FOR MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD...

The Confiteor

2011-12-02T19:54:00.003-05:00

We are all individual members of Christ's body. We are one, in Christ. Every saint in heaven, every soul in purgatory, every member of your parish who stands in the pew with you, are all members of Christ's body, with Christ as the head, and Mary as our Mother, and God as our Father.

That we are all one body is not a metaphor. It is as real as the sandwich you ate for lunch and as concrete as your driveway.

And we are the only religion left on earth which realizes that because we are one body, that shared suffering is redemptive for all of us, and that our merits can be given to others for their salvation, or to Mary for her to dispense as she sees fit for God's greater Glory.

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. (James 5:16)

Catholicism is the most biblical religion, and to a certain extent, the most literalist and the most practical and pragmatic. We take Jame's words to heart, and do exactly what James commands us to do - what God commands us to do - at every single Mass.

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

These are the words of the confiteor. We say this at the beginning of every Mass. As members of Christs body with a supernatural link to each other, as family, and able to have an impact on each other's salvation, we do exactly what James commands us to do, confess to one another and pray for one another.

Next time you prepare yourself for Mass, look at the people around you and say to yourself, "I am a worse sinner than this person sitting next to me and in just a moment this person is going to fervently pray for me, fervently pray for the salvation of my soul at the Holy Sactifice of the Mass." And tell me that you won't love that person for what they are about to do for you. And tell me that you won't bow your head in contrition, and pray earnestly the words of the confiteor.

I confess to you my brothers and sisters, and I ask you my brothers and sisters to pray for me.

That's the essence of the penitential rite and the confiteor. Its really that simple. That's what it's all about. And as Catholics, we take the words written by James seriously.

-Tim-

Mass Does Not Equal Love of Jesus

2011-11-18T19:30:00.000-05:00

The Mass is not what makes one holy. That's what the pharisees and the strict followers of the mosaic law thought, that holiness was determined, in part, by how you worshipped.

For Jews of the Old Testament, worship was sacrifice, and it only happened at the temple in Jerusalem. That is why the law commanded that men go up to the temple three times each year, to offer worship to God. It was the most important thing a Jew could ever do in his life, offer worship to God at the temple.

But Jesus radically redifines what is important to God in the sermon on the mount.

Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5:23-24)

Jesus redefined holiness from how you worshipped, or even if you worshipped, to how you treated other people, going so far as to tell us that we should not worship if we have treated anyone badly - that we should go seek forgiveness from that person first, and only then should we offer worship to God.

King David understood this.

For you do not desire sacrifice or I would give it;
a burnt offering you would not accept.
My sacrifice, O God, is a contrite spirit;
a contrite, humbled heart, O God, you will not scorn.
Then you will desire the sacrifices of the just,
burnt offering and whole offerings;
then they will offer up young bulls on your altar
(Psalm 51:18-19,21)

David understood what was important to God. That worship without a clean heart and a life of virtue - which begins with humility - was of no value to God.

Yes, God deserves the greatest worship we can offer. He deserves the most grand, most reverent, highest Mass we can afford to offer. And even that will not begin to approach what he really deserves. That is why God gave us the Mass itself, so that we could offer God the Son to God the Father. Offering God to himself is the only way we can begin to worship God the way he really deserves. But worship is our absolute minimum requirement.

The word "Mass" mans "Sending forth". Mass is just the beginning. If Mass is all we do, then we are nothing more than unprofitable servants. If we think that the Mass is what makes us holy, then we are wicked and unfaithful servants. Worship is just our minimum requirement.

But how we treat people every day, the other 167 hours of the week, is what makes us holy. Jesus sees how much we love him not because of what Mass we go to, or how many Masses we go to, but in how we treat each other and how we treat the lowest in our society. That's how Jesus knows if we love him or not, and not by our attendance at Mass.

Attending Mass, does not equal love of Jesus. Mass is just the start.

-Tim-

To Jesus Through Mary

2011-08-24T20:10:00.000-04:00

Nothing divides non-Catholics and Catholics like Mary. Actually, Mary divides no one. More correctly put, it is Catholic dogma, doctrine and marian beliefs which put many non-Catholics as well as some very pious Catholics ill at ease.

Devotion to Mary we are told, is just another artificial insertion by Catholics of someone or something between man and his personal relationship with Christ. Even many otherwise devout and self-labeled "Traditional" Catholics have this view. My goal in this post is not to convince otherwise pious Catholics who do not have devotion to our Blessed Mother that they should have such devotion, nor to convert non-Catholics to the practice of Catholic Marian devotions. My goal in this post is to explain the Biblical basis for Mary's queenship and hopefull by that explaination, quiet the anxiety many Catholics have, justified or otherwise, when they encounter strong Marian devotions.

Throughout the Old Testament we have the image of the "Queen Mother." In Hebrew, the term for the highest official position within the monarchy held by a woman is "Gebirah." Although Gebirah literally means "Grand Lady", the Gebirah was quite often and for very practical reasons, the mother of the king. For reference, the word Gebirah appears 15 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.

A common practice among military allies in the Old Testament was for the kings to exchange daughters. Each king would take the daughter of his ally as a wife and this arrangement really made perfect sense. Each king would have a close family member in the royal court of his ally, able to report back news of what was happening to ensure that the allience was on the up-and-up. But each king would be loath to promote the daughter of the another king to the position of queen as this would have given tremendous power to an ally who might some day become a rival. This is why kings would often promote their own mother to the position of queen. The famous Gebirah of the Old Testament is Bathsheba.

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right. (1 Kings 2:19 NAB)

Bathsheba clearly sits on a throne, a sign that she held the official title of Gebirah for Solomon's kingdom. 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles gives the name of every Queen Mother of both the northern nation of Israel and the Southern nation of Judah during the divided kingdom.

In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam, Abijah became king of Judah; he reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother was named Micaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. (2 Chronicles 13:1-2 NAB)

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, daughter of Omri. (2 Chronicles 22:2 NAB)

...and so forth.

In the story of Solomon and his appointed Gebirah Bathsheba, we see the absolute repsect and reverence given to the king. Due to his magesty and power, ordinary citizens, and even close family members were not deemed worthy to go to the king directly. In some circumstances, the king's power was so esteemed that even a wife of the king would be put to death if she approached the king without permission. This led to the practice of the Queen Mother fielding requests on behalf of the king and then bringing those requests which she deemed worthy to the king for consideration herself.

Adonijah, son of Haggith, came to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon. "Do you come in peace?" she asked. "In peace," he answered, and he added, "I have something to say to you." She replied, "Speak." So he said: "You know that the kingship was mine, and all Israel expected me to be king. But the kingship passed me by and went to my brother; by the LORD’s will it went to him. But now there is one favor I would ask of you. Do not refuse me." And she said, "Speak on." He said, "Please ask King Solomon, who will not refuse you, to give me Abishag the Shunamite to be my wife." Bathsheba replied, "Very well, I will speak to the king for you." (1 Kings 2:13-18)

Unlike David, Solomon, and the other monarchs of the Old Testament, Jesus was not viewed by the ordinary Jew of his time as a king. At several points they tried to make him king but he distained the title of King and went to great lengths to avoid being seen as a temporal ruler.

When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, "This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world." Since Jesus knew that they were going to come and carry him off to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain alone. (John 6:14-15)

Since Jesus was not seen as a king but as a prophet and he himself distained the title of King, people would have freely approached him. We know in hindsight that Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, the greatest king who every walked the face of the earth. And we know as a fact, clearly stated in scripture, that Jesus' mother Mary is the Gebirah in Heaven.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm. A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. (Revelation 11:19, 12:1-2)

The woman goes on to give birth to a male child who is "Caught up to God and his throne." The child is clearly Jesus and the woman must be Mary. Pope Pius XII made Mary's Queenship dogma of the Church. Reference the papal bull Ad Caeli Reginam.

So my point is, if Solomon had a Gebirah whom even the most powerful citizens and Solomon's own family members went to because they were unworthy to go to the king directly, and if all the other kings in the Bible appoint a Gebirah, should we not go to our own king, Jesus Christ, through his Gebirah, Mary? Is not Mary the fulfillment of all the Gebirahs of the Old Testament?

To Jesus, through Mary - the claim that doing so is not Biblical cannot be made.

-Tim-

How is it that you sought me?

2011-06-28T22:40:00.000-04:00

I think it is important to ponder what Scripture has to say to us personally.

And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company they went a day's journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously." And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them. (Luke 2:42-50 RSV)

It is obviously a dialogue between a child and his parents but God put that dailogue there so we could learn something and apply it to our own lives. God put that dialogue in the Bible so that we can be made perfect and spend eternity with him in Heaven. And I see that dialogue as Eucharistic.

Then again, I see the whole Bible as Eucharistic.

I sometimes act like Jesus' parents. I sometimes look for God everywhere except where I should really be looking for him. Mary and Joseph looked for Jesus among "their relatives and acquaintances" and I'm like that as well, trying to find God in all the wrong places. I sometimes expect God to just come along with me as I go about my own life, living my own agenda, "in the caravan." Just like Mary and Josheph did, saying, "Why have you done this to us?" with great anxiety, I question God's plan and his providence.

And Jesus' reply to me in this passage is sublime. I like the way the RSV puts it...

And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2:49)

Rather than expecting God to follow my agenda, I should be asking myself how is it that I have sought him, and if I should not have been following his agenda. I should be asking meyself if I have not really been looking for God in all the wrong places. I look for God everywhere except where I should be looking for him, in his Father's house. I should be looking to the Church, to the sacraments, to worship in the Mass, and to other' members of Christ's Body in parish life. I should be listening to the people to whom God gave responsiblity for my spiritual health, especially the priests at my parish.

And I really mean it when I say that his message (to me at least) is Eucharistic. How is it that I have sought him? The fullest manifestion of Jesus' presence is found sacramentally in the hands of his priests and in the tabernacles of his Father's house.

Anyway, that's what I take out of it.

And now some Catholic who likes labels will say that I'm not allowed to have a personal intepretation of scripture or that the Eucharist is worthless because it wasn't placed on my tounge at the communion rail by someone who recieved holy orders. Or some Evangelical will tell me that Jesus was only speaking spiritually because his "Words are spirit and life". Or some sola scriptura Baptist will come here and offer to "Help" me with that passage. Or some Jehovah's Witness will come here and tell me how happy he would be to "Share" what he has found in some book which at one time used to be a Bible.

And to all that I'll shrug my shoulders and reply, "Eh, whatever." It really doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks. That's what I take out of it.

-Tim-

Pentacost by the Numbers...

2011-06-11T21:13:00.002-04:00

It's Pentacost! It is a great day...

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). (Acts 1:15)

The number 120 was significant. In ancient Israel, 120 people were required in order to go off and start a new city, with it's own civil and rabinical authorites, with it's own judges and courts, and with it's own synagogue. Pentacost was exactly that. It was the start of such a city. It was the start of the City of God, the new Jerusalem, the Church!

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. (Acts 2:38-41)

Note that 3000 were added on the day of Pentacost. Contrast that with what happened at Mt. Sinai.

When Moses realized that, to the scornful joy of their foes, Aaron had let the people run wild, he stood at the gate of the camp and cried, "Whoever is for the LORD, let him come to me!" All the Levites then rallied to him, and he told them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!" The Levites carried out the command of Moses, and that day there fell about three thousand of the people. (Exodus 32:24-28)

The number 3000 is also significant. 3000 were killed at Mt. Sinai but at Pentacost, 3000 were added. The Jews inablity to trust God at Mt. Sinai was reversed at Pentacost, and now, through Christ's death on the cross and the advent of his Church, with the risen Chris as it's head and Peter as it's prime minister, with the authority to bind and loose, with the authority to baptize and forgive sins, man's ability to trust in God, if he so chose, was restored.

Yes, a red letter day!

-Tim-

Is Marriage a Sacrament?

2011-06-01T19:03:00.003-04:00

A sacrament is something which uses visible, created things to reveal invisible, divine truths to us in such a way as to confer grace.

Matrimony is to be the ultimate expression of love between a man and a woman. Each sacrifices their own life for the sake of the other and for the union of the two, putting aside their own desires for the sake of the happiness and wellbeing of the other. The ultimate expression of this self-sacrificing love is when man and woman, united to each other in a permanant and unbreakable commitment, unite in sexual union and bring forth children. The children, who are the fruit of that perfect expression of self-sacrificing, committed, permanent love, come first. The desires and needs of the parents come second. At least that is the way it is supposed to work. And it was designed this way specifically by God.

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

This is the way it works inside of the Trinity too. The author of Genesis wasn't just noting that there were two people who happened to be male and female, as if he was noting hair or eye color. God want's us to know something very profound here. That's why it is in the very front of the book. The rest of the story depends on the first chapter.

God the Father loves God the Son perfectly. God the Son offers himself continually to God the Father. Both are totally vulnerable to each other. Both have complete knowledge of each other, holding nothing back. Both give themselves freely to the other in selfless, committed and permanent love. Christ's sacrifice on the cross shows us the depths of his love. It's part of what Jesus prayed about in his prayer for unity.

I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:23)

The perfect interchange of love between God the Father and God the Son is that which produces the Holy Spirit. Catholics (of the Roman Rite at least) bear witness to this fact when we say the creed at Mass:

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the Giver of Life
who proceedes from the Father and the Son

The Holy Spirit proceedes forth from the perfect interchange of selfless love between God the Father and God the Son in the same way that a child proceedes from the perfect interchange of love between husband and wife. The word spirit is from the Latin word "Spiritus" which means breath. If you think of the Holy Spirit as a product of the "Heavy breathing" between God the Father and God the Son in the same way that a child is the product of the heavy breathing between husband and wife you are not too far from the idea.

Yea, it's that profound.

The way in which husband and wife are supposed to love each other, totally committed, giving up their desires in sacrifice to the other, giving their entire lives as a gift to each other, and the way in which that union produces a child is a a visible means, designed by God, by which we are taught the innermost workings of the Trinity. Not only does spousal union mirror Trinitarian love, but it is a means by which we are to experience Trinitarian love in our own lives, to the extent that it is possible on this side of the grave, in a very personal and powerful way. And that is why it confers grace, at least when it is lived the way it is supposed to. And that is why matrimony can be nothing but a sacrament. The fact that it doesn't feel or seem like one is because we are not disposed to it, we don't prepare for it, open our hearts to it. We simply don't do it correctly, like not examining our concience correctly before confession or preparing properly for the Eucharist.

Profession to religious life is not a sacrament because a sacrament only anticipates the real thing. A sacrament is a sign which teaches us about invisible, spiritual truths, but it is not the actual fulfillment of that truth. The Eucharist is Jesus "Behind a veil" but someday we will see him face to face. Profession to religious life is the same - it forgoes the "Veil" of the sacrament in anticipation of the real thing. Profession to religious life is therfor not only better, but perfect, because the person professing will only take part in Trinitarian love perfectly when they are united to Christ in Heaven and not the veiled version here on earth. It's delayed gratification at it's finest.

It's why nuns and monks are my hero's.

-Tim-

What is Forgivenss?

2011-05-27T18:20:00.008-04:00

It is an extemely important question, one which every Christian must ask themselves. And every Christian must set about finding the answer, for Christ tells us in very clear terms,

If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Christ actually taught us to pray that passage, and Catholics do so at every Mass.

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

Before I began to understand the beauty of Catholic doctrine on sin and forgiveness, I asked some friends if God's forgiveness was conditional. After all, do we not ask God to forgive us "As" we have forgiven others? Does not "as" mean "in like manner?" Don't we ask for God to forgive us in the same way that we forgive others? The question was immediately dismissed by my friends who insisted that God's forgiveness is unconditional.

How then do we reconcile God's unconditional forgiveness with the Lords Prayer and Matthew 6:15? Is God unwilling to forgive us? The answer came while I was reading Jesus' words about divorce, a subject which hits home for me.

He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8)

When we don't forgive, we harden our own hearts. Our hard hearts become impervious to God's forgiveness. God's forgiveness cannot enter a heart which has hardened itself against forgiveness. So when we forgive others, we soften our heart; we make it pliable, porous and permeable. Gradually, as we learn to not hold grudges, as we learn not to demand payment for the wrongs done against us, our hearts will softten and God's forgiveness can begin to enter ours. Only when we forgive others can God's forgiveness begin to have an effect on us. Otherwise, God's forgivenss just dries up on the outside of our hearts like water poured on a piece of hot granite.

And that understanding addressed the question of what forgiveness is. Put simply, it is not demanding repayment or restitution for the wrongs done against me. When I really began to think about it, I asked myself it I wasn't just as bad as those who have wronged me; I who am so ready to demand reparations for wrongs against me and yet so quick to deny those same reparations to those whom I have wronged.

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan answered David: "The LORD on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. (2 Samuel 12:13)

My sins are really against God anyway and for them I deserve nothing less than eternity in Hell. David understood this and his only response was to write Psalm 51.

So that's my take on forgiveness. God's is not unwilling to forgive me, but his ability to do so depends entirely upon my forgivenss of others, just as Jesus stated and just as my friends insisted was not so. And my forgivness of others is really nothing more than not demanding some form of material recompense to my wallet or emotional recompense to my pride for wrongs done against me. That's it in a nutshell. Forgivenss does not mean that I have to hang around bad people or that I have to let my kids play with their kids. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't get punished by God or arrested by the police or put in jail by the courts. It doesn't mean that I have to let someone who abuses me live in my house. It just means that I will not demand repayment.

When someone says something bad against me or wrongs me, I try to say, "OK God, I probably deserved that." On my own I'm really no better than they are and have probably done worse. And if I am better than they are, it is only because of God's presence in me, not because of anything I am. And that is humility. I hope to master it some day.

-Tim-

Is Mary Your Mother?

2011-05-22T00:14:00.005-04:00

She is if you keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. ... She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. (Revelation 12:1-2,5)

The first part of the twelfth chapter of the Book of Revelation tells us about a woman and her son. The son who is destined to rule the nations and caught up to God is clearly Jesus and so the woman can only be Mary. We are told of a dragon, and that the dragon is Satan, and of how the dragon pursued the woman but could not catch her.

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. (Revelation 12:17)

The Bible could not be clearer. Those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus are Mary's "Offspring".

-Tim-

Why Only One Church?

2011-05-19T11:08:00.007-04:00

Two thousand years ago in ancient Palestine, God entered creation.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:9)

With the advent of Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity entered space and time and walked among us.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

And this event happened exactly once. Mary was greeted by the Archangel Gabriel once. She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit once. She conceived once and gave brith to one God, one Christ, one Jesus. And that Jesus had one body. And his body is the Church.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church... (Colossians 1:24)

Christ's body is the Church. This is not a spiritual statement. It is not a metaphor. It is as real as the sandwich you will eat for lunch and as concrete as your driveway. Christ was born once and had one body and that body is his Church. One body, one Church. It can't be any other way.

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Look at John's words again very carefully. The disciples "Saw his glory". Christ's body was visible. The disciples saw Christ with their eyes, touched him and could point to him and say, "There he is." And that visible, touchable, identifiable body of Christ is the Church.

Why is there only one Church? Because Christ had only one body. Not two bodies, not ten bodies and not twenty five thousand bodies but one body. Christ had one body and therefor there can be only one Body of Christ, his Church.

And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:20)

And His one, visible, touchable, identifiable, persecutable, hierarchical body is with us still.

-Tim-

Why Wasn't Jesus Recognizable to the Disciples After the Ressurection?

2011-05-04T18:24:00.000-04:00

I believe it to also be a function of God's compassion for us, his knowledge of what we can and can't handle at any given time. Throughout his ministry, Jesus revealed himself to the disciples in stages, not giving them too much before they are ready to handle it...

I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. (John 16:12)

Jesus knows just what we need and gives it to us right when we need it, never forcing us before we can handle it. And he does so even after the ressurection.

Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred. And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. (Luke 24:13-16)

Jesus doesn't just walk up to them and say, "Hey guys, check it out, I'm alive!" He hides himself and gently eases the disciples into it in a loving way, a Eucharistic way, first on the road to Emmaus...

And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. (Luke 30:31)

The two men on the road to Emmaus tell the disciples how he revealed himself Eucharistically...

Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. (Luke 30:25)

Simon Peter was already claiming to have seen the Lord but even so, through their frailty, the disciples are terrified when Jesus appears...

While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. (Luke 30:36-37)

How wonderful our Lord is! He reveals himself in such a loving way...

Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have." And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them. (Luke 30:39-43)

He asks the disciples to come forward and see that it is really him, to look and to touch. Then he has a meal with them. And he reveals himself to us this way in the Eucharist, whenever we come forward to the altar to recieve him. He does not fully reveal himself in the flesh, but does so in a hidden way, still asking us to "See that it is really me" and inviting us to look upon him and touch him to know that he is real. And like that day when he at the baked fish, he asks us to have a meal with him.

The disciples thought they were seeing a ghost, that he wasn't real, in spite of being told by several people that he had been seen alive. And its the same way now. Catholics say, "Jesus is really present in the Eucharist" and we are told, "Oh, you crazy Catholics, It's just bread." Just like Thomas, secular society and mainstream Protestant Christianity refuses to believe.

So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25)

But Jesus was real then and he is real now. The Eucharistic thread through the whole story is clear to me. He reveals himself to us the same way in the Eucharist as he did to his disciples after the ressurection, in a loving, compassionat way. In a hidden way. In a Eucharistic way.

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:27-28)

The verse above could just as well have been written...

Then the Priest of God said to the parishoner, "Body of Christ." The parishoner answered and said to him, "Amen!"

-Tim-

"Conflicts of life" Justify Murder of Children in the United Methodist Church

2011-05-01T02:13:00.004-04:00

The position of the United Methodist Church on abortion is at http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid1732

Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.

I wonder what "past Church teaching" they are talking about and would love to hear the term "tragic conflicts of life" quantified.

Read the fine print before you think about joining any Protestant Church.

-Tim-

FOR MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD...

2011-04-22T18:19:00.000-04:00

It's nice to see that this blog is so well liked.

http://michael-boystown.blogspot.com/2011/04/for-my-flesh-is-true-food.html

-Tim-

This article (c) 2011 Timothy L. Hollingworth
All Rights Reserved

The Complete Revelation of God to Man

2011-04-21T10:55:00.014-04:00

It's no secret that many Evangelical Christians have a deep love for the Bible.

Early in my Christian walk, I attended a Friday night "Journey group" wherin members of a local unaffiliated Evangleical Church and a typically southern mix of Baptists and the token Methodist would gather to study their pastor's Sunday sermon, the contents of which were posted on the church's website along with a series of study questions. We were challenged to apply the themes in the sermon to our own lives as followers of Christ and the Bible was necissarily the primary study tool. Every single person I studied with had a deep reverence for scripture.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

We all know the verse. What struck me one night as I read that passage was that I was holding in my hand a book which contained (what I was told was) the singular and complete revelation of God to man. Reading John 1:1 in light of that revelation put me in awe and along with my Evangelical friends, I fell in love with the Bible that night. One of the ladies with whome I studied had a habit of moving her hand back and forth across the page as she read. I thought her motion was a nervious habit but I realized then that she was caressing the words, and I understood why.

With time and prayer comes clarity.

A basic education in Biblical history shows that the Church was born, at the latest, on Pentacost in the year 33 AD and that the first book of the New Testament was written ten years subsequent to Pentacost at a minimum. Simply put, the Church existed for at least ten years before a single word of the New Testament had been written. It's not unreasonablwe to ask what these very first Christians did without the Bible, which as I was told by my Evangelical sisters and brothers in Christ, was the singluar and complete revelation of God to man. The argument can in fact, be made that the written word of God was not needed because the Apostles were still alive. That is not debated here.

You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Matthew 15:6)

The Catholic concept of Sacred Tradtion - a body of knowledge outside of the Bible handed on orally - as being a genuine part of God's revelation to man is often condemned by many non-Catholics with the passage above supplied as proof. Whether the written word of God was needed while the Apostles were still alive is not the point. The idea that Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisee's hipocrisy somehow extends to the oral teaching of God's revelation, given in its fullness to the twelve Apostles and then handed on by the Apostles to those whom the Apostles themselves taught and comissioned to teach on their behalf - that is the point, but the facts simply don't support the claim. God's revelation to man was handed on exclusivly through a tradition of oral teaching or the first ten years of the Church's existence. Tradition - with a capital T - was the standard of religious teaching at the time.

The consensus among scripture scholars is that the book of Revelation was written by St. John towards the end of his life, some time around 90 AD. Recent Scholarship indicates that 2 Peter may have been written by one of Peter's proteges as late as 120 AD. Either way, the New Testament was not completely written until at least 57 years after Pentacost and prehapse as late as 87 years after the birth of the Church. Any insistance that the Bible alone is the sole source of God's revelation to man begs the question of what the early Christians did for half a century until the Bible was complete? At a very pragmatic level, Sacred Tradition actually makes a lot of sense in a world where being caught in posession of Christian documents meant having your hands and feet sawed off or being burned alive.

Consider the fact that what constituted the inspired word of God was argued about among Christians for another 250 to 300 years. It was not until the late 300's AD that the Christian world agreed what books were supposed to be in the Bible and which were not. The word "Bible" (biblios) itself was not used until the late fourth century. Bibles were scarce throughout the majority of Christian history, having to be transcribed by hand until the advent of the printing press in 1433. Even then, the majority of humans on earth were unable to read through the 1700's (1). If the Bible alone is the complete revelation of God to man, how was the faith passed on to ordinary Christians like you and I through eighteen centuries or Christianity? How did the faith survive? The answer is through oral traidtion; through Sacred Tradition.

Yes, Sacred Scripture is the inspired word of God, breathed by the Holy Spirit through human authors. Yes, the Bible is God's revelation to man. But is the Bible the sum total of all revelation? Is it complete?

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

The Bible itself could not be clearer. Not everything Christian is in the Bible.

My Evangelical friends gave me a deep love for Sacred Scripture. I pray for them regularly and give thanks to God for putting them in my life. But with all due respect, and I'm sure some of them will see this statement as near blasphemy, only some of what was revealed in fullness by Jesus to the twelve Apostles was actually written down. The rest of God's revelation, those things which the world could not contain were every one of them to be written can be found in Sacred Tradition.

-Tim-

References

(1) Historical World Literacy Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

(C) 2001 Timothy L. Hollingworth
All Rights Reserved

Jesus... Not Religion?

2011-04-03T20:40:00.001-04:00

Where I live here in the deep south, many of the non-denominational Churches have begun advertising various "Worship series" with the tag line "Jesus... not religion!" Signs with the word "Religion" with a circle and a slash through it have popped up in quite a few places and the banner pictured to the left is currently replicated on one of those hundred feet high electronic billboards along the interstate. The idea presumably, is that not only can an individual Christian can have a personal relationship with Jesus outside of the context of of organized religion but that organized religion or denominational affiliation is actually detrimental to our individual personal relationship with Jesus. I have a good mind to attend one of their services to experience the details of their teaching myself. Rest assured that a good shower with a bar or strong soap will be waiting for me as soon as I get home.

That these Churches simultaneously started pro-Jesus, anti-religion programs begs the question of whether they are themselves participating in some form of loose, anarchistic religious affiliation. The sheer number of simultaneous anti-Religion programs implies either a central soure of doctrinal and pastoral content or a minimum level of inter-churh collaboration in terms of content development and sharing.

And as far as religion is concerned, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.

According to their website, the Evangelical Church Alliance was founded in 1887 "..to offer an alternative to the Theological Liberalism that had seeped into the church." The website states, "Throughout the years the Evangelical Church Alliance has not wavered and has held fast to the Word of God and high standards." The ECA also licenses and ordains ministers and pulishes the Tenents of Faith which appears to be a generic sort of creed. So the ECA fights doctrinal error, ordains ministers and publishes a creed?

Waddle, waddle.

The ECA's worldwide umbrella organization is the World Evangelical Aliance, whose website claims to represent 600 million Evangelical Christians in 128 countries. Part of their mission is "Providing a prophetic and proactive voice into the worldwide church in relation to theology, missiology and mission practice, through strategic consultations, training seminars, publications and other initiatives." Many documents are available from their website including "A Statement on Prosperity Teaching" and "Foundations of Faith", a guide to justification, salvation, baptism and other doctrines.

Quack, quack.

I find it difficult to believe that a dozen churches within fifty miles of each other simultaneously conceived of and executed a series of worship services with an identical theme, anti-religion or otherwise. The content must come from somewhere! I have no idea if the Church's in my area which simultaneously offer identical worship content are members of the ECA or WEA but the very existence of non-denominataional umbrella organizations, licensing and ordination boards and centralized sources of doctrinal development, especially in light of the sudden and simultaneous introduction of common worship content within a small geographic area, leaves me with little doubt about the need for "Religion" in spite of any anti-relgion theology.

Where does that leave the Catholic who for whatever reason, feels that an authoritative source of doctrinal content is not to his liking and is considering bailing out of the Barque of Peter for the percieved freedom of non-denominationalism?

You may want to bring some orange sauce to have with that duck.

-Tim-

Remember the Red Cross in the Wake of 9-11?

2011-03-13T19:23:00.000-04:00

Here is a reminder...

According to documents obtained by CBS News, a dozen of the Red Cross chapters audited were marking, or "coding", donations as local funds. This means chapters like San Diego, Southwest Florida, and Gateway Area, Iowa would keep the money instead of sending it in for Sept. 11 victims.

Read More...

Remember how they spent 11 million dollars out of the money sent in for 9-11 victims for "International outreach"? Remember how they used some of the money to remodel their offices? Remember how the president of the American Red Cross testified before congress and then resigned? I wonder how much of the Red Cross's money goes to "Family planning"?

Donate to Catholic Relief Services here.

-Tim-

The Sacramentality of Spousal Union According to His Holiness John Paul II

2011-02-13T01:46:00.001-05:00

When man and woman freely give themselves to each other in spousal union, it produces a third person - a child. This is what Pope John Paul II called the "Primordial sacrament"

Remember that a sacrament uses things which are visible to reveal invisible, spiritual and divine truths.

Just as man and woman freely giving themselves to each other in love produces a child, the perfect interchange of self-sacrificing love which takes place between the Father and the Son in Heaven produces the Holy Spirit. Catholics bear testimony to the fact that the perfect self giving love between the first and second persons of the Trinity produces the third prerson of the Trinity in our most basic statement of our faith which is the creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit
The Lord, the Giver of Life
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Holy Spirit proceedes from the perfect interchange of self-giving and self-sacrificing love between God the Father and God the Son is basic trinitarian theology. This reality about how the Trinity functionsis revealed to man in a visble way by the manner in which God ordered man and woman. How man and woman love each other in spousal union, giving themselves freely and totally to each other, and how that union of love produces a child, reveals to us the invisible, spiritual and divine truth of how the Father and the Son love each other in Heaven and produce the Holy Spirit.

Spousal union reveals to us the most innermost workings of the trinity!

Spousal Union

Man + Woman = Child reveals Father + Son = Holy Spirit.

Man and Woman, in a gift of total commitment to each other (marriage), making the perfect offering to each other (spousal union) producing a child reveals to us the perfect love between God the Father and God the Son, totally committed to each other, producing the Holy Spirit.

Naked and Without Shame

The fact that Adam and Eve were "Naked and without shame" reveals to us that God the Father and God the son are completely known to each other, nothing hidden, completely vulnerable to each otther.

Dominion Over the Earth

The fact that God blessed Adam and Eve, commissioning them to multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it reveals to us the Holy Spirit having dominion over all creation and over all life.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28)

One Flesh

The fact that man and woman "Become one flesh" reveals to us the substantial union between God the Father and God the Son. They are not just united as Father and Son, but are one flesh, one substance, one God. As Jesus said...

The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)

I could go on but I think the reader will get the point.

In calling spousal union the "Primordial sacrament", Pope John Paul II points out that the ordering of man and woman in matrimony and procreation is the number one way in which humans not only know about the innermost workings of the Trinity, but experience it in our own lives. The love between God the Father and God the Son and how this perfect love produces the Holy Spirit is not just an objective truth which we understand, but a subjective reality which we experience in a very real and very powerful (a-hem!) way through the sacramentality of our male and female bodies. The self sacrificing love which takes place between God the Father and God the Son in Heaven becomes therefor not only our model for marriage, spousal union and procreation but the way in which we (are supposed to) experience trinitarian love prior to actually getting into Heaven and taking part in the beatific vision - union with the Trinity- ourselves. Our masculinity and femininity even reflect the Father and Son's giving and receiving of Love.

Claims that homosexual unions are somehow equivalient to marriage of a man and a woman are simply incorrect; this reality is stated very simply in the 27th verse of the Bible;

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

It's a simple yet sublime statement. Not only are individuals created in God's image by virtue of the fact that we have immortal, spirutual souls and that we have free will, but man and woman collectively were created in the image of the Trinity. The fact that any religious institution would advocate same sex union in any way evidences that institution's extremely shallow understanding understanding of trinitarian theology and the sacramental nature of all of creation, man and woman inclusive and especially.

Remember that the same Holy Spirit who proceedes from the perfect interchange of love between God the Father and God the Son is the same Holy Spirit who is the primary author of Scripture and everything in scripture is there for a reason. The Holy Spirit, as the primary author of Scripture, was not just classifying people into categories nor was the human writer of Genesis simply noting his own observation about the major visible differeneces between individuals. The Holy Spirit wanted us to know something about himself and about how he is created. God the Father and God the Son, wanted us to experience Trinitarian love in our lives.

And so, "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them."

-Tim-

A Meditation on Faithfullness

2011-01-22T11:57:00.012-05:00

What does it mean to be "Faithful?"

We all have an intuitive understanding of what the word "Faithful" means. We remain at a friend's side through both good times and bad. We show up for work through the rough economy, when the bonuses, raises and comission checks are not as large as we had hoped for. We don't run to the arms of a lover just because our marriage isn't going perfectly. Faithfullness has to do with loyalty, allegiance, and remaining true to your promises come what may.

The word "Faithful" is a combination of the words "Faith" and "Full." To be faithful is to be full of faith. If one is full of faith, one cannot possibly have room for anything else, because by definition, to be faith-ful is to be full. Mary was "Full of grace" leaving no room for sin. Satan is "Full of lies" and he has no truth in him. And so one who is "Full of faith" leaves no room for doubt. One who is faithful has no disloyalty. Those who are faithful do not have wavering hearts.

I am prompt, I do not hesitate in keeping your commands. Though the snares of the wicked surround me, your teaching I do not forget. (Psalm 119:60-61)

Faithfulness is simply the fullness of faith. It is not only an inclination of the heart and mind, but is an inclinatin of the will as well, and more than just that. Faithfulness implies action. Faithfulness is more than a firm resolve or having the will to remain loyal; it is the act of actually remaining loyal. Faithfulness is not only the resolve to defend that to which we are faithful but the actual defense should a threat arise. The "Fullness of faith" is not only a resolve to remain loyal should a temptation to disloyalty arise, but actually remaining loyal in the face of very real temptation. To act a certain way or to remain in a certain state over time according to one's loyalty is the heart of faithfulness. If being faithful inclines the heart, mind and will toward a state of faithfulness, then faithfulness itself is the acting out of that inclination in our daily lives.

This brings us back to the original question, that is, what it means to "Be faithful."

To be means to exist. Being faithful therefor, means existing in a state whereby we are full of faith, whereby our intellect, heart and will are ordered to act without hesitation based on our loyalty. Faithfulness means existing in a state where we promptly do those things which our loyalty demands and where we do them repeatedly over time. The answer to the question is, I think we can say, that "Being faithful" has two aspects; an interior inclination of the heart and will to act according to our loyalty and exterior acts where those inclinations according to the fullness of faith are realized in our daily lives.

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. (James 2:17-22)

It's interesting to hear Evangelical arguments about salvation by faith alone. Sola fide Evangelicals tell us that our works are a result of our faith. Catholics are accused of emphasizing a need to work toward salvation while ignoring the role of faith in the process. Putting aside the misconceptions about Catholic belief with regard to salvation for just a moment, a proper understanding of the phrase "being faithful" shows us that there are two inseperable components to faith; the interior inclination and the exterior acts and this is why James can rightly say that Abraham's faith was active along with his works and that his faith was completed by his works."

So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. Do everything without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent... (Philippians 2:12-15)

Paul acknowledges both the interior nature of faith's "Desire" and the exterior nature of faith's "Work" when he writes, "both to desire and to work." But Paul gets to the very heart of our salvation, wihch is also the Catholic view on salvation, when he writes, "For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you" to produce both inseperable components of faith, both the desire and the work.

Works salvation has always been denied by the Catholic Church, and so has the idea of salvation by faith alone, at least as it is understood by modern Evangelicalism. The Catholic Church as always taught, exactly consistent with Paul's statement in Philippians 2 above, that salvation is through grace, for God is the one who works in you both to desire and to work.

Both the desire and the work are sola gratia - by grace alone. It was evidenced through Abraham. It was acknowledged by King David in the Psalms. It was Jame's position, it was Paul's position, and it is the Catholic position. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

On the same token, don't let anyone tell you that the works are not important. James called these people ignoramuses.

-Tim-

Apologetic Short Take #3: Direct Access to God

2011-01-03T13:49:00.015-05:00

The veil was torn. The Holy of Holies was exposed to all men. The Levitical priesthood has been done away with and we can now confess our sins directly to God in the privacy of our own hearts. We now have direct access to God.

But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. (Matthew 27:50-52)

It seems like a logical argument. It seems to makes sense. If the veil between man and the Holy of Holies was torn then a priest is just "imposing" himself between an individual Christian and Christ... right?

Maybe not.

Direct access to the presence of God. Does any religion have the audacity to claim that such a literal interpretation is true? Can a human actually enter the Holy of Holies, stand in the presence of God, point to him and say, "There he is"?

-Tim-

Spirit and Life: Symbolism or the Real Presence?

2011-01-01T22:24:00.020-05:00

In the story of his conversion, former Presbyterian theological virtuoso Dr. Scott Hahn recounts the first time he attended Mass and saw the Eucharist held aloft by a priest.

My God, it's you! It's really you!!!

Christ tells us point blank that the Eucharist is a mystery of faith; that the Eucharist is something our human senses can never perceive and which our human intellect can never fully comprehend. Some non-Catholic Churches seem to ignore Christ's teaching about the supernatural nature of the Eucharist as they go about their regular practice of symbolic communion while members of other non-Catholic Churches misunderstand Jesus' teaching about the mystery of the Eucharist at it's most fundamental (a-hem) level.

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

See, Jesus was speaking spiritually. Jesus was only speaking symbolically. It's a memorial.... mere bread. "the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit" Its the classic denial of the Eucharist. And it is not only dead wrong but is (once again) exactly the opposite of what Christ actually said.

Jesus very clearly states that his words (about the Eucharist) are "Spirit and life." The English word spirit comes from the Latin word spiritus which literally means "breath."

The word "Spirit" appears in 58 books, 288 chapters, 509 verses and a total of 556 times in the New American Bible. I've read every one of them. You can read them here if you want, or if you prefer, you can use the Revised Standard Version here. Nowhere in scripture is the word "Spirit" used as a synonym for the word "Symbolic" As John Martignoni of the Bible Christians Society says, we don't pray to the Father, Son and Holy Symbolic.

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2, NAB)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2, RSV)

The New American Bible renders the passage "Mighty Wind" while the Revised Standard Version renders the passage "Spirit of God." Two different translations are given to illustrate the synonymous nature moving air (mighty wind) and the Spirit of God.

...the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

In the second creation account, God breathes "The breath of life" into man who becomes "A living being." There is an undeniable causational relationship between the "breath" of the divine being and life in man; God's breath - the blowing of air into man's nostrils - is that which causes man to live. In the very first book of the Bible we see the movement of air, God's breath, his Spirit, the "Might wind" hovering over the waters, not only giving man his very life as it is breathed into his nostrils but being the catalyst for the creation of the entire universe in which man lives.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.' The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

Jesus compares the nature of wind with the action of the Holy Spirit in man as he converses with Nicodemus the Pharisee. The context of the conversation is the strict requirement that one be "Born of water and spirit" in order to enter heaven. Catholics know this passage as a reference to the beginning of a Christians spiritual life through baptism. Through baptism we are adopted into new life as members of the Body of Christ. If you have the chance to witness a baptism any time soon, please do so, and watch for the part where the priest of deacon breathes on the candidate three times in the shape of a cross.

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. (Acts 2:1-4)

Yet more wind, this time breathing life into and giving birth to the Church, filling the Church with the Holy Spirit. Need we go on? Oh, just one more...

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit." Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:19-23)

The Word of God which became flesh literally breathes the Holy Spirit into the Apostles. Note that the gift of the Holy Spirit which is given to the Apostles at this particular time allows them to forgive sins and thereby bring others back to spiritual life (to a state of sanctifying grace).

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)

Throughout the Bible, the word "Spirit" is used to signify the very breath of God, the Holy Spirit, and spiritual life. And Jesus' words at the end of the Bread of Life discourse are no different. Jesus is not speaking of symbolism and spirituality; he is speaking of new life, a participation in the Body of Christ!

The argument that John 6:63 renders communion as symbolic collapses under the weight of scriptural evidence - exactly the opposite is in fact the case. Jesus says:

I am the bread of life (twice)
I am the living bread that came down from heaven
The bread that I will give is my flesh
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life
My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me
The one who feeds on me will have life

And then Jesus tells us not that his words are symbolic or spiritual, but that his words are "Spirit and life"; that which breathes a new spiritual life - the very life of God - into his followers!

In spite of Christs warning, some of his disciples chose to walk away. Christ's warning is no less clear today. Your flesh is of no avail! Your eyes will see bread. Your tongue will taste wine. Your nose will smell the alcohol. Your intellect cannot grasp what I am about to fully reveal on the night before I am to die for your sins, when I take bread in my sacred hands and break it so that you may always have me present and accessible. Your faculties of reason cannot understand the miracle - the turning of bread and wine into my flesh and blood - that will be performed in every nation, from the rising of the sun to its setting, at the hands of my priests until I come again in glory.

-Tim-

Polar Express: The Theological Virtue of Faith and The Will to Believe

2010-12-25T23:21:00.019-05:00

I grew up on Dr. Seuss' How The Grinch Stole Christmas and Frosty the Snow Man. For my money, you really can't beat the lyrics in the Grinch's theme song.

You're a monster, Mr. Grinch,
Your heart's an empty hole,
Your brain is full of spiders, you have garlic in your soul, Mr. Grinch,
I wouldn't touch you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!

Kinda reminds me of myself before I turned back to God. Ah, they just don't write them like they used to. By the way, the guy who sang the theme song for the Grinch was named Thurl Ravenscroft. He was also the original voice of Kellog's Tony the Tiger... The're Grrrrreat!

I had occasion this past week to watch the movie Polar Express, which is now near the top of my list of great Christmas specials.

There is a scene in the movie where the main character, I think his name is Billy, is standing amidst a throng of elves and children as Santa's sleigh is being brought forth. The crowd is joyous as the reindeer are hitched up and the sleigh is loaded with toys. The elves then bring out the all important sleigh bells and upon hearing the sound, the crowd goes wild. Billy however, has a forlorn look - he cannot hear the bells.

In this movie, the ability to hear Santa's sleigh bells are a sign. You might say that the bells are sacramental. Only those who actually believe in Santa can hear his sleigh bells and Billy it seems, has just enough doubt about Santa's existence to push him over the edge. The sleigh bells are hooked up, everyone goes wild and Billy - alone in a crowd - is incredibly saddened as he realizes that he hears absolutely nothing. In the depth of his doubt, Billy desperately wants to be part of the joy.

Predictably, one of the bells breaks off and bounces to a standstill right at Billy's feet. Billy picks up the bell, places it to his ear and shakes it but it produces no sound. Then something amazing happens. With his eyes closed, his forehead wrinkled, and his fists clenched, Billy places the bell to his ear and whispers, "I believe." His mouth then drops as he hears the beautiful sound of Santa's bell. Conscious that the crowd has gone silent, Billy opens his eyes and there he is, right in front of him. The big guy himself. Face to face. Santa.

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and (all) that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity." (CCC1814)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the three theological virtues; faith, hope, and charity. The theological virtue of faith is defined as our belief in all that God has said and revealed and all that Holy Church proposes for our belief. We don't believe what the Church proposes because we understand it. We don't believe what the Church proposes based on its convenience or how it fits into our life. We believe everything Holy Church proposes because "He is truth." Through his Holy Church, the Living Truth, God himself, has revealed these things to us and his revelation is why we believe it.

Faith is an act of the will. Like Billy in the movie, we get faith when we make a conscious decision to believe and only when we make a conscious decision to believe do we then receive understanding.

Unless you believe, you will not understand. (St. Augustine, Letter 184A)

The writers of the movie Polar Express understand what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches and what St. Augustine wrote. Only after Billy made a conscious decision to believe did he receive revelation. Only after Billy made a conscious decision to believe was he able to see Santa.

Secular atheism demands that God's existence be explained before it is believed. The mystery of the Trinity, that God's Word could be conceived in a virgin's womb and become a human being, that this human being could sacrifice himself on a cross and rise from the dead and in so doing offer humanity freedom from slavery to sin, can never be fully explained. Mainstream and Evangelical Protestantism as well as modern feel-good pop-Christianity demand the same of Catholicism. Catholicism is asked who came up with the idea that contraception is a sin. Catholicism is asked what the basis for praying to Mary is. Catholicism is asked where in the Bible the Pope is mentioned. Catholicism is asked when it was that Christ established one true Church. Catholicism is asked how it can be that the Holy Spirit would guide that Church infallibly. Catholicism is asked why in the world we would believe such nonsense.

Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Explain it to me and then I'll believe it. The Apostle Thomas shared this mindset.

So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nail marks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:25)

Christ's response speaks to the rest of us about making a conscious decision to believe.

Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)

Through he had to ultimately learn it the hard way, Peter understood what we have come to know as the theological virtue of faith.

Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:67-69)

We have come to believe... and are convinced.

Blessed indeed are those who have not seen and yet have made a decision to believe that which the one true Church established by Christ himself teaches.

-Tim-

Apologetic Short Take #2: Call No Man Father

2010-12-22T22:16:00.007-05:00

Anti-Catholics use Matthew 23:9 to assert that addressing priests as Father, the whole of Catholicism is fraudulent. "See" they say, "The pope is a hoax and everything Catholics believe is a sham."

Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. (Matthew 23:9)

One really can't argue that this isn't what Jesus said and yet Catholics address priests as "Father" every day.

I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:15)

Must we conclude that Paul is engaged in unbiblical practices in direct violation of Jesus Christ's command? Or did Paul know something that the average anti-Catholic does not?

The smart money is on Paul.

-Tim-

Jehovah's Witnesses Intentional Changes to Sacred Scripture

2010-12-18T22:59:00.006-05:00

The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own "Translation" of the Bible. The New World Translation was produced between 1950 and 1961 by a then anonymous committee. Five men were later identified as the producers of the text among which there is a total of two years of formal language study. The New World Bible is not used by any other religious denomination or sect.

The New American Bible (NAB) is the basis for the Catholic lectionary from which we take the daily readings at Mass. When you hear a reading at Mass in the USA, you are hearing the New American Bible. The King James Version (KJV) and the later New King James Bible (NKJV) are held up by many Evangelicals as the "Real" Bible. The New International Version is generally accepted as a highly readable natural language translation and is widely used through mainstream Protestantism.

Comparing Matthew 26:26 between these Bible translations and versions yields interesting results. (The literal translation from the Greek Interlinear Bible at the site scriptureforall.com is provided for reference to the original Greek)

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." (New American Bible)

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” (New International Version)

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (King James Version)

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” (New King James Version)

OF-EATING YET OF-them GETTING THE JESUS THE BREAD AND blessing He-BREAKS AND GAVE to-THE LEARNers AND said BE-GETTING BE-EATING this IS THE BODY OF ME. (Online Greek Interlinear)

As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “TAKE, eat. This means my body.” (Jehovah's Witness New World Translation)

The original Greek agrees with both the most widely used Protestant translations as well as the Bible used by Catholics at Mass. All four render Jesus words as "This is my body" but the Jehovah's Witnesses butchering of the text reads "This means my body."

Another intentional modification of scripture by Jehovah's Witnesses can be seen in the very first verse of the Gospel of John.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New American Bible)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (King James Version)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New King James Version)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New International Version)

IN ORIGINal WAS THE saying (word) AND THE saying (word) WAS TOWARD THE God AND God WAS THE saying (word). (Online Greek Interlinear)

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation)

Note as well that God is not capitalized in the Jehovah's Witness version and Jesus is called "A" god instead of "Was" , an allusion (at a minimum) to the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that Jesus Christ is not equal to God.

It is an historical fact that Martin Luther added the word "Alone" to Romans 3:28 so that instead of reading "For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law." it read "For we consider that a person is justified by faith alone apart from works of the law." What the Jehovah's Witnesses have done is orders of magnitude beyond what Martin Luther would have ever dreamed of doing in his most depraved state.

It is not far from the truth to assume that the vast majority of Protestant Christianity would be revolted at reading some of the intentional changes introduced into Sacred Scripture by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist however, should ask themselves the New World Translation is not closer to their own doctrines than the Bible which they currently believe is the authoritative source of all religious truth!

Protestantism does not believe what the Bible clearly says. Jehovah's Witnesses have clearly changed the Bible to suit their own beliefs.

Be careful whom your children are discussing religion with.

-Tim-

The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs - Purgatory (Part 3)

2010-12-17T23:14:00.009-05:00

This is the third part of a three part series entitled "The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs - Purgatory." In this first two parts of the series we have looked at the objective biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory. In this part of the series we will discuss the subjective way in which we experience God's mercy in terms of Purgatory and how the doctrine is consistent with what we already know about God. We will briefly look at prayer for the dead and conclude our study.

Read part 1 here.

Read part 2 here.

CONSISTENT WITH A MERCIFUL GOD

We have thus far considered objective doctrine alone in the Biblical context. As a subjective exercise however, consider the Christian who has sincerely made his best effort to please God throughout his life yet has fallen short as a result of his fallen nature due to original sin. He has not broken God’s covenant, has died without any unrepentant mortal sins (in a state of sanctifying grace) yet he retains residual proclivity to self- love, pride, anger, mistrust, lust, greed and all the other characteristics of fallen man. Can this man be happy in Heaven?

If Heaven is a place of holiness where souls of the dead will be perfectly united to the Trinity, then the answer is a resounding no! It would be akin to showing up at a black-tie affair wearing only underwear or signing up for a college-level math class after having only completed the second grade. The Catholic Church takes the rule “Nothing unclean will enter” seriously and with good reason; those who are not perfectly holy cannot function properly in Heaven. They simply are not ready for heaven and a theology which holds to only Heaven and Hell gives them no place to go.

We come here to a point of truth about Purgatory. Recall that those who are in Purgatory are going to Heaven. Those in Purgatory are saved! If Heaven is a place where only perfect holiness may exist, then Purgatory is a gift of mercy from God who would otherwise not let us in. For those with much self-love, the purification which takes place in Purgatory may be very painful. Insofar as that pain is part of a purification which ultimately leads to Heaven, it is an act of mercy consistent with our view of God as a merciful, loving father.

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD

Although modern Evangelical theology boasts that one can be sure of salvation, the disposition of the heart of those who have died (and therefor their fate) is ultimately known only to God. Catholics pray for the dead out of charity, confident in the knowledge that other members of the Body of Christ, whether dead or alive, by the virtue of the communion of saints, can pray for us as well and may benefit from our prayers.

Catholics pray for the dead who may be in Purgatory just as we pray for any other living person. We ask God to pardon their sins, to assist them through what is certainly a very difficult time and to shepherd them safely to their final destination which is Heaven. Since those in Hell cannot benefit from our prayers and those in Heaven no longer need our prayers, prayers for the dead do not make sense in a Heaven and Hell only theology. Prayers for the dead make sense only in a theology which contains forgiveness in “The age to come”.

Consistent with the belief in the possibility of forgiveness after death, there is crystal clear Old Testament evidence of Jewish tradition of praying for the salvation of those who have already died.

On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

It must be noted that 2 Maccabees is rejected by the vast majority of non-Catholic Christianity as not inspired. It must also be note that the same non-Catholics who reject 2 Maccabees are those who also reject the doctrine of Purgatory.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.com rightly states, “For Catholics who accept this book as canonical, this passage leaves nothing to be desired.” But even if 2 Maccabees is not inspired, it bears ample witness to the religious practices of the ancient Jews and is remarkably similar to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.

May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. And you know very well the services he rendered in Ephesus. (2 Timothy 1:16-18)

The Apostle Paul refers to a man named Onesiphorus in the past tense several times. If this man is dead, as is it appears he may well be, then Paul’s statement, “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day” is clearly a prayer for the dead. If Onesiphorius is not dead, but merely missing in action, then it is as they say, no harm-no foul.

CONCLUSION

St. John clearly lays out the doctrine of deadly and non-deadly sin in his first letter (1 John 5:15-16). St. John’s doctrine is exactly consistent with the doctrine of mortal and venial sin which has been believed in the Catholic Church for twenty centuries. Matthew 5:22 records the words of The Lord himself as he speaks about three sins, only one of which is immediately punishable by Hell and so Christ’s own words seem to be the basis for St. Johns doctrine.

St. Paul tells us in the Book of Hebrews that there is a requisite level of “…holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” St. John describes Heaven (in part) as a place where “nothing unclean will enter.” Catholic Tradition, consistent with the view of Heaven as a place of perfect holiness, has always interpreted these two verses in the strictest sense.

The reality of venial sin whereby one is a sinner yet still in a state of sanctifying grace along with the strict requirement for perfect holiness in order to enter Heaven leaves no place for the vast majority of ordinary Christians who, far from being saints, die with some remnants of their fallen nature still intact. A Heaven and Hell only theology leaves no place for these people to go. Jesus gives us hope however, in that he speaks of forgiveness “in the age to come” and St. Paul tells us of a place or a process whereby one whose works have been judged as substandard may be able to “suffer loss” yet still be saved.

God’s mercy is evident in the doctrine of Purgatory in that it provides a way for the faithful who, though they have sincerely tried to do their best, have somehow fallen short or still retain aspects of their fallen nature. These are purified by God in Purgatory and are eventually holy and clean enough to enter Heaven.

Intercessory prayer on behalf of other members of the Body of Christ is common throughout all of Christianity. Catholics, by virtue of the Communion of Saints, extend these prayers to all members of the Body of Christ including those who have died. Prayers for the salvation of the dead would make no sense in a Heaven and Hell only theology yet we see clear evidence of the practice in the Old Testament as late as the second century BC. We also see what may be evidence of prayers for the dead in St. Paul’s second letter to Timothy.

The many verses cited in favor of the doctrine of Purgatory do not seem to make sense when viewed in a Heaven and Hell only theology. Some wild intellectual and theological posturing is required in order to interpret these verses in the context of a theology without Purgatory. The obvious inclusion of intercessory prayer for the dead in 2 Maccabees may have been part of the impetus for its removal from the canon of scripture by the progenitors of the so called Protestant reformation.

Twenty centuries of Catholic tradition and belief notwithstanding, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught infallibly the doctrine of Purgatory when it declared the belief to be dogma at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438) and reaffirmed it at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Since Jesus Christ - and therefor God himself – is the guarantor of The Church’s infallibility, the Church has spoken the last word on the subject.

This concludes our study of the Biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory.

Return to part 1 here.

Return to part 2 here.

-Tim-

The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs - Purgatory (Part 2)

2010-12-17T22:39:00.030-05:00

This is the second part of a three part series entitled "The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs - Purgatory." In this first part we discussed the nature of Purgatory as defined by the Catholic Church and the biblical basis for belief in mortal and venial sin. In this part we In part 2 we will discuss the requirements for entry into Heaven and explore some biblical verses which refer to Purgatory directly.

Read part 1 here.

Read part 3 here.

NOTHING UNCLEAN

In the twenty first chapter of the Book of Revelation, the same St. John who gave us the wonderful doctrine of mortal and venial sin as described above, gives as an equally wonderful description of Heaven.

Then I saw a new Heaven and a new earth. The former Heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. I also saw the holy city, a New Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:1-2)

St. John goes on to describe the Heavenly city in various ways, as a “bride, the wife of the Lamb”, having walls of Jasper and being made of pure gold, clear as glass, etc. Verses 8 and 21 however, stand out in stark contrast amidst this beautiful description.

But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

Catholic interpretation of “The second death” referred to in verse 8 has always been as a reference to a place of damnation. The first death is obviously physical. The second (spiritual) death is that of spending eternity without God. An eternity without God – eternal damnation - is the very definition of Hell and is therefore the “Second death”.

…but nothing unclean will enter it… (Revelation 21:27)

Verse 27 is pivotal, as it gives us a succinct view as to the requirement for entry into Heaven. Nothing unclean will enter. One must be perfectly clean, without any stain of sin in order to get into Heaven. St. Paul agrees with St. John when in the Hebrews 12:14 he states that we must strive “for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

Early Church fathers such as Origen, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose saw a giant loophole here. One may not have committed such “Deadly” sins (or may have repented of them sufficiently) as to be cast into Hell for eternity. Nevertheless, one must in a state of perfect holiness in order to enter Heaven. We must ask where this leaves those who may have died without committing any mortal sin after confession yet who may have committed some lesser venial sins. These will have died in a state of sanctifying grace and as such, do not deserve to be cast into Hell. According to the strict requirement for entry into Heaven set forth in Revelation 21:27 and Hebrews 12:14 however, due to the presence of venial sin, this person does not possess the required holiness to enter Heaven. Does this person go to Heaven or Hell? The doctrine of Purgatory not only gives us an answer but conforms to scripture quite well as we shall see.

Even in the absence of venial sin we run up against man’s fallen nature which, when reflected upon by Church fathers, presented them with the same loophole. A man who drops dead having just stepped out of the confessional possesses residual self-love, lack of self-control, a tendency toward lust and other residual effects of his fallen nature. Although he is forgiven of all his sins, due to his fallen nature, he cannot be described as being perfectly holy. Where does this person go to receive that holiness without which no one will see the Lord?

THE AGE TO COME

St. Matthew records Jesus’ clear statement about the possibility of forgiveness in an “Age to come.”

Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)

Forgiveness in an “Age to come” has profound implications for the doctrine of Purgatory, especially in light of the observation that not all sins are worthy of Hell yet one must be perfectly clean in order to enter Heaven. Recall that there is no possibility of forgiveness in hell and how those in Heaven do not need forgiveness. If the “Age to come” is the afterlife, then “Forgiveness in the age to come” must be a direct reference to Purgatory by the Lord himself! The doctrine of Purgatory renders this passage understandable. A Heaven and Hell only theology struggles to come to terms with this passage.

BUT ONLY AS THROUGH FIRE

If one can be forgiven in an “Age to come” (Matthew 12:32) then one can be granted entry into Heaven (saved) even if he did not die in a state of absolute purity and holiness. Since very few Christians die in a state of absolute cleanliness or holiness, there must be a place where these can go, or a process which they may undergo to receive this holiness and cleanliness – to be “Forgiven in the age to come.”

St. Paul, in the third chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians, discusses the need among Christian in the city of Corinth for personal holiness. Paul uses the metaphor of a workman building upon a foundation and characterizes those with perfect holiness as having built with gold, silver or precious stones. Those who possess less than perfect holiness are characterized as having built with wood, hay or straw.

If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that Person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

Catholic tradition has always held “The Day” to be a reference to Day of Judgment. Paul states that the quality of each person’s “workmanship” will be tested with fire. If a person’s work is substandard (burned up), he will suffer loss (loss of sinful nature, pride, lust, venial sin, etc.), yet will enter Heaven (be saved) but only through fire.

Again, the images of receiving a wage for good work versus suffering loss through fire yet still being “Saved” fits the doctrine of Purgatory perfectly. Loss in Hell is absolute. One does not suffer any loss in Heaven. Only in Purgatory will one suffer loss yet be saved.

Having discussed the objective biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory, we wil move in part three to an exploration of the subjective nature of how the faithful actually experience God's mercy through Purgatory. We will look briefly at prayers for the dead and will conclude the study.

Read part 1 here.

Read part 3 here.

-Tim-

The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs - Purgatory (part 1)

2010-12-17T22:25:00.124-05:00

This is the frst part of a three part series entitled "The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs - Purgatory." In this first part we will discuss the nature of Purgatory as defined by the Catholic Church and the biblical basis for belief in mortal and venial sin.

Read part 2 here.

Read part 3 here.

INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITION

Even among Catholics there are many misconceptions about what Purgatory is and what it is not. In light of these misconceptions, a brief definition of Purgatory is in order.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Purgatory as follows:

All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of Heaven. (CCC 1030)

The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

“As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.” (CCC 1031)

It is important therefor, and for the purposes of any discussion about the doctrine, to note the following points;

Purgatory is a “Purgation” or “Purification.” The Catholic Church has not defined Purgatory as either a process or an actual place.
Purgatory is not Hell. Souls of the dead in who are undergoing this “Purification” are saved. Souls “In Purgatory” are assured of entry into Heaven.
The purification process is required for those who die in friendship with God (a state of sanctifying grace) but do not yet possess the holiness and required to enter Heaven.

DEADLY SIN

Consistent with Sacred Scripture, the Catholic Church continues to classify sin according to its gravity. Sins are described as either venial or mortal.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes venial sin as follows:

One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. (CCC 1862)

Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.” (CCC 1863)

Venial sins are often called “Sins of omission” or “Sins of error” because the often arise out of our fallen nature. Venial sin causes injury to God’s covenant but it does not break it. The injury to God’s covenant caused by venial sin is humanly repairable.

A mortal sin on the other hand, is often characterized as a deliberate act of disobedience against God. Mortal sin breaks the God’s covenant entirely; so much so that no amount of prayer and contrition on the part of the sinner is sufficient to bring the sinner back into friendship with God (into a state of sanctifying grace). The injury to God’s covenant caused by mortal sin can only be repaired by a gift of mercy from God. The ordinary and normal way for a sinner in a state of mortal sin to access God’s free gift of mercy and thereby return to a state of sanctifying grace is through the sacrament of reconciliation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes mortal sin as follows:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC 1857)

Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger. (CCC 1858)

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. (CCC 1859)

Most Catholics are aware of the three conditions for a sin to be mortal. The sin must be a grave matter, and must have been committed with full knowledge and with deliberate consent. In layman’s terms, if the sin involves one of the Ten Commandments, you knew it was wrong, and you did it anyway, it was probably a mortal sin.

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. (1 John 5:16-17)

St. John – the disciple whom Jesus loved, the Apostle who rested his head on Jesus’ bosom after receiving the first Eucharist - clearly lays out the Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sin in his first letter. In this master work of Catholic Theology, St. John states that there are two types of sin; that which leads to death and that which does not lead to death. St. John clearly states that sin which does not lead to death (venial) can be repaired (give him life) through (intercessory) prayer. Deadly sin however, leads to spiritual death. In other words, what we now call mortal sin leads to loss of friendship with God.

And it is here that we need to pause for a moment for the sake of clarity. We cannot afford any ambiguity about this point. Mortal sin, as St. John put it, is “Deadly” in every sense of the word. Those who die in a state of unrepentant mortal sin have opened themselves up to the possibility of eternal damnation in Hell.

LIABLE TO JUDGEMENT

The Sermon on the Mount is a rich source of many Catholic doctrines including allusions to, if not direct references to Purgatory.

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, “You fool!” shall be liable to the Hell of fire. (Matthew 5:22, NRSV-CE)

Matthew 5:22 records the words of The Lord himself as he speaks about what seems to be a relative gradation of sins. The sixteenth century theologian St. Francis De Sales notes that of the three sins listed, only the third sort of offense is punished with Hell. Sins of lesser gravity do not expose the sinner to the immediate possibility of hell yet they do leave the sinner open to God’s judgment. Christ’s own words seem to compliment John’s doctrine of mortal and venial sin.

That St. John should draw a doctrine of mortal and venial sin from Christ’s own teaching is not surprising. This verse, spoken by the Lord himself, corresponds nicely with the doctrine of mortal and venial sin practiced for centuries by the Catholic Church.

Thus we have the doctrine of mortal and venial sin firmly established in Sacred Scripture.

In part 2 we will discuss the requirements for entry into Heaven and explore some biblical verses which refer to Purgatory directly.

Read part 2 here.

Read part 3 here.

-Tim-

God's Reminder Of Faith As A Gift And The Need For Humility

2010-12-12T21:34:00.016-05:00

It was at the get together after the Evening of Recollection for Men by the Prelature of Opus Dei this past Friday that God chose to remind me about the need for humility.

A few men were discussing the challenges of business travel including the merits of various airlines, techniques for quickly passing through security and our favorite and least favorite destinations. I was lamenting the approach to one particular airport where the aircraft drops precipitously onto the runway after having hardly completed a harrowing one hundred eighty degree turn. One of the gentlemen with whom I was conversing perked up and offered some insight as to what the pilots typically do on that particular approach.

Me: Oh, do you fly much for business?

Other Man: Yes, quite a bit.

Me: What do you do?

Other Man: I fly the plane.

There was a brief moment of tension on my part before everyone started laughing. There I was going on about the intricacies of landing an aircraft at New York's LaGuardia Airport to a man who actually does it regularly. Like I said, God has a way of reminding me to be humble. Thank you for being gentle with me this time, Lord.

And God's gentle reminder came to me one other time this week as someone mentioned this blog in a very positive light.

I'll soon begin facilitating a small-group of men as part of the Great Adventure Bible Study which our parish is rolling out. This blog was mentioned by the leader of the effort at our parish as a resource where one can go to learn the biblical basis for Catholic beliefs. Not expecting the positive comment, I was actually quite humbled, at least for the moment, and fumbled a little as I tired to come up with a suitable response. I mentioned that at one point not too long ago, I was -this- close to leaving the Catholic Church, all for want of a few minutes of explanation about the biblical basis for Church authority or any one of several other doctrines. Then, with foot-in-mouth form that would make an olympic gymnast proud, I said something about going "Toe to toe" with Baptists or something like that.

A brief discussion ensued about apologetics in general and God's first hint at my need for humility came when the only other male present stated that he used to be a Baptist. (Note to self: suburban Atlanta is still the buckle of the Bible-belt. Know your audience and don't assume anything)

Then Diane spoke.

In a few short words, God used her to remind me that my faith is a gift and had it been left up to me, I would now be a member of the non-denominational RiverWater Church on highway 92 where the coffee is free, the rock band is awesome, and the baptism and communion are only symbolic.

Many of these (Protestants) are people with great gifts. When the Churches of the world finally unite, they will come into the Catholic Church and we will not be diminished one bit. The Church will be built up by their gifts.

God brought a few things to mind as I reflected on Dian's words...

Southern style Evangelical Christians have a burning love for Jesus in their hearts. Insofar as that love mistakes strong emotion for the presence of the Holy Spirit or good times for God's grace, that love is somewhat blind, or at least in need of strong contact lenses. Nonetheless, for many Evangelical Christians this "Consuming fire" is very real. I know this because I've experienced it in my own soul and by the grace of God, still have it. I pray frequently that it never goes away and like the song on the sickly-sweet generically Christian radio station, I sometimes pray, "God, remind me what it was like on that day when I first met you."

Secular society often views this enthusiasm for Jesus as cartoonish. We have all heard of, or perhaps even used some derivative of the term "Bible thumping Jesus freak". Again, I was almost one, until I gained the quiet confidence that comes with receiving the very real body and blood of Jesus Christ himself. It is impossible to explain to non-Christians and to some Catholics alike however, the very real love for Jesus which would make one follow him off a cliff or through a raging inferno.

...or the love for God which would cause one to leap with joy wearing almost nothing.

Then David, girt with a linen apron, came dancing before the LORD with abandon, as he and all the Israelites were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts of joy and to the sound of the horn. As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Saul's daughter Michal looked down through the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, and she despised him in her heart. (2 Samuel 14-16)

It's not that many Catholics don't have this burning love nor that many Evangelicals are not simply going through the motions, joining "happy-clappy" Buckhead Church or some other fashionable worship center because they have the best valet parking, but Protestantism, especially the more Evangelical forms, has a certain willingness to embrace public displays of faith without the slightest concern for what society or the neighbors might think. Putting aside the cartoonish Jesus freaks we have all experienced, I recall how, early in my Christian walk, I had struck up a conversation with a man who although clearly younger than I, was more mature in his faith. I voiced my wish to have his type of faith and his response was to drop his computer bag, grab me by both shoulders and say, "Let's pray about it. Father in heaven, we come before you..." There we were, two men standing not twenty five feet from the main entrance to IBM's Southeastern headquarters, one Catholic - embarrassed and nervously looking about while a Southern Baptists prayed over him with his eyes closed as ladies in high heeled shoes walked by and smiled.

I had studied scripture for about a year with a typically southern mix of non-denominational "Bible Christians" and Southern Baptists. Although it was their pastor's mistaken doctrines about baptism which started my turn back toward Rome, these Christians had a love for scripture as deep as my love for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ himself, with the mission, the authority and means to bring all men to salvation. As the authority of the Church is Jesus Christ himself, my love for the Church is inseparable from my love for God. This belief infuriates one of my friends but it is really not very different from his belief that the Bible is the ultimate authority on matters of religious truth and the love he has for the Bible which results.

This deep love for God's word is testified to by the way in which many Protestants seem to have memorized almost the whole Bible. Attempts to understand individual verses outside of their greater sense in terms of the rest of scripture and literalist interpretations of these individual verses in the absence of historical, economic, political and social context under which the authors of scripture and their audience operated has resulted in some very wild interpretations of scripture indeed - one has only to watch an hour of just about any TV Evangelist in order to see this in action. But it is this deep love for and knowledge of scripture which many Protestants have is undeniable.

It is difficult to imagine what will happen when this deep knowledge of scripture is integrated with the fullness of truth which only the Catholic Church possesses. It is impossible to underestimate the effect on secular society which the integration of a willingness to publicly profess faith with true Catholic doctrine will have. The implications of so many "Jesus freaks" coming to the Eucharist is unimaginable.

Think of what it will be like when seventeen million Southern Baptists come to the realization that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces and begin praying the rosary to end abortion. Think of what it will be like to have an army of former Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door to encourage people to accept Jesus and go to confession. Think of what what can be accomplished in the world when organizations like Samaritan's Purse and the Salvation Army unite with Catholic Charities. Think of the blessings we will all receive when the members of twenty five thousand non-Catholic denominations all gather for Eucharistic adoration. Think of the parking problems. Think of the shortage of priests!

Years ago, a priest said to me, "These terrorists wouldn't be able to touch us if all Christians united under the Pope." The statement seemed odd to me at the time but now seems oddly prophetic and something for which I long.

Stephen Ray, in his talk about the Gospel of John, interprets Chapter 21 as a story of the end of time. In painting this picture of the end of time, Stephen Ray notes that they disciples are fishing and at Jesus' direction, catch a net full of 153 fish. St. Jerome said that 153 represents all the nations known at the time so that the net, which represents the Church, catches people from every nation, race and tongue. Peter the Pope then single handedly drags the net to shore and hands it to Jesus who is cooking a meal - the marriage supper of the lamb - for the disciples.

So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three large fish. Even though there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, "Come, have breakfast." And none of the disciples dared to ask him, "Who are you?" because they realized it was the Lord. (John 21:11-12)

Stephen Ray correctly notes that the Greek word for tear is "Scism." At the end of time, the Church will be placed at Jesus' feet and all men who are saved through that Church will dine with Jesus. That Church will be united - without scism. This is how St. John ends the story and as Stephen Ray says, "It's good to know the end of the story because we win."

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:20-23)

Jesus prayed for unity. How it will happen on earth is not clear but united Church at the end of time is a certainty. I long for the day, and hope I live to see it, when I can stand in line to receive the Eucharist with my friends who are now Protestant and to see the Church renewed by the gifts they will bring.

Reminded that my faith is a gift which I have done nothing to merit, I'm grateful for Dian's words and for God having shown me humility through them.

-Tim-

The Invisible Spiritual Union of All True Believers

2010-12-09T19:50:00.023-05:00

A friend of mine insists that Jesus Christ did not institute a visible Church. He says that Jesus intended the Church to be only an invisble spiritual union of all true believers.

But I get up on Sunday, eat breakfast, brush my teeth and get in my car. I drive to a building where I worship. If someone asks me where I am going, I tell them, "I am going to Church." But if the Church is only an invisible spiritual union between true believers, how can I go there? Is the place to which I go not Church?

Perhapse the Church I go to is only a "Church building." If the place I go to for worship is only a "Church building" and not a "Church", can we say who it is that owns the Church building? If I ask the Priest who pesides at the Church building where I go, he tells me that the Church building is owned by the Church. If the "Church" is only an invisible spiritual union between all true believers, can they even own a "Church building?"

I'm very confused.

If the Church is not visible, but only an invisible spiritual union between all true believers, then when I "Go to Church", I can go to any "Church building" where true believers gather and I will be in "Church". For clarity's sake, I could say that I will be at a Church but in The Church. This is very comforting to know! All Churches are the same as long as it is a place where true believers gather!!!

Now, some Baptists say that Catholics are going to hell because they don't believe in the true beliefs of Christ. Some Catholics say that there is no salvation outside of their Church. So if different groups of believers believe in different things, this must mean that not all groups of believers are true believers. Maybe some groups of believers are false believers or some groups of believers don't believe in the truth as much as other groups of believers do. So which group are the true believers?

I need to find the true invisible group of true believers. I need to find out where this true invisbile group of true believers meet an what time their invisible meetings start. I wonder what the address of their "Church building" is and if they have enough parking. I wonder what their building will look like. I hope they have comfortable seats.

I'm so excited! Once I discover who this invisible group of true believers are and where they meet, I will have found the true Church - the invisible spiritual union of all true believers!!!

Now my friend says some other things. He says that the Bible is the only place to go for the truth about God, that Jesus really isn't physically present in the Eucharist and that the Pope is...

-Tim-

Apologetic Short Take #1: Elizabeth on the Mother of God

2010-12-09T11:38:00.013-05:00

In the first chapter of Luke, Mary goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth and upon her arrival, Elizabeth exclaims...

And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)

Elizabeth did not ask how it was that the Mother of her nephew had come to her. Elizabeth did not ask how it was that the mother of Jesus of Nazareth had come to her. Elizabeth did not ask how it was that the mother of an ordinary human being had come to her. Elizabeth asked how it was that the mother of "HER LORD" had come to her.

No, Elizabeth did not understand how it was that the mother of her Lord should come to her but she she undersood this much; the mother of her Lord, the Ark of the New Covenant, had just come to her.

Elizabeth knew this - God himself was inside Mary's womb and the Mother of God had just walked through her front door.

-Tim-

On Holy Orders

2010-12-09T10:33:00.015-05:00

First and Second Timothy and the book of Titus make up what are often referred to as the "Pastoral Epistles." Written by St. Paul, these three letters are not addressed to congregations at large but to shepherds of congregations directly. Paul’s intent in these letters is instruction for pastors - Timothy and Titus - as to how to properly care for the congregations entrusted to them. These letters deal with subjects such as the need to teach correct doctrine and proper church organization.

The fourth chapter of the first letter to Timothy deals directly with the need to teach correct doctrine. Timothy is reminded of the "Living God", instructed to "command and teach" true doctrine and is told that he is to read, exhort and teach until Paul's return. Paul continues his general theme of proper pastoral care for the flock and includes Timothy's need for dilligence and how he is to set the example for others.

It seems rather predictable at first glance.

Let no one have contempt for your youth, but set an example for those who believe, in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity. Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. Be diligent in these matters, be absorbed in them, so that your progress may be evident to everyone. (1 Timothy 4:12-15)

If one slows down just enough to remember that this is the inspired word of God, something begins to stand out. One verse seems oddly out of place. In the midst of reminding Timothy about the "Living God", that he is to adhere to the faith, to read, to teach and to set an example, Paul inserts the following line.

Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. (1 Timothy 4:14)

What are we to make of this verse? What "Gift" was Timothy given and how can this gift be conferred through spoken words and the imposition of hands of presbyters? Why was this statement placed in the context of being a good pastor? Paul gives us very strong clues, if not a direct answer itself, in his second letter to to the same Timothy.

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. (2 Timothy 1:6)

Paul again exhorts Timothy to make good use of his "Gift", this time identifying himself as having personally imposed hands upon Timothy. Paul is called an Apostle elsewhere in the New Testament; that he was a presbyter is without question. This time however, Paul clearly identifies the gift as the "Gift of God."

Non-Catholic Christians who object to any interpretation of scripture with even the slightest hint of agreement with Catholic doctrine will no doubt argue semantics - that the gift is "of" or from God and that God himself is not the gift. I'll leave proper grammar and the translation of ancient Greek to those with much more patience and time than I and simply note that all but the most radical non-Catholic sects (Jehovah's, Mormons, etc.) believe in a triune God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - three persons but one God. The Father is God. Jesus Christ is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

Consistent with Catholic beliefs, it is the receipt of the Holy Spirit in a special way, through the laying-on (imposition) of hands by other priests as well as the bishop, to which Paul is referencing. The "Gift of God" which Timothy recieved is the Holy Spirit - God himself - in a special way.

The thirteenth chapter of the book of Acts records how hands were imposed upon Barnabas and Saul and how they were subsequently "Sent forth by the holy spirit."

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off. So they, sent forth by the holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and from there sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:1-4)

Earlier in Acts we see more hands being imposed during the ordination of the first deacons.

The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. (Acts 6:5-6)

The ritual of imposition of hands, and the very real effect it had are testified to in the Old Testament.

Now Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with the spirit of wisdom, since Moses had laid his hands upon him; and so the Israelites gave him their obedience, thus carrying out the LORD'S command to Moses. (Deuteronomy 34:9)

The Book of Deuteronomy clearly states how one human being (Joshua) was "filled with spirit of wisdom" through the imposition of hands of another human being (Moses). The Book of Wisdom calls Wisdom itself a gift from God, to be cherished more than silver and gold. Catholics view impostion of Mose's hands onto Joshua as sacramental - ordinary words spoken and ordinary actions taken which effects actual changes in a human being relative to God. Note the authority which was originally given by God to Moses being passed down to Joshua through this same imposition of hands.

The Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani, issued by Pope Paul VI on June 18, 1968 describes form to be used in the rite of ordination of Priests as follows:

In the ordination of presbyters, the matter is likewise the laying of the bishop's hands on the individual candidates that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer; the form consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, of which the following belongs to the essence and are consequently required for validity:

Almighty Father, grant to these servants of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. As co-workers with the order of bishops may they be faithful to the ministry that they receive from you, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct.

Catholics believe that through special prayers and the imposition of hands of the Bishop and other priests, the ordained are given a special gift of the Holy Spirit. The use of words and actions by one human being to effect a very real change in status in another human being relative to God is what makes the action a sacrament. As the Baltimore Catechism famously stated, "…an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace."

One can rightly ask, if the "Gift of God" brought about by the "imposition of hands of the presbyterate" is not a reference to the reception of the Holy Spirit during the sacrament of Holy Orders, then what is it? But the onus to answer this question does not rest on Catholics. To those who deny the sacrament of Holy Orders, the onus is on you.

-Tim-

A Funny Bible Site...

2010-12-03T21:47:00.009-05:00

The International Society of Bible Collectors has a fun page where they document some of the wierder Biblical mistranslations and typographical errors throughout history.

1682 — “Cannibals” Bible. In Deut. 24:3, a KJV Bible reads “if the latter husband ate her” instead of “hate her.”

1600s — “Fool” Bible. In a Bible edition printed during the reign of Charles I, Psa. 14:1 reads, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is a God” instead of “no God.” The printers were fined 3000 pounds for this error and all copies were suppressed.

1795 — “Child killer” Bible. Mark 7:27 reads in the King James Version “Let the children first be killed” instead of “be filled.”

And my personal favorite...

1638— “Vexing wives” Bible. In a KJV Bible at Num. 25:18 it reads “for they vex you with their wives” instead of “with their wiles.”

Read More...

-Tim-

Unbiblical Protestant Beliefs

2010-11-24T15:21:00.183-05:00

Here in the deep south where I live you hear it all the time. "Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about.." and then some supposedly non-biblical, probably satanic, and usually Catholic religious practice is inserted.

Infant baptism is the classic example. We are supposed to infer that because baptism of infants is not explicit in Scripture, its practice is counter to the will of God and therefor not to be permitted. In most cases, especially when it come to Catholic beliefs and practices, the inference goes as far as to claim not only ignorance of the truth, but intentional rejection of the truth for diabolic, anti-Christian purposes.

Through ignorance or intentionally, the argument that something has to be explicit in scripture for it to be an accepted Christian practice is usually hypocritical. The vast majority of those who would argue against supposed "non-biblical" Catholic practices like infant baptism and veneration of relics ignore the many inferred references to these practices in Scripture while ignoring the lack of exlicit reference to their own supposedly "Scriptural" beliefs and practices.

For example, "Nowhere in the bible does it say anything about...."

Confessing sins directly to God in the privacy of one's own heart
Recieving forgivness for sins directly from God
Accepting Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and savior
Altar calls
Adult only baptism
Prayer journals

Essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines
Scripture being the only source of religous truth
Women clergy or pastors
Baptism as a symbol of faith in Jesus and obedience to God
The sufficiency of faith in Jesus Christ for entry into heaven
Completele abstinance from alcohol
Symbolic communion
The Trinity

Seriously, the Trinity is nowhere in scripture.

And that's really the point. Many non-Catholic Christians who would argue the lack of scriptural basis for many Catholic beliefs do so not only out of ignorance of how many supporting inferences are present but in ignorance of the lack of scriptural references to their own traditions and beliefs.

The last one cracks me up.

-Tim-

URGENT REMINDER TO CATHOLICS!!!

2010-11-24T11:42:00.003-05:00

Screwtape's mouthpiece, the secular media, is twisting the Holy Father's words and in doing so, is trying to steal your soul. Using condoms to prevent pregnancy is still a sin.

Humanae Vitae and Genesis 1:28 have not been repealed.

The Holy Father said use of condom's to prevent the spread of disease might be the first step for a prostitute who was starting to come to the realization that what they are doing is wrong. It's like a bank robber switching from guns to knives or an obese person switching from five bacon cheesburgers to five chicken sandwiches... ultimately not acceptable but a step in the right direction.

That's all.

-Tim-

Mary, Mother of God

2010-11-22T18:52:00.011-05:00

The unerring word of God says as much.

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among woman, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:41-43)

Elizabeth acknowledges her cousin as "The mother of my Lord". And Elizabeth's Lord is our Lord... Jesus Christ... The second person of the Trinity... GOD.

There it is. So easy a plowboy could understand it.

"But wait a minute" you protest, "Elizabeth was speaking only about Jesus the man and not about Jesus the Christ, the Word of God incarnate, Emmanuel, the God who took on flesh and died for our sins!" You put forth this protest because you are fundamentally Protestant, and in your protest you deny one of the basic universal truths of all Christiantiy.

The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)

Elizabeth did not ask "And how is it that the mother of my second cousin should come to me?" Elizabeth did not ask "And how is it that the mother of Jesus should come to me?" No, Elizabeth did not understand how it was that the mother of her Lord should come to her but she she undersood this much; the mother of her Lord, the Ark of the New Covenant, had just come to her.

God himself was inside Mary's womb and the Mother of God had just walked through Elizabeth's front door.

-Tim-

The Immaculate Conception

2010-11-21T00:32:00.007-05:00

This one is for my friend Daniel...

The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception through her parents, Joachim and Anne; it does not refer to Mary’s conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was kept free from the stain of Adam and Eve’s original sin from the time of her conception in the womb of her Mother Anne. Not defined by the papal bull INEFFABILIS DEUS issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854 which pronounced the belief as dogma, is the similar and parallel belief in Mary's perpetual state of sinlessness; that she was not only free from original sin at the time of her conception, but from all sin throughout her entire life.

The Immaculate Conception cannot be fully understood until Mary’s title Mother of God is understood.

The belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity. With the exception of some radical sects such as the Jehovah Witness’ and the Mormons, the understanding of Jesus as both fully man (though without sin) and fully God is universal throughout Christianity. If Jesus Christ is fully God, and if Mary is his mother, then Mary must be the Mother of God. It's really that simple.

Upon hearing the term “Mother of God”, many Christians, Catholic or otherwise, ask how it is that Mary could have preexisted God. The logic behind the question, that Mothers must necessarily exist before their sons, feeds the mistaken beliefs about Catholic Marian doctrines; that Catholics believe Mary superior to God, Catholics worship Mary, etc. The question itself shows a lack of basic theological understanding about the nature of the Trinity; for Mary did not preexist the trinity, nor was Mary in existence prior to God the Father’s existence, nor does Mary’s existence predate that of the Holy Spirit. Mary did exist however, prior to God’s birth as a human being.

Mary existed before God was born.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us… (John 1:1,14)

Jesus Christ is God’s Word which took on flesh and lived among us. Jesus Christ is the incarnation, the embodiment in flesh of God. We call Jesus “Emmanuel” which means “God is with us”. We celebrate God’s birth as a human, with Mary as his mother, during advent. We leave the manger empty and put baby Jesus in only on Christmas day. And so it is that Mary was the vehicle through which God chose to become Man. Mary is the Mother of God in the flesh. Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. Mary is the Mother of God. It really is just that simple.

In Jesus Christ and his Mother Mary, we have the only time in all of creation where a son was able to choose his own mother. More than this, given that Jesus Christ is God, in Mary and her son Jesus we have the only time in creation where a son was able to create his own mother! The circular logic may make a Christian’s heads spin but Catholic’s who are familiar with such things simply call it a mystery of faith and thank God for revealing it to us through his Apostles and his Holy Church.

The question to be asked is, if one were to create his own mother, what kind of mother would he create? It goes without saying that one would create for himself the most perfect mother he was able to. And what if God were to create a mother for himself? That question may need to sink in for a moment…

God’s mother would have to be a perfect vessel, perfectly holy, to hold his perfect self, his perfect son.

The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.” (Luke 1:26-28)

At the annunciation, the Archangel Gabriel greets Mary with the title “Full of Grace.” One must not ignore the fact that Mary is identified by God’s messenger as being “full” of grace and as such, she must be empty of anything else that is not grace. Some Bible translations render the phrase “Hail, favored one” and the impact is lessened only slightly, for to be favored by God is, if not to be entirely free from sin, is to be a very holy person indeed.

Objections are placed by “Bible alone” Christian sects that the specific doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God and her subsequent freedom from all sin is not specifically stated in the Bible and is therefore not to be believed. This is a conclusion drawn from the belief in the mistaken doctrine of sola scriptura, that the bible alone is the sole source of teaching on religous truth and that nothing Christian can ever come from outside of the Bible.

Catholic tradition, based on the "many other things that Jesus did" (John 21:25) and which were not written in the bible, those things which were handed down orally, has always argued the “Rightness” of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and subsequent preservation from sin based on the facts presented above. Insofar as it is not inconsistent with or specifically denied by scripture, the Immaculate Conception simply makes sense.

Catholics may simply have to part company here with their non-Catholic brothers and sisters and ponder why twenty centuries of Christian belief, prodigious writings of Church fathers such as St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Ephraem, and the writings of the progenitor of the Protestant reformation Martin Luther himself are ignored, yet the teaching of twentieth century Protestant and Evangelical theologians are taken as fact without a second thought.

That simply doesn't make sense.

And I'd like that sliced THIN please.

-Tim-

References

INEFFABILIS DEUS
Magesterial document defining Ex-Cathedra the Dogma of The Immaculate Conception

Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.

The Catholic Church is Too Rich...

2010-11-08T11:51:00.017-05:00

Those who accuse the Catholic Church of being too wealthy need to take a look at Familia Barcelona, a "Space dedicated to God."

Like the cathedrals of old, this monument to God bears artwork that very few men will ever see - the work of forgotten craftsmen sit on spires, beyond the view of human eyes, but not beyond the view of God's eyes. And like the cathedrals of old, Familia Barcelona has been under construction for over a century.

The Pope's moving homily at the dedication of this magnificent cathedral can be read in it's entirety at Whispers in the Loggia.

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then Judas the Iscariot, one of his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said, "Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages and given to the poor?" He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions. So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me." (John 12:3-8)

We need only read Jesus' own response at the accusation of the Church being too wealthy.

Those who would attack the Catholic Church for it's wealth, usually do so under the banner of fellowship as they sip Folgers coffee and eat brownies after an evening of discussing how baptism really doesn't do anything. They wake up to $100 alarm clocks the next morning, lock up their air conditioned houses so that nothing gets stolen, and pass the time while sitting in traffic by listening to the latest Third Day CD on the docked iPod. And while the Chevy Silverado idles on the interstate, fifty feet away, a group of toothless men wake up under the freeway overpass...

...and the Church is too wealthy.

The fact that Catholic Charities is the largest charitable organization in the world aside, if the Church is nothing more than an invisible spiritual and symbolic union of all true believers, then I agree; the Church is definitely too wealthy. But if the Church is also the visible kingdom of God, established on earth by Jesus Christ with the mission, authority and means to bring men to salvation, it cannot possibly be too wealthy. To say that the Church has too much wealth is to say that Christ's Bride is too wealthy.

And you really don't get to call the Catholic Church "Too rich" until your Church has those as poor in spirit as the Brothers and Sisters who have consecrated their lives to God in monastic vows. Father John Corapi recounts the story of how he met Mother Theresa and asked her what she wanted him to tell people about her and her sisters.

"Will you tell them that we're not social workers! My sisters and I have picked up dying people, people who are dying horrible deaths, being eaten by worms. You can't love your neighbor as yourself unless you have the power of God working in your life and that means Jesus in the Eucharist."

The Catholic Church is not a social welfare agency. Every bit of service the Church engages in is ordered to the salvation of souls and every bit of charity work Catholics engage in are based on the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who would have the Church sell off it's assets and give it all to the poor would tear down the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel and sell its pieces on Ebay and auction off La Pieta at Jackson-Barrett right after the '63 split glass Corvette.

I'll bet Judas the Iscariot would have loved twenty inch wheels on his pickup truck too.

Looking at the pictures of the Cathedral in Barcelona is humbling. It thank God for the gift he has given me, the gift of baptism, of confession, and of his body and blood.

I thank God for making me Catholic for therin lies my wealth.

-Tim-

The Sufficiency of Scripture and Catholic Tradition

2010-11-07T22:29:00.011-05:00

The majority of non-Catholic Christians who view the Bible as the sole authority on matters of faith and morals also believe in the sufficiency of scripture to bring the individual Christian to salvation. The doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture states that an individual Christian, by opening the Bible and reading the words on the pages, will have enough information to be able to figure out how to make it into heaven.

The sufficiency of scripture presupposes it's completeness and therein lies a major difference between Catholics and non-Catholics; the former insist that not everything Christian is explicit in scripture and the latter insists as a matter of dogma, that everything Christian must necessarily be.

There are also many other things which Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:15)

In the closing sentence of the Gospels, St. John tells us that only a very small portion of what Jesus did was actually written down.

He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during fourty day and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)

In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Luke tells us of the forty day period between the resurrection and the ascension and how Jesus appeared to the apostles, teaching them about the kingdom of God. What exactly Jesus said about the kingdom of God though, is not stated - at least not explicitly.

From these two passages, we see that the Bible clearly states, beyond a shadow of a doubt in fact, that it does not contain everything Jesus did nor everything he said. Therine lies another glaring difference between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians; the former believe that as Jesus is God, everything he did and said while among us as a human being, whether written in the Bible or not, is important. The latter however, must necessarily believe that only the small portion of the things which Jesus did and said, that which has been recorded in the Bible, is important.

Catholics know the things which Jesus spoke about during the forty days in which he appeared to the apostles and the "many other things which Jesus did" as Tradition (with a capital T). "Bible alone" Christians, no matter what they profess to believe, must believe these to be irrelevant, or at best, redundant.

Infant baptism is a perfect example. Bible only Christians argue against infant baptism using the logic that since it is not explicit in scripture, it should not be part of Christendom. Catholics however, ask several hard questions including:

Is infant baptism implied anywhere in the Bible?
Does the Bible allow the possibility of infant baptism? Is it prohibited?
Does infant baptism make logical sense based on what we know from the rest of the Bible? Does the Old Testament hold any clues as to God's will with regards to the salvation of infants? How is this born out in the New Testament?
What were the political, economic and social contexts under which the authors of sacred scripture and their intended audience operated? To whom were the authors of sacred scripture writing? Where did they live and what were their lives like?
Can we find outside of the Bible, examples of early Christians who engaged in the practice?
Relative to the bullet above, how widespread was the practice, how close to mainstream Christianity were the leaders of these Christians, etc.?

And so forth.

The point is not to argue infant baptism but to point out how illogical Bible-only Christianity really is. One need only ask if the "Altar call" is scriptural or where the word's "Accept Jesus into your heart" is in Scripture to illustrate this point.

The Bible is the unerring word of God. Many Christians take this to an illogical conclusion that it is the only way to know God. Catholics however, believe that God was more generous than to leave his children with a collection of books wich took close to one hundred years to write, wasn't compiled into an authoritative collection for nearly three hundred years and which wasn't able to be printed, circulated and widely read for over 1400 years as the only authoritative source of information on Him and His will.

The moral law - ideas and principals such as justice, honesty, kindness, and bravery, written indelibly on the hearts of men by God in whose image we are made - is a good starting place. The natural order - the fact that birds can't refine oil into gasoline and that if we were to throw a snake off a cliff it would not glide gently to safety is another place to look. Those things which Jesus did and said, that portion of which was written down in what we know today as the Bible is certainly a place where all Christians should search. The writings of the early Christian leaders - the Church fathers - is a rich source. The living tradition of the Church - that portion of Jesus' teaching which was not written down, but which has been handed down orally, in sacred art and music, in beliefs and customs, through the generations, is yet another. All these are sources of Christian faith.

For Bible-only Christians, all faith begin with the front cover and ends with the back cover of the Bible. But this bible itself tells us that it is incomplete. So before you jump ship and set yourself adrift on the Evangelical sea of uncertainty, consider what you are giving up. For it is only within the living tradition of twenty centuries of Catholicism that the "Many other things which Jesus did" become clear.

-Tim-

I Love the King James Bible!

2010-11-01T22:28:00.005-04:00

The King James Bible is the only true translation of the Bible. All other translations are innacurate, misleading and designed (probably by Catholics), to twist the truth to suit their denonination's own anti-Christian purposes. Yep, the KJV is the official Bible of heaven!

I might be starting to agree.

In the first chapter of the Book of Acts, Peter deals with the need to find a replacement for Judas. In doing so he quotes Psalm 119 from the Old Testament.

For it is written in the book of Psalms, "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his bishoprick let another take." (Acts 1:20 King James Version)

Paul goes on to insist that a replacement for Judas be selected. Two are nominated, the eleven Apostles pray and cast lots, and Matthias is selected.

Non-Catholic Christians who believe the Bible to be the sole authority on matters of religious truth and who who curse any version of the Bible other than the King James Version seem to be in a bit of a quandry. It appears that either;

Matthias, who was elected to take the place of Judas, was actually the first bishop of the Church or...
Bishops are unbiblical and the King James Bible is in error.

Catholics are accused of all sorts of unbiblical things such as believing that the souls of the dead can hear our prayers and intercede on our behalf or believing that Mary is our Mother. Infant baptism isn't in the Bible and even if it was, baptism is really just a symbol. Christ really isn't present in the Eucharist; it's just a sign, mere bread.

Once again however, the Christian is confronted with a passage, a word even, which like a rock edifice, refuses to yeild. And once again, the Catholic Church is proven to be the MOST biblical Church.

Say it slowly with me... Bishoprick.

It only hurts for a moment and then you will feel better. Trust me.

-Tim-

Incideous Blogging Techniques to Drive Readership

2010-11-01T15:04:00.019-04:00

I want to make readers aware of a foul practice engaged in by some bloggers. I also want to assure readers of this blog that I won't engage in the practice.

This incideous technique is a play to drive readership, increase hits and ultimately to increase advertisement revenue. That it is engaged in by Catholic bloggers and Catholic publishers is a scandal. It goes something like this...

Joe Blogger regularly writes articles on a particular subject, which for the sake of this explanation, let's say is hunting. Joe posts an article about some aspect of hunting in the local wildlife management area which draws a few of Joe's regular regular who post replies. Then someone posts a reply accusing hunters of being sadistic murderers of furry woodland creatures who do so only because of their deep seated insecurity as men. Maybe the anti-hunter throws in a comment about SUV's or misappropriation of tax money or how this wouldn't be the case if a certain political party were in office.

As expected, a firestorm ensues. Oh, the accusations fly!

Word speads abouit the anti-hunter's reply to Joe's article and every hunter on the internet emails their hunting buddies asking, "Did you hear what some guy posted over at Joe's blog!?" The hunting community gets all worked up and some of the responses are longer than Joe Blogger's original article!

An oddity is observed however... The anti-hunter who posted the reply which was so offensive to Joe's regualar readers, seemed confident enough to use what appeared to be his real name and maybe even posted the name of the city where he lives. But a Google search for this person's name yeilds nothing... nada... zip... zilch.

Ninety nine times out of one hundred, the name is a fake and the person doesn't really exist.

The technigue is a growth of what used to be called "Flame baiting", whereby a poster writes something controversial in order to get a cheap thrill out of starting an argument. This technique is more incideous than simple flame baiting in that the author or publisher of the original article is the one doing the baiting and in doing so, the goal is purely economic.

My cycling club sponsored a charity bicycle ride which drew several hundred riders and the event was covered by a local paper. The paper put a nice article in the print edition and posted the same article on their website. After about four or five responses to the article, some guy posts a reply complete with his full name and the city he lives in. He volunteers a comment about cyclists intelligence with regards to riding bicycles in the street, an admission of how he frequently drives his pickup truck (and it's always a pickup truck, never a Mazda Miata or Toyota Camry) as close as he can to cyclists, and a prediction of how cyclists will all learn to get on the sidewalk as soon as one of us gets killed, which by the way will serve us right. The local cycling community flocked to the newspaper's website as word about the offensive post spread, arguments began and readership of the tabloid's website skyrocketed.

A smart bike rider tried to contact the guy. No such person was listed in the phone book. Google turned up nothing. A search of propertly ownership records for the county came up blank. Why? Becuase it was an inside job. The offensive response was written by the author of the article himself or architected by the organization who published the article in the fist place. Integrity is sacrificed on the altar of pay-per-click advertising revenue and the reader is an unwitting pawn.

Here are some ways in which you can tell that you might be part of the revenue play.

If a google search of the offensive poster's name comes up blank, you might be part of the play. If "SUV" is mentioned in the controversial reply, you are likely being played. A sure sign that you are being played is the use of the name of any political party. And if you are reading a Catholic Blog and someone posts a reply using any of the following phrases, you are likely being played:

Whore of Babylon
Burn in Hell
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whosoever believes in him might be saved.
You can't get into heaven by your own works!
Religion is not about being perfect.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary...

I fear that some of the most popular Catholic blogges and some of the largest Catholic websites are using the technique - posting controversial repsonses to their own articles to cause commotion, drive readership and utilimately, to increase advertising revenue. If my hunch is right, then these authors and publishers need to examine themselves. Last time I checked, scandal and calumny are still sins.

At least National Catholic Reporter is honest about it - they put the controversy right in headline. Nothing drives readership as much as a headline containing the words "Abortion", "Catholic", "Democrat", "Republican" and "Racial."

-Tim-

The Biblical Basis for Catholic Beliefs: Apostolic Succesion

2010-10-31T00:15:00.007-04:00

Apostolic Succession is one of the most elemental doctrines of the Catholic Church with a sound biblical and historical basis in scripture.

Succession refers to being a legitimate heir of, or successor to, someone who held an office previously.

The legitimacy of the successor is dependent upon the authority under which the office is conferred. As an example, Ronald Reagan was the successor to Jimmy Carter in the office of President of the United States based on the legitimate authority of the Constitution of the United States. The office of President of the United States was conferred upon Ronald Reagan legitimately through the “Swearing in” or “Oath of Office” which can only be administered, as per the US Constitution, by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Apostolic Succession in the Catholic Church refers to the legitimate spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility held by the members of the office of Bishop. This legitimate authority has been handed down from original twelve apostles, who in turn received this same authority, power and responsibility from Jesus Christ himself. The sacrament of Holy Orders confers the legitimacy of the office of Bishop while the authority of the office is that of Jesus Christ.

Gods Will

Apostolic Succession is God’s will; God’s way of ensuring that correct doctrine - which had been given to the Church by Jesus Christ - would be taught to succeeding generations.

Consider Jesus’ prayer for Christian unity in the Gospel of John;

As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:18-23)

Jesus prays to the Father that the Apostles “May be consecrated to the truth”. Consecration refers to being dedicated to a special purpose, which in this case is the preaching of the truth. Jesus prays that those who believe in him through the word (truth) of the apostles may be “one” in the same way that he and the Father are one.

Jesus goes further and states that the unity of all believers, through the truth to which the apostles are consecrated to teach, is a means by which the world is to know that God the Father has sent him. He goes further still, stating that Christian unity is a means to perfection - that we are to be “brought to perfection as one.”

It is clear that Jesus Christ was very concerned with unity among Christians and that Christian unity was in a large measure, determined by adherence to a uniform body of doctrine – the truth.

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (1 Timothy 2:2)

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, reference is made to correctness of doctrine across three generations of apostolic succession; Paul himself, Timothy whom Paul had taught and the faithful whom Timothy was to teach.

God’s desire that Christians have unity of doctrine is manifested in apostolic succession. Apostolic Succession is God’s way of ensuring that Christians remain united in the bonds of a common body of true teaching.

The Book of Acts and the First Bishop

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it' and 'May another take his office.' (Acts 1:15-20)

In the first chapter of the Book of Acts, as the leader of the Church, the Apostle Peter deals with the need to replace Judas. In doing so, Peter proclaims one of the first doctrines of Christianity, that of apostolic succession.

Peter begins by pointing out that Judas was “Numbered among us” and “Was allotted a share in this ministry” and then goes on to establish the biblical basis for the office of Apostle by quoting Psalm 109:

Find a lying witness, an accuser to stand by his right hand,
That he may be judged and found guilty, that his plea may be in vain.
May his days be few; may another take his office.
(Psalm 109:6-8)

Peter proposes that Judas’ position be filled by a witness to Jesus Christ’s ministry as follows;

Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22)

And the Apostles respond as follows;

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place." Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

We see that the Apostles prayed to the Lord that they be shown which one of the witnesses was to succeed Judas as an Apostle (“bishopric” KJV). The Holy Spirit guided the apostles to choose Matthias, who became the first valid Bishop – an apostolic successor to the original twelve apostles.

Other “Apostles”

Although Peter requires that the one elected to succeed Judas in the office of Apostle be an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, the New Testament is rich with references to “Apostles” who did not accompany the original twelve.

Having only heard Jesus’ voice, Paul was in fact blinded when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus and so could not have been an eyewitness to Jesus at all. In spite of this, Paul is frequently identified (and identifies himself) as a holder of the office of “Apostle”.

I Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God, (Romans 1:1)

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I glory in my ministry… (Romans 11:13)

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 9:1-2)

1 Corinthians 9:1-2 cited above is interesting in that Paul references his Bishopric as authoritative over the Corinthian Christian community while clearly stating that his office is not authoritative over other unnamed Christian communities. Paul’s entire second letter to the Corinthians in fact, is not only an admonishment to the Christians in that city for their bad behavior, but of lack of respect for his authority as Bishop as well.

I have been foolish. You compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I am in no way inferior to these "superapostles," even though I am nothing. (2 Corinthians 12:11-12)

The New Testament identifies Paul’s companions Silvanus and Timothy as apostles. The first letter to the Thessalonians begins with Paul identifying himself, Silvanus and Timothy by name and later identifies all three as having apostolic authority to teach, exhort and govern as follows;

…although we were able to impose our weight as apostles of Christ. (1 Thessalonians 2:7)

Paul’s letter to Titus bears powerful witness to the office of Bishop and his duties to teach “sound doctrine” and “refute opponents.”

…to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior. For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. (Titus 1:4-9)

The Biblical Basis for the Sacrament of Holy Orders
The suggested homily for the Mass to be celebrated at the ordination of a new Bishop contains the following text;

Consider carefully the position in the Church to while our brother is about to be raised. Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father to redeem the human race, in turn sent twelve apostles into the world. These men were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel and gather every race and people into a single flock to be guided and governed in the way of holiness. Because this service was to continue to the end of time, the apostles selected others to help them. By the laying on of hands which confers the sacrament of orders in its fullness, the apostles passed on the gift of the Holy Spirit which they themselves had received from Christ. In that way, by a succession of bishops unbroken from one generation to the next, the powers conferred in the beginning were handed down, and the work of the Savior lives and grows in our time.

In the person of the bishop, with his priests around him, Jesus Christ, the Lord, who became High Priest forever, is present among you. Through the ministry of the bishop, Christ himself continues to proclaim the Gospel and to confer the mysteries of faith on those who believe. Through the fatherly action of the bishop, Christ adds new members to his body. Through the bishop's wisdom and prudence, Christ guides you in your earthly pilgrimage toward eternal happiness.

After the homily, the Principal Consecrator places his hands on the head of the Bishop-Elect and prays silently. Other Bishops who are present will do the same after a moment. This laying on of hands is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders which confer the office of Bishop. The laying on of hands is an ancient ritual, clearly documented in the New Testament.

Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. (1 Timothy 4:13-14)

Paul reminds Timothy, a bishop of the Church, that he was given a gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. Those who would deny the efficacy of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of Holy Orders in particular would do well to meditate on this passage. Indeed the precedent has been set; at least once in the history of Christianity, the gift of the Holy Spirit has been conferred on one person by the laying on of hands by another person!

Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

The book of Hebrews teaches us that the laying on of hands was one of the most elementary doctrines of the Church, something that mature Christians would have been expected to understand and have faith in.

Writings of the Early Church Fathers

The writings of the early fathers of the Church bear testimony to apostolic succession and the office of the Bishop.

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. (Pope Clement 1, (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80])

When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord. (Hegesippus, Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180])

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189])

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul — that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])

Conclusion

God’s will, amply evidenced by Jesus’ prayer for unity through the Apostle’s consecration to the truth, is that all Christians be taught a uniform body of true doctrine. God’s will is fulfilled through an unbroken line of succession from Jesus Christ, through the Apostles to the Bishops of today. It is the holder of the office of Bishop who have taught and continue to teach the uniform body of doctrine as prayed for by Christ.

The Bible gives amply evidence that the office of the “Apostle” (the “bishopric”) was granted to successors to the apostles including Paul, Silvanus, Timothy, and most notably Titus in Crete.

-Tim-

A Weekend of Peace...

2010-10-21T22:00:00.032-04:00

I had to pull over on the way home.

The engine was off before the car even came to a stop. The relative quiet as I swung the car into a parking spot behind a Walgreen drug store was the first moment of peace I had since leaving.

And then I cried.

The area around the Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyer's Georgia, home to 32 Monks of the Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance, is mostly rural and quite bucolic. After twenty minutes of driving toward Atlanta however, the cacophony of the strip malls and billboards of suburbia got to me.

First a guy on a sport bike whizzed past me at about twice my speed. Then the rumble of some way too big pickup truck drew my attention. I had tried to change lanes to make a turn but the driver behind me sped up to block me, only to wind up next to me at the red light a hundred yards down the road. The sheer number of signs which vied for my attention was amazing; McDonald's, QT, Autozone, buy one get one free, sale, sale, SALE! The noise from car radios, from traffic, and even from my own car just wouldn't stop. It all seemed to be attacking me, and all without purpose, and it made me feel dirty.

Everything in modern city life is calculated to keep man from entering into himself and thinking about spiritual things. Even with the best of intentions a spiritual man finds himself exhausted and deadened and debased by the constant noise of machines and loudspeakers, the dead air and the glaring lights of offices and shops, the everlasting suggestions of advertising and propaganda. The whole mechanism of modern life is geared for a flight from God and from the spirit into the wilderness of neurosis. Even our monasteries are not free from the smell and clatter of our world.
(No Man is an Island, Thomas Merton)

I simply hadn't realized how peaceful it was at the monastery - especially in the church - and was deeply saddened at having to leave, so much so that I had to pull over. In the relative silence of my car, the contrast between the beauty and silence of the monastery and the the grotesqueness of the world brought me to tears. I desperately wanted to turn around a go back.

The Abby Church is one of the largest poured concrete buildings in the south. Every bit of that concrete was hauled up scaffolding my monks, mixed by monks, and dumped wheelbarrow by wheelbarrow, one at a time, by monks. As one would expect in church maintained by a strict monastic community, the only visible signage in the church is the Crucifix hanging over the altar, a few simple wooden crosses on the walls and a hand written sign reading "Alms for the food bank" which stood next to a clay pot near the pews.

The monks observe "Grand silence" from the the end of compline (evening prayer) at about 7:30 PM until after Mass on the following morning. Meals are eaten in silence as well. Brother Michael told us that half of a monk's day was spent in silence and I commented that that half of a monks life is spent in silence.

I said, "I will watch my ways,
lest I sin with my tongue;
I will put a curb on my mouth."
(Psalm 39)

The retreat house is decorated almost exclusively with reproductions of some of the greatest pieces of Christian art as well as some original works. There are few signs directing anyone as to what behavior is expected and those that are necessary - such as the ones pointing the way toward the Church - all end with the words, "God bless you." One piece of artwork called to me more than all of the others; eleven apostles stood by Jesus while the twelfth apostle knelt in front of our Lord. Jesus' mouth and eyes were closed in silent prayer while his hands rested on the apostles head. It was clearly the sacrament of holy orders. Paintings of Mary, of Jesus, of children running toward the Lord to sit in his lap told us everything we needed to know.

Brother Michael met with us on Friday night and explained some of the basics of how the monastery operated and what we should expect over the next two days. Lunch is the big meal of the day for the monks and to my surprise, we were to be granted access to a portion of the cloistered area and would be joining the monks for lunch in the refectory (dining room) on both Saturday and Sunday. We toured the library, some common rooms and the refectory itself where Br. Michael pointed out where each of us were to sit. Like the rest of the monastery, the rules were simple... pray first, line up in order of seniority (we were last), sit where we were told and eat as much as you want.

Oh yea... and don't talk.

I can honestly say that the food was excellent! With considerable nervousness (on my part at least), we lined up behind the monks immediately after the Saturday mid-day prayer and walked from the Church, through the silent garden and into the refectory. Only those who are on an "Infirm" diet get to eat meat and since Br. Michael had heart surgery the year before, he enjoyed sausages. The rest of the monks and the those of us on the retreat enjoyed scrambled eggs, several vegetable dishes including grilled fresh asparagus, fruits, juices, coffee, tea and all the bread one could eat. Someone read the last chapter of a book about Flannery O'Connor out loud during the meal.

The lunch menu is special on Sundays. Shrimp scampi, pasta, home-made sauce, vegetables, bread, cake and four kinds of ice cream all put me in proximate danger of the sin of gluttony. The brothers listen to music on Sunday in lieu of reading out loud but I really can't say much for the selection - some sort of french monastic chant. I could hear Br. Hugh humming the tune as we stood in line waiting to fill up our plates.

It was Br. Hugh whom I was paired with in the choir. To hear the liturgy sung was something that I had wanted to experience for quite a while and God granted my wish in a big way. Not only was I hearing the liturgy sung for the first time, I was actually sitting with the monks in the choir singing it along with them! Br. Hugh turned the pages and pointed to the antiphons and portions of the psalms to be sung, each in their turn. The monks on the right side of the church sing a line of the psalm and then the monks on the left side of the church reply with the next line. Br. Hugh hummed the tune even while it was not his turn.

It was nerve-racking to be in the choir stalls singing vigils, lauds, mid-day prayers, vespers and compline right next to the monks. The fact that I can't read music made my anxiety even worse. "Just do what the monks do" was Br. Michael's great advice. It wasn't until Sunday that I was able to calm down enough to actually concentrate on the messages in the psalms and canticles - the liturgy itself - rather than worrying about dropping a book or when to stand or sit or if the monks were all looking at me.

What struck me the most about the brothers was their spirituality. Dogma and doctrine, systematic theology and the biblical basis for Catholic beliefs seemed to be obvious truths, no more to be questioned or debated than is the need to breathe air or the efficacy of gravity. Catholic doctrine, the primacy of the Pope, the authority of the church - in short, all the subjects which this blog takes most seriously seem to be taken for granted by the monks. This monastic community is made up of men who are obviously less concerned with the mechanics of devotion than they are about quietly seeking the face of God.

The whole experience had a spiritual quality, almost akin to mysticism, which I was really unprepared for. The turning point was when I asked about asceticism and mortification in the context of penance, mentioning The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis by name. Father Elias snapped, "Oh, I would never read Thomas Kempis!" and continued,

Do you know that they found scratch marks on the inside of his coffin? He tried to claw his way out... He was buried alive. You can fast if you want to but the process of being transformed into the likeness of Christ is a process of subtraction. Subtraction of greed, of selfishness, self hatred, and gossip. All these cover the divine image.

I usually carry a leather-bound and zippered copy of Thomas Kempis' work with me and this day was no exception. I started to reach for this very book, stacked neatly between my journal and a large type edition of Christian Prayer in the seat next to me, but stopped just short. I didn't have the guts to bring it out.

It's no secret that I'm interested in apologetics. The study of God's word and the teachings of the Church which God created for our salvation thrills me. Finding a forsadowing of the Eucharist in the Old Testament excites me. Observing how the Holy Mother of our Lord in the New Testament was prefigured by the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament gives me great joy. That God himself put that love into me cannot be denied. But I think that God led me to the Monastery of the Holy Spirit to see a side of our faith that I'm not too sure I'm ready to acknowledge, let alone understand. It is a side of our faith which simply contemplates the Truth himself.

And that is what I really took away from the weekend; the need to find a quiet place and to stop trying to figure it all out, the need to slow down, the need to learn how to meditate, and how we all need to try to get as close as we can to the beatific vision - union with the trinity - as is possible on this side of the grave.

And Father Elias' words still ring in my ear... It is a process of subtraction.

I hope that God continue to bless all the brothers at the Monastery of the Holy Spirit, all the monks and nuns in cloistered monasteries and convents throughout the world, and all the active religious, who offer prayers to God on our behalf, knowing that sometimes we are too busy, sometimes too careless, and sometimes too distracted by the "Mechanisms of modern life" to do so for ourselves.

And I hope that God blesses the men who were on the retreat with me. I pray that they are at peace.

-Tim-

Did God Turn His Back on Jesus During the Crucifixion?

2010-10-09T10:41:00.022-04:00

St. Matthew writes of the death of Jesus,

From noon onward, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And about three o"clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have your forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:45-46)

Modern non-Catholic exegesis, and by that I mean predominantly Fundamentalist and Evangelical interpretation, has concluded from reading this passage that God, for a brief moment, turned his back on Jesus; that Jesus was somehow seperated from God at the very moment when the he took on the sins of the world. The reasoning used to back up this interpretation is that as God is all good and pure love, he cannot be in the presence of sin so that for the brief moment when the sins of the world fell on Jesus, God was simply not able to be in Jesus's presence.

To be fair, many non-Catholic Christians do not believe the doctrine of the seperation of God and Jesus at the moment of attonment and not all non-Catholic churches teach this doctrine. I have personally heard this from more than one Evangelical however, and Catholics need to be on the lookout for this error.

As is all too often the case, this mistaken belief is caused by personal interpretation of scripture in the absence of an understanding of the historical and biblical context under which biblical characters operated and the authors of sacred scripture wrote. To a greater or lesser extent, the belief that Jesus was somehow seperated from God at the moment of attonment is also a matter of ignorance of scritpture.

To put it simply, Jesus could not have been seperated from God because Jesus -is- God. Because Jesus is God, for God to have turned his back on Jesus would have meant that God would have had to have turned his back on himself. To put it another way, for Jesus to have been seperated from God would have meant that Jesus would have had to have been seperated from himself. This is simply not possible.

Christians believe in the Trinity - three persons in one God. This is a great mystery to be sure, but it is one of the most fundamental (a-hem) ideas in Christianity, part of the foundation which makes up our entire belief system. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons but one God, and they are inseperable. Jesus himself even says, "I and the Father are one."

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM." (John 8:58)

Jesus claims to be God, the same God in fact who spoke to Moses from the burning bush and identified himself by using the name, "I AM." In this passage Jesus claims not not only divinity but co-existence with God during the creation of the universe. Catholics profess belief in this when we say "...eternally begotten of the father..." and "...through him all things were made." in the creed at Mass. The audience in the temple who heard Jesus' words that day understood exactly what Jesus was claiming and that is why they took up stones to kill him.

Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:27-28)

Thomas' amazing act of faith confirms Jesus' divinity. We sing of Jesus at Christmas time, naming him "Emanuel" which means "God is with us." St. John rightly identifies Jesus as the Word of God which became flesh.

It is an ancient heresty to seperate the divinity of Christ from the humanity of Christ. Those who base the claim that God seperated himself from, or somehow turned his back on Jesus at the moment of attonement, commit this heresy and need to be corrected. Catholics ought not to stand for it.

So what does Jesus' cry "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" mean and what are we to learn from it? Let us recall that Jesus was a devout Jew and then turn in our Bibles to Psalm 22. Verses 1 through 3 read,

My God, my God, why have your abandoned me?
Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?
My God, I call you by day but you do not answer;
by night, but I have no relief.

Sound familiar? The first line is the same words Jesus cried from the Cross. Reading further in verses 7 to 9,

But I am a worm, hardly human,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
All who see me mock me; they curl their lips and jeer;
they shake their heads at me;
"You relied on the LORD--let him deliver you;
if he loves you, let him rescue you."

Again, does this sound familiar? These verses contain the same words spoken by the chief priests and scribes at the crucifixion saying, "He trusted in God, let him deliver him now if he wants him." (Matthew 27)

Jesus' statement of "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" was a quote from the Old Testament, one which the devout Jews who were present should have immediately recognized. Psalm 22 is more than just a lament however. Psalm 22 is even more than a prophesy of the suffering of Christ during the crucifixion. It is all that, to be sure, but it much, much more. Verses 28 through 32 reads,

All the ends of the earth will worship and turn to the LORD;
All the families of nations will bow low before you.
For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations.
Alll who sleep in the earth will bow low before God;
All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage.
And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.
The generation to come will be told of the Lord,
that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought.

Above all else, Psalm 22 is a psalm of victory and triumph and it was to this which Jesus was drawing the attention of those who were present, including the scribes and priests. Christians who read Jesus' cry "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" in Matthew 27:45-46 and claim that Jesus was forsaken by God or that God somehow turned his back on Jesus are ignorant of the fact that Jesus was quoting scripture.

And they would do well to read verse 25 of the same Psalm...

For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch,
Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out.

...did not turn away from me... So much for prophesy, I guess.

Personal interpretation of scripture, without authoritiative oversight and in ignorance of the historical, social and Judaic Old Testament context under which Jesus, the Apostles and authors of sacred scripture operated has led to many of the errors presented to us as biblical fact by Protestantism in general and the Fundamentalist/Evangelical movement in particular. Mail-order pastoral degrees and the instant availability of erroneous information on the internet has not helped matters. Our cultural demand for instant gratification in all things and instant knowledge of all things enhances the liklihood that Christinas simply won't take the time to study what they are being told nor bother to seek out what Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church have to say on the matter at hand.

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is proof that God turned his back on Jesus during the crucifixion only in a world where every car has a bumper sticker which reads, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." In a world where where logic and facts matter, where reason and intellect are gifts from God and where some things (such as religious truth) simply take more time and effort than a Google search to understand however, things are not always what they seem at first glance.

-Tim-

Hard Sayings to Accept

2010-09-29T14:28:00.016-04:00

Having a male heir and perpetuating the family blood-line was a big deal in ancient Israel. So much so that if a husband died before he had a chance to produce a son, the dead man's brother was responsible for having a male child with his dead brother's widow and for raising that child on behalf of his dead brother. The male child would inherit the dead man's property, perpetuate the dead man's family name and by all accounts, be considered the son of the dead man.

The practice of raising your brother's heir by his widow was so important to society that we see it laid out as part of the mosaic law as explained in the passage below.

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother's wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, 'My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel.' Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, 'I am not willing to marry her,' his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, 'This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother's family!' And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as 'the family of the man stripped of his sandal.' (Dueteronomy 25:5-10)

Notice the punishment for not raising your brother's heir - loss of a sandal and spit in the face. In short, the punishment for not raising an heir to your brother's name was public humiliation.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)

Onan, in refusing to raise an heir on behalf of his dead brother, broke the mosaic law. The punishment he recieves however, is far in excess of what the mosaic law requires. He doesn't just get a bad reputation nor does he simply forfeit a pair of flip-flops. What did Onan do that was so grievous that God saw fit to take his life?

To put it bluntly, Onan had intercourse with his sister-inlaw but withdrew before he ejeaculated. The seed which Onan wasted on the ground was so precious to God that Onan's life was demanded as repayment.

Here we see one of the biblical basis' for the Catholic Church's teaching that contraception is a grave sin. Onan's withheld his seed not only from his sister-inlaw, but from God. Onan's selfish actions denied God the opportunity to perform one of the greatest actions he ever undertankes, that of uniting with man and woman to create a human life.

Taken in the context of the mosaic law, it makes perfect sense. Man's selfish act denied God the opportunity to create a new life and so a life was demanded in return. Eye for eye. Tooth for tooth. In Onan's case, it was life for life.

Nobody said being a Christian would be easy. Jesus tells us that the road to heaven is so constricted and the entry gate so narrow that few will have the strength to enter. Jesus' words about the Eucharist in John 6 underscores this principal; Jesus tells his disciples three times that his flesh is true food and some take the wide road and walk away. Jesus simply lets them go.

It's not surprising that a very small portion of the world agrees with the Catholic position on the sinful nature of birth control. It's not even surprising that a small portion of Christianity agrees with the Catholic Church. It is very sad however, that with the the magesterial documents of the Church posted on the Internet and great works of the church fathers available with free shipping, so few Catholics bother to learn the biblical, moral and theological basis for the Church's teaching on contraception.

This blog is dedicated to Catholic apologetics so that Catholics may remain Catholic. I wonder if a post like this works toward that end or against it.

No, no one said that it would be easy. But God does promise that it is doable.

-Tim-

Wild at Heart, Sinful at Heart

2010-09-27T09:36:00.006-04:00

The book Wild at Heat by John Eldridge is subtitled, "A personal guide to discover the secret of your masculine soul." The premise sounds nice, that God inteneded men to be real men just like Jesus, but when you actually read the things the author says, it turns out to be worse than just a bunch of nonsense.

There is a very dramatic moment in the book where the author tells his son, who was being bullied at school, to walk right up to the person bullying him and " Punch him in the face."

No... I'm sorry. When your masculine soul tells you to teach your son to punch someone in the face it is not acting in accordance with the will of God. Your masculine soul has in fact given in to the teachings of the world and the devil which says that violence is a solution to your personal problems. This it has done in direct opposition to Jesus Christ who tells us that we are to forgive seven times seventy times.

Your child is likely to get thrown out of school or arrested. What makes matters worse for you is that you have caused a child which God has entrusted to you to sin.

Jesus Christ willingly mounted the cross and allowed those who hated him to murder him. Then, as he hung there dying, he prayed for his murderers. How do we draw from Christ's example the teaching that we are allowed to punch people in the face because they have stolen our lunch money? The answer is that we can't.

Yes, Jesus Christ made a scourge of cords and drove the merchants out of the temple in righteous anger. But he was the Christ, the second person of the Trinity, the divine God-man who came down from heaven to rise from the dead and take away the sins of the world. You are not. Jesus was driving perverse secularism out of the sacred and holy temple in which the creator of the universe chose to dwell among men. You however, are teaching your child to punch another child of God in the face.

Man is sinful by nature. It is this sinful nature that is at war with our souls which have been created in the image of God. Throughout this book, John Eldridge teaches us to obey our flesh, to give in to what our lower instincs and to accomodate our worldly passions.

The first chapter of this book encourages our proclivity to engage in dangerous behavior. Our desire for thrill, newness and excitement we are told, is a gift from God. We are told that this inner masculine thrill-seeker warrior with its restless need for adenture and adrenaline, is something which should be accepted, embraced nurtured and fed. The first chapter of this book made me want to drive my car really fast.

My reply is simply, "Vanity!"

The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor is the ear filled with hearing. What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun. Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us. I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind. (Ecclisiastes 1:9-10,14)

No, the eye will not be satisfied with whatever it sees nor will the ear be satisfied with anything it hears. No matter how many cliffs you climb, no matter how many aircraft you jump out of, and mo matter how many beauties you think you are fighting for, you will not be satisfied. Only in God is the ultimate satisfaction found and no matter how unjustly you are treated, you don't find God by punching other people in the face.

Keep this book away from your sons.

-Tim-

A God Shaped Hole in My Heart

2010-09-23T21:11:00.001-04:00

A friend of mine told me that he had a God shaped hole in his heart.

Without even looking, I can tell that the hole in his heart is circular. I can see that the hole is one inch in diameter and about one sixteenth of an inch deep.

Yep, the Eucharist would fit nicely.

-Tim-

Bad Sales Jokes and Sex Before Marriage

2010-09-14T14:49:00.006-04:00

I know a guy who starts most meetings with a bad joke. Thankfully he has stopped telling the one about the Pope but his latest is about putting a wedding ring on the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico so it stops "Putting out."

So if a woman stops "Putting out" after she gets married, then it stands to reason that she started "Putting out" before marriage. I really have to wonder if a woman who stops wanting sex after marriage might not have felt so negative about it had she not had sex before marriage. And it seems to me that the men who complain about a lack of sex after marriage might not be so upset about the perceived injustice had they not thought that sex was their right before they got married.

An acquaintance of mine told me that he "Burned with passion" (1 Corinthian 7:9) too much to remain celibate. The obvious implication is that he was not created for celibacy and this very well might be so; maybe his vocation is to marriage and not to the generous single life. But while a man remains unmarried - burning with passion or otherwise - he is called to self control. Personal holiness is a vocation to which all men are called.

This man has been brought up and has maintained himself in a religion which teaches that personal holiness is not possible let alone asked of us. His religion teaches that we are all sinners - and this much is true - but it also teaches that nothing can change that fact and personally, I find that rather sad. He has been taught that baptism doesn't really do anything, there is no way for him to be objectively pleasing to God. Since his religion denies the efficacy of oral confession to a priest acting in the person of Christ, it has no way of assuring him of his forgiveness with any real certainty. The net result is that it simply never occurs to this man to ask God to make him holy. It never occurs to this man to get on his knees and say, "God, please make me a saint."

Did I mention that his religion denies the existence of saints?

Even if it did occur to this man to ask God to help him become a holy, virtuous person, his religion has no way of helping him achieve this other than what are essentially Bible based self-help groups. This man's religion teaches that Jesus Christ is not physically present and so he is unable to receive the most perfect assistance which the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ render. A validly ordained successor to the twelve apostles has never laid his hand on him, anointed him with oil and called down the Holy Spirit to dwell in him. He never calls on the great men and women of history who have risen to heroic virtue to pray for him. He shuns his Blessed Mother as nothing more than an incubator for Jesus' physical body.

And so I really don't blame this man for his lack of self control. I really don't blame the guy who tells the bad jokes either, nor the married men who complain about their lack of a sex life. I feel especially sorry for the women.

They have all been told the first half of the story, the part about being sinners. The second part of the story - the part where nothing clean will ever enter heaven and where God instructs us to "Be holy" - has been heavily edited by the censors to the point where it now reads, "God's mercy is guaranteed".

The third part of the story - the part where God gives us the means necessary to achieve personal holiness and to live lives of virtue - has been totally ripped out.

-Tim-

Forget about Personal Sanctification. Align Yourself with a Diety!

2010-09-09T16:57:00.012-04:00

I'm incensed right now.

I just heard a radio talk show host (filling in for Dennis Prager) state, "...for Christians as well as Jews, religion is not about being perfect. It's about aligning yourself with a diety who..." blah blah blah.

The words I really want to say right now rhyme with "Full Grit" becuase the fact is, for the vast majority of Christians throughout the vast majority of Christian history, religion is EXACTLY about the struggle toward perfection.The statement made by this radio talk show host is nothing more than a bunch of garbage put out by the feel-good school of modern pop-theology. Like other lies, it sounds so comforting as it rolls of the tounge but Catholics must not fall for it.

In the fifth chapter of Matthew alone, Jesus tells us:

We are blessed if we are peacemakers and if we are meek, merciful, and hunger and thirst for righteousness.
We will see God if we have a clean heart.
Our conduct is to shine like a city set on a hill or a lamp on a lampstand so that our light will, "...shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father."
We must be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees or we will not enter heaven.
Those who are angry with their brother will face judgement and whomever calls his brother a fool will face the possibility of spending eternity in hell.
If you even look at a woman with lust, you have committed adultery.
If you divorce your wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and take another wife you have committed adultery and caused your wife to do the same!
Not to seek revenge but to turn the other cheek.
Pray for those who hate and persecute us.

And then Jesus tells us to "be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." Why? Because Jesus knows that nothing unclean will ever enter heaven. Stop and think about that for a moment. Wow!

The bottom line of christianity is our call to personal holiness; it is our primary vocation and should be our number one concern until the day we die.

This where the author is interrupted with the standard line about Jesus being the only perfect person, our bing sinnners, etc. And here is where the author politely asks you to either please stop talking and just listen or to please go back to looking at whatever pornography you were looking at before you clicked into this site. The fact is that many human beings have strived for perfection, and with God's help, have come pretty darn close. No, they weren't perfect human beings but they have achieved perfection in one or more of the virtues of prudence, justice, restraint, temperance, courage, fortitude, faith, hope, and charity. Catholics call these people Saints and we name our Churches after them and pray for them to help us be just like them.

Nobody claims that what the saints have done was easy. Nobody except Protestants claim that what they have done is impossible. Catholics claim that personal holiness - perfection in one or more of the virtues - is entirely possible if we make use of all the resources available to us through the Church, especially the sacraments of the Eucharist and Pennance and if God sees fit to give it to us.

And this is what I would like shove in the face of those who scoff at the Catholic Church's insistance that all mankind is called to personal holiness and therfor prefer to lie to their wives about where they really took that client on Friday night and the cost of the golf clubs in the back of the SUV...

You have no faith in God.

There, I said it. That's right. You have no faith in God. Do you think that God can't make you holy if you asked? Would you dare try? Yes, the thought of what I might actually have to do if I asked God to make me a saint and really meant it scares me to death too.

And what if God replied, "I have made priests to help you. I have created confession and pennance to forgive and heal you. I have given my son's body, blood, soul and divinity which you may receive daily to strengthen you. I have given the Rosary that you may ask the Mother of my son to pray for you. Pray earnestly and use these." What then? Would you claim that none of that stuff was true? Would you claim that oral confession is not in the Bible in spite of the fact that it's right there in the book of James? Would you claim that Jesus' mother cannot help you in spite of the fact that Revelation 12 says that she is queen of heaven with full access to the creator of heaven and earth and is also your mother? Would you claim that bread and wine cannot be turned into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, claiming that miracles only happen to individuals and that they can't possibly happen in the context of corporate worship?

We are told over and over to do things like persevere, endure and run the race to win. 2 Peter 1 tells us to "supplement our faith with virtue" and the living Word of God explains how the gate into heaven is narrow and how so very few will have the strength required to enter. And then Jesus sets the example when he washes feces from the feet of the person who will betray him and willingly submits himself to the cross for our sake. And yet we are told that personal sanctification is not important and even if it was, it is impossible to achieve.

Our call to holiness, taking up our cross and denying ourselves daily, has become "Let go and let God". Now even that cliche has become "Aligning yourself with a diety."

Go ahead, align yourself with a diety if that is what you want to do. I have more faith in God than that.

-Tim-

Does God Love You Just the Way You Are?

2010-09-06T22:48:00.003-04:00

Billy Graham famously stated, "God loves you just the way you are."

At face value, this is an amazingly comforting thought. That God loves you in this present moment and in your present state is undeniable. What some naturally conclude from this statement howeveris that God does not desire us to change for the better.

If the doctrine of sola fide - that a person is granted irrevocable entry into heaven as soon as he turns to Jesus Christ in faith - is true, then "God loves you just the way you are" and the natural conclusion that improvement in habit and character is not strictly necessary for salvation makes perfect sense. We have turned to God in faith, we are therefor saved, and that, as they say, is the end of that. The next logical concusion we can draw from this line of reasoning is that we can go on our merry way, behaving exactly as we did before, we accepted Jesus Christ, comitting all kinds of grave sins which are counter to the will of God and he sill still grant us entry into heaven.

Modern progressive Protestantism acknowleges that this last conclusion cannot possibly be correct and attempts to blunt this line of reasoning in two ways.

The first method is to return us to the beginning of our through process by claiming that lack of improvement in some objective and measurable way probably means that we really wern't saved in the first place - that we somehow didn't have enough faith or that we really didn't surrender our will completely or that we simply didn't mean it when we turned to Jesus in faith.. The second method of addressing the this line of reasoning is to tack on the qualifier, "...but he refuses to leave you that way" to the original propostion that God loves us just the way we are. The former uses circular logica dn therefore proves nothing. The latter, at least, is intellectually honest.

Modern feel-good Christianity, in spite of professing submission to the Bible as the authority on religious truth, never speaks about sin and it's consequences and all but ignores the Bible's constant plea to "Persevere", "Endure", and "Win the prize." Mans' role we are told, is not to struggle, but to "Let go and let God", as if we can simply take our hands off the wheel on the interstate and God will steer the car safely to our final destination.

Catholicism on the other hand, knowing that we were born with original sin, acknowledging the evil force which actively seeks our damnation, and recognizing the very real temptation we face at every moment in our lives, bids us to try as hard as we can and asks us to "make every effort" to win the struggle and realize the prize of eternal life. And then the Church, by the authority granted to it through Jesus Christ, actually gives us a way to do so!

God certainly does love us the way we are. Both Catholicism and modern progressive Christianity acknowledge that God desires us to change for the better and that change is either inevitable or necessary, depending upon who you listen to and so it would seem that God does not love us "Just" the way we are in that he would love us to become the people who he meant us to be.

Mass-marketed popular Christianity encourages us to have a seat and relax for the battle has already been won. Catholicism encourages us to get into the gym, and to get ready for a battle, the outcome of which is uncertain and the results of which will never be known while we are alive on this earth. These are profound differences and need to be seriously considered by those who are contemplating leaving the percieved rigorous demands of the Catholic Church for what seems to be the relative ease of non-judgemental salvation by faith alone Evangelical Protestantism.

-Tim-

Practical Advice for Catholic Evangelization

2010-09-02T14:17:00.016-04:00

Let's face it, the past several decades have been hard on the Catholic Church in America.

Membership and Mass attendance is down in most areas of the country. Catholic school attendance is down and some parishes have closed their schools. Media treatment of the Church in recent years has not helped matters at all. The net effect has been to make it so easy for Catholics to fall into the the relative ease of the "Prosperity Gospell" where God want's you to be rich or into the heresy of sola fide where "Faith is a journey, not a guilt trip" and all you have to do is believe in Jesus and you automatically get a ticket to heaven.

But the leadership of the Church - led by Pope Benedict XVI - understands the need for evangelization and a new generation is taking the reigns. Msgr. Charles Pope over at the Archdioces of Washington blog site hits the nail on the head when he states, "It’s Time to Obey Christ and His Command that We Evangelize."

Catholics have as much opportunity to witness to their faith as anybody else. That the one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church teaches the fullness of truth should have every Catholic brimming with confidence. That Jesus Christ himself extablished the Roman Catholic Church and promised the Holy Spirit as it's guide and protector should empower every one of us.

Now I understand that going door-to-door or engaging in public debate are not activities for which everyone has been gifted. I'd like to throw my hat in the ring on the subject of evangelization however, with five practical tips as to how every single Catholic can evangelize in a very personal way.

Pray

It goes without saying but then again, it needs to be said... Pray. Ask God for help you and ask Mary to intercede on our behalf. We can do little if anything on our own and really need God's help in this. We have but to ask.

Don't Try to Win and Be Prepared to Lose

You are not in a fight. You are not even in an argument. Other human beings, Christian or otherwise, are not enemies to fight nor opponents to defeat. We are all God's children and Mary is mother of all of us; parents hate it when their children fight. We are not in it to win. If winning is your goal then you will have failed when you lose an argument.

The goal is to discuss the truth and to bring others to the realization that the Catholic Church is where the thruth about God can be found in it's greatest abundance. With this as your goal, you can show someone how the Catholic Church is and always has been correct about one or two particular beliefs and then walk away knowing that you may have planted a seed which God will nurture.

It could be that you are mistaken about something and the person with whome you are speaking might have something useful to teach you, so be humble. You will always encounter people who know more than you about the Bible, who are better debaters or who simply overpower and beat you down. Get over it. God has chosen to touch this person's heart at a different time and in a different way so never take anything personally. Shake the dust off of your feet and move on.

Read the Bible

I live in the deep south and can testify to how well Baptists, "Full Gospel" Christians and other Evangelicals know their Bible. Even the majority of non-Christians have fallen into the believe that the Bible - and not the Church - is the ultimate authority on religious truth. These people see the Church as a mere institution of man and as such, really don't care what the Church says about anything.

Non-Catholic Christians have one overriding question which you will hear again and again... Where is that in the Bible?

Out of context Bible verse will likely be thrown at you fast and furiously and you will not be able to refute all or even most of them. At a minimum however, you should be ready to point to Bible passages which are the basis for, or lend support to the most basic Catholic doctrines.

Non-Catholic Christans have been told that docrines such as the papacy, oral confession of sins, veneration of Mary and a celibate priesthood have no biblical basis whatsoever and for many, your discussion of these Catholic beliefs in the context of the Bible will likely be the first time they have every heard Catholic arguments about these subjects from an actual Catholic source. The goal here is not to convert a non-Catholic Christian to Catholicsim immediately but to present the Catholic faith as something which, contrary to what they have probably been told, is deeply rooted in scripture.

Again, God will nurture what you have planted.

Be Enthusiastic About Your Faith

People get excited about politics, NASCAR or their favorite sports team. Non-Catholic Christians, especially Evangelicals, are truly obscessed with their personal relationship with Jesus and never shut up about it.

As a Catholic, you have just as much right - more even - to be enthusiastic about your faith so jump right into to the conversation, answer proudly when asked where you go to church and don't be afraid to say, "I'm Catholic and my heart is on fire for Jesus Christ and the Church he established."

Then ask, "Don't you want to be part of that too?"

Invite People to Mass

Most of the time, an acceptance of my invitation to Mass is my primary goal. Like a used car salesman, when I think the time is right, I drop the question and try to close the deal...

"So, would you like to meet me at the coffee shop at 10:15 and then we can head over to the Church at 11:00?"

Many non-Catholic Christians, especially those here in the deep south, have never participated in the Mass. Those who's Churches don't have a strong liturgical style of worship are often shocked at the display of reverence, humility and unity. If you have taken the time to convince someone of the biblical correctness of one or more Catholic doctrines, then the mass is a great stepping stone and will often lead to many more questions being asked of you about the Catholic faith in general and the Mass in particular.

As a practical matter for bringing non-Catholics guests to Mass, consider the following;

I like to invite my guest to breakfast before Mass and offer to explain basics of the Mass to them. The fact that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist will give your guest a point of reference when he considers the bowed heads, quite prayer, genuflecting and lack of rock-band. The basics of the penitential rite, the Liturgy of the Word, the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the moment of consecration should be discussed briefly.
If you do invite someone to breakfast first, explan the Eucharistic fast and observe it.
Assure your guest(s) that they don't have to do anything which they feel is wrong. Encourage them to just watch and listen and to participate if they feel moved to do so. As an example, a friend of mine was afraid that he was going to have to pray to a statue of Mary and felt that doing so was a violation of the commandment against idol worship. I assured him that even if, in the course of the Mass, we all turn to a statue of Mary and ask that the real Mary in heaven take a special prayer to her son Jesus, that nobody would look at him funny if he remained seated or didn't say anything.
For guests who know the Bible well, Mass is an awesome opportunity to show the Biblical basis for Catholic worship. The sancus (Holy, Holy, Holy Lord...) is straight out of the Book of Revelation and you can mention to your guest that they will actually be joining the choirs of angels in their unending hymn of priase... not symbolicall but for real! Right before we recieve the Eucharist, we all say, "Lord I am not worthy to recieve you..." and your guest has probably never heard this passage in the context of the Eucharist. This can really get them thinking about the Eucharistic message all through the Bible. Even the sheer volume of scripture reading and psalm singing is appreciated by those who have a deep love for the written Word of God. Use it all to God's avantage.
Do not underestimate the intimidation which some feel upon entering a Catholic Church. Your guest will likely be a little nervous about kneeling for the first time, about doing the sign of the cross right or about using holy water for the first time. Assure them that there is no test and that everyone is just glad they are there.
Do not underestimate as well, the enormity of God's presence in the Catholic Church. This is not their little Protestant sect and from the moment they enter the Church, your guest will be immersed in twenty centuries of Christian history. This is holy ground and Jesus is truly present. If your guest has never been to Mass, they will behold the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" for the first time in their life. This is something which Catholics sometime take for granted but which can be a deeply moving (and frightening) experience for some.
Introduce your friend as a first time guest to the priest. Priests love it and deserve to know that their work is bearing fruit. Ask your priest if they will pray for your guest so your guest will know that a holy man of God is praying for them.
Most of all, laugh and have fun. Mass is the best place on earth - the Marriage Supper of the Lamb - so act like it.

Jesus commands us;

Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you... (Matt 28:19)

Let's start now.

-Tim-

Augustine Was a Good Pick...

2010-08-30T12:35:00.002-04:00

St. Augustine of Hippo is my patron saint.

I prefer to be criticized by the grammarians rather than not to be understood by the people. (Augustine)

The more I learn about him, the more I know that I picked the right guy.

-Tim-

The Root Cause of Sexual Promiscuity

2010-08-27T13:58:00.008-04:00

In my post of July 8, 2010 titled "Contraception And The Pro-Life Movment Are Mutually Exclusive", I put forth the proposition that insofar as contraception has turned sex into a recreational activity, it is the root cause of the demand for abortion. I was willing to go even further, to accuse those who use contracteption - especially Catholics who should know better - as contributing to the culture of abortion and of being willing acomplices to it.

In her post titled, "Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America's Soul", Judie Brown at Catholic Exchange draws the same conclusion regarding contraception, this time however, linking it to sexual promiscurity in general and homosexuality in particular as the root casue.

Having seen an inordinate number of eloquent commentaries delineating the moral evils of the recent United States District Court decision nullifying the will of California voters on Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, I am nonetheless left wondering why none of the commentators was able to connect the dots.

Obviously, same-sex “marriage” or even same-sex “civil unions” are a bad idea, particularly if legitimized by a court system that previously put its stamp of approval on contraception and abortion. But why isn’t anyone pointing out the obvious root cause of this latest moral and legal debacle? Why isn’t anyone hammering on contraception?

In April of this year, months before this decision, Jenn Giroux, executive director of HLI America, explained to readers that the public acceptance of contraception has led to (among other things) “[s]maller and more broken families, rampant homosexuality, pornography, and China’s coercive one-child policy.”

Judie Brown has hit the nail on the head with this article. Read more...

-Tim-

The Eyes of the Spirit and the Eyes of the Flesh

2010-08-26T22:08:00.028-04:00

Jesus tells us that his flesh is true food.

Christ tells us that his blood is true drink.

The Second Person of the Trinity tells us that unless we chew his flesh and drrink his blood, we have no life in us.

Some of his disciples react incredulously, stating, "This saying is hard". "Who can accept it?" they ask.

And Jesus' answer seems odd...

It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:60)

This is a pivotal passage for non-Catholic Christians who insist that Jesus was speaking symbolically; that he really wasn't talking about his literal presence in the Eucharist which he was to institute on the night before he was crucified. The gist of this passage we are told, is that Jesus was stating that he was only speaking in a spiritual sense and that it is his spiritual words which give life and not the literal eating of his flesh nor drinking of his blood. Honestly, most Catholics really don't know how to respond to this.

It is worth noting that nowhere in the Bible are the words "Spirit" and "Life" used as synonyms for "Symbolic." We seek eternal life, not eternal symbolic and we certainly don't pray to the Holy Symbolic! The very idea that Jesus used the phrase "spirit and life" to convey to us that his words were symbolic is just plain silly.

It is exacly the phras "spirit and life" however, which explain to us how Jesus was -not- speaking sybolically, and when we understand this one passage, many other sayings of Jesus which are hard to accept become quite clear as well.

One cannot read this passage outside of its context. It is important to remember that his disciples just said that Jesus' sayings about eating flesh and drinking blood were too difficult to accept. Jesus responds by telling the disciples that their flesh is useless - that they cannot understand what he has just said by any human means. The human senses of touch, taste and sight as well as the human faculties of reason and intellect are no good here. The only way anyone can understand what Jesus has just said is through the Spirit - by divine grace.

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. (John 6:66)

Using their human faculties - the flesh - some of the disciples decide that Jesus is probably insane and walk away. It is interesting to note the chapter and verse number associated with leaving Jesus as a result of not believing in the Eucharist... 666!

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:24-25)

Like the disciples who walk away, Thomas simply will not believe that which is not provable by the sense of sight and touch. Like so many non-Catholics who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, upon being told that Christ has risen from the dead, Thomas demands tangible proof.

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:26:29)

How wonderful our Lord is! Jesus reveals himself to Thomas in a way which removes all doubt, but at the same time he confirms for all time how blessed we are if we have been given the gift of believing through the Holy Spirit.

When we approach the altar to recieve the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, our human senses tell us that it is only a wafer of unleavened bread and a cup of common wine. How sad it is that like Thomas, some can only reason to be real that which can be tasted, touched, observed or measured by means of the flesh.

We proclaim the mystery of faith at mass...

Priest: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.
People: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.

The Eucharist is also a mystery. We cannot understand it through means of the flesh and Jesus reminds us that we are blessed - through no merit of our own and as a gift from God - if we can believe in this mystery, that He is present even though we cannot see the mark of the nails in his hands nor put our hand into his side.

-Tim-

Eating and Chewing: the "word of God" and the "Word of God" in John 6

2010-08-15T18:25:00.023-04:00

The Bible is the unerring word of God. Jesus Christ is the unerring Word of God.

Non-Catholic Christians who see the bread of life discourse in general, and Jesus' words about "Eating his flesh" in particular, as purely metaphorical; symbolic language used by Christ to represent acceptance of the word of God (the Bible) and the Word of God (Jesus Christ) into our heart as nourishment for our souls, should take note of the verb used for the word "Eat" in the original Greek text.

This is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the word. The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." (John 6:50-53)

In quoting Jesus Christ in verses 49 throuh 53 above, St. John chose to use the Greek verb phago. The lexicon at the Protestant bible study site Heartlight's Search God's Word defines the word phago as:

to eat
to eat (consume) a thing

When we get to verse 54 however, the author of the Fourth Gospel switches from using phago to the verb trogo. The word trogo is found five times in the Fourth Gospel and only once elsewhere in the New Testament. Trogo is used for all but once for the remainder of the bread of life discourse to describe what Jesus tells us must be done in order for us to have life within us. The same Greek lexicon referenced above defines the word trogo as:

to gnaw, crunch, chew raw vegetables or fruits (as nuts, almonds)
to eat

The Greek interlinear bible at Scripture 4 All shows the actual Greek words and the literal translation. It does a far better job at conveying the verb change from eat to chew than I can in this post. A PDF file showing the original Greek text for John 6 is available here.

Whoever eats (trogo-chews) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats (trogo-chews) my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate (ephagon-eat, past tense) and still died, whoever eats (trogo-chews) this bread will live forever. (John 6:54-58)

While it could be argued that the verbs eat (phago) was a metaphor, simply a symbolic reference to spiritual nourishment received by consuming the word of God (bible) and accepting the Word of God (Jesus) into one's heart, it is hard to argue the same for passages where the word chew or gnaw (trogo) are used. In quoting the Word of God, the unerring word of God seems to be pretty clear.

In order to have life, one cannot just consume the word of God, one must chew the Word of God.

-Tim-

References

Greek Interlinear Bible, John 6

Scripture 4 All

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh6.pdf

Greek Lexicon (phago and trogo)

Heartlight's Search Gods Word

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/

The Invention of the Catholic Church in 325 AD According to St. Ignatius

2010-08-10T22:53:00.003-04:00

I have a friend who insists that the Catholic Church was invented in the year 325 AD. He also claims that the Eucharist was invented in the 1300's.

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch. The historian Eusebius records that St. Ignatius succeded St. Evodius as biship of Antioch and that the first bishop of Antioch was non-other than St. Peter himself. He futher records that St. Ignatius was martyred in the year 108 AD. It is believed that Ignatius, and his close friend Polycarp, were both students of the Apostle John.

Let us be perfectly clear here; this is a man who likely got his theological training from "The disciple whom Jesus loved." This is a man who likely studied under somone who witnessed the crucifixion. This is a man who likely studied under someone who ate the last supper with Christ!

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest. (St. Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1)

Bishops and Presbyters are written about as successors to the apostles within a generation or two of Christ's crucifixion.

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, circa 107 AD)

The Church was refered to as universal - catholic - not seventy five years after Christ had ascended into heaven..

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1, circa 107 AD)

There's that pesky Eucharist again. Maybe Ignatius was just speaking symbolically.

Please don't fall for it.

I pray for my friend daily.

-Tim-

On Personal Interpretation of Scripture and the Authority of the Church

2010-08-08T18:12:00.053-04:00

Many non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible alone is the sole authority on matters of religious truth; that no Church may assert itself as being an authoritative source of teaching on matters of faith and morals.

This belief, which is held by a wide swath of Evangelicals and to a lesser or greater extent many of the more mainstream Protestant denominations, is known as the doctrine of sola scriptura. "Sola scriptura" is Latin for "Scripture alone", and if you see a sign in front of a Church which says "Full Gospel" or hear someone call themselves a "Bible Christian", you can bet that someone is being taught that the Bible is singularly authoritative on matters of faith and morals.

Sola scriptura states that, in terms of salvation and with regard to an individual's personal relationship with his Lord and Savior, the Church exists only as a guide. To most non-Catholic Christians, no church may authoritatively interpret scripture for an individual or make rules for the faithful based on that interpretation.

Flowing from the doctrine of sola scriptura is the belief in personal interpretation of the Bible. Many of the same Christians who believe that the Bible is the sole authority of matters of religious truth also believe that the Bible contains sufficient information for an individual to be able to achieve salvation just by reading it on his own.

I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. (John 16:12-13)

John 16:12-13 is often cited as proof that if one reads the bible, he will be able to figure out what God's will is with regards to matters of faith and morals and will have sufficient information to be able to achieve salvation. Jesus promised, after all, that the Holy Spirit would guide believers to "All truth" and this is seen as having application to Christians individually.

This is where the risk to Catholics who are not as well educated about Church authority as they should is exploited. They are told that a cozy chair, a cup of herbal tea, a nice leather-bound Bible and one's own personal relationship with Jesus Christ is all that anyone really needs. No parish priest giving people a guilt trip. No totalitarian regime with an unmarried, celibate dictator living in a grand palace in Italy, who could not possibly know what it is like to struggle with daily life in the real world. No rules other than that which is obviously clearly understandable in the Bible, as promised by Jesus who said that the Holy Spirit would guide all true believers to "All truth".

It seems so comfortable and easy. Unfortunately for many Catholics who fall into the trap before it is too late, it is also completely unbiblical.

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation... (2 Peter 2:20)

The unerring word of God seems pretty straight-forward here.

Even if we take the word "Prophecy" to mean that portion of the Bible which is strictly prophetic, such as the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the precedent has been set - at least some portion of the Bible is not open to personal interpretation. And let's be clear here. There is an absolute prohibition against personal interpretation of at least some portions of scripture - 2 Peter 2:20 strictly forbids us from doing so.

This has immediate and profound implications for some non-Catholic Christians. If scripture (or some portion of it) cannot be interpreted by an individual, then who is to do so for us?

Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship, and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot." Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading? He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him." ... Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him. (Acts8:27-35)

Acts 8 shows us a crystal clear example of of one individual interpreting prophetic scripture for another individual. But Philip, who interpreted the prophetic writing of Isaiah to the Ethiopian, was more than just an ordinary individual. Philip was one of the seven elected to minister to the poor in Jerusalem as recounted in the Book of Acts. Philip was in fact a deacon in the Catholic Church!

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, 2 and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim. (Acts 2:1-4)

Most non-Catholic Christians see the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in John 16 that he would send the Spirit of truth to guide individual believers to "All truth" and in doing so, ignore Peters' prohibition against personal interpretation of scripture. Any doctrine which teaches personal interpretation of scripture however, must be reconciled with Peter's absolute prohibition against just that, or it must be discarded as a false doctrine.

Catholics see the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost not so much as applicable to the individuals present as it is applicable to the infant Church which was gathered at the time. The Spirit of truth which Jesus promised in John 16 rested not so much on individuals as it did on the Body of Chrust - the Church which Jesus Christ had established. And this is why Philip, as a member of the clergy of that Church could instruct the Ethiopian eunuch.

To say that an individual cannot come to some understanding of the truth by reading the Bible is not true and something which the Church has never taught. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, whiich is printed at the front of every Catholic Bible, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly state that it is every Catholics duty to be familiar with the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. But any doctrine which sets the Bible up as the sole authority on matters of religious truth and which teaches that "All truth" may be ascertained by an individual who reads the Bible on his own is simply is unbiblical.

A doctrine which teaches that the Holy Spirit rested on the Church at Pentecost and that the Church has singular authority to interpret scripture and to teach on matters of faith and morals based on that interpretation, does so not only in one hundred percent accord with scripture, but in exact agreement with Roman Catholic beliefs.

As for the labels "Full Gospel" and "Bible Christian", I think Roman Catholicism deserves them more than anyone else.

-Tim-

Notice
I will not allow this site to become an occasion for sin. Comments which insult another human being or point out another's weakness for the purpose of diminishing their standing among others (detraction) will not be tolerated. There are many sites which cultivate this type of behavior so if you think that your comment might be viewed as detraction or an insult then please post elsewhere.

If It's Only Symbolic, Then to Hell With It

2010-08-03T22:20:00.005-04:00

The title is a paraphrase of Flannery O'Connors's famous defense of the Eucharist. The same can be said of any of the sacraments, but most especially of Baptism.

It is not incorrect to say that non-Catholic Christians, by and large, believe that baptism is a duty - something which has been commaneded by Christ and something which all Christians must undergo. Insofar as the Catholic Church teaches that baptism is required for salvation, to say that baptism is a duty is not far off the mark for Catholics either. A discussion of whether baptism is required for salvation is a subject for another post however, but when speaking with non-Catholic Christian about baptism, it very quickly becomes clear that there is a major difference between the Catholic and non-Catholic positions around what baptism actually does.

To most Evangelicals, baptism signifies union with Christ, forgiveness of sins and the gift of the holy Spirit. Notice that baptism does not do any of this, it only symbolizes or signifies it.

But if it is just symbolic, then to hell with it. Seriously, why even bother?

If your hand or foot causes you to sin, 7 cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. (Matthew 18:8)

Christ said that we should cut off our hand if it makes us sin. It's right there in black and white. Evangelicals, mainstream Protestants and Catholics all see this as a metaphor and no denomination which is taken seriously advocates mortification to that extent. Christs words are universally understood to be symbolic and the net result is that no one does it.

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." (Luke 22:19)

Likewise, Christ said that the bread is his body and that we commanded "do this" when he told us to eat his flesh. Most non-Catholic Christians see this passage as stricly symbolic yet unlike cutting off your hand, still take part in the Lord's Supper as it is often called, in spite of their belief that it was meant only as a metaphor.

So what's the difference with between baptism, the Eucharist or cutting off one's hand? If it is symbolic, then why bother? The difference is that the Eucharist and baptism are sacramental and though most non-Catholic Christians deny it, deep down they have a primal, though ambiguous understanding of how important it is.

Again, if it's just sybolic then to hell with it. But suggest just this to a Presbyterian or Baptist and the reaction is likely to be revulsion or anger.

"Go therefor, and make disciples of all nations, symbolically baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you in a spiritual sort of way, not actually physically present per se, but with you as a feeling in your heart until the end of the age."

I don't get it.

-Tim-

The Temptation of Blogging

2010-07-19T16:22:00.005-04:00

Blogging represents a tremendous temptation and Catholic blogs are no different.

A large number of Catholic bloggers tend to pick out aethiests or some other group who are critical of some aspect of Catholicsm and just bash them to death. This is a standard mode of operation for some bloggers and as such, a source of material for most of their posts. While it is one thing to have a substantive argument with someone with an opposite viewpoint, it is quite another thing to call someone stupid.

One blogger wrote an introduction to his most recent post as follows:

"...in which we take a look at yet another dumb meme circulated by people who are way more impressed with their own intellects than they have any cause to be."

Hiding your insult behind five-dollar phrases like "Intellectually vapid" or "Dumb meme" does not make an insult any less insulting. As an example, this blogger is quite prone to cricizing the behavior and speech of others without actually levying an insult at the person directly. It comes close to "Hate the sin but love the sinner" but falls just short into a series of obliqe insults.

The result, for me at least, is that some of the most popular Catholic blogs are totally unreadable.

I wonder if these bloggers are able to reconcile their behavior to Jesus's teaching that we will be held accountable for every careless word?

"We cannot count on ourselves much, for often through lack of grace and understanding our judgement is a limited one and we soon lose what we have through our own neglect. Often we are unaware of our interior blindness. Many times we do evil and, what is worse, we justify it.

Sometimes our passions rule us and we mistake it for zeal. We are critical of the small defects in our neighbors, but overlook the serious faults in ourselves.

We are quick to complain of what we put up with in others, with never a thought of what others suffer from us.

If we could see ourselves as we really are, we would not find cause to judge other severely."

[...]

"You will never be a follower of Christ until you learn not to meddle in the affars of others and to look to your own."

Thomas Kempis, The Immitation of Christ, Book 2, Chapter 5

Catholic bloggers need to remember that faith is a gift and we need to humble ourselves and thank God for it. It was no less than St. Augustine who, after his conversion, had, "Here we speak ill of no man" painted over his bed. We all need to realize that the aethiest we just insulted might be touched by God this afternoon and become the next saint..

Catholic bloggers need to consider the Lord's prayer where we ask God to"...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..."

And Catholic bloggers and the people who leave comments need to recall that to insult someone is exactly the opposite of Christian charity.

-Tim-

Liturgy of the Hours MP3's from SPQN

2010-07-18T22:55:00.003-04:00

Pray Station Portable is an unassuming webstite featuring the Liturgy of the Hours in MP3 format.

No fanfare. No fancy graphics. No advertisements. Just the Liturgy of the Hours recoreded a few days in advance, free to download or via RSS feed. Much thanks to Deacon Dave (I think) for pointing me to this great site.

The producer of these simple yet elegant MP3's is Star Quest Production Network, a non-for profit which bills itself as follows:

"SQPN (Star Quest Production Network) is a multimedia organization specializing in the production of audio and video programs faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Its mission is to respond to the Church’s call to use the media for religious information, for evangelization and catechesis and for formation and education."

Their site should be fun to explore. SQPN lists an address in The Netherlands but interestingly, their US headquarters is listed in Rosell. Georgia.

-Tim-

The Interior Life

2010-07-09T22:27:00.004-04:00

We've all experienced the in-your-face Evangelical. When I was growing up, there was a woman in our neighborhood who praised God every third sentance and prayed for a good parking spot as she pulled into the parking lot at the supermarket. The term "Jesus Freak" comes to mind.

I don't know. I mean, I understand the fire of Christ, a love that burns intensely, deep inside our soul. It is the same love that animated David to leap with abandon before the Ark of the Lord wearing only a linen apron.

But the first word's spoken by the ressurected Christ when he appeared to his disciples as a group in the upper room was "Peace be with you."

Thomas Kempis calls it "The inner life." Thomas Merton speaks of "The interior life" and refers to being a "Contemplative". Whatever the term, it means quietly suffering, bearing with the faults of others patiently, and of lifting our hearts to God each day in confidence, secure in the knowledge that we have a Father in heaven who calls us His sons, without fanfare, without drawing attention to ourselves and most of all, with humility.

St. Josemaria Escriava spoke of "Passing unnoticed".

Rock and roll bands at Church with a light show and sound system worthy of a Rolling Stones concert. I have even heard of a mosh pit at a teen "Praise and worship service." And if the music on Sunday is great and if the pastor has a moving sermon and everyone cries or gets really excited then, "The holy Spirit was with us today." All this clamor and noise!

Catholics are often accused of lacking enthusiasm, of having no zeal, of seeming to be luke-warm. I prefer to call it reverence, quiet confidence and peace.

And I think the difference is the Eucharist.

-Tim-

Contraception And The Pro-Life Movment Are Mutually Exclusive

2010-07-08T01:22:00.002-04:00

The widespread acceptance and use of contraception in our society is the primary cause of creating the conditions which allow abortions to continue. Because contraception is the cause of abortion, we will never end abortion until we first end the use of contraception. Those who use contraception bear the brunt of the blame for creating the conditions which allow the culture of casual recreational sex and abortion to flourish.

I realize that the statement above is provocative and one might argue that it is in fact counter-intuitive; that contraception use should results in fewer pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions. It is contraception however, that has turned sex into a casual recreational activity, like golf or riding a bike and in situations where contraception is not available, does not work as expected or is simply ignored, abortion has become the acceptable, albeit somewhat less preferable alternative.

It is those who use contraception (or council it’s use, prayerfully considered or otherwise) who bear the brunt of the blame for abortion. Those who are actively engaged in the fight against abortion yet use contraception are hypocritical, whether they realize it or not. For Catholics who decry abortion yet use contraception, the implications are profound.

The Roman Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ and was granted sole authority to interpret sacred scripture and sacred tradition, and to teach on matters of faith and morals based on that interpretation. It is the authority of Jesus Christ – and therefore by God himself – under which the Church operates. Insofar as the Church has spoken on contraception, or any other issue having to do with faith and morality, it has exercised its God given authority and has spoken the final word.

And lest we think the Church’s condemnation of contraception (including male sterilization by vasectomy) as a vestige of the past, Pope Paul VI reminds us of its gravely sinful nature as late as 1968. In his encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae, he even goes as far as equating sterilization with abortion.

We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968)

To knowingly reject the authority of the Church is to knowingly reject the authority of Jesus Christ. For Catholics, who dip their hand in the holy water font and make the sign of the cross, who profess the creed at mass, and who receive the body and blood Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, the teaching of the Church should therefore be enough.

In times before the invention of the printing press - before most people could even read let alone browse the magisterial documents of the Church on the internet - obedience to the Church might have been the end of the story. The faithful in modern times however, have the luxury of being able to acquire ancient works of the Church fathers such as Augustine and Aquinas, as well as works from some of the greatest theologians of modern times with same day shipping and overnight delivery. When we find ourselves at odds with Church teaching or in a position where we simply don’t understand why the Church teaches what it does, we really have no excuse not to at least make an attempt to learn.

To that end and contrary to what some might claim, there are very clear moral, biblical and theological reasons behind the Church’s teaching that contraception of any kind is a grave sin.

It should be noted that one cannot find any Christian denomination which taught that contraception was acceptable prior to the early 1900’s. In 1930, the Anglican Church began teaching that contraception was acceptable in certain circumstances and other mainstream Protestant denominations fell quickly in line. “Certain circumstances” became “Prayerfully considered” and one generation later, contraception was widely available over the counter. Legalized abortion on demand became the law of the land but one generation after that.

One has to ask who changed; the Churches or God?

To examine the moral argument against contraception, one need only consider the reason why someone seeks an abortion. Consider as well, the reason why one uses contraception. Are not the reasons the same? Not being ready for a baby, not wanting to bring another child into the world, not having the resources to care for another child… at the end of the day it all boils down wanting sex but not wanting a baby. Whether you prevent the pregnancy in the first place or terminate it afterward, the reason for doing so is the same and this certainly places those who consider themselves pro-life yet use contraception into a moral dilemma.

That contraception does not end a life and is therefore not a sin is an argument used by many Catholics. This argument is somewhat shallow however, in light of what it really means to be created in God’s image.

To paraphrase Karl Keating, (apart from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ) God is a purely spiritual being. God has no mass, no weight, no size and no shape. He has no boundaries; you cannot touch God nor point to where He is. And God is immortal. The things that we can see, touch and feel on the other hand, are purely physical creations. Created physical objects have weight, size, color and mass. All created objects will eventually break down and turn to dust. Created things like rocks and the atmosphere and CD players do not have spirits.

Man however, is unique. Man alone unites the created world with the spiritual world. Man alone has a physical created body, and an immortal soul which Genesis speaks of as being created in the image of God. And so it is that when a human being’s spirit separates from his body, we call this death. It is in death that the body returns to dust and the immortal soul, separated from the body lives on.

When a man and a woman unite in sexual intercourse, it is the man who brings the sperm, the woman who brings the egg, but it can only be God who brings the spirit - the immortal soul. All three are present during sex and all three cooperate in the creation of a human being. Without the spirit supplied by God and created in His image, the egg may be fertilized but it is not alive. An embryo must have a spirit created in God’s image in order to be alive and if an embryo does have a spirit created in God’s image and is therefore alive, it is most certainly a human being.

Man, woman and God as co-creators of human life and of the transmission of the spirit into the fertilized egg by God at the moment of conception is the basis for the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception. To destroy the life after creation and to interfere with its creation in the first place are both grave sins.

Before he was Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla wrote of what he called the “Personalistic Norm”. The peronalistic norm states that the opposite of love is not hate but use; to use another human being for personal enjoyment is the exact opposite of love. The use of contraception turns what should be an act where God and man are co-creators of human life into an act where man and woman use one another for personal enjoyment and exclude God from the process altogether.

Writers as early as Genesis clearly saw the use of sex as a recreational activity apart from any possibility of conception as something contrary to the will of God.

In ancient Israel, when a married man died before he fathered a son, it was the responsibility of the dead man’s brother to father a male child by his brother’s widow, and to raise the male child as an heir to his dead brother’s estate as well as to preserve his brother’s name and blood line. The penalty for not doing so is clearly laid out in the Bible:

If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother's wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, 'My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel.' Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, 'I am not willing to marry her,' 4 his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, 'This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother's family!' (Deuteronomy 25:7-10)

God however, had stuck Onan dead for “Spilling his seed on the ground” and in doing so, we have a clear indication of the will of God as communicated through the Bible.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line." Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)

Children are always considered a blessing in the Bible. One famous example from the Psalms is given below:

Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one's youth. Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate. (Psalm 127:3-5)

The very first words God ever spoke to man are telling:

God blessed them saying to them: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28)

If the passages cited above are any indication of God’s will, non-Catholic Christians who subscribe to the doctrine of the Bible as the sole authority on matters of religious truth need to think long and hard before using contraception. For Catholics who subscribe to the doctrine of the Church as the interpreter of sacred scripture and sole authority on matters of religious truth, the message ought to be loud and clear – the Roman Catholic Church has a very real and compelling moral, theological and biblical basis for teaching that contraception of any kind (including male sterilization) is counter to the will of God and is a grave sin.

What makes contraception so insidious is that it has worked to create the conditions which allow the culture of casual recreational sex and therefore abortion to flourish. This it has done by using ambiguous and misleading terms such as “Responsible parenthood” and “Unprotected sex” to fool Christians into believing that sex on demand is a right, that large families are a burden and that the Church established by Jesus Christ himself is simply “Behind the times.”

For Christians, and especially for Catholic Christians who ought to know better, the implications for using contraception use are very real. By using contraception, you are directly responsible for perpetuating the scourge of abortion.

Someone in my parish has a bumper sticker that reads, “You cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice.” I think it misses the point. You cannot use contraception and then call yourself pro-life. The use of contraception and the fight against abortion are mutually exclusive.

-Tim-

Three Species of Mendacity and the Death of Catholicism

2010-06-15T23:06:00.002-04:00

This is what I'm talking about. You have to be very wary of what you read.

A blogger (with a lesbian agenda) reports in the headline that the Catholic Church in Vermont has lost one fifth of its membership since Benedict XVI ascended to the Papacy. The analysis in the first sentence is that "This is bad news for Vermont's Roman Catholic Church."

The technique is common. A statement is made to the effect that two events took place or that two conditions exist, which might or might not be related to each other, with the intent of infering that one caused the other when there is in fact, no proof of causation. Stating that two events took place, one right after the other, at best shows correlation, but it does not show causation.

100% of people who drink orange juice will die.

Mark Twain must be rolling over in his grave.

Another flim-flam job that we are supposed to fall for is the "That is consistent with what we would expect to see" technique. We are told of a particular condition, and then some expert says that this condition is consistent with what we would expect to see if (INSERT AGENDA HERE) were true.

"More whales have been washing up on beaches throughout the world. This is consistent with what we would expect to see during periods of intense global warming."

I actually heard this on the Weather Channel, round about the time I stopped watching. Could it be that whales are making a comeback and that the old ones are actually dying and washing up once in a while? Nah!

Regarding the loss of Catholics in Vermont, what the blogger with the homosexual agenda fails to report is that Vermont's population rose 2.1% from 2000 to 2009, while the population of the US as a whole rose 9.1% (1). Could it be that Catholics are simply moving away? Nah!

Whenever someone tries to infer causation without proof, more likely than not the root cause of both conditions is the same. With regards to the blogger's inference that Catholics in Vermont are leaving the Church as a result it's teachings on sexuality brought about by tjhe ascension of Benedict XVI to the papacy, I would like to suggest what one common root cause might be.

Is it possible that the loss of Catholics in Vermont as well as the rise of a concervative theologian to the Papacy are both a reaction of the Holy Spirit to rampant sexual promiscuity, of which both Vermont's same sex marriage law and the homosexual blogger's website are symptomatic.

Nah!

-Tim-

(1) US Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Vermont, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

Benedict XVI on Love and Heresy

2010-06-14T10:24:00.001-04:00

"...nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented.” (Pope Benedict XVI, June 11, 2010)

-Tim-

Keys to the Kingdom: Scripture or Papacy?

2010-06-12T23:46:00.009-04:00

Robert Chaffart, self proclaimed prayer warrior and proprietor of answers2prayer.org asks "What does 'Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, Whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven' mean?" and in doing so, makes some very basic mistakes in intepretting sacred scripture. The relevant verse is as follows:

"Who do the people say that the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still other Jerimiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the Netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:13:19)

Mr. Chaffart asks us to note that the keys were not given to just Peter but to all of the disciples. The conclusion we are supposed to draw is that we all possess the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that is to say, all true believers in Christ personally and individually have the means to gain entry into heaven. Mr Chaffart goes on to state that we actually don't need any sort of real keys to get into heaven quotes John 3:16 as proof that entry into heaven is based on belief in Jesus Christ alone.

So what is the meaning of the keys? Mr. Chaffart's conclusion is that the keys to the kingdom of heaven referred to by Jesus are symbolic (sound familiar) of the gospels. The Gospels presumably contain enough information for us to figure out how to get into heaven just by reading them on our own and as such, are the keys to getting into God's kingdom.

Nice try but this simply doesn't make sense. What we read here is an attempt to explain Jesus' words in a way which upholds with the non-Catholic doctrines of salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and the primacy of the Bible as the source of truth on matters of faith and morals (sola scriptura).

Mr. Chaffart's logic crumbles under even the most basic analysis of the nouns and pro-nouns as sentence subjects. constructing the sentences. Peter speaks to Jesus and Jesus replies "To him" and not to the desciples. Even the beloved King James Bible says "And Jesus answered and said unto him". It is this reply of Jesus' which contains the promise of the keys to the kingdom and so the keys to the kingdom cannot have been granted to all of the disciples. A careful reading of the actual words on the page show us that the keys to the kingdom were infact granted to "Him" - Peter alone.

So the question remains as to the meaning of the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

"I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakin, son of Hilkiah. I will chothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, anwhen he shuts, no one shall open." (Isaiah 22:19:22)

In Isaiah 22, we see the imagry of the "Keys to the kingdom". Kings in the ancient world had many ministers and frequently appointed one person as his first or "Prime" minister. The placing of the keys of the House of David is a clear reference to the appointment of a prime minister in the kingdom of David. In this case, Isaiah's king gives authority to Eliakin and places "The key of the House of David on his shoulder". The key and it's placement on his shoulder is a reference to both authority (key) and repsonsibility which Eliakin must bear (on his shoulder). This minister is to be a father to the Jewish people.

It is this political context of a king appointing a prime minister, referenced in the oracle of Isaiah, under which we must read St. Matthew's recounting of Jesus' reply to Peter. In stating that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus is not only fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah but is referencing a political event which would have been immediately recognizable to the subjects of most ancient kings - the appointment of a prime minister.

I don't mean to pick on Mr. Chaffart and his website, but his faulty conclusions serve to illustrate my point. An absence of context about the political customs, social conditions and lifestyles of the authors of sacred scripture can result in some very questionable interpretations of the Bible. Mr Chaffart fails to take into account both the oracle of Isaiah and the political customs of the day and draws the conclusion that the keys to the kingdom represents scripture.

Jesus granted Peter the keys to the kingdom and in doing so, appointed Peter to the office of prime minister. Peter was to minister over Jesus' kingdom, which is his body, the Church. Peter was clearly the spokesperson for the disciples and he uttered one of the first infallible dogma's of the Church when he declared that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The word Pope means father, a fulfillment of the prophesy of Isaiah who said that the prime minister would be a father to the house of Judah.

The biblical basis for the Papacy, thus well established, is flatly denied by many non-Catholic Christians as an impossibility. By spending just a little time and effort, any Catholic should be able to spot these types of glaring errors as faulty justification for the two pillars of Protestantism which are the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide.

These doctrines just don't withstand even the most basic analysis.

-Tim-

More on Forgiveness of Sins

2010-06-01T17:53:00.002-04:00

" 'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins' -he then said to the paralytic, 'Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.' He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings." (Matthew 9:6-8)

The power to forgive sin had been given to human beings. That's "beings"... plural. Some translations say "...glorified God who had given such authority to men."

Not "to a human being" (singular) or "to Jesus the Nazorean whos mother and father we know" or even "to the Son of God."

Maybe the authority and the forgiveness and the crowds were only symbolic.

-Tim-