A Look at Eastern Orthodoxy

While in the process of becoming Catholic, I had to answer the question posed to me by some of my Protestant friend: Why Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox? To answer this question I took a class on Orthodoxy, tought by a deacon in the Orthodox church. It became one of my favorite classes at Baylor.

While taking that class, I chose to write a paper on Saint Gregory Palamas, the premier Orthodox theologian after the Early Church Fathers. Here I look at the distinction made in Orthodox theology between the God's essence and energies. I believe this distinction within Orthodox thought, gets to the heart of some of the differences between East and West. Wrestling with this theology is a great place to begin diologue with our Orthodox brothers and sisters and possibly work towards reconciliation.

After writing this paper, I decided that Gregory Palamas is one of my favorite theologians. His style is simultaneously academic and meditative. I hope to write more on Palamas in the future as well as other Orthodox teachings. Although I have a great admiration and appreciation for the Orthodox Church, I became Catholic instead in order to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome in a Church that is more unified. Also, although the Catholic Church recognizes the East as a legitimate manifestation of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, many within Eastern Orthodoxy fail to recognize the Catholic Church as such.

Without further introduction, my paper:

The Essence and Energy Distinction in the Thought of St. Gregory Palamas


In the fourteenth-century, the hesychast monks of Mt. Athos were attacked for practicing their mystical spirituality. Through prayer, self-denial, and spiritual exercises, many of these monks claimed to see the Divine Light of Mt. Tabor and to have experienced God in a state of deep prayer. Barlaam, in his misunderstanding of apothatic theology stated that because God’s essence is unknowable, Trinitarian debates between the Eastern and Western churches should cease. For the monks, Barlaam’s thought meant that God was totally transcendent, thus nullifying their mystical experiences. Though a simple monk, St. Gregory of Palamas entered into debate with Barlaam and developed a theology of hesychasm through his apologetic works. He answered Barlaam’s criticisms by maintaining that although it is true that God is unknowable in His essence, God reveals himself in creation through His uncreated energies. Thus, Gregory was able to simultaneously affirm God’s transcendence and His imminence. In order to understand the distinction between God’s essence and His uncreated energies, it is important to take into account Palamas’ Trinitarian theology and the implications he draws from Christ’s incarnation and transfiguration.

To begin, the Trinity is the starting point from which Gregory bases his theology, particularly the distinction he draws between God’s essence and His uncreated energies. First, the Father is the source and head of the Trinitarian unity. This is not to say that the Father is greater than the Son or the Holy Spirit; rather the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. Gregory writes that the Son “is derived from the Father and is in no way inferior to the Father’s substance (ουσίας) but is indistinguishably identical with him, though not in his hypostasis” Gregory’s Christology in relation to the essence and energy distinction will be discussed in greater detail later.

Concerning the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, it is important to distinguish Palamas’ Orthodox understanding with that of the Latin Church. Palamas explains that the “Spirit of the supreme Word is like an ineffable love of the Begetter towards the ineffably begotten Word himself” In the Western Church, psychological analogies are often used to describe the Trinity. Therefore, as God understands Himself eternally, the Son is eternally begotten as “God understood,” and the Spirit is begotten from the love between the Father and the Son. This analogy was used by Augustine and later Aquinas. Some Roman Catholic theologians such as Matin Jungie, have attempted to read Western, Augustinian notions of the Trinity into Palamas’ thought, but Orthodox scholars are generally in agreement that statements comparing the Holy Spirit to love do not have Augustinian implications.

In his introduction to The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, Robert E. Sinkewicz clears up this problem by explaining Palamas’ understanding of knowledge within the Godhead. According to Sinkewicz, Palamas did not equate “knowledge naturally inherent in the mind. . . with the minds knowledge of itself.” Thus Palamas’ statements comparing the Spirit to the love of the Father towards the Son are in no way meant to imply an Augustinian view of the Trinity, but are to be used as analogies to explain the love between each hypostasis in the Trinity.

As opposed to a Latin and Western understanding of the Trinity, John Meyendorff points out that Gregory Palamas received his understanding of the Trinity from the Cappadocian Fathers, particularly St. Gregory Nazianzen. In paraphrasing Palamas’ Apodictic Treatise, Meyendorff writes that the unity of the Trinity is the Father, and when the Latins make the Father and the Son co-originators of the Spirit, they make the Son homohypostatic with the Father. Gregory Palamas sees this as antithetical to traditional Nicene thought, and when combating Barlaam, Palamas maintains the importance of this distinction.

As for the relationship between the Trinity and the uncreated energies of God, Palamas’ greatest concern is to affirm God’s transcendence and imminence while maintaining the unity of the Trinitarian Godhead. In one sense, the names of each hypostasis in the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are themselves God’s energies, because God reveals Himself through each hypostasis. At the same time, Palamas always distinguishes between essence, hypostasis, and energy. Thus, although the names of each hypostasis are a part of God’s uncreated energies, the hypostases themselves are not the same as God’s energies. Although the Western Church has often accused Gregory Palamas of violating the simplicity of God by making the distinction between God’s essence and His uncreated energies, Gregory Palamas argues against this by showing that each person of the Godhead is present in the energies. Thus although the energies are manifested as different graces to different people in accordance to their spiritual gifts, they all participate in the same common Trinitarian, undivided source.

Palamas also affirms that God’s energies are indeed uncreated and that worshiping the Trinitarian God leads to reception of God Himself in His deifying energies. Palamas stresses that the energies are neither substance (ουσία) nor accident (συμβεβηχός). For if God’s energies were a substance, they would be confused with His essence, leading to pantheism, or they would be another essence, leading to ditheism. If God’s energies were accidents, they would not be God, but merely the appearance of God. This formula is what Gregory was combating in his correspondence to Barlaam because the implications of Barlaam’s thought leads precisely to this evaluation. Thus, in the same paragraph, Palamas compares God’s uncreated energies with His divine will; both exist but are not substances in and of themselves. By understanding the energies as neither substance nor accidents, it is clear how Palamas, speaking in true apothatic fashion, can say that God is both nowhere and everywhere: “As incorporeal, God is nowhere; as God, he is everywhere.” Palamas uses this to explain the theology of worship found in John 4. “Worshiping in Spirit and in Truth” means worshiping God as Trinity, and the time is coming when it will no longer matter where the Jews and Samaritans worship because in one sense God is present everywhere in creation. His energies are everywhere because this is how God created the world.

The Holy Spirit is everywhere, and thus plays a unique role in carrying God’s divine, uncreated energies to the saints. In fact, Gregory uses the terms “deifying energies” and “theurgic grace of the spirit” interchangeably. The Holy Spirit is “communicated and given in His energies.” For Gregory, the primary way of receiving God’s energies is through prayer. Thus the Holy Spirit is personal and relational, and is given and communicated when reciting the Jesus Prayer and communing with God. At the same time, the Holy Spirit and the energies must be understood within their Orthodox, Trinitarian context.

After placing Gregory Palamas’ essence and energy distinction within his Trinitarian framework, it is easy to see the importance of the incarnation to Palamas’ theology. Christ, the second person of the Trinity, became man, and thus acts as a mediator for man’s communion with God. Through the incarnation, Jesus unites in His Person “human to divine energy to enable man to return to the Father.” In order to reach theosis, man must become like God. Christ obtains the reconciliation of man with God, “rather than satisfying Divine justice.”

By becoming man, Christ shows God’s concern for humanity and provides a means for deification. The incarnation also shows that Christ is concerned with redeeming the body, and not just the spirit or soul. Barlaam detested the idea that the human body could receive and manifest God’s grace, but Palamas defended a traditional understanding of the incarnation. For Palamas, from the moment Christ took on flesh in Mary’s womb, He established a means for bodily sanctification. This is the underlying principle for the distinction between God’s essence and His energies because through the incarnation, God’s energies are made available to human bodies and all creation. At the same time, this process does not mean that man becomes God Himself. Thus, God’s energies are given to man, while His essence remains wholly separate. Man participates in God without violating His transcendence, and through the incarnation a new relationship with creation is established in which matter becomes a vehicle for the Spirit.

Palamas emphasizes the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist as an implication of Christ’s incarnation. Palamas stressed these sacraments above all because through baptism and the Eucharist Christ unties His Body with our bodies. This sacramental grace is an outpouring of God’s uncreated energies. Palamas clearly understands the importance of the body in attaining communion with God, and while the sacraments have positive effects for the body in this process, the body itself can become a hindrance. Thus, Palamas encourages fasting and sleep deprivation in order to attain mastery of the body. The body must be freed of its passions in order to practice “true mental prayer.” Some might argue that this makes Palamas an anti-materialist. On the contrary, because Palamas esteems the material body and the role of matter in the salvation process, he sees matter as powerful and recognizes the strong influence of sense perception upon the human person, working for both extreme good and extreme obstruction. On the one hand, the incarnation shows that God’s energies are encountered in creation through the material world. On the other hand, by forgetting about the body while in mental prayer, the soul deifies the body because it is no longer held back by “corporeal and material passions.” God’s uncreated energies are encountered in this process, acting upon both soul and body. Therefore Palamas can say the Kingdom of heaven is within us.

Next, the incarnation also has implications for the Church as the Body of Christ, and God’s energies act to both establish the Church and maintain it. In the incarnation, Jesus was fully divine and fully human. His was not an individualist humanity, but a union of all humanity. Through the mystery of baptism, believers are united to Christ and become one Body, the Church. God’s uncreated energies unite believers to Christ and each other and equip the members with spiritual gifts. Palamas uses the example of Pentecost to show that while Peter was aware of his own illumination through the divine energies, he was also aware that others were receiving this grace and were being united with him and Christ. The implication of this is clear; while the uncreated energies are given to individuals to commune with God, this is to serve the Church and united all Christians as the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God on Earth.

In addition to the incarnation, Gregory draws important implications from the Lord’s transfiguration on Mt. Tabor. In the transfiguration Peter, James, and John experienced the Kingdom of God through God’s divine and creative energies. Gregory Palamas once again gleans his interpretation of the transfiguration story from the Cappadocian Fathers, particularly St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen. Quoting the former, Palamas states that the light experienced in the transfiguration far surpassed the radiance of the sun. In fact, Palamas often uses the sun as an analogy for the uncreated energies themselves. The sun itself, possess both proper being and existence, but the sun’s rays send out heat and light. Man experiences the sun through its rays but never comes in contact with the sun itself, for coming in contact with the sun itself would mean death. Like the sun, God’s essence cannot be experienced directly, and just as the rays allow humanity to experience the sun, through God’s energies man experiences God. However, unlike the sun’s rays, the disciples participated in a far greater light by seeing Christ’s divinity revealed on Mt. Tabor.

Finally, the transfiguration is key to working out God’s uncreated energies and the theological controversies that led to Gregory’s explications on the distinction between God’s essence and energies. Barlaam criticized the hesychast monks for their visions of a divine light, explaining it away as an apparition. Palamas responds to this by showing that the visions of light experienced by the monks while in intense prayer is the same light revealed by Christ to the apostles in His transfiguration. This light is not an encounter with God’s essence because God is beyond transcendent and so holy that even the angels cannot experience His essence. Rather, the Divine Light revealed in the transfiguration was neither an apparition nor a created substance, but the very creative energies of God. Since the light shown to Peter, James, and John in the transfiguration is not created, the hesychast monks are participating in the very light of Mt. Tabor and, indeed, God Himself.

To summarize the distinction between God’s essence and energies after establishing their connection to the Trinity, the incarnation, and the transfiguration in Palamite thought, God is known in His energies but not in His essence. Consequently Gregory’s explanations of God primarily focus on His energies, which can be surmised using cataphatic theology. The energies are displayed in various and sundry ways, be it in the virtues of faith, hope, and love, sacramental grace, or the spiritual gifts of preaching and prophesying. Although God’s uncreated energies take on various manifestations, they are all God, including all Persons of the Trinity because God cannot be divided.

On the other hand, God’s essence can only be spoken of in apophatic terms because God transcends both Being and reason. As a result, God is both unknowable and knowable –transcendent yet imminent. Gregory readily admits that this is paradoxical, but that neither God’s essence nor His energies can be emphasized to the exclusion of the other. After all, the Barlaamite heresy attempted to promote God’s transcendent essence while neglecting His energies.

In conclusion, comprehending Gregory Palamas’ Trinitarian theology and his emphasis on Christ’s incarnation and transfiguration, puts the distinction between God’s essence and uncreated energies in their proper context. In keeping with the Eastern tradition, Gregory’s goal in writing his theological apologies is not to systematize God, but to explain the process of deification. This is because Eastern theologians have always been preoccupied with making Saints. Gregory’s distinction between God’s essence and energies summarizes the way in which finite and sinful human beings can approach God who is both holy and transcendent and obtain theosis by participating in God Himself, freely given and received in His energies. Thus the fourteenth-century controversies with Barlaam were not merely dry and obscure theological questions, but important debates concerning God’s relationship to humanity. For this reason, many theologians rightly refer to Gregory’s distinction between God’s essence and energy as an “existential theology.” Overall, all Christians can learn from Gregory’s passion for experiencing God and communing with Him in prayer and holy living.

Bibliography
Fahey, Michael A. “Trinitarian Theology in Thomas Aquinas: One Latine Medieval
Pursuit of Word and Science.” In Trinitarian Theology East and West.
Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1977.
Meyendorff, John. “The Holy Trinity in Palamite Theology.” In Trinitarian Theology
East and West. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1977.
________. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Translated by Adele Fiske. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998.
________. A Study of Gregory Palamas. Translated by George Lawrence. Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998.
Palamas, Gregory. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters: A Critical Edition,
Translation and Study. Translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz. Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Medieval Studies, 1988.
________. The Triads. Edited by John Meyendorff. Translated by Nicholas Gendle.
New York: Paulist Press, 1983.
Papademetriou, G.C. Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, 2004.
Sinkewicz, Robert E. “The General Context of the First Section.” In The One Hundred
and Fifty Chapters: A Critical Edition, Translation and Study. By Gregory
Palamas. Translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Medieval Studies, 1988.

I am Saint Theodora

Hat Tip: The God Fearin' Forum

You’re St. Theodora!

Theodora was the wife of the ninth-century emperor Theophilus and mother of the future emperor Michael III. Theodora ruled the lands after her iconoclastic husband died. She labored to overturn his heretical policies, chiefly by summoning a council that upheld the veneration of images of Christ and the saints. For this, she is herself honored as a saint by the Orthodox Church. Her feast day is February 11.

Find out which Byzantine ruler you are at The Way of the Fathers!

One Little TULIP -- The Calvinist Mind (part 2)

This is the second part of my Calvinist Mind series. I'm still not sure how long this series will be, but you can find the first part here.

For those unfamiliar with the "five points of Calvinism," it is best to summarize these with the acronym T.U.L.I.P. Calvinists, themselves would summarize their five central tenants in this way, though Calvin himself never used the acronym.

Let me begin by saying that the five points of Calvinism are systematic and rational within the system. They fit together nicely, with each point supporting and upholding the other four. In all fairness, Calvinists emphasize God's sovereignty and holiness. The TULIP system is used to show that salvation entirely belongs to God, leaving us no room to boast. The typical Calvinist argument against Catholic soteriology is that by cooperating with God in the salvation process, one is attributing a false glory to himself. As I explained in my first post, the Calvinist explanation made sense to me because it gave me a reason to fully rejoice in God's gift of grace. At the same time it left me wondering how grace worked in my life and how God bestowed grace to humanity, and this deeper question led me to the Catholic Church.

The Nature of Heresy

Although, G.K. Chesterton is mostly uncharitable towards Calvinists, he is exactly right when saying:

Protestants are Catholics gone wrong; that is what is really meant by
saying they are Christians. Sometimes they have gone very wrong; but not often
have they have gone right ahead with their own particular wrong. Thus a
Calvinist is a Catholic obsessed with the Catholic idea of the sovereignty of
God. But when he makes it mean that God wishes particular people to be damned,
we may say with all restraint that he has become a rather morbid Catholic
(The Catholic Church and Conversion).

Indeed all heresies spring from the elevation of one true doctrine while neglecting another equally true doctrine. Christ is fully God and fully man. God is both one in substance and three in persons. Faith and works are both necessary for salvation. Calvinism creates a false dichotomy between faith and works.

TULIP

T: Total Depravity -- Because of the fall man is born completely incapable of submitting to God and is in total rebellion against God. However this does not mean that we are as bad as we can possibly be. In fact a Calvinist would say that we are good in so much that God's creation is good. This depravity refers to our inability to please God apart from His grace.

U: Unconditional Election -- God chooses who He will save and grants them grace. This fits in with Total Depravity in that, we can do nothing on our own to move towards God. He must first move towards us. Calvinists will typically cite Romans 8:29-30 and Romans 9. Saint Paul writes in verses 14-18:

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, 'I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills (RSV, Catholic Edition).

The Calvinist will say that God chooses the elect based upon his good pleasure and nothing else. In answer to the objection that it is unfair for God to elect some to salvation and not others, the Calvinist will reply "God did not have to choose anyone, and we should submit to this sovereign plan because He is God."

L: Limited Atonement -- As a Calvinist, I did not like the phrase "Limited Atonement," preferring the term "Particular Redemption" instead. For the best defense of the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement, one should read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by puritan, John Owen. Particular Redemption is the idea that Christ died only for the elect. Once again, the Calvinist makes this claim to preserve God's sovereignty, saying that Christ had specific people in mind for whom he died. In this way "not a single drop of Christ's blood was wasted." John Owen puts forth the question that Jesus accomplished one of the following:

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

He refutes option one, saying that if this were the case no one would attain salvation. Option 2 is the typical Calvinist answer, and option three is the typical Arminian answer. If option three were correct, all people would be saved because Christ's death accomplishes salvation simpliciter, so goes the Calvinist argument. To argue this biblically, the Calvinist will argue that when the Bible says "many," it really means "some." They cite verses such as Matthew 20:28 using this substitute.

I: Irresistible Grace -- This means that when God imparts salvific grace to a person, they must accept this grace. They simply cannot do otherwise. The typical objection to this Calvinist objection is that God does not force grace upon others, but as a Calvinist, I did not see this as God "forcing" grace. Instead I softened this tenant by saying that God's grace is so amazingly good, a person cannot help but accept it. I would compare this to the most delicious piece of chocolate pie ever baked. One could not resist something that good. Though this analogy is admittedly lacking, it presents a good example for the way in which Irresistible Grace works. As a Calvinist, this was the teaching I had the most difficulty citing scripturally. Thus, I cannot remember any good examples I used as a Calvinist. This teaching just fit in with the rest of the system.

P: Perseverance of the Saints -- Contrary to a popular misconception this does not mean "once saved, always saved." Instead, when Calvin describes perseverance, he is talking about the elect believer continuing in the ways of God. A person will do this simply because he is elect. Thus God grants the believer the grace to continue down the right path. They use passages such as John 10:26-30 ("My sheep hear my voice, and they come to me. No one can snatch them out of my hands.") and Ephesians 1:4-5 to make this claim. Once again it fits in nicely with the other four points.

Plucking the TULIP

I will now explain how Catholicism differs from Calvinism and the way in which I made sense of these differences to become Catholic.

First, I must explain that the biggest difference between TULIP and Catholic soteriology is that TULIP assumes that there is a definite point in history in which one is saved. Catholics believe that salvation is a process. Another significant difference is that the Calvinist views the Christian's role in salvation as completely passive, while Catholics view the believer as playing an active role in salvation through reception of God's grace through the sacraments, prayer, self denial, and works of mercy. Thus:

1993. Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace
and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the
Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity
with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man
himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject
it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself
toward justice in God's sight.[42] (CCC)

In this way, we can agree with Calvinists up to a point. We are completely in need of God's grace to attain salvation. Without this we can do nothing. However, God's grace is not irresistible nor is it only given to certain people.

As for Total Depravity, we agree that there is nothing we can do to please God apart from His grace. We also agree that we are born with the stain of the original sin. However, through the sacrament of baptism, God washes away original sin, making us a new creation. Thus, we are able to receive future graces and live life in the Spirit:

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own
life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify
it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the
source of the work of sanctification:[48] Therefore if any one is in Christ, he
is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this
is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.[49]

What do Catholics believe about Unconditional Election? There are actually three legitimate traditions concerning predestination within the Church. These are Augustinianism, Thomism, and Molinism. Explaining these, goes beyond the scope of this post, but basically predestination is a mystery known only to God. Thus, the Church makes room for competing views. The Calvinist would say that their view follows the Augustinian tradition (see Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul). However, the Calvinist fails to understand the Catholic view of salvation as a process of being united to Christ. In this way, their interpretation of Augustine and Aquinas simply does not work. I tend to place myself more within the Augustinian camp with regards to predestination. God does indeed know who will eventually reach sainthood and predestines certain people to receive special and extraordinary graces. However, He does not exclude people from this possibility. Also, Augustine does not deny the role of free will in the process of salvation. Free will is not contrary to predestination. (Once again, this belongs in another post.)

As a Calvinist, I became most emotionally attached to the idea of Limited Atonement, even though this was initially the hardest point to accept. I think my emotional attachment came from the idea that I WAS one of the elect, and this made me special. As a Catholic, I now view this as presumption. One must never assume he has already attained salvation or that he is among the elect. As Catholics, we must believe that Christ's paschal sacrifice was meant for everyone. However, although Christ's atonement is intended for all people, it is not made efficacious for all people because not everyone will accept God's grace. Once again, this goes back to the difference between monergism and synergism. Calvinists believe that the believer is completely passive in the salvation process, while Catholics affirm the active role of the Christian in cooperating with God's grace.

As a Catholic, I no longer believe in Irresistible Grace. Grace is a loving gift that can be freely accepted or rejected. The Catechism summarizes grace as follows:

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of
grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in
justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings
to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by
cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"[50] Indeed
we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy
has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows
us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may
be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that
we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for
without him we can do nothing.[51]

Finally, the Calvinist understanding of Perseverance of the Saints differs from the Catholic understanding, in that the believer plays an active role in this perseverance. It is difficult to deal with apostates within the Calvinist system because the Calvinist will say that the person was never really a believer at all and therefore not elect. The Catholic will say that if a person falls away it is a failure on their own part. It is not because God intended the person to not reach the final goal of sainthood.

To summarize, TULIP makes sense as a system unto itself, but it is hard to live out because one must believe he is totally passive in the salvation process. The Calvinist sees the believer as completely predetermined for salvation or damnation from "before the foundation of the world," but the Catholic understands that God desires all people to achieve union with Him. Life is simpler as a Catholic because I no longer have to view my sin as proof of my unelection. Instead, I can utilize the means of grace God gives His Church and strive for greater union with Him in the sacraments. This is a lifetime effort, and anything I do is first granted to me by God's grace, but I participate actively in this process.

Another Resource: A Tiptoe through TULIP by Jimmy Akin
About the picture: The Cure of Folly (Extraction from the Stone of Maddness) by Hieronymus Bosch

It's been ten days since my car wreck on I-35. Providentially, I was not seriously injured, and the girl driving also walked away. I sprained my shoulder and have a really nasty, swollen and bruised arm--certainly little considering I was in a 70 mph wreck with a concrete wall and an 18-wheeler.

The wreck continues to teach me things about myself, that probably would not have been as quickly revealed otherwise. I am learning that I need to trust God more in every aspect of my life. It's easy to discuss this intellectually, to quote the Bible, the Catechism, and various papal documents. It's easy to agree to do these things verbally and even sneer at those who disagree. It's hard to actually live out the Church's teaching while being compassionate towards those who don't.

I am thankful for this wreck, it has given me a chance to slow down and think about these things. Pray for me.