"Left Behind"

Originally posted on Facebook, Dec. 11, 2014

Watched "Left Behind" last night. Of course this movie is chock-full of terrible theology. But one thing always gets me and it's in virtually every movie or book about the end times using the typical pre-trib, pre-millenial position (pretty much only believed by American fundamentalists and evangelicals).

Every christian in the movie is always well-versed in what will constitute the "end times" and will use the passage from Matt 24 as their basis that we are in them. As evidences they say that the end times will be accompanied by wars and rumors of wars. But what does it really say?:

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Did y'all catch it? Jesus said that these will happen and continue to happen before he comes back. In other words, not only are these NOT signs that "the end is near", He is saying "when these things happen, take a chill pill. It doesn't mean I'm coming back yet. I'll come back when I come back and not a minute before."

"These Thy Gifts"

At Mass yesterday, the Gospel reading was from Luke 11:1-13. Included is a shortened version of the Lord’s Prayer. Father Mike had a lot to say about it. But what really struck home was how he asked us when is the last time that we asked God how we should pray. Often we presume to know the mind of God and what we pray about and for, and it affects how we pray.

It called to mind something that happened earlier this week. I was getting ready to pray, telling the Lord how thankful I am for bringing my family back home from Texas to live nearby. It wasn't during a meal. But it was a silent prayer and out of habit I accidentally started to pray what's commonly called the "prayer before meals".

Bless us, Oh Lord,
and these thy gifts,
which we are about to receive,
from thy bounty,
through Christ, Our Lord.
Amen.

I stopped myself about midway through and changed it. I then apologized to God that I prayed so flippantly that I just started to recite it by rote. But then before I was done with that prayer I stopped and thought about this prayer before meals again. It was as if the Lord said "finish it anyway."

It never really hit me before--the genius behind this prayer, and why it has lasted for so long. It first appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary dating from the late 8th century, but is probably at least 300 years older than that.

Notice what it doesn't say. It says nothing about meals at all. This is not just a prayer to be thankful for your food. It's to be thankful for all the gifts God has given us.

"These thy gifts." Just what all can be considered "thy gifts"? The food we eat, the money we earn, the work we do, the church we go, to the friends we have, the lifestyle we live, our family, our friends, our possessions, our opportunities for service.

So many other things that we could say are all summed up in this little one sentence prayer..

And notice that this prayer has been associated with food, but in the Lord's Prayer, Jesus says 'give us this day our daily bread.' Obviously he wasn't talking about just flour and water. He was talking about daily sustenance.

But what else does that include? In John 4:34 "'My food,' said Jesus, 'is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.'" Our Christian duty is our "food" also. To reflect Christ in all we say and do.

Trinity Sunday and Christian Unity

Today is Trinity Sunday. The Trinity is probably the most difficult of all of the doctrines in the Bible. Many have tried to explain it over the years, but every explanation fails to grasp its fullness.

The most famous example of an explanation is the one that St. Patrick used. He used the illustration of a shamrock--three leaves, yet one plant as a teaching aid. It is fraught with problems as illustrated in this little satirical piece https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw. It also explores other explanations like water, steam, and ice and are all separate and yet all water; and a man who is a son, husband, and father all at once; and the problems with those arguments.

The best explanation I have heard is from the Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin. He explains that all objects are "beings" because they all exist, therefore they "be" (are). But a human being can be considered a being that consists of one person existential of that being (we have a body and a soul or spirit). A rock is a being that consists of zero persons, and God is a being that consists of three persons. Still a difficult concept, but this makes it easier for me at least to relate.

But why is belief in the Trinity so important in Christian, and especially Catholic theology? Outside of Christianity, there is no belief in the Trinity, including in Judaism. Christians find Scriptural basis for the Trinity in the Old Testament, but that is apparent only in retrospect.

Many denominations require belief in the Trinity as required for salvation. But if a person hears of Jesus and believes and is baptized, but has never even heard of the Trinity, can that person be saved? That's especially problematic for denominations that basically tell you to just say the "Sinner's Prayer" and you are saved forever, but still claim the Trinity as an "essential" Biblical truth, necessary for salvation. But in Catholicism what makes belief in the Trinity a requirement for the fullness of the faith is that the Church as an authority instituted by Christ as his earthly agent, has defined it so.

An understanding of the Trinity interweaves so well with other doctrines, it makes those doctrines so much more relevant when we can see that they are all similar expressions of Unity. Throughout the New Testament, and the gospel of John especially, Unity is a primary theme of Jesus. He wants his followers to be united together, and be united with him in common purpose, worship, and service.

All of the Sacraments are expressions of Unity of different degrees. I won't go into detailed exposition of the sacraments, but it is difficult for me to understand how anyone can fully appreciate the Trinity if they are in a non-Sacramental denominations.

1. Baptism: God claims ownership of the person in the form of a familial covenant
2. Confirmation: The Holy Spirit indwells the Christian
3. Penance: In which the Christian expresses repentance, a desire to re-enter communion with God, and a desire to make reparations for his wrongdoing.
4. Anointing of the Sick: Very similar to Penance except that it is often done in emergencies (end of life) or when facing a chronic serious illness
5. Holy Orders: When the authority of the apostles is handed down to succeeding generations of priests to administer the sacraments and aid Christians in attaining Unity with Christ.

I left out two. That is because I want to detail them further.

Matrimony. Notice I did not say marriage. And I will not be drawn into the debate as to whether or not marriage is or is not appropriate for same-sex couples. That is not my purpose here. If anyone makes any comments attached to this post on either side of that debate, I will delete them. But I will use traditional terms so that I maintain consistency.

Men and women have been getting married since Adam and Eve. So why do Christians regard it as a sacrament, instituted by Jesus? Because Jesus took marriage, which already existed and elevated it. When a husband and wife make their vows to each other they become one flesh. The priest only witnesses the marriage, he does not bestow the status of husband and wife upon them. And contrary to common belief, the marital act which follows is not what makes them married, it fully completes it.

But the image of one man and one woman coming together as one flesh in Unity together for mutual benefit and the raising, nurturing, and instruction of children is one of the closest relationships that people can have that nearly mirrors the relationship of the members of the Holy Trinity to one another. The husband and wife are individuals, yet are so nearly unified together that they are considered one. Our marital relationship cannot ever be exactly like the Trinity as we, not being God, can never be exactly God-like. But it's about as close as you can get. 

Next up is the Eucharist, or the Sacrament of Communion. It has much in common with Matrimony. This is the major difference between Catholics and Orthodox, who believe that the bread and the wine at communion actually BECOME the body and blood of the Lord; with the Lutherans who believe that the bread and wine CONTAIN the presence of the Lord; and most other denominations who believe that the bead and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood of the Lord.

If the Eucharist is a symbol-only it is stripped of its significance. Jesus becomes the bread and the wine in the same way that God became flesh. He came as a man, so can He come as bread. As I stated before, we humans are a unity of our fleshly being and our spiritual person. After our body dies, or spirit--our very selves are still alive and will later be reunified with our bodies at the resurrection.

As such, we are also an illustration of the Trinity. We are body and soul united as God is God, three persons, united as one. And it doesn't stop there. As Matrimony and the subsequent marital act unify a man and a woman in Christ, so Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist unify the Christian with each other and with Christ. In matrimony, a woman receives her husband into her body and the two are one. In the same way, in the Eucharist we receive Christ into our body, and we become one. This is exactly why the the Church is the BRIDE of Christ. If one believes that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, then Unity with Christ become a mere symbol also and even matrimony loses some of its luster, and Unity with other believers becomes merely a friendship-like relationship, when it is supposed to be so much more than that. (Incidentally, this is also why Catholics do not substitute grape juice for wine. Jesus used wine and came as wine. He did not come as grape juice. He could have used grape juice and chose not to do it. He chose wine, and so should we.)

One can see even in nature, that unity is a primary theme. In the way that many animals come together as men and women do. The way that small children put everything into their mouths to learn more about it. The way that people like to give hugs or shake hands, or pat one another on the back. Even, the attraction of gravity. The way that many scientists believe that one day gravity will pull all things together into a singularity that will cause another big bang. Who is to say that at the end of all things, this may be how it will happen? All things that exist coalescing into one.

Trinity Sunday and Christian Unity

Today is Trinity Sunday. The Trinity is probably the most difficult of all of the doctrines in the Bible. Many have tried to explain it over the years, but every explanation fails to grasp its fullness.

The most famous example of an explanation is the one that St. Patrick used. He used the illustration of a shamrock--three leaves, yet one plant as a teaching aid. It is fraught with problems as illustrated in this little satirical piece https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw. It also explores other explanations like water, steam, and ice and are all separate and yet all water; and a man who is a son, husband, and father all at once; and the problems with those arguments.

The best explanation I have heard is from the Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin. He explains that all objects are "beings" because they all exist, therefore they "be" (are). But a human being can be considered a being that consists of one person existential of that being (we have a body and a soul or spirit). A rock is a being that consists of zero persons, and God is a being that consists of three persons. Still a difficult concept, but this makes it easier for me at least to relate.

But why is belief in the Trinity so important in Christian, and especially Catholic theology? Outside of Christianity, there is no belief in the Trinity, including in Judaism. Christians find Scriptural basis for the Trinity in the Old Testament, but that is apparent only in retrospect.

Many denominations require belief in the Trinity as required for salvation. But if a person hears of Jesus and believes and is baptized, but has never even heard of the Trinity, can that person be saved? That's especially problematic for denominations that basically tell you to just say the "Sinner's Prayer" and you are saved forever, but still claim the Trinity as an "essential" Biblical truth, necessary for salvation. But in Catholicism what makes belief in the Trinity a requirement for the fullness of the faith is that the Church as an authority instituted by Christ as his earthly agent, has defined it so.

An understanding of the Trinity interweaves so well with other doctrines, it makes those doctrines so much more relevant when we can see that they are all similar expressions of Unity. Throughout the New Testament, and the gospel of John especially, Unity is a primary theme of Jesus. He wants his followers to be united together, and be united with him in common purpose, worship, and service.

All of the Sacraments are expressions of Unity of different degrees. I won't go into detailed exposition of the sacraments, but it is difficult for me to understand how anyone can fully appreciate the Trinity if they are in a non-Sacramental denominations.

1. Baptism: God claims ownership of the person in the form of a familial covenant
2. Confirmation: The Holy Spirit indwells the Christian
3. Penance: In which the Christian expresses repentance, a desire to re-enter communion with God, and a desire to make reparations for his wrongdoing.
4. Anointing of the Sick: Very similar to Penance except that it is often done in emergencies (end of life) or when facing a chronic serious illness
5. Holy Orders: When the authority of the apostles is handed down to succeeding generations of priests to administer the sacraments and aid Christians in attaining Unity with Christ.

I left out two. That is because I want to detail them further.

Matrimony. Notice I did not say marriage. And I will not be drawn into the debate as to whether or not marriage is or is not appropriate for same-sex couples. That is not my purpose here. If anyone makes any comments attached to this post on either side of that debate, I will delete them. But I will use traditional terms so that I maintain consistency.

Men and women have been getting married since Adam and Eve. So why do Christians regard it as a sacrament, instituted by Jesus? Because Jesus took marriage, which already existed and elevated it. When a husband and wife make their vows to each other they become one flesh. The priest only witnesses the marriage, he does not bestow the status of husband and wife upon them. And contrary to common belief, the marital act which follows is not what makes them married, it fully completes it.

But the image of one man and one woman coming together as one flesh in Unity together for mutual benefit and the raising, nurturing, and instruction of children is one of the closest relationships that people can have that nearly mirrors the relationship of the members of the Holy Trinity to one another. The husband and wife are individuals, yet are so nearly unified together that they are considered one. Our marital relationship cannot ever be exactly like the Trinity as we, not being God, can never be exactly God-like. But it's about as close as you can get. 

Next up is the Eucharist, or the Sacrament of Communion. It has much in common with Matrimony. This is the major difference between Catholics and Orthodox, who believe that the bread and the wine at communion actually BECOME the body and blood of the Lord; with the Lutherans who believe that the bread and wine CONTAIN the presence of the Lord; and most other denominations who believe that the bead and wine are merely symbols of the body and blood of the Lord.

If the Eucharist is a symbol-only it is stripped of its significance. Jesus becomes the bread and the wine in the same way that God became flesh. He came as a man, so can He come as bread. As I stated before, we humans are a unity of our fleshly being and our spiritual person. After our body dies, or spirit--our very selves are still alive and will later be reunified with our bodies at the resurrection.

As such, we are also an illustration of the Trinity. We are body and soul united as God is God, three persons, united as one. And it doesn't stop there. As Matrimony and the subsequent marital act unify a man and a woman in Christ, so Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist unify the Christian with each other and with Christ. In matrimony, a woman receives her husband into her body and the two are one. In the same way, in the Eucharist we receive Christ into our body, and we become one. This is exactly why the the Church is the BRIDE of Christ. If one believes that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, then Unity with Christ become a mere symbol also and even matrimony loses some of its luster, and Unity with other believers becomes merely a friendship-like relationship, when it is supposed to be so much more than that. (Incidentally, this is also why Catholics do not substitute grape juice for wine. Jesus used wine and came as wine. He did not come as grape juice. He could have used grape juice and chose not to do it. He chose wine, and so should we.)

One can see even in nature, that unity is a primary theme. In the way that many animals come together as men and women do. The way that small children put everything into their mouths to learn more about it. The way that people like to give hugs or shake hands, or pat one another on the back. Even, the attraction of gravity. The way that many scientists believe that one day gravity will pull all things together into a singularity that will cause another big bang. Who is to say that at the end of all things, this may be how it will happen? All things that exist coalescing into one.

Why do Catholics call Mary, the Mother of God instead of the Mother of Jesus?

Why do Catholics call Mary the Mother of God? She is the mother of Jesus. Doesn't the title "Mother of God" put her above God? Why did it take until about the year 300 A.D. for the Church to begin using this name for her?

The title "Mother of God" is the term that the Church now uses. Originally they used the Greek term Θεοτόκος (Theotokos), or "God-bearer"--essentially the same thing. Many Eastern Catholics and virtually all Orthodox still use this term for her, and it is not all improper for any Chirstian to call her by this Greek title.

But why do we use this title when it does not appear in Scripture at all? The reason is for the same reason that many Catholic dogmas were finalized at later dates. They often reflect a belief that has been held for a very long time, even from the beginning, and has only been codified because of later controversy. It is very similar to the way that many Christians will use a Biblical principle to shed light on, and even base their behavior on an interpretaion of Scripture that does not necessarily speak on the subject exactly.

Examples might include:

1. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that abortion is wrong. But it does say that murder is wrong. So if a baby is human from the moment of conception, then abortion is wrong.
2. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that drinking alcohol is always wrong. It often warns of the overuse of alcohol. It often will show examples of what can happen when you abuse alcohol. Yet many Christians, especially since the Temperance movement in America in the late 1880s, say that every single instance of humans drinking alcohol is always evil. Even to the point of saying that Jesus did not turn water into wine, but that he turned it into grape juice, and used grape juice, not wine at the Last Supper.
3. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention illicit drug use at all. Yet we often will use the same principles governing alcohol use and abuse as a basis on our opinions on drug use.

The title of Mother of God developed in much the same way. The New Testament warns of the beginning of the Gnosticism movement. The Gnostics were people who called themselved Christians (some may have been) who believed that the Scripture was so deep that it took special insight to be able to interpret its true meaning.

One NT example is "First Timothy 6:20 includes a warning from Paul to Timothy -- an early church leader and lieutenant of Paul's -- to avoid senseless chatter and the "opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge ("gnosis" in the original Greek)." Many scholars believe this was a refutation of Gnostics, who were among the first sects considered heretical. Irenaeus, an influential second-century Christian bishop from Gaul, relied heavily on 1 Timothy 6:20 in his 'Refutation of Gnosticism.'" http://people.opposingviews.com/reference-gnostics-bible-5168.html

One of these early Gnostic teachings was that Jesus was not divine, but fully human, and only human. Another was that he was fully God and only appeared to be human. To answer these heresies the Council of Nicea developed the doctrine of the homosious, that Jesus, fully human had two natures--fully human and fully God. The two natures are perfectly united and one.

This is the reason that we use this title for her. As Mother, she provided the human DNA (at least half of the chromosomes--only God knows how he supplies the other half that would normally come from the father). So he is 100% Man. As God himself provided everything else that was necessary, Jesus is 100% God.

Every time we say "Mother of God" We are affirming our Catholic faith teaching, and that of almost all Christians, that Jesus is fully God and fully Man at the same time. In this sense, "Mother of God" does not speak of God's origin. Mary did not create God in her womb. God begat the Son, as stated in John 3:16.

But Mary is not only the Mother of Jesus, and the Mother of God, she is the Mother of the entire Church. See Galatians 4:4-7 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE):

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
 Born of a woman—not of a man—in fulfillment of Gen 3:15: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”

5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.
 Those that were under the law” This is a specific reference to Judaism, but because Natural Law applies to all people and peoples, it applies to all. This is not to denigrate people, or to erroneously call them “totally depraved” but that they are loved and God desires to save them through Christ.

6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
 If Jesus is the Son of God, and we have becomes sons of God, then he is our brother, and Mary is also our Mother, the Mother of the Church, exactly as presented in Rev. 12:17 “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.”

7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.
Reiterating that we are children of God, as is Jesus, so Mary is our Mother

Another passage which proves this is Rev. 12:17 "Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus."

Thoughts on Lazarus, Martha, and Mary

My take on yesterday’s homily at church

The Gospel reading at Mass yesterday was on John 11:1-45, the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

Father Mike’s main sermon point was in the way that the crowd, and especially Mary and Martha were reacting. They did not know that Jesus came to raise Lazarus. They just knew that their brother, who was also Jesus close friend, had died. They gave Jesus enough notice to come heal him before he died and they may have felt a little betrayed by him that he did not come right away.

They clearly had faith in Jesus as the son of God, and in the resurrection of the dead at the last day. They believed, but did they trust him? By this time he had already raised two people from the dead. Mary was one of the few who understood that when Jesus was speaking of his impending death, that he actually meant it. We know this as here we see that she is the one who anointed his feet with expensive perfume in preparation for his burial back in John 12:3. Thomas shows that he did not fully trust in his statement showing he was convinced that they were all going to their deaths.

How about you? Do you who believe also trust?

Do you trust God with your financial condition? Yes?

Do you contracept because you can’t afford kids?

Do you give money to your church and to the poor?

Are you swayed by the prosperity preachers of today?

Do you decry the Church for the “riches” she has at the Vatican that could be sold and

the money given to the poor?

Do you trust God that he will lead the Church even when certain doctrines and dogmas are counter-cultural or against your sensibilities?

Other thoughts about the passage:

I’ve always wondered just how did Jesus know Lazarus, Martha, and Mary?. Bethany, the town where they lived was only a short distance from Nazareth. Were they relatives? Did they know each other from an early form of Hebrew school? Did they meet during trips to the Jerusalem temple? They may have been well off financially as Mary previously was able to obtain expensive perfume. Whether she bought it because she could afford it, she saved up for years for it, or inherited it, we don’t know.

Thomas is often given a bad rap. Chiefly because he didn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead until he could actually see him. Also here because of his “mopey” statement. But look at what he said here. Yes, there is a modicum of disbelief here. But he said he was willing to die with Jesus and the rest and went to Jerusalem anyway knowing this. He reiterates it again in the upper room with all of the other apostles. Then later when he sees Jesus, he gives one of the best Biblical testaments to the Deity of Christ you will find. Not bad for a “doubter”.

Anthromorphizing animals

So tempting when someone says something like "my dog, (or cat, bird, fish, ferret, etc) was not just a dog. He was my baby", to say "Umm, yes, it was."

St. Cinderella

I was reading in Faith Magazine about the life of St. Germaine Cousin. While reading it, I could not help but think of the story of Cinderella.

Variations of the classical Cinderella story have been around for centuries in many different cultures around the world. But the modern one that most of us know, (before Disney got hold of it and ruined it, like most of their fairy tales) was penned in 1697 by Charles Perrault. Other stories that he wrote that most would know are "The Sleeping Beauty", "Little Red Riding Hood", and "The Master Cat, or Puss in Boots".

As mentioned, Perrault published the story in 1697, 96 years after the death of St. Germaine, also French. One can't help but wonder if Perrault modified any of the details in the variations of the story to make it more or less fit St. Germaine. Perrault was a committed Catholic who wrote Catholic themes into his stories. He did not just write down folk tales as told by the common folk as did the Brothers Grimm some years later. He did embellish them, and many were embellished further in the retelling in the French court.

Here are some parallels:

• Germaine's father died when she was a child
• She was poor and raised by a cruel, abusive step-mother
• Her step-brothers were clearly the favorites in the family
• She would pray the Rosary for God to be kind to her step-mother instead of wanting vengeance
• She was fed only scraps but gladly shared them with beggars

No one is completely sure of how much of the story is Perrault's own fancy. A lot likely is. Look at the story and the life of St. Germaine and it is easy to come up with further extrapolations.

1. Cinderella's unnamed, unseen Father is in Heaven, as is our Heavenly Father.

2. The Fairy Godmother is the Virgin Mary or possibly the Holy Spirit.

3. The glass slipper is a symbol of the transition of Cinderella's former life of servitude to her new life as the bride of the Great Prince. In the original stories, Cinderella always had a golden or silver slipper. Perrault was going to change it to squirrel fur (hot fashion at the time), but by the time he was ready to finalize the story, squirrel fur was out of fashion, so he changed it to glass, knowing that no one would ever make a pair of shoes made out of glass. This gave it a timeless quality, which transcends fashion.

4. The symbol of transformation, or conversion, has always been the golden chalice that contains the Precious Blood which cleanses and saves. (The chalice is the symbol--not the Blood, which is actual).

5. The prince searched high and low for his bride, paralleled by the Parables of the Ten Virgins and the Good Shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep to look for the one lost lamb.

6. Cinderella marries the Great Prince and is showered with blessings, as the Church is married to Christ and receives an abundance of blessings.

7. The prince takes her to his Kingdom to live with him, happily ever-after.

But I'm pretty sure there is no St. Gus-gus.

Here is the article from Faith magazine so you can read for yourself:

St. Germaine Cousin

Feast Day: June 15

St. Germaine Cousin (1579-1601) is the
patron for victims of child abuse and with good
reason. Weak and ill from birth with a deformed
and paralyzed hand, St. Germaine lost her mother
early. She found herself with a cruel and abusive
stepmother.
St. Germaine suffered from malnutrition
and from burns from her stepmother pouring
boiling water on her legs. Predictably, as her
health began to fail, she contracted a form of
tuberculosis that exacerbated her frailty and
increased her susceptibility to illness and disease.
The abuse culminated with St. Germaine’s
banishment to the barn out of fear that she would
pass her sickness to her stepbrothers.
Despite this abuse, however, St. Germaine
remained steadfast in her dependence on God.
With only a basic knowledge of the faith learned
from the catechism, she made a rosary of knots
and prayed simply: “Dear God, please don’t
let me be too hungry or too thirsty. Help me to
please my mother. And help me to please you.”
As she grew in holiness and trust in God, she also
grew in mercifulness. She was known for sharing
her scraps of food with beggars and offering them
shelter in the barn in times of harsh weather and
she grew in the spirit of forgiveness toward the
woman who caused her such pain and suffering:
her stepmother.
Throughout a life of hardship and abuse, St.
Germaine’s devotion to Jesus in the Blessed
Sacrament was unshaken by what assailed her
in life. It was because of her walking humbly with
God that she was able to love mercy and act
justly especially with the one person she had most reason to not love.

If Protestantism Were True

I just started reading “If Protestantism Were True” by Devon Rose. I am still in the first chapter and so far, this former atheist's conversion to Christianity, and then from Evangelical Southern Baptist to Catholic sounds just like almost every Protestant to Catholic conversion story I’ve ever read. Including my own. I was going to type up a big excerpt, but instead, I’m going for bullet points.

Here is why Evangelicals when looking at Catholicism honestly and openly, finally see the truth and convert:

• They love Jesus with all their heart and wish to be as close to him as they possibly can, so that means finding a "denomination" that best serves that purpose.
• They look at the various denominations and and realize that:
• if the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that it, and it alone is the source and arbiter of faith (sola scriptura), then how can every denomination say they they are following the Holy Spirit’s leading and yet have varying beliefs?
• Is not this disunity diametrically opposed to the unity that Jesus called for in John 17?
• If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and would not lead people into error, then it must mean that some Christians who THINK they are listening accurately to the Spirit’s promptings are in reality, not.
• They look at their current church/denomination and wonder if it truly is the right one, to the exclusion of all others. Why or why not?
• Evangelicals believe in “sola scriptura,” which means that they confidently must know which books of all ancient texts comprise the Bible.
• Catholics and Orthodox believe their have more books in the Bible than Protestants do.
• Historically, who decided which books were to be included in the Bible?
• Either, the Holy Spirit tried to guide Christians to know which books belong in the Bible, but we still got some of the books wrong.
• Or, The Holy Spirit succeeded in showing us the canon of Scripture and the Bible is comprised the exact books that he wanted included.
• Tried to find Biblical support for belief in sola scriptura:
• Checked all Bible verses in the church’s Statement of Faith on sola scriptura (Biblical Authority), and found that none of them teach or even shed any light on the subject.
• If the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, do we believe it merely because we have been told to believe it by our faith Tradition?
• Protestants, as a whole, do not claim that their Church holds the fullness of Truth. They don’t have an overseeing hierarchy that can make those decisions, and only some have any kind of hierarchy at all. Many wear this as a badge of honor. Many are only interested in Unity with others of “like” faith, which causes them to separate themselves from other denominations.
• Catholics and Orthodox do claim that they have the fullness of Truth.
• The pre-Reformation canon of Scripture DID contain all of the books that the Catholics and Orthodox claim that they did. Martin Luther removed the seven books based on an erroneous study of history (so-called “council” of Jamnia), and personal opinion, throwing out books that contained doctrine that he just did not like.
• This means that Catholicism or Orthodoxy:
• Has the full canon of Scripture
• Has the authority to claim it as such
• Has the fullness of Truth
• Has a desire for Unity rather than “Separation.” 1 Cor.  1:10 “I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and judgement of Christ.
• Protestants and Orthodox removed themselves from the Church in violation of 1 Cor 1, and Matthew 18.
• Catholics and Orthodox are still working toward reunification which is what Christ commanded for his people in John 17.
• What was the early church like? REALLY like, not just what my faith Tradition tells me?
• Investigate the Church Fathers. ALL of their teachings, not just cherry-picked by a Protestant Bible scholar.
•  The early Church clearly believed in:
• The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church
• Church hierarchy with apostles, then bishops with a succession of apostolic authority
• Believe that the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of the Lord
• That faith and works must be used in conjunction with one another in order to achieve salvation.
• Baptism is necessary for salvation.
• Purgatory is real, although that name was not attached to it for quite some time.
• Before the Scriptures were compiled and completed (approx 200 years), Traditon and aural apostolic teaching is what led the church.

My Favorite Authors

I am becoming increasingly convinced that besides the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the works of these men are the most beneficial ever written. This is from a standpoint of revelatory knowledge, not necessarily devotional or reflective. For those I would add Sts. Francis of Assisi, Teresa of Ávila, and Thérèse of Lisieux.

St. Augustine of Hippo

St. Thomas Aquinas

St. Louis de Monfort

Blessed John Henry Newman

G. K. Chesterton

C. S. Lewis

Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

Pope Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger (Future Doctor of the Church, I hope)

I am sure there are more, but I only have less than half a lifetime left. Just Chesterton alone would take the rest of my life to read, reread, and fully appreciate his work.

C. S. Lewis is the only non-Catholic in this list. Lewis was very Catholic-like, and it has been said that if he could have gotten past his mental block regarding the primacy of the Pope, he very likely would have become Catholic. But then, if he had become Catholic, he would likely not be as popular with Protestants as he is. A Protestant may not realize it, but when he is reading Lewis, he is actually reading Catholic theology.

The Annunciation of Our Lord

“Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.”...“Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.”

Mary could not have known that her willingness to fulfill God's plan for her would reach so far. She, in her words, was a “lowly handmaiden” whom all generations would call “blessed”. In this, she became the mother of the Church, the Mother of us all. Rev. 12:17 makes it clear that she is our mother.

If she is our Mother, then we should give her the respect that she is due or we break the fifth commandment. Eph. 6:1-2 also makes it clear that this commandment refers not only to our biological father and mother, but to our spiritual ones as well.

Jesus could have come to us in different ways. He can do as he wishes. But he chose to work through Mary, and her cooperation in God's grace to mankind was the beginning of our salvation. Everything before this point is preparatory. Once Mary said “yes” Satan was defeated.

No Native-born American male Saints?

At the men’s group at church we have been going over the “Catholicism” series by Fr. Robert Barron. Last night’s episode was about the Saints. I was surprised that of the four saints that were covered in the video, all were women. I don’t have a problem with that. I was just surprised that he didn’t cover any male Saints.

I made a comment that I had heard on the Catholic Answers that as of now, there have been no native-born American male Saints. It was a surprise to pretty much everyone I knew, so I thought I’d look into it further to see if that statement was correct.

And it was. There are two who are being considered for Sainthood, and I have no doubts that it will happen one day. These two are Father Michael McGivney, the founder of the Knights of Columbus; and Bishop Fulton Sheen, the very first ever televangelist who used to give Milton Berle a run for his money when it came to ratings on the 1950s.

But I looked further and noticed that really very few women Saints are also native born. There are only three who were born in the boundaries of what is NOW the U. S. St. Katharine Drexel is the only Saint, female or male to have been born in the U. S. after the birth of the nation in 1776. The other two were both born in what is now New York. St. Kateri Takawitha, canonized only this past year, was born in the 1680; and St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, who was born only less than two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

But it shouldn’t be too surprising. The Church has a 2,000+ year history, and the U. S. has only been around for 237 years. Also the standards for becoming a Saint are much more stringent than in times past. At one time, people became canonized by popular support. Later, the Church decided to formalize proceedings so that all people could know beyond reasonable doubt, that the person in question is actually in heaven. The best way to do that is by seeing evidence of their intercession, usually in the form of bona-fide miracles--which is why the Church investigates "miracles"so thoroughly.

I was reading about today’s Saint, Salvator of Horta at Americancatholic.org. The commentator make an important point. In it he says that in times past, some of the miracles that were wrought, would probably not be considered miracles per-se today. Some of the miracles performed by this Saint, could no doubt be attributed to psychological healings by helping people re-prioritize their lives, reducing stress, leading to better health and a better sense of well-being.

That in no way belittles the miracles. For the Creator of the Universe(s), healing cancer is a no-brainer. What is hard even for God, is changing a person’s life when He is up against human free-will, stubbornness, and hard hearts.

Keep in mind that becoming a Saint (with a capital “S”) is not a title we give them that would bestow anything new on them that they don’t already have. If Bishop Sheen is canonized, it does not mean that he is NOW being welcomed into heaven. It is us recognizing that he is already there and interceding on our behalf. And becoming a Saint also does not mean that NOW this person is worthy of our attention, veneration, and to be emulated by us. We can certainly do that before the person is declared to be such.