Catholic Comments

Karl Keating vs. Peter Ruckman

2008-06-01T20:40:00.008-05:00

On YouTube today, I found this debate between well-known Catholic apologist Karl Keating, of Catholic Answers, and Peter Ruckman, of the Bible Baptist Bookstore.

Each segment is over two hours long. I'm only an hour into the first one right now. My first impression is that it's way too disorganized. The lack of direction is disappointing. I don't think that's fair to the listener, who deserves debaters who are prepared for and dedicated to a more specific topic. Nevertheless, they address interesting and poignant issues.

Peter Ruckman has a lot of charisma and is a more entertaining speaker, replete with zingers and cute digs. Karl Keating, not as polished or as good on his feet as his counterpart, is, in my opinion, much more reasonable and intellectually honest, able to address issues directly without cheap shots. He did a good job considering he's not the best public speaker, is on the defense, and is in the midst of a "hostile" audience. Give it a listen if you have the time and inclination. Note that the video is of poor quality.

I just can't believe Karl Keating never had any hair. This video is from the 1980s. It's like Doctor Emmit Brown of the Back to the Future movies -- there was never a time when he had hair.

PS: The book Karl Keating wrote is a masterpiece: Catholicism and Fundamentalism -- The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians." It was very helpful to me when I first began my journey toward the Catholic Church.

An Early Witness Puts 'Soul Sleep' to Rest

2008-04-27T13:24:00.010-05:00

Just as Jehovah's Witnesses believe, I grew up believing that when a person dies, he or she remains in an unconscious state until the resurrection of the dead. I believed our souls could not survive the body. I believed this to be the biblical understanding, and that Christians believed this until pagan philosophy infiltrated the Church, certainly by A.D. 325 at the Nicene Council.

The orthodox Christian understanding (which I now hold) is that the soul indeed survives the body and awaits the resurrection, in which our souls are reunited with our resurrected, glorified bodies.

This morning, I was re-reading St. Clement's epistle to the Romans, and I came across a passage that struck a chord with me several years ago. Clement, who lived from A.D. 30–100, is likely the associate of the apostle Paul (see Philippians 4:3). He was the fourth bishop of Rome, following Peter, Linus, and Cletus.

His letter is quite early, dated at A.D. 97 at the latest—way before the "evil" influences of the emperor Constantine. The letter possibly could have been written while the apostle John was alive. Here is a passage I want to share with you:

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

Clement describes the apostles as being in his "own generation," and upon their deaths, Peter and Paul (1) "departed to the place of glory" and (2) "went into the holy place." These would be strange descriptions if he believed in soul sleep. Neither did he act like he was introducing a new doctrine. He wasn't even attempting to explain the state of the soul at death. He merely wrote of martyrdom and spiritual heroes.

No longer must I contrive excuses for St. Paul, for example, when he speaks of being "absent from the body" and "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). The natural meaning of his words are perfectly reasonable when I consider the beliefs of the early church—even those who personally knew the apostle. If this is the same Clement that is mentioned in Scripture, Paul called him a fellow laborer whose name was written in the book of life.

One thing that my Jehovah's Witness friends—and I myself, years ago—misunderstood is that Catholics do not believe that our reward is merely "when you die, you go to heaven." Instead, Catholics teach that our ultimate reward will involve the bodily resurrection, when our souls are reunited with our bodies.

The dispute boils down to whether the soul exists consciously during the interim. While that is the dispute, it was not a dispute during the time of the apostles and in the first generations of the Church. It was taken for granted.

Catholicism and the Search for Truth

2008-03-29T08:02:00.005-05:00

I was told yesterday that I was "not a Catholic at heart." The reason? I believe in a "personal relationship" with Jesus.

The non-denominational Christian woman who told me this is baffled that I could turn to Catholicism. She passionately explained the importance of living righteously, of letting the blood of Jesus cover me, of putting all my trust in Him. Christianity is not about academic understanding, but about walking with the Lord.

I could not argue with her impassioned plea.

Over the last few weeks, I have been targeted by a Jehovah's Witness, who, last weekend, brought an ex-Catholic JW to help pry me from Rome's grip. She and her literature said we must search earnestly, humbly, and with a teachable spirit before Jehovah reveals to us "the Truth." There is only one Truth, one religion. Differing, competing religions cannot all be true. We must reject man-made traditions that would replace the Word of God.

I could not argue with her logic.

Yet, neither of these women will accept that their understanding of Catholicism is misguided, for Jesus is the Truth at the center of Catholicism. He is the only path to salvation. God alone is to be worshiped. Holy Scripture is practically the air we breathe at Mass.

Instead, these gentlepersons (whom I respect) insist on portraying a hackneyed caricature of Catholicism: Catholics worship idols. Catholics worship Mary and the Saints. Catholics can go sin as long as they go to Confession. Catholics ignore Jesus. Catholics don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Catholics believe they can earn their way to Heaven. Catholics aren't "born again." Catholics don't "go by the Bible." Catholics worship the Pope. Catholics think the Pope can do no wrong.

These characterizations can agitate me, yet I'm patient because I once believed the same things about Catholics. Perhaps my patience is sometimes misunderstood as "coming around" to anti-Catholic schools of thought. Instead, I see this patience as a virtue; there's no sense in constantly whacking non-Catholics over the head with Catholic insights in every discussion. (That's what this blog is for!)

I was drawn to Catholicism because I was open to "truth," because I wanted to reject man-made traditions that conflict with the Word of God, because I believed in Scripture, because I believed in a "personal relationship" with Jesus.

Had I not investigated authentic Catholic teaching with these principles in mind, I would have remained ignorant as a non-Catholic. Too many people automatically reject Catholicism because they think they understand it, but don't.

Don't believe disgruntled ex-Catholics, don't believe priests or bishops in schism with the Church, don't believe Jack Chick comic books, don't believe convincing Protestant pastors -- read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read the Church Fathers. Talk to well-grounded members of the clergy. Listen to faithful Catholics. Go to primary sources of information.

If there's something that troubles you, don't assume Catholicism is automatically wrong. Ask for clarification. Debate Catholicism with an open mind. Seek answers. Feel free to walk away if you have searched for answers and are convinced they are wrong, but don't fall into the trap of misrepresenting the Church's teachings, and hating the Church based on misunderstandings.

Bishop Fulton Sheen's words are indeed true:

There are not over a hundred people in the U.S. that hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.

"Anything Goes" in the Marriage Bed?

2008-03-16T13:50:00.005-05:00

It is said by a number of individual Christians that "the marriage bed is undefiled," and by that they mean "anything goes" in the bedroom as long as you're married.

This has been said to justify sodomy, artificial contraception, sadomasochism, wild role playing, and any number of perversions of the marital act.

The scripture these people reference is often misunderstood because of the awkward wording of the King James Version (according to today's English style):

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge (Hebrews 13:4).

Read from a certain perspective, this can seem to say all things are acceptable in the marriage bed.

But read it again in another translation, such as the New American Standard Bible:

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Go back to the KJV's rendering, and you can understand it in a new light. It's contrasting a wholesome marriage and its undefiled bed with whoremongering and adultery. Bring those things into the bed, and that bed is now defiled.

This scripture has to do with marital chastity. It does not intend to say that all degenerate or selfish imaginations are okay as long as you're married.

Why I Love Money Even More In Envelopes

2008-03-09T15:29:00.004-05:00

Several years ago, a coworker recommended Microsoft Money to me. MS Money is a popular personal finance program for the PC. I loved it, so I wrote a post called "Why I Love Money." For what it does, I still like it better than its competition, but I no longer use it. My approach to managing personal finances has evolved, and I no longer find Money all that helpful. I found a system that works much better for me.

Promoting MS Money, I wrote,

On its start page it even tells me with a bar chart how close I am to reaching my preset monthly spending limit when it comes to groceries, dining out, and miscellaneous costs.

That is what excited me most: keeping within my budget's boundaries. If I did that, my perfectly planned budget would work. So I liked that MS Money kept me informed as I reached my predefined limit.

The problem was that my wife had the checkbook, and I had the debit card. She didn't know (or care) about what my computer program said, and I didn't know what checks she was writing.

In the evenings, I would update our spending in Money. Every penny I spent, I categorized. It didn't matter how big or small, I was going to track it. As we had different schedules, I didn't always dig into my wife's purse for the check book to see what she spent, so I would track it when it eventually cleared the bank. Sometimes she spent more than what was in my perfect budget, and I had already swiped the card for milk or bread or other small items. The theory behind my system was good, but it didn't come without costly complications. Dang those overdraft fees -- dang them to heck!

On top of that, I would spend $30 to $40 every year on the latest version of MS Money to ensure that I had the latest bells and whistles.

In the long run, it just didn't work out for me.

Enter Dave Ramsey

Last year, a different coworker introduced me to the writings of Dave Ramsey (pictured above when I attended his Dallas conference last month), a personal finance expert. His brilliant yet stunningly old-fashioned tips and financial philosophies have revolutionized my money management. His book Total Money Makeover was most influential.

I highly recommend the book -- and I could write one of my own to explain all I have learned since then -- but I want to share with you the one concept that has meant a world of difference to my family's finances: The Cash Envelope System.

Wal-Mart and Entertainment Envelopes
This simple concept has saved us a tremendous amount of money. I have of course devised the perfect budget for us, but it takes an envelope to actually execute it. Each time I get paid, I cash out the amount my wife and I agreed to spend at Wal-Mart, which is nearly synonymous with "groceries" (though it includes other household items). I place this cash in an envelope that I pick up at my bank's ATM machine, and I label it "Wal-Mart $."

I take another predetermined amount of cash and place it in an envelope labeled "Entertainment."

It's amazing how this one practice has improved our finances. Never is there a bounced check, never is there an overdraft fee, never is there any miscommunication. When there is no more money in the Wal-Mart envelope, we stop spending at Wal-Mart. It's that simple. It doesn't even require me to be at my computer to look at a bar graph! And I don't have to remind my wife how much is left in our grocery budget. She can see for herself what's left in the envelope.

When we go out to eat or see a movie or play, we don't feel guilty. We enjoy it more, because we don't worry about whether we're taking away from our other financial obligations. We included it in our budget. And when the envelope is empty, no more fun till the next paycheck. That helps us to be more responsible with our fun.

This saves money on checks, which are expensive. (I pay all my monthly bills online -- without checks.) Spending cash, which seems archaic these days, also keeps us from overspending. It's hard to spend cash out of an envelope, because you feel like you're spending. You have a stash of money one moment, and then you see it being depleted the next. It's more visual and therefore more painful than swiping a card and typing onto a keypad. So we don't spend as impulsively.

This has been the most helpful (and cheapest) tool that has made the most difference to us.

"Envelope" Check Register Spreadsheet
The second most helpful tool has been this free, downloadable spreadsheet I found at the "It's Your Money" Web site. I use this instead of Microsoft Money or Intuit's Quicken. It's like having virtual envelopes, following the same principle as my real envelopes. Get the spreadsheet here.

The idea is to give a name to every dollar of your paycheck before you get it. On pay day, I simply enter into the spreadsheet how much money I'm allocating to each category in my budget. When the sum of these amounts equals the total amount of my paycheck, I stop. This method insures that every dollar has a purpose. Anything I spend on food or fun during the week comes out of our cash envelopes, and I feel no need to track every penny or document precisely what was spent and when (thereby saving a lot of time). I only open the spreadsheet on pay days, when I pay the bills for that pay period. And when I pay bills, or spend anything else online, it must come from one of these categories that I set up. So I always know what we can and can't afford. I know that even though I may have a "large" amount of money in the checking account, every dollar already has a purpose. I don't freak out if I have to buy a couple new tires for the car, because I have an "auto expenses" category that's just waiting for me. It's all on the spreadsheet.

I love it, hence this post, "Why I Love Money Even More In Envelopes."

Is God Bloodthirsty?

2008-02-14T20:49:00.003-06:00

BobDobbs left a comment about my post, "Would You Wear an Electric Chair Necklace?"

This god despised you and all people so much that all he could do about it was torture his son and have him nailed to a cross. Sorry, he didn't actually kill the boy because legend has him coming back to life. But the Bible teaches that "it pleased God" to do this to his boy. Too bad there wasn't a volcano handy.

So your god commits heinous torture to satisfy his anger at you and you want to glorify it by wearing a cross?

Seek help. If I kill my son because my neighbor's dandelions are spreading onto my lawn I'm going to jail for a long, long time.

Why can't you people see the insanity of this bloodlust?

God is not insane or bloodthirsty. There are other, more sensible conclusions.

If God despises us, why would He sacrifice for us? Sacrifice is, by nature, an act of love. Otherwise the concept of sacrifice would make no sense. There is no other motivation. (Even sadism is a perverted form of self-love.)

Jesus' motivation, however, was the purest form of love. Despite the pain and a certain kind of natural fear, He willingly chose to give His life for us; He was not coerced by a sadistic "Father" God.

God did not inflict torture on His Son; rather, He allowed sinners to do this. That's what Scripture means by "it pleased God," which is not the most desirable translation for the Hebrew idiom. The RSV conveys it better with "Yet is was the will of the Lord to bruise him" (Isaiah 53:10).

You state that Jesus was not killed because "legend has him coming back to life." I don't understand your point, because this "legend" -- that is, a tremendous weight of oral and written tradition -- has Him both dying and being raised from the dead.

There's nothing heinous on God's part concerning His plan of salvation. Jesus chose to take the bullet for mankind's sins to demonstrate His love for us. He is determined to save all those who would be saved. His self-sacrifice shows the extent of His determination, for, as Scripture says, there is no love greater than this -- than to lay down one's life for his friends.

Wearing a cross or crucifix is a ready reminder of love, not a sick symbol of bloodlust.

Kissing and Worship

2007-12-30T06:51:00.000-06:00

A recent comment:

Yes, Darren, it's true Jeremiah 10 is referring to forming idols...so a fragrant evergreen decoration is no sin. But how do you justify all those idols that Catholics put everywhere? In their gardens, on their walls, their jewelry, statues of Mary and saints and crucifices galore? If they aren't objects of worship, why do they KISS them? Stop worshipping objects of wood and stone. Turn your worship upward to your Holy Father. (And I don't mean the Pope!)

Just like trees, paintings, cars, or people, statues are not "idols" unless they are worshiped.

I've been to many Masses, and "kissing" is not a common occurrence, except when the priest kisses the Holy Bible and the altar.

Even so, a kiss is not worship. A priest does not worship the Bible when he kisses it. Judas was not worshiping Jesus when he kissed Him. Members of the early Church did not worship Christians when they greeted each other with a "holy kiss."

I don't worship my wife when I kiss her. In-love teenage girls did not worship stationery when their handwritten letters were SWAK (Sealed With A Kiss). An old-fashioned gentleman doesn't worship a woman when he kisses her hand.

A kiss is a sign of reverence, respect, love -- but certainly not an unmistakable gesture of worship that is reserved for God alone!

Ask any Catholic if he or she worships an object of wood or stone, and the answer will be "Of course not!" Do you think the Catholic is mistaken?

What does it mean to "worship," anyway? Can a person accidentally worship something against his will? If he can "worship" something mistakenly or unknowingly by a mere external action (kissing a crucifix, decorating a Christmas tree, etc.), does that kind of "worship" have any meaning? It would be empty, which is hardly a trait of worship.

Real worship is adoration that arises from the heart and expressed in actions. It is paying homage to our Creator, recognizing God's supremacy in the universe and beyond. It is recognizing who and what He is, and submitting our will to His in love.

Viewing artwork as a reminder of God and of heroes of the Faith -- like an overseas military man looking at a photo of his wife or children -- does not constitute "worship." They are visual representations, reminders, of something else. The man who kisses the photo of his wife is not worshiping Kodak paper. Neither is he necessarily worshiping his wife.

Worship, by definition, cannot be mere lip service.

A reasonable person will therefore understand that Catholics do not worship objects of wood and stone.

"Church Is Cancelled -- It's Christmas!"

2007-12-24T15:00:00.000-06:00

I'm wondering if the Catholic Church is the only place in these parts of Texas to go for Christian worship on Christmas Day.

I've heard from several non-Catholic friends who say they never have church on Christmas because their churches want you to spend time with family.

Why can't the family spend time at church? Don't we claim Christmas as a Christian holiday? I know that churches have services on Easter morning -- so what's the deal with Christmas? Or why not have a Christmas Eve service instead (if not in addition to)? And what of those people who don't have any family to share with?

Why not cancel services on Super Bowl Sunday so that football-loving families can spend some quality "down" time with each other?

I do understand that sometimes we don't "feel" like going to church. But we do it anyway on Sundays because we know it is part of the Christian life. Is Christmas not more special than an odinary Sunday? Why have a "religious" festival that is recognized, shared, and celebrated by the whole Church, but then not assemble as a church in commemoration of the birth of the God-Man?

We should welcome the Christmas celebration -- not sleep when He comes.

I know that sounded preachy. Sorry. But it's still something to consider.

Unrelated: Jeremiah 10 and the Christmas Tree

2007-12-22T18:32:00.000-06:00

Having grown up believing that Christmas is pagan and not to be observed by Christians, one classic scriptural misinterpretation I had was believing Jeremiah 10 condemned Christmas trees.

Read the passage for yourself here.

When I became of age and seriously began to "prove" my childhood faith to myself, I "proved" that God despised the practice of cutting down a tree from the forest, putting it on a stand, and decking it with gold and silver. Jeremiah described this so clearly, so explicitly -- how better could he have spelled out the plain truth about Christmas trees?

I later realized that my understanding of this passage was chiseled and fashioned by what my church had already taught me. I was already "suspicious" of Christmas, so I was quick to cling to conclusions when I saw such words (especially in the King James Version) as "tree," "axe," "deck," "gold," "silver," and "workman" (which I mistakenly understood to be synonymous with "lumberjack"). What else could this be except the modern Christmas tree? I thought. How could everyone be so blind?

Well, it took me a few more years myself to begin to see.

The chapter is properly understood when seen in its context of idolatry.

In this chapter, the Lord references "gods," "idols," and "images" (verses 11,14); in the KJV they are "gods," "graven image," and "molten image." Since when is there a commandment against using a tree as decoration? There is none. Why should God be angry with that? But He is sorely opposed to idolatry.

We see, therefore, that God opposes the practice of fashioning an image or statue (of any material) that is to be used as an idol -- an object of worship. Anything that takes the place of the true God -- whether a wooden idol, another person, or your own pride -- falls under the category of "idolatry," but in this context, God is specifically addressing the use of literal idols.

I have never known anyone to worship a Christmas tree. Now that I observe Christmas and have a decorative tree, I know with certainty that I do not worship it. It is not worshiped by those who view Christmas in the spiritual sense in which it's intended, and neither is it worshiped by those who see Christmas as a mere secular holiday as an excuse to party and accumulate material goods.

If a thing is not worshiped, and if it's not made by pagans to be an object of worship, it's not an idol. Is this not sensible?

Moreover, in verse 5 of Jeremiah 10, God mocks these idols by saying they are "upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne [i.e., carried], because they cannot go." In whose imagination might a Christmas tree appear to walk and talk? My artificial Christmas tree does not resemble anything that walks and talks; it resembles a blue spruce. It doesn't have a face, head, torso, arms, or legs. It's a bushy tree!

Was the tree of life in the Garden of Eden an idol? It had fruit that, if eaten, would provide eternal life. Who would label that tree an idol, or even a symbol of idolatry? No one. And no one assigns Christmas trees with the divine attributes of the tree of life of Genesis, so how can one conclude they are idols?

No matter how much someone wants to make it a sinister object of false worship, the Christmas tree is merely a decoration. If indoor decorative trees are an abomination, then let's ban the popular plastic ficus trees from Wal-Mart.

I don't question the sincerity of those Christians that are anti-tree and anti-Christmas, for I was one of them, and I know I was sincere. But I do know that my rejection of all things Christmas gave me a deficient understanding of the Incarnation, which is crucial and at the heart of Christianity. This all-important emphasis, I fear, is what anti-Christmas Christians are missing out on.

Instead, they're too busy cramming modern-day Christmas trees into the pages of the Old Testament.

The Rosary: Beads on a String, Not Genie in a Bottle

2007-12-14T21:23:00.000-06:00

Does praying the Rosary guarantee instant "yes" answers to our supplications? Not at all.

God is not our Genie whose job is to grant all our wishes. If that's what He did, He would not be the God of love. As all parents know, to love a child is not to grant the child's every request; it is to provide for the child and do what is ultimately best for the child, who is often short-sighted and self-centered. Doing what's best may even mean allowing the child experience a kind of "suffering" now in order to achieve a positive result later. . . .

(See full post here.)

The Rosary Reader (Blog)

2007-12-09T11:32:00.000-06:00

I just began a new blog. Add a comment to let me know what you think. Thanks.

The Rosary Reader

Christmas Really Does Honor Christ!

2007-12-01T09:29:00.000-06:00

As Advent season arrives again, so does the annual explosion of anti-Christmas rhetoric. As if we don't get enough of it from atheists, some of it is published by various Christian sects who sincerely intend to restore the true Faith -- the Faith that was "once delivered to the saints," without extra, man-made garbage to pollute the clear water of the Word. Unfortunately, their pure intentions can lead to absurd conclusions, such as: Christmas is pagan.

One article that caught my attention this year is entitled "Does Christmas Really Honor Christ?" I truly mean no disrespect to the author (for I once held his views), but the more I read such articles, the more juvenile I perceive "Christian" arguments against Christmas to be.

Among them are:

We don't know Jesus' actual date of birth, so we're not honoring Him by observing December 25, which is a date pagans used to honor their own "gods."
We're not worshiping Jesus in "truth" because certain aspects of some traditional nativity scenes are factually incorrect (e.g., the wise men appearing at the manger instead of at the house in which the holy family later lived).
Santa Claus is a lie.
Many people suffer depression during the holidays.
Illicit use of alcohol and sex occur during the holidays.
Unlike the wise men, we give gifts to each other rather than to Jesus.
Birthday celebrations are pagan, even the Lord's.
The Puritans opposed Christmas.
Neither Jesus nor His apostles taught others to celebrate his birthday.

I'm not opposed to addressing these and similar issues, since I had to deal with them before, but a more troubling accusation deserves attention here.

Did Jesus ever grow up?
From the aforementioned article:

Even more serious, however, is the false impression given by Christmas that Christ is simply a helpless baby. A little girl viewing a nativity scene was heard to ask her mother: "Did Jesus ever grow up?" Why did she ask? "Well," she responded, "he hasn't grown at all since I saw him last year!" And the impression left at Christmas is just that, that Christ was a helpless babe, not the ruling King that He is, one who will soon rid the earth of all unrighteousness (Psalm 2:9,12; 110:1,2; Revelation 12:5; 19:15,16).

In his zeal to promote the pure gospel, the author not only insults the intelligence of his adult readers, but minimizes the essential truth of Jesus' birth!

First, Christmas does not limit our view of Jesus as a sweet little baby at the exclusion of all else, just as Good Friday does not leave the impression that Jesus is a helplessly limp, dead "savior on a stick." All aspects of Jesus' earthly life and ministry are essential and should be seen as a whole.

Second, the author comes from a tradition (my tradition, in fact) that almost seems to mock the idea of us celebrating the arrival of a baby Jesus, whose image represents the Incarnation -- God becoming flesh -- which is the one, central truth of Christianity that distinguishes itself from all other religions!

The idea that God, who, as Creator, precedes time and space, would enter time and space to be born just like one of us -- to be one of us in order to intercede for us and eventually save us -- is a mystery so awesome, so mind-blowing, so incomprehensible, that it deserves profound contemplation, not dismissal. Apart from it being logistically baffling, the Incarnation is a great act of love. It is the cause of angelic celebration.

In the introductory chapter of his Gospel, John describes it as true light that comes into a world of darkness. The chapter is intentionally reminiscent of Genesis 1, for Jesus' arrival was the beginning of a "new creation." His birth by a humble virgin in Bethlehem was the turning of the greatest page of hope in history.

I don't mean to be preachy, but I want to emphasize that the birth of Jesus was no small thing; it was monumental.

Not just a "birthday party"
Further, it should be understood that Christmas is not merely a "birthday party" for Jesus. He doesn't need cakes, party hats, or noisemakers -- or poorly sung songs that end with "and many moooore!" No, the emphasis is not on His "birthday," but rather that God entered this world in the flesh. That's the all-important mystery of Christianity.

The wise men of the East did not see the baby Jesus on the exact date of His birth, but they rejoiced nevertheless to see His day. "[A]nd going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him" (Matthew 2:11). This scene -- of "the child with Mary his mother" -- is not a representation of Nimrod and Semiramis or any other "pagan" scene, but one that should invoke praise and thanksgiving -- and worship.

Likewise, when Jesus was brought to the Temple for the purification according to the law of Moses, after His circumcision at the end of eight days, Simeon rejoiced at seeing the child Jesus (Luke 2:27-35). He rejoiced, even though He missed the "birthday party," which, by the way, was attended by the shepherds, and by a multitude of the heavenly host with song: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!" (2:14).

When we celebrate Christmas, we join Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the angels, the wise men, Simeon, and everyone else who celebrated and worshiped the Lord as a baby.

Just as they all awaited the coming of the Christ, so do we await His coming. This season of Advent stirs us to watchfulness, to be ready, for His Second Coming, as well. Our minds are focused on both the baby Jesus humbly born in a manger and the great and powerful King of Kings who will come again in glory at the end of this age. Both demand our preparedness.

If you hope to have a full and complete and saving Christology, you have to guard against false gospels. And sometimes you do have to wash away the extra, man-made garbage that pollutes the clear water of the Word. Just be sure you don't throw out the Baby with the bathwater.

Televangelists

2007-11-22T13:41:00.001-06:00

The commercialism I see surrounding many televangelists is off-putting to me.

This past weekend, I added a picture with T.D. Jakes to my collection of photos with well-known, pseudo-Christian teachers, including Garner Ted Armstrong and Joel Osteen.

I visited Jakes and Osteen with a good friend of mine just to say we saw them, to have something to talk about later.

Osteen's church is a feel-good mega-concert hall designed to increase people's faith so they can think and grow rich. And I was turned off by Jakes' people shouting in the lobby to "Get your t-shirts! Sweaters! CDs! . . . " (they were louder than the peanuts-and-beer pushers at the previous night's Dallas Mavericks game). Garner Ted Armstrong sensationalized his view of the end-times and his self-professed role in them (he is now deceased).

After our photo-op with T.D. Jakes, my non-Catholic friend said, "I'd rather go to a Mass." We left before the service started.

I've noted that so many who would emphasize to Catholics the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus are terribly preoccupied with their own preachers and ministry-marketing gimmicks.

I would rather spend some one-on-one quiet time with the Lord in the Eucharist, with the Scriptures in hand.

The Great Repression

2007-08-12T19:55:00.000-05:00

Man is higher than beast in a fundamental way. Rather than one who works on instinct alone, he is a rational being who can make decisions based on what is good and bad, right and wrong.

Yet, so many people advise us to "go with your instinct," to follow your feelings, to let your impulses lead you wherever they will. This insures that you will express your true self, who you really are. Often this is said in the context of sex, or in some aspect of business or personal relationships, but it could be set in any number of contexts. It is represented as a virtue; on the other hand, they say it's destructive to "repress" your desires.

Who wants to be guilty of "repressing" something? That doesn't sound good. It's a negative-sounding word -- to "repress."

The truth is that it depends on what you're repressing.

Bishop Fulton Sheen, in one of his Life Is Worth Living telecasts entitled "How to Psychoanalyze Yourself," explains that when you repress something, you express something else; when you express something, you repress something else. He gave the example of an alcoholic. When the alcoholic represses his alcoholism by intentionally avoiding alcohol, he expresses love for his wife and family. When he represses his love for his wife and family, he expresses his alcoholism.

The alcoholic's instinct -- his immediate desire that screams for instant gratification -- is to drink himself silly. But as a human being, he is able to choose the higher road and make a "right" decision because of his rational nature. That rational nature is what separates the men from the boars, or any of the other animals.

Therefore, for the alcoholic to satisfy his instinctive cravings without consideration is to betray his own nature. That is to say, he "represses" that which makes him a human being. He is the one who truly commits the self-destructive act of "repression."

He should instead express his higher nature as a human being by exercising his rationality, choosing to do what is right, even if it means denying his impulses. To do otherwise is to participate in the Great Repression that has bankrupted countless souls in the human economy.

Quick-Fix Faith

2007-08-12T19:28:00.000-05:00

The following was written by Msgr. Zacharias Kunnakkattuthara, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Palestine, Texas, for today, the nineteenth Sunday in ordinary time. Used with permission.

Psychologists have long claimed that a vital sign of maturity is the ability to delay gratification. Children in their natural immaturity will insist on having what they want immediately. Their desire is all-consuming, and they will have what they want now or go ballistic. As adults we should have developed enough maturity to value something other than immediate gratification of our desires. We should be able to take the longer look and live according to commitments we have made and goals we have set.

An ocean of immaturity surrounds us today. Our consumer culture, with its endless products and its marketing genius, stimulates our desire and convinces us that we need what is being offered. The culture promotes instant and effortless consumption. How can we get "fast food" to people faster? How can our products be made more "user-friendly"? This attitude becomes so pervasive that we believe we should not have to wait for anything.

Cartoonist Gary Trudeau once showed a young couple leaving a suburban church. It seems the cool, contemporary minister has slipped up and used the word "sin." The couple says to the minister, "We're looking for a church that meets our needs." What would Jesus say about a "user-friendly" church? We live in a culture that both reflects and encourages the immaturity that expects both instant and effortless gratification, even in the realm of our spiritual needs.

Jesus and our culture will never make peace. The "what's-in-it-for-me" approach to religion, the search for an effortless spirituality, and the desire for a "quick-fix" faith will not find their answer in Jesus. In the New Testament it costs for follow Jesus. What it costs, however, is more than worth the joy of receiving the gift of God's kingdom.

In Susan Howatch's novel Absolute Truth the adult son of an Anglican bishop talks with his father, about leaving his work at the BBC to serve the Church. His father says it isn't true that people can only serve God by doing what they hate and making themselves miserable. The son points out that the Christian faith is about suffering. His father suggests that he see "suffering" as effort. "Christianity's about effort . . . about shedding blood, sweat and tears to be what you've been designed by God to be and do what you've been designed by God to do. That's certainly not incompatible with personal fulfillment and lasting happiness. What's incompatible is not bothering to find out who one is, settling for something other than what one should be, tramping on others in order to realize a self designed by the ego instead of valuing and caring for others in order to realize the true self designed by God."

Your friend in Jesus,
Msgr. Zach

Dialogue With an Armstrongite

2007-07-17T12:20:00.000-05:00

This discussion with an anonymous Armstrongite followed my posting of "Mystery of the Racist." (That he or she is an Armstrongite is an assumption on my part.) It is published in its entirety, unedited, from the comments section. I am posting it here because I think it is a worthy discussion to read. I have given him (or her) the last word and have not added any further commentary.

I thank the anonymous commenter for his (or her) civility and kindness.

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

Anonymous said...

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=5479080

any comment?

Darren said...

I'm not sure on which aspect you wish for me to comment. But I can say a few things:

* All forms of sexual abuse are gravely sinful.

* Any sexual abuse perpetrated by a Catholic priest, Protestant pastor, or any other member of the clergy is extremely gravely sinful. Their position of authority compounds the harm due to scandal to the victim.

* My view is that any clergy guilty of this kind of sin should no longer be permitted to perform their clerical duties.

* While some in the secular media have reported that sexual abuse is far more rampant among U.S. school teachers, it is good, in one sense, that the Catholic Church has gotten smacked around about this. It will force reforms to be taken and enforced. Already, I believe, it has been said that men who are homosexually oriented (even those who commendably do not act on it and remain celibate) are not to be ordained to the priesthood. (I agree with this approach, even if God helps such men remain faithful.)

I'm not sure if you intend to discredit the Catholic Church by comparing their sins with the sins and false teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, but I can comment on that, too, just in case.

HWA's sins certainly wipe out his credibility. Since he is the founder of his religion, and central to it, that pretty much wipes out his religion's credibility, too.

There can be unfaithful priests, but they are unfaithful to the teachings of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). They need to be dealt with.

So many of HWA's teachings themselves are false -- at the core -- in addition to his being unfaithful. And central to his teaching was "the government of God," of which he was the head, end-time apostle through whom all doctrine must clear. When these things are shot to pieces, what's left to salvage out of a religion like that? (Some people necessarily eal with it by reforming Armstrongism, as if HWA didn't quite have a firm grasp on what Armstrongism was.)

Does this help any?

Anonymous said...

you did a good job there. what about this one? http://www.voanews.com/english/CR-CASTELFRANCO-POPE-CHURCH.cfm any comment?

Darren said...

I don't know what to say about it. The premise that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus built is about 2000 years old.

B16 is just making sure that Catholic ecumenism doesn't blur the Church's identity in the eyes of non-Catholics (and Catholics alike). "Ecumenism" doesn't mean compromising or retracting Catholic dogma. It's just a promotion of understanding and unity as far as it can go. A form or degree of unity with non-Catholic Christians is better than direct opposition, acting like enemies.

Anonymous said...

I understood him to say that unless you are Catholic you are not a member of the true Church of Jesus. Did I missunderstand him? Then it mentions "non-Catholic Christians". This leads me to think that the Catholic Church teaches that one can be a Christian without being a member of the Church of Jesus. Is that how you understand it?

Darren said...

No, no. You may disagree with it, but here is the idea that is intended:

The Catholic Church is THE Church. It is the same institution as the one founded by the apostles and that we read about in Acts. The gates of hell will never prevail against it, and no other institution will take its place.

That said, it does not follow that there cannot be followers of Christ outside of that visible organization. When the apostles/disciples came to Jesus fussing about someone who was not of them, but was casting out devils in His name, Jesus said that "whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:39).

Those other people were doing good -- they were "for us" in a real sense -- but they were still not a part of the visible, organized Body that Jesus instituted. He gave only the apostles power to forgive sins (John 20:23). He gave only them (and Peter in a special way) the power of binding and loosing (Mathew 16,18). And He gave only them the power to conduct Mass (Last Supper).

There is something to be said for apostolic succession and these privileges, and having the full teaching of Jesus.

So, yes, there are other Christians who will be saved, but they don't have the benefit of the full blessings of Jesus' Church and the sacraments He gave her for our spiritual benefit.

On the other hand, those who knowingly reject the Church are in a different category. That's not the same as someone who is ignorant or sincerely misinformed, but acting according to the light they have.

Anonymous said...

so, those "other Christians who will be saved" go to heaven when they die, even though they are not Catholic?

Darren said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

So there is no need to pay any attention to what the Pope says, right? And it is possible to be a Christian without being Catholic?

Darren said...

Yes, it is possible to be a Christian without a Catholic, but only in the same way it is possible for a non-Christian to be saved.

The first couple chapters of Paul's Epistle to the Romans shows that Gentiles who were not privy to the revelation that God gave to the Jews could still be saved if they acted according to their conscience, according to the light they had. If they were doers of "the law," even though they never knew the Law like the Jews did, they would be saved.

That is NOT to say that one therefore does not need to be a Christian to receive salvation, because anyone who is saved at the close of this life is saved by Jesus Christ, and by no other. It is through His grace, and no one else's. If a person learned of Jesus Christ and understood Him, but refused to follow Him, then that rejection would naturally cost him his salvation.

In the same way, a Christian who grows up as a Protestant and knows nothing else, and sincerely follows Christ the best He can -- Jesus can save that person, too. The good Protestant has gifts that have spilled over from the table of the Catholic Church, such as the gospel message itself, the Christian Scriptures, baptism, etc. All true teachings that Protestants have are anticipated and rooted in truth that the Catholic Church has always had. That is why the Catholic Church respects and acknowledges the faith of non-Catholics.

Of course, a Protestant today is in a much different situation from the one at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. To rebel against the Church and leave it is to leave the Body of Christ. That person is in grave danger of losing salvation -- just like the person who, once learning about Christ and truly confronting Him, decides to forsake Him. To do that is bad news.

Anonymous said...

Ok, then maybe you should not be preaching Christ to those who don't know of him, in case they hear of him and don't accept him. As long as they don't know, they can be saved.

Darren said...

If they hear of Christ and His message, and truly understand it, and then they reject it, it makes sense that they had not been truly, sincerely walking according to the light they already had.

Example: For discussion's sake, say Saddam Hussein had never heard the gospel. A Christian missionary comes by and explains it to him, and Saddam feels genuine conviction that what he hears is true. Yet, he chooses to reject it and continues his proud, murderous lifestyle. Unless he repents, he will be condemned after his earthly life.

Now assume that the Christian missionary never arrived, and Saddam died without even hearing a peep about the gospel. He was still an evil, murderous person. He did not act according to the law of his conscience. He still is to be condemned after his earthly life.

So in the first example, it wasn't that he was condemned because he heard the "plain truth" of the gospel and then rejected it. It's because his heart was not seeking truth -- not even in the first place. He was not acting according to what he understood to be true. His rejection of Christ and the gospel was merely symptomatic of that fact.

Now consider another case. A third-world, impoverished pagan-by-birth fellow does good to his neighbor. He realizes that there must be a higher power that is good and holy, but he has no way of knowing anything more than that. He wanders through life trying to live a life of service and integrity, and that's all he knows to do. This person can be saved.

Now if this same person receives instruction in the gospel and comes to know Jesus Christ by name, and learns authentic Christian teaching, then how blessed and how great is it for that man! He joyfully embraces it. He was seeking, and now sees; hungry, and now fed. Because of the explicit revelation of Christ, he is able to put life in greater perspective and focus his will toward the Truth. He has the potential to become holier and build a closer relationship with God than if he had continued wandering without clearer direction. And through love, he is able to spread the good news to others, to share the wonderful truth, thereby helping them as well.

Encountering Jesus tends to reveal what's already inside a person.

It really does come down to the matter of the heart, and whether there is "truth in the inward parts."

Anonymous said...

What if Saddam thought he was doing good by ridding the planet of people that disagreed with him? What if he genuinely thought that he knew what was best for all people, and needed to get rid of the "trouble makers", those who thought differently than him? He had no idea that he was doing wrong, so would that comdemn him?

Anonymous said...

And on the other note, as long as someone sincerely seeks truth they will be saved, no matter what they believe? That would mean the Hindus, American Indians, Buddists, and every other "religion" on the earth would be a safehaven, right?

Darren said...

Like I said, it's a matter of the heart, and thankfully I'm not one to judge that because I'm not able.

Theoretically, if your Saddam scenario was the case, then no, he would not be condemned to hell. But I have a next-to-impossible time believing that he sincerely thinks that murder, torture, and genocide are noble services to fellow man and to God. If he claimed such, his intentions would surely be perverted and twisted and he would be attempting to fool himself into thinking it. And "fooling oneself" does not decrease, but increases culpability.

Yes, even the Buddhist or Native American, if truly sincere, can be saved -- but saved by Jesus Christ alone, of course. It's what Paul wrote to the Romans, and it makes sense that God is not so unjust as to punish someone for eternity for something that was beyond his or her ability to control.

This does not in anywise diminish the singular role or importance of Jesus, Christianity, or evangelism. Instead it magnifies his grace -- like the thief on the cross.

I understand that HWA tried to get around this issue by coming up with a second resurrection for all those who did not or were not able to dial in after listening to the World Tomorrow program, but that's quite another topic.

To more directly and precisely answer your last question, No. There is no other religion that is a "safehaven." Not at all. Like I said, it does eventually boil down to whether there is, in the individual person, "truth in the inward parts" -- even if the person gets some external things wrong through no fault of his own. I'm still glad I'm not the judge.

Anonymous said...

But I have a next-to-impossible time believing that he sincerely thinks that murder, torture, and genocide are noble services to fellow man and to God.

I must ask, have you not read the history of your own Church?

Darren said...

To stick closely to the topic at hand (without getting into the specifics and history behind the Inquisitions, which is what I'm sure you're referring to), understand this: Anyone, whether an earthly leader or a leader in the Catholic Church or anyone else who "thinks that murder, torture, and genocide are noble services to fellow man and to God," commits damnable sin.

My previous explanations -- the teachings of the Church -- still stand. Abuses of authority and power do not negate Christian teaching. Peter's denials, Judas's betrayal that led to the death of our Lord, priests that have harmed the underaged, rulers who committed murders -- these are ugly pimples on the face of the Body of Christ, and they will all be cleared up at Jesus' Second Coming.

The truth stands in spite of anyone's infidelity to it.

Take a hard look at the teachings of the Catholic Church (click on the Catechism link, or look at any of the other official teaching documents of the Church from down the ages), and you will see the deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints. You will see Jesus.

Sadly, there have been some (relatively few) popes in history who have been downright scoundrels. While they are infallible in their official teaching, they are not impeccable in their actions. None of us are.

Anonymous said...

You and many others have tried to negate the teaching of Armstrong by using his many imperfections to show that his teachings are false. I see the same thing, however, in your Popes, yet you stand by their teachings, even though their actions are equal to, or in some instances, exccede the gravity of the Armstrongs'. While you get an "A" for effort, I sense that you are much more confused as a Catholic than you ever were as an Armstrongite. I do thank you for your time and willingness to indulge me.

Garner Ted and Me (Photo)

2007-07-16T06:49:00.000-05:00

I just rediscovered this water-stained photo testament of my history as an Armstrongite.

GTA had a good beer buzz going on at this moment.

This picture was taken at the graduation service of Imperial Academy in the summer of 1996. I had completed the church's two-year theological program. It was the last year Imperial Academy conducted classes full time. It was also the second year.

It was roughly three years or so after this photo was taken that I began inquiring about Catholicism.

Mystery of the Racist

2007-07-08T07:07:00.000-05:00

The Catholic Church, as its ancient name implies, makes no distinction between ethnicity and the races. Racism is unwelcome in God's house.

On the other hand, it was taught in the house of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, in which I was reared.

I've been reading the blog Shadows of WCG almost every day since it began a few months ago. Its young, prolific author "J.," an ex-WCG member, offers a daily critique of historical Armstrongism. I don't have the time or interest to delve into all that "J." does, but every morning I still like to see what's on his mind.

HWA's racism
Because of "J.'s" blog, I recently blew the dust off my copy of Mystery of the Ages, which HWA considered his finest work, and which his posthumous devotees revere. The Philadelphia Church of God, true to HWA's review of his own book, advertises the book this way on its home page:

I marked up my copy of the Philadelphia Church of God's reprint of HWA's book, because it's astounding what his followers let him get away with. One absurd theme (out of many) I've seen in this book is racism.

Here are some choice quotes, with all emphases by the original author. Not all of them are blatantly racist on their own, but through them as a whole, in their context, HWA's racism is unveiled at last! (Does the "W" in HWA stand for "whitey"?)

There was rampant and universal interracial marriage -- so exceedingly universal that Noah, only, was unblemished or perfect in his generations -- his ancestry. He was of the original white strain. . . .

It is evident that Adam and Eve were created white. God's chosen nation Israel was white. Jesus was white. . . .

The one man God chose to PRESERVE the human race alive after the Flood was perfect in his generations -- all his ancestry back to Adam was of the one strain, and undoubtedly that happened to be white -- not that white is in any sense superior. . . .

God intended to prevent racial intermarriages. But man has always wanted to violate God's laws, intentions and ways. . . . As mentioned before, God had set the bounds of the races, providing for geographical segregation, in peace and harmony but without discrimination. . . .

God had intended geographical segregation, not integration of the races. . . .

The probability is that these people [the ancient Hebrew nation] were all -- or nearly all -- of the white racial strain, unchanged since creation. . . .

Undoubtedly, one reason [one purpose for choosing Israel] was to preserve the original physical racial strain. . . .

God had chosen a nation of almost perfect original strain in its generations -- its ancestry. Also they had the quality heredity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). . . .

Here was a people of almost clear racial strain, and the God believing heredity of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. . . .

God started his chosen nation off -- even though brought out of slavery -- with all the natural advantages of a superior heredity. God pulled them out of slavery and gave them a new and fresh start. One might say they had everything God-given going for them. . . .

The nation Israel under Moses was ONE RACE -- very little interracial marriage had marred their racial nationality. . . .

The Promised Land was then called Canaan. Canaanites, racially dark, had settled in the land. . . .

GOD INTENDED TO KEEP THEM PHYSICALLY SEPARATE from other nations -- both nationally (racially) and religiously. . . .

Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, and it was necessary that HE be of the original pure racial strain, even as Noah was.

The following quote is in the context of what the eschatological kingdom of God will be like, after the resurrection of the saints who will rule over humans on this earth. In other words, this is what paradise will be like:

It seems evident that the resurrected Noah will head a vast project of the relocation of the races and nations, within the boundaries God has set, for their own best good, happiness and richest blessings. This will be a tremendous operation. It will require great and vast organization, reinforced with power to move whole nations and races. This time, peoples and nations will move where God has planned for them, and no defiance will be tolerated. . . .

HWA just identified himself as the "Elijah to come" (whom John the Baptizer only foreshadowed), in addition to being the plain ol' end-time "apostle," before writing,

Also the indication is that the teaching of spiritual truth -- of the true gospel, the spiritual conversion of the world -- will be directed, worldwide, from this Headquarters Church, under Elijah and the overall direct supervision of Jesus Christ. . . .

Jesus is in trouble if He appoints HWA in the kingdom to be the teacher of truth -- the same guy who wrote that the Israelites were white, "not that white is in any sense superior," and a few pages later wrote that God gave ancient Israel "all the natural advantages of a superior heredity."

Absurdity abounds in Mystery of the Ages, and it's sad that people still promote the book on television and in Wall Street Journal ads. I remember when the current leadership of the Worldwide Church of God (who now rejects HWA's teachings) first pulled the book out of circulation because of certain errors they had intended to edit. HWA's hardcore followers were outraged.

The continued arm hold of Armstrongism
Today, some moderate Armstrongites ("Reformed Armstrongites," as some like to be called) will admit that HWA had some few things wrong here and there -- that some of his teachings could have been explained a little differently, that his arguments could've been tighter, that he didn't have the theological sophistication to explain the "truth" in precise terms -- but they insist his main teachings were correct (Saturday Sabbathkeeping; avoidance of "unclean meat"; soul sleep; Trinitarianism is a satanic doctrine; Christmas and Easter are pagan abominations; Jesus' Second Coming has been imminent since at least 1934, and how much more imminent is it now!; man's destiny is to become Gods -- each person will become a God; etc.).

But even the moderate Armstrongites cannot escape the powerful psychological and spiritual grip of this man, this demonstrably false prophet. They prefer the comfort of being under the cool, dark "Shadows of WCG." They don't want to see the harsh light, because it would hurt too much. It would be too painful to admit that their years of sincere devotion to a belief system was in vain.

I say it was "in vain," but I don't mean to say it's unredeemable. While I let go of HWA's teachings as a fairly young adult, I grew up chin-deep in his church. I am thankful for the lessons and unique perspective that I have as a result. It may not sound like it sometimes when I rant, but I do have compassion for those who cannot leave. They really don't know any better. And sometimes when they almost do, they turn their head -- they turn back like Lot's wife.

They need the prayers of Catholics and all other Christians to find the strength that God has already given them to leave Armstrongism behind and to embrace the truth -- not the "plain truth," but the glorious Truth that is Jesus Christ.

It's clear to us now why the current WCG leadership could not merely edit HWA's book; it had to be abandoned. And its abandonment is no mystery for the ages. It was simply the right thing to do.

A False Prophet Nails Himself

2007-07-02T12:24:00.000-05:00

As one with a background in Armstrongism, I was intrigued by this quote from Herbert W. Armstrong, made several decades before his death in 1986. I've read the quote before, but it's more astonishing to hear it in his own voice. This quote is found at approximately 68:30 on the timer (less than 5 minutes into the video):

I want to tell you that all this weather disturbance means a terrible famine is coming on the United States, that is going to ruin us as a nation inside of less than twenty more years. All right, I stuck my neck out right there. You just wait twenty years and see whether I told you the truth. God says, if a man tells you what's going to happen, wait and see. If it doesn't happen, he was not speaking the word of God, he's speaking out of his own mind. You watch and see whether these things happen. You see who's speaking to you, my friends.

I am sure that his strongest modern-day apologists might defend him by disagreeing with him on that point.

I think this lengthy video would interest current Armstrongites, ex-Armstrongites, and those who are curious about the story of the Worldwide Church of God. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a big fan of the current WCG -- but this is still fascinating.

Statues and Icons (That Catholic Show #5)

2007-06-25T12:16:00.000-05:00

Here is the latest from Rosary Army's That Catholic Show. It's less than five-and-a-half minutes long. It's a decent video presentation about why Catholics use statues and icons.

Blair, Which Church?

2007-06-23T20:24:00.000-05:00

It's been rumored widely that UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair is considering conversion to the Catholic Church. (I just learned this.) My understanding is that he has been a nominal Anglican, but that he has close ties to the Catholic Church.

If true, this is great news. It is good when anyone comes "home" and is fully united to the Church that Jesus built -- the very Body of Christ.

Troubling, however, are the rumors that Mr. Blair, while not yet Catholic, has already been receiving Holy Communion regularly. Priests that permit this are contravening Church teaching.

Not Everyone May Eat at the Table
This, from paragraph 1400 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

Because Holy Communion both represents and strengthens communion with the Church, which Catholics believe is the Catholic Church, then, in ordinary circumstances, it makes sense that a non-Catholic should not receive the Eucharist.

For example, if a person disbelieves the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus (in a real way, not merely symbolic), then that person is not in full communion with the Church. Just as he presumably would not desire to partake of "the Lord's Supper" with Jehovah's Witnesses because he does not share their beliefs, neither should he want to partake of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

To receive the Eucharist, a person must be "visibly" and "invisibly" in communion with the Church. If he's not Catholic, then, "visibly," he is not in communion. There is little question here; he should not receive the Lord on his tongue. If he is Catholic, but is guilty of mortal sin, then neither is such a person in communion with the Church. He must first be reconciled through the Sacrament of Confession. That's why it is gravely wrong for "Twice-a-Year Catholics" (those who attend Mass rarely, usually only on Christmas and Easter) to hop into line to receive the Eucharist. They first need to hop into the line to Confession, and sincerely repent like everyone else.

If I correctly understand Mr. Blair's public views and voting record concerning abortion and marriage, then right now there are things "visible" and "invisible" that should prevent him from taking Holy Communion.

Catholic by Desire?
An unknown "church source" has reportedly defended Mr. Blair's alleged reception of Catholic Holy Communion. A Times article says the source claims "that Mr Blair was a Catholic by desire and that this did not necessitate a formal conversion."

This "source" misapplies the concept behind the "baptism of desire," which is summarized thusly in paragraph 262 in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

Unless for some reason he is not free to become Catholic, Mr. Blair cannot be "Catholic by desire," because if he desired it, he would make that step to become fully Catholic. Otherwise his "desire" would be empty, meaningless. But if, for argument's sake, his conversion is somehow impeded against his will, then he should respect the teachings and rules of the Church with which he desires to commune.

I'm interested in what lies ahead for Mr. Blair. I hope and pray for the best. But which will it be? Full, legitimate communion with the Catholic Church? Or something else?

The Pope and the Holocaust

2007-06-04T10:09:00.000-05:00

This video is short, informative, and inspiring. I found it at the Bread From Heaven Unlimited blog.

The video documents some of Pope Pius XII's (and the Church's) efforts to thwart Hitler's cause.

Why Only Pentecost?

2007-05-28T07:44:00.000-05:00

Why do Catholics and mainstream Protestant denominations celebrate the Feast of Pentecost, but not the other festivals listed in Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy 16? Do we just "play favorites," simply ignoring or even rejecting Passover, Unleavened Bread, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles?

No. Keep in mind that we (at least Catholics) celebrate and meditate on key Christian events. We commemorate and rehearse things like the Annunciation; the Birth of Jesus; His Baptism; His Death, Burial, and Resurrection -- and the Descent of the Holy Spirit. We are obviously very Jesus-centered in our religion.

The Holy Spirit descended in a spectacular way on Pentecost. Not only did flames rest upon the heads of those who were waiting in obedience and praying with Mary, but the Spirit also lit a fire under their backsides, so to speak, and gave them power from on high to spread the gospel of Jesus and His kingdom to all nations in all the world. We celebrate, therefore, the gift of the Holy Spirit -- which is no small matter. There are innumerable lessons, teachings, and meditations to draw from Pentecost.

It is for the express Christian significance of Pentecost that we observe this day.

Israel's annual feasts
That's not to say the other Jewish festivals aren't "Christian" in a real sense. In these other holy days, there is a tremendous amount of symbolism that points us to Christ.

Jesus is the "Lamb of God" not because of any physical resemblance, but because He, in the place of the Passover lamb, was our true sacrifice that truly forgives sin -- not in type or symbol, but in reality.
St. Paul used imagery from the Feast of Unleavened Bread to illustrate the nature of sin (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).
Trumpets were used, among other things, as calls to assembly and to announce war-making. As Christian soldiers, we can extract spiritual lessons from the Feast of Trumpets and recall that Jesus' return to earth and the resurrection of the saints will be announced with "trumpets."
The Day of Atonement is fulfilled by Jesus who is our atonement. As the one Mediator and High Priest, He unites us with God.
Just as Israel was to observe a festival that commemorated their living in temporary dwellings when they left Egypt, so we as Christians recognize that once we have left "Egypt" (sin), we are still sojourning in a land that is not our own. We are seeking a new country, a heavenly county, our "land of promise" -- "the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:10).

While these days featured shadowy glimpses of Christian realities that were to come, they were also very Israel-centric, or "Jewish." They were harvest festivals that related to ancient Israel's times and circumstances and history. Since God chose Israel from among all the other nations of the earth for a certain purpose -- in preparation of the coming of Jesus -- then naturally the pre-Christian holy days that God gave them would be about their nation and their role in salvation history. In that way, these days are worthy of our attention.

Calling all men
With the coming of Christ, however, God is calling all men (not just the nation of Israel) to Himself. It all started with the man Abraham, then the clans that came from Abraham, then the nation of Israel. Finally, it culminated in Jesus, who, with His apostles, has shared God's revelation to all the earth. God is no longer dealing primarily with one nation among all nations; He is dealing with all peoples of the earth -- including those whose ancestors did not cross the Red Sea or inherit a land of promise!

The "universalization" of God's gift of salvation, as we see in the Acts 2 account of Pentecost, is why we observe that day. It is fundamental to Christianity. It marks the inauguration of the Church, the ethnically blind instrument God is using to reach His children. Once the Church reaches these children though the power of the Holy Spirit, they become part of the Church -- they become part of Jesus' Body. And perfect union with Jesus is our eternal destiny.

For the sake of argument, if Jesus had been conceived or born on Hanukkah -- the Festival of Lights -- then surely the Church today would be observing Hanukkah, pointing out that Jesus is the true Light of the world, the Light of life, and that we should let our Light shine before men to glorify the Father. It would be for these reasons that we would celebrate Hanukkuh -- not strictly because of the rededication of the Jewish temple, the commemoration of which being the day's original, primary focus.

As an interesting aside, apparently Jesus had no issue with an "extrabiblical" religious holiday such as Hanukkah, since He was walking about the temple on that day, speaking publicly (John 10:22-31). He did not speak against it, but rather spoke to the Jews about His miracles, which arguably could be connected to the fact that Hanukkah is associated with a miracle. ("The Temple in Jerusalem was purified, and the wicks of the Menorah miraculously burned for eight days with oil enough for only one day" -- Wikipedia.) Christian lessons could easily be expounded from this. But still, it is fundamentally "Jewish," even though it does carry spiritual lessons for all of us.

Keep your "Christian focus"
One unorthodox Christian publication recently began an article with these words:

Most professing Christians acknowledge just one of God's holy days -- Pentecost. . . . But what does it mean to them? To most, it is merely a celebration of the "birthday" of the church, or a time of changing the colors of their religious robes. But the real meaning goes deeper than this. Much deeper. Pentecost is rich with symbolism. Let's take a quick overview of this God-ordained day.

The article then goes on to explain the very Christian significance of this day that you and I already understand, but the writer represents one of several movements that insist we as Christians should be observing all the Jewish festivals, and that we are sinning if we don't. Also, they condemn as pagan and sinful our celebration of clearly Christian days, such as Christmas and Easter, because they "hide" the plan of God.

But, in fact, the opposite is true: Christmas and Easter plainly reveal monumental Christian events that are absolutely crucial -- and as central as central can be -- to God's plan for man. Focusing exclusively on the holy days of Israel and rejecting Christian holy days can lead to many theological deficiencies which, potentially, can distort the Christian message.

Note, also, how these same preachers and writers characterize Catholics (and mainstream Protestants) as "professing Christians" (not true ones) who blindly follow empty traditions and are superficially concerned with wearing right-colored robes. But you should know better than that.

They would have you limit your observances to shadows and not the realities. They would have you be like the hungry dog who only sniffs and looks at his master's finger, oblivious to the fact that the finger is pointing to a bowl of fresh-mixed Gravy Train.

Be prepared. Learn your Faith. Read the Bible. Read the Catechism. If you have questions about challenges to the Faith, search for answers. Ask someone who can shed light on these challenges.

Don't fall prey to false teachers. Instead, fall down and pray -- that you may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. And praise God for sending us His Holy Spirit, who was given to the Church two thousand years ago on the day of Pentecost.

Reading Pope's Book Scott-Free

2007-05-24T06:12:00.000-05:00

On the same day last week, I received both Scott Hahn's new book (Reasons to Believe) and Pope Benedict's new book (Jesus of Nazareth) in the mail.

It's not hard to imagine why I haven't been blogging much during the spare time that I have.

I tried to read Hahn's book first, or at least at the same time as the pope's, because his is a breezy, interesting, and easy-to-read style -- as well as insightful -- and anything by Pope Benedict seems a little daunting. I wanted to "warm up" to it.

But now I've put Scott's book aside. B16's is so rich, yet accessible. I don't generally like the overused term, but this pope's latest book is "spiritual food," and it really hits the spot. It's a nutritious alternative to the junk that's been coming out for years about the so-called "historical Jesus" (who barely resembles the Jesus of faith in any way). The book's forward and introduction alone are well worth the money. I'm looking forward to getting deeper into this great work.

Since Christians believe that everything revolves around the truth of Jesus, it is good to occasionally knock down the false "Jesuses" that are fabricated from the minds of pseudo-intellectual unbelievers.

No, not just knock them down. Knock them out of the park!

And this theologian extraordinaire-turned-pope is just the heavy hitter to do it.

My "Accent"

2007-05-20T17:50:00.001-05:00

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Inland North You may think you speak "Standard English straight out of the dictionary" but when you step away from the Great Lakes you get asked annoying questions like "Are you from Wisconsin?" or "Are you from Chicago?" Chances are you call carbonated drinks "pop."
The South
The Midland
The Northeast
Philadelphia
The West
Boston
North Central
What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz