelevant to his religious beliefs. 

Ockham believed that  "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." His theism was based solely on private revelation and faith and that god was an ontological necessity. Which given the century he lived in there was literally no alternative theory of how things came to exist. Essentially Ockham granted god special pleading because when you apply the Razor to the claim of god it really does a number on it.

[I quote what I'm responding to:]

Truth as most commonly defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

Philosophy is often quite good at challenging even these claims as being self-evident, but I won't argue semantics here.

But regardless of our views about the value of fact or the precise definition of reality you seem to be adding complications to it by your evaluations of a given pope's actions, i.e., I don't understand  "selectively dictating without error the word of [x]." It leads me to believe that you take his action to be some sort of prophecy or divination which it isn't. I can't really argue against things I don't believe or the Church doesn't teach/proclaim.

It doesn't quite answer my question about your comment about the probability of truth.

Extraordinary (despite your attempt to call me on an appeal to emotion) is something that is as the word describes extra-ordinary. Which is defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.Infallibility would fall under the category of an extraordinary claim.

Then again, given your dog example, you could claim that you've spoken infallibly about your dog. I only say it's "emotional" in that there usually is some wonder in confronting something extraordinary. The vastness of the universe, stellar motions, and the like can provoke wonder. Sub atomic structures, the formation of organisms from single cells, mitosis, etc. may also be extraordinary in a certain sense. Then again even the act of walking our dog or observing the harmony of an animal's motions can be very captivating. Even something as "ordinary" as ourselves--we are with ourselves most of the time after all--is subject to a great deal of contingency and wonder.

Perhaps this serves as a small example of how easily ordinary and extraordinary can sometimes be confusing, even emotional insofar as they cause us to wonder.

Infallibility is not so extraordinary when one is certain. People seem to infallibly claim things all the time such as:

-the universe is infinite
-the universe is only material (and thus finite)
-any evaluation of the Middle Ages seems to be very extraordinary and many non-historians/Christians/etc. claim many fantastic, infallible things off of weak/unfounded/biased/unhistorical evidence

I use that last example of the ordinary way everyday people speak infallibly about things much larger and more complicated than themselves.

Whenever the Pope speaks infallibly, however, it is not apart from a careful examination of the faith of the people, the content of tradition, and the content of revelation--claims rarely made (as I said) flippantly.

Perhaps you're introducing more extraordinary things into the process.

Because just like Sir Isaac Newton, Ockham's scientific contribution is irrelevant to his religious beliefs.

The thing is that Ockham's claim with the "Razor" was not scientific, but philosophical--a bit of a difference. Likewise Newton's physics (Paschal's too) were motivated by both genuine curiosity, genius, and their faith. It was their belief that creation was orderly, not chaotic, that inspired them to find that order in creation (that's how they would see it--how you see it for them is beside the point).

His theism was based solely on private revelation and faith and that god was an ontological necessity. Which given the century he lived in there was literally no alternative theory of how things came to exist. Essentially Ockham granted god special pleading because when you apply the Razor to the claim of god it really does a number on it.


Are you saying that as a scholar of this particular period of theology and philosophy or just an educated opinion?

Given that he was a member of the Catholic Church he believed in some capacity of revelation throughout history and also through the Church, not just privately. A private faith apart from the Body, the Church did not share clearly or accurately with revelation because a private faith alone is not a part of the Body.

As for alternative theories have you read Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Nicholas of Cusa, or Ockham on their own terms to see if your purported truth claim is, well, true?


I thought the same when I started philosophy, that the Middle ages just said "God" was the answer without any real thought behind it. As it turned out I had to be humbled by my peers and by actual reading to find that, all along, I (me personally) had been the arrogant one and I was wrong. There's a richness and variety that we deny these men by assuming what their arguments are all about.

 [This is the conversation thus far....]

***

Reflection:

Apologetics is a task where one has to get to the heart of what one is asking. In matters of making a defense the first claim is the gateway into a number of further disagreements. If we can be civil and honest about such disagreements we can go a long way. Likewise, we have to carefully see how the other uses his vocabulary--eek out certain assumptions and premises. Very often philosophy is misunderstood, let alone medieval philosophy.

Humility always plays a role in evangelization; we don't know everything. Some people want to argue with us and compete while others simply are interested in how we process the many things that happen. I'm learning to approach both these moments with gratitude. God speaks through our enemies and detractors just as He does our loved ones.

Thanks for reading!

M

The Early Church II-1: The Martyrs

(This is the extended, written version of a presentation I gave on 4/30/2013. 

This is II-1. If you haven't read "The Early Church I" yet, I would recommend it. All links are at the bottom of this article.)

Prologue

Last time we examined the message of Christianity and how it was presented to both Jew and Gentile. The message of Christ was a message of dignity, divine sonship and daughterhood, and a noble mission, namely the salvation of all in the name of Christ Jesus.

This, however, came with many difficulties. There were many who refused to hear the message. Others simply saw God as one among many appropriating what was profitable to them in the Christian message. Others reacted violently. Of these three, it may seem strange to hear that the second problem, corrupted teaching, was actually the most destructive to the Church. While there were those who were outside the Church who simply selected a few points and incorporated them into their pagan theology there were plenty of Christians who, because of culture, (both abundance and lack of) learning, and zeal, caused a great deal of trouble by their words.

In order to counteract these false teachings and bad influences the Church, beginning with the Apostles, established very quickly a structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in order to preserve and protect the content of the Apostolic faith. The bishop was a direct descendent of the Apostles, a relationship we'll explore later on. It was through the office of the bishop that we became known as “Catholic” and it was only around such a man that the Church was said to be. “Tradition,” likewise, properly understood was not only the words and actions of Christ but also the words and actions of the Apostles and their successors who were given a unique office (cf. Acts 1:20) by Christ (cf. Jn 20:19-23). Peter among the Twelve was given an important ministry and office. The title bishop means “overseer” and Peter was appointed overseer of his brothers. He exercised this authority clearly in Scripture yet, as Christ proclaimed, he did not lord over them (cf. Lk 22:25) but rather acted as a supreme example to his brothers and his flock (cf. 1 Pet 5:5).

Christians were likewise persecuted in waves of varying intensity from the Church's inception at Pentecost until 313 AD, after the persecutions of Diocletian. Christ, however, said it plainly: “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me … whoever loses his life for my sake will save it” (Lk 9:23-24). Peter said his disciples, “Since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same attitude” (1 Pet 4:1) and “Do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening. Rather, rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly” (1 Pet 4:13). Paul says it even more simply, “All who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12).

This brings us to the opening of our discussion: the martyrs. In what manner did their witness to Christ shape the early Christians and the Church? Likewise, what problems did they cause for the Church moving forward?

II-1: The Martyrs

The word martyr literally means “witness” yet that witness is more than proclaiming Christ with our words or good deeds. This is the witness that testifies to Christ crucified in the most concrete way: by giving up one's life in the same manner Christ did. Christ died for love of us, the martyrs died for love of Christ and neighbor—even persecutor.

Death is something that was trivialized in the Roman Empire just as it is today. The delight in the fall of one's enemies, the desire to oppress those who fought but no longer can, to see those whom we hate suffer cruelly for their injustice are all forms of bloodlust. The Romans were desensitized to blood, perhaps more than we are, because their violence was very real and designed, at its worst, to humiliate and break their captives. 

Not to mention entertainment.

Imagine, now, a group of men and women who stood in the face of death proudly. Rather than cowering in fear and succumbing to cruelty they openly proclaimed Christ. They prayed for their enemies and would not let death itself keep them from the One they loved. They acted as if life itself was an obstacle to their ultimate goal and that the threat of death held no sway. To a people soaked in blood and self-centeredness this was a shock to their system. With such a sharp contrast to their way of life two responses resulted: (1) even greater and inflamed hatred or (2) a complete conversion of heart. Very few could stand by indifferent to the example of the martyrs.

Before we examine the martyrs we should keep in mind a few aspects: not every Roman leader hated Christians, nor did every governor or provincial enact laws of persecution—Christians were in many places model citizens, and in many cases Romans sought to dispel a sect or a cult by killing their leaders. There was little effect to killing scores of common men and women. Priests, bishops, deacons, and those admired by the community were sought above the laity (Courtesy of Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom, 222).

Let us examine in sort, then, how the Church viewed martyrdom. While we ourselves can say many nice things about the martyrs it is worthwhile to examine how our Church Fathers and Scripture regarded the power and significance of them. It will help us, in turn, understand how Christians of that period responded to and sought the martyrs.

Justin Martyr, an apologist and martyr of the Church was a well educated man with an extensive knowledge of philosophy. Justin cited one of the reasons for his conversion in his 2^nd Apology: “I was delighted in the teachings of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are counted fearful, [I] saw that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate person, or whoever counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments[?]” (2^nd Apology, sec. 12).

The common conception of Christians at this time (2^nd century) was that they were atheists and cannibals. All manner of slander and myths were circulated about Christians so that they seemed to be enemies to humanity and to the state. For example: Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, said that Christians were “a sect that hates the human race” (Annals 15:44). Yet in the face of hatred many men and women showed love. In the face of cruelty is was the Christians who showed themselves to be civilized. It remains an important lesson for us today; the world will see us as enemies and fools and in these instances our words and actions should be as blameless as they can. When our adversaries comment on our faults, sinfulness, and errors accept them as a blessing. When we can present His message without fault—as best we can—the the words of others against His message are destined to fall. Time will reveal their lack of wisdom.

Modern examples exist in abundance.

Scripture likewise conveys this to us. The first martyr, Stephen the deacon, stands before a hostile crowd speaking in the Spirit. It says “his face was like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15) and yet his words of condemnation to the wicked were like a sword. “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. … You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it” (Acts 7:51, 53). As the crowd raged toward him he looked up to heaven, giving thanks that he should suffer for Jesus' name. He forgave those who killed him and, after his death, “devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him” (Acts 8:3).

Interestingly in this story is that Scripture says “I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” and “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit” (7:56, 59). Would there be any doubt his spirit was received? Christ on the cross proclaimed to the repentant thief “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43, cf. Mt 37:45-56). If Christ said this at the request of the penitent sinner do you think he would deny the request of the one who, filled with His Spirit and dying for His name, would be refused any request?

To this effect, and to answer this question, I present a story relayed to us by Eusebius, the earliest 'historian' of the Church. Writing in the 4^th century he was considered the “Father of Church History.” All histories written around this period and after him by other Christians begin at the end of his work as if to acknowledge his writing (cf. Penguin Classics version, xviii, 1989).

He writes many accounts of persecutions and martyrs, one which I think will be useful to consider in brief:

Potamiaena was a virgin and martyr who was condemned along with her mother for being Christian. She “and her mother Marcella found fulfillment in fire.” Her mother was killed and she was subject to a number of humiliations and tortures. A soldier in her midst, Basilides, seized her and led to her to place of execution. The crowd pressed around her seeking to strike her while insulting her but Basilides drove them back and showed this woman “the utmost pity and kindness.” Potamiaena, accepting his sympathy told him that “when she had gone away she would ask her Lord for him, and it would not be long before she repaid him for all he had done for her. … She face her end with noble courage—slowly, drop by drop, boiling pitch was poured [over her]. Such was the battle won by this splendid girl.”

Some days later Basilides was asked by his fellow soldiers to take again the military oath by which they all swore. He refused saying he was a Christian. They thought he was joking, but he asserted all the more of this fact. His comrades threw him in prison and those from the Church visited him there asking him the reason. He told them that “three days after her martyrdom Potamiaena stood before him in the night, put a wreath about his head, and said she had prayed for him to the Lord, had obtained her request, and before long would place him by her side.” At once those present baptised him and on the next day he was beheaded. It was said that in Alexandria, where all this took place, many other came to believe having seen this same girl in their dreams calling them to Jesus Christ. (see Eusebius, EH 6.5).

In this brief story that I've paraphrased we see a number of things: the courage of a martyr, her influence while living, and her power when she had life eternal. The martyrs were said to work miracles after their deaths and be catalysts to many conversions. Such interactions, that is saints speaking to others after their death, are not explicitly in Scripture, however, so how shall we consider this story?

We recall that in Revelations that there were those who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason they stand before God's throne and worship him day and night” (Rev 7:14-15). But it says later on that “I saw thrones and those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God … They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years [that is, for this Age] … blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first Resurrection. … they will reign with him for [the] thousand years” (Rev 20:4-6).

Prayer to the saints is effective not because the saints have power on their own, but because in their total loss-of-self in martyrdom they were given a share of the throne of Christ in this Age. All of it is for our benefit.

The first thousand years is not a literal time but an expression of forever (or, for the duration of this Age). We remain in this period of the first “thousand years” whereas the new heavens and new earth is the Age-yet-to-come, the Resurrection of the Body. Indeed, while we remain as pilgrims here on earth there were those, as Scripture attests, who sit on thrones with Christ. The ones on thrones are the ones martyred in the name of Christ. That they sit on a throne means they have power, and their power is precisely their intercession with Christ on behalf of all souls on heaven and earth. For it was not Christ himself who converted Basilides, but rather Christ through a young girl who converted him. This story relates that the ever-living martyr did not desire power nor did she seek revenge on her persecutors. Like Christ who proclaims “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15) she called others to do the same. All of us too are called to be witnesses to Christ—some will witness by our lives, others by our deaths.

Martyrs across the whole empire produced this effect. Perhaps one of the most famous martyrologies that has come down to us is the Martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop to the Church in Smyrna (which was a Greek city in Ionia at the time). He was an old man when he was martyred, perhaps 80 or 85 at his death.

This account, however, was written in the 4^th century (perhaps 310 AD) while he is believed to have been martyred in the 2^nd century around 155 AD). This account has been shown, over time, to not give us any real historical knowledge of Polycarp, but the story itself allows us to see a number of things: (1) the great character of the man written about, (2) the practices concerning such men and women by the faithful, (3) the pride communities took in such examples of their faith. Much of what we get about Polycarp can be gathered from the letter to the Philippians attributed to him, what Ignatius of Antioch says of him in his letter, of various fragments, most notably by his great admirer and fellow bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.

With this being said as an aside, I will select a few quotes that, while not strict history insofar as the exact events described are not historical, they are history insofar as they convey the attitudes of a Christian people. I think you'll see how it correlates with the story above.

Concerning Polycarp's martyrdom it says that the act was “certainly a mark of true and steadfast love, not only to desire one's salvation, but that of all the brethren as well” (Martyrdom, sec. 1).

Those who martyred Polycarp kept his body from those who sought it because “many … were eager to [lay hold of him] and have a share in his holy remains” (Martyrdom, sec. 17). This one indication of relics we have early on, but such an indication also comes from Scripture—that the articles of holy men and women, and that which touched them, had power associated with them. It says “So extraordinary were the might deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face clothes or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

The reverence given to and practices concerning the martyrs is encapsulated nicely here: “[We] took up his bones, more precious than costly stones and more excellent than gold, and interred them in a decent place. There the Lord will permit us, as far as possible, to assemble in rapturous joy and celebrate his martyrdom—his birthday—both to commemorate the heroes that have gone before, and to train and prepare the heroes yet to come” (Martyrdom, sec. 18).

Of Polycarp himself it was said “Of the elect the most wonderful Polycarp was certainly one—an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our times, and a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna” (sec. 16).

"Your life among the Gentiles must be beyond reproach; thus by your good example you will win praise for yourselves, and the Lord will not be blasphemed on your account" (Letters to the Philippians, sec. 16).

Next, we shall see how even with such courageous witnesses the Church faced problems as a result of their impact. We'll examine how such difficulties arose and the response, in brief, of the Church.


===

Links to "The Early Church I: "History, Morality, Being Called Catholic, and the Papacy"

I-1: Prologue and History
I-2: Organization of the Early Church 
I-3: Why are we called "Catholic"?

I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons)

Links to "The Early Church II"

II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-3: Bishops and Succession
II-4: The Rule of Faith