April 2004 Archives

Here's the third in my series of references which covers "Tradition," which is the part of the Word of God that Luther rejected using the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Biblical references are always listed first (regardless of date) and formatted as so: Verse. Short synopsis of content and other comments.

Early Church Father references are formatted as so: Author Name of Work. Date – traditional numbering (Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers Numbering). Short synopsis of content and other comments.

This is the reference on Tradition of the Church:

• Matthew 15:2 ff (also Mark 7:2 ff). Note Jesus only condemns traditions that contradict the "commandment of God" or "traditions of men." This does not contradict all tradition.
  
• John 16:12-15. Jesus has many things that we will not know until the Holy Spirit comes at Penecost.
  
• John 20:30 (see also Mark 4:33, Mark 6:34, and Acts 1:2-3). These verses suggest the Bible didn't capture every action and/or teaching of Christ.
  
• John 21:25. If everything Jesus did was written, the world couldn't hold the books.
  
• 1 Corinthians 11:12. Paul thanks the Corinthians for "maintaining the traditions" he gave them.
  
• Colossians 2:8. Again condemns "human tradition," but not all tradition.
  
• 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Note that they received orally the "word of God" not of men.
  
• 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Commands us to obey oral and written traditions taught by the apostles.
  
• 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Binds us to the tradition, which was received from the apostles.
  
• 2 Timothy 1:13-14. Tells us to "follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me."
  
• 2 Timothy 2:2. Establishes that Tradition should be handed down orally to other good men.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. - 1, 10, 2 (192). Speaks of the "authority of the tradition" and notes that none "teach otherwise."
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. - 2, 9, 1 (198). Notes that we have received the Tradition that the creation manifests God "from the Apostles."
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. - 3, 24, 1 (226). Shows that the Church teaches Truth, which doesn't change. Also proposes that the Truth regenerates itself over time (progression of doctrine).
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. - 4, 33, 8 (242). Discusses the "complete tradition of the Scriptures" and the succession of Bishops.
  
• Tertullian The Demurrer Against the Heretics. c. 200 A.D. - 19, 3 (291). Explains that "all the Christian traditions" will be found along with Sacred Scripture where Christian discipline and faith are found.
  
• Tertullian The Veiling of Virgins. c. 206 A.D. - 1, 3 (328a). States the rule of faith and explains that "God works and perfects" doctrine "up to the end."
  
• Tertullian Against Praxeas. c. 213 A.D. - 2, 1 (371). Starts with an excellent summary of what we believe then points out that there is a place for "reviewing [tradition], for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons."
  
• Origen The Fundamental Doctrines. c. 230 A.D. - 1, Preface, 2 (443). Holds up the "ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" as a basis for judging other beliefs.
  
• St. Basil the Great Letter of Basil to his Brother Gregory. c. 375 A.D. - 125, 3 (917). Refers to "the tradition of the faith" which informs us of the Holy Spirit.
  
• St. Basil the Great The Holy Spirit. c. 369 A.D. - 27, 66 (954). Clearly notes that some Tradition is written and some oral and "both are of the same force." Includes "No one will contradict any of these."
  
• St. Epiphanius of Salamis Against All Heresies. c. 374-377 A.D. - 61, 6 (1098). Notes "not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture" and "it is needful to make use of Tradition."
  
• St. John Chrysostom On Second Thessalonians. c. 398-404 A.D. - 4, 2 (1213). Explains 2 Thess 2:15 and notes "the unwritten [Tradition] too is worthy of belief."
  
• St. Augustine of Hippo Letter of Augustine to Januarius. c. 400 A.D. - 54, 1, 1 (1419). Notes the authority of Tradition is vital to the Church.
  
• St. Augustine of Hippo Letter of Augustine to Januarius. c. 400 A.D. - 54, 5, 7 (1419a). Gives an example of local custom and suggests that Tradition and Scripture are equal.
  
• St. Augustine of Hippo Baptism. c. 400 A.D. - 4, 24, 31 (1631). Explains that Tradition is handed down from the apostles.
  
• St. Vincent of Lerins The Notebooks. c. 434 A.D. - 2, 1 (2168). Explains why Tradition is important when the Scriptures are "perfect."
  
• St. Vincent of Lerins The Notebooks. c. 434 A.D. - 20, 25 (2172). Shows that the "true and genuine Catholic" holds Catholic Tradition.
  
• St. Vincent of Lerins The Notebooks. c. 434 A.D. - 23, 28 (2174). Explains in detail that progress in faith is "not a change of faith," but "an advancement within itself." Preceding passage is similar.
  
• St. John Damascene Homilies. c. 780 A.D. - 10, 18 (2390). Refers to "ancient and most truthful tradition" in discussing the ascension of Mary.
  

God bless,
Jay

The hot political topic of the day seems to be John Kerry and whether he should receive communion or not. Communion, for those who don’t know, is the reception of the Eucharist – the “source and summit of the Catholic faith” as the Catechism calls it. The Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. So why would the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church attempt to stop John Kerry from receiving Jesus?

The key issue involves the correct reception of the Eucharist. St. Paul teaches in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 11:23-30. For I [Paul] received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Paul is teaching a key truth of the Eucharist – you cannot accept it if you are in a state of serious sin otherwise you “eat and drink judgment upon” yourself. John Kerry is not simply one who tolerates abortion, but a man who ardently and consistently works to defend and expand the practice of killing unborn children. He recently voted against a bill that made murdering a pregnant woman two criminal offenses, rather than just one, because he is so worried that mothers won’t be able to kill their unborn children whenever they want. This reflects a persistence in a state of serious sin.

The Bible also teaches:

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 your 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.

Over time John Kerry’s actions have lead to this point. Who is being sinned against in abortion? Obviously the child who no longer has an opportunity to live (and learn to love Christ), but also the mothers who obtained abortions. Abortion is a violence against mothers just as it is against children. Finally, our society loses millions of potential brothers and sisters every year to this horrible crime. About a week or two ago a Catholic Bishop spoke privately to Kerry, obviously exhorting him to stop his persistence in supporting this terrible act. And yet this week John Kerry is speaking publicly before the pro-abortion march in Washington (something abortion-supporter and former president Bill Clinton always refused to do). John Kerry has refused to listen to the Church and persisted in serious sin. He has chosen the potential for power over the potential for heaven.

Ultimately the Bishops are trying to save souls. They want a fully pro-life president in the US, but obviously that won’t happen this election. But more importantly, they are trying to save the soul of John Kerry and those of the Catholic faithful. What would it say if the Church allowed a self-professed Catholic to persist in saying abortion should be supported? It would likely suggest to the faithful that it is possible to be pro-abortion and Catholic, which is untrue. John Kerry has not received excommunication – this is merely a strong warning that he must either change his views or risk losing his soul. Let’s all pray that Kerry reconsiders his ignorant position on abortion and returns to being one of the Catholic faithful. Remember, he could choose God and the Church would instantly forgive him and (after confession) allow him access to communion again. The question is: can John Kerry choose life for himself and for others?

God bless,
Jay

UPDATE: I recommend Catholics take a look at the debate over the term CINO at Catholic[?] Kerry Watch. "CINO" stands for "Catholic In Name Only" and is seen as a designation for politicians such as Kerry which claim the name Catholic then publically denounce basic Catholic beliefs. I think it's a decent way of getting to the heart of the matter: these politicians aren't Catholic.

I’ll admit that I saw The Passion of the Christ before seeing this movie. So going in, I expected to be disappointed - The Passion raised my expectations for religious movies and I doubted whether The Gospel of John would be satisfactory.

That being said, it was more obvious that this movie was made on a budget. A few early camera tricks are almost nauseating and the acting is okay, rather than great. But on the whole, the movie was much more fulfilling than I expected. Basically, this movie is almost a word for word recreation of the Gospel of John. There were a few oddities; the one that drove me nuts was the translation of “Amen, Amen” or “Truly, truly” as “I am telling you the truth.” Jesus says “I am telling you the truth” probably over 100 times in the movie! But the story line was very close to the Gospel (I kept the Bible beside me) and it was nice to “watch” the situations unfold.

My favorite scene (I’m biased) was the second half of John 6 when Jesus insisted, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you.” The movie faithfully depicts Jesus losing all of His disciples except for the twelve. I also enjoyed their depiction of the Last Supper and the events from the Last Supper to the arrest of Jesus.

In the end, the movie was pretty good – it was very faithful to the text and did a watchable interpretation of events in the Gospels. If you could only see one religious movie, I would have to recommend The Passion of the Christ, of course. But thankfully in America we can watch as many as we want. And this was a worthwhile three hours of time (it is long), especially now that the movie is available on DVD. Recommended.

God bless,
Jay

FoxNews.com reprinted this Associated Press report that was a sad excuse for news covering the new Vatican document on the Eucharist.

First, at the FoxNews.com homepage we have the link to the document labeled Vatican: Pro-choice, No Communion. Which of course is incorrect – Cardinal Arinze was pressed for answer and said that an “unambiguously pro-abortion politician” is not fit to receive Communion. Note that the Cardinal is attempting to protect the soul of John Kerry, not condemn him.

But this is the most egregious part of the document:

Arinze was asked whether that meant that Kerry should not request or be given communion for his unapologetic support of human rights, including a woman's right to abortion.

How exactly does support for the murder of innocent children pass for “unapologetic support for human rights”? Have our minds become so dull as to believe this tripe nonsense? As a reporter, I would expect it to be clarified as “unapologetic support for abortion” – but apparently this writer has a political bone to pick with the pro-life movement, so s/he feels free to manipulate language to support abortion.

The rest of the report backed off of silly claims and was more newsworthy. But it is still an interesting nuance of the way we receive “news” that a station considered “conservative” can pass off this type of garbarge. This weekend the anti-Catholic noise is likely to reach a crescendo; this Sunday (the Lord’s Day) the pro-abortion groups are staging a big rally in Washington, DC. For those who don’t realize, this gathering is much smaller than the pro-life rally annually in the same city, but for some reason receives far more press support. Why?

God bless,
Jay

Father Gee is seeking donations for his mission. So far he's raised $33,000 to help build a school in Bianca, but he desperately needs $17,000 more in order to get everything done by September. Take a minute and read his blog: The Banica Mission and consider if you can help.

God bless,
Jay

This weekend is the big pro-abortion march in Washington, DC. Unsurprisingly, it will be attended by numerous Hollywood celebrities and politicians alike. I think the best thing pro-life proponents can do is pray for those attending and for the children in danger of being aborted.

At this point the abortion debate is polarized - those who believe a woman should be able to kill her child aren't interested in listening to pro-lifers. And frankly, there's nothing that can be said that would convince me that abortion is a social good, as pro-abortion supporters want us to believe. We can only depend on the Holy Spirit to open the eyes and hearts of those who have the power to end this holocaust on America's children.

So this weekend, please take time to pray that God will be with us. And pray that God will lead our country to embrace life over death in all forms (death penalty, euthanasia, etc.).

The silence of those who have been aborted is deafening. Let our prayers fill the empty space.

God bless,
Jay

Here's another of the reference sections I'm working on compiling. Once done I'll pull this into a downloadable PDF document that can be searched and used when questions arise.

Biblical references are always listed first (regardless of date) and formatted as so: Verse. Short synopsis of content and other comments.

Early Church Father references are formatted as so: Author Name of Work. Date – traditional numbering (Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers Numbering). Short synopsis of content and other comments.

This is the reference on Apostolic Succession:

• Acts 1:20-26. A successor to Judas is chosen to fill Judas’ “seat.”
  
• Ephesians 2:20. The Church (household of God) is built upon the Apostles; we can infer apostolic succession from this (it assumes continuance of the Church from this base).
  
• 2 Timothy 4:1-6. Paul seems to hand his office down to Timothy.
  
• St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians. c. 80 A.D. – 42, 1 (20). Discusses how the apostles tested men to become bishops and deacons. Also argues that this is not a new teaching.
  
• St. Clement of Rome Letter to the Corinthians. c. 80 A.D. – 44, 1 (21). A complete argument showing the necessity of apostolic succession (note: this is before many books of the Bible were written).
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Trallians. c. 110 A.D. – 2, 1 (48). We must “submit to the bishop as [we] would to Jesus Christ.”
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Trallians. c. 110 A.D. – 3, 1 (49). The bishop is a “type of the Father.” This also clearly defines the separate roles within the Church.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. – 8, 1 (65). Whatever the bishop does is “secure and valid” – we should follow the bishops as Christ follows the Father. Uses the word “Eucharist.”
  
• St. Hegesippus Fragment in Eusebius’ History of the Church. c. 180 A.D. – 4, 22, 1 (188). Historical recording of the succession of bishops.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 3, 3, 1 (209). Describes apostolic succession and how teachings were handed down from the apostles.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 3, 3, 4 (212). Explains that Polycarp was “appointed bishop” of Smyrna and mentions the “successors of Polycarp”
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 4, 26, 2 (237). Explains that we should obey those who have “part in the primitive succession” from the Apostles.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 4, 33, 8 (242). Shows how the “tradition of the Scriptures” is handed down through the succession of bishops.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 5, 20, 1 (257). Suggests you can spot heretics because of their “scattered” doctrine and lack of the “firm tradition of the Apostles.”
  
• Tertullian The Demurrer Against the Heretics. c. 200 A.D. – 32, 1 (296). Says dissenters must show that they come from the Apostles. Elaborate detail on succession to argue against heretics.
  

I was pointed to an interesting site today: The Catholic Spectator. I like the concept and just wanted to point it out.

God bless,
Jay

“Our consciousness is the One consciousness of all mankind, past and present.” - - Raymond Karczewski

As many of you know, we’ve been plagued by an odd kind of theologian on our site: one who has invented his own theology. Based on energy, a general problem with authority, and a terrible understanding of how the mind functions, Karczewski simply invented a theology, which judging by his site hasn’t been accepted by many. He has also unloaded a barrage of almost impenetrable hogwash on several areas of this site. So, I decided to visit his website in an attempt to see what Mr. Karczewski believes – he could never articulate an actual belief in his posts on our site.

Hello Everyone! I am attempting to return from my rather lengthy sabbatical. I've had a lot going on lately and it was simply a matter of prioritizing. I will admit that it was also, in part, due to my own selfishness. For that, I ask for forgiveness.

Now that I've taken care of that, let's look at what I've chosen to write about today: The Da Vinci Code. I have not personally read this book yet but have a copy and intend to begin reading it once the Spring semester is over (yes, on top of being married, expecting a baby in August, and holding down a full-time job, I am also working on my bachelor's degree). I have read several reviews of the book and have had several Protestant friends recommend the book, in fact my brother-in-law, who is Methodist, is the one who gave me the book. He claimed that it was incredible and historical. I had my doubts...

Msgr. T.W. Young is the pastor of a church nearby and wrote a rather emotional review. I still intend to read the book but thought that this review was worth posting. I will give my own personal review later this summer. Enjoy!

For several months family and friends told me that: "I simply must read The Da Vinci Code," a best selling novel by Dan Brown (Doubleday, 2003). Although I usually wait until fiction is out in paperback, a friend lent me his hardback copy, and I soon made this my "bedtime reading." It didn't take long for me to find this an engaging novel of the "thriller" genre, fast paced, and with a variety of interesting characters.

I had never read an Evelyn Waugh book before, although I’ve heard from others that he was an exceptional Catholic writer, so I picked up Brideshead Revisted, probably his best known work. Waugh was a convert to Catholicism - so I felt a special kinship from the beginning – and intended to show how divine grace functioned through this book.

The book was thoroughly romantic, which is typically a problem for me, but I actually enjoyed it more than I initially expected. It follows the life of Charles Ryder, an agnostic at the beginning of the novel, and his relationship with the Roman Catholic Marchmain family. The setting is similar to Sense and Sensibility or one of the other Jane Austen books. But, this novel is inherently Catholic, which made it even more interesting.

To me, one of the captivating aspects presented was the pressure on the family to be perfect. These were Roman Catholics living in protestant England, so they were a serious minority and every public problem the family encountered was used to condemn Roman Catholicism. As a Catholic in a protestant family, this notion of perfection seemed very real to me and I appreciated Waugh’s presentation of it.

As we near the end of the book, each character evolves from an almost anti-religious bent to accept their faith in different ways. Waugh made this very realistic – no sudden visions, but a clear change of heart over time and an understanding of God and how he functions. I do think the novel would be more comprehensible by Catholics (some very Catholic notions of grace are key and Catholic practices are used throughout), but non-Catholics can still enjoy the book. Waugh saw this novel as a way to reach out to the protestants of his time; he felt the Roman Catholic church was the only cure for what ails the world.

In the end, I would recommend taking the time to read Brideshead Revisited. It’s not long, not difficult, and captivatingly interesting. Click here to buy it at Amazon.com.

God bless,
Jay

I just wanted to point out a fascinating Wall Street Journal center column article today on the growth in popularity of St. Expeditus in Brazil. Basically he’s seen as a saint of “urgent needs” – similar to a St. Jude – but people typically ask for his help in finding work. In Brazil today, consumer credit rates are around 150% and the unemployment rate is around 20%, so times are tight. In the article, a religious studies professor notes, “He’s the saint for real-time solutions.” Interesting.

I always find it fascinating when devotion to an obscure saint takes hold in an area. St. Expeditus was a Roman soldier around 300 A.D. who was martyred for his faith. I would love to know how this devotion took such hold over Brazilian Catholics. The Wall Street Journal even has his holy card on the cover page – perhaps unemployed Americans will take up the devotion now?

God bless,
Jay

PS - an interesting note in the article is that an Evangelical church was growing quickly by preaching a "health and wealth" version of the Gospel, but now the previously Catholic parishioners are returning to the Catholic church.

I'm currently reading a very good book called Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. I'll write a full review when I finish, but I thought this passage was fascinating:

The faith-works controversy that sparked the Protestant Reformation was due largely to an equivocation on the word faith. If we use "faith" as Catholic theology does - see the old Baltimore Catechism definition of faith in section (b) above - and as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 13 - that is, if we mean intellectual faith - then faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, for "Even the demons believe - and shudder" (Jas 2:19). Hope, and above all love, need to be added to faith (1 Cor 13:13). But if we use "faith" as Luther did, and as Paul did in Romans and Galatians, that is, as heart-faith, then this is saving faith. It is sufficient for salvation, for it necessarily produces the good works of love just as a good tree necessarily produces good fruit . . . Protestants and Catholics do not have essentially different religions, different ways of salvation. There are real and important differences, but this most central issue is not one of them.

To me, this is very interesting insight and I think they have a strong point. What do you think?

God bless,
Jay

I'm actually working on creating a document that lists the references in the Bible and the Early Church fathers to a specific topic. I thought I would post one of the sections to see if there is interest in me posting some of the others.

Biblical references are always listed first (regardless of date) and formatted as so: Verse. Short synopsis of content and other comments.

Early Church Father references are formatted as so: Author Name of Work. Date – traditional numbering (Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers Numbering). Short synopsis of content and other comments.

This is a reference listing the verses/discussions on the Unity of the Church:

• Matthew 12:25. Jesus saying a divided kingdom falls
  
• Matthew 16:18. Creation of the Church – powers of hell/death will not prevail
  
• John 10:16. “there shall be one flock, one shepherd”
  
• John 17:20-23. Jesus’ prayer that we may be one so others will believe.
  
• Acts 4:32. The early church was “one heart and one soul”
  
• Romans 16:17. Avoid those who create dissentions and difficulties.
  
• 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. Paul instructs them to agree and have no dissensions.
  
• 1 Corinthians 3:2-4. Continuation of the above – we are “flesh” when we argue.
  
• 1 Corinthians 10:17. We are “one body” since we partake of the “one bread”
  
• 1 Corinthians 11:18 ff. What causes dissention: lack of Eucharistic unity.
  
• 1 Corinthians 12:12-30. We are all parts of the “one body” of Christ.
  
• 1 Corinthians 14:33. God is “not a God of confusion.”
  
• Ephesians 4:1-4. There is “one body” and we should be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit.”
  
• Philippians 1:27. we must “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind.”
  
• Philippians 2:2. Paul asks that we be of the same mind.
  
• 1 Timothy 6:3-6. Condemnation of those who dissent. Also Paul instructs that we should be content.
  
• Titus 3:10. Beware the “factious” man.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Ephesians. c. 110 A.D. – 20,2 (43). Stresses the importance of our one Church; we should listen to the Bishop with an “undivided” mind.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Magnesians. c. 110 A.D. – 12, 1 (47a). Tells us to be obedient to the Bishop, “so that there may be unity in both body and in spirit.”
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians. c. 110 A.D. – 7,1 (58a). Ignatius contends the the Holy Spirit spoke through him in calling for obedience to the Bishops. Also, “Do nothing without the Bishop” and “love unity.”
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. – 1,1 (62). “united in a single body in His Church.”
  
• The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp. c. 155/157 A.D. – Address (77). Clearly designates all of the “churches” as “dioceses” of the “holy and Catholic Church.”
  
• Hermas The Shepherd. c. 140-155 A.D. – Vis. 3, 5, 1 (84). Describes the Church as a building of stones, each stone is an apostle or bishop that fit because they are in unity. Notes that some “have fallen asleep” and “some are still alive.”
  
• Hermas The Shepherd. c. 140-155 A.D. – Par. 9, 17, 4 (93). Indicates that the believers have “one understanding and one mind.” Notes that as we enter the Church, we “receive the seal” – an interesting reference to Revelation.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180-199 A.D. – 1, 10, 2 (192). A discourse on the unity of the faith across countries, languages, etc. “For the faith is one.”
  

God bless,
Jay

The election is on its way and I hope everyone is keeping up with the issues - we have some responsibility to ensure that the right person takes office. Along those lines I wanted to point out the Catholic[?] Kerry Watch that watches John Kerry's moves in light of Catholicism.

Personally (as some may have figured out), I have a big problem with anyone who professes a specific faith and then publicly denies key aspects of that faith. You either believe or you don't. It's that simple. And Kerry clearly practices the fine art of Cafeteria Catholicism - he chooses what he likes.

Anyway, check out the blog and let me know what you think.

God bless,
Jay

Happy Easter! Christ has risen that we all might be saved! God bless.

I thought it would be interesting to point out some of the symbolic and historical information about the “things” we surround Easter with.

The word “Easter”. The word “Easter” came to us through the Germans who refer to Easter as "Ostern." Academics today believe this is derived from the German word eastron, which means "dawn." It used to be believed that "Easter" came from the pagan goddess "Eostre," but this is no longer thought to be true. See the Goethe Institute for more information.

Easter Eggs. Colored eggs were used in pre-Christianity to symbolize spring and the rebirth of the world. This was true as far back as ancient Egypt and Persia. Christians confiscated the practice and used it to symbolize the rebirth of man through Easter as well as the tomb of Christ. Interestingly enough, there are numerous wonderful polish legends about how coloring eggs for Easter came about; my favorite is that Simon of Cyrene was carrying a basket of eggs when asked to help carry the cross and when he came back they were all brilliantly covered. One tradition I find interesting is in Greece, where it is common to exchange scarlet eggs that symbolize the blood of Christ as well as the resurrection.

Easter Bunny. The rabbit is also a pagan symbol from the pre-Christian world, however it wasn’t ever brought into Christian celebrations and doesn’t really symbolize anything religious. The rabbit symbolized fertility and, therefore, Spring. The Germans are supposedly the first to tie the rabbit to Easter in the 1,500’s – they were quite the religious inventors in those times. In the 1,700’s the Pennsylvania Dutch brought the Easter bunny to the US, where it was believed the bunny would show up and leave a nest of colored eggs for good children. This evolved over time to become our tradition of leaving baskets that would be filled with candy as well as eggs (part of this was due to the commercialization of Easter).

By the way, the dates for celebrating Easter weren’t decided by the Church until 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea – before this it was celebrated on various days of the week (not always Sunday). Just a few little tidbits about the history of the greatest Christian holiday (followed closely by Christmas).

God bless,
Jay

Christ has conquered death and proven that He is truly the Son of God.

God bless,
Jay

It seems almost certain that the entirety of my journey to the Catholic Church has been posted on this site already, though in bits and pieces scattered around various posts and comments. Nonetheless, I have been asked by more than one person to write an article that will give a more thorough flavor of my experience, so I feel somewhat obliged to do so. It may seem irreverant to post such a personal article on Good Friday. But as I see it, Jesus Christ died to save His Bride. This is my story of how I came to understand that Bride. I hope this proves entertaining, insightful, and encouraging to others... though I have no expectations on any of these counts!

Whenever I talk about my life, I predictably start off by noting that I am the oldest of seven children. I guess a head shrinker might say that it indicates the preeminence of family in my sense of identity. But true as that may be, my relationship to God must go back further than my own existence, and so I'll start with my mom and dad instead. My parents were not (and are not) people of extraordinary schooling, both of them having graduated high school and gone into the work force--my mother as a store clerk and my father, eventually, as a construction worker. Both of them grew up in Catholic homes and attended Catholic school. My father served as an altar boy when he was young. My mother's family, however, was the more observant of the two. It really didn't matter though, as neither family could really be labeled "saved". My grandparents (back in the day) did not understand the first thing about salvation, did not have a relationship with God, and most importantly did not have a saving faith in Jesus Christ. In short, my parents grew up as cultural Catholics.

They married as teenagers. Shortly after their marriage, my mother was converted to Protestantism by her older sister who had discovered the reality of Christ. Some time thereafter, my father converted as well, right around the time that I was born. His conversion, however, did not take the same course as my mother's, who was always more demure. My father was consumed with overwhelming zeal for his newfound faith. He read the entire Protestant Bible from cover to cover in three months. In a frighteningly short time after that, he joined the ministry at a local Assembly of God church (very charismatic by nature for those not familiar with it).

By the time I was five years old, my old man was the head pastor of the church. But it didn't take long for him to develop irreconcilable differences with the chuch governance. Apparently the Assemblies of God folks felt that speaking in tongues was a requirement for any good pastor and further held that this could actually be taught. My dad's antipathy towards this doctrine led to a split in the congregation, and my dad led his supporters away to a new, non-denominational church, which he called "New Beginnings". The doctrine there, as at so many "Bible" churches, was not well-defined and was really determined by my father on an ad hoc basis. After several years, the congregation became increasingly dissatisfied with my dad's insistence on Biblical purity and separation from all worldly things. Frustrated by what he perceived as the lack true Christianity in the flock, my dad canceled all Sunday services to demonstrate that the people should not be so wrapped up in ritual worship. Naturally this devastated the congregation and the flock quickly disintegrated. For about a year after that, we held occasional Bible studies at our home with the few stragglers that remained behind. But soon it was nothing but our family. My dad went back to working construction, though we never attended church. Instead, we held Sunday family Bible studies every morning in our house, headed up by my father.

Keep in mind that today we received a terrible gift: the death of God to save us.

Matthew 27:45-54. From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah." Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.
At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

God bless,
Jay

This morning while driving I noticed a sign advertising an “Outdoor Easter Event” at a local Church on Sunday morning. The sign had a tiny church logo (it’s a non-denominational) and a bunny rabbit and listed “egg hunt” as the main feature of the event. Is this going to far? It’s similar to the mega churches that now have services with soft rock, very casual attire, and serve hot dogs and Cokes during church. I’m not sure this is the right way to go.

In my mind, this is watering down the Gospel. It’s presenting the good, forgiving God and ignoring the reality of God. Does this really follow what God wants from us? Underlying this type of movement is the assumption that the church is selling God as opposed to offering the opportunity to build a relationship with God. We know that people have a natural inclination to seek out God, to desire a relationship with Him. The church’s responsibility is not to bring in as many people as possible, but to simply enable that relationship to form and grow as people come into the church. The church’s obligation is to present God fully and accurately, which includes denouncing sin and requiring us to strive for personal holiness. This is what gets lost in this desire for as many parishioners as possible.

What do you think?

God bless,
Jay

John 6:51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.

Tonight, on Holy Thursday, we know that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper and instituted the Eucharist. Christ gave to us the food that can give to us life:

Our Lord was what He would be on the Cross the next day: both Priest and Victim. In the Old Testament and among pagans, the victim, such as a goat or a sheep, was apart from the priest who offered it. In this Eucharistic action and on the Cross, He, the Priest, offered Himself; therefore He was also the Victim.
- - Fulton J. Sheen Life of Christ

For this we are eternally grateful. Christ gave us His Love, His Life, His Body, so that we may be made worthy of Heaven. This was the first real meal that filled spiritually as well as physically.

1 Corinthians 11:26. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

God bless,
Jay

So I sat down and watched the Peter Jenning’s spectacular with some trepidation – it is made by Disney, after all. Initially, I thought the background information was very interesting; it did a decent job of getting the stage set for the birth of Christ. But of course, immediately we jump into the typical band of liberal theologians and historians. I keep asking, Why don’t they allow one real believer on these shows. Can Peter Jennings, the reporter, not find one legitimate theologian who also believes the Bible? It confounds me. It is expected from ABC and yet always disappointing.

What really annoys me, though, is Peter Jennings’ condescension toward “believers” – he refers to liberals as “scholars” and believers as “conservatives.” How pathetic is that? Just because he only talks to liberals doesn’t mean believers are idiots! I guess if you totally discount the Biblical stories, which is what Jennings did, you can make up anything you want. “Did Jesus believe he was a messianic figure?” – it amazes me that they can even discuss this on a show that pretends to be more objective than Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. It seems that “objectivity” to those like Peter Jennings means you should remove any believers from the show. Pathetic. I agree that we need some objectivity on a show like this, but at the minimum, they should give 50% of the time to people who: (1) believe Jesus was God; (2) believe the Bible was inspired by God; and (3) are respected as a theologian. There are numerous people who fit this description.

And I have to address one thing in particular. I (and any Bible-believer) have a problem with the notion that Paul founded Christianity. First, Jesus founds a Church in Matthew 16:18. Second, after Paul was knocked off his horse and brought about to the truth, what did he do? He went and spent months with Peter, who instructed him in the faith. Yes, Paul is very important. No, Paul did not found the church, Jesus did. No, Paul was not the most important within the Church, although he was very influential and important. Paul was the only learned among the apostles – he was, as we know, the greatest disciple of the greatest Jewish rabbi. This made him a key conversion target for God, which is why God blinded him in order to bring him around (and why God doesn’t blind us – God needed Paul in a key way). But to suggest Paul headed the Church is a mistake; one among many for Peter Jennings. When they finally suggested that Paul and the other disciples were doing battle with one another, I turned the garbage off. It became a waste of my time.

By the way, I’m sick of seeing John Dominic Crossan on these shows. Doesn’t he have something to do besides appear on TV to discredit the Bible?

God bless,
Jay

UPDATE: I didn't turn the TV off quickly enough and got this gem (by the lady wrote The History of God, I believe: It was Paul who got the brilliant ideal to take this belief to the non-Jews. Do these people even read the Bible? This is clearly the opposite of what the Bible teaches. How do these people get on TV shows?

This is the way some people "discuss" the Bible (click to see):

John Kerry has officially been excommunicated for his beliefs that it's okay for mothers to kill their children:

Zenit.org - After much consideration, the Vatican has officially excommunicated John Kerry for his endorsement of abortion, euthanasia and other pro-death views. In recent months, Kerry's Bishop has forbidden communion to the professed Catholic who is running for president of the U.S. Kerry has also been warned repeatedly by the Vatican to reconsider these views which contradict Catholic moral teaching. In response, Kerry argued that as a political figure, he must not consider absolute morals and vote based on the whims of popularity instead. Thus, Kerry has become simply a puppet in the hands of those who cannot makeup their mind. John Kerry's refusal to cooperate resulted in the Vatican excommunication which was handed down today . . .

God bless,
Jay

PS: Today is April 1st.