Marching Orders

Myths About Priests and Pedophilia

2011-10-24T20:21:00.002-04:00

This article appeared on a Facebook group called "No More Anti-Catholicism" by a member named Rae Marie. It is so good that I had to share it here.

1) Catholic priests are more likely to be pedophiles than other groups of men.

This is just plain false. There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. The use and abuse of children as objects for the sexual gratification of adults is epidemic in all classes, professions, religions, and ethnic communities across the globe, as figures on child pornography, incest, and child prostitution make abundantly clear. Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).

In the wake of the current crisis in the Church, other religious denominations and non-religious institutions have admitted to having similar problems with both pedophilia and ephebophilia among the ranks of their clergy. There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children.

2.) The celibate state of priests leads to pedophilia.

Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it's difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described. The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence (Fred Berlin, "Compulsive Sexual Behaviors" in Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, "Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders" in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O'Leary, "Homosexuality and Abuse").

3.)Married clergy would make pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct go away.

Some people — including a few vocal dissenting Catholics — are exploiting this crisis to draw attention to their own agendas. Some are demanding a married Catholic clergy in response to the scandal, as if marriage would make men stop hurting children. This flies in the face of the aforementioned statistic that married men are just as likely to abuse children as celibate priests (Jenkins, Pedophilia and Priests).

Since neither being Catholic nor being celibate predisposes a person to develop pedophilia, a married clergy wouldn't solve the problem ("Doctors call for pedophilia research," The Hartford Currant, March 23). One has only to look at similar crises in other denominations and professions to see this.

The plain fact is, healthy heterosexual men have never been known to develop erotic attractions to children as a result of abstinence.

4.) Clerical celibacy was a medieval invention.

Wrong. In the Western Catholic Church, celibacy became universally practiced in the 4th century, beginning with St. Augustine's adoption of the monastic discipline for all of his priests. In addition to the many practical reasons for this discipline — it was supposed to discourage nepotism — the celibate lifestyle allowed priests to be more independent and available. This ideal also called diocesan priests to live out the same witness as their brothers in monastic life. The Church hasn't changed her directives for celibacy, because over the centuries she has realized the practical and spiritual value of the practice (Pope Paul VI, On the Celibacy of the Priesthood;, Encyclical letter, 1967). Indeed, even in the Eastern Catholic Church — which includes a married clergy — the bishops are chosen only from unmarried priests.

Christ revealed the true value and meaning of celibacy. Catholic priests from St. Paul to the present have imitated Him in their total gift of self to God and others as celibates. Although Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament that reveals the love and life of the Trinity, He was also a living witness to the life of the world to come. The celibate priesthood is for us a living witness to this life in which the unity and joy of marriage between a man and a woman is surpassed in the perfect, loving communion with God. Celibacy properly understood and lived frees a person to love and serve others as Christ did.

Over the past forty years, celibacy has been an even more powerful witness to the loving sacrifice of men and women who offer themselves in service their communities.

5.) Female clergy would help solve the problem.

There's simply no logical connection between the deviant behavior of a tiny minority of male clergy and the inclusion of women in their ranks. While it's true that most statistics on child molestation show that men are more likely to abuse children, the fact is that some women are also child molesters. In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center showed that the second most common form of child sexual abuse involved women abusing boys. For every three male abusers, there's one female abuser. Statistics on female sex offenders are more difficult to obtain because the crime is more hidden (Interview with Dr. Richard Cross, "A Question of Character," National Opinion Research Center; cf. Carnes). Also, their most frequent victims (boys) are less likely to report sexual abuse, especially when the abuser is a woman (O'Leary, "Child Sexual Abuse").

There are reasons why the Church cannot ordain women (as John Paul II has explained numerous times). But that is beside the point. The debate about women's ordination is completely unrelated to the problem of pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct.

6.) The Catholic hierarchy has done nothing to address pedophilia.

While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn't done enough, this claim is nevertheless false. When the Church's Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2).

But that certainly isn't the only thing the Church has done. The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope's encyclical letter, "On the Celibacy of the Priests," addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual "freedom." The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for "fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have." He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation's then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn't mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.

In response to the recent scandals, some dioceses are setting up special commissions on child abuse, as well as victims' advocacy groups; and they are officially acknowledging that any legitimate allegation of abuse must be dealt with immediately.

7.) The Church's teaching on sexual morality is the real problem, not pedophilia.

The Church's teaching on sexual morality is rooted in the dignity of the human person and the goodness of human sexuality. This teaching condemns the sexual abuse of children in all its forms, just as it condemns other reprehensible sexual crimes such as rape, incest, child pornography, and child prostitution. In other words, if this teaching were lived out, there'd be no pedophilia problem at all.

The notion that this teaching somehow leads to pedophilia is based on a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of Catholic sexual morality. The Church recognizes that sexual activity without the love and commitment found uniquely in marriage undermines the dignity of the human person and is ultimately destructive. As far as celibacy is concerned, centuries of experience have proven that men and women can abstain from sexual activity while living fulfilling, healthy, and meaningful lives.

8.) Catholic journalists have ignored the pedophile problem.

As any reader of CRISIS knows, this claim is patently false. Our October 2001 cover story featured "The High Price of Priestly Pederasty," an expose on the scandal that wouldn't erupt into the mainstream press for another three months. You can read our full article at: http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2001/index.html.

And we weren't the only ones who have covered the pedophilia/pederasty problem. Charles Sennot, author of Broken Covenant, Rod Dreher of The National Review, CRISIS co-founder Ralph MacInerny, Maggie Gallagher, Dale O'Leary, the Catholic Medical Association, Michael Novak, Peggy Noonan, Bill Donohue, Dr. Richard Cross, Philip Lawler, Alan Keyes, and Msgr. George Kelly have all covered the issue exhaustively.

Just because the mainstream media have chosen to ignore our work doesn't mean the work hasn't been done.

9.) Requiring celibacy limits the number of men as candidates for the priesthood, resulting in a high number of sexually unbalanced priests.

First of all, there isn't a "high number of sexually unbalanced priests." Again, the vast majority of priests are normal, healthy, and faithful. Every day they prove themselves worthy of the trust and confidence of those entrusted to their care.

Secondly, those who do not feel called to a life of celibacy are ipso facto not called to be Catholic priests. Indeed, most men are not meant to be celibate. However, some are — and of those, some are called by God to the priesthood.

A priestly vocation, like a marriage, requires the mutual and free consent of both parties. Thus, the Church must discern that a candidate is indeed worthy and fit mentally, physically, and spiritually to commit to a life of priestly service. A candidate's desire for the priesthood does not constitute a vocation in and of itself. Spiritual and vocation directors are now even more attuned to the character flaws that would make an otherwise qualified man an unfit candidate.

Wealth and the Gospel

2011-10-17T17:45:00.000-04:00

In an attempt to politicize the Gospel, there are some who would make the claim that wealth, in itself, is contrary to the Gospel of Christ. To justify this claim, there are a couple of different passages that could be used. The first is from Matthew's Gospel:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:19-24)

And a simple surface reading does seem to be condemning the accumulation of wealth. They also bolster this with the account of the rich young ruler (19:16-23)

And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Again, this seems to condemn the accumulation of wealth from a surface reading. But instead of simply reading the Scriptures, we need to meditate and reflect on the Scriptures. A simple surface reading is not sufficient.
I will start with the second passage. This is a very theological dense passage. The primary message here has nothing to do with wealth, but is about the role of faith. This is shown by the question asked by the rich man: "What good deed must I do to have eternal life". Reflect on that for just a moment. The questioner was interested in good deeds. We all know that works apart from faith are of no avail, yet this particular person thought that his works alone could get him to heaven, as if it were a commodity that could be bought or sold. Now Jesus, being God, knew that wealth would be an obstacle for him. Was it the fact that this man was wealthy that caused him to fall short, or was it his attachment to this wealth?
The first passage, likewise, has a focus of storing up temporal wealth. Is it because wealth is bad? NO! It is because all temporal goods if viewed in a disordered way, can become obstacles to achieving sainthood. Think about it. A disordered attachment to food results in gluttony, but food, in itself, is not bad. A disordered attachment to sex leads to lust, but that does not mean that sex, in itself, is bad. Likewise, a disordered attachment to wealth results in greed.
Of course, one could further object that Jesus says that it is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If anything, that speaks to the particularly corruptive nature of wealth. Think about it, there are the Ten Commandments, there are Seven Deadly Sins, but there are only three Evangelical Counsels. One of these three is poverty. The simple fact is that wealth, power, and sex are particularly dangerous things that are not inherently evil, but if there is a disordered attachment to any one of these three, all manners of wickedness is sure to follow.
How is this criticism of wealth used to politicize the Gospel? By placing an over-emphasis on social justice. This is not to say that social justice is unimportant, but social justice must have but a single motivation: to assist the beneficiaries to get to a position where they can "pay it forward" and assist others in dire situations. But we must also remember that the point of the Gospel is not temporal, but eternal. Wealth is criticized in the Gospel not to endorse some kind of socialist worldview, but to remove the obstacle of wealth form our lives. From the earliest days of the Church, care of the poor was left to the Church, and not the government.
This brings me to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. The participants are motivated by greed, pure and simple. Those that provide jobs control the wealth, and these self-important socialists want it for themselves. They complain about wealth distribution not being fair. I don't know of any CEO who attained his position by being lazy. Do CEO's make too much? Probably. But they did not get to that position by complaining about how much someone else had. Last time I checked, one of the Ten Commandments was "Do not covet your neighbor's goods." The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is in clear violation of this. Somebody else has something, they want it, but they sure as heck don't want to work for it.

God is Apolitical

2011-09-30T11:53:00.000-04:00

This post is spurred on by the following picture, which a friend of mine posted on Facebook:

Not everything about this statement is false, but neither is all of it true. Lets break thins down and look at each claim.

Bleeding heart: If you take "bleeding heart" as someone who has concern for others, then, yes, Jesus was a bleeding heart. If you take it to mean that He was excessive in this regard, and did not place value on punishing the guilty, then, no, He was not a "bleeding heart". Of course, one may ask "Where did Jesus demand punishment for anyone?" For starters, lets look at the second chapter of John:

The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade."

Jesus chased the money-changers out of the temple with a whip. Does this sound like a "bleeding heart"? Does this sound like someone who foils justice with excessive mercy? Do not misunderstand: Jesus is a merciful God. But His mercy serves justice, it does not foil justice.

Long haired: This is actually right, all of the ancient images we have of Jesus show Him with long hair. What this has to do with liberalism and conservatism, I have no idea. I know conservatives with long hair, just as I know liberals with short hair. But, whatever.

Peace-loving: Yes Jesus is the King of Peace, he even referred to peace makers as "blessed" (Matt 5:9). So does this make Jesus a pacifist? No. Look at Matthew 10:34-39:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.

Granted, we are to "turn the other cheek" and we are to avoid violence, but Jesus seemed to have told us that the Way of the Cross will present a certain level of conflict. Of course, it can also be argued that this is about spiritual conflict and not destruction of the evil in war. What of the Revelation of St. John? That entire book, among other things, speaks of the final days before the New Creation, which includes the Son of Man leading an army of angels. Doesn't sound like a pacifist to me.

Anti-establishment: This claim is simply ridiculous. In fact, in reference to the Pharisees, Jesus ordered obedience! This is often overlooked, but it is in the Scriptures nonetheless (Matt. 23:2-3):

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Is this anti-establishment? Is commanding your followers to obey those in positions of authority anti-establishment? This is not an isolated case. We are told to pay our taxes (Matt 2:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25). Jesus is recognized as a person in authority, both by Jews (Matt. 7: 28-29) and pagans (Luke 7). Any efforts to make Jesus a temporal ruler were rebuffed by the Lord. And even His last words before ascending into heaven were to explain that His kingdom was not of the world. If one is anti-establishment, their concern is almost wholly temporal, rather than eternal.

Liberal: There are absolutely no indications that Jesus supported a socialist or progressive agenda. The corporal works of mercy are personal responsibilities, not government oversight.

Hippie freak: I am not sure what this even means, other than polemical nonsense.

With strange ideas: This is actually true. Jesus did have counter-cultural ideas. But at the same time, he never called for cultural revolution, and a great many liberal ideas are in direct opposition to the laws of God.

Now does all of this mean that Jesus is a political conservative? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Radicals on either end of the spectrum cannot be reconciled with God. There are things that liberals do get right. There are things conservatives get right. There are also things both get wrong. Conservatives tend to be to eager to employ the death penalty and go to war. Liberals have taken on causes that are absolutely immoral. Neither political persuasion has cornered the market on God and morality.

What Makes a Hero?

2011-09-29T10:28:00.000-04:00

If I say the word "hero" what is it that comes to your mind? Undoubtedly, for some people, the image that comes up is this fellow:

Or it might be this guy:

These images are thanks to our popular culture that seems to require that a hero is capable of things that average people, people like you and I, are incapable of. What is unfortunate with the superhero is that people tend to equate powers with heroism. Though there are certain aspects of the comic-book hero that is admirable, the idea of a hero should not be limited to this kind of fictional character.

Other people will have a different idea of hero altogether, one that is more grounded in reality. For some, their image of hero is something more like this:

This image, the American soldier is also not without merit, though it does have its flaws as well. The idea of someone dedicating themselves to something greater than themselves, and there exists a possibility of the sacrifice of life, is definitely admirable. At the same time , the government is a human institution, which means it is susceptible to corruption, and the military, in the hands of a corrupt government, becomes a tool for enforcing tyranny. There are also enough examples of the misuse of power by our own military to prevent a soldier from being hero simple because he is a soldier. The military has a great number of heroes, but there as with any other profession, there are also a number of scoundrels. These same arguments also hold true for any other profession someone might name as a hero.

In my mind, when I hear the word 'hero", this is what I think of:

Blessed Mother Theresa helped the poorest of the poor with no thought of reward or monetary gain. She did it because it is what God led her to do.

St. Maximilian Kolbe, a Polish priest, gave his live is Auschwitz to save the life of a Jewish man with a family to care for.

St. Thomas More was executed for holding that no temporal ruler can take for himself what can only be granted by God, that is, the oversight of the pilgrim Church on Earth.

These last examples are the marks of true heroism: the willingness to do the right thing, even in the face of death. Moreover, it is also the willingness to give up worldly success for the sake of the Eternal. In addition, Mother Theresa, Maximilian Kolbe, and Thomas more were ordinary people that displayed extraordinary virtue. This is something we are all capable of. Think about what could be achieved for God if we would all embrace true heroism. The world would be a very different place. My challenge with this blog is that each and every one of us ask God to reveal that heroic virtue that he has planned for us. Even the smallest change would be astounding.

What I am really tempted to do

2011-09-24T22:16:00.000-04:00

I have come across some rather silly evangelical websites as of late, and I would really like to compile a "Book of Common Errors of the Neo-Evangelical Movement" I don't think I am going to, but I would really like to. For starters, the Evangelical movement has such a stranglehold on the faith life of the United States, I don't think I could ever get the thing published. If anyone thinks this would actually be a good idea, let me know. Some of the sillier notions that I have come across:

The Birth of Jesus can be pinpointed to around Rosh Hashana. (The exact timing of the Birth of Jesus and John the Baptist is impossible to determine from Scripture, but has been handed down to us through Sacred Tradition)
The modern political state of Israel can be identified as the the Nation of Israel in Scripture. (The Israel of the Old Testament was a type of the Church.)
Evil is a created thing, rather than the absence of good. (This view is actually a philosophical impossibility if you hold that God is the Good.)
The only Church is an invisible body of believers (Completely inconsistent with the Scriptures).

Note these aren't anti-Catholic claims coming from hate-filled websites. These are simply theological errors which need to be corrected. Maybe I will write about these at some point in the future, but I just don't know what form they may take, if they are topics of discussion.

The Sky is Falling

2011-09-20T12:05:00.000-04:00

One trend I see among Evangelicals, and this was something I had bought into before I swam the Tiber, is an absolute obsession with the End. I am not denying that Our Lord could return at any moment, but to constantly seek after signs for the Lord's return is not why God gave us the Scriptures. In fact, what the Scriptures do tell us is that we will not know when He is to return. It gets to the point where every war, every natural disaster, every major political figure, is assigned some significance in the end of the world. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been purported to be the Antichrist. Any time there is some kind of skirmish, particularly when it involves Israel, the Evangelicals go ballistic (never mind the fact that the modern political state of Israel bears little in common with the Israel of eschatological prophecy). The point I am trying to make here is that when the end comes, it comes. There is nothing we can do to prevent it. There is nothing we can do to make it happen faster. The time has been preordained by God, just as much as the timing of the Incarnation was preordained. Instead of seeking after signs, our energies are much better spent in fulfilling our duties as laymen, that is, bring the message of salvation to the world by being a witness to Christ in the world.

Coming Back

2011-09-17T15:41:00.000-04:00

It feels like I am returning to the Catholic Faith, even though I never truly left. Let me explain. I had taken a job that required me to work weekends, and the hours were such that I could not make it to neither Mass nor Confession. Since mid-August, I had mad my Sunday obligation only once, and the only absolution I had received was from an Anointing of the Sick before surgery. All this time, my personal devotion had slipped as well, without the graces provided by the Eucharist. It follows that I fell into the same old sins that had plagued me before entering the Church in 2008. Today I went to Confession, and tomorrow I am going to Mass, since the obstacle that had existed, my job, is no longer there. (I will not get into the details as to why I lost that job, but I consider it a blessing to not have to work on the Lord's Day). But because of my virtually non-existent spiritual life over the past month or so, it truly does feel like I an "coming home." Since my last Mass attendance, it was virtually impossible to tell the difference between my life and the life of a non-Christian. Hardly befitting of one whom St. Peter described as belonging to "a holy nation, a royal priesthood." All I can say is that it feel good to be home.

Scripture and Theology

2011-08-23T10:13:00.000-04:00

I was riding in my Mom's van last night, and she had it on an Evangelical radio station. I do not remebmber the preacher's name, but he made a comment that struck me. It seems that someone had asked him whas he described as "very difficult theological questions." And one of them (he did not bring the specific question up) he said could not be answered because "it was not clear in the Scriptures." Are we to assume, according to his theology, that theology itself, that is a reasonable account of God has not progressed since the mid to late first century? I am not denying the importance of Scripture in theology. According to Dei Verbum 24: "For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology." To deny the importance of the Scriptures is to deny the teachings of the Catholic Church. But this is not to say that all of our theology must be explicitly in the Holy Writ. To limit theology to what can be found in Scripture explicitly causes problems. The first is explaining the apparent difference in God between the Old and New Testaments (I personally believe any difference in one of perception and therefore superficial, but that cannot be deduced from the Scriptures). Another is answering the question "What must I do to be saved?" The Lord answers this question in several ways. Yest another doctrine that was developed, and accepted, by "Sola Scriptura" communities, but is not to be found explicitly in the pages of the Bible, such as the nature of the Trinity. Yes this is a very short post, but the comment that we cannot know anything about God that is not explicitly in the Scriptures I wanted to address.

Nurses: Angels of Mercy doing the work of God

2011-08-18T07:59:00.002-04:00

On Monday, I was admitted to a hospital for the first time in my life. Over the week I have been given a whole new respect for the nursing profession. It is not that a greatly disrespected the profession before, but I learned that although doctors get all of the credit (They do deserve a great deal of credit, my new-found respect of nursing does not diminish my respect for doctors, just as veneration of the saints does not diminish my worship of God, but I digress.), it is an army of nurses supporting the physicians that really make them shine. I would see my surgeon for only a few minutes a day, but it was the constant care of the nurses waiting on me that really got me through my hospital stay. That being said, people might think I am overstating the title of this post. Are they really, at least metaphorically, "angels of mercy"? Are they doing the "work of God?" According to the scriptures I would have to answer yes to both. Angels are messengers (from Latin "angelus" and Greek "angelos" both meaning "one who announces, messenger, or envoy"). Nurses not only communicate by word doctors' orders and instructions, as well as vital statistics and changes in symptoms back to the doctors, but through their actions communicate care and compassion to the patients, whether they are children getting shots, people suffering jitters before going into surgery for the first time. The care nurses provide goes beyond the purely medical, or even psychological. The nature of my surgery prevented me from bending over without great pain and discomfort, so the nurses would change my socks for me. As minor as this sounds, when was the last time you changed socks for another person that wasn't an infant or a toddler? Nurses also do work that can only be described as gross. They handle pee. I am not joking. The doctor wanted to track how much fluid I was taking in and passing out, so I had to pee in a plastic graduated urinal, which the nurses would log, and dispose of the fluid, then rinse the jug and return it to me. I am not sure there is any amount of money that I would need to perform that routine task. You may agree that they are hard-working, and they do things most people wouldn't even consider (like handling pee), but how is this doing the work of God? The very profession of nursing is to embrace one of the Corporal works of mercy: to care for the sick. Yes, nurses are paid to do this, but this does not minimize their work. Whereas volunteers give a few hours a week, or send donations to non-profit facilities, nurses dedicate their lives to caring for the sick. Even though they receive pay, this does not detract from the nobility of the work. After all priests get paid, or at least have their finacial needs seen to (depending on whether or not the priest is secular or religious), but their work is still held in high regard. Our military forces are also paid, and they are esteemed, in certain ways, perhaps higher than any other profession in this country. The same is true of nurses, as they truly make sacrifices in order to care for others. In closing I would like to give a shout out to the nursing staff at MedCental-Shelby for the excellent care they have provided, especially those nurses that took care of me on the third floor. I can't remember all of their names, so for those that are left out I deeply apologize. A very special thank you goes to: Erin, Leti, Liz, Brittany Abbie, and Sherrie. Also in OR/Recovery: Tara and Alan. Thank you for the important work you do.

The True Nature of Marriage

2011-08-08T15:38:00.000-04:00

I apologize for being away from my blog for such a long time. I recently started a full-time job, and I have moved into a new apartment, so things have been kind of like a cyclone lately. I have been reflecting somewhat on the moral state of this country (even while others have been concentrating on the financial state), and it seem to me (and I may very well be wrong on this) that virtually every moral quandary related to sexuality can actually find its roots in the misunderstanding of marriage. In the modern day, marriage is seen by society at large as a largely financial arrangement. It is contractual, and at the point that the union is no longer advantageous, the contract is dissolved. This explains the plague of divorce. Further, since it is merely a financial arrangement, there is no real problem in drafting a new arrangement, with a new partner after the first is dissolved. The worst outcome of this view is that it transforms a wife into a prostitute. So if not a contract, what is marriage? It is a covenant. A covenant differs from a contract in that rather than an agreement ratifying the exchange of goods and services, it is is an agreement ratifying an exchange of persons. Let that sink in for a moment. When a man and woman get married, they are not simply pooling resources. The two become "one flesh", a unity that is most fully manifested in the self-giving love of the marital embrace, an act that when performed in its proper context, models the Holy Trinity. The Trinity cannot be divided, and likewise, the marital covenant is permanent (though not eternal). Our Lord spoke of the permanence of marriage when he explained that in the Law of Moses, marriage was permitted, but was never part of God's original plan. This explains some of the problems we have, most notably divorce and remarriage and cohabitation. But this falls short of my original claim. What of the other problems in our society such as pornography, abortion, sexual trafficking and so forth? People have forgotten that the primary end of marriage is the begetting and education of children. So much so that sex has been transformed from a participation in God's creation into recreation. Rather than the primary purpose of sexual relations, children are seen as an unfortunate side effect. The trend has been to eliminate children from the act altogether, either through administering toxins into the body, mutilation of healthy organs, or even killing the child growing in the womb. Let's reflect on what the proper understanding of marriage would do:

Divorce would diminish, as people understood that they are truly one with their spouse
Sexual sins would be less prevalent, as sex would be ruturned to its holy status, rather than the profane situation it finds itself in now.
Artificial birth control would be seen as a poison, rather than as "medical care.

Granted these changes would not happen overnight. It took a long time for marriage to be perverted, it would take a long time to restore it. But many of the things we find as commonplace would be unthinkable if we would just understand what marriage is, and how privelidged we are to participate in God's mysteries so profoundly.

Catholics and Fundamentalists: What Unites us is Greater than What Divides Us.

2011-06-10T14:14:00.001-04:00

As a former Independent Fundamental Baptist and current practicing Catholic, I feel that I can say, with some authority, that these two admittedly different faith traditions share a great deal of common ground. I am not expecting this blog post to have any real effect, but this is just an idea that I have that I think is worthy of committing to writing. If we can start to look past our differences, and begin to understand that what unites us is much greater than what divides us, then true unity can be achieved. After all, this is what Christ desires for His Bride (Jn. 17:21). There is one caveat: since I am a former Baptist and have since converted to Catholicism, this post will be from a Catholic perspective, using orthodox Catholic theology as the baseline of what is to be considered correct theology.

Trinitarian Faith: Both Baptists and Catholics hold to the Mystery of the Triune God. Neither tradition can fully grasp or articulate this mystery, but both hold to it, all the same. I should also like to say that this is significant in that not all groups who claim to be Christian are Trinitarian. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses both claim to be Christian and both deny Trinitarian theology.
Necessity of Christ’s Sacrifice for Redemption: For the Catholic, the center of the Liturgical year is Easter. All that we do points towards the resurrected Lord. Even when we venerate the Saints, it points to the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Baptists are no less focused on the Passion, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although the soteriologies between the two camps are very different, neither group denies that salvation is unattainable without the Cross, even in the case of Rahner’s “Anonymous Christianity”. (I fully admit this is a blanket statement. There is no single “Baptist soteriology”, which I do not wish to address at this time, but I may speak on this in a future post contrasting soteriologies of different faith traditions.)
Value of Looking to Heroes of the Faith: Although this is expressed differently, both Catholics and Baptists look to Heroes of the Faith. We are even in agreement on who some of these heroes are. Those in the Scriptures: Daniel, Moses, Abraham, St. Paul, St. Peter, The Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, etc. The Bible is full of great heroes of faith. These individuals we agree on. Some of the more well-read Baptists would also include some of the Early Fathers such as St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr, even though they do not acknowledge the title “Saint.” But later in history, there are others that Baptists draw on for inspiration (though not intercession), such as D. L. Moody, Charles Spurgeon, and John Calvin. The particular community I was associated with practically venerated John R. Rice as a saint, and the college I went to was in possession of what, in Catholic theology, would be considered a “Relic”: Dr. Rice’s airplane wreckage. My own spirituality with the Saints is less directed towards intercession and more towards inspiration, although there are certain Saints I do pray to regularly for intercession. The point is that Baptists have their own version of “Communion of the Saints,” which is geared towards their own set of “Saints.”
Christology: Baptists and Catholics both believe that in His incarnation, the man Jesus of Nazareth was fully divine and fully human. Both traditions hold that He is eternal, existing from the beginning of time, and always will be. We affirm that He is not created, but Creator. Although there are other aspects we do disagree on (for example, Mary as “Theotokos”), there is enough in common to list this among those points of doctrine in common.
Scripture: It may come to a surprise to Fundamentalists, but the Catholic Church holds Sacred Scripture in exceedingly high esteem. The Vatican II document on revelation, Dei Verbum, we are told that “study of the sacred page is the very soul of sacred theology” (§24). Again there are differences in some aspects, but both Catholics and Baptists understand the high place Scripture holds in properly doing the work of the theologian.
Moral Theology: This is the area where great work would be done if we would work in concert. Both traditions are vocal opponents to abortion. Both acknowledge our responsibility to seeing to the needs of the poor. Both recognize the problems of divorce (I cannot count how many times I had heard my Baptist pastors say “one man, one woman, one lifetime”). This is one area where we are definitely on the same page, with very little variance between the two.

Now that we can see that there are definite similarities between the two traditions, those of us who are interested in unity need to start to open a dialog. I understand this will remove a lot of people from their “comfort zones.” On the Catholic side, we will have to confront errors of the past, which includes the admission that the pre-Reformation Church was in dire need of reform. From the Fundamentalist side, a total rejection of radical anti-Catholicism must be embraced. The Catholic Church must not be viewed as “The Whore of Babylon,” and it must be conceded that the Pope is not the Antichrist. We need to listen to each other. This final bit is for Catholics: we must be prepared to defend our faith from the Scriptures. As a general rule, Fundamentalists do not care what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the Summa, what St. Augustine wrote in City of God, and couldn’t care less about one of the many documents from the Council of Trent (or any other council for that matter). I do not see an end to the division in my lifetime, but unity will never happen discussion is at least enjoined, no matter how informal. Isn’t it worth it to work towards the unity that Jesus prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemane?

My Confirmation Saint

2011-06-02T20:09:00.000-04:00

When I was confirmed a Catholic, for my confirmation name I chose "Thomas." Why Thomas? There are several canonized Saints that bear that name, but the one I am drawn the most to is St. Thomas More. During his life he served as the Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII. He was a prolific writer (his complete works published by Yale University Press encompasses 15 volumes). But there were other prolific writers as well (St. Augustine? St. Thomas Aquinas?). I was primarily drawn to his courage during the "Great Matter" of King Henry. It was a complex issue, but according to More, Henry did not have the right to declare himself as "Supreme Head of the Church in England." In the Saint's own words:

Seeing that I see ye are determined to condemn me (God knoweth how) I will now in discharge of my conscience speak my mind plainly and freely touching my Indictment and your Statute withal.And forasmuch as this indictment is grounded in an act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and his Holy Church, the supreme Government of which, or any part whereof, may no temporal Prince by any law take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual pre-eminence by the mouth of our Saviour himself, personally present upon the earth, only to St. Peter and his successors, Bishops of the same See, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law, amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man.

The courage to say this, when faced with death, seems unimaginable to me. What is interesting here is what he went to the death for. He died for the papacy, a stance even more interesting when it is understood that as a Christian Humanist, Thomas More sought reform within the Church. I only pray that I can have this kind of courage if I am put to the test.

Debating with Fundamentalists

2011-05-31T16:46:00.000-04:00

I was involved in a debate on FaceBook (if debate is even the right word) wherein a Biblical Fundamentalist spent a great deal of time explaining to me what the Catholic Church "really" teaches. Lets just say that I very quickly became annoyed. I wasn't annoyed because he had misconceptions about the Church. It is understandable, even expected for a non-Catholic to not have an accurate picture of what is taught by the Church. It is rare enough for Catholics to have an accurate understanding of Church teaching (I include myself in this, as I find the more I learn, the more I need to learn). I don't even find it annoying when they criticize the idea that the "Fullness of Truth subsists in the Catholic Church alone." I would not expect a non-Catholic to accept this. In fact, I would expect them to hold that the Fullness of Truth is in their own faith community. What annoys me is when they make a false statement about the Church, and upon being corrected, contradict the Catholic attempting to explain the truth. To explain this phenomenon I will use this (entirely fictional) conversation between Fred the Fundamentalist and Cathy the Catholic:

Fred: Did you know that Catholics place Mary above Jesus?

Cathy: Actually, we don't. We do honor her as the Mother of God, and we ask for her intercession, but we don't make any claims that she is divine.

Fred: Yes, you do! You pray to her with the Hail Mary, which is derived from pagan worship!

Cathy: Fred, if you look at the Hail Mary, you will see that the majority of the text comes from the first chapter of St. Luke's Gospel.

Fred: But my pastor said you do worship Mary. Why should I not trust him?

Cathy: Is he Catholic?

Fred: No. But he went to seminary.

Cathy: A Catholic seminary?

Fred: No. Bur he had a class on Catholicism called "Modern Cults and False Religions"

Cathy: (Rolls eyes). That isn't biased at all. Don't you think that if you want to know what Catholics believe, you should ask a Catholic?

Fred: I trust my pastor, and if he says Catholics worship Mary, it has to be true, because he wouldn't lie.

Cathy: So basically, even though I told you what the Church really teaches, you will take the word of your non-Catholic pastor over a practicing Catholic?

Fred: Sure.

Cathy: So why did you even start this conversation if you weren't actually interested in what I have to say?

Fred: To rescue you from the Whore of Babylon.

Cathy: (sigh) Good-bye Fred.

Granted, this is somewhat satirical of Fundamentalist "Evangelism" but it gets the point across. All too often, people who "ask questions" about the Catholic Church are actually uninterested in the truth, and are only making thinly veiled accusations. So how is the best way to deal with this? I would suggest using the Socratic method, particularly if you focus on source reliability and motives of the questioner. This is all I really feel like writing for now, so until the next time, God Bless!

The Catholic Church is NOT "Unbiblical"!!!

2011-05-28T10:34:00.000-04:00

I do get tired of Evangelicals’ various web pages that claim that the Catholic Church is “unbiblical”. The truth of the matter is that so-called “Biblical Fundamentalism” has scant Biblical support, where the Catholic Church is a “Bible Church” in the truest sense of the term. To prove my point, I will present two charts, the first supporting Catholic doctrine, and the second a criticism of Evangelical Fundamentalism.

The Church teaches…	The Bible says…
Priests have the authority to absolve sins	Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." (John 20:21-23)
The Holy Eucharist is the very body and blood of Jesus Christ	So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. (John 6:53-57)
Mary is the Mother of God	And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1: 41-43)
Marriage is permanent and is indissoluble	And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10: 11-12)
Mary is the Queen of Heaven	And a great portent appeared in heaven, 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 she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. (Revelation 12: 1-6)
St. Peter held primacy among the Apostles and was the first pope	Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16: 16-19)
Sacred Tradition is binding	So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

So the Catholic Church is far from being “unbiblical”. Here is Biblical support for what Protestants consider to be some of the Catholic Church’s more objectionable teachings. Of course, I also charged that Fundamentalists teach things directly contrary to the Bible. I am not one to make claims without supporting evidence, so take a gander at this:

Fundamentalists claim…	The Bible says…
The Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and practice	I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3: 14-15)
Baptism is merely a symbol and is not salvific	For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1 Peter 3: 18-22)
Works play no role in salvation whatsoever	Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Philippians 2: 12-13)
Celibacy is not to be encouraged	I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Corinthians 7: 7-8)
The Scriptures are easy to understand	And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3: 15-16)
There is no distinction between mortal and venial sin	If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 John 5: 16-17)

Do these tables prove anything? Not a thing. This did not take a great deal of effort on my part. The point is if left to our own devices, we will undoubtedly come to interpretations that are not intended by the Lord. This is precisely why we were given the Church, so we can have as our guide the Magisterium which will keep us from departing from sound doctrine.

Submission to Authority Part II

2011-05-27T13:21:00.000-04:00

I find it interesting that the concept of submission to authority is found under the fourth commandment: "Honor your father and mother". Think about that for just one moment. All authority is bound up in the family. If you reflect upon this, it makes perfect sense. God uses familial language to describe His relationship to us. When we pray using the words Jesus taught us, God is addressed as "Our Father" (Matt. 6:9, Lk 11:2). We call our priests "Father". (Note: this is not a violation of Jesus's command to "call no man father", but that is a topic for a different post.) Does this mean that we are bound to what is commanded to us in all cases? No. In his book Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Peter Kreeft describes the relationship between those in authority and those under authority (p. 215):

[I]f parents, husbands, rulers, and masters are in authority "over" children, wives, citizens, and servants, they are no less "under" responsibilities to those others. Husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church (See Eph. 5:25), not be their "boss". God designed these human relationships to be a dance between equals playing different roles, not a power struggle between unequals for the same "top" role.

So if this is true, that authority and obedience is about relationships between equals, and not about power struggles, then it follows that obedience is not an admission of inferiority. You are not saying "I obey because you are superior to me." You are saying "I obey because that is my role in this relationship." Of course, we do have recourse if those in authority are not living up to their responsibilities. A pastor has a responsibility to see to the spiritual needs of his parish. Political leaders must govern for the common good. Military leaders must ensure that civilian casualties are minimized and that all operations meet the criteria for just war. Employers must pay their employees a fair wage and not perpetuate a cycle of poverty. Husbands and fathers provide for their families and give them selves to their wives in a self-sacrificial manner.
But what does the Catechism say? I will not be providing specific references here, but I will summarize some basic concepts. First, proper relationships are based upon the dignity of the human person. This dignity is inherent to the person, and was created by God, and therefore no man can take it away. Obedience is its own reward. Also, just as all are given dignity by God, those in positions of authority were placed there by God, so when we "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" we are not simply paying taxes, but giving the government what it is owed, namely, obeying civil laws which do not contradict precepts of the Church. This post is short, and will possibly be revisited in the future, but what we need to understand is that to be truly faithful, we must recognize out roles in our various relationships, submit when required, and if in a position of authority, we must be faithful to those responsibilities.

Book Review: A Biblical Walk Through the Mass/ Dr. Edward Sri.

2011-05-27T11:24:00.000-04:00

A Biblical Walk through the Mass

by Dr. Edward Sri

Dr. Edward Sri has given a gift to the Catholic faithful. This gift is this truly wonderful book, A Biblical Walk through the Mass. This book is coming at a critical time for the American Church, as the new English translation of the Novus Ordo will be coming into use in a few short months. This is placing the Liturgy at the forefront of the consciousness of the American Catholic. The purpose of this little book (at only 156 pages, including the index, it is a fairly quick read) is to not only familiarize the faithful with the text of the new translation, which is used throughout, but also to show the biblical roots of why we do those things that we do in the Mass.
Dr. Sri does not charge straightaway into unpacking the Biblical roots of the words and actions in the Liturgy, but rather in a brief chapter explains exactly what the Mass is, and what sets the Mass apart from other liturgical and quasi-liturgical celebrations. Yet he does not develop a long discourse on the nature of the Mass, but only addresses three points that are necessary to understand in order to facilitate the main thrust of the book:

The Eucharist is a memorial sacrifice
The Eucharist as the Real Presence
The Eucharist as communion with the Lord.

As an example, here is part of Dr. Sri's explanation of how the Eucharist is a sacrifice because of the very language used by the Lord (p. 8):

One important note is how the language of Jesus used when speaking about his body and blood had strong sacrificial overtones. He said his body would be offered up and his blood poured out. As we will see later, this language would have recalled the Jewish sacrificial rites in which an animal's body is offered up and blood pured out in sacrifice.

Beyond the opening remarks on the nature of the Mass, Dr. Sri the book's structure follows the order of the Mass. Starting with the Sign of the Cross and ending with the Dismissal, Dr. Sri firmly roots everything we say and do in the Liturgy in Scripture, and also expounds on the theological significance. He explains such things as:

The Greeting is more than an exchange of pleasantries
The Examination of conscience suggested by the Confiteor
How the Liturgy of the Word can be called "The Greatest Bible Study on Earth"
The Biblical roots of the Presentation of Gifts
The theological significance of the Sanctus

This list, of course is not comprehensive (after all this is a book review not a book summary). In all, I highly recommend this book to deepen your understanding of the Mass, and why we do what we do when celebrating the sacred mysteries. You can order the book by clicking on the title above, and if you click Dr. Sri's name, you will be directed to his biography.

God Bless!

Submission to Authority

2011-05-26T09:31:00.000-04:00

It really bugs me that I have to post on this topic. It really, really does. But the simple fact is that a great number of our problems, both in and out of the Church, comes down to a simple refusal to submit to legitimate authority. Truth of the natter is that people die from refusal to submit to legitimate authority. I am not talking about the execution of political prisoners (which is abhorrent), but little things, like speeding or drinking under the influence, getting into an accident, and killing somebody. And why did this person die? Because somebody could not be bothered with submitting to legitimate authority.
Now that I have been suitably melodramatic, I am going to discuss the issue that set me off. At my local parish the pastor made an administrative decision: he fired the school principal. It is the policy of the diocese not to make reasons for dismissals public, and treats the information as confidential. The former principal has also elected not to go public with this information. Given this situation, it should be a done deal, right? I mean, this isn't like the pastor is teaching heresy from the pulpit, flagrantly violating liturgical norms, or some other such thing. He fired a staff member. This should be the end of it, right?
Wrong.
A faction in the Church has arisen, under the battle cry of "This is our Church" demanding (not requesting, mind you, but demanding) that this information be divulged. Since when is every person in the parish granted a say in the hiring and firing of Church staff? In fact, this mindset is that of Evangelical Protestantism. (As a side note, there are some things Evangelicals do very well, such as proclaiming the Gospel, but Church governance is not one of them.) The Catholic Church has a structure such that the laity participates in the ministry (lectors, ushers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, bible study leaders, etc) but the decision making is largely left up to the pastor for parish level decisions, the bishop for diocese level, bishop conferences for national level, you get the idea. This breaks down if the average parishioner expects to have a say in the decisions of the day-to-day operations of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. We just have to trust our clergy to be making the best decisions. I will follow up soon with what the Catechism has to say about submission to authority.

A Criticism of Catholic Answers Forums

2011-05-12T10:37:00.000-04:00

I have been banned from Catholic Answers Forums. I really do think they need to re-evaluate their policies. As near as I can tell, my "crime" was offering direct criticisms of those opposed to the Church. The thing that really sticks in my craw is the lack of an appeals process. All decisions made by the Moderators are final. I find it particularly interesting that it is one moderator that is responsible for assigning the majority of my infractions. It is also true that this moderator has been on the job for less than a year.
Lest you think I am simply whining, I will make some admissions:

I do have a temper, and at times I "shoot from the hip", so to speak.
At times, I have deserved suspensions.

This being said, I also know several posters value my input, and have been told so on repeated occasions. This does not reflect poorly on Catholic Answers. They are an organization which provides an invaluable service, and I owe much of my conversion to Catholic Answers. I am saying that the enforcement of the policies, while in place to protect the community, needs re-evaluated, because as it stands, anti-Catholics have a free reign, and those faithful to the Magisterium are effectively silenced by being prevented from answering in a direct and forthright manner. In closing, I would still encourage anyone who seeks to learn about the faith to utilize Catholic Answers, including the Forums. I would give a word of caution: If you intend to post, and not merely lurk, then you will probably at some point get infractions for offending someone.

Stay Tuned...

2011-05-09T21:39:00.000-04:00

Finals are wrapped up and now I am packing for home. I will shortly be receiving a review copy of Dr. Edward Sri's book, A Biblical Walk Through Mass: Understanding What We Say and Do in the Liturgy, which I will be reviewing. I also plan on posting periodic reflections on Bl. John Paul II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope. I will possibly also be summarizing a paper I wrote on the ecclesiology of Karl Rahner and explaining why I find it deficient. This is all I have time for right now, as I must return to packing up my life for the summer. God bless all of you!

The Death of Osama bin Laden

2011-05-02T02:51:00.000-04:00

I should be either working on a paper or sleeping right now. But until I get some thoughts out, neither is going to happen. On 1 May 2011 the American people were informed that Osama bin Laden had been killed. To this I say, "Justice has been served," and I congratulate our military and intelligence agencies for bringing him to justice, although I would have preferred he been taken alive. I open with this statement to avoid being branded a traitor or any other such thing.
I am not pleased with the general response to his death. The death of anyone should not be met with parties, singing, and joyful celebration. Ever. Of course it will be argued that bin Laden is the greatest criminal who ever lived, and masterminded the most evil acts of all time. This is not true. He was not even the most evil man within the last 100 years, let alone all time. The Japanese perpetrated greater crimes against the Chinese in Nanjing. Hitler and Stalin were even worse. But even these did not perpetrate the greatest evil in history. That prize belongs to those directly and indirectly responsible for Deicide--the killing of God--in which we all had a part, thanks to our sins. In response, God would have been justified in destroying all of humanity. The God-Man could have called down destruction. But He didn't. He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
What right do we have to celebrate at bin Laden's death? Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was a human being. This designation carries some important qualities. The first is the fact that as vile as his actions were, he was made in the image of God. Being a creation of God, he cannot be pure evil. God is pure good, in which there can be no evil. As long as he was alive, he had a chance at redemption. This really struck home only when I saw the Facebook status of one of my friends. It was the second half of the Fatima prayer: "...and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy." We should not be celebrating. We should be praying for our enemies, even bin Laden (Matthew 5:43-48).
Lastly I would like to point out a distinction between what I have seen Biblical Fundamentalists post and what I have seen faithful Catholics post. On the Fundamentalist Protestant side, I have seen lots of scripture passages talking about God's wrath and judgment. On the Catholic side, I have seen appeals to Divine Mercy. I would just ask, which oif these two attitudes seems more reflective of Christ?

"I'm Not Being Fed"

2011-04-22T09:45:00.000-04:00

A discussion on Catholic Answers Forums has inspired this post. Although they did not use this clichéd expression themselves, it is what they were getting at by saying this:

My Dad (he will be 90 this year), had been a Catholic all his life. He caught the fire of the Holy Spirit in his mid-forties. He was invited to an Episcopal conference by one of my brothers and he said afterward ... that he had never been taught that it was possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus and really expect the Holy Spirit to come alive inside. He said that he knew for the first time that Jesus' love is real and he is a real, live Savior that loved him dearly and personally. He was deeply and dramatically touched by God. From that day on he began to change into a new man with a ravenous hunger for God's word... and the entire family was affected and blessed. (Posted by 1voice, http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=7788219#post7788219, post #49)

A self-professed “Cradle Catholic” that had left the Church at the age of 25, 1voice has at the crux of his (?) argument that he wasn’t being spiritually nourished. I have two responses to the “I wasn’t being fed” argument:

1. You were being fed, but you don’t understand the faith, especially the Eucharist. Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, is truly present in Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist (CCC 1333). Jesus is the Bread of Life, and who comes to him will not hunger (Jn 6:35) and will gain eternal life (Jn 6:51). If one claims they are “not being fed” at the very place where they are feeding on the Bread of Life, then there is a problem, not with the One being eaten, but he who is eating. They have taken of the Eucharist without discerning the Body and Blood of Christ, and as a result are spiritually sick or dead (1 Cor 11: 29-30).

2. Personal Responsibility. We cannot expect to grow spiritually or come to a full understanding of the faith (insofar as we can attain in this life according to our God-given ability) by giving an hour a week to Mass on Sunday morning. That is not enough. Daily Mass is helpful in this matter as well, but that still only amounts to, at most, seven hours a week. Is God worth more than about 4% of our time? I would think so. This is why a personal devotional life is so important. We need to pray (not just say prayers, but also real conversation with God). We need to read about the Saints. The reason God has given us the saints is to serve as models of holiness. St. Therese shows us how to attain holiness in the little things. St. Thomas More shows strength in adversity. St. Francis of Assisi demonstrates being Christ-like in word and deed. Read the Scriptures, read about the Saints, pray. These are the keys to “Being fed.”

Both of these things are linked. If you take the responsibility to learn the faith, you will come to a deeper understanding of the Eucharist “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324), which in turn will lead to more abundant graces upon receiving the Eucharist. More graces, leads to more understanding, which leads to more graces.

I have gotten that off of my chest. Have a blessed and joyous Easter!

Holy Thursday

2011-04-21T07:26:00.000-04:00

Today we celebrate the Mass of the Lord's Supper. It will be the last Mass celebrated before the Easter Vigil on Saturday Evening. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this Mass is the Gospel reading. Although it is called the "Mass of the Lord's Supper" we read not one of the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels wherein we see the institution of the Eucharist, but we read the account in John's Gospel. Why is this? It is because it is here where Christ is instituting another Sacrament: the Sacrament of Holy Orders. While it is true that the Holy Eucharist is the Source and Summit of the Christian faith, it is the priesthood that administers the Sacraments. If the foot-washing scene is viewed as an ordination rite, then we can understand that Jesus was teaching the Apostles how to fulfill their vocations as Bishops once the Church was established. So at the Holy Thursday Mass, in addition to preparing your heart for Christ's glorious Resurrection, reflect on those men who have sacrificed so much, and who so often are taken for granted.

Protestant Sources

2011-03-27T15:27:00.000-04:00

I am researching a paper on the English Reformation during the reign of King Henry VIII. Most of my sources are neither overtly Catholic or Protestant, but two sources have a definite bias. On the Catholic side there is Belloc's The Characters of the Reformation, which be polemical, but I still find the basic facts to be accurate. The source that makes my pull my hair out is entitled The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History by A. Kenneth Curtis, J. Stephen Lang and Randy Petersen. Of course one could ask, "Carl, you are a Catholic, studying Catholic theology at a Catholic university. Why are you bothering with a source that is admittedly biased in the Evangelical Protestant perspective?" The answer is simple: intellectual honesty. The class that this paper is for is Church History, and it is intellectually dishonest to simply ignore historians whose views differ from your own. Not only should these differing views be admitted, they should be addressed. To give credit where credit is due, much of the pre-Reformation articles are not bad. But once the reformation comes, on into modernity, the presentation are awful. Here are some examples:

On page 96, the author completely misrepresents the nature of indulgences as "selling forgiveness," missing the point that indulgences have to do with relief of temporal punishment, and not forgiveness of guilt.
According to the authors, Pope Clement VII did not grant Henry VIII a divorce on grounds of fear (p. 102), although there is documentary evidence that Clement personally had a bias towards Henry, but his conscience demanded a refusal of the annulment. On the same page, they claim that England was drifting away from Rome among the populace, but there is no historical evidence to support this claim.
On page 195, claims the Catholic Church has a "Salvation by works theology." This is a misunderstanding of the Church's doctrines concerning grace.
On the Council of Trent: "Fearing what would happen if every plowboy could indeed read scriptures for himself, the council again...refused the use of the Bible in the language of the people." This is patently false. There is no prohibition against producing translations under the authority of the bishops. Furthermore, guidelines are produced to guide study of Sacred Scripture.
Mary I is presented as a harsh, cruel queen deserving of the moniker, "Bloody Mary." In truth the Queen was the victim of bad press.
Inclusion of England's abolishing the Salve trade, but ignoring the fact that participation in the slave trade had been condemned by the Catholic Church for more than two centuries.
Wholesale misinterpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

If you are going to present history through a Protestant lens, be my guest. We all have our own personal biases. But at least go to the effort of presenting fact accurately, without twisting them to further an agenda.

Anti-Catholicism is alive and well on YouTube

2011-03-07T20:13:00.000-05:00

I would like to say it isn't. In a discussion concerning the Biblical use of "Faith alone" and how its use, when concerning salvation, is only used in a single verse, James 2:24, is in the negative, all manner of hate-filled rhetoric ensued. Here are excerpts of the conversation (i am posting as "cathapologist":

Works always folllows faith. Read beyond the first verse. Every example is an active faith. Simple belief is not enough.
cathapologist

Wrongo. Again you parrot absent knowledge. Greek article when absent tells you it's GOD's works; here in Heb11:1, there are NO definite articles, as shown in the video. So you need to study.

God's Work is the ONLY work. God doing HIS work in you is the spiritual life, not you doing beads or candle-lighting or whatever rituals or works YOU do. Sorry, but you keep proving ignorance of Word, yet pretend to know it, which is a form of LYING. So I must be harsh.
brainouty

TO OTHERS: I'm only harsh with mindless parrots, no matter what their faith. It takes TIME to learn answers, and that's fine. Here, the problem is that there are 100s of FAITH ALONE verses in OT and New, like John 6-8, Ephesians 2:8-9, Hebrews 3, Romans 10, John 3, Genesis 15:6. Every condemnation in the OT is based on not BELIEVING. NT, too: Christ condemned the very moral Pharisees for not believing, etc.

So arguments that faith is not enough are based on Bible ignorance.
brainouty

If i am ignorant of Scripture, show where the words "faith alone" are used together in such a way as to support the hellish doctrine that you are saved by faith alone. In other words prove my wrong.
cathapologist

James 2:24 uses the phrase "ou ek pistis monos" which properly translated as "not by faith alone." That is a direct word for word translation. So aain, where can you find "pistis monos" in any other verse.
cathapologist

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT is the first rule of hermeneutics. The CONTEXT of James is NOT NOT NOT about salvation, but about post-salvation maturation. So when dingdongs keep on using James as IF he were talking about salvation, I know immediately to write them off as carnal, despising the Word of God. 1John1:9 and STUDY cures that, but it takes time. Those wanting to use the Word to support their agendas will never STUDY it. Their loss!
brainouty

Salvation by faith alone is not in the Bible, and was not held by anyone, anywhere, until 1517.
cathapologist

Now this next bit is downright offensive, so hold on to your hats:

Well it's in the bible; doesn't matter what anyone else says, in any era. The Word is final authority, not men. You're trying to make men, and the writings of men authority. LOL, haha.
Now, go scarf down some flesh crackers and blood dracula-apologist. While you're at it, fork out some more cash to your lord and god Mr. Ratzinger.
ChristKeep

Not only did this last post not address the issue (salvation by faith alone), but it insulted the Ehucharist, and accused Catholics of placing the Pope in place of God. I responded the only way I possibly could have:

Two problems here:
1) Doctrinal dancing: you did nothing to defend the false doctrine of Faith Alone, but attacked the Eucharist.
2) CHARITY. As St Peter wrote: "But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;
cathapologist

I have since left the conversation. Why? Because I was tired of fighting a losing battle. Some of my words were direct, its true, but I did stop short of ad hominems. The same can not be said of my adversaries:

#1 I already PROVED salvation [only] by faith in my previous message... Mark 5:36& Luke 8:50 (including the Greek words). AND, I made like, at least, five videos on the subject. So, it's your own IGNORANCE that chooses to ignore the information I have laid out. I can't prove it all in a small comment box, you're far too Pharisaical.
#2 as for 1 Peter 3:15, that means you wait for GOD to send people to you to ask about the gospel. Not vice versa. Read the Greek buddy boy.

The moral of the story: do not get embroiled in debates with those who refuse to even listen to arguments and have a clear agenda motivated by hate. It is not worth the high blood pressure. This is especially true on an unmoderated forum such as YouTube. If anyone would like to join in, be ny guest, but I am done with that thread. I have been thinking about starting my own channel, but since I haven't figured out how to use Windows Movie-maker, and I don't have a video camera, that will have to wait.

Why Are We Surprised?

2011-03-05T12:21:00.000-05:00

Really. Why are we surprised...

that the world does not share our moral values? The world and the Catholic has two different ends in mind. Those in the world are concerned with the here and now, with temporal satisfaction. As Catholics we should be concerned not with the things of this life, but eternity. The world has no use for eternity. For the world, all that exists, all that matters, is the here and now.
that Catholics are persecuted? Did not Jesus Himself tell us that it would happen (Mt 5:11-12)? Yet we always seem surprised when we hear about any kind of persecution. Some forms are worse than others, of course, but we should expect people to oppose us for no other reason than we are Catholic. Why? as sharers in the prophetic ministry of Christ, we should expect the same treatment as the true prophets in the Scriptures.
that Catholics are fighting against each other? As the Church founded by Jesus Christ (Mt 16:13-20) and defender of truth (1 Tm 3:15), it is the Catholic Church that is destined to weather the greatest assault, both from without and from within. Even though our Lord desires us to be one (Jn 17:20-21) there is division among the faithful, and sadly the Liturgy has become the battleground: OF vs. EF, contemporary music vs. traditional hymns. The infighting amongst Catholics is not of God. God desires unity, not factionalism (1 Cor 3:3-5).
the number of faithful are shrinking? As mentioned earlier, the world and the Church are in opposition to each other. And positions of the Church on a myriad of issues (birth control, "gay marriage", divorce and remarriage, pornography, modesty, chastity, war, abortion, capital punishment, etc) are, at best, unpopular. It is only by the grace of God that we can stand firm in the faith and not waver in the face of conformity to society.
the plight of the poor is worsening? In a civilization that values temporal wealth in all its transience as the measure of success, is it any wonder that the poor and hungry are forgotten? Think about the corporeal works of mercy. Feed the hungry. Give drink to the thirsty. Clothe the naked. Shelter the homeless. Visiting the sick.Offer comfort to the imprisoned. Bury the dead. Who enjoys any of these activities? But all the same we are to do them, either directly (by volunteering at a soup kitchen, for example) or indirectly (by offering financial support to religious orders that have one or more of these as charisms, for example) Particularly in the united States, where we place a great deal of pride on personal achievement, we must not make the mistake of Cain, and deny our role as our brother's keeper (Gen 4:9-10).

This post is not intended as a "look at how holy I am" post, but a call to action for all of us, including myself, to stop "playing Church" and take ownership of our faith, and turn it into something real. It does not take a lot of people to change the world for the better, it merely takes dedicated people to change it. Of the thousands that heard Jesus preach, of the multitudes that followed Him wherever He went, Jesus chose twelve. Just twelve. We can make the world a better place, but first we must dedicate ourselves to the Lord, and stop trying to do things on our own and let Him work through us.

The Ten Commandments

2011-03-02T10:44:00.002-05:00

One of the distinct differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is in the numbering of the Ten Commandments. Some (but by no means all) Protestants make the claim that the Catholic Church removed the second commandment, and split the tenth commandment into two. To show how this is not the case, and to explain the differences, I will use the following table, utilizing the Ten Commandments as they are found in the twentieth chapter of Exodus:

	Catholic	Protestant
I	Do not commit idolatry	Do not commit idolatry
II	Do not take the name of the LORD in vain	Do not worship graven images
III	Keep the Sabbath	Do not take the name of the LORD in vain
IV	Honor your father and mother	Keep the Sabbath
V	Do not kill	Honor your father and mother
VI	Do not steal	Do not kill
VII	Do not commit adultery	Do not steal
VIII	Do not bear false witness	Do not commit adultery
IX	Do not covet your neighbor’s goods	Do not bear false witness
x	Do not covet your neighbors wife	Do not covet

As you can see, most of the commandments are the same, though there is a slight shift in the order. The discrepancies come in numbering the first two and the last two commandments. Here is the text of Exodus 20 which comprises the first commandment for Catholics, which Protestants split apart into two commandments:

And God spoke all of these words, saying, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of Bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands of those who keep my commandments

It really does not make any sense to split this into two separate commandments. By doing so, the first two commandments are both the same: do not commit idolatry. The command here is not against the making of images, but the worship of images. We know this, because God actually commands the making of images for the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Ex 25: 18-20). The key here is worship, so by splitting this first commandment into two, we have a redundancy.

The other variance in the substance of the commandments occurs in the ninth and tenth commandments, as numbered by the Catholic Church. The problem here is that Protestants seem to be equating a wife, who has the dignity of being a human person created in the image of God, with mere things. There is a fundamental difference in coveting a neighbor’s “stuff” and coveting his wife. By combining the two, the Commandments take on a misogynistic character which I can assure you was not the intent of the Holy Spirit. Is a wife the same as property? No. Even in past eras where women did not enjoy the freedoms they presently enjoy, there was still a difference between taking a man’s wife and taking his horse.

One final note: I spent many years away from any religious practice, and during this time I took a “Bible as Literature” class at the Ohio State University. In this class we were to do reading journals based on assigned reading. I distinctly remember my journal entry regarding the Ten Commandments, in which I, being unchurched, still managed to identify the Commandments in their most logical division, which is the division used by the Catholic Church. I guess what I am trying to say is that the Commandments an enumerated by Protestants are falsely enumerated to fit theor predetermined theology, rather than enumerated as dictated by reason.

YouTube nuttiness

2011-03-01T22:50:00.000-05:00

This is going to be a very short post. I just wanted to speak about the most self-deluded individual I have ever encountered on YouTube. These are her claims:

The Catholic Churches teaches Sola Fide.
Every English Bible has been mistranslated.
She alone knows the proper translation of the Greek in the New Testament
James 2:24 (You see that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone) has nothing to do with salvation, but with growth after salvation (which she holds to be an instantaneous event, rather than a process.)
Israel is NOT a type of the Church, Instead the Church is some kind of "Plan B" because the original one did not work out as God had planned.

These are the things that struck me. Contact me privately (tiber2008@aim.com) if you would like a link so you can see for yourself. I would prefer not to soil her name in my blog, especially when she does such a good job of it for herself on her YouTube channel. I'm done now. I just had to get that off my chest.

Israel and the Church

2011-02-25T18:32:00.001-05:00

In a discussion with a Baptist friend of mine, we had quite a debate with regards to the relationship between the Church and Israel. It is her view that the present political state of Israel is to be identified with the Israel referenced in the Scriptures. There are some problems with this view. The problems I will highlight are by no means exhaustive, but I do believe that they are sufficient to show that the Israel referenced in the Scriptures is to be identified with the Church.

The Scriptures identify the Church with Israel.

We can read in 1 Peter 2:9-10:

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

In most cases, Baptists use this as a “proof-text” for what they call “Biblical Separation.” A simple reading of the text seems to indicate this, but a simple reading of the text fails to take something into consideration: Namely, St. Peter is alluding to Exodus in multiple places. First we have Exodus 19:5-6 (emphasis mine):

Now therefore if you will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.

The parallel here is clear enough as to be self-evident. St. Peter, speaking to the Church ( 1 Peter 1:1-2) uses the same language as God speaks to Moses, but rather than speaking to ethnic Israelites, he is referring to the Church. There are other passages as well. Leviticus 26:12 identifies Israel as God’s people with the oft-quoted “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people,” and again, St. Peter clearly identifies the Church as God’s people.

2. The modern political state of Israel does not fit the organizational structure of Biblical Israel, where the Church does.

The modern political state of Israel, though populated by ethnic Jews, and occupying much of the land as Biblical Israel, has a completely different governmental structure. Modern Israel is a parliamentary democracy headed by a president and prime minister. This is not the structure of Biblical Israel. Biblical Israel had a king, not a president, who was descended from the house of David through Solomon. Also, the mother of the king had a great deal of authority, and petitions to the king often came through the queen-mother. In addition, the king appointed advisors as overseers over the kingdom, with one serving as a sort of “chief steward” who could actually rule in the king’s stead. Of course these structures do need Scriptural support since I am speaking of the biblical Israel. I am not going to reproduce the text themselves, but merely providing references. The Old Testament references will be the references to the Davidic Kingdom; the New Testament will be their fulfillment in Christ and His Church.

Kingship through David: 2 Sam 7:12-14; Mat 1:1-17

Queen Mother: 1 Kings 2:13-18; Luke 1: 41-45, Rev 12: 1-6

King’s Advisors: 1 Kings 4:7-19; Mat 10:1-4, Mk 3:13-19, Lk 6:12-16

Chief Steward: Isa 22:20-24; Mat 16: 13-20

3. The Kingdom of Heaven is understood to be present now, but to be fulfilled to completeness it the Last Day.

The general view of Evangelicals is that when Jesus spoke of the “Kingdom of Heaven” is that he was speaking of the final reward, and that the Church was merely a temporary measure that was needed because of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. The first we hear of this Kingdom is not from Jesus, but John the Baptist. “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This means that it is imminent. It was right around the corner. After Jesus is baptized, what does he do? He preaches the kingdom. In the Sermon on the Mount, He opens with the Beatitudes, which are simply qualities of the kingdom’s citizens. Later, in Matthew 13, He gives a series of parables describing the imperfections in the kingdom. In the final reward of heaven, there will be no tares among the wheat. But that does describe the situation in the Church today. Of course we do have a New Heaven and New Earth to look forward to, but for right now, the Kingdom is very present in the form of the Church.

Like I said at the beginning, there is much to unpack with regards to Israel in the Last Days, but I strongly feel it is a mistake to look at a sliver of land in the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea as the embodiment of the Biblical Israel. The New and Everlasting Covenant has expanded God’s People to be more than a single ethnicity from the Near East, but is now comprised of all nations. Israel is the People of God, but that means also that the Israel of prophecy is the Church, and not the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob only, even though ethnic Israel will play a role in the eschaton.

The Canon of Scripture

2011-02-12T10:53:00.000-05:00

I do spend time on apologetics websites, and I regarding the Scriptures I hear two major errors floating around, one form the Catholic side and one from the Protestant side. I will address the Catholic one first, simply because it is easier to deal with. The claim (usually a well-intentioned, but ultimately erroneous attempt to defend Sacred Tradition) is that for the first 300 (or 400, or 500) years of the Church, there was no Scripture at all, and that the Canon came into existence fully formed (usually the date used is AD 383, at the Council of Hippo). This is simply not the case. Before the council (which was actually a local synod) there were several competing canons. The earliest written record we have of a canonical list issued by orthodox Christianity dates from the late second century. This is not to be an attack against Sacred Tradition, but simply to point out a poor defense of it. The more ludicrous claim comes form the Protestant side, and is even to be found in scholarly literature, though it is patently false. The claim is that the Catholic Church had no Canon until 1546 at the Council of Trent. Allow me to present a brief timeline (which is in no means comprehensive) of the development of the Canon of Scripture:

AD 140: The Gnostic Marcion issues a canon consisting of Luke and ten of the Epistles of St. Paul, all of which were heavily redacted as to remove any connection with Judaism or the Incarnation.
AD 180-200: The Muratorian Fragment is circulated, indicating four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles (with the exception of Hebrews), two epistles of John, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Wisdom of Solomon.
AD 348-350: St. Cyril of Jerusalem Issues a 22 book Old Testament Canon (these represent 35 books according to modern divisions). His New Testament Canon was identical to the modern Canon, with the exception that Cyril did not include Revelation. He also specifically condemns the Gospel of Thomas.
AD 360: Council of Laodicea: Canon of Scripture does not include Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 & 2 Maccabees, or Revelation.
AD 367: St. Atahanasius in a letter maintains the Old Testament Canon of St. Cyril, included Revelation in the New Testament, and holds Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas to have catechetical value.
AD 383: Council of Hippo names the modern Catholic Canon, contingent on Rome's approval. This same Canon was reaffirmed at Carthage on two occasions--in AD 397 and AD 419.
AD 405: Pope St. Innocent I reaffirms Canon issued at Hippo in Apostolic letter Consulenti tibi.
AD 447: Pope St. Leo I emphasized the necessity of the Canon not to be corrupted with Gnostic texts.
AD 496: Pope St. Gelasius definitively affirms the Canon form the Council of Hippo.

This timeline actually demonstrates a defense against both erroneous claims. The Canon predated Tent by more than 1000 years, and it did not suddenly appear at the Council of Hippo. I would argue that the long silence between the Decree of Gelasius (496) and the next Church document regarding the Canon (Council of Florence, 1442) shows that the Canon was indeed settled, albeit over a long process of development.

Scattered Thoughts of a Roam'in Catholic: Stand up, Be Heard, Defend Life

2011-02-02T17:04:00.000-05:00

My good friend Jonathan McGovern has started a blog, and this post in particular is definitely worth a look

Scattered Thoughts of a Roam'in Catholic: Stand up, Be Heard, Defend Life: "Life so simple and taken for granted by so many and yet here with this statistic in NYC 4 in 10 new lives are being aborted, their life take..."

My Love Affair with the Written Word.

2011-02-02T10:39:00.000-05:00

I seriously love books. In my college apartment I have two small bookcases each filled to capacity with books on history, philosophy, theology, photography, as well as light reading, drama, and so on. Most of my books I have yet to read, though I have the intention of reading every one of them (at least those that are designed to be read in such a manner). I was wondering where this love of books came from. I believe this came in part form my parents. Not in genetics, mind you ( I am not even sure how much of a role genetics plays in how much someone likes to read, if any), but more in the realm of encouragement. About the time I was starting school, my parents made an investment in our education. They bought a World Book Encyclopedia and set of Childcraft Books. I spent hours reading about all manner of topics, although I seemed to gravitate to three general categories (history, science, and military). I am pretty sure that what attracted me to these at first was the big colorful maps and overlays. I mean seriously, I was five or six when these were bought, I wasn't reading much at that point. But the point is I learned that the written word was the key to unlocking knowledge. As a result, I was never much of a television junkie while growing up. I did watch Saturday morning cartoons (side note: do they even have Saturday morning cartoons anymore?) But most afternoons, I could be found reading for enjoyment. In this modern age of electronic entertainment, I think we have lost sight of the pure enjoyment of reading. I know I have. In fact I just uninstalled games from my computer because instead of playing a mindless game of repeatedly clicking an are of a computer screen to make numbers change, that time would be better spent reading assignments for one of my classes (and this semester with Rahner and von Balthasar, the reading is not necessarily what could be considered "light") but also for edification, personal growth, and yes, enjoyment. The electronic age is not a bad thing (after all, you are reading this via a blog) but maybe it is just time to sit back and use our brains instead of passively taking in whatever comes across the internet or the airwaves.

Catholic Bibles: Blizzard Contest

2011-02-01T18:52:00.000-05:00

Catholic Bibles: Blizzard Contest: "On the eve of not only a massive snow storm which will be hitting the Great Lakes later this evening, but more importantly the feast of the..."

Over at catholicbibles.blogspot.com there is a nifty contest going on through Saturday!

Shock Investigation: Planned Parenthood Advises ‘Pimp’ on Underage Sex Trafficking, Secret Abortions for Minors

2011-02-01T17:38:00.000-05:00

<span style="color: red">Shock Investigation: Planned Parenthood Advises ‘Pimp’ on Underage Sex Trafficking, Secret Abortions for Minors</span>

This is revolting. Planned Parenthood is concerned about the rights of women? I don't think so.

The Word of God

2011-01-31T17:34:00.001-05:00

In our American parlance, the phrase "Word of God" has a decidedly Protestant character. When we say this what we really mean is not "Word of God" in its fullest sense, but only in a single dimension: Scripture. This is not to say we are particularly incorrect when referring to Scripture as the Word of God, for it is, but The Word of God transcends simply Scripture and has a much deeper meaning. First, the Word of God can refer to direct revelation. We read in Jeremiah 25:3 (RSV-CE2):

For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josi'ah the son of Amon, king of Judah, to this day, the word of the LORD has come to me, and I have spoken persistently to you, but you have not listened.

In this context, we see that the "Word of the LORD" refers to word spoken directly to Jeremiah, which may or may not have been written down in its entirety. But there is also a third meaning for "Word of God" which is even more worthy of contemplation. I am, of course talking about the Divine Logos, the Word made Flesh. "Why is this important?" you may ask. It is important in understanding what the Scriptures are really trying to tell us. For example, most people, when reading Hebrews 4:12, assume that the verse is about the Scriptures:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

To be quite honest, that is what appears to be the case on the surface. This verse is actually a favorite of those who adhere to Sola Scriptura (Latin for "Scripture Alone") to justify the rejection of all Tradition in favor of just Scripture. There is a problem with that interpretation, however. First, the sacred author seems to be anthropomorphizing the Bible, giving it intelligence and will. There is a reason for this. The author (whether it be St. Paul or someone else) is actually talking about a person, the person of Jesus Christ. This becomes evident if you continue reading the next verse in Hebrews (emphasis mine):

And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

The personal pronouns indicate a person, not a book. It is clear that this passage is not talking about Scrpture at all, but the Living Word of God, the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. From this point the author moves to speaking about Our Great High Priest. Does it make sense for the author, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to speak of entering into God's rest, then inexplicably mention the Scripture for one verse, then go back to the salvific work of Christ? If you interpret the "Word of God" to be the Scriptures in this context, it seems very much out of place.Like I said at the beginning of this post, there is nothing wrong with calling Scripture the word of God, but when it comes to exegesis, we must be mindful of the simple fact that the terminology used in the Scriptures is rarely self-referential, and is usually either a reference to the Son or direct revelation to the Prophets.

Are Pro-lifers Misogynist Pigs?

2011-01-26T11:01:00.000-05:00

Are Pro-lifers Misogynist Pigs?

March for Life

2011-01-23T21:42:00.000-05:00

This year marks the 38th year since the legalization of Abortion in the United States. The death toll has reached 53,000,000. To put that number in perspective, 53 million pennies would weigh in excess of 30 thousand tons. Laid side by side, a line of 53 million pennies would be almost 630 miles long. Again, for perspective that would be a line of pennies stretching roughly from New York City to Indianapolis (700 miles). If you are reading this and you have been born since 22 January 1973, you are a holocaust survivor. You could have been, at the choice of your mother, been killed for any reason, or no reason. Those in favor of the "woman's right to choose" don't like the terminology "holocaust," but what else should it be called? There are real lives being destroyed. If you can go to DC for the March for life, then go! If you can't, then pray. Pray for an end to the slaughter. Until we recognize the value of life from its very beginning, we will continue to see a disregard for it at other stages as well.

Merry Christmas!

2010-12-25T08:10:00.000-05:00

I was going to do a reflection on the Gospel reading from Mass last night (Lk 2:1-14) and unpack how everything is bound up in the incarnation, the significance of Bethlehem and the manger, but rather than get all intleectual, I am just going to keep it simple. Read the passage for yourself, I mean really read it, deliberately, prayerfully, and let the Holy Spirit tell you more than I ever could. Have a joyous and blessed Christmas Season!!

Tron Legacy

2010-12-17T11:14:00.000-05:00

Today's post is a departure form the norm. I am compelled to write a review of TRON: Legacy, the long-awaited sequel to the original Cyber-adventure, TRON. Let me start by saying that the effects were stunning. I am not sure if I was wowed just because it was my first 3D picture or what, but I was suitably impressed with the visual effects. Unfortunately, a movie has more elements than just SFX. Think about it: the truly great movies that had amazing effects had something else to go along with the effects: action to provide a reason for the effects, a plot to drive the action, acting to draw you into the story, and pacing to keep the story moving at the appropriate pace, neither too fast nor too slow. This movie had none of these elements. The movie failed almost immediately in the suspension of disbelief. For a science fiction or fantasy based movie, this is crucial. Superman fails if you don't believe that he is flying. Star Wars fails if you don't believe that the story is taking place "A long tome ago, in a galaxy far, far away." Likewise TRON fails if you do not believe that the Grid could be a reality in the context of the world of the movie.
Legacy opens in 1989, on the night that Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappears, leaving his son, Sam, without parents. Fast forward to now, and computer company ENCOM is doing what is viewed as the ultimate evil: selling an operating system rather than giving it away for free. (THE HORROR!!!!) Eventually, Sam gets sucked into the Grid, and nonsensical action sequences, complete with horrendous acting ensues. I would give you a brief plot outline, but there wasn't one that I could discern. I would tell you how characters developed, but they didn't. I will tell you that I almost fell asleep out of sheer boredom. I will also say that I have been to midnight showings before, and this is the first one with fewer than 20 people in the theatre. My advice: skip it. Wait for Thor in May.

The Proper Reception of Vatican II

2010-12-13T15:11:00.000-05:00

I post regularly on Catholic message boards, and one phenomenon that struck me from the very beginning is the passion revolving around the Second Vatican Council, especially considering that the council closed forty-five years ago this month. The discussion (if not out-and-out arguing) is essentially the debate between two extreme views with mainstream Catholics caught in the crossfire. The reason that this is important is that the in-fighting is making the powers of darkness cackle with glee. It has always been the Evil One's modus operandi to divide and conquer. He caused division between Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, well, you get the idea. Division existed in the Apostolic age, and it exists to this day, not only between Catholic and Protestant, but also Catholic and Catholic over Vatican II. My goal here is not to tell you what teachings came out of Vatican II, as the space required for such an endeavor would require a full-length book. What I would like to do her is give the source of the problem, and what a faithful Catholic can do to help promote the proper understanding of the Second Vatican Council.
The problem that I have observed is the sparring caused by two seemingly diametrically opposed views that are ironically founded upon the same error. Whether the debater is a "progressive" that seeks to eradicate Latin from the Liturgy or claim dogmas are a matter of conscience, or they are a "traditionalist" who labels anyone who accepts the Council as a "modernist," the same error is being made: they are assuming the Council documents teach things that are not there. If you enter into one of these debates with a more moderate point of view, then be prepared to catch heat from both the traditionalist and the modernist. Having weathered these debates, I have come up with a few pointers to ensure a productive exchange, if not for those that you are debating, then for those lurkers who are reading your posts.

Rely on the documents. This cannot be overstated. If someone claims such and such, then ask where in the documents this can be found. As an example, some modernist says that Latin no longer has a place in the Liturgy, either ask where the documents say such a thing, or counter with something like "But in Sacrosanctum Concilium 36, we are told that Latin is to be preserved." Every document from the council is available both in print and on the internet. Again, this is the best weapon in your arsenal. It is very difficult for them to maintain many of their erroneous views when confronted with the documents.
Rely on the Holy See. Granted, there are some ambiguous wordings in the documents (the infamous "for the sake of our salvation" in Dei Verbum 11 is one such passage.) We are not left to our own devices here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the documents extensively. Some editions of the Catechism have an index of citations. Utilize this. If yours does not, rely on the topical index. Show them that their view is not consistent with how the Church interprets the documents. Let them quote theologians all they wish, but remember that theologians are not Magisterium.
Don't get mad. This is an issue I have to work on consistently, but don't get angry. You have no reason to get angry. You have the documents and the Magisterium behind you. They do not. Reamin calm, and stick with the issues.

These are the best ways to engage in debate about Vatican II. I hope this was of help, and keep fighting the good fight.

Down to the Wire

2010-12-05T10:22:00.000-05:00

As I complete my first semester of actual graduate-level classes at Franciscan University of Steubenville, I have to do a bit of reflection about what I have learned. I am not talking about the role of Scripture in catechesis, or the documents of Vatican II, or covenant theology. I am talking about things I have learned about myself. I have learned that I am probably not called to the priesthood, but I am still discerning. I have learned that "skating through" my classes is no longer an option. I will fully admit I probably did not apply myself as much as I really could have in my undergrad years. This is no longer the case. If I am going to succeed at this level, I really need to work harder. It is not a question of ability, but a question of actually doing what needs to be done. Let us just say that this semester was a wake-up call for me. In retrospect, I probably should have eased myself into it by mixing up my graduate and prerequisites last year, so that by the time I would be taking only grad-level classes, i would be more ready for them. I would really like to write a longer post, but I have to get back to studying. I have two exams left to take, and neither one of them are for what I would consider to be "easy" classes. I will write more after I get back home for Christmas break, which I will probably rant about. It isn't "Winter break" or "Holiday break" it is CHRISTMAS break. (But what the heck, I go to a Catholic School...I can say that)

Something I am tired of

2010-12-04T07:59:00.000-05:00

I received this e-mail this morning:

Subject: What is Wrong????

We have been led astray and lost our way – simply put.

I AGREE WITH THIS SO I'M SENDING IT TO OTHERS.....TOO.
HOPE SOMETHING CHANGES SOON.
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with
all the people that run this country!!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,?????????

In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey . And now Pakistan .....home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS !!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income'
receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our
government and religious organizations pour
Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we havehomeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry,
elderly going without 'needed' meds, and
mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.
YET.....................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti
on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US'
the same support they give to other
countries.

Sad isn't it?

99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.
I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did

I, for one, really get tired of such hateful, greedy, xenophobic messages. As a wealthy nation, we have a responsibility, yes responsibility to assist poorer nations. Americans are no more valuable as people than Haitians. Where there is suffering, we ust do what we can to alleviate it. And if you look at our budget, what we spend to help other nations is a trifle compared to what we spend to blow the up. Why do these e-mails never speak of the suffering we have caused in Iraq? Why do these e-mails never talk of the billions spent on our military. Oh, yes, I forgot, it is better to destroy than build. It is better to conquer than edify. Trust me I am going to reply to who sent me this instructing her never to send me hateful garbage like this again. Just needed to vent. On another note, after finals, I will actually get back to some real blogging. Until then, God bless you and yours!

Liturgy in the Scriptures

2010-11-12T16:42:00.001-05:00

Just a quick thought: Many say that the Liturgy cannot be found found in the Scriptures. What about the divine Liturgy depicted in Revelation chapter 4, or the Emmaus Road incident at the ed of the Gospel of Luke?

VOTE!!!

2010-11-01T22:08:00.000-04:00

This is just a quick reminder that every American over the age of 18 has the responsibility to get out and vote! It is rare for people to have the ability to actively participate in their government, so don't take it for granted! VOTE VOTE VOTE!!!!!

A Note On Apologetics

2010-10-31T15:36:00.000-04:00

There are two basic ways to do apologetics. One is positive, and one is negative. It is the positive that I strive for, but often fall short. It is the positive that is truer to the root of the word. The root of "apologetics" comes from the Greek "apologia" which means "to make a defense." So to my way of thinking, the best way to do apologetics is not to demonstrate how your wrong, but rather to show how your own position is right. Sometimes, "proving the other guy wrong" is unavoidable, particularly if the two positions are diametrically opposed. BUT THIS SHOULD NEVER BE YOUR PRIMARY TACTIC. Many years ago, when I was a young Christian, and fully convinced that the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon, I attacked a priest in this very fashion, buy going on the attack, and my only goal was to prove them wrong. In fact, I had the two primary ingredients for foolish arrogance: I was a Fundamentalist and I was 21. This priest (to this day I don't know what his name was, but I think I could find out easily enough, as it is my own parish, and I know the year). He told me "How strong is your faith when the only way you have to defend it is to attack the faith of others." This is true. Lets say that the issue is the Primacy of Peter. This is easily defended by giving positive evidence from the Bible and from the Early Church. The same holds true with Transubstantiation. It is my goal in my attempts to share my faith not to reduce myself to simply saying "Protestants are wrong because..." but rather, "the Church is right because..." Now it may very well be the case that there is no middle ground, but that does not mean we must use attack as our polemic. I don't recall that tactic being used by the Apostles, or the Fathers, or any of the great Saints. It is much better to draw people in with defense, than to risk offending them with attack.

Halloween

2010-10-30T12:50:00.000-04:00

It is upon us again, that day where children (and adults) dress up in costumes and have a grand time not acting their age. Some would argue that no Christian (Catholic or otherwise) should partake in the bizarre rituals associated with the holiday. Make no mistake, the rituals are truly bizarre. For 364 days out of the year, we tell our children not to take candy from strangers, yet on Halloween, or some evening thereabouts, we dress up our little ones and escort them door to door to collect candy form folks we do not know. The more enterprising parents, engaging in a practice I abhor, coordinate trick-or-treating in such a way as to take up the collection of confections on multiple nights, visiting other other areas of town, or even other towns altogether, but I digress. As a distributor of sweets on the night of the collection, I would simply like to say that this practice is in and of itself harmless, though I gather dietitians and dentists may disagree. However there are good and bad ways to celebrate this strangeness. First, I would suggest dressing up as ghouls, ghosts, devils, witches, etc is not the best way to instill a reverence for the dead in your little ones. Focus on the cute over the macabre. I have seen miniature pirates, super-heroes, royalty, and various critters that made me overdose on cute. I will take a ladybug or princess over a blood-splattered costume any time. Of course, Halloween is the vigil of All Saints Day. Halloween is actually derived from "All Hallows Eve." It then would be fitting to dress a child up as a saint. (I promise a double portion of candy to any child who shows up dressed like the Blessed Mother or my patron saint!) That is it. I have said my piece. This is my futile attempt to change how Halloween is viewed, from a celebration of death to just good clean fun.

Unanswered questions

2010-10-28T11:01:00.000-04:00

I was posting on an internet forum, and the question of Catholic Tradition came up, as it is wont to do from time to time. A Mormon posted this statement:

i think you are comparing apples and oranges

protestants agree with alot of catholic tradition, like the naming of the Gospels, let's call these 'apples'

protestants don't agree with all catholic tradition, like the Marian doctrines or maybe infant baptism, let's call these 'oranges'

I couldn't let this rest. I then quite directly asked how it is determined which Catholic Traditions are dependable, and which are not. This was a couple of days ago, and still no response, either from athis poster, or any of the other Protestants participating in the discussion. I know open the same question to my readers. IF not all Catholic Traditon is dependable, how can you tell which is, and which is not. This is vitally important since the very Scriptures we depend upon are a product of Tradition.

Seminary visit

2010-10-24T12:55:00.000-04:00

After my class on Friday, I took a 4 1/2 hour road trip to Cincinnati, Ohio to visit the Athenium/Mount St. Mary's Seminary. It is the first of several seminary visits I will be making as I discern my call to the ministerial priesthood. Architecturally, the building reminded me of the school in The Dead Poet's Society. I wan't there long, as I arrived Friday afternoon and departed Saturday morning, but I felt a real camaraderie with the students there, and the priests on the faculty and administration I met were very friendly. I learned more about the discernment process, And I look forward to continuing on my journey to discover I am truly called to be a priest.

An Urgent Plea

2010-10-23T17:36:00.000-04:00

Here is the situation: I am pursuing a vocation into the diocesan priesthood. In addition to prayers for my discernment itself, I have run into a stumbling-block. My diocese will pay for my previous accrued educational debt one i become ordained. However, there are limits to what they can assume. Herin lies my problem. I will have in excess of $100,000 in educational debt once i finish my Master's Degree from Franciscan University. I do not want to wait an additional 20 years before I can start seminary. Does anyone know of any sources of donors for this kind of situation? I truly do feel that God is calling me to be a priest, but this huge debt does seem to be standing in my way. Again, any prayers are welcomed.. This is something that weighs heavily on me. Thank you and God bless you.

Pornography Addiction

2010-10-18T16:58:00.000-04:00

About Franciscan

This is a good article to read about a talk given at Franciscan University about porn addiction.

God's Sledgehammer

2010-10-08T21:20:00.000-04:00

Has anyone had one of those moments where it seems that the Lord has stopped playing around, and hit you in the face with a sledgehammer? I had one of those moments today. My guess is that God has gotten tired of waiting for me to get a clue.
A little background information is in order. Many years ago, when the world was young, and I was still a Fundamental Baptist, I was certain that God was calling me to be a pastor. Well I grew disillusioned with what I perceived as heresy and hypocrisy in the Fundamentalist movement, and I left school, and eventually I had stopped going to church. Fast forward about 15 years or so. I had found Catholicism (or, more accurately, Catholicism found me) and in RCIA, when I learned about the Sacrament of Holy Orders, I felt that familiar nudge from the Holy Spirit. I dismissed the feeling as the over-enthusiasm of a new covert. As the call grew stronger, I tried to "make a deal" with God. Everybody knows how those turn out. I am sure God got a chuckle out of that. I promised that I would get a degree in Theology, but I was not going to become a priest. Well, I decided to go to Franciscan University of Steubenville, and over the first year I had some real moments of spiritual growth, as is known to happen at that particular university. All this time my "deal" was in the back of my mind. When I took a class on the sacraments over the summer, the deal crumbled into rubble. It seemed to me the deal was off. I had to be willing to give all to God. Whether God elevates me to the priesthood or not is irrelevant. So I started discerning over the summer. Well back at school, I found myself absorbed in the various reading and writing for class, and my discernment once again took a back seat. That brings us to today. Today was the vocations fair. God broke out his spiritual sledgehammer and beat me in the face with it, to serve as a reminder why I am here: to serve Him. After talking with several priests, I definitely see myself as a priest in my home diocese of Toledo.

Society of Saint Pius X

2010-09-24T09:08:00.001-04:00

I have been putting this one off. Though I do consider myself to be more traditional than not, I must take exception to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). For those of you who may be unfamiliar with them, they are a society of radical traditionalists in the Catholic Church. Well, sort of. They were founded by Archbishop Mercel Lefevbre, who, by overtly ignoring the instructions of Venerable John Paul II, was excommunicated. He ordained bishops when instructed not to, which in itself, is a schismatic act. Excommunications have since been lifted, but the Society still has no faculties. What this means is that though all priests and bishops in the SSPX can celebrate the sacraments validly, the sacraments they celebrate are illicit. When an SSPX priest consecrates the Host, it is a valid Eucharist, but in doing so he commits the sin of disobedience because he has no canonical jurisdiction. The exceptions to the validity of sacraments are Reconciliation and Holy Matrimony. These are neither valid nor licit, except in case of emergency.

The point of this post is not to simply rail against the SSPX, but to present my own position. Of course anyone is allowed to disagree, it isn't like I am exercising magisterial authority here, but I do ask that you be respectful (at least if you want your comments posted).

First, as stated earlier, I am of a more traditional mindset. I prefer pipe organ to guitars and Gregorian Chant to "Lord of the Dance." I think altar servers should be male whenever possible and "Praise and Worship" music is best utilized in quasi-liturgical settings. In other words, I actually agree with the SSPX in outward displays of tradition. Notice that in my self description I used the word "prefer." What this means is that I concede that other Catholics do not share my position. Some prefer a more contemporary worship setting. That is all well and good. There are a variety of worship settings within Catholicism that are all valid. To this end, I will say that I share the concerns of the SSPX. I would like to see a resurgence in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. But I cannot disparage the faith of one who is content with the Ordinary Form. I have concerns about how Vatican II was implemented, but I cannot cross the line into saying that it was a "false council," as this is a very dangerous road to embark upon. The irony here is that while claiming to staunchly support the ancient traditions of the Church, the SSPX ignores the ones that are inconvenient. Liek obedience to the Holy Father. The Society has been canonically suppressed. In my mind, this mean the associated priests and bishops should stop hearing confession (this one is vital, as the sacrament is invalid), should stop celebrating the Eucharist, and should do nothing but work towards restoration of faculties.

Like I said earlier, I am sympathetic to the concerns of the SSPX. Believe me, when their faculties are restored, I would not hesitate in attending an SSPX chapel. Until that time comes, I cannot, in good conscience, support a group that continues to act in defiance of Pope Benedict XVI. Disagree if you wish, but that is just the way I see it.

A Word about definitions....

2010-09-07T10:15:00.000-04:00

Today, I was wasting some time on YouTube, and came across a video attempting to refute Transubstantiation. The problem with the argument was his definition of "substance." Any time one practices apologetics, or debate of any kind for that matter, you will only weaken your own argument if you refuse to acknowledge the proper definitions of words. The apologist in question was equating "substance" wit "material." That is a valid definition, but it is not the only definition, and that is not the sense in which Catholics use it with respect to the Eucharist. When discussing the Eucharist, we define "substance" as "that quality which makes a thing what it is." In other words, we use the metaphysical definition, not the physical definition.
Catholic apologists can fall into the same trap, that is using a definition that is not entirely accurate in order to make a position easier to refute (commonly called a "straw man argument"). For example, there are those separated brethren who take "Sola Scriptura" to mean that tradition is valid, though tradition can not be contrary to the Scriptures. There are others who take it to mean that the Scriptures are the sole source of doctrine and practice. There are also those in between who say that the Scriptures are the sole source of doctrine, but not practice. Before engaging in debate, it would be wise to find out which definition they are using! We cannot assume that they are using the second defintion simply because it is the easiest to refute! That's it. I have said my peace. When engaging in apologetics, make sure that everyone is using the same definition. This will avoid arguments.

My Growth as a Catholic

2010-08-19T18:29:00.000-04:00

I have been spending a lot of time on Catholic Answers Forums. A few days ago I started posting with a new username, to start fresh in a manner of speaking. On one of the threads, I saw how truly hateful I was being. I was reflecting poorly not only on myself, but on the Church, and on Jesus Christ. I apologized for my behavior, and then actually started paying attention. I paid attention to what others were saying, as well as being more thoughtful in my replies. I can't see me going back the the hateful me. God used the forums to really open my eyes, and I saw that I was guilty of what I accusing the others of being: judgmental and narrow-minded. Catholicism is bigger than simply the way I worship. There are more than a billion Catholics in the world, and multiple different spiritualities and worship styles that are orthodox. This is not saying that there are no abuses. That much is undeniable. In talking with those that are more in the Traditionalist camp than myself, I am beginning to see their point of view, although I do not necessarily agree with all of it, but I am coming to understand it. Truthfully, I have gained a new appreciation for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Maybe I am more of a Traditionalist than I thought.

My pictures of my Parish

2010-08-18T18:16:00.000-04:00

These are pictures of Most Pure Heart of Mary in Shelby, OH

It is nice to see a Church that looks the way a Church should look!

Book Review: Jesus of Nazareth

2010-08-16T21:56:00.000-04:00

For one of my theology classes, I was assigned to do a book review of Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI. I have decided to share it here:

Book Review: Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Nazareth, written by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, is the first volume of a much larger work on the life of Christ. This first volume focuses on the life of Jesus from his baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist until His transfiguration. The Holy Father’s general method of inquiry is the historical-critical method, but unlike some movements that have employed this method, such as the Jesus Seminar, the Pope does not present a false dichotomy by forcing the separation of this methodology from faith.

In the Forward, Pope Benedict presents a brief history and reasoning behind the purpose for the book. He had observed that the “Historical Jesus” and the “Christ of Faith” had grown apart, and this book is an effort to intellectually reconcile the seeming separation. He presents this problem by asking a question: “What can faith in Jesus as the Christ possibly mean, in Jesus as the Son of the living God, if the man Jesus was so completely different from the picture the Evangelists painted of Him, and that the Church, on the evidence of the Gospels, takes as the basis of her preaching?”(Benedict, xi). At this point, he explains both the strengths and the weaknesses of the historical-critical methodology.

The introduction does not start by launching directly into the Gospels, but instead references the final book of the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy, God promises to Israel, not a king, but a new Moses. He then examines the single most important feature of Moses. He does not identify this definitive aspect of Moses as the working of miracles or his suffering and trials as he led Israel through the wilderness, but rather Moses is identified one who spoke with God as a friend. This new prophet is not merely an extension of the prophetic office of the Old Testament. This new prophet does not merely illuminate the future, but He “shows us the face of God” (Benedict, 4).

Each of the chapters in Pope Benedict’s treatise on the public ministry of Jesus delves into a different aspect of His teachings. A book of this small size cannot be comprehensive, so he is selective in his treatments. For example, in the chapter on Jesus’s parables, he discusses three parables from Luke’s Gospel: the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The reasoning he gives for this selection is:

To attempt an exposition of even a significant portion of Jesus’ parables would far exceed the scope of this book. I would therefore like to limit myself to the three major parable narratives in Luke’s Gospel whose beauty and depth spontaneously touch believer and nonbeliever alike again and again” (Benedict, 194).

Even though his selection of parables is admittedly limited, a full theological exposition of all of Jesus’ parables is not necessary for the stated intent of the book, that is, the personal search for the face of the Lord (Benedict, xxiii).

Throughout the book, the Holy Father seems to be emphasizing the Synoptic Gospels. To a certain extent this is to be expected, as the character of the Gospel of John is a departure from the other three. However, to show that the fourth Gospel is not being intentionally neglected, he devotes a chapter to the major images of Jesus in John’s Gospel. The purpose of this chapter is to refute the position of exegete Rudolf Bultmann, who asserted that John’s Gospel was not a rooted in the Old Testament, but rather, it was based in Gnosticism (Benedict, 219). The methodology for the chapter is a short discussion of four primary images used by the Evangelist: water, wine, bread, and the shepherd. Before he addresses these images, he surveys the scholarship regarding the Gospel from the mid-twentieth century onward. This scholarship he answers with his own treatise on the most theologically developed of the Gospels.

The final two chapters of Jesus of Nazareth address the very identity of Jesus, both through the eyes of the Apostles and Jesus’ own declaration of who He is. In his discussion of Peter’s confession, which appears to some degree an all four of the Gospels, he soundly refutes the idea that some exegetes assert, namely that Jesus’ rebuttal of Peter not only applies to Peter’s denial of the Passion, but also to Peter’s confession. The Holy Father explains that the proper interpretation requires understanding the principal that thinking in terms of “flesh and blood”—the here and now—is what Jesus was rebuffing, while commending faithfulness to revelation. In providing this explanation, the liberal exegesis that uses this text as a proof against the messiahship and divinity of Jesus loses its merit. Furthermore he links the consistency that the disciples, particularly Peter refer to Jesus as either “Messiah” or “Son of God,” further casting doubt on the liberal exegetes’ contention that Peter’s confession, particularly the account in Matthew’s Gospel, is a later interpolation. The discussion of Peter’s confession is concluded with the placement of the confession in John’s Gospel. In the fourth Gospel, the confession takes a different form, appearing at the end of the Bread of Life Discourse, but it is no less an affirmation of Jesus’ status as Christ and Son of God. To explain this version of the confession, the Holy Father places the confession in the context of the Lord’s Supper. In Pope Benedict’s words:

It clearly reveals Jesus’ priestly ministry (Psalm 106:6 calls Aaron the “holy one of God”). This title points backward to the Eucharistic discourse and it points forward, along with this discourse, to the mystery of Jesus’ Cross.; it is thus anchored in the Paschal Mystery, in the heart of Jesus’ mission, and it indicates what makes the figure of Christ from the then current forms of the messianic hope (Benedict, 302).

Here Benedict shows how this title, “Holy One of God,” goes further than Christ, as it sheds light on a specific aspect of His ministry.

Pope Benedict points out that in the Synoptic Gospels, Peter’s confession leads into the Transfiguration. He also links the two events together in their substance: the divinity of Jesus. He examines two approaches to interpreting the Transfiguration. The first is looking at the Transfiguration in the context of the Jewish Feast of the Tabernacles, with which all three Synoptic Gospels associate this milestone event in Jesus’ public ministry. Some exegetes, he concedes, feel that association with the Feast of the Tabernacles is not reasonable, which leads to the second approach, which is to interpret the Transfiguration in the context of Moses on Mount Sinai. The Holy Father draws comparisons that point to Jesus as the New Moses, and the appearance of Jesus at the Transfiguration speaks to His divinity as strongly as the first chapter of John’s Gospel (Benedict, 315).

Now that the basic contents of the book has been surveyed, albeit selectively, attention must be turned to the value of Jesus of Nazareth in the theological field of Christology. The question to be asked is “What, if anything, has this book added to the study of Christology?” In the introduction, Pope Benedict noted the chasm that had resulted from modern Christology between the “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of Faith.” This small book has done much to bridge that gulf. Jesus of Nazareth can best be described as “the Quest for the Historical Jesus rightly practiced.” In a fair way, Pope Benedict addresses modern exegetes head on, by flatly rejecting the assertions that are irreconcilable with the Faith, but accepting those things which deepens our understanding of Jesus Christ. He avoids the error to which most Questers have fallen victim: the error that a historical analysis of Jesus, apart from faith, is a complete picture of Jesus. In this work, Pope Benedict freely accepts those conclusions as which can be arrived exclusively by faith, while also discussing those aspects of Jesus which can be determined through reason, and admitting that a complete picture of the life and ministry of Jesus can only be determined through the exercise of both faith and reason.

Censored by Neo-Cons

2010-08-11T14:00:00.002-04:00

I find it humorous, to the point of being laughable the utter hypocrisy of the neo-conservative movement. Their hypocrisy takes on several forms:

They claim to espouse Christian values, yet they are opposed to care for the poor, and they support the death penalty to the point of calling for its expansion (and this in an age when convictions are overturned on a regular basis).
They claim equality, yet racism among their ranks is undeniable.
They claim to espouse freedom, but censor those of a differing opinion.

I think it is high time that the neo-cons get called out on this. I am tire of these hupocrites thinking that they can dictate what is right and wrong to people of faith. It can be a good movement, but it needs to be cleaned up..As a start, they need to stop thinking about their bank accounts ans start thinking of society as a whole and not just themselves.

New blog

2010-08-09T17:13:00.001-04:00

I started a new blog (yes...thas makes 3!). THisone is at www.caholic-quote.blogspot.com. It is just a daily Catholic quote! enjoy!

Book

2010-08-09T10:33:00.002-04:00

I have started brainstorming and initial collections of ideas and stream of consciousness writing for a book about the Passion ad the Holy Eucharist. Lets be honest, when it comes down to brass tacks, the two are inseparable. Without the Passion, there would be no Eucharist (how does one have a sacrifice without a sacrifice?) Without the Eucharist, the Passion loses its eternal dimension. The working title I have right now is The Source and Summit of Our Faith. I know it isn't original, but since when in quoting the Church a bad idea for a book title? I have no idea when this work will be finished, or even if it will ever see print, but I feel it is something I must do, as a great number of Catholics seem to have forgotten why it is we go to Mass, as evidenced by the cacophony of chatter after the dismissal on any given Sunday in any given parish. It is in this point that I do agree with the staunchest of Traditionalists: where has the reverence gone? The idea that I have right now includes tying together Old Testament types, along with the fulfillments and the Tradition of the CHurch found in the writings of the Fathers and later theologians. (C'mon, you didn't think I could undertake this work without St. Thomas Aquinas, did you?) From time to time I may post excerpts with the hopes og gaining some feedback. Anyways, that is one of the many htings on my mind this morning. God bless you in your day!

Right-Wing Demegoguery

2010-07-24T21:39:00.002-04:00

It is time for a rant. I understand how the political Right in this country does a better job at representing the morality of Christianity, particularly in the realms of the abortion and gay-marriage issues. But I have had my fill of those "Christians," Catholic and Protestant alike, that embrace right-wing economic policy, that favors the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Since when is it a mark of Christianity to ignore the poor, the imprisoned, the hungry? Though I am opposed to Obamacare for its provision for abortion and seeming encouragement of euthanasia, I also agree that some provision needs to made for those who don't go to the doctor because they cannot afford it. Forcing people to buy insurance isn't the answer either. I am talking about those "Christians" who are pro-life when it comes to the unborn, but applaud state-sanctioned murder of convicts. I am talking about "Christians" who want social programs cut because they think their taxes are too high. (Are you listening Tea Party hypocrites?) I am talking about those who claim to worship God, and claim Jesus Christ as their Saviour, but all but ignore the responsibility of stewardship of the planet. I am talking about fools like Glenn Beck, who says that if you belong to a church that preaches social justice, then you should leave that church. Am I suggesting we all flock to the Left? On some issues, absolutely. Should we aboandon the Right? Not on all issues. We need to let our government know that the trampling of the lower classes must stop, that the destruction of the planet must stop, that the judicial murder must stop, that abortion must stop, that the medical murder of the poor must stop. It is the responsibility of the government to protect its people. That is the basic contract between a government and its people: You protect us, we give our loyalty to you. We have been loyal. It is time that the government live up to its end of the bargain. It will never happen as long as a significant portion of the populace that claims moral superiority and ignores their Christian responsibility.

Socialism and Capitalism

2010-07-23T10:18:00.002-04:00

The Tea Party Movement likes tho throw around the word "socialism" quite a bit. I do not consider myself a socialist, but neither do I ally myself with the Tea Party lunatics. I do believe that extreme socialism is a bad thing, and I also believe that an unrestricted free market economy is just as dehumanizing. Government regulations on industry do need to be in place in order to prevent the labor force from being viewed as simply as means to an end. Do I know where the proper equilibrium lies? Nope. But I would say that if the neither the extreme right nor the extreme left are happy, then that is a good sign. Unless, of course, the middle is unhappy as well, which is where we find ourselves now. But I digress. Why do I feel that both capitalism and socialism, if not mediated are not for the greater good? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it best:

2423 The Church's social teaching proposes principles for reflection; it provides criteria for judgment; it gives guidelines for action:
Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.²⁰³
2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.²⁰⁴
A system that "subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production" is contrary to human dignity.²⁰⁵ Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."²⁰⁶
2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.²⁰⁷ Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."²⁰⁸ Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Socialism, or at least the totalitarianism associated with it, robs the individual of their dignity. But on the other hand so does capitalism, which places profit as the primary goal. We need to embrace those aspects of capitalism which promote innovation and self determination, and thos e aspects of socialism which provide for the needs of our fellow man.

David Obeid: Did Jesus Practice Sola Scriptura?

2010-07-21T10:47:00.000-04:00

This is a really good post with regard to Sola Scriptura.

David Obeid: Did Jesus Practice Sola Scriptura?: "I was reading the Gospel according to St. Matthew and came across this passage: The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is n..."

Apologetics Reading List

2010-07-19T16:12:00.003-04:00

I am starting to compile a list of books that I either have or would like to get for my apologetics library. If anyone else has any suggestions, let me know!

Reasons to Believe by Scott Hahn
Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid
Catholic Verses by Patrick Madrid
Rapture by David Currie
More Catholic than the Pope by Patrick Madrid
New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable by F. F. Bruce
Catholic Doctrine in Scriptures by Gregory Oatis
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong
The Nightmare World of Jack Chick by Jimmy Akin
Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating
What do Catholics Really Believe by Karl Keating

This list is a start that I came up with off the top of my head. (If I made any errors with titles an/or authors, those corrections will be made in the next post.

When Atheists Attack

2010-06-11T19:07:00.002-04:00

Why do atheists expend so much energy in attacking God? By doing so are they not, at least to a degree, accepting the fact that God exists? I have an acquaintance that insists mythological creatures are real. I fully admit they do have some kind of being, even if this being is solely in the imagination of man. When I ask for evidence (after all we are talking about physical creatures here which possess being, and not the One Who Is Being, which requires a different sort of evidence), his only reply is "I don't need evidence." At this point the conversation ends, and we each go on our way. Atheists would argue that my belief in God is the same kind of irrational belief. But there are two striking differences:

Belief in God and belief in the fanciful require different sorts of evidence. Belief in dragons, for example. would require some form of verifiable actual examples. Now this is not to say that there are no dragons in realities other than our own, but that in this reality they exist only in our imaginations. God, on the other hand, is not a physical being that inhabit this reality alone (this is the point critics of theism invariably miss with their various satires, such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell's Teapot). In short, different types of beings require different types of justification for existence.
The other is that as foolish as I believe my acquaintance is, I am not going out on a campaign, expending monies and energy to somehow prove that dragons are imaginary. Atheists. on the other hand, spill copious amounts of ink, and expend untold fortunes as well as personal energy to try to convince everyone that God does not exist. I must ask why.

Religion is largely a personal decision. The fact that I am Catholic should not matter one whit to the Atheist. According to his (admittedly depressing and pointless) world-view, we are born, we live, we die. There is no supernatural aspect to our being. We have not lived lives in the past, and nothing happens after we die. (I do not, myself, hold to reincarnation, but I just wanted to be more inclusive with the Atheists' disdain for all things supernatural). If I want to provide my life with purpose by adhering to an (according to them) hopelessly outdated, patristic, unenlightened, belief system, why should they care?

Of course this argument can be turned around. Why do I, a Catholic (or Christian of any stripe, or Hindu, or Muslim, et al.) have any concern for their choice to reject the belief in God? It is because our world-view is altogether different. I cannot speak for other belief systems, but I can say as a Christian that there is a supernatural aspect to our lives. We are created differently than animals, and something does await after physical death. Evangelistic efforts and missionary activity means a great deal to us because we recognize how much is at stake.

I return to my question for the Atheist. Why are you concerned? What is at stake? If you choose to not believe, that is fine, but why do you feel it necessary to banish the very mention of God from all public arenas? And why do you care?

The Sanctity of Human Life

2010-06-09T16:41:00.002-04:00

No, this is not a post about abortion. Priestsforlife.org does much better at discussing that topic than I could ever be. No, this is about abuse of power right here in the United States. A border guard shot and killed a fifteen year-old Mexican boy crossing illegally. In the defense of the guard, this boy was allegedly involved in smuggling juveniles across the border. The fact remains that letha force was used when the situation could have been diffused with an incapacitating shot. I also understand the difficulty of the job, and the danger. I respect that. My problem lies in the "peanut gallery." I got into a discussion on Facebook and some of the comments actually made me sick. I was physically nauseous. Some of the comments are repeated here:

However when you break the law you take chances with your life!!
Ok good thing about living in a free country is we are all intitled to our own opinion!! I hope yours does not get you shot!
What part of he was BREAKING THE LAW DO YOU NOT GET!!???
When you throw rocks at people that have guns. Chances are you might get shot. DUH!
my favorite saying from out for justice with steven segal......kill em all and let god sort em outOK, I think you get the point.

Apparently, illegally crossing the border has been elevated to a capital offense in their opinion. I guess this does go back to abortion. We don't respect life at the beginning, or the end, or the life of anyone who fails to meet our standards. Pathetic.

Sola Scriptura and the Bible

2010-06-09T13:26:00.003-04:00

This is a second post dealing with the heresy of Sola Scriptura (Latin for "Scripture Alone"). In a nutshell, Sola Scriptura was an innovation created by Martin Luther claiming that the Holy Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the sole rule of faith for a Christian. This means that all doctrine, all practices, everything a Christian needs to know can be found in the Bible. This is simply not true. I am not in nay way denigrating the value of studying the Scriptures. St. Jerome said. "Ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." The Second Vatican Council promulgated the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, in which the historical teaching of the Church, that the Scriptures are infallible as they were written under the direction of the Holy Spirit, was reiterated. What I am saying is that the Bible is not our only source of revelation.

The first problem with Sola Scriptura, is that it is not to be found in the Scriptures. Of course supporters of this false teaching will try to make the Bible say things that it doesn't. The most common support is this passage:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

As a Catholics do I simply dismiss this passage? Of course not, but I do look and see what the passage is truly saying. First, the Scripture being referred to is the Old Testament, as when St. Paul was writing this, most of the new Testament had yet to be written. Next we must carefully identify what is being asserted:

All Scripture is inspired by God.
All Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness
Scripture equips a man for "every good work"

Nowhere does this passage claim exhaustiveness for the Scriptures. Using this passage to defend Sola Scriptura fails, as there is no indication of exhaustiveness. Even if exhaustiveness was asserted, it would apply only to the Gospels, which were not yet written.

Another passage often used to try to defend this heresy comes from Hebrews:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

Again, this seems to point to a great deal of authority being placed in the Scriptures. That is, until you get to verse 13. Is it not odd that the pronouns associated with "word of God" are not the neuter "it" and "which", but "him" and "whom." This seems to indicate that the "word of God" is not a thing (the Scriptures) but a person (Jesus Christ). Is Jesus Christ not the W0rd made flesh (John 1:14)? Even if you ignore v. 13 (which I do not recommend, as it is irresponsible exegesis to ignore the context of a passage), for "word of God" to mean the Scriptures and only the Scriptures you would have to insert the word "written". How much of God's word was never written down? Elijah, one of the most well known prophets in the Old Testament, did not write a single book in the Old Testament. Is this to mean that God never spoke to Elijah? And Is every single thing that Jesus spoke recorded in the Gospels? Not according to John 21:25. What this means is that there is room for oral tradition. If there is room for oral tradition, then that means that the idea that the Bible, an only the Bible, is our source for doctrine is not in keeping with the Scriptures.

The Evangelistic shortcoming of Sola Scriptura

2010-06-07T22:00:00.005-04:00

Sola Scriptura, that innovation of Martin Luther's that still plagues Christianity today has a serious shortcoming that I have never seen addressed. If any readers has seen this addressed, then please provide me with the source as I would be most interested in seeing how those who adhere to Sola Scriptura deal with this problem. The problem is this: If all that God has revealed about himself is in Scripture alone, then how does one evangelize those who have not come to believe the Scriptures? To what does one appeal in evangelization? Christian communities that do not hold to Sola Scriptra, that is, the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, do not have this problem. We can appeal to reason. The knowledge of God can be arrived at through intellectual debate alone. Read the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. In this great (by "great" I refer to both the work's quality and size) work St. Thomas puts forth five proofs for the existence of God. (A searchable version of this work can be found at www.newadvent.org. St. Anslem also provides his own proofs for God's existence. The point is how do you prove God's existence without using the Bible, if the only source you have to prove God's existence is the Bible? You see the problem here? CAtholics and Orthodox can appeal to reason. What provides the basis for proof among those who only accept the Scriptures, and nothing else?

My new blog

2010-05-28T17:10:00.002-04:00

I have started a new blog called "Debunking the Myths" and can be found here. I will continue to post on Marching Orders, which will be kind of a hodgepodge as the Spirit moves me kind of thing. Debunking the Myths will be much more focused in apologetics, specifically with refuting false claims about what Catholics believe. Fulton J. Sheen was an inspiration for this new blog. Any comments you may have are more than welcome, as I am using both blogs to hone my writing skills. God bless!

An Attempt at a Truly Apologetic Thread

2010-05-27T21:35:00.004-04:00

The following is the text, exactly how I found it, on an anti-Catholic website, calling itself "Contender Ministries." The link is to be found here so that you can see for yourself that I have not altered or misrepresented them in any way, shape, or form. This is the "Romans Road of Salvation," a typically fundamentalist attempt at trying to prove their own version of Sola Fide (by Faith Alone) from the Scriptures. Upon a surface reading, this would seem to be true. But there is a problem, and it is quite a serious one. You see, they take a verse (and sometimes half a verse) out of its immediate context to make the Scriptures say what they want them to say. It is actually quite devious to do such a thing. I will be placing my own comments in red italics as to set them apart from the original document. Hopefully, by the end of reading this, if you are Catholic, you will be armed against deception. If you are not Catholic, you have been warned against these snake-oil salesmen, and if you are a fundamentalist, at the very least you will stop using this flawed method of evangelization. So without further ado...

The ROMANS ROAD....is a pathway you can walk.

It is a group of Bible verses from the book of Romans in the New Testament. If you walk down this road you will end up understanding how to be saved.

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

We all have sin in our hearts. We all were born with sin.

We were born under the power of sin's control.

- Admit that you are a sinner.

No Catholic would deny this in the surface. In fact, every Mass starts with the Penitential Rite, wherein we confess our sinfulness. There are things to be said about this verse with regards to the Blessed Virgin, but that is a topic for another post. For the purposes of this post, I will say that we agree on this point.

Romans 6:23a "...The wages of sin is death..."

Sin has an ending. It results in death. We all face physical death, which is a result of sin. But a worse death is spiritual death that alienates us from God, and will last for all eternity. The Bible teaches that there is a place called the Lake of Fire where lost people will be in torment forever. It is the place where people who are spiritually dead will remain.

- Understand that you deserve death for your sin.

Romans 6:23b "...But the gift of God is eternal

life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Salvation is a free gift from God to you! You can't

earn this gift, but you must reach out and receive it.

- Ask God to forgive you and save you.

Again we are in agreement. The end result of sin is death, and the gift of salvation, which cannot be earned, comes through faith in Jesus Christ. As a Catholic, I agree that we can do nothing to earn our salvation. But this is not to say that there are no strings attached. As the Scriptures say, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." (James 2:17) And also, "You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24) What I am getting at here is that for eternal life, more is required than simply asking for the gift.

Romans 5:8, "God demonstrates His own love for us, in

that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us!"

When Jesus died on the cross He paid sin's penalty. He paid the price for all sin, and when He took all the sins of the world on Himself on the cross, He bought us out of slavery to sin and death! The only condition is that we believe in Him and what He has done for us, understanding that we are now joined with Him, and that He is our life. He did all this because He loved us and gave Himself for us!

- Give your life to God... His love poured out in Jesus on the cross is your only hope to have forgiveness and change. His love bought you out of being a slave to sin. His love is what saves you -- not religion, or church membership. God loves you!

In the commentary with this verse, we can see the root difference in justification between Catholics and this particular brand of Protestant. When we become Christian, "born again/anew/from above" we are no longer the same person. We substantially change. Jesus did more than pay a penalty! In His sacrifice he gives us a new nature that struggles against the old! (Romans 6:1-14)

Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!"

- Call out to God in the name of Jesus!

Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

- If you know that God is knocking on your heart's door,

ask Him to come into your heart.

I find it curious that here two verses, Romans 10:11-12, get omitted. I wonder why? Well I will reproduce those two verses here: "The Scripture says, 'No one who believes in Him will be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him." Isn't that interesting? It seems that the context of the passage which they are trying to use to advocate a "no strings" kind of salvation is not what this passage is even about! St. Paul is trying to show that there is no distinction between a "Jewish Christian" and a "Gentile Christian."

Jesus said,

Revelation 3:20a "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him..."

- Is Jesus knocking on your heart's door?

Again they ignore context completely. This is an invitation to the Eucharist. This is easily shown by reading the rest of the verse and the verse following. Here is the quoted passage in its proper context: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice, and opens the door, I will come into him and eat with him, and he with me. He who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on His throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Rev 3:30-22) This is hardly the easy "just ask, and you will be saved for all eternity" form of salvation Contender Ministries is trying to sell.

Believe in Him.

Ask Him to come in to your heart by faith,

and ask Him to reveal Himself to you.

Open the Bible to the Gospel of John and read what God says about Jesus,

about you, and about being born again.

God will help you. He loves you.

You need to look for a local church where

God's word is preached. The Bible says that we are to desire

God's word like a newborn baby desires mother's milk.

Aren't you hungry to know the truth?

Water baptism is one of the ways you first show that

you have been joined to Jesus. This is an action, and actions will not save you. However, it is an act of obedience and a symbol of commitment.

The symbolism is this:

When you go down in the water you show that

You have been crucified and buried with Him,

And when you come up out of the water you show that

you have been raised to walk with Him in newness of life.

(See Romans chapter 6)

You have been born again.

(See John chapter 3)

Your body has become God's temple.

Your heart is where He lives.

Forgiveness is yours in Jesus.

And you belong to Him.

You were sin's slave.

But now...

You are a child of GOD!

John 1:12

"As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name!"

I skipped over all the rhetoric. Each claim they make is worthy of a post unto itself (nature of baptism, meaning of "born again", et al.) But I will comment on John 1:12. They are reading into it much more than what it says. It does not say that all who receive Him will be the children of God, but rather that all who receive Him will be given the right to be the children of God. This seems to imply that there are those who will not take advantage of that right, and will fall away.

Well there you have it. The Romans Road has just enough truth to draw you in, but this truth gives way to some pretty shady exegesis that depends on ignoring context. As usual, comments are welcome. God Bless!!!

Brainstorming

2010-05-26T22:20:00.002-04:00

In brainstorming with regard to my future book on the Catholic Faith, I scrawled this while enjoying a tin roof sundae at Paul's Drive-In:

"Many attack the Catholic Church as failing to be 'Biblical.' What is really meant, I gather, is that the Catholic Church does not adhere to the Protestant innovation of Sola Scriptura. The very idea of a church "based on the Bible" is in effect putting the cart in front of the horse. The Church came into being on the day of Pentecost. This was before any Gospel was written. It was before Paul was converted. In other words, the Church existed before a single letter of the New Testament was written. So then, rather than a "Bible-based" Church, we should examine how the Bible reflects the first century Church. This brings us to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible, the Canon of Scripture, is a collection of documents of the early Church, and to get a complete picture of the true teachings of the Church, one must also examine the writings of the early Church as to provide interpretive clues, telling the reader how to interpret the more ambiguous passages of Scripture."

As I said, I quickly scrawled this while enjoying an afternoon snack of ice cream, and as such is not even properly to be considered a "rough draft" as much as a "pre-draft scribble." Even as I was tyoing this, I began to see problems. Not errors, but holes in need of filling and ideas that are in need of unpacking. But that is really how my writing process works: numerous starts and re-starts, unpacking and illuminating where needed, and pruning away rambling where needed. I am more than willing to accept critiques and suggestions. Heck, if you give me your name, you might even get an acknowledgement when it sees print! May God Bless you and keep you, and may the Blessed Mother guide you to her Son!

This Summer

2010-05-20T22:21:00.002-04:00

Well, I have completed my first year of studies at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Steubenville, Ohio. Rather than take the entire summer off, I am taking two courses distance learning, and I am working on the beginning stages of a book. This book isn't necessarily filling a void. There are a plethora of books out there on basic Catholic teachings: Catholicism for Dummies, Catholic and Christian, Theology for Beginners, etc. But something to consider is that there can never be too many of these works. Everybody that writes such a book is bringing his or her own perspective as to what is important and what isn't. One thing about the Catholic faith is that it is big, and there is plenty of room for different emphases. For example, I seriously doubt that my book will deal extensively with the Blessed Virgin. Not because I find her unimportant (how could the Mother of God be unimportant), but because I do not feel I can deal with the dogmas and doctrines concerning her adequately enough to be included. On the other hand, I am comfortable in talking about the Scriptures that my chapter on Divine Revelation will probably be quite extensive. Of course this is the beginning of a long process, and will likely change many times before it ever is submitted for publication. I know this is a short post, but much more will be coming soon! God Bless!

Metaphysics paper

2010-04-15T10:43:00.002-04:00

I decided to post one of the short papers I had to write for my Metaphysics class. This particular one is a brief (very brief) discussion on the nature of change as related to the Blessed Sacrament. I do not find the paper horrid, yet it is probably something I might go back and tinker with, and expand, in the future for my own enlightenment. Without further ado, here it is:

It could be asked, “Why study metaphysics? Does it have any relevance?” And on the surface, it would appear that the study of metaphysics is merely thought exercises regarding the nature of reality with no application in what is largely regarded as “the real world.” The intangible qualities that are arguably among the most important, such as truth, beauty, justice, and so on fall squarely in the realm of metaphysics. Any question that addresses the nature of reality is ultimately a metaphysical question. One such question is the theological question of the nature of what is alternatively called “Communion”, “The Lord’s Supper,” or “Eucharist.” There are two opposing viewpoints with regards to the Eucharist, with no position of compromise. On the one hand, Catholics and Orthodox hold that the sacramental bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The other position is that the bread and wine remain, and that the body and blood of Christ is either contained in the substances of bread and wine, or that the body and blood is symbolically represented by the bread and wine, but in either case, the bread and wine continue to be bread and wine, and no real change has occurred. This is not a point of doctrine on which people in various faith communities can “agree to disagree.” If the Catholic position, which the bread and wine transform into the very Body and Blood of Christ, is incorrect, then that means billions of Catholics through the centuries have been committing idolatry at every Mass, with every second of Eucharistic adoration. If the Protestant position is incorrect, if the bread and wine really do become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord, then that means billions of Protestants have committed sacrilege failing to offer the reverence the Lord is due. This is an issue with souls in the balance.

This change, or transubstantiation, was first articulated in metaphysical terms by St. Thomas Aquinas. Although it was held since the earliest days of the Church that transubstantiation occurred, it was Aquinas who gave the process its name and made an effort to explain what occurred at the Mass in metaphysical terms. Using Aristotelian language, the Eucharist can be described as having the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, while the retaining the accidents of bread and wine. That is, after the consecration, the very thing that makes the bread and wine bread and wine is replaced by the substance of the Divine, although its matter and form have not changed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting the Council of Trent, explains it in this way:

…Because Christ our redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and the whole substance of wine into the substance of his blood…[1]

This “changing of substance” is not to be understood in the way one would expect it to be understood in common parlance. In this context, “substance” takes on a very specific meaning, based on Aristotelian philosophy. While most would equate substance and matter as being one and the same, this is not how it is to be understood in Aristotelian metaphysics. Matter is the physical “stuff” of which something is composed, and no one can deny that the matter in the Eucharist is unchanged. Substance is the very essence of what a makes a thing what it is. This distinction can be explained best by way of an illustration.

A man is walking down a street. From a blind alley, a mugger appears, pulls a gun and robs the poor fellow. After this incident, the victim of the crime has undergone a change. He is not the same person. The matter that composes him has not changed. But he has undergone a change; the essence of what makes him who he is has been changed. Though somewhat limited, in the same idea is behind the change in the Holy Eucharist. Before the words of consecration, there is unleavened bread and wine. It still looks the same. It still tastes the same. But that does not mean that a change did not occur.

Without employing metaphysics, the believer would be forced to divorce his capability for reason from his faith. Metaphysics allows the believer to deepen his faith by employing his reason, using the Holy Eucharist to illustrate this fact. Metaphysics, therefore, is not to be approached with trepidation, but rather, it should be appreciated for what it is: a tool in the kit of the apologist seeking to defend the Catholic faith with reason.

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1376.

The "Other Gospel" Plaguing America

2010-03-09T12:57:00.002-05:00

The Title is not just mere polemics. There are multiple "Gospels" being promulgated today, only one of which possesses the fullness of truth. One of the false gospels, however misguided, is reaching epidemic proportions. There is a false gospel promoting temporal rewards over eternal rewards in return for faith in Christ, which is sometimes referred to as the "health and wealth gospel." The problems with this "gospel" are not limited to theological concerns, but there are philosophical problems as well. This discussion is important because as it is written: "Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour." (1 Peter 5:8, RSC-CE2). Souls hang in the balance.

The typical Protestant Evangelical that can be found either on the radio or on television (I note specifically Protestant Evangelicals, NOT mainline Protestants or Catholics) preaches the health and wealth gospel. The basic premise is that as long as you are faithful to Jesus Christ as your "Personal Lord and Savior," and you devote your life to Him, everything will come up roses. God will shower you with blessings and severely punish the wicked. This view is in diametric opposition with reality. The Holy Scriptures do not testify to this position. In both the Old and New Testaments, holy men of God were rebelled against (Moses), wrongfully imprisoned (Joseph, Daniel, Peter, Paul, John the Baptist), ridiculed (Elijah, David), or even executed (Jesus, Stephen, John the Baptist). In addition to this, it is not consistent with the True Gospel preached by Paul, who warned, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8, RSV-CE2) In addition with these theological problems, there are problems in both phenomenology and metaphysics. Phenomenology is concerned chiefly with lived experience as a source of truth. Since human experience shows that misfortune happens to good people as well as bad, the health and wealth gospel can be rejected on this basis. Furthermore, the same problem of suffering cannot be explained by this false gospel. The nature of God becomes essentially unknowable, which is not true. There are certain things about the nature of God which can be arrived at using reason alone.

Now that I have laid out the general objections to the health and wealth gospel, I will turn to specific refutations of this popular heresy. Also, it must be stated that I will focus on the theological problems rather than the philosophical, for no other reason than I am stronger in theology than philosophy. The strongest argument against this false gospel come from the words of Jesus Christ himself (Luke 6: 2o-26, RSV-CE2):

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on the account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold your reward id great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
What gets the blessings, and what gets the woes? Temporal suffering leads to eternal blessing, and temporal blessing leads to eternal suffering. Did Jesus preach the health and wealth gospel? No. This passage from Luke is not exclusive with respects to Jesus' teaching that is counter to the health and wealth gospel. In Matthew 10:38, the Lord says that "he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Earlier in that same chapter, Jesus warns His disciples about coming persecutions. Are persecutions consistent with the health and wealth heresy? No. Of course it could be countered that Jesus spoke consistently of God providing for our needs. This, of course is true. What must be remembered is the distinction between "needs" and "wants." We do not need a big house. We do not need a nice car. What we need is actually much, much less than what we think we do. The takeaway is this: God most definitely provide what we need, but not necessarily what we think we need, and that temporal blessings is not what we should strive for. Eternal blessings are what we should strive for, and in many cases eternal blessings come at the expense of temporal blessings. Remember: "Where you treasures are, your heart will be also."

This morning...

2009-12-17T10:24:00.002-05:00

I was meditating on the Eucharist this morning, and it occurred to me that the Passion (which is proclaimed by all Christian communities) and the Eucharist (which is not) are indelibly linked. At the Last Supper, when the Eucharist was instituted, it was surrounded by the coming sacrifice. The Sacrifice on Calvary was an offering for sin, but at one and the same time was also the Passover, which is an offering for thanksgiving. The Passion did not have a single purpose, but two. One was to pay for the sins of the world. The other was (and continues to be both in the Mass of the Western Rite and the Eastern Divine Liturgy) a sacrifice of thanksgiving. The kind of sacrifice that is to be consumed by the congregation. Without the Passion, there would be no Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, the Passion is incomplete. Without the Eucharist, the Passion is missing half of its message.

The Church as the Kingdom of Heaven

2009-12-12T13:10:00.004-05:00

It has long been held by the Catholic Church, and summarily dismissed by many Protestants, particularly Fundamentalists, that the "Kingdom of Heaven" in the Scriptures is in reference not to the final reward in Heaven, but to the Church. The first evidence of thin is in the preaching of John the Baptist. Matthew 3:2 quotes this last of the Old Testament prophets as preaching, "Repent. for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." The key words are "at hand." This mans that the Kingdom of Heaven was coming very quickly. It was imminent. What came was the Church, not the final judgment.

The next thing that will be addressed is the governmental structure of the Davidic Kingdom. The least that is needed for a kingdom is, well, a king. The Church has Jesus as its King. We know this because Jesus underwent the proper ceremonies to step into the role of King. To know what these ceremonies are, we must turn back to the Old Testament. When King David was growing old and dying, there was no regular succession established for Israel. Solomon had already been promised as successor, but his eldest son, Adonijah, was starting to take steps to establish himself as king while David was still alive. To solve this dilemma, David has Solomon brought to the Gihon to have him anointed, with the ceremony being conducted by Zadok the Priest and Nathan the Prophet. Jesus too, was anointed in a river (the Jordan), and the anointing was conducted by a Priest and Prophet (John the Baptist was a prophet and of a priestly line). This establishes that Jesus was indeed the Davidic King, but to further establish this fact, Jesus installs His administration. First, Mary has an important intercessory role as Queen Mother. (This will be discussed in a later post, and in much greater detail). Jesus also gathered together twelve disciples, naming one as chief among them (Matthew 16:18-19), just as King Solomon did. It is in the twenty-second chapter of Isaiah where the role of the chief steward is most explicitly described:

"In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your belt on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open." Isa. 22:20-22

So far we have a King anointed by a prophet and priest, a Queen Mother, a ruling council of twelve, and a Chief Steward. This structure seems to fit the Catholic Church very closely. We can then say that the Davidic Kingdom is a type of the Church.

But is there more? Is there more that identifies the Kingdom of Heaven as the Church, rather than the final reward in Heaven? I am glad you asked. There most certainly is. As is commonly known, Jesus spoke often in parables. In the thirteenth chapter of the first Gospel, Jesus gives a series of parables about the Kingdom of Heaven. Of these parables there are two general types. One type relates the extreme value of the Kingdom of Heaven. The other type is more descriptive of the nature of the Kingdom. It is this second type that I would like to address.

"Another parable he put before them, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him,
"Lord, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?" He said to them, "An enemy has done this." The servants said to him, "Then do you want us to go and gather them?" But he said, "No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time, I will tell the reapers 'Gather the weeds and bind them into bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn'"'" (Matt. 13:24-30)

And also:

"Again the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat and sorted the good into vessels and threw away the bad. So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."(Matt. 13:47-50)
The general Protestant interpretation of "the kingdom of heaven" only takes into account the eschatological reading of the passages. Only the end-times ramifications are addressed. They are not wrong in this reading insofar that at the end there will be a final judgment, and the evil will be cast into hell, and the righteous will go onto their final reward. But the bulk of these two parables are describing what is going on before the end. They are describing the Church age, where the righteous and wicked are coming up together. And this age is identified as the "kingdom of heaven."

When all of the Scriptures are taken together, it becomes clear that the "kingdom of heaven" is none other than the Church. The Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom foretold in the prophets, as it represents the return of a king or the House of David, a king whose reign will never end. He returned and established His kingdom in Jerusalem in AD 33, and He is still reigning through his earthly government, the Catholic Church.

Other articles about the Holy Eucharist:

The Holy Communion: Christian Communion Meditation

This Christmas, know more why you went to the Holy Communion every Sunday and Why you should continue to going to one. Also find out about Communion meditation.

28 Hours of Frustration

2009-12-11T17:30:00.002-05:00

As a grad student I have had to endure my share of finals weeks. As a rule they tend to be frustrating and stressful. My most recent excursion into the madness that is finals was more so than usual. Not because of particularly difficult exams, mind you. This time around the weather reared its ugly head. That's right, the weather. One may be inclined to ask, "How could the weather possibly add to the stress of finals?" In fact, before this semester, I would have thought the same thing. Let me explain. This semester, finals had actually gone fairly smoothly. I had taken a fairly light load to facilitate my acclimation into a new environment. I felt very confident in my performance on my finals thus far, and my only remaining final was a take-home exam which was open book, open note. Seems simple enough, right? Wrong. Enter the wind. I was happily typing away on my laptop in Assisi Heights when the high winds knocked out power. Again, I am using a laptop, so no big deal, right? There is the problem of printing my exam. So I pack up and go to the library, only to discover...the outage was campus-wide. Joy. The generators did kick on after about an hour. So all is well, right? All I have to do is go to the computer lab it print. In theory, that would be correct. The network won't let me log on. Grumble grumble. I do find out that one of the labs in another building is functioning properly, so I pack up again and go out int the insane wind to complete my quest of printing two pages. I get to Egan and run into a friend, we chat and...darkness. The lights go out again. This is not my day!!! The lights do return after a few minutes and I go to the Mac Lab...quickly! After spending a short while trying to figure out how a Mac actually works (sue me, I'm a PC user) I do get the exam printed. I go to the JC to hang out before I actually have to turn the thing in, and it does actually get turned in on time. Now this would have been the end of my troubles had I not been living on campus. But I still needed to get my apartment cleaned so I could leave without getting fined. But by this time, it is too dark to see, and I was without flashlights. Granted this highlights two errors in my part: 1. Why do I not have a flashlight? 2. Procrastination is, for the lack of a better word, stupid. So my choices are to go back down to the JC and plug my laptop in (which is almost dead) or go to the apartment and sit in the dark. I opt for the former. I find a seat and a working outlet. No sooner do i get the thing plugged in then...you guessed it, power gone. My choices then become to sit with friends and socialize under the emergency lights or sit in my apartment. I stay and socialize. I get tired of just hanging around, so I go back to my apartment. Let me point out my brilliance here. Instead of hang around and laughing with friends, I decide a cold, unlit apartment is better. Yeah, that's what I thought too--what an idiot! So after about ten minuites or so of being really bored, I go back down to the JC with a book I had been meaning to read (The World's First Love by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen--I recommend it. It is amazing so far) I get to the JC, and what do I discover? They have their generator back, and my computer is back at the apartment. I am not making the walk again (Lets face it. Franciscan University is a hilly campus, and I have the physique of Fred Flintstone). Anyways, I stay there until it closes and I go back to a cold, dark apartment. No heat. No hot water. No lights. I turn my bedroom light on so that when the power comes on, it will wake me up and I can get busy cleaning. That was a stupid assumption. Not that the light would wake me up, but that I would get power back. I get up. Get some cleaning done, and then it is time for a meeting. We have a fruitful meeting, and I go back home to clean more. I then hear the power was supposed to be back by 1:00. It is now 3:00. Sigh. Anyways I had promised Kat that I would help her move a bunch of her stuff to storage since she is going to Austria next semester. By the time we get done, we have power, twenty-eight hours after it first went off. I worked until about 10 that night and then finished in the morning, took Kat to the airport, and on very little sleep (because I have a dragon living in the furnace that keeps my apartment at a comfortable 90 degrees) I make the 3 hour drive to my parent's house. Before anyone goes on about how petty I am, I must say this. If nothing else, this ordeal made me that much more conscious of those who never have power, because they live in a box. I am truly blessed because I had a place to sleep, and enough clothing to bundle up and stay warm. It just takes a short time of doing without a little, to make you aware of those who do without a lot.

New Series

2009-11-29T19:21:00.002-05:00

I am getting ready to start a new series, although it probably really won't get going until after finals. Here is the idea: I will pick a topic in doctrine (i. e. Marian Veneration) and i will dig into the Catechism, the Early Fathers, the Scriptures, Papal and Conciliar Documents, whatever and present the teaching s of the Church to the best of my ability. The main purpose is not to enlighten anyone, except myself. With a little luck, maybe I will learn something along the way...

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

2009-11-15T15:40:00.002-05:00

This post is just one example of the things I am learning at Franciscan University of Steubenville. I am a recent convert to the Faith, and as such I had always been a little confused by the term "the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass." I mean do not the Scriptures indicate that the Crucifixion was a once for all sacrifice? In Hebrews we read:

"And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying 'This is the covenant I make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,' then he adds 'I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more.' Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." (10: 11-18)

This passage would seem to indicate that sacrifices are done, and that the Mass is in error as a sacrifice. But that is not the case. To fully understand how the Mass is a sacrifice, we must pay close attention to what the passage is truly saying. Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary most certainly was a once for all sin offering. But was a sin offering the ONLY kind of sacrifice in the Mosaic Covenant? The answer is no. There is also a Peace Offering, which is offered for thanksgiving. The word "Eucharist" means exactly that: "thanksgiving." In Leviticus we read about this specific offering in chapter seven. This offering is to be made of unleavened bread in the form of wafers. And the offering is to be consumed. This offering is beginning to look a great deal like the Mass.

It is generally agreed upon by all Christian faith traditions that the Crucifixion is the anti-type corresponding to the Passover. Is the Passover a sin offering, or is it something else? Well the passover lamb was consumed, and the Passover was instituted not as an offering for sin, but as a memorial feast, just as the Mass is a memorial re-presenting (not representing) the sacrifice on Calvary. Of course, at the Passover, the Israelites consumed the flesh of the Lamb. As do we at the Mass, according to John 6:52-56:

"The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

What happens to the sacrifice at a sin offering? Again, we must turn our attention to Leviticus. Every bit of the offering is burned. None of it is to be consumed by the congregation. This is not consistent with the type of offering at the Mass. This shows that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass truly is a sacrifice, but is a ritual of thanksgiving and praise, not a sin offering. The sin offerings are done. That was done on Calvary. The Mass is an unbloody offering of thanksgiving that serves as a memorial feast. In this way the Mass not only is consistent with Scripture, but actually fulfills the Scriptures.

If You Ever Decide to Post on Catholic Message Boards...

2009-11-07T13:44:00.001-05:00

Until recently, I was a frequent poster on a Catholic message board. I am giving that a rest for the time being for a couple of reasons. First it takes up more time than I actually have. In addition to this, there are times when I lose my temper, and let’s just say that the results are somewhat less than charitable. That being said, I have decided to compile a list of several archetypes on this forum. So with no further ado, (drum roll please)…

· The Evangelical Evangelist: This denizen of message boards is typically a Baptist or “Non-Denominational Protestant” (oh, how I do hate that term, but alas, that is a topic for another post), but other denominations show up as well. These misguided souls have taken it upon themselves to “save Catholics from the clutches of Romanism.” They tend to focus on the Blessed Virgin and Sacred Tradition, and upon occasion develop into Attack Dogs (see below).

· The Mocker: This fellow is kind of like an atheist version of the Evangelist. The Mocker, wholly devoted to the empirical sciences, their favorite mode of criticism is to ignore anything that weakens their argument. Their ultimate goal is to convince people that there is no God, and tend to get defensive when you ask them why they get so angry about something that say is imaginary.

· The Self-Appointed Pope: He is the ultimate expert in all things Catholic. They tend to be more Traditionalist than mainstream. They are easily identifiable, as they tend to praise the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and frequently refer to the Ordinary Form of the Mass as the “New Mass” and the Traditional Latin Mass as the “True Mass.” Their tempers flare at the mere mention of the Second Vatican Council, which they blame for liberalism, liturgical abuses, laxity among the clergy, stale potato chips, and the lack of good cartoons on Saturday mornings.

· The Contortionist: Far from being performers at Ringling Brothers, these poor souls will take something out of context to prove a point. Nothing is sacred. Authors, the Catechism, and even the Scriptures are all fair game for their creative editing. Among Protestants, this tactic is used to defend Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Among Catholics, the most common practitioners seem to be vegans and proponents of the death penalty. For the irreligious, this tactic is used to either attack God or point out “contradictions.”

· The Seeker: Definitely in the minority, the Seeker is someone who genuinely wants to learn about Catholicism and has questions. They tend to have intelligent questions and thoughtful insights. They perform a service in forcing others on the forums to truly know the Faith.

· The Apologist: The opposite side of the same coin as the Seeker. These participants are also in the minority. They give charitable responses to questions and never seem to lose their temper, even when responding to the most vitriol-ridden rhetoric.

· The Wolverine (with apologies to Marvel Enterprises): This person starts off calm enough, and seems to want to do the right thing, but as soon as they are on the receiving end of a perceived “attack” they fly into a rage, slashing away with verbal attacks. Charity falls to the wayside, and end up doing more harm than good. I place myself in this category as of late, and this is why I am taking a break from the forum.

· The Attack Dog: Think of this one as kind of a poster with all the charm of a pit bull. Every possible belief system has its share of Attack Dogs. Whereas with the Wolverine, intentions start out good, and tempers get lost, with the Attack Dog, good intentions were never part of the equation. Their trademark is name-calling, depending on the insulter and the target: heathen, heretic, papist, idolater, idiot, ad nauseum.

There you have it. A rundown on the basic archetypes to be found on the forums I used to frequent. I may return in the future, but not until I have more time and learn to control my temper.

A Fundamental Baptist Crosses the Tiber, Part 3

2009-11-04T14:15:00.002-05:00

The first person i told about my desire was, of course, Kaylee. She, after all, had been the one who had introduced me to the Catholic Faith. She was ecstatic, to say the least. She told me that I had to talk with either Father Nick or the Director of Religious Education, Lois, about RCIA and the conversion process. The idea of a conversion "process" was completely foreign to me. The reason is that the Evangelical Protestant communities I had been associated with previously are somewhat like used car salesmen. It sounds harsh, but I think it accurate. When dealing with an Evangelical "Soul-Winner," you will be pressured to "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" at that very instant. When i met with Lois I discovered a different way of doing things.

Lois explained to me that I would have to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, which would not start until September, and would run until Easter, when I would be fully accepted into the Church. EASTER!!!! But it was only MAY!!!! I did not want to wait almost a year to say I was Catholic. I wanted in NOW! Let me say next that I am grateful for the RCIA. Let me say that i am grateful for the "process." As much reading as I had done, and as much as I had thought I had known about the teachings of the Church, RCIA taught me how much I didn't know. I was ready to accept without fully understanding, but faith increases with understanding. I learned about the role of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints. I learned that the Holy Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, and not merely a symbol. Most importantly I learned that the Bible was not the entirety of Divine Revelation, but was only part of it. My prayer life deepened as I truly sought God's will for me in the Church. Upon examining moral theology, I saw the consistency of the teachings of the Church. I was discovering that my beliefs had always been Catholic, but I just didn't know it. Through all of this, I figured out what was missing in those other churches: the Holy Eucharist. Something many Protestants fail to understand, particularly in those communities without a liturgical form of worship, is that they have misplaced the focus of worship. We aren't there for each other, we aren't there for the pastor, and we aren't there for ourselves. We are there to be in the presence of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. This is where I belonged.

At the Easter Vigil, on 27 March 2008, I entered into full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. My story does not end here. If you recall, my family is Protestant. As a child, church attendance was not important. Things had changed. My parents and all but one of my siblings had started attending different churches during the interim. As the lone Catholic, there were questions that needed answering, most notably about the Mother of God and the Holy Eucharist. I had to become something of an apologist out of necessity. And my defense of Marian Dogmas was pitiful, putting it charitably. I was finishing my BA in History at Ohio State in December of 2008. On the Catholic Answers Forums, someone had asked how to become an apologist. The answer recommended taking some theology courses at Franciscan University of Steubenville, in Steubenville, Ohio. As of this writing, that is where I am, and I continue to learn about, and as a result love, the Catholic Faith more and more each and every day.

Barbara McGuigan: A Future Saint

2009-11-03T21:48:00.002-05:00

First I would like to thank Matthew Warner over at www.fallibleblogma.com for the opportunity to participate in this year's "Support a Catholic Speaker Month." I am still quite new to the blogosphere and as such, I am still trying to figure out what in te world I'm doing, and if anyone is actually paying any mind to what I have to say.

But this isn't supposed to be about me. This is supposed to be about Barbara McGuigan. Faithful listeners of EWTN Radio may recognize her name. She is a host on the "Open Line" call-in show every Tuesday. Anyone who has listened to her call in show knows that she is humble and is gives all glory to God. In addition she has a two hour program every Saturday, "The Good Fight." This program not only gives the life story of one of the many Saints and Blesseds to be found in the Church, but also highlights the work of a "Future Saint." This theme in conjunction with the title of the program brings to mind 1 Timothy 6:12:

Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

The inspirational stories of both the canonized saints and the work of people in the Church today can only have a positive effect on any who hear the broadcast. What is more, is that in all of this work, she takes no credit on herself, but gives all glory and honor to God.

In addition to her radio duties, Barbara is the president and CEO of Voices of Virtue International, a lay apostolate dedicated to the Pro-Life movement as well as the cultivation of the virtues and battling of vices. Through Voices of Virtue, Barbara conducts retreats, serves as a keynote speaker, and gives presentations to teens, parents, and teachers.

This little blog barely scratches the surface of the great work for the Lord that Barbara is doing. For more information about Mrs. McGuigan's amazing work, you can get more information by going to her website, http://www.voicesofvirtue.org or by calling 1-888-496-8880.

A Fundamental Baptist Crosses the Tiber, Part 2

2009-11-03T12:50:00.000-05:00

After I left Hyles-Anderson, my spiritual life floundered. I attribute this to fully separating myself from God. My Scripture reading, which had previously been a daily ritual, fell off rapidly. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was self-absorbed in the arrogance that is all too common among so-called "Bible Christians": no one, and I mean no one, could tell me what the Truth of God was. If any held an interpretation of the Scriptures that was contrary to my own, it was a foregone conclusion that it was they who were not interpreting the Word of God correctly, because it couldn't have been me! How could it have been me? I was guided by the Holy Spirit! Eventually I had gotten away from reading the Scriptures altogether. Even though according to my Baptist theology I was still "saved," I was still essentially the same person I had been before my baptism. I was wandering, lost in the wilderness and enslaved by sin. I fell back on my old favorite sins. My nights were filled with strip clubs, alcohol, and pornography. This period of floundering wnt on for many many years. Occasionally I would attend a Sunday morning church service. Mostly I investigated other Baptist communities, Christian Missionary Alliance churches, and occasionally the United Methodists.

These wanderings were unfruitful and, in the end, disappointing. No matter where I went something unidentifiable was missing that I couldn't identify. It was nothing physical, but something that went deeper. I knew I needed a community to worship with, but everything I had experienced was missing a truly spiritual connection with God. I didn't know what to do. Like before, I did what I had always done. I retreated into the "Church of Carl," a congregation of one person.

It was during this time that I was working a series of bad jobs. I worked at restaurants, video stores, minimum wage factories, hotels, liquor stores, and so on. It was during one of my sporadic periods of unemployment that I found an office set up by the county to help low-income workers go to college. I had tried college before, both at Hyles-Anderson and a short stint before that at Ohio State. I walked in, and I soon discovered I was still in the system at OSU, and to start classes all that I needed to do was to register.

Looking back, my return to Ohio State can only be described as providential. This return to my education was God working in my life, although Satan would try to use this as an opportunity to drive what little faith remained far from me. I returned to school in March 2005. The following fall, I became involved in theatre at the Mansfield campus of the Ohio State University. The play itself was an ultra-liberal "if you make money you are evil" kind of production. One of my fellow actors in the production was unlike anyone I had ever met. She was quiet and studious. She never swore. She honored and respected her parents. She treated everyone with respect. She exuded a holiness I had never experienced before. I asked her where she went to church. Her reply: "Most Pure Heart of Mary." Uh-oh. She was Catholic. My latent anti-Catholicism kicked in, a vestigial remnant from my Fundamentalist days. In my mind Catholics weren't even Christian. They were some kind of unholy amalgamation between paganism with a few Christian elements. I mean they worshiped Mary, and held all kinds of beliefs contrary to Scripture, most of which were invented by the Church in the middle ages. But her life showed me that something was real. I had to find out.

I went to my first Catholic Mass. I had been in Catholic Churches before, but never with an open mind. I was enthralled by the beauty of the Church. I was impressed by the quiet before Mass. I didn't realize it then, but I was in the presence of Jesus Himself, in the form of consecrated hosts kept in the tabernacle. My friend from school, Kaylee, showed me my way through the Missal. Reading the days selection caused my preconceived notions about Holy Mother Church to come crashing down. I saw the Liturgy of the Word. More Scripture was to be found in this part of the Liturgy than any three services I had attended as a Baptist. Then I saw the Liturgy of the Eucharist. I was dumbfounded. The Scriptures permeated the ritual from beginning to end. At that instant I made a decision. Everything I held previously was no longer valid. The misinformation given to me about the role of Scripture in the Catholic Church immediately made everything else I was told suspect.

So my inquiry into Catholicism began. I approached the faith with an open mind, reading books explaining the Faith, listening to Catholic radio (I was a regular listener to Catholic Answers Live), and watching EWTN on television. Several months passed of attending Mass somewhat regularly and learning about the Faith. I decided I wanted to be Catholic.

To Be Continued....