Michael's Musings

Settling In

2012-01-31T19:56:00.000-08:00

Well the Minnesota experience is off to an interesting start. Still no steady work, but Tommy has gotten into school and we have begun the process of meeting a whole new village of specialists for him. In some ways I feel like God is trying to get us a little more settled before He opens the door for me on the employment front. Which is fine by me in some ways, but a little aggravating too. I would much rather be working.

My poor blog has been neglected, but I am going to try and dedicate myself to writing a little something every night. Especially right now with so much going on. Things like Obama essentially telling the Church to F off, the primary races, life with Tommy and Matty.

Tommy seems to have made the adjustment to his new school quite well. His classmates all seem to like him and miss him when he has been absent. Unfortunately he has been absent a lot so far as he adjusts to new germs and getting into a rotation with this new team of doctors.

Gillette Children's has been amazing so far (1 visit in). We met with a physical medicine and rehab doctor who gave us several prescriptions to get to a local facility for more in home therapy. She also referred us to the sleep doctor at Gillette and just generally had at least an idea for where to go for every time she asked a question and we had a negative answer. I like that.

So we might be able to solve some of Tommy's sleep problems and maybe start getting a full night of sleep. Wow. It seems overwhelming but once we get established and fit into the routine I know we won't be missing so much school with him.

Plus we will have an actual craniofacial team at Gillette, not just Dr. Peterson. Don't misunderstand I love Dr. P and she did amazing work putting a face that was once three parts together, but really a whole team just for this, wow.

Tommy's other big deal is whether we decide to send him to kindergarten next year or keep him in preschool for a third year. Personally I tend to lean toward letting him keep up with his classmates currently in preschool, but Traci and I will have to talk it over and see what we think.

So far both of the boys have adjusted pretty well, and I am thankful for that. We got to see just how well Matty had adjusted to his new life last week when we went to New Mexico for a week. All week he kept looking for his baby and his aunt, so he clearly likes it here. Had a great time visiting the family and gorging on quality Mexican food.

Speaking of Matty, that kid is going to be smarter than me very soon if he isn't already. He loves being read to and anticipates things in stories he knows well. He understands fairly complex sentences for an 18-month old.

Mother Nature has been gentle on us this winter only two or three really bad days so far and they weren't too awful. Limited snowfall and reasonable temps I can deal with, even if it will get rough sometime this first winter has been a nice introduction.

I need to apologize for the sparse postings of the last couple months but it has been hectic and I haven't had much time to think let alone write.

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 7 -- Forty Niner Friday....

2012-01-20T21:27:00.000-08:00

A real deep quick takes here at the Musings. Seven things I love about being a 49er fan. Why not?

--- 1 ---

Joe Montana, the alpha and omega of my fandom. Someone I have only slightly ironically referred to as St. Joseph of the 2 minute drill. As a kid in Northern California in the middle-late 80's he was the leader of the best team around. Also didn't hurt he was exceedingly talented. Not going to lie to my readers I spent the rest of the day crying after the 1990 NFC Championship loss to the New York Giants. I have secretly been hoping that one of the Niner linebackers hits Eli as hard as Leonard Marshall hit Montana in that game. Without the intentional added braking of his hand as he got dragged down. I see this game as payback time. I know this current team is a generation or two removed but come on.

Montana was invariably the athlete I most wanted to be when I grew up. Sadly I posses no athletic talent whatsoever.

--- 2 ---

Jerry Rice The GOAT. The greatest of all time. For my money, there has never been another football player better than Flash. He set so many records and did so many amazing things it is hard to comprehend the numbers he left behind. Even toward the end when it was getting a little sad to see him out there he was still playing every down harder than guys half his age.

I think he is the reason for the modern air it out warfare of the NFL. Teams all sought their own counterpart to his skill set.

Someone may break his records some day, but it will take a long time to do it. He had that same hypercompetitive drive Michael Jordan had.

--- 3 ---

Spending half my life being called a bandwagon fan, the other half a die hard. People called me a bandwagoner especially after we left California and I was still rocking my Niners gear. I was like how am I bandwagoning this is my team, the first football games I remember watching are Niner games, I have always loved that team. Then in the last decade or so seeing looks of pity when I had my Niners stuff. Looks like, really they suck pick a new team, but I don't roll that way. Paying off now, but I guess soon I will hear how I am a bandwagon fan all over again.

--- 4 ---

Ronnie Freakin Lott. Dude was pure scary. Made the Pro Bowl from every position in the defensive backfield hit like a truck, ran like a gazelle. Once had a doctor lop off half his pinky so he wouldn't miss a game during the season.

--- 5 ---

Possibly the NFL's worst stadium, but a tough place to play. Candlestick Park. I hated when the team sold the naming rights for awhile I never stopped calling it Candlestick. Place is a dump has been a dump for years and they are finally getting some new digs in Santa Clara, hopefully a winning season or two before the move will help the atmosphere at the new park.

--- 6 ---

Bill Walsh the brains behind it all. The only man to ever deserve to be called a genius who made his living as an NFL coach. Also the most completely unassuming man alive. Funny true story here: When I was at the U of Oregon, Stanford was hosting the wrestling championship matches. At the time Walsh was their athletic director, when we got in I asked the wrestling media director if Mr. Walsh might be around during the weekend. "Oh he might stop in Sunday during the finals."

Awesome, I might have a chance to meet a hero. Sure enough during the action Sunday he shows up. He was up on the stage area where all us media/sports. info types were. So now I am within a few feet of one my all-time heroes. I stand up to stretch/improve my vantage for the next match as it involves one of my guys.

Walsh and the person he was with saunter to about 18 inches from me and get engrossed in what was a great match. I find an opening politely inject myself in the conversation and discuss my wrestler with the two of them for the last few minutes.

Never once did I have the courage to say anything to him about the 49ers and what those teams meant to me. I chickened out. He passed away the day before Tommy was born. I thought about trying to get Traci to change the baby's name to William Walsh Morris, but I don't think she would have gone for it.

--- 7 ---

San Francisco in general. I don't know if it is my love for the team that caused my passion for the city or what. But The City by the Bay is my all-time favorite city. To be fair I have never left the North American continent and only seen about half the US, but still.

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 6 -- Minnesota Winter Edition

2012-01-13T22:48:00.000-08:00

--- 1 ---

Winter finally arrived in Minnesota after the first two months of our new life here with temps in the 30's and 40's the last few days have been in the teen's with subzero wind-chills. Fun times, but hey it's giving me a chance to break in my new Carhartt Flannel shirt that I got for Christmas.

--- 2 ---

The NFL Playoffs are in full swing. I will refrain from predicting any outcomes, because they would smack of rampant homerism and over exuberance owing to my 49ers being involved for the first time in a decade.

--- 3 ---

Found a great church here in Minnesota that I like. I walked in and the Tabernacle is front and center right behind the altar, confessionals on either side of the church, very pre-conciliar architecture. Makes me even more interested in hearing a Latin Mass sometime. Seems like they have a bunch of churches here that offer it at least once a month, perhaps I will have to check one out.

--- 4 ---

Watched Footloose today, the original. Kevin Bacon was so young and looked even younger than he was. One of my favorite movies from my childhood. I railed and railed about the idea that they remade it, but I will probably watch it at some point.

--- 5 ---

Going home in a week. It'll be awesome to be in New Mexico for a solid week, just getting to spend the time with the family and enjoying some good Mexican food. Yes, please.

--- 6 ---

The wife and my sister-in-law are both after my brother-in-law and I to read the Hunger Games books with them. Traci has finished all three of them and keeps bugging me to read them. I'd rather read the Millennium Trilogy (Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, etc.) books. In fact I started that one tonight.

--- 7 ---

Ok, fine I'll make predictions for this weekend's games:

New England - 44
Denver - 23

B'More - 38
Houston -7

S.F. - 24
New Orleans - 20
(Yes that is a homer pick, but it's a possibility)

Upset Special:
New York - 33
Green Bay 31

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Does Purgatory Disprove Roman Catholicism?

2011-12-29T20:11:00.000-08:00

Purgatory is defined by the Catholic Church as the place of the final purification of the Elect. It serves the purpose of allowing those souls whose earthly life finished while they were imperfectly in God's friendship the final purification so they can enter Heaven in a state of perfect holiness (cf. Rev. 21:27).

In a recent post on his blog, Hiram Diaz, claims that Holy Mother Church's belief in such makes her claim of being the church founded by Christ a falsehood. According to the subtitle of his post it is a scriptural refutation; however in all of his bullet points I see only one mention of scripture (Jer. 31:34), and very little refutation.

I like this particular verse which says in effect that God will forgive us all of our sins and remember them no more. However in no way does this refute Purgatory nor Roman Catholicism. It seems to me that to disbelieve in the overwhelming scriptural evidence that would seem to support Purgatory is an attempt to deny God's eternal mercy.

First let's unpack that verse from Jeremiah and show how it in no way refutes Purgatory. The idea of Purgatory is that it is intended to help cleanse a person from all attachments to sin, from love of self, so that when they enter Heaven they will have only love of God.

In 2 Sam. 12 we see the story of King David's affair with Uriah's wife. David confesses his sin to the prophet Nathan, who tells him The Lord has taken away your sin and you shall not die (2 Sam 12:13). However as punishment for that sin the child conceived of that union dies (verse 18).

We also see in 2 Maccabees that Judas Maccabeus offers prayers and sacrifices for the dead (2 Macc. 12:43-46). Now, Mr. Diaz of course would dispute the canonicity of 2 Macc. however even if it isn't canonical it is no less accurate as a historical document. Thus showing that Jews in the time of Christ believed in offering prayers for the dead. Prayers which would not be efficacious for those in Heaven nor Hell, so they must be intended for those in a third place, i.e. Purgatory.

We also see Jesus mention this third state of post-Earthly life. Matthew 12:32 sees Jesus telling the disciples that speaking ill of the Son of Man can be forgiven; but that blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come. Which again shows that there are in fact sins which can be remitted after death, and also some sins so severe they can never be forgiven.

We also see in St. Luke's Gospel (Lk. 16:19-31) the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Now the rich man is suffering in his state, and wants to warn others. Since compassion is a gift of God's grace he is not in Hell as that would be the permanent removal from the grace of God. And he is not in Heaven since he is in fact in a state of discomfort. He must be in Purgatory.

St. Paul's epistles also feature numerous references to the idea (such as 1 Cor. 3:10-15).

It seems the flaw in Diaz's attempt to discredit Holy Mother Church comes from his poorly constructed straw man detailing what Purgatory is and is intended to accomplish.For as I have shown even scripture details that God can forgive us our sins, yet still require us to make reparations for them. Much like if a father loaned his son the car for the night and the son had an accident; the father might forgive the son for having the accident but still require him to pay for the repairs.

God is both boundless mercy and boundless justice. This is one of the many paradoxes of the faith that we must come to terms with. In His desire that all men shall be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) God is merciful. In His desiring reparations for all of our transgressions (Mt. 5:26) He is infinitely just.

Finally let's take a look at St. Augustine's writings concerning the idea of Purgatory:

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come."
Augustine, City of God, 21:13 (A.D. 426).

"But since she has this certainty regarding no man, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world; and yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she is heard in the case of those only who, though they oppose the Church, are yet predestinated to become her sons through her intercession...For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, "They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.' But when the Judge of quick and dead has said, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,' and to those on the other side, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels,' and 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,' it were excessively presumptuous to say that the punishment of any of those whom God has said shall go away into eternal punishment shall not be eternal, and so bring either despair or doubt upon the corresponding promise of life eternal."
Augustine, City of God,2 1:24 (A.D. 426).

A New Blog To Follow

2011-12-10T12:48:00.000-08:00

As a faithful Catholic the pro life issue is a big one for me. I just started reading a new blog tackling the subject purely from the Natural Law perspective.

Naturally Prolife looks to the Natural Law as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas and as expounded by the Magisterium epecially Bl. John Paul II. The blog's author Christopher Apodaca, writes meaty articles that examine the issue and tear it into bite sized thoughts without watering down the arguments.

His scholarship is evident throughout as his articles are chock full of quotations from Aquinas, JP II, and others such as C.S. Lewis.

I'm sure Apodaca's isn't the only blog to tackle the Pro-Life issue from this perspective, but the strength of the writing and the ability to take such a difficult argument and boil it down make his blog worth reading.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I know Chris, we went to school together. He is an incredibly well reasoned man and a faithful Catholic. Don't let the fact that I know him keep you from reading his blog though it is good stuff.

Just a quick note

2011-12-01T08:10:00.000-08:00

I didn't die or anything during the move just haven't had much time to blog...Hoping to open up sometime in the schedule here soon so I can return to the blog...Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 5 -- Idaho, I'll Miss You....

2011-11-04T09:50:00.000-07:00

--- 1 ---

As anyone who read last Friday's quick takes knows we are packing up and leaving Idaho. It will be hard to say goodbye. This is the place our two kids were born, baptized, and have lived their whole lives. Tommy's had amazing medical and social care. I have seen the hand of God in why we were here and in why things have gone certain ways, but it is definitely time to open a new chapter....

--- 2 ---

This is also the state where I went grouse hunting for the first time. Fun, hardy, birds that just obliterate the quiet when they take flight...Plus they are delicious...I will definitely miss trekking up Moscow Mountain looking for them...But I hear Minnesota has some grouse to be hunted so I will definitely be going out there...

--- 3 ---

I will miss St. Mary's Church, in addition to being the place where the boys were baptized it has been a wonderful Spirit-filled parish, with good leadership. Fr. Joe who has now retired was wonderful. And Fr. Brian has proven to be a wonderful priest, who demonstrates God's joy and love marvelously from the Altar. Deacon George has been a great friend and has always had time for my questions, no matter how inane. It has been nice having a parish that has always felt like home, from our first Mass, till this weekend when we go to our final Mass there as parishioners...

--- 4 ---

Too many wonderful people in this place have demonstrated to me that no matter their persuasions they can come together to help when one of their own needs it. I will never forget being handed a $100 check, for an ancient Hi-Ho Cherryo game, at the benefit rummage sale after Tommy was born. Brings me to tears even today to think about someone being so generous for a family and a baby they didn't know...How do you ever repay an entire town's generosity. Because that is one example out of many of the things this town did for us as we struggled to find our way out of the shock of Tommy's beginnings.

--- 5 ---

I'll probably even miss the Vandals a little. The reason we came to Moscow was for me to take a job with the U of Idaho. After it didn't work out I took perhaps a little too much pleasure in seeing them fail. Now that things have shaken out and I realized God's Hand was in all of it, I can root for them to a certain extent. Never against my Aggies, but against other teams, sure why not.

--- 6 ---

I'll miss the old rolling hills of wheat, seemingly always brown, seemingly always with a little stubble on them. This place has gotten into my soul a bit, I'll admit it.
But come on...Look at it...

--- 7 ---

Hot Stove time for MLB. Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder will be the top dogs on the market this year. I wonder if new Cubs GM Theo Epstein will try and make a splash by luring one of them to Wrigley Field. I mean it's a band box of a field and either one of them could literally leave the yard with some of their monster shots. Plus I think Theo wants to find something to show Cubbies Fans he is serious about doing for them what he did in Boston.

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 4--Minnesota Move Edition

2011-10-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

--- 1 ---

I hate it when God waits for me to decide I am ready to do something, rather than just making it happen and letting me see how good it was later. For instance moving, Traci and I are just slowly sinking out here in Idaho...we love it, but it hasn't been easy and now the time has come to move on. So we will be leaving Idaho on November 11.

--- 2 ---

That opening sentence in point one stems from the fact that we have been discussing the idea of moving to Minnesota, since Tommy was born, the medical care and educational opportunities seem to be much better there than in my home state of New Mexico. However I was always scared to be so close to her family, my own insecurities getting in the way I suppose. On Sunday I was at Mass alone, with no kids to wrangle I had time to shut up and let God talk to me. And talk He did. I prayed if it was the right move that things would open up for us and they have, we have our apartment subleased, Tommy's daycare attendant is also quitting to focus on school--whew, was worried about breaking her heart telling her Tommy was moving. So things are moving quickly now.

--- 3 ---

Of course on Sunday God also told me that Traci and I needed to work a little harder at being a cord of three strands again. Which is from Ecclesiastes 4:7-12. That scripture was used during our wedding and we haven't always lived up to it. Hopefully with some family help around now we can work on those things.

--- 4 ---

Ok I'll say it the winters and summers I am about to get myself into scare me. Growing up in New Mexico I am used to hot, but not humid. The first time I went to see Traci in Minnesota it was 95 in El Paso, no big deal. It was 100 in Minneapolis, still no big deal, however the humidity was 90% I thought I would pass out on the jetway the air was so heavy. Idaho has toughened me up in regards to cold, but it has nothing on Minnesota. So here's hoping I can get used to the weather.

--- 5 ---

These next two weeks will be a busy time of packing and phone calls and getting organized as we close this chapter of our lives. Already working on calling all of Tommy's many specialists and getting recommendations on who to see in Minnesota.

--- 6 ---

Did you watch the baseball game last night? How St. Louis managed to keep coming back is amazing. Texas had three blown saves in last night's game. Unreal. Here's hoping they give us another classic tonight in Game 7 to close the Series.
Sorry Rangers Fans:
Freese's Walk-off Sends Series to Seventh Game

--- 7 ---

Is there anything better than Game 7. Any sport. Everything is do or die. Every shift in momentum feels like the final nail in the coffin. The first Game 7 I remember caring about anyway, involves Minnesota oddly enough. In 1991 the Twins and Braves locked up in what a lot of people say was the Best World Series ever. In Game 6 Kirby Puckett seemingly single-handedly insured that there would be a Game 7. He had a home-run saving catch against Ron Gant in the third inning. But Puckett sealed the win in the 11th belting a home-run into the seats giving the Twins a 4-3 win and forcing the dramatic Game 7 pitcher's duel.
Now I have to move into Twins country and learn to like them I guess....

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

The Early Christians are Inadmissible...

2011-10-21T12:15:00.000-07:00

The title of today's post comes from my ongoing opponent. Who informed me that my use of the practices of the Early Church was inadmissible evidence to support my assertion that his faith was not that of the apostles as he claimed.

Seems a bit like a judge deciding to throw out potentially damaging eye-witness testimony, purely because it is damaging.

To be fair this was his initial quote: "My religion is the same as that of the apostles. I can prove it from the Scriptures. Yours is not."

His words will be in blue....

I responded to that with a 10-point list of ways in which his religion differs from the one taught by the Apostles.

My List:

1. They believed in regenerative baptism (of infants even)
2. They believed in the Real Presence
3. They quoted, used, knew and taught ergo believed in the Septuagint
4. They submitted to the authority of the Church
5. They called Mary Blessed
6. They taught 7 sacraments
7. They didn't believe Sola anything
8. They believed in a ministerial priesthood
9. In fact they had Bishops, Priests and Deacons
10. They refrained from eating meat on certain days...

This is where the discussion got funny...

His response

1. They believed in regenerative baptism (of infants even)
There is not a single verse of Scripture that (a.)teaches regenerative baptism and (b.)infant baptism.

This one made me laugh... I admit I have to give him a little credit for point b as there truly are no specific verses which say infants were baptized, there are numerous instances however of "whole households" being baptized, so is he really saying none of those households had infants or very small children...Argue from silence much...

However to say not a single verse teaches regenerative baptism, really, really, St. Paul uses the words washing of regeneration in his letter to Titus. (Titus 3:5-6) Further Acts 22:16 tells us Arise be baptized and wash away your sins...

My favorite baptism verse in Acts however has to be Peter telling the people in Acts 2:38-39 that baptism is for the remission of sins and that the promise is to "you and your children."

Seems one has to go a long way to avoid or ignore these references to baptism as a regenerative act.

2. They believed in the Real Presence
They did not believe your doctrine of Transubstantiation. If they did, then they were deceived by the devil or Christ was a sinner, I proved this to you. You merely touted back: “bbbbbbbut the early church!” That’s not proof. That’s called begging the question.

This has been his argument all along...the apostles were deceived by the Devil or Christ was a sinner, it's a tiresome argument that I have rebutted on this blog several times.

Here is the post in question where he supposedly rebutted my defense of Transubstantiation. As I said not much of a rebuttal. But let's look at it.
Deceived by the Devil: Doesn't hold water Christ told his believers unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you. Jn. 6:54-55. Jesus in fact adamantly over the course of John 6 tells his listeners some 12 times that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I don't know about anyone else but if God tells me something 12 times I might listen to Him.

His other argument about Christ being a sinner stems from his errant belief that if Christ told his disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood before the "fulfillment" of the law that makes Him a sinner. I pointed out that He abrogated the law by issuing the command to eat His flesh. Not so says my opponent after all the law wasn't fulfilled. His argument stems from Jesus saying It is finished must be the fulfillment of the law. I referred him to a post from Shameless Popery where Joe investigated what exactly was finished...
I don't think he read it because he continues to parrot this argument. Regardless Christ was fully divine therefore even in the Incarnation a part of Him exists with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the eternal Now. When you are outside of time all things are currently the present so it doesn't really matter when something happens in earthly time.
Also notice the quip here about "The early church,"

3. They quoted, used, knew and taught ergo believed in the Septuagint
(a.)Many people knew the Septuagint, (b.)show me where the Septuagint is quoted, (c.)show me where they show their faith in the Septuagint.

Point a here is self evident so we won't go there. Point b is something I have done many times, showing him numerous references to the sheer volume of NT quotations that come directly from the LXX canon. This link from Scripture Catholic was largely ignored, or made fun of in previous discussions. Now to point C logic dictates that the Lord and the Apostles would quote from Scripture that which they believed to be Scripture. Ergo the Septuagint was considered Scripture by the Lord and the Apostles

4. They submitted to the authority of the Church
They submitted to the authority of the Lord God Christ, not the church. Insofar as a minister of the Word of God is in accordance with the Word of God that person is to be listened to. Your religion contradicts the Word of God at many points. Therefore, it is not to be listened to. I say that on the authority of Christ, the only Head of His Church.

Once again let's look to Scripture shall we: Acts 15 details Paul and Barnabas going to the Apostles for a decision regarding how Gentile Christians are to live among Jewish Christians. Notice here Paul was a "minister of the Word of God" appointed by Christ himself, why couldn't he merely make the decision why did he need to return to Jerusalem and meet with Kephas and James and the rest. Notice also that the council essentially ends when Kephas (Peter) says his piece. Now true James closes the council but it is Peter's words that have the entire crowd silenced. Which is of course a rebuttal to the anti-Catholic rant at the end of this point, Christ gave Peter His flock asking Peter three times to tend his sheep, feed his lambs. Jn 21:15-17.

5. They called Mary Blessed
Of course they did, and they called one another blessed. For the Scriptures say: “Blessed be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed US with EVERY spiritual blessing…” They didn’t pray to her – they knew that prayer to anyone but God is idolatry.

I won't attack this one from the Marian angle just from the Communion of Saints. I can't specifically say whether Mary was prayed to in the Early Church I would suppose she was, however I can say the Early Church did pray to the Saints for intercession. Which they continue to do today, which they did in Jesus time as well (2nd Mac. 12:42-46). Now granted the Maccabees reference is more about offering prayers for the dead.
"Even if we make images of pious men it is not that we may adore them as gods but that when we see them we might be prompted to imitate them." Cyril of Alexandria, On Psalms 113 (115) (ante A.D. 444)." This was true then and it is true now...

"Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him[i.e. St. Paul] who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 1:1(A.D. 380).

"But God forbid that any in this fair assembly should appear there suffering such things! but by the prayers of the holy fathers, correcting all our offences, and having shown forth the abundant fruit of virtue, may we depart hence with much confidence." John Chrysostom, On Statues, Homily 6:19 (A.D. 387).

Darn it, it looks like early Christians thought highly of the intercession of Saints....No wonder he didn't want me to use them in my argument.

6. They taught 7 sacraments
lol. Where? Show me from the Scriptures.

Evidently he thinks the Sacraments are funny...Curious. This one I think will be merely Scripture references without comment.
Baptism: Already covered but St. Paul details how baptism is the new circumcision many times in his epistles.
Eucharist: John 6, Luke 22:19-20, Mk. 14:22-24, Mt. 26:26-28, 1st Cor. 11:23-26
Confirmation: Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6, Heb. 6:2, Rev. 9:4
Marriage: Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18
Ordination: Acts 6:6, Numbers 27:18
Confession: Jn 20:20-23
Anointing of the Sick: Mk. 6:13, James 5:14-15

7. They didn't believe Sola anything
They believed in Sola Scriptura (2 Tim 3:14-17, Ps 119, etc),

No, Protestant proof text be damned, they didn't. Reading the passage from 2nd Timothy it is clear that St. Paul is encouraging Timothy in knowledge of the Old Testament as he directs him to the Sacred Writings he had known since childhood. Seeing as the New Testament was as yet unfinished this can't be an appeal to Sola Scriptura. Nice try. Ps. 119 is great let your words be a lamp unto my feet, light unto my path sure...but it doesn't preclude other things. Also St. Paul makes numerous references to Traditions (paradosis in Greek) which are unwritten and handed on by word of mouth.

Sola Fide (Gen 15:3, James 1:18, James 2:23, Eph 2:8-10, Romans 3-4, John 3:16, etc),

When Paul speaks of works, he is generally referring to "works of law" (read also Galatians) which refer to works done under the Mosaic law. The Jews believed that they still had to perform their ritual works to be saved (e.g., circumcision). In Acts 15, Peter declared that circumcision was no longer required for salvation. We are saved by grace, not works. When Paul refers to "works," he is also referring to any type of work where we attempt to obligate God and make him a debtor to us. The Jews were attempting to do this in their rigid system of law.

http://scripturecatholic.com/justification_qa.html#gracevworks

James's poor misunderstood, proof-texted, epistle also doesn't teach Sola Fide no matter how much anyone wants it to. James 2:20-24 in totality repeatedly says that faith needs works. In fact vs. 24 says Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
So if you torture the Scripture you can make it say Sola Fide, that doesn't make it right.
To be fair I edited his comment here and chose merely to address the two most heretical solas.

8. They believed in a ministerial priesthood
Scripture please. You’ve asserted this before and when I asked for Scripture you ignored me. “Show me the [Scripture]!”

Mt. 28:19 Baptism is a priestly function, The Last Supper instruction to do that in remembrance of Him is a priestly function...Forgiving of sins was a priestly function...

9. In fact they had Bishops, Priests and Deacons
Those words are used in the New Testament, but they don’t refer to what you think they refer to :/

Oh really Inigo Montoya...Why because you don't want them to? Or do you have an actual argument here? Have those offices changed in 2000 years, certainly. Has the office of President changed in the US over the last 300 years, certainly. Does that mean Barack Obama is more or less President than George Washington (politics aside), no of course not.

10. They refrained from eating meat on certain days...
I’m sure some of them did. Paul admits this much in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10, you know, those passages where he explicitly refutes your religion on this matter and says:

Again not much more to report here than his anti-Catholic rantings. These verses do not refute Catholicism, they merely show that judging others for what they chose to do in regards to eating is sinful. But I suppose it's a nice try....

It is more than clear that the only reason to refuse to entertain the thoughts of early Christians is purely because it undermines his argument that he somehow holds the faith of the Apostles. It shows an intriguing amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Tying Up Some Loose Ends....

2011-10-20T14:07:00.000-07:00

In recent posts I wrote a defense of Transubstantiation and showed some writings from Ignatius of Antioch. It occurred to me today that the two dovetail nicely into a third topic. That topic being the idea that one of Catholicism's bedrock claims for Transubstantiation relies on John 6. Ignatius was a student of John's and he was so blatantly Eucharistic in his thinking so clearly a defender of the Real Presence that that should speak volumes to us about the topic.

Now if John was the last living apostle (tradition says he was), and one of his students teaching from one of his texts says that we are to take Christ literally in the account of the Bread of Life Discourse (Jn. 6:48-70); wouldn't he (John) have done something (written something against Ignatius, counseled others that he (Ignatius) was "off the reservation", something, anything).

It stands to reason it's not like the early church was free of disagreement or that the Church Father's didn't know how to call someone out for teaching what they thought was heresy. I mean I realize this was a couple hundred years later but just look at how St. Jerome hands Rufinus his ass:

"I have learned not only from your letter but from those of many others that cavils are raised against me in the school of Tyrannus, "by the tongue of my dogs from the enemies by himself" because I have translated the books Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν into Latin. What unprecedented shamelessness is this! They accuse the physician for detecting the poison: and this in order to protect their vendor of drugs, not in obtaining the reward of innocence but in his partnership with the criminal; as if the number of the offenders diminished the crime, or as if the accusation depended on our personal feelings not on the facts. Pamphlets are written against me; they are forced on every one's attention; and yet they are not openly published, so that the hearts of the simple are disturbed, and no opportunity is given me of answering."

So clearly church fathers knew how to disagree. Now returning to the topic at hand, men of goodwill can and have disagreed mightily about the Lord's words in John's Gospel as well as other passages Catholics proclaim as teaching the Real Presence; however if a student of the last living apostle was already that far afield how can any of us proclaim the Truth, unless of course that was Truth.

After all John was (to borrow from the six degrees of separation idea) one degree from Christ; ergo Ignatius was only two. Now if someone two degrees from Christ was preaching, teaching and expounding on the idea that He was fully, truly present in the Eucharist. If that wasn't the catholic view, then when did such heresy began and take such root to be the Catholic view.

After all if Christ couldn't maintain His promise to lead us into all truth (Jn. 16:13) or that the Gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18). Then He also failed to be with us always even unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).

After all Ignatius was as I said living mere decades after Christ and he taught a Real Presence. If that was false then, it would still be false today. However as we see in John 6:55. Christ promises to raise us up on the last day if we "eat His flesh and drink His blood."

ChurchFathers.org has a great selection of quotes from the Early Fathers discussing the Eucharist and the Real Presence. Some of which have been mentioned in this space before.

And if you missed Joe's recent post at Shameless Popery about the Early Church remaining silent in the face of this "heresy" check it out.

Another great post of recent vintage is this one from Brantley over at Young, Evangelical and Catholic.

So if this is such a grave heresy, where is the evidence? Has that big, evil, monolithic Catholic church merely destroyed it all in order to maintain power? Is it hidden in some wing of the Vatican Archives, or could it maybe, just maybe be that Catholics have held the same view for lo, these 2,000 years because the Apostles handed that view on and succeeding generations maintained it as part of the Deposit of Faith.

Thoughts on Ignatius of Antioch

2011-10-17T13:39:00.000-07:00

Today is the feast day of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius studied under the Apostle John and became a bishop in Antioch, one of the main hubs of early Christianity. Ignatius also wrote letters so Catholic in their theological bent that John Calvin denounced them as forgeries. That's my kind of Church Father.

Here is an example of the venom Calvin laid out against Ignatius:

"With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration."

Emphasis added

That's right Ignatius was nauseating to Calvin; let's have a gander at why that might be:

Ignatius on the Eucharist:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Chp. 7

Ignatius on the Authority of Bishops/The Church:

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, (Matthew 24:25) as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

Epistle to the Ephesians Chp. 6

Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.

Epistle to the Magnesians Chp. 3

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

Magnesians Chp. 7

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim [sic] of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

To the Trallians Chp. 3

Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division and wicked doctrines; but where the shepherd is, there follow as sheep. For there are many wolves that appear worthy of credit, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive (2 Timothy 3:6) those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place.

To the Philadelphians Chp. 2

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

To the Smyrnaeans Chp. 8

No wonder Calvin didn't like this guy, he is almost obnoxiously Catholic. What with all that Real Presence talk and submitting to the authority of the Church. Perhaps we should all strive to be a little more like him.

And if you want to see true faith in action read his Epistle to the Romans, dealing with his impending martyrdom.

All quotations from New Advent's section on the Church Fathers available here.

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 3

2011-10-14T12:43:00.000-07:00

--- 1 ---

For now I am officially off the Rick Perry bandwagon. Taking a stand on principles, I know he has distanced himself from Robert Jeffress, but one of my reasons for not liking Obama was the company he kept. It would be disingenuous to do otherwise with any candidate in this election. That being said if I have to vote for Mr. Perry to try and limit Obama to a single term I will do so.

--- 2 ---

I had a dream the other night that Tommy stood up and took a step. I love dreams like that. They tend to make me a little sad, but the happiness outweighs the sad. Plus it was neat to see him struggle to his feet and take one step before he got his legs all tangled up like he is wont to do. Also it helps to remind me to pray for the grace of God to heal him, or at least help him develop some skills.

--- 3 ---

In light of my recent post on Transubstantiation, I think a full treatment of some of the Eucharistic Miracles is in order but for now here's a look at one of the more well-known:

Wikipedia

Miracle of the Rosary has a story as well

--- 4 ---

Time to highlight one of my favorite blogs. Brantley Millegan does great work over at Young, Evangelical, and Catholic. If you aren't reading his stuff. Get to his page now, well okay finish reading mine first. He does a great job at highlighting and defending essential aspects of the faith.

--- 5 ---

I hate being out of work, it's so easy to get down on myself. So easy to think I am a failure because I am not taking care of my family. Here's hoping that I find work soon.

--- 6 ---

If you ever wanted to read papal documents, the encyclicals and what not there are a couple of great places to find them. The Vatican website of course has from Benedict XVI back to Leo XIII. If you really want to dig into history, and read say the Bull of Excommunication for Martin Luther or the Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council. head to http://www.papalencyclicals.net
I like to copy them to word documents and send them to my kindle.

--- 7 ---

My revised World Series prediction: Milwaukee vs. Texas....

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

A Defense of Transubstantiation

2011-10-10T14:23:00.000-07:00

Buckle up everyone as we are about to take a tour through perhaps the oldest doctrine of Roman Catholicism. In our tour I will define, explain, defend and prove that the idea of Transubstantiation is not only biblical, historical and necessary, but also truth itself.

Let's start with definition of a few key terms:

Transubstantiation: The belief held by Catholics (and all Christians until the Protestant Era) that during the words of consecration the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper become truly His Body and Blood, in a real and sacramental way.
Real Presence: The belief that Christ is really and substantially present in both species of the Eucharist.
Consubstantiation: Martin Luther's teaching that the bread and Christ are both present in the Host. Rejected by Catholics and later "Reformers" alike. Those reformers after Luther maintained a strictly symbolic view of the Eucharist.

I have mentioned in this space an ongoing debate I was having on Facebook. My opponent quit the debate but posted his refutation of the doctrine at his blog here.

So in many ways this shall serve as my answer to him as well as just a good chance to examine a core Catholic belief.

The crux of the whole argument comes down to a few key passages from Scripture.

For starters John 6: 48-70 is a passage known as the Bread of Life discourse. It is one of Jesus' longest teachings in John's Gospel. In the course of that teaching Jesus instructs his followers that if they desire eternal life they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus counterweighs this radical, and obviously scandalous new teaching by discussing the manna in the desert. We know from Scripture that the manna was considered among the holiest of holy things as the Jewish people kept a jar of it in the Ark (Heb 9:4).

In Psalm 78: 24-25 we see the manna called the bread of Heaven; the bread of the angels. This was indeed special bread. Reading from a strict typological perspective the New Testament bread from Heaven must be even more spectacular. Indeed Christ tells us He is the new bread of life, the new Manna from Heaven.

Now some raise the point that Levitical law prohibited the drinking of blood. Indeed it did, however Christ as the fulfillment of the old law abrogates that, as He commands the people that if they wish to be raised on the last day they must eat My flesh and drink my blood. Christ clears this up at the end of the discourse after many people "drew away and no longer walked with Him... (John 6:67)." Christ looks to the Twelve; asking them will you also go away? St. Peter answers Him in the negative. The apostles have heard and don't quite understand but again they know that Christ is the "Son of God."

There is a similar passage in Matthew 5:21-35. Wherein Jesus abrogates or in some cases strengthens portions of the Mosaic law.

With those points out of the way let's investigate some claims made against the doctrine by my opponent. He cites Luke 24:38-39 as somehow proof that Christ had no blood in His resurrected body. An interesting claim, but one without an exegetical basis. For in Genesis 2:23 Adam refers to Eve as flesh and bone...does that mean she has not blood within her? After all this is before the fall she is immaculately created, so her body should in fact be every bit identical (save basic gender differences) to Christ's resurrected body.

Further St. Ambrose of Milan uses those very verses (Lk. 24:39) to defend Transubstantiation:

123. If, then, there has neither been a time when the Life of the Son took a commencement, nor any power to which it has been subjected, let us consider what His meaning was when He said: Even as the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father? Let us expound His meaning as best we can; nay, rather let Him expound it Himself.

124. Take notice, then, what He said in an earlier part of His discourse. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He first teaches you how you ought to listen. Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you. John 6:54 He first premised that He was speaking as Son of Man; do you then think that what He has said, as Son of Man, concerning His Flesh and His Blood, is to be applied to His Godhead?

125. Then He added: For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed]. John 6:56 You hear Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, you perceive the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, John 6:52 and you dishonour His Godhead. Hear His own words: A spirit has not flesh and bones. Luke 24:39 Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterious efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, do show the Lord's Death.

When I pointed this passage out to my opponent I was accused of proof-texting. Right, because I need to pull one quote by one father to support my view. He also submits that there is a "disagreement" on what Ambrose meant, I submit it is no disagreement it is merely Protestant academics attempting to cast shadows to support their theologically novel doctrines. Ambrose is evidently being targeted now as they failed to do the same with Augustine.

Further to dispel his biggest argument, hardly merits discussion other than to quickly correct his false explanation. Reminds me of what Abp. Sheen once said "There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be." I think the late Archbishop even expanded on that frequent remark adding that even Catholics would hate the church if it was what it was purported to be.

Now Catholics as I say do believe in the Real Presence of Christ. However while that Presence is Real it is a Sacramental presence. Meaning that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is contained in that consecrated bread and wine. In other words He is not physically present, but that Presence is still literal.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood...the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.¹⁵³

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"¹⁵⁸ The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also go away?":¹⁵⁹ The Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has "the words of eternal life"¹⁶⁰ and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

...

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."¹⁹⁹ In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."²⁰⁰ "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."²⁰¹

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."²⁰⁴

My opponent also claims that this doctrine cannot be true because Christ or the Apostles did not teach it. This is a rather weak case of arguing from silence and I believe he knows that to be true in his heart. For if they did not teach this doctrine where was the outrage when certain of the father's taught it to be true. Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Ignatius is especially damning of his argument since he learned from the Apostle John. Yet he proclaimed the truth of the Real Presence. If someone who learned from an Apostle held and taught this to be true and there were no cries of heresy from the other bishops or fathers to be heard than in fact that must have been the universal teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Edited to Add: For another thing if the Apostles didn't teach a Real Presence/Transubstantiation view, then St. Paul's warning to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:27) is ridiculously overblown. To in essence be called guilty of murder for unworthy consumption of a symbol is a bit much.

As to the supposed moral dilemma presented by my opponent:

"The Lord tells His people that He does not change;[3] therefore, the command to literally eat literal flesh and literally drink literal blood cannot be a command from God. For the Lord expressly forbids the eating of meat with blood still in it, as well as the drinking of blood; both of these practices were pagan abominations which the Lord strictly commanded Israel to not engage in."

Has he ever eaten a piece of meat cooked short of being charcoal? For that would be a sin as he points out. He is trying to have it both ways. Either we are still under the Mosaic law or we are under the New Covenant. We can't be both. Further, if God cannot change then the Mosaic law still applies, period. As to his opinion that the Jerusalem Council kept the Mosaic law for the new Gentile converts that seems to stretch the text to an unusual degree.

Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1–10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/15/

However regarding one other point here it is crucial to note that while Christ instituted the Eucharist while He was still in his incarnated flesh, it was not celebrated by the Apostles until after the Resurrection. Thus the law had been fulfilled. Moreover this view doesn't in any way preclude the institution at the Last Supper from being identical to the Sacrament celebrated to this day, confected by the successors of the Apostles, the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church.

After all Christ doesn't tell His Apostles after my Resurrection this will be my body. And as St. Augustine pointed out the Psalms speak to this moment:

" 'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' "

As I mentioned even Martin Luther maintained a belief in some sort of Real Presence. He merely taught a heretical, theologically novel position on it. However certain other "Reformers" chief among them Huldrich Zwingli taught that the lesson in John 6 was intended merely as a symbol. Zwingli to prove his case pulled a single verse, Jn 6:63 and declared that Christ's teaching that the flesh was of no avail clearly intended a symbolic reading of all the preceding text.

This is absurdly false for several reasons; not the least of which is that Christ didn't say His flesh was of no avail. For we know it avails much, after all it was Christ's flesh through which it was prophesied "By His stripes we are healed. (Is 53:5)" It is also false because it presupposes the word spirit to mean symbolic. If that is the case then Jesus tells us God is merely a symbol in Jn. 4:24.

Finally perhaps a poetic defense is in order. The Angelic Doctor Thomas Aquinas wrote numerous poems and hymns about the topic, which even his own massive intellect couldn't rationally explain. My favorite happens to be the Adoro Te Devote:

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore,
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at Thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived:
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth Himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.

On the cross Thy godhead made no sign to men,
Here Thy very manhood steals from human ken:
Both are my confession, both are my belief,
And I pray the prayer of the dying thief.

I am not like Thomas, wounds I cannot see,
But can plainly call thee Lord and God as he;
Let me to a deeper faith daily nearer move,
Daily make me harder hope and dearer love.

O thou our reminder of Christ crucified,
Living Bread, the life of us for whom he died,
Lend this life to me then: feed and feast my mind,
There be thou the sweetness man was meant to find.

Bring the tender tale true of the Pelican;
Bathe me, Jesu Lord, in what Thy bosom ran
Blood whereof a single drop has power to win
All the world forgiveness of its world of sin.

Jesu, whom I look at shrouded here below,
I beseech thee send me what I thirst for so,
Some day to gaze on thee face to face in light
And be blest for ever with Thy glory's sight. Amen.

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 2

2011-10-07T09:59:00.000-07:00

--- 1 ---

Well my World Series prediction is halfway to wrong, since Tampa Bay lost. But the Phillies are still in it. So I could still end up right on the winner.

--- 2 ---

I've been thinking for a little bit (read since late last night sometime, seeing as Tommy kept me up till 2 am) that I would like to add some of the more important Papal Documents (i.e. encyclicals, Bulls, perhaps some of the important Conciliar docs) to my Kindle. So I think I see the easiest way to do it is to save them in word and email them to my Kindle, let Amazon do the converting for me. Now if I could just find a Kindle version of the Catechism, I'd be good to go.

--- 3 ---

Got up the mountain one time last weekend for a little bird hunting. Saw 3, maybe four birds. Hurried one shot, came home empty handed. But I got to see some nature and have a little fun. Didn't end up taking the Tomster. I need to this weekend, he sure likes bouncing up and down that hill.

--- 4 ---

My dad had an endoscopy of his throat and lungs this morning. Everything looked clean from what the Dr. told my mom. So praise be to God for that. Now if they could just figure out what's causing his cough.

--- 5 ---

Today is the feast day of Our Lady of the Rosary. I should be more dedicated in praying the Rosary, it's not like its hard, and I know most of the prayers (I have to cheat a little for the Hail Holy Queen and Apostles Creed), but for some reason I never make time to say it. Which is weird because it invariably makes me feel better when I am done.

--- 6 ---

I'd be remiss to not point out that earlier this week was the Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi. Francis was a great reformer of the Church in the early middle ages. He also was a great lover of nature. Surely you are familiar with statues of him surrounded by animals. He was also my pick for my confirmation patron saint. I know he has prayed with and for me for strength as I have passed through rough periods in my life. In fact I seemingly just starting praying the prayer of St. Francis and the O Divine Master for no reason, then suddenly come to some challenge and feel fortified.

--- 7 ---

If you haven't read Brant Pitre's Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist,get on it. That book is solid theological gold for explaining and defending the Eucharistic theology of Catholicism. Pitre does it through the lens of what first century Jews would have intrinsically understood when Jesus spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Amazing book.

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Which Came First?

2011-10-06T14:50:00.000-07:00

The chicken or the egg? Ok, so today's post will not be about that at all. Rather let's look at which came first the Church, or the Bible and how that informs how denominations view themselves in light of that.

According to the Catholic viewpoint, the Church, Christ's spotless bride came first. In fact Christ Himself instituted it by according Peter a share in the powers He Himself holds in Heaven. In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus blesses Simon, changes his name and gives him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Pretty weighty stuff, followed in a couple chapters by Christ conferring some of that same authority on the other eleven bishops (Matt. 18:18) of His church.

Christ before His death promised to send another (The Holy Spirit) to guide the church into all truth (Jn. 16:13). The Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost and they began to go out into the world preaching the Good News (Gospel) that the Messiah had come, been crucified and had risen again.

On that first Pentecost St. Peter urged repentance and baptism for the gathered crowd and 3,000 people were added that day(Acts 2:38-41).

"Only five out of the twelve wrote down anything at all that has been preserved to us; and of that, not a line was penned till at least 10 years after the death of Christ, for Jesus Christ was crucified in 33 A.D., and the first of the New Testament books was not written till about 45 A.D. You see what follows? The Church and the Faith existed before the Bible." An important point as Henry Graham noted more than 100 years ago, in his collection of essays Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church:

"Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and missionaries of Christ in various lands, and believed the whole truth of God as we believe it now, and became saints, before ever they saw or read, or could possibly see or read, a single sentence of inspired Scripture of the New Testament, for the simple reason that such Scripture did not then exist. How, then, did they become Christians? In the same way, of course, that Pagans become Catholics nowadays, by hearing the truth of God from the lips of Christ's missionaries."

Graham goes on to make the point that Neither St. Paul, nor any of the other writers of what became the New Testament would likely have felt all that great about their work being intended as the sole Regula Fide of Christianity (as the leaders of the Protestant Rebellion would attempt to make it 1500 years in the future.

"And we can imagine St Paul staring in amazement if he had been told that his Epistles, and St Peter's and St. John's, and the others would be tied up together and elevated into the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, to be placed in each man's hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them...

No one would have been more shocked at the idea of his letters usurping the place of the authoritative teacher—the Church, than the great Apostle who himself said, 'How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ...True, he [St. Paul] was an Apostle, and consequently inspired, and his letters are the written Word of God, and therefore are a final and decisive authority on the various points of which they treat, if properly understood; but that does not alter the fact that they nowhere claim to state the whole of Christian truth, or to be a complete guide of salvation to anyone; they already presuppose the knowledge of the Christian faith among those to whom they are addressed; they are written to believers, not to unbelievers; in one word, the Church existed and did its work before they were written, and it would still have done so, even though they had never been written at all."

Graham goes on to make the Catholic Church's point that the totality of Scriptures (particularly the New Testament) are Her book, to Her alone was it entrusted.

"What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books alone has the right to claim them as her own, and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth, and the Vatican in the nineteenth—one and the same body—growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body, as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2."

"Rome claims that the Bible is her book; that she has preserved it and perpetuated it, and that she alone knows what it means; that nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, or any authority to declare what the true meaning of it is. She therefore has declared that the work of translating it from the original languages, and of explaining it, and of printing it and publishing it, belongs strictly to her alone; and that, if she cannot nowadays prevent those outside her fold from tampering with it and misusing it, at least she will take care that none of her own children abuse it or take liberties with it; and hence she forbids any private person to attempt to translate it into the common language without authority from ecclesiastical superiors, and also forbids the faithful to read any editions but such as are approved by the Bishops."

Because of the facts of history (namely the Church existing before the writing, compiling and codifying of what Graham terms the Christian Scripture) we (Catholics) have two fountainheads of Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition). Neither one contradicts the other and neither one contains the totality of the other. As then Cardinal Ratzinger (now of course Pope Benedict XVI) notes in God's Word (pg. 71)

"We can further note that the New Testament Scriptures do not appear as one principle alongside apostolic tradition; still less (as is the case with us), do the New Testament Scriptures, together with the Old Testament, stand as one single entity “Scripture”, which could be contrasted with “tradition” as a second entity. Rather, the complex of New Testament event and reality appears together as a developing dual yet single principle, that of gospel; as such, it is contrasted, on the one hand, with the Old Testament and, on the other, with the specific events in the subsequent age of the Church."

So Catholics have as Pope Benedict pointed out a concept of "gospel" that encompasses not merely Scripture but also all of those things that weren't written down (Jn. 21:25). St. Paul speaks many times of these traditions and urges his charges in various letters to carry on those things.

It wasn't until Martin Luther in the 1500's when those Traditions came under attack as somehow less than the true deposit of Faith (2nd Tim. 1:13-14). Luther and those who followed after him tried to divorce the book from the church "The pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1st Tim. 3:15). We can see how well that worked out for them by the sheer number of Protestant denominations all claiming they follow the Bible alone.

Pope Benedict answered the idea of Sola Scriptura in God's Word:

"Trent had established that the truth of the gospel was contained “in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus”. That was (and is to this day) interpreted as meaning that Scripture does not contain the whole Veritas evangelii and that no sola scriptura principle is therefore possible, since part of the truth of revelation reaches us only through tradition." (Ratzinger pg. 48)

Beyond that however, we see in the disunity of Mainline Protestantism how Scripture is not perspicuous, especially given the wide ranging disagreements on things like infant baptism, communion, and the number of sacraments.

As Graham noted the Protestant idea quickly devolves into absurdity:

On the Catholic plan (so to call it) of salvation through the teaching of the Church, souls may be saved and people become saints, and believe and do all that Jesus Christ meant them to believe and do,—and, as a matter of fact, this has happened—in all countries and in all ages without either the written or the printed Bible, and both before and after its production. The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man's salvation on the possession of the Bible, leads to the most flagrant absurdities, imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.

Clearly the Church antedates the Bible and as such holds a certain authority regarding the Bible. None of this disputes the material sufficiency of the Scriptures if read without the aid of Holy Mother Church to effect salvation; however it is not the way that was intended in the Divine Plan.

As Pope Benedict points out after all:

"What kind of meaning does talk about “the sufficiency of Scripture” still have, then? Does it not threaten to become a dangerous self-deception, with which we deceive ourselves, first of all, and then others (or perhaps do not in fact deceive them!)?" (ibid. pg 49)

So if the church precedes the Bible, doesn't it then make sense to be in communion with the church that begat the bible; the one church appointed to preserve, protect and defend it as it were.

Seven Quick Takes Vol. 1

2011-09-30T10:07:00.000-07:00

--- 1 ---

Let's start with the most important item of the day: Today is the last day to flood Health and Human Services with calls and emails, letting them know we disagree with their conscience violating mandate in the new healthcare takeover. The mandate forces hospitals and insurance companies to cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs. Since Tommy's primary hospital is the wonderful Sacred Heart Children's in Spokane, this issue hits home for me on a couple fronts. I don't want to see Holy Mother Church have to stand up for Herself by shuttering hospitals.

Contact the (allegedly) Catholic Secretary of HHS, and give her an ear full.

Phone: (202) 690–7000

Email: Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov

Read Catholicvote's take here.

--- 2 ---

Here we are a month into grouse hunting season and I haven't been out more than three times. Sad. I think this weekend may be time to load Tommy up and take him out to bounce along those rutted old roads up Moscow Mountain and see if we can find some birds

--- 3 ---

Well, I am now officially unemployed again. My "season" with Dr. Pepper is now over. While I hate being out of work I am somewhat glad to be done with this job. It wasn't a good fit from the start. So now the search for employment begins anew.

--- 4 ---

Saw Moneyball last night: Darn good movie. Brad Pitt was really good in it. This is one movie I won't necessarily say "The book was better..." about. Although it was. It is really like they were two different takes on the same story. The movie had to be a little different than the book, just by the nature of the story it told. Anyway I definitely recommend it, plus it just helped me get fired up for the playoffs which start today.

--- 5 ---

Another good viewing experience had lately at Casa de Musings was The Conspirator. It is the Robert Redford directed story of the military tribunal held that convicted Mary Surratt as a conspirator in the Lincoln assassination plot. Even knowing the historical facts of the case I was riveted. As much as I like Redford as an actor I believe he has done some of his best work as a director.

--- 6 ---

My World Series Pick: Phillies vs. Rays. Phillies in 6. Starting pitching is just too good in Philly. That with an offense that can explode at times, but seemingly always just does enough to win gives Philly the title.

--- 7 ---

Since Jen at Conversion Diary is trying to come up with some of these: My favorite pithy Saint quote is this one from St. Augustine:
Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.

For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

A Few Quick Thoughts...

2011-09-29T09:07:00.000-07:00

If you don't have an e-reader, why not? They are amazing. For my birthday earlier this month I got a Kindle 3G+Wi-fi...I love it...My parents have a Nook Color, not bad but I prefer the e ink screen of my Kindle...
So many books in one little package...seriously everyone should have one.
I think I may end up buying everything Pope Benedict XVI has ever written...So much knowledge in such an easy to understand way of writing.
I am working my way through God's Word right now, written when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. It's a treatment of the twin founts of revelation: Tradition and Scripture. Expect a post on it soon.
Matty has the memory of a goldfish...He thinks if he is told no, looks away for a half second then goes back to the verboten item/activity it's suddenly acceptable.
Tommy has survived his first cold of the school year, actually he did really well with it...shared it around the house (to his mom and Matt anyway, I'm clean so far)
I still think Matt's a budding priest or a theologian at least, he sure likes to dig into my religious books (The Catechism, Bible, apologetics) it doesn't matter to him.
My Niners are 2-1...So yay for that, here's hoping coach Harbaugh can restore the glory.
I've been really diving into a lot of apologetics works again, probably because of my ongoing facebook debate, read some good stuff lately. Including Devin Rose's If Protestantism is True, probably a review of that one on the way soon too. Devin has a blog of his own at St. Joseph's Vanguard, Highly recommended reading.

That's it for now. Keep checking in as I plan to review those two books I mentioned, sooner rather than later I hope.

Jesus and the Church Pt. 2

2011-09-14T14:28:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's post we explored whether or not Jesus founded a church. The overwhelming Scriptural evidence would seem to show He did in fact do so. He did so seemingly to prevent said church from falling victim to error. Today let's investigate which church this is. We will also look at some of those longstanding myths regarding the founding of the Catholic church.

Of all the Christian churches only the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church say that they were founded by Jesus Christ. Both churches lay solid claim to their apostolic succession. However, as we saw yesterday Jesus said He would found his church on Peter. Since the Orthodox churches deny that simple aspect they must not be the True Church.

As an interesting aside having never attended Protestant worship services I have only secondhand testimony, but they either change the words of the Creed (We believe in One, Holy, Catholic...) to small c Catholic or Christian. Interesting dance to have to do, with words that are 1500-plus years old.

So does Jesus desire that his flock should all be one in the church He founded?

Well the most obvious answer to this question in my mind comes from John's Gospel, in Jesus's high priestly prayer. In John 17: 11, 20, Jesus asks God to grant the apostles the unity that He and the Father share. In verse 20 we see Jesus acknowledging that He isn't merely praying for the Eleven (Judas was already lost at this point). He is praying for all of the people who would believe in Him because of their testimony.

Christ desires one flock. As the Good Shepherd He reminds us in John 10:14 that He knows His flock and His flock know him.

Now Peter had been set apart; he is always listed as the first of the Apostles; mentioned more times by name than all the other Apostles combined; and given the command by Christ to tend His sheep (John 21:15-17). Since Christ is the Good Shepherd and Peter is His Prime Minister, Christ sought an Earthly shepherd to guide His flock, knowing He would return to the Father soon.

The early church recognized the Primacy of Peter and those who succeeded him. The church at Corinth sent a letter to Clement seeking his help in regard to some bishops that had been deposed. Now St. John was still alive and was right down the road in Ephesus, but the Corinthians sought the help of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter.

Many of the Early Church Father's put down lists of the successor's of Peter, often in an attempt to show that the current pope's decrees where valid and holy since he currently occupied the Cathedra.

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies written in 180 AD described not just apostolic succession but the line of bishops succeeding from Peter in Rome. Now Irenaeus was a bishop himself, but he didn't try and show his line to be the most important he bowed to Rome.

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric....

To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

But where do we see Scriptural evidence for this succession. In many places, It starts just after Christ's Ascension. Acts 1:20 shows St. Peter declaring that another person should take Judas's bishopric. In the following verses we see the Apostles pray and the lot falls to Matthias, "Who was counted with the eleven."

We also see St. Paul telling Timothy to appoint faithful men to follow after him (2 Tim. 2:2). So we see apostolic succession in history and Scripture.

Now mind you someone has probably trotted out some whopper like Constantine and a bunch of money grubbing power hungry people founded the Catholic Church as a way to consolidate power/money, etc.

After you finish laughing send them here, or here.

So there you have it. Christ founded a church on Earth one that we can follow from its current Earthly leader, Pope Benedict XVI, to its founder Jesus Christ in circa AD 33. Jesus seeks for us all to be one as He and the Father are one (Jn. 17:11).

Now the answer to our two part question: Did Jesus found a Church? Yes, The Roman Catholic Church. Does He desire His flock shall all be visibly in that church? Yes again. (Jn. 17, Mt. 10:40, Lk. 10:16).

So whose flock are you in?

Jesus and the Church

2011-09-13T22:11:00.000-07:00

A recent discussion in the comment box at Shameless Popery, plus a recent Facebook discussion led me to what I want to talk about today. To catch everyone up on my train of thought, essentially Joe asked a commenter the following: did Jesus found the Catholic Church, and is it His Will for His flock to be in that Church, visibly?

What a great question right? So without further ado, let's dive into it. I will break the question up into two distinct parts.

I. Did Jesus found the Catholic Church?

Of course He did. Next... Ok so obviously as a Catholic I believe he did, but let's investigate some of the Scriptural and historical evidence.

First off there are many references in the Old Testament to God giving His people a shepherd (The Pope) so they didn't wander off. Take a look at Numbers 27: 15-17, which tells us God doesn't want His people to be like sheep without a shepherd (h/t Joe). Jeremiah 3:15 tells us that God will send us shepherds (pastors in the DR translation) who are after His own heart to feed us with knowledge and doctrine.

So from just these two references alone we see that God desires His people have some sort of leadership to follow. Continuing in Numbers 27: 18-20 we see Moses anointing Joshua as the successor in authority over the Israelites. This is the succession of authority Christ references in Matt. 23:2. So we have in the Old Testament numerous examples of an authority to lead being handed down from one generation to the next. Through laying on of hands and anointing.

All of which brings me to Matt. 16:13-20. The great threefold blessing of Simon soon to be forever after known as Peter. Christ brought the Apostles to Caesarea Phillipi. As Deacon George pointed out at Mass last month when this was our Gospel reading this wasn't the most hospitable place.

"They are in Caesarea Philippi, a pagan area about 25 miles distant from Jewish territory, with at least 14 pagan temples representing Syrian, Canaanite, Greek and Roman deities. But, in the same location is a mountain; from a cave in it the Jordan River begins, making this location also holy to the Jews."

What an odd place for Jesus to reflect on what the crowd thinks of this "carpenter's son." The Twelve venture as to what the consensus of the crowd is. Jesus is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist. Hebrew tradition maintained that Elijah would return to Earth as the Herald of the Lord. We know Jesus isn't the Baptist (John 1:29) for the two are seen together on more than one occasion.

Jesus presses again "But who do you say I am?" None of the Twelve responds for a moment. Finally Simon blurts it out. "You are the Christ." Indeed Simon. Now Jesus does a couple of things.

Gives Simon a new more meaningful name. Kephas. Rock.
Tells the Twelve that upon this wonderful Rock He would build His church. One of only two recorded times Jesus uses the word church.(Matt. 18:17 being the other)
Gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom (which we know from Isaiah 22:20-23 means that Peter is now a sort of Prime Minister with the full authority of the King) and tells him whatever he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

So Jesus will build a Church. And as Archbishop Sheen pointed out this passage reveals a lot about church governance. Consensus of the Crowd doesn't work, they didn't get it right. The unheaded episcopacy doesn't work, they all stood around waiting for a leader. So what does work a Divinely protected leader over the episcopacy. And because he said it better than I could and it would be a disservice to try and rewrite his words here is the point Joe made in a phenomenal post over at Shameless Popery:

"The comparisons to non-Catholic Christianity should be obvious. Protestantism typically follows (i), and splits into innumerable factions as a result. On even fundamental issues, they can't form a unified response: some say regenerative infant Baptism, others symbolic infant Baptism; still others symbolic adult Baptism. Orthodoxy tends to follow (ii), and like the other Eleven, largely stays quiet in the face of modern controversies. Without a unified head, it's hard to unify and mobilize the Body, so it too often lies dormant. Certain other groups, like Mormonism, fall into category (iii). They have a single head, but because he's not protected by the Holy Spirit, he can't get the answers consistently right.

So Christ has just shown us why Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism won't work. And He's shown us the necessity of a Divinely-protected papacy, in order to keep Christianity (i) unified, (ii) mobilized, and (iii) orthodox. But then He does something even more remarkable: He establishes His own Church."

So Christ has now told the Twelve He will establish a Church. Now we are getting somewhere.

Psalm 127:1 tells us that unless the Lord built the house it is a house built in vain. Jesus just told us He was building a church, so it is precisely because the Lord built the house that it will in fact never see the gates of hell overtake it (Mt. 16:18).

Which all brings us back to our opening question, did Christ build an Earthly church? He says He did, so I take Him at His word. And since no Protestant church claims founding by Christ; Catholicism comes out looking like it might be the clubhouse leader for the church founded by Christ.

Tomorrow I will look at the second part of the question? Does Jesus desire for His flock to be visibly in the church He founded. Also we will debunk some of the popular myths surrounding other founders of the Catholic Church.

Working Man Blues

2011-09-13T14:06:00.000-07:00

You know Merle Haggard sang it best, all those years ago, today I definitely have the Working Man blues. I feel like I struggle and bust my tail, giving my job all I got and I get no satisfaction at the end of the day. I don't get to feel like I've done a good job, because my boss and my coworker just gripe about what I didn't get done.

It's nothing but aggravation to have to be asked why didn't I finish building a display or get all the 12 packs put away, without so much as a hey thanks for taking care of all the stuff you did get done.

I don't mean to sound bitter and perhaps I should just be happy I have a job; for another couple of weeks anyway. But is it too much to ask for a little bit of recognition of the good I did rather than merely focusing on what didn't happen.

Meantime the search continues for further employment when my time with my current employ is finished.

St. Joseph please help me to find work that uses all of my talents to their best and that gives glory to God.

Random Thoughts....

2011-09-07T13:35:00.000-07:00

Why do Protestants accept the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to compile the New Testament Canon, but not the Old Testament. Or have all Protestants read things like the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. and just know they are not inspired.
Why do so many people insist on a purely literal reading of the Bible, yet balk at Jesus' most plain discussion, one not couched in a single parable. John 6: 51-52, 54-55.
If I say my favorite Beatles song is Hey Jude does that make me lame and unoriginal.
If I say my favorite Elvis songs all came from the Memphis sessions does that mean the same.
Sometimes when I read a really good Tom Clancy or Stephen King book I get a warm fuzzy feeling, is that the same as the LDS idea of Burning in the Bosom from reading the Book of Mormon.
When I look at Tommy I sometimes see a slow morphing of all of the stages and faces he has had and it makes me somehow prouder than usual. Just because he has been through so much.
Is it ok to idolize my four year old.
If Tommy is the overcomer in the family, what will that mean for Matty and any other future children.
Why would anyone want caffeine free Mountain Dew...just drink water if you want to do that to the Dew.
I don't get Lady Gaga...she is average in every way....yet somehow she is a superstar right now...what are we thinking America.
Oh wait Scotty, who shouldn't have been final four material somehow won Idol last season...Was it Mencken or Barnum who said no one ever went broke underestimating the American public
How amazing is it that the current Pope tried to retire twice as he had reached the appropriate age but his predecessor kept him on. And now we have one of the preeminent theologians of his day leading the Church. Can you see the Holy Spirit at work in that
If you haven't read Jesus of Nazareth (part 2 especially) or Spirit of the Liturgy by Benedict XVI get on it...Two amazing books by a brilliant mind.
I'm reading the Screwtape Letters now, a wonderful little romp through the imagined correspondence of a demon to his nephew concerning the youngsters newest task. Turning a man away from God, referred to throughout as the Enemy.
Do you realize CS Lewis, Aldous Huxley, and JFK all died on the same day. That must have been a heck of a conversation in Heaven's waiting room huh.
Did any or all of those three get through the door?
How come fruit snacks taste better than fruit.

The Catholic Identity...

2011-08-25T14:21:00.000-07:00

One of the great misfortunes of the Post Vatican II church is the slow loss of our Catholic identity. How many Catholics out there know that even with the relaxation of the rules on eating meat on Friday, you are still supposed to withhold something on Fridays, be it meat or something else.

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

However with the relaxation of Friday abstinence most American Catholics especially do not observe the Friday penance or fast. In the UK beginning next month the Bishops Conference has restored the ancient Tradition. That was enough of a jolt for Archbishop Dolan, the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to blog about it. He issued a think piece questioning the idea of returning to meatless Fridays in the US.

I say, go ahead Your Excellency. And while your at it, how about ending the US inclusion in the Papal Indult allowing Communion in the hand. On a personal note, my goal is for my own family to begin honoring the ages old tradition of meatless Fridays. With the wife's blessing no less (I was worried about her opinion since she isn't Catholic) and since I will be the one cooking on Friday's at least the family meal will be meatless. She can eat meat if she chooses for lunch.

It seems that Catholics are losing their identity at a quickening pace. How much can we do to restore some of those old traditions that set us apart. When was the last time you heard Latin at your local parish, not counting the Kyrie.

Catholics used to be identifiable by marks like this, now it seems like we have given way to comfort or ease. As Archbishop Dolan points out:

"Scholars of religion–all religions, not just Catholic–tell us that an essential of a vibrant, sustained, attractive, meaningful life of faith in a given creed is external markers.

The essence of faith, of course, is the interior, the inside life of the soul. Jesus, for instance, always reminds us that it’s what’s inside that counts.

However, genuine interior religion then gives rise to external traits, especially acts of charity and virtue.

Among these exterior characteristics are these markers that the scholars talk about.

For some religions, it might be dress; others are noted for feastdays, seasons, calendars, music, ritual, customs, special devotions, and binding moral obligations....

What about us Catholics? For God’s sake, I trust we are recognized for our faith, worship, charity, and lives of virtue.

But, what are the external markers that make us stand out?

Lord knows, there used to be tons of them: Friday abstinence from meat was one of them, but we recall so many others: seriousness about Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation; fasting on the Ember Days; saints names for children; confession at least annually; loyal membership in the local parish; fasting for three hours before Holy Communion, just to name a few.

But, almost all of these external markers are now gone."

Indeed they are Your Excellency. Who is in a better position than yourself to help us to reclaim some of those markers. Obviously some of them may never come back. But if we can start somewhere, even slowly, even something small, we might just begin to make inroads. And if we do that, we might just reclaim some of those souls who have fallen away in part because we stopped taking our faith seriously.

As Fr. Z says, brick by brick, friends. Also seen lately on the wonderful clerics homepage stories concerning the decision in Phoenix to restrict service at the altar to males. And a story about the growing number of parishioners in the Diocese of Madison, Wisc. who attend churches which offer the Tridentine Liturgy, the Extraordinary Form, of the Mass.

I have written in this space previously about my desire to attend a Latin Mass. I know of a parish in Couer D'Alene that is affiliated with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They celebrate the older form, someday I will have to journey that way and investigate. I'm quite certain I would feel lost, but the idea of attending Mass celebrated in that centuries old liturgy is exciting.

One of my new tasks for myself is to learn a few of our more cherished prayers in Latin...I found a great website that has the words of the prayers in Latin along with an audio file so you can hear it said. Which I need seeing as I have been deprived of Holy Mother Church's mother tongue all my life.

My goal is to get the Hail Mary, Our Father, Creed and prayer before meals down. It may take me awhile but I want to know at least those few prayers then work on the others.

So my Catholic readers, what if anything do you miss of our Catholic identity?

Musings on the Blessed Virgin

2011-08-18T09:53:00.000-07:00

It seems to me most Catholics I know maintain some devotion to our Blessed Mother. And why wouldn't they, who better to turn to the Mary, the obedient, willing handmaiden of God. She should be and is a model of everything we should strive to be as Catholic Christians.

Her ego never puffed up and got in her way over God's divine plan. She willingly and readily accepted the things that were put on her plate. She told the waitstaff in Cana to do whatever he tells you (John 2:5), but was she really speaking to first century waiters or to 21st century Christians.

See here's the thing, she was almost certainly still alive while the Gospels were taking shape, maybe not when they were finally written down. But surely, Matthew, Mark and Luke all could have talked to her about the life of Jesus. John certainly had access to her as she was his adopted Mother, in a more certain way than she is the adopted mother of us all. Anyway, notice the only times she shows up in the story are important times. I think she was making herself small, willingly undercutting things important to her to showcase things important for everyone.

Much like Peter's smallish role in Mark's Gospel. Many scholars now believe that Mark was Peter's secretary and that the Gospel of Mark is Peter's version of events.

It speaks volumes that there is so little written about the woman who would by giving Christ a human nature become the adopted mother of all Christians. Think hard about the times she is mentioned in the Gospels:

The Annunciation
The Visitation
The Birth of Christ
The Presentation in the Temple
The Finding of Jesus in the Temple
The Wedding at Cana
The Crucifixion

So what eight times. Either she was an absentee mother, which we all know isn't true, or somebody soft-sold her importance to the story. One of the most moving moments in The Passion of the Christ is when Mary sees Jesus fall under the weight of his cross, she flashes back to seeing the child Jesus stumble and skin his knee. What a heartrending moment, every parent knows the pain you feel when your child falls and hurts themselves. Imagine watching your only child being led to his execution, not for his own crimes, and falling under the weight of that burden.

Mary, is the saint I turn to most often. Whenever I am feeling lost I almost immediately hear myself whispering "Hail Mary..." Perhaps because she was the Mother of God, perhaps just because she was a mother period seems to almost encourage a sort of homey, comfortable relationship. I find myself praying to her for guidance when I don't know what I should be really praying for, or how to pray for it if I do.

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh referred to her as the milk and cookies of Catholicism. I like the imagery and the thought at work here.

Who better to turn to then your mother with a big plate of cookies and a glass of milk to help you talk through your problems.

One of my all-time favorite "Catholic" jokes tells how Jesus was walking around Heaven one day and saw a lot of people who didn't belong. So he went to St. Peter and said hey Pete why are all of these people here. Peter tells him he has no idea he didn't let them in. So Jesus continues walking the Kingdom and sees his mother sneaking them in.

With the feast of the Assumption having just passed us by, do you talk to your mother often. She wants to hear from you.

WWE Looks Like It May Return to Edgier Days...

2011-08-03T14:09:00.000-07:00

I don't indulge the wrestling fan in me too much on my blog, but that is going to change...for today at least. The WWE is looking like it might be in the middle of another renaissance. The company's hottest star is an anti-establishment lightning rod, promising to be a "voice for the voiceless." He is antagonizing the power structure and promising to continue to do so.

It's been a few years since the big stars in the WWE, then known as the WWF, were anti-heroes. That era was known as the Attitude Era and featured some edgy story-lines and was much more provocative. And to be honest I didn't even realize I missed those days until Stone Cold Steve Austin and The Rock started showing up at WWE events and being their usual badass selves.

CM Punk and the current story line at the top of the Federation looks and feels a lot like the second coming as it were of the Attitude Era. Fans aren't quite sure how to handle Punk, he draws a fair amount of cheers but he is also getting some boos. Meanwhile his opponent for this feud is a guy who draws his own share of mixed reviews in John Cena, loved by the women and children, nearly universally despised by the men.

I could be wrong but I think the creative team at the WWE sees the right way to take this angle. Cena, the monster face, has to become a heel. He and Punk have to switch roles with Punk becoming the face of this new Attitude Era. This needs to happen for several reasons:

Cena's character is stale. Hustle, Loyalty and Respect are great, but the line is tired and he really needs a new direction. Besides as a heel he would be amazing.
Cena with the title is boring, this is coming from someone who is a Cena fan mind you, we need to see some new blood at the top. Whether it's Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio, Punk, Alex Riley, R-Truth, or John Morrison, Cena needs to drop the strap and go other directions with his character.
Fans of a certain age, read my generation, remember the Attitude Era and want to see a return to those adult themes, not as outlandish perhaps as they got at the end, but let's return to some more grown up content. If for no other reason than so we never see a wrestler cut a promo saying "baloney, fudge and mustard."
Having the Rock waiting in the wings for Wrestlemania next year just makes those of us who are old enough want to see a return to the things that made his era stand out.

All that said I think Punk is the perfect guy to hold the title for now. His constant criticism of the powers that be in the WWE is entertaining and does in fact give a voice to those of us who watch the neutered WWE and wonder when or if it will ever throw itself wholeheartedly back into the things that helped push the wrestling boom of the 1990's and early 2000's.

Maybe the WWE can't get all the way back to that because they have no real competition any more. During that last boom period we had the Monday Night Wars, we had the WCW as a real counterweight to WWE. For a couple of years anyway, until their poor booking and management led to their downfall.

But this storyline has had a little of everything, from palace intrigue (Mr. McMahon being replaced by his son-in-law (Triple H) after a vote of no-confidence), threats of termination, attempts at stealing a victory, worked shoots. What's not to like. Although I am not sure how much I like Triple H being in charge, watching Monday's Raw he no sold Punk's promo, it makes me wonder if WWE has the stones to do it the right way. Vince would have at least reacted to Punk's word's, Hunter's ego may just be the thing that kills this storyline. I almost wish that Linda McMahon had been the one put in charge. I think it could have been better that way, all these big, musclebound jerks at the direction of a woman.

I think they could have put Mrs. McMahon in charge and had Hunter upset it wasn't him and then had him and Cena team up turn heel and steal things from Punk and Linda.

Either way here's hoping that the creative team at WWE doesn't fail us this time. I imagine Cena who has been a huge face for a long time doesn't necessarily want the heel turn. But they need to convince the fan in him that it's the right thing to do for the company.

Think about that for a minute Cena, the company man heel, it could be awesome if done right. Especially if they push the whole Punk thing toward a labor/management angle. Punk could be like leading the workers against the management (i.e. Cena, HHH, Mr. McMahon, Laurinitis).

All I know is I can't wait to see how this thing ultimately pays off. I hope it pays off in a way that moves the story forward and perhaps returns WWE to having a little edge to their product.

Web Links - July 28th

2011-07-28T15:58:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone let's take a look at what's out there to be found on the web.

Perhaps the best blog title in a while, this is a fairly new blog on the writings of Pope Benedict. Written by a priest in Canada. Check this one out. Fr. Denis gets bonus points for that title, Life with a German Shepherd.
A great take from Joe at Shameless Popery about Mary as a model of obedience.
Kevin Eck's take on the best current wrestling entrance songs. My fave is Randy Orton's...but all-time gotta say Sexy Boy by Shawn Michaels rocks the house. And since Eck was responding as it were to this post from Simmons here is that as well. As an aside I miss the days when someone's music would hit and the announcers would tell us (cue Jim Ross impression Good Lord that's (Wrestler X's music)).
Here's With Leather's recap of a stunning Raw from this past Monday.
Erick Erickson's look at the 2012 Republican field, and the horse race that is under way.
A Spanish Cardinal tickles one of my buttons, recommends entire church receive communion, kneeling and on the tongue... Would that Holy Father would end the indult allowing Our Lord to be received standing...

That's it for now... I hope to have a new post up soon....