March 2004 Archives

Monsignor Burke gave a recent interview to Zenit.org on his new Scepter book Covenanted Happiness. In the question-and-answer interview, he makes a compelling point about how we view children:


Q: How do children bring happiness to a marriage and to the individual spouses?

Monsignor Burke: This century has come to separate and oppose married fulfillment and having children. Many look on marriage just as a tandem affair -- happiness à deux -- in which children are regarded as a possible advantage or a possible hindrance to personal fulfillment. This is fundamentally not to trust God's design for marriage.

Those who marry need to ponder that each child is a totally unique and unmatchable gift to the spouses' union and love. They also need to realize that children challenge each spouse's capacity to love even more than conjugal life does. Only the person who is prepared to face up to the challenges of love will grow in love.

Forty years of emphasis on self-fulfillment or on material comfort have been accompanied by an equal emphasis on family limitation.

Children -- one or two, at the most -- have come to be regarded as "optional extras" for a couple, not as the natural fulfillment of their married aspirations. Job, status, social life, gadgets, vacations, ease and comfort are seen as offering more happiness than children would.

Yet, if one is to judge from the growing number of broken homes, fewer children does not seem to have led to greater married stability, fulfillment or happiness.

Catholic couples, too, have been deeply affected by the family planning mentality, to the extent that a "planned" family is often presented as a norm in pre-marriage instruction. Most of our young people marrying today probably regard natural family planning as a normal part of marriage; many, for whom it was never designed, are experiencing its effects on their married life.


Even Catholics today look to "planning" a family and a potential family size. The monsignor is correct: we need to keep in mind that God is controlling the show. We trust Him with our finances, our health, etc. and we should be trusting Him to give us the right number of children as well. Remember, all is in the hands of God.

God bless,
Jay

Just an FYI . . .

| | Comments (0)

I was out of town the latter part of last week on business in sunny Boca Raton, Florida. But I'm back now, so our posting will increase again . . .

God bless,
Jay

John Kerry and Truth

| | Comments (6)

The more I see of John Kerry, the less I feel I can vote for the man. What it boils down to is this: either you believe murder is wrong and life begins at conception or you don't. It is impossible to say that you believe in both of these, but you aren't willing to stop abortion. By making these statements, we see that John Kerry has no objective moral truth, no real backbone. He is merely using religion as a tool to get votes, rather than something he really believes. This is despicable.

In the end, I am reminded of Jesus telling us to be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm. Kerry should either say, "I am not Catholic" or should start acting like a faithful Catholic. Just. Make. A. Choice.

By the way, the Curt Jester bring us this:




As Catholics, rather than simply trying to remove George Bush from office (the reason many people I know want to vote Kerry), we need to make sure we are voting for the right person. At least George Bush has gotten several pro-life initiatives passed. Imagine what Kerry would do.

God bless,
Jay

Let your "Yes" be "Yes" . . .

| | Comments (3)

Recently Bishop Thomas Olmsted penned a brilliant piece on making sure your professional life isn't destroying your spiritual life. I recommend you read the whole article here, but this is an excerpt:


“ I am a Catholic businessman but I don’t let the Church influence what I do at the office or in the boardroom;” but Jesus says (Mt 7:21), “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

“ I am a Catholic politician but I don’t let my Catholicism impact on how I vote or what legislation I promote;” but Jesus says (Mt 7:26-27), “Everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

“ I am a Catholic physician but I don’t let my faith mold my decisions regarding abortion, contraception, or other medical practices;” but Jesus says Mt 5:37), “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.”

“ I am a Catholic talk show host but I don’t let the Church inhibit my right to say whatever I want on the air;” but in the Letter of James, God says (2:17) “Faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

“ I am a Catholic priest but I don’t let Magisterial teaching keep me from dissenting from moral or doctrinal points nor let it limit my own ‘pastoral solutions’;” but at ordination each priest professes a solemn oath, “I believe everything contained in God’s Word, written or handed down in tradition and proposed by the Church… I also firmly accept and hold each and every thing that is proposed by the Church definitively regarding teaching on faith and morals.”

Lent is the time to kick the “Catholic but...” out of our own daily lives. It is the time to expunge rationalization from our minds and to root out compromise from our hearts. Lent is the time to say a determined “No” to the temptation to water down our faith for personal gain. It is the time to say a much larger “Yes” to Jesus and His Gospel of Life. Lent is the time for Totus Tuus, the time to renew our commitment to love God with all our mind and heart and strength.


Something to consider this Lenten season. Thanks to Times Against Humanity for the link. Again, read the whole article.

God bless,
Jay

This book, Will Catholics be “Left Behind”? A Catholic Critique of the Rapture and Today’s Prophecy Preachers, initially attracted me because it dealt with a subject that very few Catholics tackle: premillenial dispensationalism. Basically this is the notion that there will be a “rapture” followed by seven years of tribulation before the Second Coming of Christ. This is a very commonly held belief by protestants, believe it or not. In addition, it forms the center of some people’s faith and a lack of cohesive answer would likely prevent them from considering the Catholic Church. In addition to LaHaye (the theologian behind the “Left Behind” series), Olson points out the errors in the writings of Hal Lindsey, Scofield, and Charles Ryrie among others.

Carl Olson, the author, is also a convert from a dispensationalist background, so he clearly understands all of the issues involved. He takes us through the history and literature of dispensationalism and then shows clearly using Biblical exegesis what the errors of this philosophy are. In essence, dispensationalism is a system of reading and understanding the Bible that perverts much of Scripture in order to prevent suffering (suffering, according to dispensationalists, has no redemptive value and is something to be avoided). Olson dismantles the system and shows how this system is in opposition to the Bible.

At some point, every Catholic will come into contact with a premillenial dispensationalist. I would highly recommend that you take the time to read Olson’s expose, even if to simply get a bearing on how they try and interpret the Bible and to understand some of the fallacies inherent in this system.

I highly recommend this – especially for those who work in apologetics. Click here to purchase it on Amazon.com.

God bless,
Jay

I just finished reading A Guide to The Passion: 100 Questions about The Passion of the Christ - Mel Gibson's movie. The book is very well done and I would recommend you taking the time to read it.

It's perfect for evangelism, since it not only answers direct questions your likely to hear during the film, but also addresses the underlying theology behind the question. For example, one question is "Why did Jesus have to die?". The book is only $7 and Mark Shea will autograph it if you buy it here. I would also recommend it for those who are wondering after seeing the movie, particularly on the Catholic themes, which this book explains well.

In the end: highly recommended.

God bless,
Jay

Free will verses determinism

| | Comments (50)

This is an interesting issue, since Christians adhere to one or the other of these philosophies, but often they are not aware of which they believe. I think the Bible clearly teaches one of these is correct and the other is an error.

First, we must understand what they are. Free will asserts that you have the ability and the responsibility to make choices in your life. You can choose good or evil in every situation. Determinism in general asserts the opposite: there are no free choices. There is soft determinism that teaches our backgrounds and previous choices determine future choices, but we have some moral responsibility for these choices. Hard determinism takes this a step further and removes our moral responsibility.

So which is correct? I think from salvation history alone we can clearly say that we do have free will and we are morally responsible for our choices. Otherwise, if we are not responsible for our actions, why did Christ suffer and die on the cross? How could anyone be condemned for actions they are not responsible for? This is an anti-Christian philosophy.

Soft determinism is more palatable, but it still goes against Biblical teaching. Let’s look at what the Bible teaches about freedom and free will:


Genesis 3:13. Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me and I ate.”

This is a profound statement on free will since it clearly contrasts the two options. God asks the woman which choice she made and Eve tries to suggest she was not morally responsible for the choice, since the devil beguiled or tricked her. As we all know, God disagreed with her analysis (her excuse) and kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden as punishment (along with the other punishments due to their original sin). This also explains the notion of sin. Sin is a free selection of evil over good for which we are morally culpable. If you look at Genesis 4:10 and 2 Samuel 12:7-15 you will see similar choices and responsibilities.

There is even stronger evidence:


Sirach 15:14-15. It was he [the Lord] who created man in the beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination. If you will, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.

This verse encapsulates the arguments for a free will position. We can keep the commandments “if [we] will.” But of course, this is the Old Testament, are we still responsible in the New Testament? Part of the fundamental nature of God is that He does not change in this way, so we can know positively that Jesus did not come and remove our free will. But to clarify:

It has recently been suggested by some of our visitors that the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary was not established by the early Church, but rather first became pervasive during the middle of the fourth century. I felt it appropriate, especially in light of all the discussion this topic has received lately, to review just exactly what the writings of Christian antiquity do say about the subject. As will be seen, the earliest writing clearly speaking to the issue comes from the middle of the second century, less than fifty years after the death of the last apostle. There were multiple written records of the perpetual virginity of Mary between the second and fourth centuries. Even so, remember that much of the writing during that period has been lost to time, especially due to the persecutions of the Roman empire between 200 and 315 A.D., which routinely included the burning of Christian literature. It is thus amazing that even these examples survived. Moreover, the majority of writing on the subject does come from the fourth century, because that is when the heretics in the Church first began attacking the doctrine. In fact, the same thing can be said of writings on the Trinity, which also fell under attack during the fourth century. For those of you not much interested in the early fathers, I suggest you skip to the bottom of the article, which details the position of the fathers of the Reformation.

The Protoevangelium of James

And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there.

And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.’

And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth.’

And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man.’
-Protoevangelium of James 4, 7, A.D. 120.

A Monastery asks for Help

| | Comments (0)

The Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers, Georgia holds a special place in my heart: it's where my conversion experience started. Some of the bloggers associated with this site (including me) worked at the Monastery for several years a while back. It is a very unique place. Unfortunately, the Monastery is facing high medical bills and reduced revenues due to its aging population. This article on the Monastery's 60th anniversary is somewhat depressing, but perhaps it will bring in additional donations.

If you're ever in Atlanta, I recommend taking some time to stop by the Monastery - it's a wonderfully quiet, meditative place and only about 40 minutes from the airport. When I was there they had several monks who did a wonderful job creating beautiful stained glass windows (the one in the church alone is worth the trip). They also have a large Catholic store. And if you have any extra money, it sounds like the monks could use it. And I would ask that everyone pray for them.

(thanks to Amy Welborn for pointing this out.)

God bless,
Jay

Complete List of Saints

| | Comments (8)

I found a great area at Catholic.com today that has the most complete list of saints that I've seen. It includes background information on all of them as well. Take a look when you get a chance - it's especially great for those of us expecting a new child!

God bless,
Jay

The Feast of St. Joseph the Worker

| | Comments (8)

The man who taught the Carpenter how to be, well . . . a carpenter. And the man who humbly accepted God's will and married a pregnant virgin. St. Joseph was the head of the Holy Family and the most sinful of the three! (I think many fathers probably feel this way). He is also our guide to being the perfect worker:


Prayer to Saint Joseph for the Spirit of Work
Glorious Saint Joseph, model of all who pass their life in labor, obtain for me the grace to work in a spirit of penance to atone for my many sins; to work conscientiously, putting the call of duty above my own inclinations; to work with gratitude and joy, considering it an honor to use and develop by my labor the gifts I have received from God; to work with order, peace, moderation and patience, without ever recoiling before weariness or difficulties.

Help me to work, above all, with purity of intention and with detachment from self, having always before my eyes the hour of death and the accounting which I must render of time lost, talents wasted, good omitted, and vain complacency in success, which is so fatal to the work of God. All for Jesus, all for Mary, all after your example, O Patriarch Joseph! This shall be my watchword in life and in death. Amen


Remember also, no abstinence or fasting on a feast day - eat all the meat you want. ;-)

Embracing Outsourcing

| | Comments (3)

All the recent debates about outsourcing have made me think about how I should view it as a Catholic Christian. The moral theology course I’m taking at Steubenville has made me think much about it too. After much thought, and in context to our current economic system, I think Catholics in the developed world should embrace it as the best form of charity for people's material needs. After studying in Argentina as it was heading toward economic meltdown and experiencing the 5th world conditions of Nicaragua, I realized that the number one thing people need in developing countries is jobs. Upon further reflection, I find it unjust that I could always escape back to my cocoon in the suburbs of Atlanta, while the people I met there had to stay and face whatever lied ahead.

Losing a job creates hardship for anyone, whether they live in the 1st or 5rd world, but at least people in the developed world have many more resources to deal with unemployment than people in the 3rd world do. Numerous depressing realities exist in the developing world that we can’t imagine, or forget about as soon as we turn off the TV. I’m guilty of this myself. Many people in developing countries want a chance to provide for themselves and their families, but are sometimes forced to accept charitable handouts as a way to survive.

I believe in giving charity to organizations like Catholic Relief Services, who provide emergency relief to impoverished people, among other things. We must give to charity and always try to help the poor, as the Bible instructs us to do. I think it is important, though, to realize that giving handouts is only a short-term solution to the vast material inequalities of these modern times. I admit, it is much easier to send a $20 check to CRS than to lose a job and find a different one that pays less. Then again our Lord makes it clear to us that true charity is often (if not always) the harder path to take in the short-term.

For decades the US has encouraged capitalism and free trade (which I agree with), much to our benefit. Now, the efficiency and benefits of capitalism are finally spreading globally. Once the same rules of capitalistic efficiency are applied to us and give "our" jobs to poorer people in other countries, we cannot cry foul. We must also keep in mind, though, that this is short-term pain for long-term gain. As people’s standard of living increases globally and prices are kept low, they can buy American goods that they couldn’t before, eventually creating new jobs here. Before I am American, I am Roman Catholic. I hope other Catholics on the blog feel the same way. I know it is difficult, but instead of letting nationalistic, and sometimes selfish, feelings influence our opinion on outsourcing, we must put them after our conscience, which should be guided by the moral theology of the Church.

The Christian Carnival is Online

| | Comments (0)

Every week, Nick at Patriot-Paradox.com creates a roundup of the best in Christian blogging. He calls it the Christian Carnival and you can view this week's version here. It's a pretty interesting collection of posts - take a look.

God bless,
Jay

Summa Mamas: You Read that Raht

| | Comments (0)

We don't do this often, but you have to see this post on daddylonglegs at Summa Mammas. After you've recovered from laughing, be sure to pass it along to a friend.

Thanks to Stephen at Flos Carmeli for pointing this one out.

God bless,
Jay

Happy St. Patrick's Day

| | Comments (0)

For those who aren't aware, Saint Patrick was a real man who was born around 389 A.D. During his life, he became a priest and bishop in Ireland, where he saved countless souls - most were pagan at the time.

From St. Patrick's Confession:


It was not any grace in me, but God who conquereth in me, and He resisted them all, so that I came to the heathen of Ireland to preach the Gospel and to bear insults from unbelievers, to hear the reproach of my going abroad and to endure many persecutions even unto bonds, the while that I was surrendering my liberty as a man of free condition for the profit of others. And if I should be found worthy, I am ready to give even my life for His name's sake unfalteringly and gladly, and there (in Ireland) I desire to spend it until I die, if our Lord should grant it to me.

Here is the story of St. Patrick's life. May the Lord work through all of us as He did through St. Patrick.

God bless,
Jay


"I have cast myself into the hands of Almighty God, for He rules everything."
- - St. Patrick

Origins of Vaccines

| | Comments (0)

This was emailed to me by a friend and I thought it was worthy of posting, because it gave more indepth information on this subject.

A lot of people don't know where some vaccines come from. This is a good article explaining the history of certain vaccines

--------------------

This speech was delivered at the March for Life Convention on January 21, 2003, and appears here as a special to Catholic Exchange.

Suppose ten of America’s most popular vaccines were cultured on the bodies of Jews murdered by the Nazis. I bet you can predict what would happen. Scientists and physicians from around the world would begin a petition protesting the existence of these vaccines. The state of Israel would demand the cultures be flown to Tel Aviv for burial. As soon as possible the FDA would import and license alternatives. Meanwhile, the federal government would allocate millions of tax dollars to speed efforts by American companies to produce new cultures. If the vaccines were not immediately removed from the market, an organized boycott would transpire. In the midst of all this, suppose the media revealed the manufacturers of these vaccines actually collaborated with the Nazis to acquire the cultures. In fact, these same companies still have ties to a secret ring of Nazi-party doctors and have created additional cultures
from other Jews killed as recently as 1985.

Would you boycott these vaccines? Would you write the pharmaceutical companies and demand they manufacture alternatives? Would you help spread the word by passing out petitions and literature? What would you do?

The scenario described above is true. The ten vaccines, however, are not derived from victims of the Nazi Holocaust, but the Abortion Holocaust. These vaccines—in different combinations—immunize against chickenpox, hepatitis A, polio, rabies and rubella. Specifically, the vaccines are cultured on—and thus contain—aborted fetal tissue from two babies known only as WI-38 and MRC-5.

The WI-38 culture was developed in 1962 from a three-month-old unborn girl aborted in Sweden. The fetus was chosen solely for the purpose of creating a vaccine culture. The parents of WI-38 were married and had the abortion because they felt they had too many children, which in Sweden probably means two.

The second vaccine victim is MRC-5, a fourteen-week-old preborn baby boy aborted in Great Britain in 1966 for “psychiatric” reasons.

In spite of what you may read elsewhere about these vaccines, neither WI-38 nor MRC-5 are “immortal”—which means one day the cultures will die and need to be replaced. Thus a third culture, known as PER.C6, is currently being tested for use with several new vaccines. PER.C6 is derived from an unborn eighteen-week-old baby aborted in the Netherlands in 1985. The PER.C6 abortion was completely voluntary, and in the words of the scientist who created the culture, performed “simply because the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus.”

Development of the rubella vaccine actually involved not one, but twenty-eight abortions. Twenty-seven abortions were performed to isolate the virus and one abortion (WI-38) to culture the vaccine. The live rubella virus was not detected until the twenty-seventh abortion, which indicates the preceding twenty-six abortions were performed on perfectly healthy babies. Yet, in 1962, two separate U.S. research teams isolated the virus without performing a single abortion. In Japan, researchers obtained a live virus by simply swabbing the throat of an infected child. Likewise, alternative vaccines cultured on animal cells or chick embryo are widely available in other parts of the world.

But if no medical or scientific necessity can excuse these abortions, why were they performed? Three words: Fetal Tissue Research. Almost a decade before Roe v. Wade, long before anyone had even heard of embryonic stem cells, pharmaceutical companies—supported by the National Institutes of Health—used these vaccines as a means of institutionalizing fetal tissue research. Ever since, the popularity—and profitability—of these vaccines have been used to excuse additional forms of fetal tissue experimentation.

Unlike other, more remote, types of fetal tissue research, abortion-tainted vaccines directly implicate us all in the culture of death. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more insidious means of forcing people to unintentionally cooperate with abortion than by mandating the use of vaccines containing aborted fetal tissue. I say force . . . because in every state children must be vaccinated to attend school. Parents are thus often denied the right to refuse to use these vaccines—in spite of the serious ethical—and safety—problems they pose. While substitutes are available for some of the vaccines, no alternatives exist for the chickenpox, rubella and hepatitis A immunizations.

As we gather here tomorrow to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we can only wonder what might have been if parents and doctors had joined together in the years prior to 1973 to protest the manufacture of these abortion-tainted vaccines. No doubt, most people did not know—and still do not know—that these vaccines even existed.

I began today by asking what you would do if you knew about these vaccines. Allow me then to leave you with this question: What will you do?

Jameson Taylor is the author of the forthcoming book Vaccines Derived From Abortion: Making An Informed Choice, which may be preordered by calling Children of God for Life at (727) 538-5558 or e-mailing cogforlife@aol.com.

The Passion of the Christ Update

| | Comments (14)

Just a quick note to point out the success that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is having. USA Today is pointing out that this week The Passion will become the biggest R-rated film ever and has already become the highest grossing movie created outside of the studio system. Note: It's already the 23rd highest grossing film of all time in the US - it hasn't been released worldwide yet.

I continue to believe that this should send a message to Hollywood. Sex might sell a little, but meaning sells much more. I also should point out that rumors suggest Mel Gibson is now considering another movie based on the Maccabees (which is a book of the Bible that Martin Luther removed). It sounds very interesting.

God bless,
Jay

Although my husband and I choose not to have our children vaccinated purely for health reasons, I feel it is important for those parents who do use vaccines to be informed of religious reasons beyond health reasons for not having your children vaccinated. Making such a decision should not be taken lightly and should be researched with choices carefully weighed. The information I am providing in this article was written by Maria Gallagher from LifeNews.com

In case you didn't know most vaccines used today are developed from cell lines taken from aborted babies. It is important to check with your family physician to make sure they give your child vaccines that do not come from aborted babies. The pharmaceutical giant Merck has confirmed that single dose Attenuvax(Measles) and Mumpsvax(Mumps) are now available to family physicians. "These vaccines are made from chick embryo not aborted fetal cell lines," said Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life. "And we are continuing to pressure them to provide us with an 'untainted' rubella and chickenpox vaccine."

The issue is particularly critical for school-age children, since many state health departments around the nation require students to be vaccinated before entering public or private schools. In such instances, pro-life parents must apply for a religious exemption from the vaccine requirement in order to ensure school enrollment for their children.

A fellow blogger recently asked what the differences were between the Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church. Rather then simply answer this specific question I decided that it might be more appropriate to explain the relationship among the various rites within the Catholic Church. Most of us, who are Catholic in North, South, or Central America belong to the Roman rite. Therefore we are called Roman Catholics, but there are others that are equally Catholic but not Roman by "rite". So what is the difference? Do the different rites have different beliefs?

I will start by quoting Vatican II:


THE PARTICULAR CHURCHES OR RITES
2. The holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites. Between those churches there is such a wonderful communion that this variety, so far from diminishing the Church's unity, rather serves to emphasize it. For the Catholic Church wishes the traditions of each particular church or rite to remain whole and entire, and it likewise wishes to adapt its own way of life to the needs of different times and places.

During Lent we try and focus on our interior life in preparation for the joy of Easter. I think great lessons can be taken from the greatest apostle, St. Peter, and the most criticized, Judas Iscariot. The reason these two men can be examined is because of the parallels in the Bible of their existence.

To explain the similarities, let me quote Fulton Sheen’s Life of Christ:


An interesting parallel can be drawn between Peter and Judas. There are some similarities, and yet such tremendous differences. First, Our Lord called them both “devils.” He called Peter “Satan” when he rebuked Him for saying He would be crucified; He called Judas a devil when He promised the Bread of Life. Second, He warned both that they would fall. Peter said that even though others would deny the Master, he would not. Whereupon he was told that during that very night, before the cock crowed, Peter would deny him thrice. Judas, in his turn, was warned when offered the dipped bread; and he was also told, in answer to his question, that he was the betrayer. Third, both denied Our Lord: Peter to the maidservants during the night trial; Judas in the garden when he delivered Our Lord to the soldiers. Fourth, Our Lord tried to save both: Peter through a look, and Judas by addressing him as “Friend.” Fifth, both repented: Peter went out and wept bitterly; Judas repented by taking back the thirty pieces of silver and affirming the innocence of Our Lord.

And yet, the two could not be remembered more differently. Why? It boils down to the interior life of each and their view of humility and pride. Judas never went to God and asked forgiveness. He never “wept bitterly” and privately repented. This is the pride of Judas that he would return the silver, the “blood money,” but would never go to God as a sinful child and seek to be forgiven through the blood of Christ. Peter on the other hand, realized his emptiness, his weakness, and went straight to God weeping for his faults and seeking forgiveness. Peter accepted humiliation as a way of developing humility, which is a requirement for a vibrant interior life. Judas rejected the humiliation and rejected the opportunity to come back to God on his knees, begging forgiveness.

This is an important lesson for us. No matter how close to God we are, without humility we can fall at any time. By accepting the humiliations we periodically go through, God prepares humility in our hearts and minds. We must understand that we will fall and should immediately seek God’s forgiveness, His mercy, and His love. The essence of humility is knowing that you are a speck of dust that can’t obey the easiest commandments of God without His direct intervention in your life.

During this Lent, remember Judas Iscariot hanging on that tree and try to reject pride and arrogance in order to accept humility. Perhaps Sheen said it best:


The tragedy of the life of Judas is that he might have been St. Judas.

God bless,
Jay

Fasting

| | Comments (0)

How to Fast during Lent

Fast from judging others; Feast on Christ dwelling in them.

Fast from apparent darkness; Feast on the reality of light.

Fast from pessimism; Feast on optimism.

Fast from words that pollute; Feast on phrases that purify.

Fast from anger; Feast on patience.

Fast from worry; Feast on Divine Providence.

Fast from unrelenting pressure; Feast on unceasing prayer.

Fast from negatives; Feast on positives.

Fast from complaining; Feast on appreciation.

Fast from hostility; Feast on non-resistance.

Fast from bitterness; Feast on forgiveness.

Fast from anxiety; Feast on hope.

Fast from yourself; Feast on a silent heart.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly
used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming...'Wow! What a
ride!'"................anonymous

This is an article long in coming, but certainly due. The Rosary. What is it? Why does it benefit one to pray it? Where did this prayer come from? How come I can't find it in the Bible? For many Catholics and Protestants alike these are common questions. So let us take a closer look at this incredible prayer.

The Rosary is a beautiful combination of vocal prayer and meditation that centers upon the greatest Gospel mysteries in the life of Jesus Christ and secondarily in the life of the Mother of Jesus. It is an "incarnational" prayer, a prayer consisting of both vocal and mental prayer that serves to incorporate both body and soul into spiritual communion with Our Lord. - Dr. Mark Miravalle, S.T.D., Introduction to Mary: The Heart of Marian Doctrine and Devotion, pg. 86
This is very adequate summary of what the Rosary is. It is, as all prayers ultimately are, Christocentric (or focused on Christ), for in truth even the mysteries that focus on Mary only happened because Christ willed them to. But let's first look at the history of this prayer.

Answering Protestant Objections

| | Comments (99)

There’s a ton of common protestant misunderstandings about Catholics and interpretation of the Bible from a Catholic perspective. Yesterday, we had a post that seemed to encapsulate a common series of protestant misunderstandings, so I thought I would turn it into an article and answer the issues James proposed. I’ve put his initial comments in blockquotes (below) and his questions are bold. Now, I do know that this is plagiarized from Bible.ca, but I’ll assume that James was the original writer. I linked to our other articles where appropriate. Here’s where James began (he was responding to another post on the article The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Did Mary have other Children?


If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

I’ll address this first paragraph point by point.

  • First, it’s important to understand that during the time the Bible was written and compiled (from about 60 A.D. until compilation in 397 A.D.), there was only one Christian Church. The Biblical writers didn’t feel the need to prove the protestant position incorrect – there were no protestant churches!
  • However, there is a clear Church hierarchy. Read this article clearly showing that the Bible teaches that Peter was the first Pope. We have bishops or episkopos (Acts 1:20, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25), elders or presbyteros (Acts 15:2-6; Acts 21:18; Hebrews 11:2; 1 Peter 5:1; 1 Timothy 5:17), and deacons or diakonos (1 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8-13).
  • Confession is clear in John 20:22-23 (they must hear the sins to forgive them, right?) and we are told to do it in James 5:16.
  • Indulgences are often misunderstood by protestants. They are simply a remission of the temporal punishment one is due because of sins that have already been forgiven. The first Biblical indulgence is in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. Paul does not call the man to repent, since the man has already been forgiven; rather Paul removes some of the temporal punishment the man is due for the sin that is already forgiven. Priests were given the power to forgive sins in John 20:22-23, so they also have the power to grant indulgences.
  • Prayers to the saints are simple: we ask our friends to pray for us and the Bible clearly indicates that the prayers of the holy are powerful (James 5:16), so is anyone on earth more holy than those in heaven? It’s silly to suggest this is bad. Prayer for the dead is included in the Bible, but a man (Martin Luther) removed those books from your version of the Bible (example 2 Maccabees) as well as added a word, which to me is heretical, but you accept as perfectly okay.
  • First, we don't have Marian "adoration," but rather we honor Mary as the Mother of God (which she was). As far as honoring Mary goes, Luke 1:48 says “all” generations will call her blessed, this is something only Catholics do at this point (so we are the only ones obeying Scripture!).
  • Relics are very Biblical – I’m surprised protestants can ignore them. For example:

    Acts 19:11-12. And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

    This is the use of a relic in the Bible. There are several other instances as well, see 2 Kings 13:20-21, Matthew 9:20-22, and Acts 5:15-16.
  • “Many other rites and ceremonies” – please point them out and I’ll show you the Biblical references.

The Bible is clearly Catholic. Obviously, I could go far more into each of these subjects, but I’m just pointing out that every assumption made in this post is incorrect. If you want more information on a topic, let me know and I’ll write an article on it. Now for the other issues.


Also if the Bible is made by Catholics why does the Bible preach against its teachings?

It doesn’t. The Bible was written by Catholics and compiled by the Catholic Church as well as protected by it for 1,500 years (if it weren’t for diligent monks during the dark ages, the Bible wouldn’t have been around to be printed today). In fact, the Bible is inherently Catholic. Here are the points James makes:

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
This is actually comical. To derive this conclusion from this Scripture, you must completely ignore the point made here. I urge everyone to take a second and read the verses. This is not condemning the dress, but rather those who ignore the teachings while pretending to be holy. It almost requires intentional ignorance to read this into these verses.

2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
Again, saying "adoration of Mary" is an anti-Catholic term. We only have "adoration of Christ." However, we do honor Mary as she is due. According to you, we are expected to ignore the other verses pertaining to Mary (Luke 1:48) and assume this is a proper understanding of the verse. Again, this conclusion is absolutely silly – Jesus is trying to make a spiritual point, He is not saying we should ignore Mary, otherwise Jesus would be contradicting earlier Scripture. I think you should re-evaluate any personal interpretation that is contradicted by Scripture. Remember, the prayers of the holy are powerful (James 5:16), and I think we can be sure that Mary (the New Ark of the Covenant) is holy and in heaven. Don’t be scared of her – she always points us to Jesus. Read this article on the Biblical Mary for more information.

3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
Because they are. But this doesn’t mean a liturgical priesthood isn’t also valid. Remember the Old Testament? There was a Levitical priesthood as well as the priesthood of the laity. I proved above that the Bible clearly denotes a hierarchy among the Church.

4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
This betrays a terrible understanding of Scripture. This verse condemns astrology, not holy days. According to your interpretation, we shouldn’t celebrate Easter or Christmas, since they are “special” days. Let’s be realistic about this.

5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
Because all living Christians are part of the “communion of saints” as are the dead in heaven. Catholics also refer to believers as “saints,” while they are living. After death, only those in heaven can be considered saints. So when the Catholic Church declares someone a saint, they are pointing out that this person has died and gone to heaven. I think we probably agree on this issue.

Lenten Meditation

| | Comments (1)
And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." (Mark 14:37-42)

This Lent I am invited not only to see what my Savior did for my redemption, but to stand guard against anything or anyone that would seek to breach my security and take those benefits from me. During Lent I am especially reminded of this constant spiritual struggle, perhaps most intense for me throughout the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the source and summit of our worship and being. My husband and I often talk about this struggle, because we have three children three and under who demand our constant attention at church, and it is extremely hard to concentrate on the readings and the Real Presence. Upon reading this scripture passage, I asked myself is it merely coincidence that the average church service lasts about one hour? Is it also coincidence that often I have trouble concentrating in church for that one hour? Is it "the tempter's power" that makes my mind wander with various distractions? It's amazing how much can crowd in to fill up an hour, especially if that hour is supposed to be dedicated to you, O God. In our experience, we have discovered that sitting in a pew rather than a cry room helps our children as well as us be more reflective and participate in Mass. Also making sure they are well fed before Mass and letting them only look at children bibles or faith related books during Mass helps all of us to focus on Christ. After Mass we approach the altar as a family and say a prayer together or light candles for people. At this point if things have been crazy during Mass, my husband and I take turns sitting quietly in the pew rereading the scripture passages and reflecting on the Mass. Above all we find that what helps us most is realizing that God is most pleased that we come to Mass as a family and that when we do have to deal with a difficult child, Christ is giving us the opportunity to serve Him through our little one with loving patience and kindness, and we can offer this sacrifice back to Him. I hear clearly Christ's words to Satan's temptations in the desert, "You shall worhship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve." Even in church - maybe especially in church - help me to learn that faithful response .... and put it into practice.

Hal Lindsey and the End of Time

| | Comments (3)

Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of several books including The Late Great Planet Earth. But, before talking about Lindsey, it’s important to understand dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a unique view of interpreting Scripture that was first invented sometime during the late 1800’s. Basically it separates Scripture into various time periods, or dispensations, and uses this to understand the prophecies in the Bible. The biggest oddity about dispensationalism is its inherent assumption that we are on the edge of the end of time; in other words, Christ will return to earth in our lifetime. Obviously since the 1800’s many, many people have been incorrect in this assumption, yet it persists. At some point I’ll write an indepth article about the Biblical errors of dispensationalists.

Now to Hal Lindsey. I actually read The Late Great Planet Earth many years ago and was fascinated by Lindsey’s interpretation of Revelation through current events. It predicted the end of the world would occur somewhere around 1981. After this had passed, Lindsey redid the math and repeatedly came up with other dates, all of which eventually passed. But what really killed me the other day is that I noticed that Hal Lindsey is still writing books on the “end of the world.” How is this possible? Are there that many people out there that think, “Maybe this guy’s got it right this time”? I think Hal should spend more time reading the Bible than the paper:


2 Peter 1:20-21. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy every came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Now, I understand that Peter was referring to the Old Testament, probably Daniel, since the New Testament had not been composed (and partially not written) at this time. But I think we can surmise that the verse should be applied to Revelation as well. The verse, by the way, implies that you need the Church to help you interpret Scripture, since it is not “a matter of one’s own interpretation.” But Lindsey adheres to sola scriptura and probably would interpret this verse (along with Matthew 24:36) as applying to the Bible as a whole. So why would he think he personally can guide us to when time ends?

For those who aren’t aware, Hal Lindsey basically goes through the news of the day to find different things that indicate we are nearing the end of the world. He then takes these news clippings and attempts to fit them into the symbolism of Revelation, Daniel, and the other prophetic Scriptures. He’s obviously not very good at it, but he keeps going. I just don’t understand why people continue buying his books – he’s batting a big zero in terms of accuracy!

The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to interpret the book of Revelation if you don’t understand the Catholic mass. John wrote Revelation to fit the mass and wrote it as a series of homilies (John was one of the original Apostles and a priest and bishop of the Catholic Church). Much of the symbolism ties directly into the mass. In addition, Revelation as a whole is not congruent with the beliefs of dispensationalists, which causes a big problem, since dispensationalists are primarily concerned with understanding Revelation.

In the end, it simply surprised me that Hal Lindsey can continue functioning as an end times’ specialist. Of course, I’m also surprised by the dispensationalist beliefs that have wormed their way into the normal protestant believer. More and more, I think it’s important for Catholics to point out the problems in these beliefs and call Christians to focus on God, rather than focusing on when He will return.

God bless,
Jay

It’s interesting to watch how changes spread through protestant churches from the point of the protestant revolution until now. At that time, everything was about doctrine: Martin Luther and those with him adhered to the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, which went against the first 1,500 years of Christian teaching. But now, many protestants don’t understand the doctrinal arguments Luther made, but rather have a general belief system handed down from the pastor at their church. Lately, what I’ve seen a lot of is the insistence that the Church is unnecessary or completely spiritual (not literal Church). Dispensationalists even seem to teach that the Church was an accident – a unintended consequence of the Jews not accepting the Savior – that is temporary and not really God’s Will. These beliefs betray an ignorance of Scripture, which virtually requires that a Church exist in a singular form. There’s so much Scripture on this topic, that I can’t cover it all in a reasonable article, so I’m simply going to highlight the major points of interest.

To start, it’s important to note that from the earliest times of Christianity, the Early Church Fathers insisted that the church be a singular, physical organization. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch insisted the church be one and undivided (Letter to the Ephesians). But, far more convincing is the Scriptural texts. This is the key passage:


Matthew 16:18. And I [Jesus] tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

In this passage, Christ Himself says He will build His Church. Furthermore, Jesus clarifies by insisting that nothing will prevail against His church – it will not die, in essence. From this passage, you cannot deny that God Himself created a New Testament Church. Otherwise you ignore Jesus and the Bible.

Other New Testament writers agree and explain the nature of the church more clearly. Paul writes:


Ephesians 3:8-10. To me [Paul], though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Paul is saying something important here: that the wisdom of God is made known through the Church. Also Paul indicates that the “plan” God has: to use the Church as His tool, which is the fulfillment of the “plan hidden for ages in God.” This is Paul’s way of saying that the Church is the fulfillment of God’s plan from the beginning; not an oddity in time. It also shows the necessity of the church: otherwise the “wisdom of God” would not be known – Paul doesn’t insist that the Holy Spirit directly imparts wisdom to every believer, rather he asserts that this wisdom comes through the church.

Another clear indication that the church should be singular in form comes from Jesus:


Matthew 18:15-17. [Jesus speaking] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained a brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Jesus assumes a legitimate church is in existence – this verse also implies the necessity of the church. In addition, Jesus’ analogy only works if there is one church. In a denominational atmosphere, your brother could simply switch churches (he may already go to another church), so why would he care? He could rationalize that your denomination thinks of this as a sin and his does not. Jesus’ teaching only works if there is one universal Christian church.

The term “household of God” is also used in the New Testament to refer to the church (this is mean to graphically show the familial nature of the New Covenant relationship). We can see this fact as evident in Paul’s writing:


1 Timothy 3:15. . . . 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.

Two things here. First, Paul calls the church the “household of God” – a key to understanding some other references. In addition, the church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” If a church is not necessary, then where to we get truth? According to Paul it is the church that is our foundation of truth. In a denominational atmosphere (where all churches teach different doctrines), which church holds the truth? This is almost nonsensical in this type of atmosphere – we must try and identify which church is the “church of the living God,” which I would argue can only be seen through apostolic succession. And Paul agrees:

Ephesians 2:19-22. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and fellow members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple unto the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Paul indicates a way we can know the true church, the household of God: it is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets (which indicates the New Testament church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament church). Also note the physical words Paul chose to describe the church: as a building with a cornerstone and a foundation. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to use these words to indicate the physical nature of the church – it is not simply a spiritual phenomenon. Earlier I wrote this article which tackles the Biblical need for a visible, hierarchical church.

The point in all of this is that the Church serves a very critical purpose in the life of a Christian. It not only offers us the wisdom of God and the truth (as Paul insists), it also serves as a tool used by God to offer us the Sacraments, which lead us closer to God. Often people view the church as oppressive, but this would be the same as calling God oppressive since He laid out the Ten Commandments. The church’s mission is to save souls, not make people happy or ensure that they have fun. In saving souls, the church must condemn sin, so that the followers of Christ know the difference between right and wrong. God choose to work through the church; we are wise if we choose to go to God through the channel He created for us (obviously His wisdom ensures this is the best possible channel to God).

In conclusion I think it’s important to finish with the prayer of Jesus:


John 17:20-23. [Jesus praying] “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jesus clearly intended for His Church to be “one,” “so that the world may believe”.

God bless,
Jay

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And he fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was hungry. - Matthew 4:1-2

And they said to Him, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink." And Jesus said to them, "Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days." - Luke 5:33-35

Lent is that time in the desert for Catholics, it represents the forty days and nights our Lord spent in the desert as well as the forty years the Jewish people spent in the desert after being freed from Eygpt, as well as the forty day fasts of Moses and Elijah. Fasting is an ancient tradition that has always been tied to almsgiving and prayer. Throughout Sacred Scripture it generally is associated with two things: penance and preparation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about fasting:


1969 The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the "Father who sees in secret," in contrast with the desire to "be seen by men" (cf. Mt 6:1-6; 16-18). Its prayer is the Our Father (cf. Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:2-4).

Here the Church directly points to the relationship between almsgiving, prayer and fasting.

The Catechism goes on to explain the two purposes I mentioned earlier: penance and preparation.


Fasting as a form of Penance
1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others....
1438 The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church's penitential practice. These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works).
- CCC pgs. 360-361

Fasting as a form of Preparation
1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.
- CCC pg. 350

As a recent convert, one of the questions that has really bothered me about praying to the saints is the question of how they can hear us. If we pray out loud, do they hear us audibly? If we pray silently, do they know our thoughts? Perhaps most problematic, with so many people praying to Mary, Joseph, and Peter, how can they hear all of the prayers at once? In short, the idea of praying to saints seemed to assume that they were omnipresent and omniscient--God-like! After some consideration and research, the answer was provided to me.

The first thing to think about is the relationship between we the living, God, and the saints. I began with the basic Christian position that the Church is the Body of Christ, and that Christ is the Head of the Church. This is clear from Scripture and there is no need to explain. Next, I recognize that I, as a Christian, am part of that mystical Body of Christ. (As a Catholic, I am also a part of the visible Body). Thus, I am united to Christ. That leaves the saints. What is their relationship to me and to Christ? To start, saints are those who have died in the grace of God. Thus, they were a part of His Body on earth. Once they have died, does this relationship end? Certainly by the end of all time, the saints are part of the Body, as demonstrated by the wedding between Christ and the Church. (Rev. 21:9-27.) And it is unreasonable to suggest that the saints cease to be a part of the Body between their death and the end of time. In fact, Rev. 6:9-11 and 7:9-10 shows that they continue on in consciousness and activity before the Lord even before the end of time. Thus, the relationship can be summed up as follows: Christ is the Head of the Body (Church); the faithful departed make up part of the Body; the faithful on earth make up part of the Body; and together, all the saints in heaven and on earth make up the whole Body of Christ.

The second question is whether these different parts of the Body have access to one another. The Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-3) is a prime example of contact between the saints on earth and in heaven. However, many point out that this was Christ who contacted the saints, and was thus a unique circumstance. So what other examples are there in Scripture? Consider the innumerable examples of angels having contact with people on earth (I assume our readers will be familiar with many such examples). Why is this important? Christ Himself likens the saints in heaven to angels. (Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:36.) In fact, in heaven the saints are placed above the angels! (I Cor. 6:3.) So, if the saints in heaven are like angels and will in fact judge the angels, it is not unreasonable to believe that like the angels they could have contact with us. Finally, notice that in Rev. 6:9-11, the saints are acutely aware of what is happening on earth, and cry out for the day of judgment to come. Thus, while Scripture may not by itself prove beyond any doubt that the saints have contact with the living, the likening of the saints to angels, the visit by two saints to Christ, and the calling for judgment day by the saints certainly demonstrates that Scripture is not opposed to the concept.

Our friend at Powten asked an interesting question on his blog: what is your favorite scene during the movie The Passion of the Christ? This is actually a tougher question that it seems, primarily because Mel Gibson did such a great job of translating scripture into the movie. However, I think I've chosen mine and I noticed that Quenta Narwen likes the moment just before mine.

Mine occurs when Jesus falls under the weight of the cross and Mary runs to him. Jesus quotes a line from Revelation, but it is so profound and so perfectly placed within the context of the movie that it blew me away: "See, Mother, I make all things new." It gets to me just thinking about it; this was the essential mission of Christ - a mission that He had to endure because of my sins.

So what's your favorite scene? I'm very interested to see what others think - in my mind this is a very personal movie and I would expect to see as many answers and reasons as there are viewers. Just post a comment letting us know.

God bless,
Jay

Lent 2004: The Natures of God

| | Comments (2)

This is from Fulton Sheen's Life of Christ as he discusses the trial of Jesus just before the Crucifixion. I thought it was very compelling:


Our Blessed Lord had two natures: Divine and human. Both were on trial and on totally different charges. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Simeon that He was a "sign to be contradicted." The judges could not agree as to why He should die; the could only agree that He must. The religious judges, Annas and Caiphas, found Him guilty of being too Divine; the political judges, Pilate and Herod, found Him guilty of being too human. Before the one, He was too unworldly; before the other, He was too worldly; before the one, He was too heavenly; before the other, too earthly. From that day on, His Church too would be condemned on contradictory charges, either for claiming to be too divine by some, or else for being too human by others. Condemned on contradictory charges, He was sentenced to the symbol of contradiction, which is the Cross.

God bless,
Jay