The Spirit Magnus

FMI Annual Congress Presentation 2 - Practically Apologetic Part II of V: There's something about Mary...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:26:00 +0000

Full of Grace and Ark of the New Covenant

In the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke we read of the archangel Gabriel coming to Mary who is in Nazareth (a city in Galilee) and declares to Mary that she will bear the son of God and call him "Jesus". The archangel greets Mary by saying, "Hail, full of grace" (Luke 1:28; "Hail, O favoured one" in other translations). The term "full of grace" ("gratia plena" in Latin) for Mary comes from the original Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Luke (who was a Greek himself). The word used by the archangel Gabriel (i.e. the word St. Luke uses for it) for the Blessed Virgin Mary was "kecharitomene" which translates to "having been graced" or "having been favoured". The archangel Gabriel is speaking in what's known as the "perfect passive participle", meaning Gabriel is talking about a quality that is and was always present, namely freedom from original sin.

How can this be explained in layman's terms? Mary's preservation from original sin is like this: if you fall into a pit and I pull you out from it, I've saved you. In the same way, if you're walking along and I prevent you from falling in the pit (either by warning you about it or physically stopping you before you get there) I have also saved you this way. In the latter instance, I have "preserved" you from the fall, ergo Mary has been "preserved" from original sin.

Mary's Immaculate Conception is not of her own doing (Catholics do not deify Mary) nor is it the doing of her parents, St. Joachim and St. Anne. Preservation from original sin is the gift given to Mary by God. Was it necessary that Mary be free from original sin in order to be the mother of the human person of God (Jesus Christ)? No, but it was fitting that she be preserved from it. Just as the Ark of the Covenant from the Old Testament (Exodus 25:10-22) was crafted according to detailed and specific instructions given by God, so too was Mary created with a purpose: with Christ, giver of the New Covenant, in mind. This is why we call Mary the "Ark of the New Covenant". To emphasise what this means, have a look at the following table and I will finish things with this to allow you to ponder these things within your own heart:

The Wedding at Cana and Mary'sIntercession

The following is a statement from an anti-Catholic I received regarding Mary's intercession at the wedding at Cana:

"In John 2:1-11 Christ performed the miracle under no one's direction. Mary simply stated 'they have no wine'. It could have merely been an appeal to fix an embarrassing situation, or an appeal that He reveals Himself in glory. It was not a direction or an order. His reply was hardly intimate, as He made it clear He will act according to Gods timetable in God's way."

And here's how I responded: If I could also make a comment about the Wedding at Cana miracle, I think what's being ignored here is that there would not have been a miracle had Mary not pointed out the problem to Jesus. Also consider the fact that Mary knew her Son could do something about it, so did she really need to explicitly make such a request? My older brother is an I.T. specialist and whenever I have a computer related problem, all that is required is a quick text message (e.g. "My router isn't working") and he's on his way to assist. My brother knows by pointing out the problem to him that I want him to fix it for me because he is qualified to rectify the issue.

Jesus did respond to his mother by saying, "Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come" (John 2:4) but what's important to note is what Mary said to the servants in the next very verse: "Do whatever he tells you to do". There is no indication to us in scripture that Mary made an explicit request of her Son, but that's not to say that such a request may not have ever happened at all. Don't forget that John points out that not all of what even Jesus said or did is contained in scripture (John 21:25) and so needless to say there's a lot we're missing out on there.

There very well could have been an explicit request made to Jesus by his mother, Mary. There is the implicit request made in the pointing out of a problem as I pointed out earlier, but make note of Jesus' change of heart: whether there was an explicit request made or not, Jesus acknowledged the problem pointed out to him by his mother and she knew he could do something about it. Implicit or explicit, Jesus honoured the "request" and by doing so honoured his mother (“honour thy father and thy mother”; he was a commandment-keeping Jew after all.

The precedent set for this we read about in the Old Testament: We also see intercession to King Solomon from his mother, Queen Bathsheba:

"Then she said, 'I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.' And the king said to her, 'Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.'" - 1 Kings 2:20

The intercession shows the queen possesses power in the royalty of her son's kingship. And why would someone ask the Queen Mother to intercede and not someone else? What God-fearing son would ignore his mother’s request? Secondary to that, King Solomon had many wives and concubines so asking one of them to intercede didn’t make sense because they were not “queens” and therefore subordinate to King Solomon. But King Solomon’s mother, like Mary the mother of Christ the King, could not be ignored.

Like King Solomon, Christ the King was a commandment-keeping Jew and by listening to his mother keeps the commandment:

"Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you; that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which the LORD your God gives you." - Deuteronomy 5:16

By keeping this commandment In John 2, Christ demonstrates for us the influence and very important role mothers have in our very own lives.

FMI Annual Congress Presentation 2 - Practically Apologetic Part I of V: St. Peter and Papal Authority

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:41:00 +0000

Photo: Cyrus D'Souza

Before we begin it’s important to point out that you will most commonly hear arguments against these things from fundamentalist Christians, i.e. those who subscribe to the “doctrine” of “Sola Scriptura” (Bible Alone) which basically means that these types of Christians believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of authority for faith and morals. So using scripture against THEM is going to be quite effective since they - on principle - can’t deny or reject it’s authority. So let's begin:

St. Peter and the Papacy Peter - What’s in a name?

The most common anti-Catholic argument looks at the Greek translation of the Gospel of Matthew (the oldest known manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek but is believed to have been translated from Hebrew). The argument suggests that while Jesus did refer to St. Peter as "rock", it was akin to a type of rock that could be used as a foundation and that Jesus was in fact referring to himself as the foundation of the Church. Anti-Catholics believe that the Greek word used to describe St. Peter as "rock" was the feminite form (languages that are Latin or Greek based have "male" and "female" workds; a word ending in an 'o' is a masculine word and a word ending in an 'a' is feminine) "petra" which would translate to "small rock" "stone" or "pebble", so the anti-Catholic would argue that St. Peter couldn't possibly be the foundation of the Church because how could a "small rock" (et al) be the foundation of such an important institution like the Church?

Let's read Matthew 16:18 and full and examine the problem with this argument. Note the specific use of the pronouns in the verse (bolded for emphasis):

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

Jesus is talking to and referring to St. Peter rather acutely here, don't you think? What's further of note is that since Jesus was talking to St. Peter who was obviously a man, the Greek word used for rock would have been "petros", i.e. the Greek masculine derivative of "rock" not the feminine.

What also needs to be taken into consideration - and this is the kicker - is the fact that Jesus would have been speaking to St. Peter in Aramaic. All credit for this tidbit of information goes straight to Karl Keating, by the way; I didn't know about this part until I read it in his books. We'll do this bit in steps:

1. The Greek word for "stone", "pebble" or "little rock" is "lithos" not "petra" or "petros";

2. The Aramaic word for "stone", "pebble" or "little rock" is "evna";

3. The Aramaic word for "rock" is "kepha" ("cephas" in Hebrew).

"What's your proof?" the anti-Catholic might then ask.

Don't forget that St. Peter's name wasn't always "Peter"; he was a "Simon" before that and was sometimes referred to as Simon-Peter. the Gospel of John emphasises this name change and notes the translation from Hebrew to Greek (bolded for emphasis):

"One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter)." - John 1:40-42

Want more (these are just a handful)?

"As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen." - Matthew 4:18

"The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother" - Matthew 10:2

"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus." - John 18:10

Authority - the significance of the keys

The verse of scripture that will shock the nerve of the anti-Catholic's brain, no doubt, is the use of Matthew 16:18-19 when used in defence of the establishment of the Catholic Church and the primacy of St. Peter, the first pope. This is what Matthew 16:18-19 says:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

It's verse 19 that I want to pay particular attention to in this blog entry, however, namely because there is a significance behind the handing on of the "keys to the kingdom", and for Peter the responsibility being the key bearer entails. Let's explore the significance in layman's terms first.

When someone is given the "keys to the city" (traditionally an American custom) in contemporary times, it is because they have done something to earn them, i.e. they are awarded the keys to the city in recognition of some sort of achievement or accomplishment. It's not uncommon today for olympic athletes, humanitarians, civil servants, etc., to receive the keys to the city. In medieval times when when walled cities were guarded during the day and locked at night, key bearers could enter and leave the city as they pleased as trusted friends of city residents.

In more simpler terms, let's say I go away for a while and I need someone to look after my house while I'm gone, I'm going to give my house keys to someone I trust without reservation, right? My house holds my treasures and while I'm not physically present, I would the "best person for the job" to be my key bearer. I might even trust the person enough to have a house key cut for them so that they may enter my home any time if they so desire. A person entrusted with a key to another person's home, obviously, must be responsible and must not abuse this privilege, much like in the case of the key bearer in medieval times.

The key bearer's role was authoritative as the honour of being the key bearer brought with it culpability and responsibility.

And now, the scriptural significance of the "keys to the kingdom".

In Isaiah chapter 22, the prophet (Isaiah) laments the devastation of Judah. He foretells the deprivation of Sobna ("Shebna" in other translations), and the substitution of Eliacim ("Eliakim" in other translations) as steward of the kingdom:

"And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open." - Isaiah 22:19-22 (D-R)

Broken down, verse by verse (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-III; John Salza, 2001-2007):

Isaiah 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22:20 - In the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isaiah 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Isaiah 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

St. Peter, in Matthew 16:18-19 was named, under the authority of Christ the Lord himself, steward of the seat of the earthly kingdom of heaven, what would be the visible sign to the world that Christ dwells with us still and that his message is to be heard by and disciples made of all nations and that all may be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).

Many anti-Catholics will argue that St. Peter is not the foundation of the church, but Christ is. This is an argument of semantics: Christ is the foundation of Christendom; Christianity. St. Peter, however, as it tells us quite clearly in Matthew 16:18, is the foundation, the rock, on which Christ builds his church!

Think of it this way: Jesus is the project manager, and St. Peter is the contractor. Jesus gives St. Peter the authority to build ("And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven", Matthew 16:19) and St. Peter and the disciples are given instructions (Matthew 28:19-20) and guidance (John 14:23-29) to expand their developments throughout the world ("...called 'Catholic' because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other" - Cyril of Jerusalem, 315-386AD).

Elucidation: The key symbolises trust and authority, ergo, the keys to the kingdom of heaven are given to one that is most trusted, a "first among firsts", a reliable and beloved character, and this character is given binding authority.

And note the wording of Isaiah 22:22...

"... And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Jesus Christ is himself of the House of David, and these keys in the New Testament were given to St. Peter. St. Peter (and successive popes) acts as a steward for this kingdom until Christ's return and has been given the authority to "bind and loose" or as it is termed in Isaiah 22, to "open and shut".

There is no authority greater than that given by the Lord Jesus Christ, and for almost 2000 years the key has been passed on from one pope to the other, starting with St. Peter and now sitting with Pope Benedict XVI. This is why the Vatican's own flag has a set of keys on its canvas: The Church on which the successor of St. Peter sits, to this day carries out the instructions given by Christ and will do so until the day of Christ's return.

The Church remains a light to the world (Matthew 5:14), giving witness to the good news that Christ and the heavenly Father desires for all men (sic.) to hear and allowing his Holy Spirit to work in each of us, so that the heavenly kingdom may be filled with souls filled with love for God, made possible with the price His Son paid for us and our salvation.

"That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." - John 17:21

FMI Annual Congress Presentation 1 - Apologetics: What it is and why we need it

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:49:00 +0000

It is an unfortunate reality that a majority of Catholics in the world today cannot adequately explain and defend the faith that they hold dear to. Catholics are very good at "being" Catholic, but there are those in the world today who want nothing more than for Catholics churches around the world to have empty pews and Catholics must be able to make a solid defense.

Apologetics. What is it and why we need it. Before I get into the meat of this presentation I want to share a little bit about myself to give you some context. I am, as the program indicates, an apologist. I wasn’t always an apologist; so let me tell you where it all began.

I was born and raised in a traditional Catholic Maltese family. Malta, as you may or may not be aware, was one of the many places St. Paul visited in his journeys, but with Malta he was shipwrecked. Let me read to you this account found in the Book of Acts, just after St. Paul had been delivered as prisoner to a centurion named Julius in Acts 27:

“After we had escaped, we then learned that the island was called Malta. And the natives showed us unusual kindness, for they kindled a fire and welcomed us all, because it had begun to rain and was cold. Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, when a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, ‘No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, justice has not allowed him to live.’ He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. They waited, expecting him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead; but when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.” - Acts 28:1-6

And they since that day that the vipers (the snakes) In Malta have never since been venomous.

Malta, prior to the visit of St. Paul was a pagan nation; a place of many gods from the Neolithic age. The Maltese were devout and highly superstitious yet Christianity influenced the Maltese people very quickly and deeply. So much so that up until a matter of years ago, Malta was 100 per cent Catholic (nowadays it’s more like 90 per cent); Catholicism is the official religion of the country. Malta was a country untouched and unaffected by the Protestant Reformation. The Maltese remain devout to the Catholic faith and the only challenge they face in this era is globalisation; the influence of non-Catholic Christian faith traditions and non-Christian religions, i.e. Islam. By the grace of God Malta overcame the Ottoman invasion in 1565AD thanks to the Knights Hospitallers and the Spanish Empire. Malta’s Catholic way of life was under siege and under threat. The Knights Hospitallers - also known as the Knights of the Order of St. John, of which I am a descendant - defended that Catholic faith of the island and people of Malta.

So this is my history; I am descendant of Catholic knights; defenders of the Catholic faith. And as I went through the years I found myself defending myself in a variety of ways. As a school kid I was bullied for being “odd” or “different”, and as a young Catholic I defended my devotion to my faith. At this very Catholic College, I was mocked and ridiculed for attending Mass every Friday morning before classes and I was even mocked for choosing to read the Bible during free time in Religious Education classes! As a matter of fact by the time graduation came around I was voted the one most likely to become a priest, something I wish I had taken as a compliment at the time. This was and is the kind of world we live in; we are under attack for merely practicing our faith! But more about that in a moment; more on how I came to be an apologist…

I’ve always had a love for fact and for truth. I remember as a youngster being handed a book by my mother. It wasn’t a book about Christianity or religion; the title was ‘1000 Questions and Answers’. And as the title suggests there was in that book 1000 questions and answers. During school holidays and weekends when my brothers were either fighting over the Commodore 64 or fighting outside over who had to get the cricket ball that landed over the fence, I was reading that book. I must have read that book from cover to cover a dozen times whilst I had it and took in pretty much everything. I could tell you when the Battle of Hastings was (1066AD), when the Gutenburg Press was invented (1439AD), and when the Chinese invented and utilised gun powder (9th century AD), etc., etc. I was and still am a seeker and lover of truth and this is why I am madly and deeply passionate about my Catholic faith today; I am a lover of Catholic truth.

Now speaking of defense of the Catholic faith - and I know you’ve been waiting to hear it now - the answer to the pressing question: What is apologetics?

The word “apologetics” comes from the Greek word “apologia” which - when translated literally form classical Greek - means “to give reason” or “to give a defense”. So the next time your spouse does something wrong and offers an apology with a simple “sorry”, you tell them “No… not good enough; I want an explanation!” But no, an apologist is not someone who goes around saying “sorry” for being Catholic. “Hi, I’m Catholic… sorry!” or “Sorry; I’m Catholic”. No! A Catholic apologist is someone who gives reason or gives a defense for the Catholic faith; they explain and defend Catholicism because Catholicism has many critics and many enemies. Do I need to give a few examples? Where do I start?

- Atheists;

- Agnostics;

- Non-Catholic Christians;

- Secular society; and

- Particular forms of government

… just to name a few, and we might brand these group under the title of “anti-Catholic”. But it’s not just enemies outside of the city gates that criticise and attack. How many of you have had fellow Catholics attack a particular doctrine or discipline of the Church? So yes: even our Catholic brothers and sisters may call us to give a defense, and on what matters? And these are Catholics who may have been poorly taught and catechised over the years, or simply have not bothered to seek out the answers themselves from a reliable Catholic source.

The questions may be about why Catholics have to go to Mass every Sunday, why the Holy See has apparently “done nothing” (and they have taken measures) about clergy found guilty of sexual abuse, or why the Church apparently hates gay people (for the record, it doesn't; we're just opposed to homosxual behaviour and other sins, the things that Christ came to save us from).

Unfortunately the people asking these questions have not even bothered to go to a reliable Catholic source for the answer. They move with the grain; they follow the popular media, they would rather listen to a well-meaning, softly spoken, concerned, and Jesus-loving, “I just wanna help you get saved” anti-Catholic than an educated Catholic him or herself! They’re worried about Catholic “bias”. Excuse me?!? What about the anti-Catholic bias? And since when was “bias” such a dirty thing? I am a biased Catholic because I love my Catholic Church biasedly! I’m pro-Catholic! Amen??

Let me put this in perspective just on the whole “bias thing”: if you’re sick and you go to a doctor, you’re going to want to find out what’s wrong with you; the doctor is going to be biased because he or she knows what they’re talking about! You’re there for the truth, right?!? If I don’t hear what I like I’m not going to accuse the doctor of being biased; all I want as a seeker of truth is accuracy and consistency, and if more questions spring from my original questions then Amen… a further opportunity for me to learn and understand more. And isn’t that what we want? Answers? The truth? Don’t let Jack Nicholson fool you; YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH! You wouldn’t be seeking it in the first place if you thought you couldn’t handle it. And if it’s not what you wanted to hear, deal with it, because I promise you it’s a golden opportunity to ask more questions. As scripture says:

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” - John 8:32

And they don’t speak about the Catholic Church as having the “fullness of truth” right? Amen? And being of the “fullness of faith”? Amen?

So why apologetics? What’s the scriptural motivation for it? I can guarantee you that your average atheist or anti-Catholic would prefer for Catholics to just be seen and not heard, like that old adage: “live and let live”. I’m sorry, but that just screams “I choose to sit on the fence” to me. Guess who owns the fence, folks, and it’s not God! But scripture - and not to mention the Church herself (it is in fact Church law)- actually exhorts us to defend our faith and have answers for those who bring it to question:

“… but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” - 1 Peter 3:15

And I’ll talk about that “gentleness and reverence” a bit later, but Church law - and I’ve become somewhat of a geek for canon law over the last few months, and when I read this I just about jumped out of my socks:

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

That’s the “always be prepared…” part. As Catholics we have an obligation to seek truth in Catholic matters. How many of you can honestly say that you proactively seek for the truth? Do you go out of your way? Do you search unrelentingly? Unfortunately many Catholics today are perfectly content with “coasting along”. If the majority of us Catholics are good at anything, it’s being sacramental, i.e. going to Mass and receiving the Eucharist, getting married in the Catholic Church, attending Confession, and so on, but do the majority of the Catholics know why they should be doing these things? Imagine if one day you’re asked by an anti-Catholic of some stripe and they ask you, “Why do you attend the Catholic Mass?” Guess what: responding to them with just “Because I want to” as noble and admirable as that answer may be, it’s not enough! Right now I want a Double Whopper with Cheese but that doesn’t tell you why I want one. Always be prepared …

Can. 748 §2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

This is the “… yet do it with gentleness and reverence” part. To force someone to be Catholic is not what apologetics is all about or how evangelisation works. Apologetics is about presenting the truth; winning debates and arguments in pursuit of the truth, yes, but straight talking truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Present the facts, and do it respectfully. I’ve seen other Catholics engage in debates and while they were knowledgeable, they were downright arrogant and belittled the other person. Jesus didn’t win anyone over by being rude; he was quick and witty, yes, but he spoke the truth; the bare bones truth; that’s how he won hearts over. For us, we present the truth and make an attempt to make others fully Catholic on an intellectual level; the Holy Spirit does the rest.

So why do we need apologetics? So many are opposed to Catholicism today both on an intellectual and spiritual level. We need fired up Catholics to defend the faith in the spirit that the Church exhorts all its faithful, that is to know your religion and always be prepared to make a defense in a gentle and reverent manner. And the key to apologetics is not to know everything, but even to know a few things very well and work with those; you can always learn more later. And if there ever is something you don’t know about, don’t side step the question. You will win hearts over sooner by being honest, and believe me: even in my years of teaching I’ve had to use this one a few times. It’s as simple as saying, “I don’t know the answer to that question right now, but I’m going to find the answer for you”. The trademark of a good apologist is their desire to always want to know and learn more. And to conclude I would like to leave you with something Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said which sums up the need to defend our Catholic faith today:

“There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”

Amen.

Audio of my presentations and others from the congress will be available for purchase from the Flame Ministries International online store very, very soon.Flame Ministries International website very, very soon>>

I know a guy who knows a guy: Sticking up for the Saints...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:50:00 +0000

Another day another encounter with an anti-Catholic who thinks they know it all about our faith. It was a Facebook discussion with a pastor based in the USA; I'm going to show it to you here with his name changed (I'll call him "Caecus" for all intensive purposes) to as to avoid any embarrassment on his end. And why am I being that kind to him? Well he is, after all, the pastor of some church in the USA and you'll notice throughout the dialogue his repeated requests to debate via email. What has he got to hide, I wonder? I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed taking part in this lively discussion. By my own admission, I was a tad aggressive in this discussion, but I pictured myself as an impassioned boxer jumping out of the corner pumped up and landing kidney punches on an opponent shielding their face. Anyway, you be the judge. I'd appreciate your feedback.

Caecus: Roman Catholics do pray to saints. They are taught that they, those who pray, are not worthy to approach God themselves, so they, Roman Catholic Church followers, are taught to pray to the saints to intercede for them. But, you know what? I believe that in God's infinite mercy, He hears their prayers because they are not responsible for what they are taught. "No one goes beyond what they are taught."

Stephen Spiteri: Caecus, where are you getting that information from? I'm a Catholic and it's complete news to me. As Catholics we are fully aware that it is God alone who hears all and answers all prayers, but this does not mean that we cannot have others praying for us. We are, as we read in Hebrews, "... surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses..." (Hebrews 12:1) and who are these "witnesses"? They are they angels and the saints; those who are fully united with Christ in Heaven. And how do they pray for us? God allows them to, for God is God of the living, not the dead (Luke 20:38). Does St. Paul no ask others to pray for him in his letters to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:1-8)? If mere earthly men have the power to pray for others, then why should there be an impediment to those united with Christ in Heaven to pray for us also?

Caecus: Stephen, I'm sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intention. I lived in a Roman Catholic boarding school upstate NY and in the Dominican Republic. I know all about Roman Catholicism. My information comes from experience. I am not surprise all of this "is complete news to you." Incidently, we are all "catholics," but we are not all Roman Catholic. You are Roman Catholic & I respect it and identify with you because I was one once as well and most devoted. I was an altar boy throughout all of my childhood and came to a knowledge of God's Word via a Roman Catholic priest. There's a big difference between being "catholic" and being a "Roman Catholic.". We have doctrinal differences in reference to the cloud of witnesses and all that. email me & I will tell you more about our doctrinal differences.

Stephen Spiteri: Btw, I've been to Norway but that doesn't make me an expert on things Norwegian. When it comes to Catholicism, I've been a Catholic all of my life, I have a degree in theology and I teach theology. Wouldn't it be more fair on someone to learn about Catholicism from someone with these sort of credentials as opposed to a person with mere "experience"? And I say that will all due respect; no offense intended.

Caecus: Stephen, my most deared brother in Christ, I too have a degree in theology and I am an ordained minister. But, please,I much welcome a topical discussion on doctrine via email, not of FB. And you are right, I may not have the Roman Catholic based training/credentials. but wouldn't your guidance be biased as opposed to instructions from someone who has uh.. experiencial knowledge on Roman Catholicism and an extensive knowledge on Scripture?

Caecus: Please email me Stephen. Thanks.

Stephen Spiteri: I'm not going to accuse a doctor of being biased when he's trying to figure out what's wrong with me, Caecus; all I want is accuracy and consistency.

Stephen Spiteri: P.S. My knowledge of scripture is also quite extensive.

Caecus: I know. I think it would be profitable for us to communicate (via email) and discuss these issues inteligently and calmly. I choose to believe there is enough respect between us to be able to agree to disagree if not change thinking patterns when the obvious is logically and intelligently presented.

Stephen Spiteri: I understand what you're asking, Caecus, but here's what's puzzling me: you keep making requests to discuss matters of doctrine in private via email, yet you were rather acute and transparent in discussing doctrine pertaining to the Catholic understanding of the saints, furthermore you make Catholics sound oblivious and ignorant with comments such as "He hears their prayers because they are not responsible for what they are taught".

Stephen Spiteri: You've misrepresented the Catholic faith publicly, and I made an effort to correct that representation publicly.

Caecus: Misrepresented? That is not the term I would use to describe how I ansewerd a question presented on a public forum.

Stephen Spiteri: If you're speaking for someone (or a group of people) and if the information you have presented is false or inaccurate, then that - in my humble opinion - warrants a misrepresentation.

Caecus: I am not speaking on behalf of any group. And it is YOUR opinion my information is false and inacurate. Why would I need a saint to speak to God on my behalf when I can & much rather do it myself. I only need & have one advocate Jesus Christ (I John 2:1)

Stephen Spiteri: To be very frank, Caecus, it is YOUR opinion that the information you have supplied is true and accurate, but let me entertain your question for a moment. Based on that premise, you shouldn't then ask any of your friends, family, loved ones, etc. to pray for you for anything since you they seem to interfere with Christ's advocacy.

Stephen Spiteri: And Caecus, I say this will all due respect, but when you effectively say "... this is what Catholics do/believe" you ARE speaking on behalf of all Catholics. Don't be naive, sir.

Caecus: email me Stephen, email me.

Stephen Spiteri: What do you have to hide, Caecus? What do you have to say that cannot be said here?

Caecus: It is your opinion the information is false and inacurate. Why would I need a saint to speak to God on my behalf when I much rather and can do it myself? The only advocate I need and have is Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1)

Stephen Spiteri: I can play the copy and paste game too, Caecus. As Catholics we are fully aware that it is God alone who hears all and answers all prayers, but this does not mean that we cannot have others praying for us. We are, as we read in Hebrews, "... surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses..." (Hebrews 12:1) and who are these "witnesses"? They are they angels and the saints; those who are fully united with Christ in Heaven. And how do they pray for us? God allows them to, for God is God of the living, not the dead (Luke 20:38). Does St. Paul no ask others to pray for him in his letters to Timothy (1 Timothy 2:1-8)? If mere earthly men have the power to pray for others, then why should there be an impediment to those united with Christ in Heaven to pray for us also?

Caecus: Now you are being offensive.

Stephen Spiteri: And for the record: NO Catholic is explicitly taught or told that they MUST pray to the saints. We believe it is efficacious to but it is not mandatory. "Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5:16).

Caecus: Hide? you are being offensive. The definition or Roman Catholic rendering of the word "saints" is different from the Biblical definition.

Stephen Spiteri: There are two different understandings/uses of the word "saints". There are the living saints - Christians - whose desire it is to be sanctified in the Lord; and then there are the saints in Heaven who HAVE been sanctified in the Lord and made fully holy in communion with Christ.

* * * * *

Pax vobiscum.

A pre-figurement of the Trinitatian blessing

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:00:00 +0000

At Mass last Sunday when I wasn't being distracted by my son, I was able to catch the First Reading and absorb it. With a fire lit in my heart I returned home and went straight to my Bible to have a closer read of the passage, from Numbers (parts bolded for emphasis):

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Say to Aaron and his sons, Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them, The LORD bless you and keep you: The LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you: The LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace. So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them.'" - Numbers 6:22-27

Segmented:

1. "The LORD bless you and keep you"
2. "The LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you"
3. "The LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace"

When I had a closer look at this blessing, I couldn't help but notice the orchestration of it and how it appears to be a pre-figurement of the Trinitarian blessing and in itself represents Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Here's how by lining them up with New Testament verses of scripture:

1. "The LORD bless you and keep you" - The Father: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God." - 2 Corinthians 1:3-4

2. "The LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you" - The Son: "And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light." - Matthew 17:`-1

3. "The LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace" - The Holy Spirit: "For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." - Romans 14:17

Further to this, we read in verse 27 of Numbers 6 that "... they shall put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them". What is it that we do as Catholics before we pray, begin the Mass, etc.? We make the Sign of the Cross; we pray in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit. Prayer is made in the name of God acknowledging the distinct personhoods of His triune being; we are blessed and have the name of the Lord put upon ourselves.

Neat, huh?

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever." - Hebrews 13:8

Amen.

Quick Bible Answers: Rockin' with St. Peter

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:30:00 +0000

As Catholics we know that St. Peter is the "rock" on which the Catholic Church is built (Matthew 16:18), but often anti-Catholics will argue that Catholics mis-translate the original text of the Gospel of Matthew to come to the "St. Peter the rock" conclusion.

The most common anti-Catholic argument looks at the Greek translation of the Gospel of Matthew (the oldest known manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek but is believed to have been translated from Hebrew). The argument suggests that while Jesus did refer to St. Peter as "rock", it was akin to a type of rock that could be used as a foundation and that Jesus was in fact referring to himself as the foundation of the Church. Anti-Catholics believe that the Greek word used to describe St. Peter as "rock" was the feminite form (languages that are Latin or Greek based have "male" and "female" workds; a word ending in an 'o' is a masculine word and a word ending in an 'a' is feminine) "petra" which would translate to "small rock" "stone" or "pebble", so the anti-Catholic would argue that St. Peter couldn't possibly be the foundation of the Church because how could a "small rock" (et al) be the foundation of such an important institution like the Church?

Let's read Matthew 16:18 and full and examine the problem with this argument. Note the specific use of the pronouns in the verse (bolded for emphasis):

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

Jesus is talking to and referring to St. Peter rather acutely here, don't you think? What's further of note is that since Jesus was talking to St. Peter who was obviously a man, the Greek word used for rock would have been "petros", i.e. the Greek masculine derivative of "rock" not the feminine.

What also needs to be taken into consideration - and this is the kicker - is the fact that Jesus would have been speaking to St. Peter in Aramaic. All credit for this tidbit of information goes straight to Karl Keating, by the way; I didn't know about this part until I read it in his books. We'll do this bit in steps:

1. The Greek word for "stone", "pebble" or "little rock" is "lithos" not "petra" or "petros";
2. The Aramaic word for "stone", "pebble" or "little rock" is "evna";
3. The Aramaic word for "rock" is "kepha" ("cephas" in Hebrew).

"What's your proof?" the anti-Catholic might then ask.

Well don't forget that St. Peter's name wasn't always "Peter"; he was a "Simon" before that and was sometimes referred to as Simon-Peter. the Gospel of John emphasises this name change and notes the translation from Hebrew to Greek (bolded for emphasis):

"One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter)." - John 1:40-42

Want more (these are just a handful)?

"As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen." - Matthew 4:18

"The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother" - Matthew 10:2

"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave and cut off his right ear. The slave's name was Malchus." - John 18:10

... And on this rock our Church is built.

Amen.

It's okay for us Christians to drink

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:30:00 +0000

My wife and I had guests over the other night and among our guests was a couple of a particular Christian denomination (I'm not sure which one). To make a long story short, we offered everyone some alcohol (glasses of wine, bottles of beer, etc.) to go with the meal and this couple made it pretty clear that they don't drink. When I quizzed them [politely] about it, they said it was because of their Christian convictions. I asked them what their basis was for it, and the husband of the pair stumbled his way through Ephesians 5:18, which reads:

"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit."

I looked at him for a second and I immediately knew what I was going to say back to him, but instead I thought I'd tease it out a bit just to see where'd go with it. So I asked him to clarify, "So is this a choice based on your religious convictions or a personal decision?" to which he replied, "It's a choice I've made because of my relationship with Jesus Christ". "Okay," I continued "What if I told you that Christ himself tells us through scripture that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him?"

"... there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him." - Mark 7:15

I continued, "The thing to point out about Ephesians 5:18: 'And do not get drunk with wine...'. The emphasis in this passage is on the verb, i.e. the doing word ('drunk'); not the noun ('wine'). Otherwise are we to assume it would be okay to get drunk with another type of strong drink if wine alone is forbidden?"

He just looked at me blankly. So I continued with this:

"... And let's not forget Christ's first miracle: the Wedding at Cana in John 2:1-11. Are you aware that Christ first demonstrated his divine power by turning water into wine so the wedding guests could drink?"

"When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, 'Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now'. This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him." - John 2:9-11

Then there's the Last Supper where Jesus and his disciples broke bread and shared wine, but I didn't want to overwhelm the poor fellow with all of that truth, and it was at this point his wife very tactfully moved on the topic of discussion to something else, but after that last question I put to her husband he began to shift in his seat very awkwardly. I made him think; that's all I wanted to do.

What's important to understand though, is that even though it's okay for a Christian to drink alcohol, it must be done in moderation; don't let it lead you astray (Proverbs 20:1).

Later that night - after all of our guests had left - I poured myself a glass of red wine (a 2000 Margaret River merlot) and pondered the words of St. Paul:

"No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." - 1 Timothy 5:23

It was the best tasting drop I'd had all evening.

Quick Thought: Catholic bias?!?

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:11:00 +0000

I very, very recently had an exchange with a non-Catholic Christian, and to make a long story short he said something about Catholicism which was not true, and I suggested that it would be more efficacious for a person who wants to learn about the Catholic faith to ask a Catholic (preferably one who knows their faith well) for an answer. Makes sense, right? But I was told that my bias - since I am a Catholic after all - would only mislead the inquirer.

Bias?!? Mislead?!?

I beg your pardon! If I'm sick I go to a doctor because he knows what he's talking about; I'm not going to accuse him/her of being biased if they're trying to work out what's wrong with me. All I want is accuracy, consistency, and reliability!

Accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

Nuff said.

Sneak Peek: Part of my new project

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:54:00 +0000

I'd like to treat my readers this week so I thought I'd share with you a sneak peek of [part of] my new project. How good is the zoom function on your computer/smartphone?

Have a great week.

Pax vobiscum!

Quick Thought: The warped pro-life message in 'Twilight: Breaking Dawn (Pt. 1)'

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 05:52:00 +0000

Because I love my wife dearly and deeply, I do things for her that I would rather not do and do them without complaint. Take, for instance, going along to the movies to see the latest installment of the Twilight saga. If you're a Twilight fan, then you should probably stop reading now because my [brief] review - as others have commented already - is rather harsh.

As I expected it be, 'Twilight: Breaking Dawn (Part 1)' was a steaming pile of faecal matter. Yes, those are very harsh words, but I can assure that that's about as crass as I will ever get in writing these blogs.

The acting was simply woeful and there were some very creepy and disturbing scenes (e.g. the "birth" scene and Edward "biting" Bella repeatedly in an attempt to "infect"/save her). Some might argue the movie was an "emotional rollercoaster" but 20 minutes in I didn't know myself if I wanted to gag myself or laugh out loud during those "intense" scenes. Bella was, predictably, as pandering and pathetic as she's portrayed in the books; Edward had about 20 different hair styles during the movie; and Jacob was as emo as emo can get. But to cap it all off there was a very, very warped pro-life message in the narrative.

I didn't know what to make of it. On the one hand Bella carries the baby through to term and the baby is born healthy, etc. but all this mish-mash of defending the baby's right to life before it all just left me lost and unconvinced. Edward wasn't much help either; he wanted the baby dead too!

There was definitely a pro-life message present, but I felt that it was rather lacklustre. It got lost in between all the "we have to kill it" arguments from the wolves and the "it's killing Bella" sub-narrative. Yes, in the end the baby is born, but Bella dies in the process after literally being beaten up and broken by her vampiric infant. It's not an overtly encouraging message. If anything it may plant a deep-seeded fear or apprehension towards fertility, pregnancy and childbirth. I can only imagine what pro-choicers would have made of it all.

Perhaps the underlying message here is that we shouldn't look to this sort of media for any sort of moral guidance or truth. But I say that as a man that's in a sense trained to read between the lines and abstract a meaning that is not explicit. Our youth, on the other hand, may take messages like these to heart because there's no denying that as a child gets older, influences like that pertaining to their parents, religion, etc. lessen in importance/relevance over time and the influence of the media strengthens; it - inevitably - begins to guide their moral compass. Thankfully there are exceptions to this "rule".

I'd be interested to hear what other Christians thought of this new Twilight movie. Feel free to shoot me an email with your thoughts.

Thanks again, as always, for reading.

Pax tecum.

I need your help...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:50:00 +0000

No, it's not quite that dramatic, but your assistance would still be greatly appreciated.

You see, I'm working on a new project but in order to make it possible I need to do a bit of research; that's where you come in.

If you could - either by emailing me or leaving a comment reply to this blog entry - answer for me this very simple question:

What is the one thing - in your opinion - that non-Catholics misunderstand the most about the Catholic faith?

Thank you and Merry Christmas!

Quick Thought: Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:00:00 +0000

I often see other Christians walking around wrist bands with catchy sayings or phrases encouraging them and others to engage in prayer and ask Christ to intervene in their lives. One wrist band of this type caught my the other day as I was getting a cappuccino from a particular fast-food outlet with big, golden arches, and the young lady serving me was wearing this wrist band and written on it was "PUSH". I asked the young lady what it meant and she told me, "It means 'Pray Until Something Happens'". I responded by saying, "That's a lovely message. God bless you."

As I reflected on the experience, however, I thought more about the phrase and while I believe it is well intended, I think it needs to be fine-tuned.

Isn't this exactly how we treat God sometimes? As a Father Christmas or genie of whom we only pray to when we want something or as if He has an obligation to do somethig for us to prove that He is in fact listening to us? I mean, it's perfectly fine to prayer with expectant faith when you are in need, but there is more to pray for than just the things you need. In the Catholic tradition there are four forms of prayer:

1. Praise/Adoration - In this form of prayer Christians praise the greatness of God and affirm that reliance on Him for all things and that without Him we cannot do anything. In scripture the Psalms are most well known for prayers of this form.

2. Sorrow - In prayers of sorry we acknowledge our sins and shortcomings and come to God with a contrite heart, seeking His forgivenees and mercy. The 'Act of Contrition' said before Absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation is an example of a prayer of sorrow.

3. Thanksgiving - This is simply a prayer of thanks. You may be grateful for good health, good results in an exam, that God has helped you through a personal struggle, etc. There are no limits to what a Christian may be thankful for. The 'Grace before meals' prayer is an example of a prayer of thanksgiving.

4. Intercession - The Communion of Saints also hear our prayers and they pray for us in Heaven; they intercede for us. It is the Lord who ultimately hears and answers our prayers but that doesn't mean we can't have others praying for us, just as you would ask a friend or family member to pray for you for a particular need. The 'Hail Mary' is a prayer of intercession; we ask the Blessed Virgin to pray for us (i.e. "Pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death...").

So as you can see there can be more than one thing to pray for or more than one reason to prayer. The important thing is that you put purpose into your prayer, but to "Pray until something happens"? Why should we stop praying (i.e. "until") when something happens? Why not just pray until you have nothing left to thank for? Yes, that's what I will leave you with for now:

Pray until you have nothing left to pray for!

Catholics and the interpretation of dreams

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:35:00 +0000

There was a new thread posted over at the Catholic Forum concerning the interpretation of dreams and the Catholic position on it. Here is the question as it appears in the thread:

"Last night I was at a talk about Occultism and the concept of interpretating dreams was brought up. I never really thought of dreams as being part of Occultism and often I analyse my own dreams and Google them. With regards to this, my question is whether Catholicism recognises or dismisses that dreams hold meaning, prophecy, etc. and secondly if there are ways in which you can interpret your dreams that is in line with the faith, if you dream about a particular Bible passage, for example. Should these things be dismissed as nonsense? Thanks."

The Church does not explicitly say that Catholics should not interpret dreams. On the matter related to the interpretation of dreams - divination - the Church says this:

"All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." - CCC, par. 2116

You could infer from that paragraph that the interpretation of dreams is one in the same with divination, but you'd need to do some mental gymnastics in order to come to that conclusion. The fact that the Catholic Church in this paragraph outlines some very clear examples on what actually constitutes as divination (e.g. "consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, etc.) and has not made mention of the interpretation of dreams, is a very clear indication that there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about making inquiries into the meaning of your dreams. That said, however, what needs be avoided is treating the dream as if it were an omen or premonition. Treating your dream(s) as an omen or premonition would indeed constitute as divination and that would be sinful.

As we read in scripture, the Lord Himself, angels, and so forth have appeared to key figures in dreams so obviously God may use our dreams communicate with us, as if to reach the deepest recesses of our conscience. Here are some examples from scripture:

"At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, 'Ask what I shall give you'". - 1 Kings 3:5

"For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls upon men, while they slumber on their beds, then he opens the ears of men, and terrifies them with warnings, that he may turn man aside from his deed, and cut off pride from man; he keeps back his soul from the Pit, his life from perishing by the sword." - Job 33:14-18

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2 "As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all letters and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams." - Daniel 1:17

"In the first year of Belshaz'zar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream, and told the sum of the matter." - Daniel 7:1

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.'" - Matthew 1:18-21

"... and going into the house they [the three wise men] saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way." - Matthew 2:11-12

"Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.'" - Matthew 2:13

"But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead.' And he rose and took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus reigned over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'" - Matthew 2:19-23

Don't be so keen, however, to seek God in your dreams; be discerning! Because, as we know, Satan is the father of lies and may very well use your dreams to mislead you. If you have a vision and dream of God speaking to you, I would advise the following:

- write down what you saw in the dream (try to remember as much detail as you can); and
- pray, pray, and then pray some more about it!

If there is something that God wants to reveal to you in your dreams, it will become more apparent after you speak personally and deeply with him. This will also ensure that it is indeed God speaking to you and that you are not being tricked by the devil. Be vigilant, be on your guard, and always turn to God in prayer if in doubt.

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." - Matthew 7:7

Amen.

Grace: The gifts that keep on giving

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:16:00 +0000

I'm willing to put money on the fact that most Catholics' familiarity with the word "grace" correlates to the prayer we say before each meal, but why do we call that prayer "Grace"? "Grace" comes from the Latin word "gratia" which translates to "gratitude, favour, or gift". So as we say the prayer of Grace, i.e. "Grace before meals", we are thanking (expressing gratitude) God for the gift/favour of the meal.

We could spend all day talking about etymology but my fear would be that only one of us would enjoy it (i.e. me), so instead I'm going to get straight to the heart of this blog entry: Christians will often talk about "grace" and use the word differently depending on the context, and I believe it's my duty at this moment to provide an understanding of how to correctly identify the type of grace one may be talking about when it comes to Christian-speak.

Firstly, there are two types of "grace"; let's identify them:

1.) Actual grace; and
2.) Sanctifying grace.

Now let's define them:

Actual Grace: This is a share, if you will, in the life of God; God acting upon you and drawing you to Him, hence "Actual Grace". Grace of this nature is received at or works from the very beginnings of a person's conversion and works throught and towards the person's sanctification. Grace moving you towards God is akin to being inspired by the Holy Spirit. In short: Actual Grace is the grace that enables us to act in a manner that is pleasing to God, i.e. to do good and to avoid all evil (CCC, par. 1777) and to do as Christ taught us (in essence: Matthew 5:48).

Sanctifying Grace: This is what you need to get into Heaven and to be with God for eternity; the soul needs to be "clean" before it can come before our heavenly Father (Revelation 21:27). To die in a state of grace is to die with Sanctifying Grace (grace that sanctifies you; grace that makes you fully and completely holy), i.e. there is no mortal sin or trace of it upon your soul. Sanctifying Grace allows us to share in the life and love of God in Heaven, sometimes referred to as the Beatific Vision. We first receive Sanctifying Grace at Baptism and later through the other sacraments. We can have no Sanctifying Grace in us if we are not in a state of grace, i.e. if we have committed Mortal Sin (1 John 5:16-17). However, making a good confession can restore Sanctifying Grace within us.

Think of Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace this way: Actual Grace is the magnetic force that draws the needle in the compass; Sanctifying Grace is the key that opens the treasure chest... don't lose it!

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Philippians 2:12-13

Amen.

Movember: I ask you to prayerfully consider...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:29:00 +0000

Earlier this year I battled my own demons with depression, and while I was fortunate enough to avoid being clinically diagnosed with the condition I know first-hand the difficulties an individual goes through to attain good mental health. Things get better but the battle doesn't end easily; it takes more than just "positive thinking". If left unchecked and unacknowledged, depression can have devastating effects not just on the individual, but on their families and other loved ones.

My motivation for getting things together spiritually, mentally/intellectually and physically, was my wife, my children, the rest of my family, and the students that I teach. I want to be a good man of God for them; one's mental health is pivotal if you are going to play a pivotal role in the lives of others. Primarily I recognise as a Christian that seeking refuge in our Lord Jesus Christ is the first step. Without Him we are helpless:

"Come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." - Matthew 11:28-30

This is the first time I have spoken openly about this to anyone apart from my wife and my parents and this year my involvement in Movember is more than just about raising money: it's personal. I have put my full weight behind this cause this month. Please give generously; the more we know about about this condition the easier it will be to identify and treat.

Donations can be made via my "MoSpace" page found here (click on the 'Donate' button): http://mobro.co/Spitty81

Thank you for your support.

God bless.

Ecumenism: What it is and what it's not

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 03:26:00 +0000

Last week I attended a function organised by a colleague of mine that was to award and recognise individuals who have made extraordinary efforts in Religious Education. Don't get me wrong; I was very pleased to be there, but there were one or two things that made me cringe and made me want to pull my hair out.

The function begain with an "ecumenical prayer service". A what?!? Yeah, an "ecumenical prayer service", and this entailed an acknowledgement of other faith traditions and a thanksgiving for their presence in the world. I'm all for inter-faith dialogue and praying to the same God as say our Jewish brothers and sisters do and our non-Catholic Christian brethren, but this is not ecumenical; it is not ecumenism!

So just what is Ecumenism? The Catholic Church defines Ecumenism this way (emphasis added):

"'The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Saviour, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.'

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.'" - Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 816

In layman's terms: The Catholic Church is the one true church; the fullness of truth. There are to be no divisions; the Body of Christ cannot be divided for it is one. It is a moral responsibility of the Church today that it stand united and undivided (John 17:21). It is for this reason that the Church must make efforts to reach out to our separated brethren and bring them to full communion with the Catholic Church; "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand" (Mark 3:24). Ecumenism is an act of evangelisation.

When is it not Ecumenism? Take for instance this inter-faith prayer service that I attended. There was no effort or intention to have representatives of other faith traditions evangelised and be received into the Catholic Church. It was an inter-faith prayer service; nothing more and nothing less. Even if the Catholic Church was to invite representatives of different faith traditions (presumably non-Catholic Christians) together, it does not necessarily mean there's anything ecumenical going on. If the Holy See is, however, working to dialogue with these representatives in order to bring them into full communion with the Catholic Church, then yes: you have Ecumenism!

We saw a classic example of the result of Ecumenism take place in late 2009 and last year where several Anglican communities around the world asked for a Catholic Ordinariate, which whereby these Anglican churches are received into full communion with the Catholic Church but are able to preserve elements of their distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. Those Anglican churches (now known as "Anglo-Catholics" or "Anglican-Catholic") profess the Catholic Church's principles and doctrines in their entirety and maintain fidelity to the leadership of the Pope. This could only take place as a result of ecumenical dialogue led by the Holy See; Pope Benedict XVI made it possible for these Anglican communities around the world to be received in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Ecumenical dialogue is always done with the intention of leading others from other Christian faith traditions into full communion with the Catholic Church. It's not an opportunity to get all "warm and fuzzy" with other Christians, talk about how different we are and that it's our differences that make us special... fooey! As St. Paul said in his letters to the Corinthians:

"I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose." - 1 Corinthians 1:10

But hey, by all means let's all get together in a spirit of unity and share in Christian prayer together, but understand that to call it "ecumenical prayer" is misleading and by definition inappropriate. I'm all for sharing a prayer with a Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, or Lutheran (I dare you to invite them to pray the Rosary together), but ultimately it is my duty as a Catholic-Christian to evangelise people of these faith traditions and - at the very, very least - make them Catholic on an intellectual level. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit; a conversion of heart and soul.

Was that too much of a rant? If anything I'm glad it's off my chest now.

Deus vobiscum!

Do babies go to Hell if they die before they are baptised?

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:51:00 +0000

My students know how to ask good questions, and questions that often deal with issues that are very delicate. So do unbaptised babies go to Hell if they die?

To first answer that question, we need to answer this question: what does a person have to do to go to Hell? Commit a Mortal Sin, right? Furthermore, you would need to be unrepentant of that Mortal Sin in order to go to Hell. And when is a sin considered to be "mortal"? It has to meet these three criteria:

1.) Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter;
2.) Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner; and
3.) Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Scripture tells us:

"The soul that sins shall die." - Ezekiel 18:20a

And now, this question: can a baby commit a Mortal Sin? The answer very simply is 'no'. A baby does not have the intellectual capacity to know what sin is nor the faculties to commit sin personally. In fact it may not even be possible for a child up to the age of seven years to commit a Mortal Sin as they have only reached the age of reason at this particular stage.

So does this mean that a baby will go to Heaven if they should die before being baptised? This is what our holy and most wonderful Catholic Church teaches us:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1261

What we have, in conclusion, is absolute certainty that if a baby should die before it is baptised it will not end up in Hell, for God is merciful and desires that all should be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

You can read more about Mortal Sin over at this blog entry.

Amen.

Donating my face...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:06:00 +0000

Hi,

It’s Movember and time to focus on men’s health. To show my commitment, I’m donating my face to the cause by growing a moustache for the entire month of November, and need your support. My Mo will spark conversations, and no doubt generate some laughs; all in the name of raising vital awareness and funds for prostate cancer male depression.

Why am I so passionate about men’s health?
*1 in 9 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lifetime
*This year 20,000 new cases of the disease will be diagnosed
*1 in 8 men will experience depression in their lifetime

I’m asking you to support my Movember campaign by making a donation by either:
*Donating online at: http://mobro.co/Spitty81
*Writing a cheque payable to ‘Movember,’ referencing my Registration ID: 1575552 and mailing it to: Movember, PO Box 60, East Melbourne, VIC, 8002

Funds raised will help make a tangible difference to the lives of others. Through the Movember Foundation and its men’s health partners, the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and beyondblue – the national depression initiative, they are funding world class research, educational and support programs which would otherwise not be possible.

If you’d like to find out more about the type of work you’d be helping to fund by supporting Movember, take a look at the Programs We Fund section on the Movember website: http://au.movember.com/about

Thank you in advance for supporting my efforts to change the face of men’s health. All donations over $2 are tax deductible.

Stephen Spiteri
Please donate at: http://mobro.co/Spitty81

How to explain Heaven and Hell to teenagers

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:22:00 +0000

A new school year began for me last week and that meant I got new classes and with them new students. This also meant that with new students (some of whom were unfamiliar with me as a teacher) came new questions. One of my students asked me this week, "What is Heaven like and what is Hell like?"

The Catholic Church defines Heaven and Hell in these ways (emphasis added):

"This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called 'heaven'. Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness." - CCC, par. 1024

"The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'. The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." - CCC, par. 1035

Without insulting the intelligence of teenagers I ask this question earnestly: how do you explain that in simple terms to a teenager? Well, this is how I went about it:

Think of someone that you love dearly; someone that you want to be with all the time. This someone also loves you dearly and wants to be with you all the time. You never get tired of each other's presence; the flaws that other people notice about you don't exist to this person and you know that this someone is completely, utterly, and totally perfect. You are perfect because they love you perfectly. This is Heaven: being in this someone's presence all of the time and not needing anything else because this someone is all that you need.

"But, as it is written, 'What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.'" - 1 Corinthians 2:9

Now imagine being separated from that person for all eternity. It's your fault the two of you are separated. That someone didn't go anywhere, but you did something wrong and failed to admit you did wrong and failed to make reparation for it. All the time you cry out to that someone who loves and adores you unconditionally but they cannot hear you. As you cry out you feel the guilt and remorse burn through you like hot wax in your veins. You feel like a fool for the wrong you have done and the tormentors around you know this; they remind you of it constantly. Your choices and your pride led you here.

"The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." - Matthew 13:41-42

Remember, this is not a definitive description of Heaven and Hell; it is introductory. One may start off by explaining Heaven and Hell this way to students (or teenagers), but if you really want to dig deeper, then I suggest referring to the paragraphs form the Catechism of the Catholic Church I cited earlier, and to then read what scripture says itself on these last things.

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing." - 2 Timothy 4:7-8

Amen.

Catholics and Tattoos: A Primer

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:36:00 +0000

Let me get this out there real quick: I am a Catholic and I have a tattoo. I got my tattoo done as an adult and it was an informed and conscious decision. My tattoo is devotional and I have absolutely no regrets having it done.

Blogger's note: the tattoo pictured above is my own tattoo.

Tattoos are a taboo subject, and from what I have personally observed through speaking with a number of Catholics, there are two camps or two mindsets. There are:

1.) Catholics should not get a tattoo/tattoos at all; and
2.) Catholics who sincerely believe that there is nothing wrong with a Catholic getting a tattoo/tattoos although depending on a few things (which I will explain in detail a bit later).

Officially the Catholic Church does not have a position on tattoos, specifically as to whether a Catholic should get a tattoo. Some clergy may have strong opinions against them while others may not not openly support a Catholic getting a tattoo, they will not openly oppose it either. So unfortunately it is not as easy as going to your copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the answer to this question.

The reasons against getting a tattoo? Let's take a look at this from a scriptural point of view, from - at least - the parts of scripture that are referred to the most frequently when arguing the case against tattoos:

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD." - Leviticus 19:28

The Lord certainly asserts his authority with this instruction, but there are two things we have to consider when reading this verse. Firstly, the context: let's read the verses 26 and 27:

"You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not practice augury or witchcraft. You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard."

Blogger's note: "augury" is divination, interpreting dreams as an omen, or interpreting omens themselves.

It's important to read that verse in context. If we were to take it literally and on face value then we'd have to take the surrounding it on face value too; we need to assume this premise: if the Lord is forbidding tattoos today from these instructions, then today it would also be forbidden to:

- eat red meat (verse 26) or any other animal meat for that matter; and
- shave and groom your hair to a particular style (verse 27) even if you think it looks good and others don't;

I happen to agree that no person should practice or be involved in divination or interpret omens as this is clearly outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (par. 2115-2117), but as far as the other two are concerned, these are not forbidden by the Church and never have been. Catholics, of course, abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent (and, for the record, recommends that all Catholics abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year, but this is an exercise of penance and differs greatly to the prohibitions outlined in the Old Law.

On the topic of the Old Law: we also have to consider Christ as the fulfilment of it; the Law of Moses, i.e. the Old Covenant. This is the reason why we don't have to be worried about eating "flesh with the blood in it", being circumcised or partaking in any works of the law. We are still, however, subject to the moral law (the Ten Commandments) and there is nothing immoral about eating red meat, shaving your hair (even if the style is peculiar), or getting a tattoo. There are, however, a few caveats we should make note of on the morality of tattoos. I'll address those very soon but another argument against tattoos needs to put under the microscope.

Those not in favour of a Catholic getting a tattoo may also cite the "your body is a temple..." passages from 1 Corinthians which reads as follows:

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Now it reads like St. Paul is exhorting the Corinthians here to take good care of their bodies in general and this is something that is taught by the Church today (CCC par. 2288-2291), but this is not the context of his letter. We have to bear in mind that chapters and verses were later added to the scriptures as a means to easily locate a specific event, verse, etc.; the scriptures weren't written with chapters and verses in there already.

St. Paul in those parts of 1 Corinthians is writing to the community after it has been reported to him that they (or certain members within their community) are behaving immorally, sexually immoral to be specific (1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Cor. 7:1-2, 9). St. Paul then writes to exhort the Corinthians to avoid all types of immorality, to avoid consorting with immoral people and to treat their own bodies with dignity, and right before the "your body is a temple..." verse, we read this:

"Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body." - 1 Corinthians 6:18

The message is very clear in 1 Corinthians: remain pure and shun immorality. There is nothing there to suggest that a Christian cannot or should not get a tattoo.

So we've established that there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about tattoos or getting a tattoo, but there are few things someone should consider before getting one:

1.) Why do I want a tattoo?
Tattoos can be used as a form of devotional to demonstrate or remind a person about their love of God, Christ, the Church, and/or their faith itself. If you want a tattoo for the sake of getting a tattoo, then you probably shouldn't get one. If you want a tattoo only because you want to draw attention to yourself, then you probably shouldn't get one.

2.) Will anyone close to me object to me getting a tattoo?
If it foreseeable or beyond reasonable doubt that you getting a tattoo will cause some division between yourself and a close friend or family member, then it isn't worth it! If the mere mention of you getting a tattoo evokes anger or disgust in these other people or creates conflict, then forget about it; the relationship you have with these people is too important to lose it over getting "inked".

3.) As a Catholic, by getting a tattoo will I lead others into scandal?
Scandal, as defined by the Catholic Church, is "... an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense" (CCC, par. 2284).

By getting a tattoo it may inadvertently lead others (namely the younger and more impressionable) to think that tattoos are okay in every circumstance and may make a decision to get a tattoo themselves carelessly and with either no or little discernment. This will only trigger regret.

4.) Have I sought the approval of my parents?
This one relates to point number two, but I don't care how old you are or how mature you think you are, abiding by the fourth commandment is paramount. I got my own tattoo done when I was 28 and I still went to both my parents to get their approval. I showed them the design I wanted and thankfully they both liked it. I would never have gone and gotten the tattoo done if either of them disapproved. This principle also applies if you're married: if your spouse disapproves, then you can forget about it.

5.) Where do I put it?
It's all about modesty. There is a disturbing trend in society at the moment to get "sleeve" tattoo(a tattoo that runs the length and all over the arm), a tattoo on the neck, or otherwise any other place on the body that cannot typically be covered by articles of clothing. You might ask then, "What's the point of getting a tattoo if no one else is going to see it?" But remember: this is a devotional; something for you that will be a constant reminder of your love of God, Christ, the Church, and/or your faith itself. Just in the same way you may have a crucifix hanging in a prominent place in your home or office, it's there as a symbol of your devotion and a reminder of the message it speaks to you. Even if the tattoo is placed in a position that would not typically be seen if not for articles of clothing, there may be opportunities for you to evangelise if the tattoo is noticed and/or noticed by somebody else. When I'm at the gym - because my tattoo is written in Aramaic - I quite often have others coming up to me to ask me what it means and the response is usually positive.

And finally...

6.) What do I get?
Assuming you've got points one to five checked off and everything is fine there, this is probably the most important point to consider. Remember: a tattoo is for life!! This tattoo is something you're going to take with you until your earthly body expires. Think very, very carefully about what you want printed in your body; it is a permanent decision and there is no "undo" button and tattoo removals can be very, very costly.

Choose a symbol or message that is meaningful to you and that it is something that you would feel comfortable sharing about if it is asked about or noticed. At this stage you should be pleased with what you've got so you should have no shame in showing it and discussing it.

Tattoos, if tasteful, can be beautiful pieces of artwork. Enter into this decision with a lot of thought, discernment, and especially prayer! If you feel an inkling from God himself that maybe this isn't the right thing to do, be humble; for the Lord knows your heart's true desires (Pslams 37:4).

May the Lord be with you.

My friend thinks the world will end this week...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:15:00 +0000

So it seems our friend, Harold Camping, is at it again, and this time he reckons the world is going to end this coming Friday, October 21.

Can any man claim to know the time of the Lord's second coming and/or when the world will end? What does scripture tell us about this? Here's a handful of verses of scripture that give the answer (emphasis added):

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." - Matthew 24:36

"Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect." - Matthew 24:44

"Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour." - Matthew 25:13

"Watch therefore -- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning -- lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Watch." - Mark 13:35-37

"... the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful." - Luke 12:46

"For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When people say, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape." - 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3

"The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up." - 2 Peter 3:9-10

"Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you." - Revelation 3:3

(Bible translation cited: RSV-CE)

I wonder: how can a man - Harold Camping - who claims to be a "Bible believing Christian" have missed these verses?

Don't worry about the "final day"; just pray and be ready every day!

Amen!

Answers4Catholics, now featuring...

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 02:54:00 +0000

This morning I am very pleased to share some very exciting news with you...

This blog, The Spirit Magnus, and its content is now being linked on the the very handy and superb iPhone application, Answers4Catholics. You will find links to some featured blog entries of mine by accessing the News section, then the Blogs subsection right in between Fr. Robert Baron's name and Jimmy Akin's.

If you have ever been out and come across a situation - perhaps when in dialogue with a fire-brazen anti-Catholic or when a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door - with this application and your iPhone you will have easy access to very common questions and objections, which are presented in an easy-to-read/easy-to-memorise to manner.

You can find out more about Answers4Catholics here: http://www.answers4catholics.com/Answers4Catholics/Welcome.html

The application costs a measly $1.99USD on iTunes.

Answers4Catholics is frequently updated and more of my own work will be found throughout the application in the near future.

This is a massive coup for me and I am very excited and humbled to be part of such a new and innovative approach to apologetics and catechesis.

Pax vobiscum!

"... The least of these my brethren..."

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:11:00 +0000

I was in the city this week doing a bit shopping when on the way to the store I was heading to, I saw a young-looking man (mid 20s maybe) dressed in black sitting behind a cardboard placard that had written something to the effect of "help the homeless". After analysing the signs and signifiers it was safe to say that this young man was homeless and wanted help. I kept on walking and avoided making eye contact, made much easier by the fact I was wearing sunglasses at the time. I judged. I assumed. I fought every urge of mine that I had at that time to walk over and hand the man some money.

I thought about how this young man was in that situation to begin with. I thought about what he may or may not do with the money if I was to give him some. I was filled with disgust and pity at the same time. I actually felt quite ashamed of myself. I fought to suppress these sudden feelings of guilt and kept on walking. Fortunately by the time I got to the shop I was heading to I was well and truly distracted and for a while forgot all about the young man sitting behind the cardboard placard. I was, however, to confront that setting again.

On the way back to my car I have but no choice to take the same route because there are road works taking place at the same time (perhaps this was preordained!). I got within a dozen or so paces of this young man again before I felt that urge once more; that urge to give. Knowing I had some money in my wallet and knowing it was probably the most I could do at the time, I walked over to the guy, gave him the cash and told him as sincerely as I could be, "Take care of yourself, okay? Take care of yourself." He responded by saying, "Thank you, man. God bless you".

Walking away I fought thoughts of feeling like I had done my "good deed" for the day and "Oh, aren't I good for helping that guy out?" I didn't want to fill myself with such prideful and self-praising feelings. Instead I kept repeating to myself mentally an adage that I had learned some years ago, and a verse of scripture that I often use in the classroom when teaching my students about love of neighbour and caring for the needy:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'" - Matthew 25:40

We must not fail to see Christ in everyone around us, especially the lowly. When Christ taught the parable of the Good Samaritan in reply to the question, "Teacher, who is my neighbour?" the answer we get is this: your neighbour is everyone around you, and especially those you would least think about.

To see Christ in your neighbour is to cast aside your pride and fill your heart with charity; the love God has for us.

Amen.

Hypothetically Speaking: Marriage Interrupted

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:15:00 +0000

A front page article in the September 28 edition of The Record newspaper began this way:

"If the state forced the Perth archdiocese to officiate at same-sex unions, the archdiocese would cancel its registration to celebrate legal marriages..."

The Catholic Church will never officiate or validate same-sex unions - this is the long and the short of it - but my commentary in this blog is not about gay "marriage", same-sex unions, yadda, yadda, yadda... I'm speaking hypothetically and answering the question:

If the Catholic Church (i.e. all Catholic archdiocese on a global scale) were forced by the state (i.e. the respective incumbent government be it at the state or federal level) to officiate at same-sex unions and inevitably cancel its registration to celebrate legal marriages in response, what would happen to the Sacrament of Marriage?

Here's what I see happening:

Canon Law will be "tweaked" - any reference to civil authorities (i.e. the respective incumbent government be it at the state or federal level) will be removed (e.g. Can. 1057 §1; 1059). After looking through the canons on marriage there don't appear to be many of these references to civil authorities so the changes will be minimal (hence the tweak); marriage will retain its sacramentality.

Legal recognition(s) of marriage - it will still of course be possible to be "married" in the Catholic Church; the sacrament, after all, is a covenant bond instituted by God that cannot be broken. Quite simply, marriage does not exist without the sacrament! So while the marriage between a man and woman will not be recognised by the state (i.e. it will not be a legal union), before God husband and wife still become one flesh. In order for couples who have participated in the sacrament of marriage to have this union made "legal", they will need to have a separate "ceremony" by which a judge or Justice of the Peace (or other celebrant accredited to officiate marriages) officiates the union and is noted in the books, so to speak (i.e. it is recognised by the civil authorities).

This may present a couple of problems:

1. Couples sacramentally married in the Catholic Church may find it tedious or troublesome to have their marriages legally recognised. There would be two ways to go about this: either have a judge or Justice of the Peace witness the marriage at the church in order to have it officiated, or as mentioned above have a separate ceremony (before or after the nuptials) to recognise the civil union. If a judge or Justice of the Peace (or other celebrant accredited to officiate marriages) is present at the nuptials, canon law would need to allow for this to occur (i.e. tweaked, as afore mentioned). I would also anticipate the Church exhorting sacramentally married couples to have their marriage legally recognised by the state. This makes the entire "process" of marriage cumbersome for the most part and rather complicated. A number of couples may simply not bother with getting their marriage legally recognised.

2. Couples sacramentally married who do not have their marriages legally recognised would legally be classified either of two ways: de facto, or "two individuals living in the same household" (more on those two shortly). Why would this be problematic? In a country like Australia, married couples are entitled to certain rights and benefits. I won't get into great detail with these, but they range from tax benefits due to having a combined income, estate planning benefits (e.g. inheritances), government benefits such as receiving family Medicare cover and Social Security, employment benefits, medical benefits, housing benefits, and consumer benefits which in some cases are only offered to married couples or families.

Being recognised as living in a "de facto" relationship or as "two individuals living in the same household" is confusing, complicated and cumbersome: yes, a couple married in the Catholic Church share in the sacramental/divine union of a man and a woman, but legally? No. It would not just be a matter of missing out on a few benefits, imagine explaining to your friends, family and/or workmates that you're married... but not really! Sure, you could say to others that you've been "married in the Church" but quickly another could turn around and say, "But you're marriage is not legally recognised... according to the law you're not married!"

An additional problem - and this is why same-sex unions pose such a strong threat to marriage - is that with all the potential problems, these complications, this confusion, this appeasement to a minority group; it may very well deter good Christian couples from getting married (even sacramentally) all together.

Pope John Paul II once said:

"Marriage is an act of will that signifies and involves a mutual gift, which unites the spouses and binds them to their eventual souls, with whom they make up a sole family - a domestic church."

An end to marriage as we know it today spells the end of the domestic church, and ultimately the end of the Church itself. Without its body, without its members, the Church cannot continue to mission beset to it by Christ himself before he ascended into Heaven:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20

If the Church is the light set on a hill for all to see (Matthew 5:14), if this light is overshadowed, all that exists is darkness and the proud race of humanity will fumble around in the dark in a moral stupor; an anarchy of thought directed by the most base of instincts. This light must never be overshadowed; we must work to keep it shining.

Pope Benedict XVI stressed this, marriage between a man and a woman as the bulwark of society in an address to experts and students in the field of marriage at the Vatican in May 2006:

"Only the rock of complete and irrevocable love between man and woman is capable of acting as a foundation for a society that can be home to all human beings."

At all costs, marriage must be protected.

Pray that our governments do not impinge draconian measures and regulations on the Church to officiate same-sex unions and thus have the Church cancel its registration to celebrate legal marriages. Pray that the Church, based solely on moral and religious grounds, be given - if anything if this is to occur - a dispensation so that the integrity of marriage may be upheld and celebrated as given to us by Almighty God: for one man and one woman.

"'So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'" - Matthew 19:6

Amen.

Morality and Medication: You May be Aiding an Evil Cause!

noreply@blogger.com (StephenSpiteri) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:31:00 +0000

Another week and another question to tackle; this time on the topic of medication.

A friend of mine was asked to be part of a clinical trial for a particular drug to treat a condition stemming from childhood. The question was originally posed with foreknowledge that a chemical component of the drug is used to medically induce a miscarriage (similar to what the RU-486 drug does; the "abortion pill"), i.e. would it be moral to use a drug that has a component that is also used for devious/immoral means? It would not be sinful to use a drug that has a chemical component that's used for other [devious] means. For example: makers of illicit substances use ingredients found in common cold and flu medication; does that make the use of cold and flu medication sinful if one is trying to better themself of that particular ailment?

What I would do, however (and this is very important), is inquire into how that particular chemical component itself is created. There are some medications with chemical components in them that have been concocted using embryonic stem cells. If this is the case for any drug or chemical component, then one should stop using it and then ask for an alternative that conforms to moral standards.

Think of it this way: A person purchases a product where the profits go towards funding a terrorist organisation. The person discovers where their money is going and immediately ceases purchasing this particular product knowing that he/she could not in good conscience support this cause. If you knew you were using/consuming a product that harvests the unborn for their stem cells, could you in good conscience continue use of the product?

And consider this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God." - CCC, par. 2294, 'Respect for the person and scientific research'

Further reading:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Evangelium%20Vitae

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/health

Thank you for reading this week.

God bless. :-)