June 2006 Archives

Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. - - St. Jerome quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 133.

It has become an extremely common belief that the Catholic Church prevented Christians from reading the Bible and protestant reformers gave it back to the people. At this point it has become a common perception pointing to the problems of the Catholic Church. The argument goes that the Catholic Church forbid parishioners from reading the Bible, because they knew the Church was not following Scripture. And then, when Gutenberg’s printing press was invented, suddenly the people could read the Bible – and Martin Luther led them back to worship as it was supposed to be or as the Bible intended.

Historical Reality and Personal Bibles
Starting with a clear understanding of history is important to clarify the context of this claim. Very few Christians realize that for almost 400 years after the Crucifixion we did not actually have a Bible. The books that the Catholic Church eventually pulled together into the Bible were floating around at the various Churches, but there was much disagreement over which of the books were Scriptural and which were not. Some parishes (or individual churches within the Catholic Church) accepted one book or another, but many did not accept all of Scripture. Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were hotly debated during the time. And some books, like the Gospel of Thomas, which are not Scriptural, were accepted as such.

So finally the Catholic Church compiled the Bible as we know it (Martin Luther later removed some books from protestant Bibles) at the Council of Hippo. So up until that time the Bible did not exist as a single book the way we think of it today.

To further complicate matters there is one other issue: illiteracy. Americans still have trouble understanding that the vast majority of the world is illiterate even today. During the Dark Ages it was even worse, since virtually no one could read (Catholic monks in monasteries saved culture and writing in an amazing way). So even if the Catholic Church had personally given a Bible to every Christian, it would have been fruitless (and still would be today). The people learned about God through their parish priest and worshipped Him through Mass.

And yet, the Catholic Church could not have given a Bible to every Christian. Why? Because the printing press had not been invented! Until Johann Gutenberg’s wonderful invention in 1456 AD, Bibles were copied by hand. (Remember, Gutenberg was a good Catholic and the Church approved of and encouraged his printing of Bibles.) Before the printing press copying the Bible was the work of Catholic monks in monasteries who actually took a pen and paper and copied books of the Bible to create additional copies.

But the question still remains: Did the Catholic Church forbid Christians from reading the Bible?

What the Catholic Church did do
The actions the Church actually took are the most indicative of their frame of mind. Instead of hiding away the Bible – or making changes to it during the Dark Ages when no one would have known – the Church did something different. They chained Bibles down in individual Catholic parishes.

At first, this sounds barbaric: they were chaining down God’s Word to keep people from it. However it was quite the opposite. The Church wanted Christians to have access to the Bible, but they were not able to provide personal copies of the Bible to parishioners (the ultra-rich were able to get copies). So they put a copy of the Bible in each church and made it publicly available. But they did have to chain it down to keep it from being stolen (it took copious amounts of time to create a single Bible).

Kept in the parish church, that Bible [ed: the one chained down that cost as much as $10,000 in today’s currency] was made available to lay Catholics by chaining it to the table on which it was placed, just as telephone books today are kept available for the public by chaining them to telephone booths. Does the phone company chain the Yellow Pages so that no one can use them? Quite the opposite – so that the maximum number of people can have access to them. It was the same with the Bible.
- - Karl Keating What Catholics Really Believe

The Church also did something perhaps more important: it translated the Bible into art. This sounds a little silly, but it is not. When the people cannot read, the answer is to create art that explains the Bible. Not just paintings from famous artists (which the Church cannot take credit for), but stained glass art in churches that depict scenes from the Bible. This was a way to preach the Gospel even to the illiterate. They could understand what was happening in the scenes since they were hearing the Bible from the pulpit (the Catholic mass goes through every word of Scripture in a three-year time frame).

The Church also translated Bibles into the vernacular. Often you will hear things such as “Wycliff was the first to translate the Bible into English,” but this is simply untrue. We can cite a contemporary, Saint Thomas More the Lord Chancellor of England who was martyred:

The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read.” - - Dialogues III

Unfortunately there's one oddity we can't get around: People believe the Da Vinci Code. No matter how clear the errors are expressed, some people will always believe the book is true. Christianity Today points out that 60% of British readers believe there is "some truth" to the book. What's even more remarkable is that 30% of those who had not read the book agree!

As a Christian you need to be ready to counter the claims made by Dan Brown and explain why they are false. It's important to point out to friends and family, even if you think they should know, that the book is completely false. Be sure to read this post on The Da Vinci Code for more details (and don't miss this one either).

Remember, you have to act before stuff like The Da Vinci Code becomes perceived as true. At that point it is very difficult to refute.

God bless,
Jay

The yearly gathering of Witnesses, a Christian faith founded in Pittsburgh 136 years ago, is a huge worship celebration. This year, it has special significance because Witnesses are seeking to get out the word to millions of households that Armageddon, or the end of the world, is imminent. Or, as the invitation says: Deliverance at Hand.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are out in force to convince you the world is ending and to drum up support for their annual meeting. If you are approached, start with a few of our articles:

• Watch Out! The Jehovah's Witnesses are Coming
• Jehovah's Witnesses and the 144,000 Elect: A Catholic Response
• Jehovah's Witnesses Don't Like the Truth

Basically the Jehovah's Witnesses' are convince (again) that the world is ending. Don't be too concerned - they have claimed this a time or two before. Don't believe the hype, be sure to check into their beliefs before being drawn into this cult. The article also points out:

They've reached millions, but many still view them with doubt. Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves Christian but are not regarded as such by Catholics, Protestants or Orthodox, who say that a co-equal Trinity is a key component of Christian belief.

God bless,
Jay

This past Sunday was the Solemnity of Corpus Christi (i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ). Officially this solemnity falls on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, but in the U.S. it is celebrated on the following Sunday so that more people can participate in its' liturgies. Corpus Christi was instituted as a special day to draw our attention to the Most Holy Eucharist. It serves the Church as a reminder of the Reality that we possess in the Eucharist, namely Jesus Christ. For more information on this beautiful solemnity there is an excellent section on the website of Women for Faith & Family entitled:

Prayers & Devotions: Solemnity of The Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

The following is the homily given by Pope Benedict XVI on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi 2006. Enjoy!

The Square at St John Lateran
Thursday, June 15, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On the eve of His Passion, during the Passover meal, the Lord took the bread in His hands -- as we heard a short time ago in the Gospel passage -- and, having blessed it, he broke it and gave it to his Disciples, saying: "Take this, this is my body". He then took the chalice, gave thanks and passed it to them and they all drank from it. He said: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out on behalf of many" (Mk 14: 22-24).

The entire history of God with humanity is recapitulated in these words. The past alone is not only referred to and interpreted, but the future is anticipated -- the coming of the Kingdom of God into the world. What Jesus says are not simply words. What he says is an event, the central event of the history of the world and of our personal lives.

These words are inexhaustible. In this hour, I would like to meditate with you on just one aspect. Jesus, as a sign of His presence, chose bread and wine. With each one of the two signs He gives Himself completely, not only in part. The Risen One is not divided. He is a person who, through signs, comes near to us and unites Himself to us.

Each sign however, represents in its own way a particular aspect of His mystery and through its respective manifestation, wishes to speak to us so that we learn to understand the mystery of Jesus Christ a little better.

During the procession and in adoration we look at the consecrated Host, the most simple type of bread and nourishment, made only of a little flour and water. In this way, it appears as the food of the poor, those to whom the Lord made Himself closest in the first place.

The prayer with which the Church, during the liturgy of the Mass, consigns this bread to the Lord, qualifies it as fruit of the earth and the work of humans.

It involves human labor, the daily work of those who till the soil, sow and harvest [the wheat] and, finally, prepare the bread. However, bread is not purely and simply what we produce, something made by us; it is fruit of the earth and therefore is also gift.

We cannot take credit for the fact that the earth produces fruit; the Creator alone could have made it fertile. And now we too can expand a little on this prayer of the Church, saying: the bread is fruit of heaven and earth together. It implies the synergy of the forces of earth and the gifts from above, that is, of the sun and the rain. And water too, which we need to prepare the bread, cannot be produced by us.

In a period in which desertification is spoken of and where we hear time and again the warning that man and beast risk dying of thirst in these waterless regions - in such a period we realize once again how great is the gift of water and of how we are unable to produce it ourselves.

And so, looking closely at this little piece of white Host, this bread of the poor, appears to us as a synthesis of creation. Heaven and earth, too, like the activity and spirit of man, cooperate. The synergy of the forces that make the mystery of life and the existence of man possible on our poor planet come to meet us in all of their majestic grandeur.

In this way we begin to understand why the Lord chooses this piece of bread to represent Him. Creation, with all of its gifts, aspires above and beyond itself to something even greater. Over and above the synthesis of its own forces, above and beyond the synthesis also of nature and of spirit that, in some way, we detect in the piece of bread, creation is projected towards divinization, toward the holy wedding feast, toward unification with the Creator Himself.

And still, we have not yet explained in depth the message of this sign of bread. The Lord mentioned its deepest mystery on Palm Sunday, when some Greeks asked to see Him. In His answer to this question is the phrase: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (Jn 12: 24).

The mystery of the Passion is hidden in the bread made of ground grain. Flour, the ground wheat, presuppose the death and resurrection of the grain. In being ground and baked, it carries in itself once again the same mystery of the Passion. Only through death does resurrection arrive, as does the fruit and new life.

As we move toward another election season, it all begins again:

After losing the Catholic vote in 2004 because of their extreme position in favor of all abortions, the Democratic National Committee has appointed a "Catholic outreach coordinator" to help the party win back some of it support. Someone will be hired for the post as early as this month.

The Democrats basically appointed someone without power to win back the Catholic vote. They just don't seem to get it; as long as Democrats bow down to the altar of abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research, they are not likely to win the Catholic vote. Yes some Catholics are nominal and might vote a different way, but most understand that the horror of abortion is crossing a line. And as the article points out:

From John Kerry and Al Gore to Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, all of the leading contenders back unlimited abortion and most have long voting histories in Congress opposing bills like a ban on partial-birth abortions and supporting using tax money to pay for abortions.

Pro-life Democrats don't have any chance for higher office without changing their position - just look at Al Gore's required switch. Until Democrats aren't tied to abortion, they won't get my vote. And more and more they won't get the Catholic vote. This is no longer the party of Kennedy, this is the party of partial-birth abortion and taxpayer funded abortion. A Catholic outreach coordinator? Are they kidding?

God bless,
Jay

Just when you think it can't get better, it does. Go see this week's Catholic Carnival. Even if you aren't Catholic, there's some interesting articles that will catch your attention. It's worth a few minutes of your time!

God bless,
Jay

Amnesty International is apparently planning to change it's position on abortion from a neutral stance to a pro-abortion stance. This means they would use their money and political power to actively try and overturn restrictions on abortion around the world. What a sad reflection of how Amnesty International is fallen.

A Catholic Bishop in Canada is fighting the change after Amnesty International in Canada already changed their stance somewhat. The vote to decide how they move forward will be taken in Mexico next year. In the meantime, you can find your local Amnesty International rep here and let them know your thoughts.

Remember, it only takes a couple of minutes to voice your opinion. Please take a few moments and express why an organization founded on the principles of protecting human rights must be pro-life. Those they may choose to ignore are the weakest among us and need the most protection.

God bless,
Jay

Don't miss this week's Catholic Carnival. The Carnival is basically a roundup of Catholic posts from blogs throughout the internet. Every week it includes a variety of articles - you're sure to find one of interest. Each post contains a short summary.

Go and enjoy!

God bless,
Jay

Polygamy is an interesting topic when it comes to the Church of Latter-day Saints. There’s a clear tension in the air when the topic comes up with Mormons, but do they have a valid reason for adding and then dumping polygamy?

The Beginning of “Celestial Marriage”
To understand the position, it’s important to start at the beginning. Joseph Smith founded the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) while married to one woman, Emma. As I pointed out in this article on Mormonism, the Church of Latter Day Saints is actually based upon two important documents: the Book of Mormon and the Doctrines and Covenants (D&C). The Book of Mormon was finished at the time the Mormon church was founded, however the D&C continued to grow as Joseph Smith and his successors like Brigham Young had additional visions. So initially, the LDS did not promote polygamy.

However on July 12, 1843 this all changed when Joseph Smith penned section 132 of the Doctrines & Covenants. Up until this point, Joseph had been caught several times in adulterous relationships, often with those employed as maids in his home. One of the odd things about this is that Joseph had been taking these women in “celestial marriage” – basically making them additional wives. However, he publicly continued to deny any charges that he was taking additional wives. This always struck me as odd, since if he really believed this was a revelation from God, why would he be scared to announce it?

The official D&C 132 is extremely clear on the matter of polygamy (keep in mind that this is essentially scripture for Mormons):

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be be glorified.

Here is the full text of D&C 132. This is the passage that made polygamy a part of Mormonism. Interestingly, it seems to suggest that the wife must “approve” of polygamy, however Joseph Smith took over 40 wives in his lifetime and his wife never approved of the practice (and fought it). In fact, the argument has been made that the reason Joseph Smith wrote this as D&C 132 was to keep his wife quiet – near the end it expressly forbids Emma from taking additional husbands to retaliate against her husband’s infidelity.

Reinforcing the Teachings of Polygamy
Ultimately, this is the commandment that led to Joseph Smith’s death. Needless to say the non-Mormons around him were stunned by the revelation of polygamy. They arrested Joseph Smith and a mob executed him that very night. But how important was “spiritual wifery” to Smith? Believe it or not, it was very important:

Pologamy was, in fact, one of the most sacred credos of Joseph’s church – a tenet important enough to be canonized for the ages as Section 132 of The Doctrine and Covenants, one of Mormonism’s primary scriptural texts. The revered prophet described plural marriage as part of “the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on earth” and taught that a man needed at least three wives to attain the “fullness of exaltation” in the afterlife. He warned that God had explicitly commanded that “all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same . . . and if ye abide not that covenant, then ye are damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” - - Jon Kraukhauer Under the Banner of Heaven

Just to restate, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Latter-day Saints and the one that gave them virtually all of their doctrines, felt that polygamy was required in order to “enter into [God’s] glory.”

Those who followed in Joseph’s footsteps as the leaders of the Mormon church felt the same. Brigham Young was the next leader and he also had multiple wives. Brigham Young was the first to openly share the doctrine of polygamy with the Mormon followers and threatened damnation on those who “deny the plurality of wives.”

At this point the federal government began putting substantial pressure on Utah and the Church of Latter-day Saints to stop the practice of polygamy. President Hayes in the late 1800’s saw it as a way to unite the nation against a common evil that wasn’t as divisive as slavery. After Brigham Young died, John Taylor was named the new “president, prophet, seer, and revelator” and he refused to back down. Because of the pressure, he issued this charge from the pulpit:

God is greater than the United States, and when the Government conflicts with heaven we will be ranged under the banner of heaven and against the Government. The United States says we cannot marry more than one wife. God says different . . . Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. No nation on earth can prevent it . . .

Growing up in the Bible Belt I have come in contact with many varieties of Protestantism. The one that has never ceased to amaze me is the variety that proclaims that the true follower of Jesus will be healthy and wealthy. Now let me follow this comment by saying that I have met many of our Protestant brothers and sisters who have at least a basic understanding of the need for suffering in the life of the Christian. Yet, to this day, I meet individuals who sincerely believe that suffering and financial difficults are a sign that one is not living in accord with God's will.

The purpose of this article is to see what you think. Do any of you know individuals like this? How do you dialogue with them? What are your thoughts about this teaching? Here are a couple of verses that I have found useful in discussing this matter with them.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. - Matt 6:19-21

Then Jesus told his disciples, " If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? - Matt 16:24-26

It is not surprising that in an age so strongly influenced by materialism that we see these types of "Christian churches" springing up, but what do you think?

In Christ,
Joe