The Maccabean

Being Hated

2012-02-02T13:39:00.000-06:00

My wife and oldest daughter were out grocery shopping recently, and they had a surprising experience. I need first to describe both of them so that there is some context. They both have long hair and usually wear "conservative" skirts. Both wear a light amount of makeup. They do not wear Amish hair bonnets, nor was the pattern of their clothes single-tone solid colors.

With that said, here is what happened. They were putting the groceries in the back of our minivan, and a car drove by behind them. The passenger side window rolled down about an inch and a girl yelled out "the pilgrim days are over!" Besides the historical non-sequitur (you cannot expect much from government sponsored education these days), we can grasp her point. Whether pressured by the driver, or done by her own choice, she was expressing a deep distaste that someone in the world refused to dress like a fashion model.

It hurt my daughter, not because she was embarrassed by her purity, but rather because someone would be so hateful as to want to cause sadness in a young woman who chose not to obey the gods of Hollywood. This pitiful woman did not know anything at all about our lives or our beliefs (and if she "judged a book by its cover" she was quite far off the mark). She had no knowledge of who we are as people, and so I suspect that her bellowing stemmed from an insecure sense of self. She was likely threatened by the simple and traditional look of purity and had to lash out at it in order to make herself feel better.

Face it, the world hates us, and is always looking for another opportunity to tell us so. The fact that my wife and daughter refused to wear skin-tight jeans, expose their midriff to every passerby, and paint their faces like it was a layer of Glidden Spread Satin, is certainly a just cause in the minds of those who are deceived by the modern abandonment of Christian ethics. What is even more remarkable is that there are loads of Plymouth Brethren (in case you do not know the look: think "Amish-lite") in the area where we live and my ladies look nothing like them. In fact the Amish types would consider us worldly (I listen to rock music!).

The world is threatened by truth, beauty and goodness. It hates these things and seeks to destroy them, but when it cannot do so easily, it seeks to ridicule. Ridiculing something can weaken the faith of those who are already weak, but it never actually destroys the thing itself. The primary accomplishment for the one doing the ridiculing is that it makes him feel better about himself. It is nothing more than an excuse to reject something that is only convincing to those who already wish to reject it. As the world seeks after lies, ugliness, and sin, this becomes more and more the response given to us. Mockery, ridicule, and insults. It deepens them in their sin, but it is a gift to us. For those persecuted for righteousness sake are blessed by God.

As we become more and more a contrast to the world, we should expect, more and more, this type of hatred and persecution. This means that we need to prepare ourselves to be challenged. We need to strengthen our faith, and stand that much more firm against sin, the world, and the devil. If, on the other hand, we look and behave so like the world that they think we are one of them, then we are the ones in danger; in danger of denying our Lord when the trial comes upon us. Time for faithfulness; time for diligence; time to stand true to our Lord and Savior.

I Am a Catholic

2012-01-23T23:16:00.004-06:00

It is taking some time for it to sink in, and I am not sure that it fully has yet. I am Catholic. I can say that in heart, mind, and body. I was received into the Catholic Church yesterday and I have to say it is a bit surreal. Not in a bad way at all--it is thoroughly wonderful--but it is difficult to describe the exact feeling. I have not been wearing my clericals for a few days now and that feels quite strange. My wife stared at me before we went to Mass yesterday and said "I'm so used to you in your clericals that you just look strange in an ordinary dress shirt".

When God tells us to give up something, we never know precisely what it is going to be like until we actually do it. It was not easy, but I fully welcomed the transition. No, it was not like Frodo's temptation in Mount Doom at the "end of all things", but it did feel something like saying goodbye to an old friend (and hoping to meet up with him again in the future). Growth and change are good things when they mean growth in holiness and change for righteousness' sake. We should never sacrifice unity for the sake of truth, nor truth for the sake of unity, but remaining in Anglicanism, I realized that we were sacrificing unity and truth. Truth without unity is only a partial truth, for it leaves out the truth that we are to be in union with the Church that Jesus founded on the rock of the Apostle Peter. We are called to communion, how can we refuse?

Standing there as we made our confession in the Cathedral, my wife reached over and grabbed my arm. Not only a gentle touch, but a clutch that says "I am filled with awe". There have been only two other times that I felt her reach out in that same expression of "solempne". The first was when we were saying our wedding vows twenty two years ago; and the second was a few years later when she grabbed my hand and told me that she was pregnant with our first child. Those major points in our lives were culminations of all that had happened before; they were natural developments and growths that will never be forgotten. Our marriage was the creation of a new family, and the conception of our first child was the fruit of that new family. Yesterday was the fruit of all our theological struggles.

I asked her the night before our reception into the Church if she wanted to back out. She looked at me with a look that said she knew I was joking, but that she wanted to make things clear. "After all that we've been through and seen, how could I not do this? We've taken this journey together and we finish it together; you and me forever." I knew what her answer would be, but I needed to hear it. As we grow and mature, we also find that some of the changes are harder than others. The ones that slide by easily are easily forgotten, but those that require personal sacrifice (as this one has done) are the ones that stay with us in more ways than the obvious.

This growth has led to my wife and I losing some friends, and yet it has also gotten us many new ones. The thing, however, that remains with me as I ponder all that has taken place is the fact that the very process itself (the waiting, the holding of the tongue, the forced trusting in God, etc.) is what shapes us. More than it being merely an annoying consequence, the years that we have waited to get this far (and we are not even at the end of the road yet) have been in themselves an aspect of our personal growth. It has deepened our love for the Lord and for one another. Some may want to complain, but I am thankful that it is taking time, for it allows us to grow and develop. A rushed project will usually result in errors. I am thankful for where I am today, and especially for the fact that God has been patient with me.

Never Again

2012-01-19T15:32:00.002-06:00

Last night I did something that I will never do again. I said Mass from the American Missal as an Anglican priest. Yesterday was my final day as a clergyman in the Anglican Church. I am now resigning from my Anglican orders and will be received into the Catholic Church (along with my wife) this Sunday, January 22nd. I ask for your prayers over the next few months.

For those of you who do not know it already, this is the beginning of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Pope Benedict had this to say about it in his general audience yesterday:

. . . the initiative of the Week was introduced in 1908 by Father Paul Wattson, founder of an Anglican religious community that later became part of the Catholic Church. The initiative received the blessing of Pope St. Pius X and was later promoted by Pope Benedict XV, who encouraged the celebration throughout the Catholic Church.

I pray that, by the grace of God, I will be able to fulfill the necessary requirements and be approved for ordination as a Catholic priest. There are no guarantees in this, and I am trusting that whatever happens, the Lord will take care of me and my family. It is my heart's desire to be able to serve as a priest and minister to God's people, but I will trust those I am under to make the right choice. If I am not approved for ordination, and I find that I need to serve in the Catholic Church as a layman, then I will thank God Who has already given me more than I could ever deserve. He knows what is good and right and He alone deserves our trust.

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.

Good Advice

2012-01-17T15:28:00.003-06:00

Occasionally I hear someone give good advice that is remarkably wise. It is those times that you are driven to give thanks to God for being so gracious in speaking to you through that other person (moral perspicacity is so rare nowadays). In this day and age, however, it is more often the case that I hear people give advice that is so basic and obvious that it saddens me to think that people do not already know it.

Parenting methods today (even among many well-meaning Christians) are largely based on a pagan worldview and focus more on the outward action of the child rather than on his heart. If you do not win the heart, you do not win the child. Let me say it again so that no one misses this vital point: If you do not win the heart, you do not win the child. The problem with much advice today, is that it is so elementary that anyone who really needs it, actually needs much more than that simplistic level of advice.

Here is a link to some basic points that are helpful for parents in how to lead your children. I have to disagree with the description of these habits as "tricks"; they are solid and useful guidelines. I hope that when you read the linked article it sounds as profound as "look both ways before crossing the street". I read them to my family and even my 9 year old said "well, of course". If you are already doing all of these, then great; you are one of the few, and I would love to hear from you so that I can know there are others out there. Yet, if you are not already doing these I beseech you to give each of these points serious consideration and prayer. The fact that they are not coming from a Christian source should make it clear that this is not just an odd sectarian idea. This is how kids are wired, and how parents should take that into account.

The Blind Leading the Blind

2012-01-13T13:03:00.003-06:00

I could not resist this one.

This is what was written by a teacher on the cover of a graded and returned essay (in history class) of a 7th grade public school student:

"I wish that the English teachers would teach students to not split their infinitives and to altar their spelling study habits."

I really hope it is an urban legend (please!).

United States Supreme Court Gets it Right

2012-01-11T22:27:00.003-06:00

I know I have not posted much lately; sorry, the quantity of my posts in the near future will likely not increase. I really am busy. I am trying to take care of things at my parish and also ready myself for the next few months as St. Aidan's goes through the catechesis before entering the Ordinariate. Please keep all of us in your prayers!

Here is a genuine piece of good news (something rare today). The Supreme Court of the United States actually took a stand for the correct interpretation of the Constitutional amendment protecting the "freedom of religion" in America. I do not know if there are some possible bad outcomes to this, but for the time being, it is a good sign that someone in our federal government has read the Constitution (it has been doubtful at times).

Wisely Stepping Out in Faith

2012-01-06T11:43:00.001-06:00

Following a star the Magi came to worship a baby born as King. They probably knew little of what they were getting themselves into. If they knew the prophecy of Balaam (Numbers 24:17) and were encouraged by it to follow the star to Bethlehem, then they had some knowledge of the fact that this nation of Judea would bring forth a unique ruler. Yet, they came because they were drawn and wanted to find "the king of the Jews" (and not Herod).

These men traveled, apparently, for many months to arrive at their destination, and they did not even know just how long the journey was going to take. They ventured into the unknown. They chose to trust God that He would not lead them astray. We can assume that they had much to learn about theology, but they did not seem to have much to learn in the way of faith. Matthew could have merely said that "men" came from the East, but he goes further than that. They are described as being "wise men". How many there were, we do not know. There were three gifts, but there could have been fifty wise men! These Gentiles had been granted wisdom from God so that they could come in response to the call of God. The testimony of the "star" would be seen as no more than an unusual phenomenon to the pagan eye, but with the wisdom of God it led them directly to the very place where Jesus was (not likely the stable on the night of His birth).

Each of us at times is called by God to step out of our comfort zone. God does not like comfort zones, because they make us quickly become complacent. Laxity in our faith is something that sets in very quietly and that is what makes it hard to get rid of. If you have become "comfortable" in your Christian walk, then you should take a good self-assessment and ask yourself if you are refusing to step out in faith merely because of fear. What might God be asking you to do in order to worship Jesus better? Maybe He wants you to speak to that fallen family member; maybe He wants you to set out on a new venture; maybe He wants you to study doctrine more; and maybe he wants you to reconcile with that Church member that you are holding a grudge against.

Whatever your situation might be, we are called to trust. Trust Him to provide the means that are necessary to fulfill the tasks that He gives us. Do not let fear of the unknown hold you back. Do not search desperately for an excuse to sit back and let others move forward. As the Magi moved out in the unknown in order better to worship God, they found a Savior. They found that they were able to grow in their faith, precisely because they stepped out in faith. If you are on the brink of something, and are holding back because of discomfort, then on this Epiphany, I encourage you to think about the Magi. Remember that as we move toward God in faith, He moves toward us in grace; always blessing far more than we ever expect.

Integration not Assimilation

2012-01-04T15:28:00.005-06:00

There are some Anglicans who have expressed a concern that joining the Ordinariate will mean that the their parishes will be "absorbed" into the Catholic Church and thus become like a "non-ordinariate" Catholic parish (thereby losing all of the Anglican heritage that they are wanting to preserve). Although this has clearly been rejected by the words of Anglicanorum Coetibus, it would help to see this truth come from the very words of the newly named Ordinary himself. This is precisely what we have. Read this quote from Fr. Jeffrey Steenson (the emphasis is mine).

The parishes and communities of the Ordinariate have been called, not to live in relative isolation, but to be fully engaged in the life of the local diocese; not to be assimilated, but to be integrated into the rich life of the Catholic Church. This Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter must be, above all else, an effective instrument for evangelization. But Jesus taught us that the unity of Christian people is the essential condition for evangelization (John 17:21). So this must be our hallmark: to build bridges, to be an instrument of peace and reconciliation, to be a sign of what Christian unity might look like. And gaudete in Domino semper (Philippians 4:4) to be joyful and happy Catholics!

He uses the word "assimilated" rather than "absorbed", but his meaning is clear because the definition is the same. It is not the purpose of the Ordinariate, nor the stated intention of the Ordinary himself, to allow the parishes in the Ordinariate to lose their heritage or change their heritage into something different. Were that to be the desire of the parish, then I doubt that he would approve their entrance into the Ordinariate; the very purpose for which is to preserve the Anglican heritage.

Because these parishes are to be involved in the life of the local diocese they need to know the common language and practices of these other Latin Rite parishes. Therefore catechesis is necessary so that they can easily relate to one another and recognize the beauty of each other's traditions. Integrating the Ordinariate parishes into the life of the local diocese means that these parishes will not become ghettos that are isolated from the rest of the Church. This is especially important for a parish like St. Aidan's where I serve. There are no other Ordinariate parishes for well over a hundred miles, and so the local Catholics are those that we will be interacting with more often. We will be a part of the Ordinariate, and we will be integrated into the life of the local Catholic diocese. This serves the Church in the best way possible, because it allows us to maintain our heritage, while we also are able to grow in close relationship with our local Catholic brethren.

A Priest as Ordinary

2012-01-04T14:54:00.003-06:00

A reader asked why our Ordinary does not have to be a Bishop, and so I realized there may be more out there who have the same question. Here is the article titled "Ordinary" from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Note that the Encyclopedia is over one hundred years old, so it does not deal with any of our modern situations, but it makes it clear that a Priest as Ordinary is not a new idea.

An Ordinary in ecclesiastical language, denotes any person possessing or exercising ordinary jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction connected permanently or at least in a stable way with an office, whether this connexion arises from Divine law, as in the case of popes and bishops, or from positive church law, as in the case mentioned below. Ordinary jurisdiction is contrasted with delegated jurisdiction, a temporary communication of power made by a superior to an inferior; thus we speak of a delegated judge and an ordinary judge. A person may be an ordinary within his own sphere, and at the same time have delegated powers for certain acts or the exercise of special authority. The jurisdiction which constitutes an ordinary is real and full jurisdiction in the external forum, comprising the power of legislating, adjudicating, and governing. Jurisdiction in the internal forum, being partial and exercised only in private matters, does not constitute an ordinary. Parish priests, therefore, are not ordinaries, though they have jurisdiction in the internal forum, for they have not jurisdiction in the external forum, being incapable of legislating and acting as judges; their administration is the exercise of paternal authority rather than of jurisdiction properly so called.

There are various classes of ordinaries. First, they are divided into those having territorial jurisdiction and those who have not. As a rule ordinary jurisdiction is territorial as well as personal, as in the case of the pope and the bishops; but ordinary jurisdiction may be restricted to certain persons, exempt from the local authority. Such for instance is the jurisdiction of regular prelates, abbots, generals, and provincials of religious orders making solemn vows; they can legislate, adjudicate and govern; consequently they are ordinaries; but their jurisdiction concerns individuals not localities; they are not, like the others, called local ordinaries, ordinarii locorum. Superiors of congregations and institutes bound by simple vows are not ordinaries though they may enjoy a greater or less degree of administrative exemption. The jurisdiction of local ordinaries arises from Divine law or ecclesiastical law. The pope is the ordinary of the entire church and all the faithful; he has ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over all (Conc. Vatic., Const. "Pastor æternus", c. iii). Bishops are the pastors and ordinary judges in their dioceses, appointed to govern their churches by the Holy Ghost (Acts 20:28). Certain bishops have, by ecclesiastical law, a mediate ordinary power over other bishops and dioceses; these are the metropolitana, primates, and patriarchs. In a lower rank, there is another class of ordinaries, viz., prelates who exercise jurisdiction in the external forum over a given territory, which is not a diocese, either in their own name, as in the case of prelates or abbots nullius or in the name of the pope, like years and prefects Apostolic until the erection of their territories into complete dioceses.

Local ordinaries being unable personally to perform all acts of their jurisdiction may and even ought to communicate it permanently to certain persons, without however, divesting themselves of their authority; if the duties of these persons are specified and determined by law, they also are ordinaries, but in a restricted and inferior sense. This is vicarial jurisdiction, delegated as to its source, but ordinary as to its exercise, and which would be more accurately termed quasi-ordinary. In this sense vicars-general and diocesan officials are ordinaries; so also, in regard to the pope, the heads of the various organs of the Curia are ordinaries for the whole Church; the cardinal vicar for the Diocese of Rome and his district; the legate a latere, for the country to which he is sent. Finally, there are ordinaries with an interimary and transitory title during the vacancy of sees. Thus when the Holy See is vacant, the ordinaries are the College of Cardinals and the cardinal camerlengo; when a diocese the chapter and also the vicar capitular, and in general the interimary administrator; so, too, the vicar, for religious orders. These persons possess and exercise exterior jurisdiction, although with certain restrictions, and this in virtue of their office; they are therefore ordinaries.

In practice, the determination of the persons included under the term ordinary is of importance in the case of indults and the execution of rescripts issued from Rome. Since the decrees of the Holy Office dated 20 February, 1888, and 20 April, 1898, indults and most of the rescripts, instead of being addressed to the bishop, are addressed to the ordinary; and it has been declared that the term ordinary comprises bishops, Apostolic administrators, vicars, prelates or prefects with separate territorial jurisdiction, and their officials or vicars-general; and also, during the vacancy of a see, the vicar capitular or lawful administrator. Thus the powers are handed on, without intermission or renewal, from one ordinary to his successor.

The Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter

2012-01-01T22:46:00.006-06:00

I am sure that all of my readers have already read the news elsewhere, so I am not going to go into a long explanation of things and repeat what others have already said. I am not a reporter, and this is not a news page; it is a personal blog. The Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is established in the US with Fr. Jeffrey Steenson as the Ordinary. Go here for more information (and give thanks to our Lord Jesus while you do). I am overjoyed and praising God, so I ask all of you to praise Him with me.

An Out of Body Experience

2011-12-28T13:47:00.002-06:00

I read an article on the web recently that bothered me. It was not the actual content of the article, for I agreed with it wholeheartedly. Rather, it was the tone of the article. It was written by a Catholic author (a convert from Protestantism) and it was solidly in support of the traditional understanding of the Catholic Church and the world. Yet, having heard Protestant argumentation for so many years, the essential elements of that same "protesting" spirit were obvious to me. I doubt that the author really understood what he was doing in this regard. It was too subtle for many to notice, but like a quietly growing deadly mold in the walls of a home, it can still kill.

It appears that some Christians come into the Catholic church from outside and only bring their body. Their mind stays in their former ways. Becoming convinced of the truth of Catholic Church, does not mean that one is necessarily converted to her way of life at the same time. I even once met a Catholic priest whose theology was thoroughly Catholic, while his philosophy was thoroughly pagan. The manner in which he made judgments and decisions was entirely influenced by the modern world's "me first" frame of mind. Doubting that he got through seminary this way, I can only assume (trying to give the benefit of the doubt) that he was overpowered by the world that we live in and unknowingly surrendered to its philosophical perspectives.

In other words, there are people who are Catholic outwardly, but inwardly they are thinking like a Protestant (or some other non-catholic philosophy). "I want things my way" is acceptable in most churches today (at least quietly), but it is not the Catholic way of the faith. Some of you may ask, "who is he to describe the Catholic way of thinking?" while I am still not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. Good question. I can only say that I have been thinking like a Catholic for about ten years now (without knowing it), and it took time for me to integrate the actual dogmas into my stubborn brain. Having been indoctrinated in Protestant thought, the Catholic manner of thinking stands out in stark contrast to those who wish to compare the two. Even some Protestants see this fact, and subsequently condemn the Catholic mindset as anathema.

What is the Catholic way of philosophy? It is a matter of one's frame of mind more than the actual doctrines that reside in one's mind. How you approach truth is not necessarily the same as someone else who arrived at the same truth from a different direction. For example, a Catholic friend of mine trusts that purgatory is an established fact. He has always believed this because he was taught it, he sees it in the historical writings of our Christian forefathers, and the Church says that it is so. I, on the other hand, had to come to it from the outside. I doubted that it was true precisely because the Catholic Church affirmed it. Only after cornering myself in the Scriptures (e.g. 1 Cor 3) did I see that it was undeniable. These are two different ways of thinking: the first says "I trust the Church and it has been confirmed", the second says "I trust myself and will trust the Church when I can see it for myself". My thoughts have since changed, but the change did not occur overnight.

Those who come into the Church with the "protesting" spirit (i.e. "I trust my own mind before anyone else") will find that it causes them to stumble at more than one place. Most Catholics will admit that theology is something that must come from the Magisterium and be handed down to the rest of us. Yet, there are also many who will say things about their spiritual leaders that sounds exactly like the common disrespect that rears its ugly head in non-catholic circles. This shows itself quite often, of late, when people make claims that amount to the equivalent of "I know better than God how to do things, and if He would just make the Pope listen to me then everything would be fine".

Just because you are in the Catholic Church (or, like me, about to be) does not mean that you are necessarily thinking like an obedient Catholic. There are many Catholics who, in disobedience to God, practice artificial contraception, so also there are many who are, in disobedience to God, not loving Him with their whole mind. To maintain ways of thinking that ignore Proverbs 3:5 is to maintain rebellion. We are all called to humble ourselves and "become as little children", and the warning is that we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven if we fail to do so (Matt 18:3).

Little children, in Jesus' illustration, are not the modern rabble that lays on the ground and scream in rebellion at the parents; yet that is exactly the "little children" pattern that many Christians are giving to the world today (!). The example of little children that we are supposed to emulate is one where the children trust their parents to tell them the truth. The little children who believe that the Sacrament is the very body and blood of Jesus (because their parents told them so), just as much as they believe that the sky is blue (because their parents told them so). These are children who say "yessir" and "yesma'am", who want to please their parents, and who know that if their parents make a mistake then God will work things out in the end. Are these the children that we are exemplifying before the world? or is it the children of disobedience who decide for themselves?

Trusting your own thinking over that of the Church is one of the rotten fruits of the Enlightenment. It has always been around, but Enlightenment philosophers made it an established way of life (and thus gave it a place of respect). Jesus promised not to leave us as orphans, and then gave us the Spirit to work in the Church and her clergy. This is what allows us to know that we have the truth and not be left to ourselves (to give shame to our "Mother", Prov 29:15) to figure it out anew every generation. Let each of us seek to bring ourselves in submission to God and His Church fully; in heart, soul, mind and body.

Any Husband?

2011-12-22T16:50:00.003-06:00

I received a support letter from a non-profit organization recently. I will not give the name so that I am not appearing to sound slanderous. I like the organization and do not want to paint them in a bad light. I only want to point out one thing that was in the letter. It began with this statement:

My wife has made up her mind (like any husband, all I can do is comply).

Cute? Not really. I do not find it funny at all; I find it sad. It is sad because people apparently think this is funny (and if it is true and not just a joke, then it is even worse). My sincere prayer is that I am not the only one who sees this as an example of the collapse of the godly family. I thank the Lord (it is all by His grace) that I can say I am not like "any husband" that the author refers to. I have never been in a situation with my wife where "all" I could do was "comply". No, my wife is not a "passive puppy" who follows me around like a muslim slave, nor am I a domineering totalitarian patriarch (ask anyone who has spent any time in our home). We have not been in this situation because we both make it our goal to love Christ first, and love each other second only to Him.

Yes, sometimes it is easier for a husband just to comply, but that only means that he further damages his relationship with his wife. To anyone who is married and realizes that there are times when the wife puts her foot down and all the husband can do is comply, let me say this: you have some major problems in your relationship and they need to be dealt with (even if you are happy to ignore them). Scripture is filled with references to wives who Lord it over their husbands, and husbands who refuse to stand up like our Lord Jesus and die for the sake of their wives. Self-sacrificial love is contagious and it leads the other spouse to desire a godly marriage.

The Word of God is clear when it says to wives that they are supposed to "submit [them]selves to [their] own husbands, as unto the Lord" and that husbands are to "love [their] wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it". I know that this is rarely practiced today (to the detriment of our families), but that does not make it acceptable to ignore this mandate. The paradigm that we are given when the Apostle Paul says this in Ephesians chapter 5 is that of Christ and the Church. Paul is not saying that "it is a neat similarity" between human marriage and Christ's marriage to the Church. He was saying that every marriage in the world is an image of Christ and the Church; it is either a good image, or a bad one--either a true image, or a lie. Just as every human bears the image of God (James 3:9), and every Christian bears the image of Christ (Colossians 3:10), so also every marriage bears the image of Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:22-32). Let me take the paradigm and turn around the original statement that I quoted above:

The Church has made up her mind (like any husband, all Jesus can do is comply).

Yuck! If that statement does not make you uncomfortable, then your heart is hardened. Christ is not like "any husband", and therefore we husbands should not be like this either. If you desire to reinterpret the Word of God (like so many Christians today do) and make Paul's command into a mere metaphor, then you make Christ's relationship with the Church into the very same metaphor. A horrid example is given when someone willingly disorders their marriage in this way. The Apostle was not joking, nor was he describing an archaic practice (unless it is also archaic for Christians to submit to God!).

This is the order that the family is supposed to follow, and we are doing a dishonor to Christ when we reject it and choose our own way. Jesus does not call us to practice marriage in the way that we think works best for us (the current divorce rate proves that we do not know how to improve upon Jesus' rules). In case you missed it, there is a clear correlation between disordered marriages and the current rebellion against the historic traditions of the Church that Catholics have fallen into. Modernist rebellion against godly marriages leads to a modernist rebellion against godly Church order. If husbands and wives can choose their own way to interact, then the Church can choose her own way also. These two forms of disobedience feed one another and we need to repent of both of them.

I weep for the man who wrote those words (even if he was only joking). This is not the place for me to outline a detailed exposition of how the relationship between a man and his wife is supposed to work, but if a couple is not even trying to obey the commandments God has given, then they are in rebellion against God. I am not trying to claim that my wife and I have been perfect in our obedience; we have not. Yet, we are aiming at the goal that Jesus gives us for our relationship (me doing my best to represent the self-sacrificial love of Christ for the Church, and my wife doing her best to represent the joyful submission of the Church to Christ), and we do not joke about disobedience as though it were cute.

The Incarnation and the Immaculate Conception

2011-12-16T16:27:00.005-06:00

"That is not in the Bible!"
"Well, which doctrine is God required to inform us of?"
"None, of course, but we aren't required to believe anything that is not clearly written in Scripture."
"Are you required to believe that you aren't required to believe anything that is not clearly written in Scripture."
"Of course."
"Then show me where the Bible says that you aren't required to believe anything that is not written in Scripture."
"Ummmm."
"I thought so. Moving on . . . if God is not required to inform us of any particular doctrine, and if Scripture does not tell us that we are limited to doctrines found within its pages, then is it possible that there is a doctrinal truth that God did not include in the Scriptures?"
"I suppose so."

The standard Protestant retort of "that's not in the Bible" does not have much weight once someone realizes that there are many points of the faith that are "not in the Bible". Like the issue of women taking communion (something the Bible never refers to in any way), we must not require that it be in the Bible, as much as require that it not contradict what the Bible says. I only faintly recall where the conversation above started, but the doctrine that made everything come to a head was when I said that the Immaculate Conception was a logical and necessary doctrine when we consider the Incarnation of Christ. In other words, if we believe in the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, it is illogical not to believe in the Immaculate Conception.

To make sure that no one is confused, the Immaculate Conception does not refer to the Virgin Birth of Christ. It is the doctrinal description of what happened to Our Lady at her own conception in her mother's womb. She was conceived immaculately. She was created by God in the same manner as was Eve before the fall of man; without sin, (partly) so that she could be given the same opportunity to choose between the call of God and the temptation of the serpent. She was the "Second Eve".

As I first gave serious consideration to the idea of the Immaculate Conception, I presented the concept to many of my Protestant friends, trying to see their responses to the doctrine itself. I was, of course, arguing for it (I had pretty much accepted it already), but truly wanted to hear what the thoughts of others were. Time and time again, I found that no one could deny that it was possible (essentially, Adam and Eve were immaculately conceived). Pretty much all (non-liberal) Protestants believe that with God all things are possible, and if there is a precedent, then that makes it difficult to refute.

From there I would ask them, if it is possible for Mary to have been conceived without sin, could God have done this without having a specific reference to it in the Bible? None claimed that God had to inform us about the specifics of all of His miracles. The next step causes more thought, but it is still fairly straightforward: the ovum that became Jesus' body, was it fallen human flesh, or not? If it was fallen, then it needed to be perfectly redeemed before Jesus' own conception. It is an enormous leap even to imagine that Jesus' body was actually first fallen, then redeemed.

If, therefore, the ovum in question was not fallen human flesh, then we must conclude (apart from the truth of the Immaculate Conception) that an unfallen egg resided within Mary's fallen body. Yet, we are told that Jesus "took" human flesh. Where did He get it from? Was it a fiat creation unconnected with the physical body of His mother Mary? Or, rather, was it her own flesh and blood that He was conceived from? If it was from her own flesh then she must have had an unfallen physical nature in order for Him to be conceived from it. After all, Jesus' birth was unlike any of the other miraculous births recorded in the Bible (Sarah, Elizabeth, etc.). He was "that holy thing", conceived by "the power of the Highest" (Luke 1:35). He was not as John the Baptist, a fallen man conceived by a miracle, but rather the second person of the Triune God coming in human flesh; "like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). Mary, the tabernacle of the Incarnation of the Son of God (Rev 11:19-12:1) could not be tainted by sin.

The "tabernacles" that house the sacred things of God are always supposed to be perfectly pure. If the chalice used for the sacred blood of Christ is corrupted in any way then it is supposed to be destroyed. How could the holy and perfect body of Jesus remain for the nine months of gestation in the womb of a fallen and sinful woman? In the physical union of mother and unborn child, He would have experienced, in the womb, all the sins that Mary would have committed. Is it even proper to assume that the womb that bore the infant Christ would be tainted by sin? It is not an impossibility to imagine that Jesus would have touched someone who sinned (He did so throughout His life), but it becomes more of a challenge when we think of the intimate physical and emotional relationship that exists between a mother and the child in her womb.

Consider for a moment the cultic consequences of the actions of a mother on her unborn child. The requirements that were placed upon Samson's mother before he was born are the clearest revelation of this. In Judges 13:4-5 she is told to abide by the Nazarite vows because her unborn son was going to be a Nazarite "from the womb". This is not merely her choice, but the clear command of God through the words of the "Angel of the Lord". In other words, that which Samson's mother did while in the womb, he did also. Were she to break the Nazarite vow, then he would also be breaking it. Her sin would include him (albeit unwillingly, but the effects of the sin are there nonetheless). Hence, were Mary to have sinned, then she would have included the unborn Jesus in her act. This is inconceivable (pun not intended).

Is this what Protestants want to claim; that Jesus' infant body grew in a womb tainted by (and experiencing) sin? I doubt most have thought through it this specifically. It is not enough to claim that Jesus' body was created perfect and sinless and therefore Mary did not need to be sinless herself. All during the nine months of gestation, Jesus and Mary were sharing more than mere blood and nutrients. As modern science has taught us, everything the expectant mother experiences during pregnancy, the unborn child experiences also; completely and fully.

When Protestants are shown the consequences of their denial, most will accede that the Immaculate Conception makes sense, and that it seems to fit with what Scripture does reveal. As we consider the Incarnation of our blessed Lord, we must also consider the things that led to that miracle. To try to hold on to the Incarnation without considering what happened to lead up to it is a willful ignorance. As was said at the beginning, it does not matter (technically) if this doctrine is explicitly referred to in Scripture (like women's communion); it also does not matter how long it took the Church to understand and articulate it. What matters is whether we believe it once we have been presented with the facts.

The Incarnation of the Son of God without the Immaculate Conception of Mother Mary is difficult, confused, and problematic. God has given us minds that can consider and think through our faith. He expects us to reason and understand the things that we believe. Protestants reject the Immaculate Conception based primarily on the fact that it is not found in the Bible, but in doing so they are being inconsistent; there are other things that are not found in the Bible that they fully accept without questioning (like the Bible's table of contents). At this time of year when we are preparing our hearts to give thanks for the wondrous Incarnation of our blessed Savior, let us also remember to give thanks to God for everything that He did to bring that about (even the things that we have never been told), for He is worthy of all praise and honor and glory.

Radio Show Now Available Online

2011-12-14T22:50:00.003-06:00

For anyone who wished to listen to the local radio show that I appeared on back in early December, they have now posted the mp3 files on the diocesan website. Here is the link for all four segments of the program. Scroll down on the page to the "December 2 -- New Ordinariate for Anglicans" section.

Not Safe

2011-12-13T23:46:00.004-06:00

This morning while reading the news, I came across a distressing story. It shocked me and I let out a big "sigh" at the pain that I knew the people I was reading about were going through. Immediately my two year old, carrying her baby-doll under her left arm, climbed up into the breakfast nook next to me, leaned her head on my shoulder, put her right arm around me and gently patted my back. She did this because she was viewing me as in need of comfort. We are a very affectionate family, and we often show each this with such expressions. She saw this as a perfectly natural behavior. Her view of me and our home determined her behavior.

Similarly, the way that we view God will have a great impact on our actions. Our view of God depends on many things, but there are far more things that depend on our view of God. I am not speaking about having everyone study until they are a theologian who can defend the faith against the most skilled atheists. I am merely saying that your understanding of the person of God will influence numerous things in your life. Do you think of God as an all powerful version of Santa Claus? Is He primarily a Judge Who is trying to keep you from being happy? Or, maybe you think of Him as somewhat similar to the mysterious uncle that everyone was nervous around and no one really felt comfortable talking to?

Today, many people, Christians included, think of God in terms of a somewhat generic "mushy deity". He has little substance and is rarely feared. People are shocked when someone mentions anything about Him actually bringing about a serious Judgment (!). A long time ago when someone was referred to as a "God-fearing man" it was a compliment; it is rare that anyone is described that way anymore. This was not supposed to refer to someone who was terrified of God, but rather someone who knew how awesome and powerful God is, and thus had a healthy respect for Him.

C.S. Lewis, in his description of Aslan the Lion, gives us a revelation about the character of God that is vital in today's day and age. If you have not read the Chronicles of Narnia, then you must do so (regardless of your age), but please avoid Hollywood's ruination of Lewis' stories (they have no idea what Lewis was writing about). When the Pevensie children are asking Mr. and Mrs. Beaver about Aslan, Susan asks "is he--quite safe?" The answer is worthy of committing to memory: "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." He's not safe, but he's good. Later we learn that Aslan is not "tame", and yet we are shown in a wonderful way that he is truly good; good beyond our expectations.

Modern Christianity has a tame view of God, and this is causing serious harm to the souls of many of God's people. Jesus is not "tame" nor is it right to think of Him as "safe". He is not to be toyed with, nor is He to be treated like he will merely sit back and ignore rebellion. I have met Christians who treat God like a small puppy that is to be patted on the head (and sent to the garage when he is annoying). This may be the god that people would like to worship (the lower case "g" is intentional), but it is not the God Who created Heaven and Earth. Jesus Christ is not a god who can be controlled. He, like a lion, is dangerous when He is not respected. He defends His own, and does not ignore those who disobey Him (Acts 17:30-31).

Is the God that you worship "safe"? Does He ever say anything that offends you? Does He tell you to stop that sin that you have repeatedly returned to for years? Does your view of God exclude mean things like condemning sin? Do you dislike any references to the depth of your sin and the punishment that it deserves? Are you annoyed at the doctrine of Judgment Day? Would you rather ignore all these "un-nice" things? If this is the case then I call you to consider the possibility that you have tamed God (in your mind) and then to repent of it.

I am not encouraging Christians to be cowering in fear expecting God to reach down and smack them for every little infraction. Yet, there is a grave problem in the Church today when the only perceived alternative to a pusillanimous God is a tight-fisted grouch. This is why Lewis' description does not leave us at "not safe". For Aslan, as an image of the Lord Jesus Christ, is described as "good". The devil is not safe, but he is evil. If Jesus were safe, then He would not be good, for then He would be weak like His creatures. It is this very characteristic of being "unsafe" that makes His "goodness" so wonderful, and encouraging. He is good to those who are penitent and seek to worship Him as He commands, and the fact that He is good is what makes us able to trust Him to do what is right in all things.

Subjectively Attached

2011-12-09T15:11:00.003-06:00

Pope John Paul II:

An increasing number of Christians seem to have a reduced sensitivity to the universality and objectivity of the doctrine of the faith because they are subjectively attached to what pleases them; to what corresponds to their own experience; and to what does not impinge on their own habits.

I could write volumes on this quote, and talk for literally hours on end about it. It focuses into one concise statement the root of the majority of problems that exist in the Church today. Especially in what is, at present, plaguing the Church throughout the world. This "individualism" (for want of a more comprehensive term) is the cause of priestly sexual abuse, poor (or nonexistent) episcopal oversight, apathy among the laity, carelessness in liturgical celebrations, and the list could go on. Meditation on each of the phrases would do all of us a world of spiritual good. I am not about to try to improve upon the words of Blessed John Paul II, but I would like to comment on them. In doing so, I hope to enable you to apply what he said to your own personal spiritual state. Let me break it down into three basic points.

First, the subjective attachment to that which pleases self. In itself, it is not wrong to seek to please self. After all, this is at the very core of what we are doing when we seek salvation in Christ. We want to be saved from damnation and granted a place in the presence of God (because Hell is not a pleasing place to go). Yet, when our attachments become subjective they get clouded. It is not easy to find an objective attachment to things that please self, but it is worth it. Think of the simple act of eating. Objective attachment to the pleasure of eating would lead one to recognize that food is good for health, and necessary for survival. This allows one to appreciate the enjoyment of certain flavors; nothing wrong there. Subjective attachment to food, however, leads one to see the enjoyment of the taste of the food as a good in itself. Thus, the individual can quickly degenerate into gluttony (as well as a host of other culinary sins). Subjectively, the person thinks of his enjoyment of the food as "I like it", and that alone. That leads to other subjectivist problems.

Consider the following subjective errors: "I attend a traditional liturgy because I enjoy the way it feels"; "I watch that movie because I like the characters"; "I listen to that music because it has a nice beat". I could add many more to the list, but it should be obvious how the subjective nature of these attachments is centered on the person's pleasure, and thus excludes the more important questions. To use the examples above, we need to ask things such as, "is the traditional liturgy inherently better, even if it makes you feel bad?" (I think it is, but that is the subject of another post); "does the movie teach a philosophy that is contrary to the Christian faith?" (many do); and "what is the message within the lyrics of the music and what does the morality (or lack thereof) of the musicians say about the music they write?" (they are related subjects).

Second, the subjective attachment to that which corresponds to personal experience. In Protestant circles, if one studies deeply enough, it soon becomes obvious that the vast majority of splits and divisions (often called denominations) resulted from one person saying that his experience is the only right way, and that this is what everyone else needs to experience. "The way that it happened to me is correct [determined by personal choice] therefore it must be correct for everyone else also." Yet, this is not only present in Protestant circles. I have met more than a handful of Catholics and Anglicans who have the same perspective on their personal experiences. "If it is not the way I am used to it, then it must be wrong." Something other than what your experience is may very well be wrong, but it is not wrong merely because it is different from your experience. The subjective attachment to one's personal experience makes this hard (if not impossible) to see.

This attachment is seen in many of the different particulars of life that we are used to. I am very eclectic with the music that I listen to; from rock, to classical, to soft jazz, to Celtic folk music. Yet, there are some styles of music that make me wish that I was deaf. So the question would be, is the attachment to "personal experience" here one of objective quality or a subjective comfort zone? Another example can be seen in ecclesiastical matters. Married priests are not the common "personal experience" of most Latin Rite Catholics (though common to all Anglicans). Yet, Eastern rite Catholics are very used to the concept of a married priesthood. This (by itself) does not make it either right or wrong; it merely shows that not everyone's personal experience is the same. Thus, for a Catholic to reject the married priesthood based on the fact that it is not his own personal experience is a grave error; and in the same way, for an Anglican to demand the married priesthood because it fits with his personal experience is equally errant. Meaning, therefore, that the person's attachment to the personal experience is subjective rather than objective. An objective attachment would sound like this, "This is what I am used to and I appreciate it, but I acknowledge that my experience does not represent the totality of what is good and right in the world."

Third, the subjective attachment to that which does not impinge on personal habits. We get used to certain things, and those things influence greatly how we look at the world. I am used to a certain routine in the evening; children's bedtimes, time alone with my wife, time for work after everyone else is asleep. Those experiences influence my emotions and thoughts. When those things are disrupted, it changes my attitude. Are they disrupted for normally expected things (like a call from a parishioner in need), or are they disrupted for extraordinary occurrences that are unexpected (like children getting sick)? How we respond to the disruptions shows the type of attachment we have. If I were subjectively attached to what my personal experience is, then I will get very defensive of those things, and even angry when something changes.

What are your habits in regard to personal or family prayer? Are there things that can impinge on those habits? Which habits are "untouchable"? The time of prayer? The words of the prayer? The quantity of the prayers? Similarly, if there is a habit of watching or attending a football game, how do you deal with disruptions? What happens if a solemnity falls on that day and the service is at the same time as the game? Many today would choose in favor of the game and skip Mass. What happens if God throws a wrench into your life and your personal habits are completely disrupted? If you come unglued as a result, then you likely have a subjective attachment to your personal habits. In this state of mind, it is easy to attach oneself to those things that do not touch that which you are used to doing, but when something comes to that "no-man's-zone", there are problems for all involved.

Subjectivism occurs. We cannot avoid it perfectly (and in some areas it does not matter--like flavors of ice cream), yet we are called to be careful of it. Surrendering to it is exactly what the Apostle Paul warned us about in many ways (e.g. 1 Cor 6:12). Seeking to understand the world more objectively helps us to avoid the horrible temptation of individualism. We are individuals, but individualism makes us see our individual nature as an ultimate good that is incorruptible (as the Enlightenment heresy that "man is the measure of all things"). Where do we go for objective truth then? Protestants are forced to go to a subjective determination of what is objective (often called "private interpretation"), and pagans will often go so far as to say that there is no objective truth (which is a self-contradiction). Only in the infallible magisterium of the Church can we find absolute and reliable objective truth, and only by Christ is that truth protected perfectly, for He Himself is that very same Truth.

Prayer to St. Nicholas

2011-12-06T10:50:00.004-06:00

St. Nicholas, we beseech thee, pray for us in this Advent season. Grant that we who have been so abundantly blessed, may follow the example of thy grace and charity to those in need. Pray that we may be filled with a greater love for our Lord Jesus Christ, and that in so doing, we may learn what it is to love our neighbor with the love that He bestowed upon us in giving Himself up in our behalf. Pray for us, that we may find true joy in the truth that it is more blessed to give than to receive. And finally, help us to seek always to glorify our Savior by keeping our hearts fixed on Him during this Advent, as well as during the coming Christmas season. Amen.

Comboxes

2011-12-02T16:57:00.003-06:00

I am regularly saddened by the way that Christians speak to each other. Much of our communication is rude and inconsiderate. As we all know, the worst place that this occurs is on the internet. As I have said before, it seems as though people think that the anonymity of the internet frees them to be able to say anything they want without the fear of consequences.

I have made up the following "combox" exchange, so please do not think that I actually found this entire thing somewhere. Yet, I also want to make it clear that everything written below is an example (though somewhat simplified and condensed) of how numerous people (including Christians) are often speaking to each other. Like a parable, I am putting forth something fictional, for the sake of clarifying that which is actual.

"I'm smart."
"I'm smarter."
"How dare you think that--you're stupid."
"Not as stupid as you; and your Church is worse."
"I may be less smart, but I'm much more witty."
"Add your smarts to your wit and you are still only half."
"Cute. But not as cute as I am."
"Only if there is no one else in the room."
"I'm sorry, were you speaking to me?"
"Yes, I was. I was saying that it is wrong to call people names, you jerk!"
"Oh yeah? Well, I think you should agree that your lineage bears some canine elements."
"Sorry, I didn't get that. Can you translate 'hee-haw' into English?"
"That's your job; after all, you're smarter, right?"
"Why do you keep returning to that which we've already determined conclusively?"
"Are you trying to change the subject?"
"I will not sit by and tolerate these baseless accusations any longer."

This is essentially how we sound. Do the guilty parties think that this pleases God? Are we as Christians proud of how we speak to one another on the internet? Those things that we type are out there for all the world to read. The example that we are giving of how Christians treat each other, may seem a minor issue because no one is drawing blood; that is far from the truth. I encourage each of you, personally, to make the decision to have your words (typed or spoken) be filled with grace and love for your brothers in Christ.

Radio Show

2011-12-01T17:11:00.004-06:00

I was hesitant to post this, because I never like things that sound like, "Hey! Look at me!" Yet, I recognize that it is for the good of the Church, and a few friends encouraged me to do so. Therefore: I will be on the radio tomorrow, December 2nd at 10:00am (CST). The subject matter is the upcoming Catholic Ordinariate, and Father Scott Hurd from the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. (who is the assistant to Cardinal Donald Wuerl for the establishment of the Ordinariate here in the USA) will also be on the show.

It is a one hour program called "In the Heartland with Bishop Pates". He is the local diocesan Bishop for the Catholic Church. The stations are KWKY 1150-AM here in Des Moines, and KVSS out of Omaha, Nebraska. You can also find it on "kvss.com" if you want to listen by the internet. The show will replay on KWKY (so everyone can laugh at me more than once!) on Saturday at noon as well as Sunday at 8 and 11 a.m. and 2, 5 and 9 p.m.

So, there you go. Please pray for me that I would be a good witness to the gospel of Christ.

Freedom of Ungodly Speech? (part 2)

2011-11-29T23:24:00.002-06:00

In case you thought I had forgotten, I did not. Here is the second part of this post:

If "freedom of speech" is not an inherently godly thing, then how should we as Christians respond to it? We are members of the kingdom of God and, because of this, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. Just because America (or any other country) allows "freedom of speech" does not mean that we have practice it to the fullest extent possible. Practicing freedom of speech (without biblical boundaries) is not safe for our souls. We are told in the Scriptures that we will be judged for what we say (Matthew 12:36), and there are many times that boundaries are placed on our words (cf. Ephesians 4:15, 4:29, 5:3-4, Colossians 4:6, and Titus 2:8).

Freedom of speech, however, is not actually very consistently applied in American society. How many times have you heard someone say "it's a free country" as a defense for a rude comment? On the other hand, however, anyone who dares to say something in criticism of the wickedness of others (e.g. Christians speaking against sodomites and sodomettes) are often attacked on the grounds of "hate speech". If it is something you want to say it comes under the protection of "free speech"; if, however, it offends you then it comes under the category of "hate speech" (quite convenient, eh?). Sadly, we cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue for complete freedom, but then grant authority to others to (somewhat arbitrarily) choose what is disqualified from that freedom. Jesus gives us a balance, but few today want His rules.

The usage of the term "freedom" in modern society often carries the connotation of "freedom from restraint" when the Scriptures encourage something different. Jesus points us toward "freedom of uncoerced godly speech". It is quite a stretch to attempt to claim that the Scriptures support the modern application of this American constitutional amendment. It becomes apparent, therefore, that our forefathers intended this principle to keep anyone from being stopped from saying something that encourages good. Today, however, it is used to defend speech that is vulgar and blasphemous.

Those who formulated our Constitution did not envision that these amendments would be used to defend the continued practice of evil. None of them would have imagined that "freedom of speech" would so easily change from a protection of Christian speech to a protection of pagan lies. They did not even imagine that it was possible that anyone who was not a professing Christian could hold political office in America (read the Federalist Papers if you doubt this). If they had included a "boundary" (like consistency with the Nicene Creed) we would not likely be where we are today.

For another example, would our founding fathers have believed that publishing pornography (either in print or electronically) was a form of speech that should be protected? Anyone who thinks that it would be so, needs to go back and read a bit more history of the lives and ethics of those men. In a similar vein, I have read Christians who wrote with anger and scorn at their spiritual leaders because they found a point of disagreement between the two (either minor or major disagreement does not matter; we are supposed to communicate with humble respect towards those who are over us in the Lord and never berate them--especially in public), and they often have no shame when they do so. Why is this so? Because they have been brought up to think that we have "freedom of speech" (as interpreted by liberals and modernists who want to shake off the laws of God).

So, we have a godly principle that possesses few (if any) proper legal boundaries. Therefore, when the sinfulness of men comes into play, they will take things as far as the non-existent boundaries will allow; give them an inch and they will take a mile. Is this how we should live? Is this what Jesus calls us to? No. We, as the people of God should be going out of our way to display that we are accountable to a higher authority. We should be living examples of the fact that we do not make our decisions based on the liberal interpretations of society, but rather on the traditions and truths that have been revealed to us by the Almighty Lord Jesus Christ, for we "ought to obey God rather than men".

Archaic English and Latin

2011-11-29T16:35:00.002-06:00

I minored in Greek in College and took a few more elective Greek classes while in Seminary. I never had a formal Latin class, but I taught myself a smattering of Latin over the years because it was clear that it was needed for theological studies. Aside from the obvious pastoral need for these languages, the roots of English are primarily Latin and Greek. I teach my children Latin and will offer to them Greek if they are interested. These are useful classical tools of a solid education. Yet, there is more to these languages than merely furthering one's own personal knowledge.

As Greek was fading in the ancient world, Latin continued to be spoken by many of our English forefathers because of the influence of the Roman Empire which came to the British isles early in the first millennium. Furthermore, St. Augustine of Canterbury, who came to England in the early middle ages, brought a Latin liturgy with him and that had a high influence on the peoples of Britain. Regardless of what ethnic background you have, if you live in America then part of your heritage comes from England.

Western culture in the time of the Church fathers, which was heavily affected by the Holy Roman Empire, was largely a Latin culture. It was touched by the Roman Empire, and as the Church grew it sanctified this Latin culture and turned it into a Christian Empire. The country that was Rome faded away, and the Church centered in Rome remained. One of the things that was sanctified was the very language of the day. The language that was spoken by the pagan Caesars to call down death on many of our Christian forefathers (and mothers) was now being used to speak the glories of the Lord Jesus Christ (the "Galilean" had beaten them).

There is nothing inherently holy about Latin. I teach it to my children because it is the basis of much of English, but that is merely a fact of Divine providence. Jesus chose to bless the world with the gospel at a time when Latin and Greek were the predominant languages. He chose to bless European culture with the Roman Catholic Church and she spoke Latin. Greek was still being spoken by many of our forefathers in the eastern parts of the Church, but Greek became a bit of a local vernacular while Latin was "canonized". God could have just as easily chosen to have Christ be born to the Jews while they were under the Babylonian Empire (and thus, I suppose, we would be speaking something that derives from Babylonian--a very ugly sounding language).

Yet, having said that Latin was merely the predominant language in Europe when God chose to bless us with the gospel, does not mean that the usage of Latin is merely an accident and can therefore be ignored. Latin is the language that God chose to bless. It is also the language that the Church chose to sanctify with ecclesiastical usage. Furthermore, the fact that Latin is a "dead" language is a good thing. It is good because it means that Latin can avoid being touched by common usage. Common usage does not always corrupt a language, but it can make it confusing.

This is also the value of the Anglican usage of "archaic" (what an emotive word!) English. The fact that the Anglican liturgy that we use at St. Aidan's is written in "Elizabethan" English is an advantage (though "Elizabethan" is a bit of a misnomer perpetuated by people who do not know history very well--the translators of the Authorized Version of the Bible did not speak English like you read it in their translation; read the preface to the 1611 edition and you will see what I mean). Despite what modernists will tell you it is better when the liturgy and the Scriptures are not in common speech. The language of our Missal is not spoken, and thus it cannot lose the proper connotations. As spoken languages grow, they also become flexible and connotations change. When I was a kid "wicked" meant . . . well . . . it meant "wicked". Today, among many kids, it means the same as "cool" (which is, hopefully, not the same in their minds). Yet, when you hear the word "wicked" in our liturgy today, no one doubts what the connotation is.

Thus, the Latin Mass is in the same vein of historic tradition as we Anglicans are used to with our older style of English. No, I am not saying that older English is of the same degree of blessedness as is ecclesiastical Latin, but they are both working in the same manner with the same purpose. The older English retains the usage of a language in a manner that helps it to remain clear. I know that this may sound like the exact opposite of reality to many who are reading this, but the very flexibility of a spoken language (not to mention local idioms and colloquialisms) is what makes it harder to be specific thus requiring extra clarification. Most Anglo-Catholics, and all traditional Catholics should be able to attest to this fact.

We should seek to make all that we do beautiful to the Lord (even if we ourselves do not yet see it as beautiful). This is especially true of how we speak to God in the liturgy. "Archaic" English is beautiful because it keeps the language that we use to address God separate and distinct from the language that we use to address the mailman. No one says to others "give ear to my supplications", and that is good. In the same way, no one can modernize "Et cum spiritu tuo" into "yeah, you too dude".

Hence, I can confidently say that it should be expected that Anglican Catholics in the Ordinariate would be completely consistent with their heritage were they to begin saying the Tridentine Latin Mass (though some already do). After much thought (about eleven seconds worth) I decided that if I am ordained in the Catholic Ordinariate, I would greatly like to begin saying the Latin Mass on a regular basis. What if it is just myself and the acolyte (and my family), and no one else shows up? I believe that God will think it beautiful nonetheless.

All One

2011-11-26T11:35:00.003-06:00

I posted this over at The Anglo-Catholic.com, but just in case anyone does not read that site regularly, here it is as well:

Countries are simply conventions. They are merely agreed upon borders marking off the dominant authorities in various locations. All kings, presidents, and legislators will fade away, for their power is nothing when compared with the King of kings. Ethnicity is nothing more than a marker for certain cultural and geographical backgrounds possessed by a group of people. This is how the Scriptures tell us to think in the Church. There is neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, African nor European, British nor Canadian; for we are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord.

National or ethnic identities are useful for distinctions as well as for understanding one's heritage. Yet, in spite of those distinct local customs, there is only one people of God. No matter how many different local practices we may have, those differences are not supposed to separate us from one another, but merely distinguish us from each other. Certainly there are sinful divisions that exist between the people of God–not all are in communion with the Holy See–yet we are supposed to be working to destroy all things that divide, not create more divisions. Anything that would create more wedges between Christians than there already are is wrong, and anything that would create wedges between Christians who are already in union with one another is even worse.

Ordinariates will be established within the geographical boundaries that we call countries merely for the sake of convenience and clarity of jurisdiction. These countries are allowed certain distinctives but those distinctives are nothing more than common practices (be they good or bad). An Australian Ordinariate has no essential differences with an Ordinariate in Argentina. I may dislike something about another country, but that has nothing to do with the fact that we are called to be Christian first, and national last. There are not supposed to be "Chinese Catholics" or "African Catholics" or "French Catholics" or "Mexican Catholics". These are things that we have created; not what God has commanded. The Ordinariates will be Catholic; not American, nor Japanese, nor anything else. In the Church all such divisions must be abolished because, "He is our peace, Who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us" (Ephesians 2:14).

Dependents

2011-11-23T10:20:00.002-06:00

No, this is not original to me; I got it from a friend (who probably got it from a friend, etc.).

They sent my tax return back; again. All I did was answer accurately when it told me to, "List all dependents". I wrote down the following:

"12 million illegal immigrants, 3 million drug addicts, 42 million welfare recipients, 2 million prisoners, and 535 men and women in the U.S. House and Senate."

Apparently, this was not an acceptable answer. The truth hurts.

Its Called "Thanksgiving"!

2011-11-22T22:31:00.004-06:00

It is not "Turkey Day". Yes, most of us will celebrate by eating turkey, but that is not what the day is about. The eating is, itself, a sign of obedience to God (cf. Deuteronomy 12:15) where the Israelites ate a grand meal in order to express their thanks for all the blessings of God (I hope you already knew that). Yet, it is not the eating itself that is the purpose of the day, and if we allow the world to make us say "Turkey Day" rather than "Thanksgiving" then we are further allowing the world to drive another reference to Christ out of the public sphere.

Furthermore, the day after Thanksgiving has become more of the focus for some folks than Thanksgiving Day itself. "Black Friday" is named for the hectic nature of shopping and sales that goes on during that day. Thus, there are two essentials that modern society wants us to attend to this coming weekend: first, please yourself by eating tons; second, be a good citizen and buy more (just like THX-1138). They would rather not have you "give thanks". Giving of thanks usually includes (and should include) a certain contentedness with your life. When we give thanks we say to God, "Thou hast provided all things necessary for this life, for which I give unto Thee all thanks and honor and praise." Contented people do not become obsessed with buying more and more "stuff"--and we definitely need to be more contented.

A number of years ago I annoyed a cashier at a grocery store on the day before Thanksgiving. She said "have a happy turkey day" and I said, "What?" A bit embarrassed, she said "you know, turkey day, this Thursday". I asked, "do you mean Thanksgiving?" "Well yes, but I don't say that; it may offend someone". I told her straight out: "You offended me by not saying it. So, thank you, I will enjoy a Happy Thanksgiving, but I don't celebrate anything called turkey day." I had cornered her a bit so her response was expected: "Oh." I wanted to give at least a bit of encouragement, so I left saying to her "Ma'am, you have a happy Thanksgiving, a Merry Christmas, and God bless you!"

Thus, I encourage you not to wish anyone a "happy turkey day" or (worse) a generic "happy holidays". Make sure that you keep reference to Christ everywhere that you can: tell them "Happy Thanksgiving" as well as "Merry Christmas", and do so without shame. All the blessings we have in this country (in spite of what some pagans have tried to convince us of) have come directly from the grace of God. He must be thanked and He must be honored. Proclaim proudly the Kingdom of God and the Lordship of Christ. Proclaim proudly that you are thankful for all the benefits "procured unto us" by our Lord and Savior. Turkey Day is about the food; Thanksgiving is about the Lord of Creation and is for those who are truly thankful and want to enjoy a meal in praise for all that He has given them.

Freedom of Ungodly Speech? (part 1)

2011-11-22T00:22:00.004-06:00

Whatever the original intent of the American concept of "freedom of speech" may have been, we must ask ourselves whether the Christian faith agrees with the modern interpretation of that concept. American society today likes to imagine that freedom of speech means that everyone should be free to say whatever he thinks at any time whatsoever. Christians, fighting for the principles of our Constitution, claim the importance of freedom of speech, and (somewhat unwittingly) end up allowing the wicked to wallow in their sins without restraint.This is not what any of us want, but it is an inevitable consequence of the modern perverted reinterpretation of the American Constitution. To be clear: I am not attacking the American constitution, but rather the ungodly application of it.

Are we, by defending this broad understanding of "freedom of speech" also encouraging the sinfulness of man to run headlong without boundaries? The question must be asked, for nothing about American government should be considered sacred. Only the things of God are sacred; the things that men develop outside of sacred tradition may be good or bad, but they are never sacred. I never actually try to step on people's toes, but sometimes it is a necessary consequence of the pursuit of righteousness. Have you ever asked whether "freedom" (as pursued by moderns) is always a good thing? Let me ask some simple questions: Should a couple have the freedom to choose whether or not to have children? Should a woman have the freedom to choose to have sex outside of marriage? Should a man have the freedom to disseminate lies about someone he does not like? Should governments have the freedom to take away the hard earned possessions of innocent people (otherwise called socialism)? My point should be clear: freedom is not always good.

There is a warning given to us in the Word of God about our speech. After being told that our words are often filled with all manner of evil, Christ the Lord tells us that we will be judged for every careless word that we speak. If this is the case, then "freedom of speech" may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Who wants freedom if that freedom will lead us to greater judgment? So, then, we need to qualify and say that we want freedom in some areas, but not necessarily all areas. How do we differentiate? The common heathen will say that he wants freedom in everything that does not hurt or offend others (though he is never consistent in this). As the people of God we need to hold to a higher standard. Does God really grant us freedom of speech? He judges us for our speech--is that what we consider freedom (i.e. without consequences)?

There are many aspects of "free speech" that we could consider. The word "freedom" essentially means "without constraint or force". So we should ask ourselves if the Scriptures have the same perspective. Is there any support for the idea that man's speech should have no restraints on it? When I say "no restraints", I mean "no restraints whatsoever", and not "no godly restraints". Therein we find our problem. The Bible does, in fact, command various restraints on our speech. In fact, there are times when the Bible even requires certain things to be said (which is also not exactly "freedom" per se). For example, parents do not have the freedom of speech to refuse to speak the truths of God to their children (Deuteronomy 6:7). God commands that parents speak to their children about His mighty works and what He has commanded. Although we as the people of God would not consider this to be "coercive", we would have to admit that God is commanding this of us, and parents do not have the right to "speak freely" in this area. Parents may not want to obey this command, but they will have to give account if they choose to disobey. This is merely one example among many that could be put forward.

To be continued . . .

The Un-Comfortable Words

2011-11-18T12:02:00.003-06:00

In Anglican parishes there are four verses of Scripture that are usually read during Mass. They are called the "Comfortable Words" because they follow the introduction, "Hear what comfortable words our Savior Christ saith unto all who truly turn to him", which comes right after the Absolution and before the Sursum Corda. Some liberal minded priests today are teaching things that do not accord with the historic faith, and some even openly encourage changing the faith once delivered to the saints. This is entirely sarcastic, but I wonder if the following rewording of the Comfortable Words would better suit their theology. My apologies to anyone who has not heard them read in the original context before (and is thus confused by what I write here).

Come unto me, all ye that are offended and frustrated in your pursuit of personal fulfillment, and I will make you feel good about yourself. (St. Messedup 11:28)

So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that all that refuse to work should not be forced to provide for themselves, but have everlasting welfare and social security checks. (St. Jobless 3:16)

This is a true saying, and required of all men to be tolerated, that Christ Jesus came into the world to make us happy. (1 Timidsoul 1:15)

If any man fail to achieve self-satisfaction, we have a Lawyer who has some influence with the Father, Jesus Christ the political activist; and he is the encouragement for our self esteem. (1 St. Jurisprudence 2:1-2)

The Awakening Conscience

2011-11-17T15:11:00.004-06:00

This is an amazing painting by Holman Hunt that truly captures that sense of "awakening" that occurs when we have a surge or growth in our character (if you "click" on the picture itself you should be able to open up a larger version to look at more closely). When I saw it the first time it struck me as a wonderful representation of conversion (or reversion) to the Catholic faith. My own change was not actually a "conversion" or a "reversion" in the traditional sense that those terms are used. It was more of a gradually growing awareness. There never really was a point where I had that blinding flash of light that changed everything. The closest I could refer to was when I realized that I no longer held to any of the primary tenets of Protestantism ("gee whiz, I'm thinking like a Catholic"). This did not come as an "awakening" as much as a simple laughing at myself for not seeing it before.

Yet, I have many friends who will tell stories of the kind of sudden awakening as seen in this painting. The woman's face is the primary focus of the painting, but if you look closely you will see how there are many other clues to its meaning. Her lover is trying to pull her back, but she is not actually resisting--she is merely leaving him behind. Notice also the yarn on the floor to the lower right is "unraveling"; exactly as her life is doing. She has a ring on every finger except where a wedding ring should be; all the wrong commitments. The musical piece ("Oft in the Stilly Night") on the piano is what has apparently caused her awakening, but I will leave the poetic commentary to others more educated in that field. I merely notice the main details, and there are certainly more.

You know what I see on her face? Freedom; deliverance. The truth shall set you free, and it has here. We see that portrayed in a wonderful way. For each of us there comes times in our lives when we are brought to an awareness that we have made a mistake and that is a humbling moment. When, however, that comes in relation to our understanding of God or His Church, then that realization can be devastating; or it can be freeing. It can be that which gives us direction and hope for the future. When Protestants or Easterns see that they have held to schism and they move forward with reconciliation to Mother Church, they are going through this very situation. A "stepping away" and "moving toward" go hand in hand. This occurs when our conscience is awakened and we are allowed to see things in a marvelously beautiful, and new, light; all by the grace of God.

P.S. Could anyone out there tell me whether the actual title is "The Awakening Conscience" or "The Awakened Conscience"; I have seen both used (sometimes by the same author!).

If Thy Right Eye Offend Thee...

2011-11-16T11:44:00.004-06:00

A Protestant pastor once said that there are two kinds of Christian men; those who struggle with pornography and those who are lying. Although he was speaking in a hyperbolic manner, he might not have been that far from the truth after all. Here is wonderful article that points out much of the problem and its consequences. It is important for all of us to read it. Wives, read it for your husband's good; husbands, read it for your good as well as for your wife and children. Unmarried folks, read it for the good of your own soul, as well as for the good of others you may be able to help with this. Satan is sending pornography against us, and he is tearing us down with it.

Getting My Way

2011-11-15T23:33:00.001-06:00

I did not get my way, and I got very angry. I objected to the one who was the cause of the problem. It seemed to me that the entire thing was ridiculous and that she had merely been a selfish and cruel woman. I raised my voice, and tried to express clearly what was wrong with the situation; I wanted to make it clear that I was wronged in this and that she did not fully understand just how obvious her mistake was. I did not succeed and she continued to assert her authority in the situation. I was completely frustrated and it caused me to hold a grudge for a long time. I told others about it, and they sympathized with me, which made me feel better. Of course I was four at the time, but that is beside the point--or is it?

How do people respond today when they do not get their way? I like observing people's behavior (being careful that I am not intruding into their privacy). Because of this I have been listening to people for a long time, and I try to be carefully observant. I counsel various people (many of whom are not in my parish, or even in the same state that I live in) and I have found an oft repeated trend: Christians (both children and adults) do not know how to deal with forced self-sacrifice. When we as humans do not get our way, we are tempted to respond with anger and contempt. Yet these are the behaviors of (poorly disciplined) four year olds; not adults.

I listened (reluctantly) to a woman speaking to her friends in the middle of a Subway restaurant the other day. I would have preferred not to have heard her conversation but it seemed she wanted everyone to hear her (Proverbs 7:11 comes to mind). She had been "wronged" and she was "gonna tell him" things that I am not going to repeat here. No one could miss the fact that she had a run in with her man and did not get her way. I do not know her situation (except what she voiced for us all to hear), but her attitude was more than obvious: "not getting my way is the worst evil imaginable".

How do you respond to disappointment? Do you whine and fuss? Do you spout anger like a volcano? Or do you take it like Jesus did? How often do you say to the Lord (with sincerity) "not my will, but thine, be done"? I am not asking about what you are willing to admit to others, but what you know is the truth. Is "not my will" a last ditch effort when all other avenues have been exhausted and you are a broken person? No, I am not advocating that you behave like a doormat. God does not want wimps or whipping boys; but He also does not want froward people who think they always know what is right for themselves and everyone else.

A strong Christian must know that he should never give up when it comes to serving the Lord. He also, however, must learn that serving the Lord sometimes means giving up. Giving up our own desires for the good of others is a means of serving the Lord and it is a sign of holiness. Our Lady gave up a "normal" life to live as the Mother of God, and the example that she (humbly) sets forth for us is one that we should never forget: "be it unto me according to thy word". Hers is the supreme example of what it means to say "I give up getting my way for the better good of getting God's way". Part of learning what it means to be God's faithful people is learning what it means to sacrifice of ourselves for the sake of others. Jesus did not demand His divine rights (Phil 2:6), but rather endured the deadly tortures of the Romans because He saw a greater good for our sakes (Heb 12:2).

As we are about to begin this Advent season let each of us think on what it meant for Jesus to be born as a mere man. Let each of us prepare our hearts to learn what it means to give up something that we enjoy for the sake of others. If Christmas really is a time of giving, and if it is more blessed to give than receive, then what will you give for others (and I do not mean "gifts" in the traditional sense) this year? Advent is not Lent, but it is a time in which each of us is supposed to prepare our hearts, in humility, for growing closer to our Lord and His incarnation. Let us each be willing to give of ourselves as a blessed gift to others. If we cannot give up simple things for others, we will never be able to handle it when we are forced to give up things that we want to keep. Not "getting your way" should not be a disaster. Rather, it should be a means to greater growth in the strength of Jesus Christ.

Cardinal Wuerl's Report on the US Ordinariate

2011-11-15T14:59:00.004-06:00

I ask everyone to join me in giving praise to our gracious Lord at this time. Cardinal Wuerl has given his report and answered some important questions for us. In case you were not able to watch it "streamed" online, then you can read the full text of his report here. There were a few details added to what we have heard before, such as the official date of the establishment of the American Ordinariate! January 1, 2012, is when the Ordinariate (not yet given a name) will be established here, and on that same date the man who will be chosen as Ordinary (also not yet publicly named) will be announced. Those of us who have received our nulla osta are now waiting to hear what the next step will be for our process as well as for our parishes. Please, everyone, keep us in your prayers.

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created (Revelation 4:11).

USCCB Meeting

2011-11-11T13:04:00.004-06:00

Cardinal Wuerl is scheduled to give a report on the status the US Ordinariate next week at the USCCB General Assembly. The web page to watch for information is here. The report is supposed to be given at 3:25pm (EST) on Tuesday. It is hoped that he will be announcing the name of the Ordinary and the date of the establishment of the Ordinariate itself (though as others have mentioned, this is not the typical venue for this). Let us all keep him (and the future Ordinary) in prayer and receive what he has to say with good hearts.

Some Wisdom from Thomas Jefferson

2011-11-11T09:28:00.004-06:00

I have come across a few people who still think that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, but that is not the case. He could be called a Deist, or possibly a Gnostic, but his rejection of all miracles (including the resurrection of Christ) leaves little evidence for any genuine Christian faith on his part. Yet, with that said, it cannot be denied that he was a brilliant man in other areas, and that he was highly influenced by some biblical concepts (and likely by some godly people). Here are a few quotes from him that will help to show what the founding fathers of our country believed about the society they were forming.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

It appears that our politicians today are unaware of the principles that this nation was founded on. While claiming to "love" America, and desiring to "help" America, many of our leaders are doing the very things that our founding fathers said would destroy this nation. Where are the leaders who can see what led to America's blessings? Where are the leaders who are even half as wise as Thomas Jefferson? Pray for the mercy of God on this land, and on every nation, that we would all see that wherever the Church's wisdom is separated from the state, that state is headed for its doom.

Parents of Disobedience

2011-11-08T13:17:00.006-06:00

From C.S. Lewis' book, The Four Loves:

We hear a great deal about the rudeness of the rising generation. I am an oldster myself and might be expected to take the oldsters' side, but in fact I have been far more impressed by the bad manners of parents to children than by those of children to parents. Who has not been the embarrassed guest at family meals where the father or mother treated their grown-up offspring with an incivility which, offered to any other young people, would simply have terminated the acquaintance? Dogmatic assertions on matters which the children understand and their elders don't, ruthless interruptions, flat contradictions, ridicule of things the young take seriously--sometimes of their religion--insulting references to their friends, all provide an easy answer to the question, "Why are they always out? Why do they like every house better than their home?" Who does not prefer civility to barbarism?

When Lewis wrote this in 1960, the world had not yet seen the rapid degeneration in the moral fiber of children that showed its ugly head in the late sixties (though it began long before that). That is what makes this quote so much more valuable. We can see one of the most significant contributing factors in the disaster of modern parenting at a time when the full effects were not yet clearly visible. I am not so naive as to imagine that this was the sole cause. Coupled, however, with the moral relativism (as I have pointed out many times) that parents began to dump on their children during that same time (and have only increased in during the last few decades) we can see how these two sins fed each other and helped to get us to where we are today.

A visitor to our house today commented on the "wonderful behavior" of our children. I am not bragging here, really. I point this out because of what meagre information she had in order to make her assessment. She saw them for no more than a few minutes and their total interaction was not much more than quick introductions and their responses of "yes ma'am" and "pleased to meet you" (they were doing their schoolwork at the time and needed to return to it quickly). They could have been little monsters who were just reciting a forced comment from memory (all the while harboring contempt for both the parent and the visitor). We knew she was impressed because she kept repeating her compliments. What has America degenerated to if a simple "yes ma'am" is a surprise to a stranger?

What are the steps that are taken by most parents today to lead their children into haughty rebellion and frowardness? Most do it without even thinking about it, because these steps are the natural byproduct of a heart that chooses that which pleases self over that which pleases the Lord.

Step one: fill your children with moral relativity.
Step two: drive them away from you by belittling them and destroying their tender spirits.
Step three: withhold the blessing of corrective discipline from them.
Step four: leave them to their own understanding and force them to "decide for themselves" about what is right and wrong.

Read these over again and you will see it clearly: take the easy road of the least degree of responsible involvement in your children's lives and these will be the basic choices that you will make.

The result of this type of parenting are laid out for us more than once in the Word of God: the "children of disobedience" (Ephesians 5:6), also referred to as "unprofitable children" and "ungodly sons" (Ecclesiasticus 16:1). You can try to gloss over the facts by calling this stages of rebellion by nice euphemisms ("terrible twos", "adolescence", or "just being a teen"), but that does not hide the fact that we are talking about behavior that the Scriptures condemn, and which is entirely avoidable. All children struggle as they are growing up, but the parents are the ones called by God as the primary help to get them through that struggle. Parents are supposed to teach them how to be a faithful adult; they are supposed to make them into servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is true in all the Christian faith, but especially in parenting is it so that "narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Sing Like You Mean It

2011-11-02T14:44:00.002-05:00

Standing for the hymn, I noticed that it was completely new to me. I did not know if the other seminarians around me had the same problem. I tried to listen closely to the music and get a feel for the rhythm of the hymn, but was not doing well. I tried to sing the words very quietly so that I could (hopefully) cover up the fact that I had no idea what I was doing. Then I heard him; an older gentleman (one of our professors) in the back of the chapel singing loudly. I have to admit that I am not a expert in music, but even my weakly trained ear (three years of piano lessons at 9-12 years old) could tell that he was off-key. Did he not realize how bad he sounded?

Then it hit me. This is the way I always sang. Yes, there were times when I was a bit louder, but those were few and far between. I was usually just moving my mouth to make it look like I was participating. I had rarely put much effort into it. This godly professor may have been off-key but he was trying, and trying is exactly what Jesus calls us to do. Like our best good deeds, our best singing still is not worthy of the Lord's presence (especially when compared with the voices of "myriads of angels"). Whatever we offer up to God needs to be redeemed by the blood of Christ in order for it to be worthy for Him to receive it. That older gentleman's sincere effort at obeying Christ's command to "sing the praises of the Lord" may have sounded awful to my ears, but it sounded wonderful to God because He saw it as an honest effort at holy song--not much different from the praises of children (cf. Matthew 21:16); bad to our ears, but beautiful to the Lord.

Hence, I looked at my own efforts and thought that I was doing a pretty pitiful job at singing. I was either whining out a sadly mumbled display of my own fears, or I was not singing at all (out of a supposed claim of not wanting "to distract others"). God does not tell us only to sing if we are perfectly adept at it, any more than He tells us only to obey when we can do so with perfectly pure hearts. Yes, He does want both perfect obedience and perfect singing, but "He knows our frame that we are but dust", and that means that He wants us to sing so that we can be heard (cf. Psalm 98:4 with Matthew 5:16). Certainly there are those with physical ailments that prevent them from doing so (I know one older lady who has severe throat problems and her voice cracks so bad sometimes she can barely speak--she sings in her heart and the Lord knows the depth of her devotion), but most of us are perfectly capable of learning how better to praise God with our voices.

So that no one misunderstands, I must qualify what I am saying. I am not talking about those times when you are learning a new song. We all need time to get used to a new song, especially if it is a bit challenging. Most laymen are not ready to sing four-part harmony, to say nothing about jumping in to a new hymn. Additionally, I want to acknowledge that there is much liturgical music out there that is (politely speaking) nothing more than fluff. It should never have been printed outside of a book of nursery rhymes, and the writers should probably be flogged for having written it in the first place. This sappy, syrupy and whiny music is what has contributed to much of the emasculation in Christian men over the past century. I confess that I too have difficulty participating in a hymn that makes me wish I was deaf.

The word "worship" comes from the older English "worth-ship" because it is a declaration of the "worthfulness" of the God who is being praised. Pitiful and weak singing says that our God is pitiful and weak; is this the level of worthiness that we want to declare in our worship of Him? I am sure that it is not. God's worthiness is beyond what human words can express, and our songs should attempt to reach that very same level of worthiness (and they can with His redeeming grace). What "worth" do we attribute to God by getting distracted in the liturgy? What "worth" do we attribute to God when we are not willing to be there (at least) weekly in Mass? Likewise, what "worth" do we attribute to Him when our voices are timid and our words are mumbled?

What I have said above applies both to men and women (as well as boys and girls) but I want to add something specific here just for the men. Sing like you intend on praising the God Who created all things. The only thing (in my humble opinion) worse than a man who sings like a squeaky girl is a man who refuses to sing at all (and moving your lips while no sound comes out is not singing). If you do not know how, then learn. You can find books and people that will help you to learn, if you really want to. It is better to hear a congregation singing loudly from the heart who are not exactly in tune, than to hear a congregation mumble out something that makes a visitor think that they are ready to fall asleep. If men are behaving like real men, then being "a manly-man" means being so everywhere; including in liturgical song. Men: lead the way (especially for the younger men) and show that you really love the God you are worshipping.

Therefore, men: sing like men. A hearty and robust singing that comes from the chest (cf. C.S. Lewis' "men without chests") is what it means to "sing like a man". It is, in itself, a condemnation of the growing pagan rejection of God's created order. God made men to be men, and women to be women. Liberal feminism has been actively trying to emasculate men and boys for a couple generations now, and Christians have done little to stem this tide. The world is not going to be turned around by singing better, but it will make a difference in our hearts (and especially the hearts of our children) and that will have an impact on generations to come. Women: sing like women. You are beautiful and your voices raised in praise to the Lord will only be enhanced when contrasted with the deep resonating voices of the men. Children, join in and sing along with the adults; God is pleased to hear your voices just as much as theirs. Everyone sing together and extol the wonders of the Almighty God Who created us to sing His praises.

Tradition: Dead or Alive?

2011-10-31T23:35:00.002-05:00

There was something of a temporary lull in the traditional life of the Catholic Church after people started misunderstanding Vatican II. I tend to think that the impetus for the misunderstanding came much earlier, but that is my personal opinion. Modernism appears to have surged forward and helped many to misuse Vatican II as though it were a license to break with the historic Church. There are many ways in which this occurred, but it seems that the first line of harm was with the clergy. Many of them were misled and thus they misled their congregations. Suffice it to say that the ugly head of modernism rose up and tried to sweep the traditional faith under the rug (or maybe "out the door" would be a better metaphor?). I am not going to try to attribute motives to this entire thing (I did enough of that as a Protestant, and I think I am finished with it), but it cannot be overlooked that the motivation to preserve unity with the past was not well seated in Catholic laity a few decades ago.

Today, only ostriches are unaware that something is changing. The tide is clearly turning, and the newest generation of Catholic priests are showing a strongly traditionalist leaning. The clergy who still think that modernism and compromise are the wave of the future (and there are a number who are still out there), are slowly dying off and it does not appear that they are replacing their ranks. I have heard about a few of them who say that those of us who want to restore that which was lost are "living in the past" and that we are ignorant of the "wave of the future". (And there were those 75 years ago who said that cigarettes are "good for your health".) This growth that I speak of is slow, and that is a good thing. Fast growth often burns itself out and ends with failure.

In the meantime, over in the Anglican Church (Episcopal Church USA, as well as the Church of England) the modernist surge has been gaining steam for quite a while, and it does not show any signs of slowing. If you read books written by Anglo-Catholics in the first half of the twentieth century they often betray a sense that the traditional faith is firm and nothing can topple it. One book, written in the early eighteenth century, claims that the "worst of the attacks on the English Church" are over; if only he knew what was yet to come. A few decades later, the shaky bricks began to slip loose, and today it does not take a genius to see that the Anglicanism of today has parted ways with that of just a couple generations ago. I doubt that any priest in the Church of England of 150 years ago would have thought that today they would be allowing unrepentant sodomites to be considered for orders (I have a hard time calling what they are giving out "holy" orders).

Carleton's Anglo-Catholic defense, "The Kings Highway" points out the nature of division. The author clearly understands that actions have consequences and that we are not allowed the luxury of ignoring them. He tells us that, "Separation from the successors of the apostles involves separation from the Apostolic Church." Later he adds, "The separation of any body of Christians from them [the Apostles] has been found by experience to entail sooner or later the penalty of falling out of the central stream of Catholic truth, and losing the proportion of the faith. The beliefs of such bodies tend to become partial, and one-sided, and in the end contrary to revealed religion." He wrote these words long before any of our contemporary debates arose, and I doubt that he knew where things were headed.

As the Catholic Church begins to turn back to her roots, the Anglican Church is turning further and further away from hers. This is one of the primary reasons for the importance of the implementation of the Anglican Ordinariates. It brings together the best of these worlds. Certainly there are going to be those in the Ordinariates who are not as "traditionalist" as others, but that is not the issue. Those of us who are leaving the errors of the separated Anglican Church are seeking unity in the reunited Anglican Ordinariate. We are coming to a place where we can realize that we do not need to have the exact same ideas on everything. Yet, we also realize that godly reform does not happen by committee. Neither does godly reform happen by continually dividing and making new denominations. It comes by a commitment to what our forefathers handed to us, and that includes tradition.

As I write on this day when I used to celebrate the "Reformation" (read: "rebellion"), I realize that error always leads to more error. Beauty and truth may be found in a time of error, but it is always in spite of that error, and not because of it. When we see error and sin, we are called to turn away from it. As the remains of the Catholic faith are dying in the Anglican Communion and are only continually dividing in the Continuing Anglican movement, the future may appear bleak. In a few generations there will be only one place where the traditions of the Anglican and Catholic faith will be found. In the only Church which can truly say it is "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic"; the Roman Catholic Church. What an ironic story. The Anglicans left Rome to "keep their faith" and they are losing it. Now only Rome will keep the "Anglican faith". That is why I am taking my family into communion with the Catholic Church. I go there to keep my faith. I go there to remain true to what I have been taught. I go to find tradition and communion as it is supposed to be.

Ecclesiasticus 5:2-7

2011-10-29T13:27:00.000-05:00

"Follow not thine own mind and thy strength, to walk in the ways of thy heart: And say not, Who shall control me for my works? for the Lord will surely revenge thy pride. Say not, I have sinned, and what harm hath happened unto me? for the Lord is longsuffering, he will in no wise let thee go. Concerning propitiation, be not without fear to add sin unto sin: And say not His mercy is great; he will be pacified for the multitude of my sins: for mercy and wrath come from him, and his indignation resteth upon sinners. Make no tarrying to turn to the Lord, and put not off from day to day: for suddenly shall the wrath of the Lord come forth, and in thy security thou shalt be destroyed, and perish in the day of vengeance."

Antisocial Networking

2011-10-27T11:22:00.002-05:00

I am intentionally not on Facebook or Twitter or any of the other supposedly "social network" sites. Although I believe firmly that we should be interacting with one another, I also believe that websites like Facebook actually promote isolationism and hinder real social interaction. They do this by encouraging impersonal interaction as a sufficient means of personal involvement. The behavior of a culture that interacts primarily through electronic media threatens to drive us away from one another and into our own little cyber-world.

Let me clarify (so that no one thinks I am going off the deep end here), there is nothing inherently wrong with communicating to one another through electronic media. I probably send out about fifty emails in an average week, and I receive at least that many. I (obviously) have a weblog that I write on, and I also write for theAngloCatholic.com. I am neither Amish, nor neo-Amish. Yet what are the proportions of our manner of communication? In what way do you communicate with people the most? Is it face to face (the most personal method), over the phone, by hand-written letter, by email, or by some generally one sided volley of information and pictures (like Facebook--which, considering the wealth of the owner, should probably be renamed "Facebuck")?

I have met teenagers who have a hard time having a serious face to face conversation, but they can text their friends with lightning speed. I have sat and watched two people having lunch together and they are both talking to someone else on their cell phones. I know a man who used to send his wife emails while they were both at home rather than speak to her directly (he claimed it was "easier" to write it down); they are now divorced. I know of a priest who is one of the most difficult people to speak to. He does a wonderful job of saying Mass, and his sermons are usually well organized and clearly thought out. Yet, his parishioners do not like to speak to him. His thoughts are jumbled, his mannerisms are quirky, and he frequently is misunderstood in what he does say. It is not likely that his social ineptitude comes from spending too much time on Twitter (I am not sure he owns a computer), but he was ordained and his weird behaviors were seen as something acceptable in today's society.

Just because I can send an email to someone who lives 5000 miles away and have him receive it and respond in a manner of minutes, does not mean that either of us are exhibiting social graces. The technology that allows us to communicate over great distances is a blessing from God, but we are humans and we still need human contact. Although science fiction writers like to jump on Einstein's ideas and say that "higher developed beings" will be released from the bonds of physicality, and will become disembodied minds, this is not how we were created (but it was how the Gnostics wanted things). God created us with bodies and said that those bodies are "good". Furthermore, He promises to resurrect them after Judgment Day. We are physical and we need physical interaction. Creation is good, and though fallen, it will be perfectly redeemed. Some people today seem to be longing to become disembodied minds hooked up to a computer terminal.

Just consider what it means to have "friend" on Facebook. It often means no more than that there is a person who has looked at your pictures and read a couple things that you have written. He may even have a few similar interests with you. Is this what it means to be a friend? If I walk up to someone and behave towards them as people do on Facebook (here is an example) I would be thought a fool. So I am not merely trying to attack Facebook, or Twitter, I am attacking the world's increasingly antisocial behavior. I am intentionally not on Facebook or Twitter (I barely have time to get posts written for my blog) because I want to encourage social interaction and do what I can to recover what it means to be God's creatures. If you participate in any of these "social networks" then I am not encouraging you to cancel them (though I would not mind if you did); I am encouraging you reconsider what you are doing and how you are doing it. Be a truly social human.

How to Listen to a Lousy Sermon

2011-10-26T10:00:00.005-05:00

Have you ever heard a sermon that went over like a lead balloon? Some clergymen are a bit less gifted in the area of preaching, and others are more eloquent in the pulpit. How should those in the pews respond to a "stinker" (whether that is the norm for the priest, or if that is an oddity)? If God can teach a pagan a lesson by making a donkey talk to him (Numbers 22:28), then He can certainly teach each and every one of us something through a poorly written or badly delivered sermon. Every pastor gives a bad sermon once in a while (I know I have), and there are various things that can cause this. Regardless of whether your priest is a fantastic speaker (and only occasionally fumbles the homily) or an all-natural sedative (and could not keep the attention of the FBI if he confessed to a murder), it is possible for you to learn from every sermon he preaches.

Catholics and Anglicans both know that the center of the liturgy is the Eucharist. This is good and holy, for it means that they know how God provides for His people. He nourishes them with the body and blood of Christ the Lord. Yet, that has led to some fairly poor behavior on their part in regard to the sermonic portion of the Mass. Certainly, not all Catholics and Anglicans fall into this problem, but when they do, it has some bad consequences. It is as though some have jettisoned the sermon even before it is delivered because they do not expect much from it.

We all know the situation. The priest is giving his sermon, and the subject matter is either not interesting to the people, or he is delivering it in a poor manner. Maybe he was not properly prepared or maybe he is not feeling well that day. Whatever the cause, it is a challenge to pay attention, and that makes it even more difficult to stay alert. Some people slip into the "neutral" mode quicker than others, but we all know what it is like. You merely sit back and ignore a bad preacher with the thought that since the sermon "is not as important" as the Eucharist, it is acceptable to let yourself get distracted. This misses the fact that the grace of God can always work in spite of the circumstances.

Even good preachers only get that way because of the grace of God, and those hearing him are only blessed because of that very same grace. If we choose to "tune out" and let the words pass us by, then we are saying that God is not powerful enough to deal with the challenges of the situation at hand. Do any of you really believe that God (Who spoke through a jackass) cannot speak through a mumbly mouthed preacher? Here is a short, but helpful, list of five things that will enable you to get the most out of every sermon you hear (regardless of whether it is a bomb).

1. Before Mass even begins, plan to listen for God to speak to you (even if you doubt the priest has anything good to say). When you have a conversation with someone, you can either plan to communicate with him, or plan to ignore him. Communication involves two people interacting and transferring information between them. This is what much of the liturgy is about. The priest or bishop leads his people into communicating with God and listening to Him communicate back to them. If we give in to prejudice and view the priest as a bad preacher, or one sermon as a "flop", then we have shut our ears to the possibility that God is able to overcome our weaknesses and still say something to us that we need to hear. After all, you are not there to hear the priest's opinions: you are there to hear Christ!

2. Avoid criticizing the Priest; it's not your job and it only clouds your ability to hear what is being said. When two people are arguing at one another, they will rarely hear what the other is actually saying. This is because in a state of anger, our thinking gets clouded and we tend to hear what we expect (or want) to hear, rather than what is actually being said. The same goes for a critical spirit. When we become judgmental towards others, we will always view their actions and words as worse than they really are. Hence, when listening to a sermon, if you find yourself criticizing every little detail, you are clearly not open to hearing God speak to you.

3. Remember that God uses cracked pots (and torn Bibles). Does a Bible have to be in perfect shape for it to be readable? No. In the same way, a clergyman does not have to be a great messenger for God to be able to speak to you. This does not mean that God will make his words to be eloquent or interesting. It does mean, however, that God can touch your heart with something that is helpful for your sanctification if you only trust Him to do so. In fact, God seems to prefer to speak to us through people who are not that good at speaking. He has done it with prophets, and he can do it today through preachers. If the glorious truths of the gospel are given out through the pitiful mouths of His people, then that goes that much further to exalt the grace of God.

4. Sanctification does not always come from a brilliant truth. Similar to number 3 above, this means that there are many ways that God "speaks" to us. It is not always audible; it is often more in our heart than in our ears. The actual content of the words that a preacher speaks are not the only vehicle that Jesus uses when He wants to speak to us. I can think of times when people have come to me after a sermon and comment about how a certain thing that I said truly blessed them. I would thank them for their encouragement, and then try to figure out just when I said what they told me. I often could not remember those particular things, and I could not find any connecting references in my notes. Who was really doing the speaking in those instances? It certainly was not me. The Spirit of God connected with them through something I said, but because each one of us is unique, He connected with something that I never could have known or planned to say. This is to say that sanctification does not always come from particular truths; it also can come from truths that are "between the words" and those can only touch us when God Himself accomplishes it.

5. Expect God to bless you somehow. It is not presumption to assume that the Lord is willing to bless you. And it is not wrong to expect that good things can come from even the sloppiest packages. A good expectation is similar to that virtue that we call "hope". It is a good expectation for God's faithful people to believe that they will be blessed with resurrection. That is not presumption; it is trusting God at His word. He wants to bless us, and He promises to do so. Certainly we want Him to bless our minds and our understanding. Often that type of a blessing will come through a book or a comment from a Christian brother or sister. All the more should we have hope in being blessed through a sermon, even if it not going to win any prizes in public speaking. As the Scriptures say, "they shall be all taught of God."

Parenting: Easy. Relativism: Hard.

2011-10-20T23:20:00.002-05:00

Raising children is easy; moral relativism, now that is hard. No, I am not saying that there are no problems in raising children (we have five who are all homeschooled--trust me, I understand the problems). What I am getting at is more a matter of comparisons. It is not the process of parenting itself that makes things difficult, but rather the methodology that can do this. Virtually every complication in raising children comes from an infusion of moral relativism in one way or another. No, I do not mean a complete surrender to moral relativism. What I am referring to is when a parent says or does something that expresses that there is a relative nature in a certain aspect of morality. Notice that I did not say "every challenge" in raising children but "virtually every complication". This is so because children, by their very nature as fallen humans, will bring many challenges to the process of parenting (if they did not, then there would be no need for the parent and Aldous Huxley would be right after all). The "complications" that I speak of are those times when the parent thinks that he has done right, but things still go awry.

It really is not that hard to lead children to Jesus. In fact, it is remarkably simple. I do not deny that it is hard work, but it is hard work like digging a hole the size of an automobile is hard, not like the hard work of figuring out calculus. Diligence, consistency, and commitment are required in parenting, but it is not rocket science (really!). The reason is that children are born like little sponges; they soak up everything. And I mean, everything. That is why it is also their most dangerous quality. Because they soak up everything, and have little discernment in this, they can either be guided straight to the Cross of Jesus (if you fill them with the truth), or they can be led straight into the hands of the Devil himself (if you mix in some lies with the truth). Parents who do not realize this are placing their children in grave danger. The Scriptures tell us that "the rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame" (Proverbs 29:15). That means that if a parent thinks that he needs to allow his children to "choose for themselves" rather than use the rod and reproof, then that child will almost always grow to be a fool and eventually cause nothing but shame to his parents.

Parents who tell their children "don't do that" and then do not bring discipline when they disobey are responding with moral relativism. If discipline only comes every third time they disobey, then children learn that it is only wrong to disobey the third time. If discipline only comes when the parent is ready to explode, then children learn they can disobey until someone is ready to explode. Bringing discipline does not mean beating them, but it does mean that the parent needs to step in and stop the disobedient behavior. If the behavior is not dealt with (and a disappointed "sigh" and a shake of the head is not "dealing with it"), then the child will realize that, "Momma doesn't want me to do this, but she's going to let me get away with it".

A number of years ago, I overheard a conversation between a father and his son in a department store. The son was pestering the father to give him money to buy something. The father refused and told the son if he did not stop nagging him that he was going to punish him. I will never forget the response from this boy who looked about ten years old: "you're not going to do anything to me, I know it and you know it so give me the @#$%! money". The father walked away in sadness, but did nothing about it. That response is what got him into the situation, and it is exactly what is going to keep him there. That boy learned that disobedience is allowable if the authorities let you get away with it.

I have read a few articles lately (internet and otherwise) where certain Christians (both Catholic and not) are making jokes about their children's misbehavior. Yes, there are times that we can laugh at things that our children do, especially when they try to "outsmart" the law of God (it always fails, but it is often funny to see it happen). It is not the fact that they are laughing at a comical behavior that bothers me. It is the fact that they are treating this disobedience as an unavoidable fact of parenting. I simply do not understand those who laugh at their children's disobedience as though it were "cute". I hear it, and read about it, on a regular basis and it is increasing. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Moral relativism (whether in the parent's minds, the children's, or both) is always destructive to the soul, and it rarely is noticed by those indulging in it. There are various excuses for allowing it in the home, and none of them ever holds water: "this is the way my Daddy raised me", "it's not that bad of a movie", "children need to decide for themselves", and my favorite, "I'm too busy to check everything they do". Resistance to temptation is like resistance to disease. We each need to build up an immunity to it. Children are not capable of resisting temptation on their own because their conscience is not fully developed yet, and until this happens, the parents need to be that conscience for them. They need to be told exactly what is wrong with a certain behavior (and not just "don't do it"). The moral reason "why" is essential for helping a child to develop his own ability to discern right from wrong. If the child hears nothing more than "it is wrong because Momma does not like it" then they will think that it is OK if they like it. (Please read that last sentence again and make sure you understand it.)

This is, of course, not new; the Apostle Paul tells us about it in 2 Timothy. He admonishes Timothy to "turn away" from people who fall into grave sins and refuse to repent of them. Though he is not speaking about our day and age, the list reads like a character description of modern society, and right in the middle is "disobedient to parents" (2 Tim 3:2). Whether it be groups of people rioting, protesters calling for a Marxist government, or an individual who kills someone because he (or she!) did not like something about the other person, we can see that those today in their teens and twenties have been raised with moral relativism.

When you make a recipe five times in a row, and every time it ends up tasting like something the dog would refuse to eat, then something should be changed. When most parents abandoned biblical child-rearing a few generations ago and ended up with the rebellion of the fifties and sixties, we failed to sit back and say "that didn't work". The changes in child rearing that occurred during the seventies and eighties were only a deepening of the immorality that was being dumped on the children of the previous generations. Few (and very few at that) avoided the moral degradation that occurred in parenting techniques during that tumultuous era, and little has been done in the past few decades to improve the situation. Children in Christian homes are still being raised without the biblical foundation that they need to be a faithful servant of God.

Children need to be taught clear boundaries. They need to know how authority works, and how God's law works. Parents, take your children with you to Mass (please do not scoot them out to a "children's church"). Tell them exactly what God expects of them in regard to their attitude to worship (love and joy, not annoyance and drudgery). Be explicit with them that Hollywood is wrong and things like fornication and artificial contraception are actually sins (especially if your priest does not preach about it). Read to your children from the Scriptures and from the saints of the past on a daily basis. Then, as you are filling them with these beautiful truths, make sure that you are consistent in how you lead them. Do not allow them to drinking from the well of immoral celebrities. Take control of the music they listen to, the movies they watch and the games they play. Do this because of love, not a lust for power. Show them this love and they will love you for it.

Truly, it is easier to follow through with what I have said above than it is to let children go their way without discipline. It is easier because the grief and strife that come from leaving children without a moral compass is far worse on the spirit of both the parents and the children. It is also easier because the effort and struggle that parents exert to teach and discipline their children in the Catholic faith is far less than the effort and struggle that a parent goes through with children who are given mixed messages about the truth of God and His commandments. Christian parents are called to make their children into wise and godly adults, not rich celebrities who do their own thing. That is the hard way. God knows this, and has told us that His "yoke is easy and His burden is light". So, whenever I hear someone say "whoa! five kids--that must be hard work" I usually tell them, "it's really not as hard as most people think".

What's With The Name?

2011-10-20T15:25:00.003-05:00

Some of the new readers here at The Maccabean have asked "why 'the Maccabean' for the name?" So here is a link to an older post that answers the question.

Hope: Again.

2011-10-20T09:38:00.000-05:00

I wrote earlier about the virtue of hope and what it is grounded on. I would like to add just a simple point to show how our forefathers lived it out. The Christians in the first century did not die because they said "Jesus is a nice guy" or "Jesus is the most important person in my life". They died because they said "Jesus (and He alone) is Lord". They died because they refused to accept other Lords (they were actually called atheists for this!). It was their belief in the Lordship of Jesus that they died for, and it was that very same belief that made them willing to die, for it meant that they had hope in His power and authority. They had hope in the consequences of the Lordship of Christ, both for the future life as well as for the present. For they knew if He is Lord, then what did they have to fear?

Are any of us willing to take our hope in the Lordship of Christ Jesus as far as they did? What would it mean for us in this day and age? If the American federal government says that we must ordain practicing sodomites, or that priests could not preach against artificial contraception (which they are supposed to be doing, by the way), then we would be forced to decide where we stand. I fear that some may cave in, but I pray that Catholic clergy would stand firm and help their people to persevere, even if it meant their own deaths. How do we, however, think about trial? If the Lordship of Christ is not in the forefront of our minds, then we are apt to end up fearing the world more than fearing the One Who created the world.

Whatever trial comes your way, whether it be a life or death matter, a difficulty at your workplace, or too many dirty diapers, there is only one thing that can give hope: Christ. The very same Christ Who scared the Apostle John almost to death (Rev 1:17) because He was so amazing; the very same Christ Who said He had "all authority in Heaven and Earth"; the very same Christ Who promises to "descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel" to save His people. When push comes to shove, there is nothing in this world that we can hold onto for security. We are fragile dust people, living on a fragile dust planet, but we worship an Almighty, and Eternal Lord, Who rose from the dead, "and is alive forevermore". That's something to hope in.

One Man's Experience

2011-10-19T13:22:00.002-05:00

A friend recently left the Eastern Orthodox Church and joined the Catholic Church. He told me, that he spent years studying Eastern Orthodoxy more deeply than the vast majority of Orthodox Christians. He said that this was the case because he studied the broad spectrum of Eastern Orthodoxy, and (especially) compared the Orthodoxy of today, with what it looked like a millennium ago, as well as what it looked like in the first few centuries of the Church. In examining Orthodoxy today, he said that he intentionally looked beyond his own branch of Orthodoxy (Russian) to others and compared them to one another.

His conclusion was that he could not, in good conscience before God, remain Orthodox. He told me that he felt "compelled" to return to what Orthodoxy was in the first few centuries when it was in full communion with the barque of Peter. He also said that he expressed these things to his Orthodox priest as well as to the laity, but that they told him "he did not really understand Orthodoxy". Over time, he realized that he could not escape the fact that what they were telling him appeared to be only a modern and fabricated Orthodoxy that is expounded by the clergy in spite of the historical facts. He struggled not to behave in a rebellious way about things, so it took him many years before he respectfully and humbly asked to be allowed to go home to the Catholic Church.

Here were his particular reasons for his reconciliation with the Catholic Church:
1. No central authority in Orthodoxy means no clear authority at all--He said that the expressed unity of Orthodoxy ignores the essential (and detrimental) divisions that exist within her ecclesiastical authorities. Not having a central papal authority has caused the Eastern Orthodox to develop into a confused and jumbled group of jurisdictions that speak loudly about their unified nature, while it has little to no real substance. Admittedly, there are "Bishops" and "Archbishops" (yes, I know they use different terms), but since only a Pope can call a proper council, there is no means for Orthodoxy to solve its problems until they humble themselves and submit to the successor of Peter. His assessment is that the reason Orthodoxy rejects the recent doctrinal affirmations of the Catholic Church is more because they reject the Pope than because they reject the doctrines themselves. He believes that this is actually one of the things that attracts people to Orthodoxy over Catholicism: rejection of the papacy and its authority.

2. Orthodox unity was spoken about (often with a certain braggadocio according to him), but had no real substance since many of the jurisdictions within the Eastern Churches do not get along with each other very well. This is actually distinct from the issue of the lack of an Eastern Pope, though it does connect closely to it. Orthodoxy claims that authority rests in the collected "Bishops" who are in communion with one another; similar to the conciliarism movement. There is nothing, however, within the concept of conciliarism to enable it to overcome the difficulties of disunity. It is the same problem that rests in Protestantism: no central authority means no source to draw the faithful together. If everyone sticks with his "branch" and wants his "branch" to stand above the others, then it becomes clear that schism breeds more schism. He said that he discovered that there is a good deal of disagreement between the different branches of Eastern Orthodoxy, but that it is usually kept quiet.

3. No unified approach to theology or the study of theology--His exposure to this was quite interesting. He told me that there is often an outward conformity to the general understanding of theology, but that this is only on the surface. When you dig deeper (as he said few Orthodox laymen ever do) you find that there is a wide divergence in how doctrine is understood, and an even wider divergence in how it is studied. This leads to the current acceptance of certain sins that the Catholic Church has stood firmly against (artificial contraception, remarriage after divorce, etc.). Yes, there is a general unified understanding of a few things, but those are mostly on the surface. His priest often told him how theology in the Orthodox tradition has never changed whereas Catholicism has. Yet, in my friend's examination of the history of Orthodox opinions, it was clear to him that once it broke away from unity with the Holy See it had lost its moorings to help it respond to new challenges in theology and Christian ethics.

In summary, he explained that he believed the only way for Orthodoxy to overcome these problems is to return into communion with the successor Peter. That one issue, more than all others combined, is what cripples the Eastern Churches and prevents them from moving forward into the future. Knowing that our Eastern brethren have retained legitimate Orders and Sacraments, let us pray for them that they will overcome their schismatic stance and return to the fold of true unity with the one vicar of Christ on Earth.

Falling Clergy

2011-10-18T15:21:00.002-05:00

We all know of the spiritual attacks (temptations, trials, etc.) that came against Mel Gibson over the last number of years. Regardless of whether you forgive him or not, you cannot deny that it is overly obvious that his "fall" came right after making the movie "The Passion". People predicted that he would be attacked in various ways and he was. In the same manner, we see Catholic clergy being attacked, and (similarly) many of them are falling. I am not going to delve into another examination of what is going on today. Rather, I want to put forward one simple point. I read this quote a while back, and it is quite applicable to what we are seeing. I do not recall the source, but I do recall that it was said about a century ago. Speaking of how to destroy a priest, the quote goes like this:

"Let us not put him to death -- he would acquire new strength in blood; martyrdom would be for him the seed of a new fecundity and a superhuman strength. Let us suffocate him in filth."

It is always more destructive to destroy someone's credibility than to destroy his life. Even though the vast majority of clergy have never committed the sexual abuses that a few have gotten caught in, it only takes a few to plant doubt in people's hearts about all the rest.

Spiritual Terrorists

2011-10-17T23:47:00.003-05:00

Recently we had a visitor to St. Aidan's parish that I had not met before. I usually enjoy it when we have a visitor, regardless of his denominational background. It is a pleasure to meet any Christian who wants to be with us to worship our Lord; that is, if he is there in the love of Christ. Sadly, that was not the case in this instance. After Mass, as is my usual custom with visitors, I went over to introduce myself to him, and then spent a while listening to his dislike for the Catholic Church, and his criticism about what St. Aidan's parish is doing. After this particular visitor left, I felt a deep sense of sadness. No, not sadness for myself or my parish. This visitor brought nothing but scorn with him, and I felt sadness because I experienced nothing but pity for the state of his soul.

Judging from his comments, he appeared to have stopped in only to look for things to argue about. He did not extend encouragement, joy, or even simple interest in the work of Jesus in the parish. I got the distinct impression that his questions were planned beforehand, and he did not appear to expect that I would be able to respond to his misconceptions. Foolishness, however, needs to be shown to be truly foolish (Proverbs 26:5). There are ways to disagree with your Christian brethren that lead to building up, and there are ways that only lead to tearing down. Why would any Christian seek to tear down someone he has never met? My first guess is that he did not see it as "tearing down" but rather as something evangelistic. This kind of behavior, however, is more akin to a "spiritual terrorism" for it is not focused on trying to build up faith, but rather to cause fear. Happily, it failed this time.

It is not uncommon in Protestant circles for someone to visit a Church and tell the pastor how to do his ministry. You do not, however, expect that type of thing to happen in an Anglo-Catholic parish. I know he would probably be quite upset to find this out, but he was acting out all the worst aspects of Protestant congregationalism. In my experience this usually occurs in people who tend to demonize others. Demonizing others is most common when someone is insecure about his own position and that may very well be the case here. No, I do not know this man well enough to make a full pastoral assessment, but some deep seated problem is obviously bubbling under the surface and it is going to come to a head sooner or later.

The person who seeks to tear others down so that he can feel better about himself is usually doing so because of a great personal insecurity. I can only assume that this gentleman is deeply discontent with something (likely in his own Church), but does not want to admit it (even to himself). "Demonizers" usually go after areas in others that they themselves are feeling weak in. I have heard of people who wander around looking for dirt on others so that they can feel better about themselves; I just did not expect I would see someone who visited Churches with this purpose. It is even possible that people who have sunk to this level are unaware of what they are doing. They likely perceive their actions as being done with holy motives.

What stood out clearly to me (as well as to the others who overheard his bitter comments) is this: nothing he said was in any way uplifting. He actually told me that he came by to "check up on us" and then proceeded to tell me what was wrong with our parish. At one point he tried to warn me about some particular bad things that he "knew" were going to happen once St. Aidan's joins the Ordinariate. I will not go into a list of his wild speculations, but suffice it to say, Canon Law forbids every one of them from happening. I tried to warn him that he was gravely mistaken in his perspective on the Catholic Church, but he would not listen. Instead he chose to put the worst possible spin on everything. Trying to hold some hope that he was just in a bad mood, and that he would still be willing to be at peace, I invited him to sit down and enjoy some refreshments in the undercroft, but he chose to excuse himself quickly (almost to the point of being rude). Not much left to keep hope going at that point.

It is sad to see just how low many Christians have sunk when they couch their contempt in the guise of a "concern". People who live like this have a great need to find a beautiful faith. They are stuck in traditions that are only stunting them further, and they desperately need our prayers. If, and when, you encounter them they need to be shown that their goals are completely contrary to the holiness that God calls us to. They also need to find a true joy in serving Christ. Joyful people never "go after" other Christians in this way. The have learned the importance of edification. As the Apostle said: "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another" (Romans 14:19).

Christians will never find unity or peace as long as they seek to tear each other down. What is accomplished by visiting a Church of another tradition if you are not there to give "the peace" to fellow baptized Christians? A visit is usually for the sake of greater unity; this visit was for the sake of division. Until this type of pride and selfishness is killed, schism will remain and spiritual growth will not move forward. There are good and godly ways to encourage others to consider a different perspective, and none of them include joining in worship with them so that you can dump a list of criticisms on the priest after the service. It does me no harm, because I can answer the attacks (and I have the hide of a rhino), but it does great harm to the soul of the perpetrator. Let this be a lesson to all of us in how we treat our Christian brethren who are in other traditions. Do not meet them as a judge, but rather as a humble brother "esteeming others as better than yourself" (Philippians 2:3); you never know when God may put you in your place.

Need a Little Help

2011-10-13T10:12:00.001-05:00

Last week I got a message on the Church answering machine saying we "needed" to donate money to help this man start a charity organization that would help people who are struggling with paying their bills but who also refuse to go to a Church to ask for help. It was not exactly a demand for money, but it was close. The caller's attitude was enough to turn anyone off, but I figured I would give a call and talk to him. There are already tons of people who call us on a regular basis asking for hand-outs. Most do not want help with food, they merely want us to give them money (no questions asked, no accountability, etc.). Some, when you offer to go with them to help pay a bill (which they claim is due yesterday), say we do not really want to help them (!).

I acknowledge that there are a number of people who are hurt by the current economic crisis that socialism has put us in (there is no other excuse). Yet, there also seems to be this idea in people's minds that the Church is there to pour money into their pockets so that they can use it however they want. The attitude that those in need often seem to have, appears to be no different than the attitude of the caller who said we "needed" to help him start his charity organization. He even went so far as to prove his sinful attitude to us. I had not gotten the chance to call him back right away, and so he called back a few days later and left the following (paraphrased) message: "I want you to know that you are not real Christians. You obviously do not care about anyone but yourselves. I will never come visit your Church since you have no idea what love is. I want to have nothing to do with you." Hmmmm . . . that is a unique way to tell people about the true meaning of love. Judge them before you know the situation; attack them without asking for an explanation; and accuse them of sin (while you are sinning in doing it). It takes a lot of inner anger and hatred to respond like that. I wonder how many others who did not call back in "time" got the same kind of comment?

As this nation degenerates into a steadily deeper abyss of selfishness and resentment, we are beginning to see the fruits of shoving "self-esteem" down people's throats. The majority of people in this land have been brought up with a sense of entitlement (e.g. the welfare state) and now when things do not go their way, they lash out in anger. This even includes those who are trying to help others in this time of trial. America (with many other nations following suit) has been living on borrowed capital for quite a while. We have been reaping the blessings of a nation that once sought to honor Christ, but that borrowed capital is now running out and as Christ is being driven away (metaphorically speaking) we are seeing the consequences of our practical atheism: no God means no blessings from God. The blessings came from Christ in the first place, and we cannot imagine that He will continue to grant them to us while this nation spits in His face.

Until we learn that the only thing we deserve is judgment, we will continue to demand that we have our way. Even the rewards that we receive from God for our good deeds that we do in His name are given by His grace (for none of us can truly earn anything in the sight of a Holy, Righteous, and Omnipotent Lord). God always provides for His children; sometimes that is through the help of others, and sometimes it is through the work of our own hands. Yet, we should never begin to imagine that we deserve to have Him take care of us. It is pride that causes us to believe that we have a right to be provided for. He who exalts himself will be abased and he who humbles himself will be exalted; that is an inescapable truth. I certainly am concerned for the welfare of my family, and I want to do whatever I can to provide for them. If, however, our priorities are not straight, then we will not be able to seek God's help with a humble heart. None of us has a right to any of the blessings of this life, and they can all be taken away if we are unfaithful (cf. Deuteronomy 28:15ff). It is only by His grace that we can appeal to God, and it is always by His grace that He provides for our needs.

Not Amish, Just Conservative

2011-10-06T22:54:00.004-05:00

Here is a very insightful post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker. I would not want anyone to call me Amish, but he does make some good points about how people trust far too much in politics and ideologies. Give it a read.

Hope

2011-10-04T15:55:00.003-05:00

I have mentioned many times how I expect the future to go if we do not change the course of current events. Sin will increase, righteousness will be forced into temporary exile, and the end result will be a smaller, but stronger, Church. This is not, however, all that I think about. I know a few people who spend much of their time focusing on the "bad and the ugly" and rarely ever get around to the "good" stuff. This can be depressing, and often leads to a skewed perspective on the things of God. Whatever our situation in life, and regardless of our attitude toward that situation, we should always keep firm biblical truth in our hearts and minds as a non-negotiable fact of life.

One of these truths that is often ignored (at least in practical application) is the simple fact that God wins. Some Christians today spend so much time dwelling on the bad that is out there (or just as likely "in here"), that they fail to do more than give a mere lip-service to the fact of the Lordship of Christ. Jesus is seated at God's right hand, and is ruling over all. If God is for us, "what can man do to us?" (cf. Psalm 56:11). The three theological virtues are faith, hope and love, but we do not often give much time to "hope". We are supposed to pray for it when we pray the rosary, but I wonder if we really desire it. This could very well be why there are so many Christians in deep depression. Cases of clinical depression are spreading like wildfire today, even among Christians, and the cure is likely found more in spirituality than in a medical prescription. Hope is essential for a healthy Christian life, but how is it found?

The Church in ages past would often sing the Psalms. Not merely Psalm snippets, or reworded paraphrases of "psalmish" ideas, but the actual Psalms themselves. Whether metrically composed, or chanted, the Psalms appear to be missing from much of the liturgical practices of modern Christianity. We don't sing Psalms nearly as much as we need to. One of the problems with those who do have "a few" Psalms in their repertoire, is that they have usually chosen them selectively. They pick the "nice" ones, and avoid those that speak of war and sin. This is, in my opinion, a contributing factor to our weak understanding of the authority of our Lord Jesus, for He is greatly revealed in the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 110).

There are many places in the Bible that prophesy of the authority that Jesus now possesses while seated at God's right hand. The Psalms tend, though, to do this in a beautifully poetic manner. Psalm 2 (which should be read in its entirety) is often either quoted or alluded to in the New Testament in regard to the place that Jesus now holds in His session as the vice regent of God the Father. See just one verse:

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession (Psalms 2:8).

A good dose of biblically based hope is always helpful for the people of God, but in days like we are living in, it is even more needed. What hope do the Scriptures offer us? They speak of the Lord as the One Who will bring His truth to a dying world, and in the end will stand victorious over all. Yes, there are times when they speak of trials and tribulations; yes, they warn us to stand firm in persecutions, but they do this in the context of a risen Christ Who has no fear of the enemy. Differing interpretations abound for many of these verses, but I doubt any Christian would deny that the direction that God is pointing us in is one of hope. We are continually being reminded that the Almighty Lord is always placing His enemies under His feet. Knowing this, what should be our perspective on the world?

Look at a couple descriptions of the reign of Jesus in Isaiah:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious (Isaiah 11:10).

In the prophets we are often given pictures of a coming restoration where God will set things straight. During times of trial, or discipline, the people of God need extra reminders of the wonders that God can do in their behalf. When all we can see is the bad that surrounds, it is easy to forget that there is a good reason for hope. After describing an impending judgment for the sins of the Jews, the prophet Micah gives them hope by describing a future restoration of righteousness:

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever (Micah 4:2-5).

I am not here arguing for any one interpretation of these verses. I am arguing for the overall connotation that these verses give to the view of God. Call it a metaphor, call it poetry, or some other form of non-literal reading, but what cannot be denied is the fact that verses like this portray God as the One Who influences His creation with righteousness and truth. God does not sit by and ignore events (I met a deist once, but there are not many who hold this position today). He intervenes to restore that which is fallen. The prophets do not, however, merely claim that God does good things. That is not at issue. The passage above from Micah shows that people from many lands are drawn to the truth claiming that they want to learn "the word of the Lord". What an awesome hope to have.

With the high quantity of this type of biblical reference, it is amazing how infrequently people refer to them. There is a wealth of verses that give us a grand display of the dominion of our Almighty Sovereign. He is the One Who rules over all and nothing can stop Him when He moves. There is no place or thing that can claim that it is beyond His power. Yes, there are things in rebellion against God, but He is so wondrous that even rebellion ends up serving His purpose (cf. Acts 4:23-28). See also what the prophet Zechariah has to say about the awesome power of God:

And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth (Zechariah 9:10).

True enough, God destroys evil with His mighty power. He does not ultimately allow wickedness to gain the upper hand. I am not denying that wickedness can temporarily rise up, but that is not the same thing (Psalm 73:12-20). We are supposed to know in the depth of our heart and mind, however, that He does not always destroy wickedness with a violent or cataclysmic event (like Sodom and Gomorrah). He also destroys wickedness by converting wicked men and bringing them unto righteousness. Of the two methods, the latter (though less sensational) is the one that displays the glory of God more wonderfully.

Returning to the Psalms, we can see a picture displayed for us of a world that bows its knees to a reigning Messiah. The Apostle Paul tells us that "every knee should bow" to our Lord and he specifically includes knees "in earth" (Philippians 2:10). This means that he is not speaking only of a universal submission at the final Judgment Day. Where does he get ideas like this? Aside from his clear quotation of Isaiah 45:23, there are many places that give a similar description of the hope found in the authority of Christ. I do not purport to understand exactly how this will be fulfilled, but I know that it will, and with that knowledge, I have hope. Look into the Psalms again.

All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD’S: and he is the governor among the nations (Psalms 22:27-28).

These ideas all boil down to one simple principle that is expounded for us by the Apostle Paul: "He must reign" (1 Corinthians 15:25). St. Paul does not give even a hint of the idea that Jesus would fail to place all His enemies under His feet. No faithful Christian would entertain the thought that Jesus could even possibly lose in the end. Yet, it seems that many have the perspective that the only way that He will win is by yelling "retreat" and then killing everyone that still refuses to obey. God is in the business of restoring and reconciling more than destroying and demolishing.

This is, of course, precisely what was promised to us at the beginning of the Church itself. Jesus, in handing the Keys to Peter, told him that the Church would endure. He told him that nothing, even Hell itself (literally: "Hades", the realm of the dead), would conquer the Church.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

Notice, however, that Jesus does not give us a description that portrays the Church hiding in a corner and enduring the onslaught of demonic attacks. Rather, He gives us a description that shows that the Church is on the offensive, not the defensive. The "gates" of Hell are that which will not endure. I must admit that I have never served in the military, but I do not think that it takes a genius to realize that "gates" are not an offensive weapon. Sampson killed Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, but "gates" are not usually a first choice in tools for battle. If Jesus said that the "gates" of Hell shall not prevail, we are being told that the Church is on the offensive and that she is doing the attacking; not the other way around. This is not a picture of barely hanging on (though those times do occur); this is a picture of Christ conquering through His victorious Church. Again, I am not arguing for any particular interpretation of these verses beyond the obvious: Jesus wins. In fact, it should be apparent that Jesus wins through His Church (cf. Ephesians 3:21).

"Hope" in the Bible is not the same as the common usage of that term. It does not mean the same as "gee, I hope it will happen but maybe not". "Hope" in the Bible means something akin to "confidence". Hope is a joyful expectation of the future based on the knowledge of Who God is and how He works. A hope based in the wonders of God is often the foundation of some of the most marvelous deeds that men and women perform in the name of Jesus. It is what gave strength to the martyrs who have gone before us. This is what the people of God should be praying for. This is what we are called to. We are not supposed to be "moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Colossians 1:23), because that hope rests in the fact that "all power" in Heaven and Earth has been given to Christ our Lord (Matthew 28:18). As we have been promised:

He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalms 72:8).

The Catholic Church is not the Best Option

2011-09-30T16:21:00.002-05:00

I cannot speak for anyone else out there; I can only say "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15). I have come to the firm conclusion that the Catholic Church is not the best option for those of us in Anglicanism (or anywhere else for that matter) who are trying to find where to escape the problems of the Church today. I have friends who have considered the Catholic Church but moved on instead to other "continuing Anglican" denominations. Others I know chose Orthodoxy instead. There are many ecclesiastical jurisdictions to pick from these days, and people who see the sad state of Christianity are trying to decide where there is a safe haven.

It may surprise some of my readers to hear me say this, but I must be straightforward and honest. The Catholic Church is not the best option; it is the ONLY option (sorry if I got you worried at first; it was a bit sneaky of me). Going anywhere else is only a move from one schism to another. Those who are looking at the "options" are still thinking in terms of denominationalism and trying to weigh the various differences. I do not see it the same way. The other "options" are merely choices between a car without brakes heading to the ditch at 25 miles per hour, or a train without brakes heading to the ditch at 20 miles per hour.

I know (from personal conversations) that there are a number of people who are looking at the Ordinariate as the "best option" and I think that is wrong. No, I do not mean that the Catholic Church is not the "best"; I mean that it is not merely an "option" in a list. Those whose thoughts follow this pattern, and choose Catholicism, are showing that they are not seeking to join because they believe that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. They are seeking it because they believe that it is merely the safest place at this time.

With deep respect for my brothers and sisters, I cannot agree with this type of thinking. I see it as only another symptom of Protestant private interpretation. The Catholic Church is always the safest place; at this time, and at any time. It is not, however, "one of" the options available. It is the only option, for everything else is just another sect. We must return to the Church that Jesus founded, and not merely to the "ecclesiastical communion" that gives us what we want. We are told to seek the Kingdom of God first, and I fear that many are seeking their own agenda first.

Long ago I knew that the Catholic Church did not (and would not) do everything the way I wanted, but that cannot be my (or anyone's) rationale in joining a Church. I am joining because She alone can rightly claim to be Mother Church. All others, regardless of the state of their ecclesiastical orders, are in division. If you are seeking the Ordinariate because you think it is the best of many options, then I fear that you are going to be disappointed. Seek communion because it pleases God, and keep only one expectation when you come in: faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ.

St. Michael Defend Us

2011-09-29T13:34:00.003-05:00

In 586 B.C. the nation of Israel, after numerous previous attacks by the Babylonians (all of which were warnings from God), was finally taken off into exile. Her temple was decimated, and the city of Jerusalem laid to waste. There were many sins that caused this to happen, but it appears that the chief instigators in these sins were the priests themselves. God's own servants, called to lead people to righteousness, were instead leading them into wickedness. Ezekiel, though not as sinful as many of his colleagues, was still one of the priests taken into exile in an earlier attack on Jerusalem (ca. 598 B.C.), and his writings tell much of the situation that existed in his day. His accusation of the priests is particularly pointed when he says:

Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 22:26).

This condemnation applies to the priests both in their actions and their words. Certainly their attitude toward their temple duties would be evident to the people around, and they apparently showed a disrespect for the things of God. Apathy towards the things of God becomes evident quickly in any liturgical officer (sloppiness in performance, rushing through the liturgy, etc.). Yet, this would also be noticed in their words. They likely were not teaching in accord with the Law of Moses. As can be seen from the Jews' later behavior, they were obviously encouraged to loosen the boundaries, and seek a more liberal view of the commandments of God. "That is the old way, you don't need to do that any more" can cause terrible harm to the soul of a trusting layman. Causing confusion in the minds of God's people as to what is right and wrong is a grave sin in the priesthood. For anyone to corrupt the word of God and make good seem bad, and bad seem good, is evil, but for one of God's appointed teachers it is even worse (cf. James 3:1).

Different priests who have fallen to this evil will be in different places on the path to corruption. We cannot lump them all into one group, and some may very well be unaware of the path they are on (though they should know better). What were the specifics of the disobedience of these Old Testament priests? We do not have the details to tell us exactly, but Ezekiel's words are sufficient: "they have put no difference between the holy and profane". In their teaching they were eliminating the concept of certain things being holy and separate. Did they cease to wear the proper liturgical garments? Maybe. Did they speak contemptuously of the sacrifices, thus making them into mere ceremonies? Possibly. Did they say that God's laws were outdated and no longer in need of obedience? Likely (cf. the context of Jeremiah 6:16). Whatever it was, their fate was made clear. God's "indignation" and the "fire" of His wrath was recompensed on their own heads (Ezekiel 22:31).

Priests are supposed to be the source of truth and righteousness for the people of God. They are appointed to speak the Word of God in an authoritative manner. It is not their place to reinterpret that Word according to their own personal opinions. Even if they personally disagree with that Word, they have no right to change it or speak against it. The sermon is the place for the exposition of the Word of God as authoritatively revealed unto His Church; it is not the place for opinions, political agendas, or resistance to the dogmas of the faith. We live in a day where faithful priests are often punished for their faithfulness and unfaithful priests are allowed to continue to spout error; God will not sit passively and allow this to continue. If you know a priest who is actively speaking against the teachings of the Church (or if you yourself are one), then he is in grave danger. Pray for him, and try to encourage him to faithfulness. If he will not listen, then appeal to the Bishop to restore faithfulness. God judges the clergy more strictly than He does the laity, because they have responsibility for people's souls--one of the greatest tasks that God can place on man.

The prophet Malachi (writing over one hundred years after Ezekiel) had much the same story to tell (apparently, Israel had not learned much in her time of exile). God spoke through him to give a stern warning to the priests of his day who were leading the people into error.

And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it. And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law (Malachi 2:1-9).

The comparison to many of today's unfaithful priests is obvious. They have "departed out of the way" and are actively causing "many to stumble" at God's commands. Their reward is already coming to pass in many areas. The priesthood is becoming more and more "contemptible and base" in the eyes of the world. When I go out with my clerical collar (as Catholic priests are commanded to do by Canon Law) I find many who automatically show respect. Yet there are also a high number of those who look at me like they want to kill me. How did we get here? Just a few generations ago this was not the case. Reform is clearly needed, and in this reform Bishops need to be responsible (and held responsible) for those priests under their authority who sin in this manner.

Still looking at the book of Malachi, it is obvious what brought the priests of his day to their lowly state. A priest was rewarded with all the blessings of the covenant when he "was afraid before" God (Mal 2:5). When they lost the fear of God and began to pursue the ministry as a "job" and not an eternal calling, then they also lost respect for the things of God. This made it easy for them to develop a contempt for all of God's ways. Then, after a time, they began to speak against God Himself. No, they did not portray it that way. Rather they would have done what unfaithful priests do today, they would say, "that's not what God meant" and then insert their own words into the mouth of God. Many of God's faithful are led astray by this type of folly, but "whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6).

A Catholic priest who speaks (openly or privately) against any of the dogmas or laws of the Catholic Church is behaving in the same manner as did the priests of the Old Testament that Malachi spoke of. These men are at war with God. That may sound extreme but it is true. They are actively trying to destroy the ways of the Lord Jesus Christ, and their judgment will be severe. There is no excuse for what they are doing. Protestants can be generally excused for this type of behavior since they view themselves as independently capable of reinterpreting God's Word apart from their ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics, and especially Catholic priests, should know better. This is not the Catholic way for anyone, and for a priest to condone sin ("homosexuality is OK", "you can use artificial contraceptives", "I'm not doing this part of the liturgy because I don't like it") is of the deepest level of corruption.

Today is the feast of St. Michael and All Angels. St. Michael is the angel who fought against Satan himself, and defeated him (in the book of Revelation chapter 12). Because of this, many see the Archangel Michael, the "Chief of the Angels", as being an image of Christ Himself, Who came to "destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8, see also Hebrews 2:14). Whether this is so or not, today we are called to think of war. God is at war with Satan; and we know Who the Victor will be. Yet we are also, in this context, called to consider those who are at war with God; those who are working to bring about the destruction of that which is good. Be wary of them, and do not follow them in their path to destruction. Pray for their repentance. Those of us who are at peace with God, should live like we are at peace with all He says. We should live like we love Him and His truth as revealed in His Church.

Faithfulness Now

2011-09-28T10:40:00.008-05:00

It sounds like Pope Benedict's recent visit to Germany was less for the purpose of winning new friends and more for the purpose of encouraging holiness. Yes, and Amen. From what I have read, the Protestants and the Catholics in Germany are both unhappy because he did not give them what they wanted (demanded?). I am not going to get into all the details (anyone interested can easily find copies of his messages online to read for themselves), but what most of it boils down to is that the Holy Father said, "No, I am not going to compromise the Catholic faith, and everyone needs to be more concerned about obeying God's commands rather than about some personal agenda".

Ecumenism is not supposed to be a "shmooze-fest" where we all sit around and pat each other on the back. Some imagine that unity can be achieved through theological compromise. This type of unity can be compared to adultery: two people are united, but not with purity and holiness. The unity of marriage is a unity where two people submit to God's order and make a commitment for life (that can actually last a lifetime). The unity that liberal Catholics want is to destroy many of the traditions of the Church for the sake of swallowing the world's immorality. The unity that (most) Protestants and Eastern Orthodox want, though different, is still similar to the adultery illustration. They want Rome to change in areas that would be disobedient to God. Yes, there are areas where the Catholic Church needs to become more faithful to God, but these are things that are going on contrary to official dogma and custom (approving sodomy, etc). The official teachings of the Church that the protesters want changed are things that cannot change. Change in this would equal a rejection of the commandments of God.

How do we, then, move forward in this type of setting? We cannot merely sit down and "talk it over" because there are radically different perspectives on the issues. In my opinion, I believe that a time of trial is on the horizon for Christians (what most of us are going through is not really a trial yet). This time of trial will likely see wickedness increase while the faithful are forced into hiding; the catacombs all over again. The eventual outcome of this will have humanity largely recognizing that modernism and statism are total failures (cf. 2 Timothy 3:9). When this happens, the world will be looking for wisdom, and the Church will be able to provide it.

What kind of Church will it be, however? It will be (as I have said before) a smaller but stronger Church. It will be a Church where Protestants, Easterns, and Catholics were forced to work together and resolve their divisions. It will be a Church that, having been touched by the Holy Spirit, is no longer seeking its own agenda, but rather seeking to obey God before all else. It will be a Church that has come through the fire and has been tried and tested. This is what history has shown to be true. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Times of apathy and immorality (like today) are not usually when the Church fixes her problems. It is during times of great trial and persecution that this happens. We have to be "heated up" for the dross to be scraped away.

Those Christians who are still demanding their own way, and trusting in themselves will be the first to crumble under the fist of persecution. They will not have the strengthening hand of the Spirit to uphold them (for they have been rejecting Him all along). On the other hand, those whose goal and focus is the glory of Jesus will be the one's who are given the strength to endure. They will be able, by the grace of God, to adapt to the trials of history and will have the wisdom to raise up a new generation of faithful Christians who can move into the future. Scripture tells us to "humble ourselves before the Lord and He will" lift us up "in due time" (1 Peter 5:6). If that is not done now, it will not be easy to start it once persecution comes. This is exactly what Pope Benedict is encouraging in us--faithfulness now--and this is exactly why he is disappointing people. They do not want to hear that they have to work on their own sanctification.

I do not say I am making a prediction, but merely saying that this is the course of things as I see it. The mercy of God can always intervene and turn things in a more peaceable manner, and that is certainly what I pray for, but it does not appear to be how things are headed right now. If we prepare ourselves and our children, then we will only be that much stronger if this trial does not come. If we do not prepare ourselves or our children, then we will be covered with shame. Ask yourself, what are you doing to prepare right now? Many of our forefathers (as well as some brethren even today) have suffered much for their faith. Let us be ready to follow their good examples.

Forward This Or Die!

2011-09-24T00:12:00.000-05:00

"If you agree with this, then forward it to twenty friends, in one hour you will receive good news. If you do not agree with it, then delete it (you coward) and a close friend will die a horrible death within the next twenty-four hours." Hmmmm... Have you gotten emails like this? I would be surprised if you had not. I have seen so many with this type of wording that I am surprised that anyone even tries it anymore. It is like meeting someone who seriously wants to sell you the London bridge; something that is stale has lost all its good flavor.

I ask myself a number of questions when these type of emails show up. Do they think that I am just as superstitious as they are? Are they assuming that I am so weak minded that I cannot think for myself? Is it not possible that I may agree with the intended email, and yet still want to delete it because I choose not to be as rude as they are by dumping an email on friends so that I can get something out of it? Might it be possible that I want to forward an email to others merely because it is right and good, rather than because I have a selfish motivation (to "get" a blessing)?

Do not get me wrong; I am all for using any proper means for distributing the truth and helping others to grow in their understanding of God and His world. What I am speaking against is the guilt trip that people try to put on others in order to get them to forward something. Most of the time when I receive a forwarded email (especially when you can tell that it was forwarded about twenty times) I know that it is likely going to be junk. When someone does not even take the time to do any more than hit "forward" and attach everyone in their contacts list, I have to wonder if the email was worthy in itself or if they were just coerced into it.

If the information is worthy of sending on, then let it prove itself. A forwarded email that has a long list of the previous forwarded copies does not look like something more valuable. It only looks like something that has been chewed up and spit out. I encourage everyone to stop twisting arms. If it is true, then it is worthy in itself. If someone is actually refusing to send some information along to others because he is a coward, then bullying him is not going to help him overcome his cowardice. Let the truth be good and beautiful. If you have to force it on others, then maybe it is not all that good and beautiful after all?

Secret Sins

2011-09-20T23:01:00.001-05:00

Years ago in one of the Protestant congregations that I served as pastor, it was my responsibility to prepare lessons for a women's Bible study which was led by one of the older women in the church. I always wrote up a brief "devotional" reading and a set of discussion questions for afterward. One particular lesson had for its subject the "secret sins" that we are prone to ignore (cf. Psalm 19:12). I thought it was fairly straightforward, but sin is always able to corrupt things.

I was informed after the fact that the group leader changed the focus of the lesson so that it ended up teaching the exact opposite of what was intended. While the lesson encouraged introspection and an acceptance of transparency before the Lord, she proceeded to twist the lesson to say that God really does not care about all our sins, just the big ones and that there was no need to "drudge up every one of them". She never actually spoke against me as the pastor, but I was shocked at her hubris nonetheless.

Struggling over the rationale for behavior like this was not a quick process. It made no sense to me why anyone would so willingly change the lesson; she had to know it would get back to me. One of the questions that she "scoffed at" stood out as particularly problematic (but it was not until much later that I understood why). The question asked the listeners to consider the possibility of their own "secret sins". It then went on to encourage discussion about the idea that there were sins in their lives that they were refusing to acknowledge. The leader's comment was, "Well, the answer to this is easy--No. We all know about our own sins, so there is no way that we could commit a sin that we were unaware of."

What made it particularly confusing was the fact that I quoted Jeremiah 17:9 in the question. It is there that we are told that the heart of man is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked", and the rhetorical question is given: "who can know it?" The answer is supposed to be obvious: no one can fully know either their own, or another's, heart, since we often deceive even ourselves. Yet, she still chose to turn the point in a different way. I became aware of the situation because more than one person came to me to point out how clearly she had changed the point of the lesson. Some had even confronted her on it afterward, and she said they did not understand the real meaning of the Scriptures.

A few months after this incident, her and her husband decided to leave the congregation. They gave some very odd reasons for their departure, and even attempted to blame others for it. Their accusations stuck with a few impressionable folks, but most saw it as a smokescreen. At the time I tried to get to the heart of the matter, but was prevented at every step. Realizing that it was out of my hands, I let it go. The truth cannot be kept hidden forever, though, and this did eventually come to the surface.

It was not until years later that I found out why all these things had occurred. In a conversation about an entirely unrelated topic a friend pointed out to me that the woman who had led ("misled" may be better) the Bible study had been trying to hide a particularly grave sin for many years. She was hiding it successfully from most people during the time of the aforementioned Bible study, but then it had come out and now was fairly public. Her family was suffering severely as a result. When I tried to offer my help, I was attacked and told that it was all my fault in the first place (with little clear explanation as to how that could be so).

The rationale was clear. As with so many today, her interpretation of Scripture and her methodology in leading the Bible study was all colored by her desire to cover up her sin. Of course she did not want to deal with any type of "secret sin" because her sin was so grave that she could not stand the thought that anyone would find it out. The real reason they left? It turned out that I had almost discovered the hidden sin (by an odd accident) and that was too much for them. They left to keep it hidden. Her husband was fully complicit in the act.

This may seem extreme, but are the rest of us very different? We choose to interpret many of the admonitions and exhortations that we hear so that they will cause us the least amount of inconvenience. The "path of least resistance" is often the path to condemnation. When a sermon is given that cuts to the heart, do you wiggle and squirm to find a way to let yourself off the hook? Do you struggle to find a way to distance yourself from the clear application of the message? When judgment is staring you in the face, are you trying to take a step backward so that you do not appear to be the target?

Listen to the next admonition you hear, and do so with a willingness to let the Spirit work on your heart. The next time you hear a Scripture read that mentions a sin that you are committing, do not shut it out. The next time you read a book that speaks to one of your really bad habits, take it to heart. Give thanks to God that He sent you this opportunity to be reminded of your need for penitence. Do not rationalize, or seek self-justification. Do not think about all those other people who are guilty, for they are not your first responsibility. You are already laid bare before the Lord; accept it and allow Him to help you overcome your sin.

Anonymous Commenters

2011-09-19T23:14:00.003-05:00

I allow commenters to post anonymously because I do not know the situation in everyone's life and there are surely reasons why someone may desire to maintain anonymity at certain times. Yet, that does not mean that I am obligated to post their comments. Every comment that is written for The Maccabean comes to me before it gets placed on the actual website. Frequently I get comments from people who are downright incorrigible. They have nothing good to say, and they seem to think that everyone else in the world needs to be just as grouchy and miserable as they are. I delete these comments because these people are like a plague; the only thing they provide is a source of suffering to teach the rest of us some patience (but "woe through whom it cometh").

They whine, they gripe, and they complain (sometimes in the same sentence). If you have written comments and they never showed up in the "combox" it is probably for this very reason. I do not mind disagreements, nor do I mind a debate between Christians who are acting in a godly manner. Yet, these people (you know exactly who you are) are all heat and no light. One of the biggest problems with people who behave like this is that they refuse to accept just how evil their speech is; they see themselves as faithfully standing for the truth. They are probably the way they are precisely because no one ever taught them proper self-discipline. Many of them likely have a chip on their shoulder and they want to make everyone they meet suffer for it.

A number of years ago people sought to treat each other with much more respect than they do today. The easy anonymity of the internet makes these "trolls" (a great title for them!) feel fearless. Yet, this displays a vital aspect of their unbalanced spirits: they like being anonymous. I have never had to delete a comment from someone who gave their real name (though I likely will get the opportunity after writing this!). Hiding behind the secrecy of the computer screen makes them imagine that they are unaccountable for their vile words; " they say, the Lord shall not see" (Ps 94:7).

I have spoken with others who write on the internet and they have said that there is a recent surge (especially on Catholic sites) of hateful people like this. Some choose to post the comments and deal with it openly. I choose not to. Those who are anonymous also do not give their email contact information so I cannot write to them privately and tell them of their sin (Matt 18:15). I would guess that they have made this choice because they really do not want to deal with their own sins, they only want to point their fingers at others (likely in order take the focus off themselves). If you are one of these then I urge you to repent. You are not going to change my mind about the Catholic faith, your comments are not going to get posted for anyone else to read, and you are only adding to your own sins. If you refuse to listen to the voice of reason, then go find one of those sites that will enjoy your evil spirit, for I refuse to be an enabler (Rom 16:17).

No Fooling Around

2011-09-18T23:04:00.002-05:00

I have known very few people who actually committed adultery. I have met many people who "had an affair" and a large number who were "fooling around". There were even a few who were "just living together", but they were certainly not guilty of adultery (!). I expect that most of you can understand what I am getting at here. Have you ever met anyone who admitted that they were "committing adultery"? That is something that is usually only said in the confessional (if it even gets confessed there!). We have been made to read "The Scarlet Letter" and thus know not to stigmatize anyone. True, we can be abusive in how we treat someone who falls into sin, and those who are penitent and trying to find spiritual renewal should be given loving encouragement to faithfulness. That does not, however, make it OK to use deceptive euphemisms when we speak about sin. Sin is sin, and changing the terminology does not make it acceptable in God's sight.

People call it an "affair" and say that someone is "fooling around", but rarely do you hear people say "he committed adultery". An "affair" (technically defined) is merely an issue of business or an event. The word does not connote the true nature of marital infidelity. "Fooling around" is even worse. There are many ways to go around acting like a fool. One can wear goggles and a snorkel when visiting the grocery store, or possibly call a customer service center and start talking to them about the kind of day one has had. These are both "fooling around" in the technical sense of those words. Yet, neither necessarily has the connotation of sexual immorality in them. In fact, if we have the proper understanding of God's requirements about sexuality, then we should say that both these words actually exclude the idea of adultery since they are both too light to hold the concept.

The errant usage has gotten so prevalent that it is now difficult to use the euphemisms without bringing the other connotation into people's minds. Talking about a friend I once said "that is his own affair". The listener honestly thought I meant "that is his own act of adultery". I clarified what I meant. Why do we treat honest words like they are vulgar, and prefer to use the "softer" words? This is not helping us to deal with the sin, and it does not encourage a heart of repentance.

In spite of this, this is how much of our society salves its conscience. We "redefine" our sins out of existence. Describing them in a less accurate way means that we can begin to think of these things in a manner that is less convicting. Most people do not look for ways to condemn themselves, and this is precisely the opposite; looking for ways to justify ourselves. None of us is necessarily shocked by those who seek self-justification, but we often miss how it is done with our word choice. I knew someone once who sought to justify a friend's sin by deflecting the issue. Here is a brief description: person "A" was living in sin and lost his job over it. Person "B" knew about the sin but did not want to offend the friend so he did not mention it. Instead person "B" encouraged person "A" to blame his boss for the situation.

Some people do this constantly, and are always seeking ways to avoid dealing with sin. We do not have to be that callous, however, to fall into this. Ignoring sin is, in itself, a sin. We all know that, but we do not always realize just how much we are ignoring sin when we attempt to "redefine" it. Chances are that some of my readers are doing this right now about some sin that is either their own, or a close relative's. Look at your words. Ask yourself how you describe sin (both to others and to yourself). Do you gloss over it? Do you refuse to refer to it by its true nature? We should not be cruel to others by attacking them, but we also need to realize that it is cruel not to tell someone that their sin is leading them to the edge of a cliff. Once again, "do not handle God's word deceitfully, but manifest the truth" (2 Cor 4:2).

Meeting Your Mother

2011-09-16T23:24:00.000-05:00

It is a long story, but the first recollection that "Elmer" had of his mother was when he was seventeen years old. She had "disappeared" when he was too young to remember, and it took him years of searching before he found her. I am sorry to say that he told me their "first" meeting was all smiles, and then everything fell apart soon afterwards. The short explanation is: it is not easy to create a relationship out of nothing more than a biological connection when one of the parties lives entirely for self. Elmer's mother (yes, he asked me to change his name) did not have any substantial knowledge of Who Christ is, and she appeared to have little or no remorse about some pretty serious mistakes in her life.

Elmer tried, and she tried (for a time), to create a relationship of mother and son, but it failed for many and various reasons. He really did not know who she was, and she saw him as something of an intrusion into her lifestyle. In the end, things became just as empty and distant as they were before they "met" when he was seventeen. It was like the two had never met, but only more painful for both of them because they had.

Elmer told me once about what it was like for him to become Catholic. The most challenging doctrine for him was all the details of the Virgin Mary. He already believed in the virgin birth of Christ; no problem there. It seemed quite difficult for him to accept the teaching that she remained a virgin her whole life. Believing, however, in the immaculate conception of Mary herself, well, that was even more of a stretch. Add to it the concept that she was bodily assumed up into Heaven like Elijah, and Elmer found it difficult to believe he would ever come around. Then he spoke to her.

The day that he first said the Ave Maria ("Hail Mary") as more than a mere recitation, something changed in him. He felt that he was actually speaking to someone who could hear him, and who actually cared about him like a mother could. Not just any mother, though; this was the mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. It would be a while before he could say an entire rosary, but in the mean time he was finding himself becoming aware of something that he never noticed before. Mother Mary was more than just a "special saint"; she was the Mother of all the faithful. When Elmer read those words again that Jesus spoke to the Apostle John, he found himself struck by them in a new way: "Behold thy mother!" A special affection grew in his heart that he did not think many others could feel in the same way (little did he know!). This woman, who so silently served God with beautiful humility and submission, cared tenderly for him as his own mother had not done.

For Elmer is was comparable to discovering that he had a twin he never knew about. We all know that we have a biological mother, yet to find out that we also have a spiritual Mother can be shocking for someone who was not brought up thinking this way. So he found some time to be alone and he said the rosary. Working his way through the entire thing for the first time was a bit awkward, but he finished it and felt like he had visited an old friend. He tells me now that every time he says the rosary it is like "going home" for a visit, and when he is done it is like finishing a big hug.

Do not get me wrong, Elmer is not one of those guys who gets mushy at every little thing. Yet, he also grew up not knowing what a mother was really like. To discover Our Lady was a revolution to him. She broke down his walls of resistance to the Catholic faith, and tenderly caught his heart and made him to see what he was missing. Elmer does not have contact with his biological mother at this time, but he says that he prays for her all the time. It is truly odd how it is possible to be closer to someone you have never met face to face than to someone who gave birth to you. This is what it means to be one in Christ, though. United in Him we can find unity with a myriad of other children of God. The one saint who grabs us unlike any other truly can is the one who knows our Lord Jesus better than any other: His own mother, for truly the "Lord is with her".

Growth in Tradition

2011-09-15T11:02:00.001-05:00

I am obviously not a sedevacantist, but I do consider myself a traditionalist in much of my thinking. Yet, as sinful men we can always take a good idea too far, so boundaries are needed. Tradition for the sake of tradition is merely a personal decision based on confusion. The Pharisees held to their traditions and refused to accept the truth of Christ. Their traditions, were the "traditions of men"; meaning, that they held to things that they had fashioned on their own. There are many traditions that men have developed that are wonderful and can be of great service to the Kingdom of God. Take, for example, the practices that surround the Lenten season. Nothing in Scripture specifically gives support to the idea, but it is clearly a useful practice that helps each of us to deal better with our personal sanctification. Yet, what would happen to us if we devoted ourselves more to the practices and ceremonies of Lent, than to the Lord Himself? What would our spiritual state be like if we became so committed to the Lenten season that we refused to grow spiritually? That would clearly be counterproductive to the very purpose of the traditions.

Commitment to traditions can be a spiritually edifying practice in itself; it encourages stability and a grounding in the past. Today, there is a steadily growing number of Christians who have seen the need to return to the historic identity of the Church, and this is a good thing. In doing this, however, many of them have missed the fact that the traditions of the Church are there for a purpose: the glory of God and the spiritual nourishment of His people. Tradition for the sake of tradition makes us miss the fact that tradition is a living and growing aspect of the Church.

Tradition is like the Church's personality. Mother Church was young and immature during the first few centuries after the resurrection of Christ, and many of her traditions had not been fully worked out. Over time she grew in her knowledge of the Lord, and thus her traditions also grew. Her "personality" became more reflective of the character of her Husband (cf. Eph 4:13). If the Church (or a portion of her) were to refuse to grow she would be subject to the many "sleights of men" that assail her (cf. Eph 4:14) and thus be stagnated in her spiritual growth and maturity. She would become confused about just what the nature of the Church is, and thereby would even end up justifying her immaturity as though it were faithfulness to God. Admittedly, modernism destroys tradition and it should therefore be rejected. Yet, the Holy Father's efforts to "reform the reform" are a solid acknowledgement of that very fact.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, while retaining valid sacraments, has also retained a concept of the Church that refuses to mature. This is why she never experienced a "reform movement". The Protestant Reformation was wrong, yes, but it helped lead to the Catholic Counter-Reformation that brought great benefits to the people of God. Orthodoxy's claim of holding the traditions of the Church of the first millennium (which is only partly true), is tantamount to a sixty year old man bragging that he is still in fifth grade. The attraction that Eastern Orthodoxy holds for people today is the same attraction that people feel when they look at the 1950's as a time when America still had it all together. It is nostalgia rather than faithfulness. People want to be able to look back and say "we are faithful to our heritage", and that is not a bad thing. Yet, if we view the heritage as holding tradition in a wooden and stunted way, then we misunderstand how to be faithful to that very heritage.

The Pharisees held to their traditions (which were not all bad in themselves) so strongly that they refused the doctrinal and practical growth that the Apostles brought to Israel. They said "we've never done it that way before" and those words sounded their death. Whatever tradition we are a part of, we must recognize that traditions are supposed to serve God by enabling us to love Him better. Modernism will die eventually, and Pharisaical traditionalism will also. Only if we are rooted in the traditions of the past can we properly hold on to them as we accept the call to maturity. When Jesus tells us to "grow up into him in all things" (Eph 4:15) we must obey and that assumes that we neither reject the past, nor idolize it.

We Will Not Hide Them . . .

2011-09-13T11:19:00.002-05:00

What do you keep from your children? Every good parent keeps things away from their children to protect them; the challenge comes in knowing what is good to keep from them and what is bad to keep from them. I know a family that tells their children everything; good, bad, and ugly. Not wise; not at all. Children need to be raised in the safety of a Christian home that protects them from the influences of this fallen world. They do need to learn about sin (especially their own sin), but they should do so in a "funnel". Starting small at the beginning and then gradually widening out according to their age. A child of 4 does not need any more than "babies come from Mama's tummy", but if that is all they know when they are 16, then there are some potential problems on the horizon.

When we teach our children about the faith, there are decisions to be made regarding what is to be taught at what age. The passage about the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19) is not exactly good reading right before bedtime for 6 year-olds. Likewise, the book of Romans will mostly be confusing to the same 6 year old. Yet, as I have said before, one of the most important lessons a child can learn is that two-fold maxim: "There is a God, and you aren't Him". In this, children learn their place in creation as servants of the Almighty Creator, but they also learn that He is the only One to Whom absolute obedience is required. A one year-old may not know "Who" God is (and then again, maybe they do; cf. Ps 22:9), but they certainly can learn that His presence effects the behavior of the family. The priority placed on things like prayer and attendance at Mass will have a significant influence on a child's thinking, long before they can articulate what they are learning.

This is another reason why I believe that it is wrong to keep children out of Mass. Yes, some form of childcare should be available for newcomers, but children learn best when they see the devotions of the parents. Removing them may be "helpful" for the parent to focus, but it also hides the best display of the presence of God from these impressionable little people of God. I know that children get squirmy and even noisy at times (mine have). Yet, I am happy just to speak a bit louder and do not mind taking brief pauses. When a parent needs to take a child out for some "encouragement to faithfulness" that is all a part of the lesson to them: "this is God's house, and we are worshipping Him, so we need to behave in a special way here". What better example can a parent give of their love and commitment to God Almighty?

It is not as though this problem is unique to our generation, though. In ancient Israel, the proper training of children was a problem also. The psalmist encourages faithful "Christian" education for children when he says:

“Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done. for he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children” (Ps 78:1-5).

Things that came down from previous generations are supposed to be continually passed on. This means that parents are supposed to teach children, not just the facts, but also teach them to teach their own children--by word and example. Fill them with the truth of God in a way that they will want to pass these things on to subsequent generations also. Neglecting to teach children the truths of God is essentially the same as refusing to do so. One is a passive disobedience, and the other is active, but both are sins and both are detrimental to a child's spiritual health.

The psalmist also says that it is specifically the "praises", "strength" and "wonderful works" of God that need to be told to children. What more "wonderful work" is there besides the sacrifice of Christ presented again to the people of God in the liturgy? Children need to think of Him with awe in their hearts and minds. One does not need a Master's degree in theology in order to teach children about the majesty of God. A Protestant pastor was once asked if he felt a need to defend the Bible against unbelievers. His response was, "how do you defend a lion? just let it out of its cage and it will attack". Wonderful point, and God is the same; how do you teach about Him? just let Him out and He will show Himself to be wondrous and glorious. Talk of Him when "thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up" (Deut 6:7). Do not hide these things from the children, but rather hold them forth as beautiful truths that you love.

There are things that need to be kept from little children until they are old enough to handle them on their own. The awesome deeds of God our Savior are not among them. Children should believe in the truth of God somewhat by "assumption". What I mean by this is that they should always "just know" that He exists and that He loves His children. Then as they grow older they learn to solidify this faith with their own personal convictions. Teach them to love these things in such a way that they will want to teach them to their children. God promises to be faithful to a "thousand generations" of those who love Him. Parents, you are entrusted by God with those children so that you may continue that line of generational faithfulness. Make this known to them and their children after them.

Submission?

2011-09-09T22:40:00.003-05:00

Submission is a bad thing. We Americans are fiercely independent, and we know better than to submit. Freedom, personal freedom with no boundaries, is the ultimate goal of all of life. Anything less than absolute freedom to do whatever I want without anyone ever telling me otherwise is slavery, and it is a sin to give in to such evil. Well, actually, I am being a bit extreme in this description. Or am I?

Americans, having in our past history a battle with tyranny, appear to believe that any authority we do not like is tyrannical. Sadly, most do not really know what tyranny is. Resistance to authority is almost the chief American virtue, and other peoples have largely followed our example. France tried a revolution a while after America's revolutionary war. Yet, having been based on entirely different principles, France's revolution turned into an all out rebellion which (if I understand my history right) only succeeded in replacing one tyrant with another. Does that mean, however, that America's revolution had only godly motivations and results? No.

The goal and determination of most people that you meet on the street is to "live my own life", which means making my own rules. Sadly, Christians are not immune to this type of behavior, and they even occasionally fall into a bit of blasphemy about it. I have seen some of the most foolhardy behavior defended in the name of Jesus. "The Bible says..." often starts off sentences that proceed to promote some quite wicked actions. It appears that if we convince ourselves that we are doing God's will (regardless of how unbiblical the behavior may be) we can rest assured that we are supposed to disobey every authority that comes against our personal desires.

The rebellious spirit that spawns divisions and quarrels is the same one that creates all sorts of strife between the people of God. People will fight over just about anything (and they do), but there are some who prefer to be in a state of disagreement. This is just as evil as those who will fall into great sin in order to avoid any kind of conflict. Those who are fearfully passive are just as much in sin as those who are aggressively antagonistic, and they are both rebels. One rebels openly against the leaders that God has granted him; the other rebels passively against his leaders for he does not obey out of willing submission, but rather out of a fearful desire to please and comfort self.

The Catholic understanding of the faith involves a central concept of humble submission. We are each given leaders by God as a gift to help us lead lives of faithfulness. No one is without some type of available leadership. The prideful Christian whose goal is autonomy will always complain about "blind sheep" (while they are themselves "blind sheep" to their own sinful desires). Though some will avoid that leadership, and others will go so far as to usurp that leadership, God always provides. Part of what it means to be a Catholic Christian is to learn how to submit ourselves to Christ by submitting ourselves to those He appointed as our leaders. This is very "anti-American" in this sense, and it is also very "anti-Protestant".

At the heart of Catholicism is an acceptance of authority and a realization that we do not have the right or privilege to run off and choose an authority who tells us what we want to hear. At the heart of the Evil One is the realization that submission does not please self first. Pride makes us choose to reject submission and choose instead to take hold of our own pleasures first and foremost. Freedom is a good thing, but freedom without God's boundaries is chaos. May each of us learn better what it means to serve the Lord with submissive hearts and hands.

Don't Leave Peter Because of Judas

2011-09-06T10:11:00.001-05:00

I read this quote recently and it struck me immediately at how profound it was. As a Protestant, I had a long list of reasons why the Catholic Church was bad (most of which were errors). My Protestant friends today will regularly rattle off the same or similar lists. I have a few friends in Eastern Orthodoxy and (not remarkably) their reasons for resisting communion with the Holy See are pretty much the same. "The Catholic Church left her roots of the first millennium", "The Pope has too much authority", "The Catholic Church added new doctrines" (etc., ad nauseam).

When my heart converted to Catholicism I did not suddenly change my mind on all the things that I saw as "problems" with the Catholic Church. Yes, most of them were cleared out (all the doctrinal and ecclesiastical ones) by simply looking at the Scriptures and at the early Church's beliefs (done deal, case closed). Yet, I still saw some things that troubled me: the clergy abuse scandal, liberal Bishops, modernist renditions of the Novus Ordo, and nominalism, to name a few. These things were concerns for me, but the bigger issue was whether Rome was really who she said she was. Did she truly possess the keys of Peter?

Then I thought about all the reasons that someone could have left the Church in the first century. The Apostles were there; how could anyone think to leave? Well they did (1 John 2:19, Heb 6:4-6), and they had their reasons. I am sure that many of them looked at the mistakes that leaders had made, the unruliness of some of the congregations, the numbers of Christians who were not truly committed to the faith, and they saw something to complain about. They saw various things to use as an excuse to go their own way. Yet, division is never seen in the Bible as an acceptable choice.

These people chose to "leave Peter because of Judas". They saw someone who was bad, and said that justified their leaving someone who was not. All schismatics (whether of the Protestant or Orthodox stripe) are making the same choice by using the same types of arguments. Yes, the "Judas's" are out there in the Catholic Church, and yes, she has some problems to work on, but that is not a defense to leave. The woman who comes to her priest and says she wants to divorce her husband because he uses his authority wrongly, and he is not taking proper responsibility in the home, should be told they need counseling rather than a divorce.

All the examples of Judas' errors and sins do not negate the fact that Peter is still Peter. The Pope is still the successor to Peter and we still must be in fellowship with the Apostles and their successors (cf. 1 John 1:3). All the excuses (call them "reasons", "defenses", or "explanations", it is still the same) in the world do not change the fact that Jesus has given us His appointed vicars on Earth to lead us, and that we do not have permission to reject any of them (John 13:20, 1 Thess 4:8). Thank you to the original writer who gave the above quote for it wonderfully encapsulates the entire idea. Do not reject the Catholic Church because she has problems. Do not leave Peter because of Judas.

Have You Seen "Fireproof"?

2011-09-01T15:45:00.002-05:00

Last night, my wife and I watched the movie "Fireproof" once again. As every other time we've seen it, we both cried at the end (and a couple other times in the middle). I am a softy, but if you men are not emotionally moved by the conclusion, then your hearts are cold. It has a few cheesy parts, but overall it is a great message. I do not want to give away anything crucial to the story in case any of you have not seen it, because I strongly encourage everyone to watch it. It is not a "family movie" per se. That is not to say that it has objectionable content; it is just thematically oriented towards adults and mature teens; little kids will not get it.

Regardless of whether you are married or not; regardless of whether your marriage is in trouble or not; I encourage everyone to see it. The message is presented in a winsome way that accomplishes more than just the surface message itself. In a nutshell, what it advocates for a good marriage should also be broadly applied for being a good Christian. As I have said over and over, "if you are not a good Christian, you won't be a good spouse". I counsel people regularly for marital problems (usually outside of my parish), and the same root problem keeps coming to the surface: pride. It seems like Christians today are blind to the negative consequences of personal pride. Spouses often promote their own selfish pride as though it were a virtue and they often get angry when it is pointed out to them.

My wife and I do not have the problems that the main characters did in "Fireproof" but that is because long ago we learned the same basic lessons that they had not learned at the beginning of the story. We also never got ourselves into the degree of trouble that they encountered, but I will admit there were a few days that things were less than "sweet" in our home back when we first got married. What amazes me though, is not that there are people who relate easily to the main characters in the movie, but rather that there are so many who relate easily. Christians are clearly not being taught how to love others "as we love ourselves" because there are so many people who are loving self above all else.

Marriages today are in bad shape, and there is no "magic pill" that will solve the problem. Even the movie "Fireproof" is not a guaranteed cure-all. There are marriage seminars, and loads of books on the market, but things are not getting better. This is not because the seminars or books are necessarily at fault (though some of them should be banned from the planet Earth), but rather because there is a more fundamental problem with those involved. That problem, as I mentioned above, is that people are focused on serving themselves first. When these people get married, they bring that point of view into the marriage. It does not disappear merely because the two have been made one. Rather, when a marriage covenant is made the faults of both husband and wife are magnified because they are placed in close proximity with one another.

So what is the virtue in "Fireproof"? It is quite simple (so simple that it amazes me that anyone needs to be taught this). The story portrays for us the "golden rule": treat others the way you want to be treated and your love will be infectious. That is a very simplistic description of a simple point, but the story, acting as a parable, gives this lesson in a way that cuts to the heart. It does so for those who are guilty as well as those who think they are not. Marriages can survive if the golden rule is not applied by both spouses, but they cannot thrive. A thriving marriage is one where both husband and wife know how to serve one another in the love of Christ.

Whether or not you think you need to improve your marriage, and even if you are not married, rent (or buy) this movie. Get past the corny stuff (which is relatively small) and immerse yourself in the lesson that it gives. Look for yourself in the main characters, and do not make excuses for how you treat others. Learn from the basics of the gospel of Christ: love God and love your neighbor.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

2011-08-30T14:22:00.002-05:00

On vacation recently, we stayed in a cabin in a state park. Another group of the guests at the park behaved in a way that they clearly thought reasonable. Yet, this "reasonable behavior" included cranking the radio at full volume late at night. This came after four hours of yelling and screaming at one another while outside cooking dinner on the grill. I saw no malicious intent in their behavior. They were not trying to annoy anyone. They viewed their actions as merely normative. This was (seemingly) a part of everyday life for them, so why would anyone have a problem with it?

The fact that the campground rules stated clearly that no noise should be heard more than 120 feet beyond the cabin, and that complete silence was required during the later hours, apparently did not influence them. They chose to act in the manner they were accustomed to, and I am not attacking them for what they are used to. The problem comes with the fact that most people visit a state park for the peace and quiet of God's creation, and not for the cacophony of the inner city. As my Grandmother used to say "visitors ain't supposed to act like they own the place".

When each of us enters a new situation (visiting a friend, shopping somewhere we've never been, etc.) we usually feel a bit unsure of the situation and are cautious about things until we are sure of where we stand ("can I do this?", "is this acceptable?"). The opposite happens when we assume that we know the boundaries. If we step into something and take no consideration for others around us, we merely proceed with business as usual and are often found displaying our foolishness.

How will the coming Ordinariates look if people in parishes are not properly catechized? If people assume they know the Catholic faith, but a few "offensive" details are left out to avoid a problem, will they really be ready for what they are getting themselves into? Having spoken to a number of clergymen lately I have found that most are working quite diligently to teach their congregations about the dogmas of Catholicism. Yet, a few seem to want to "soften the blow" a little too much. When the child is going to get a spanking and he knows exactly how much is coming, he can prepare himself for it. It still hurts, but he is able to "brace himself". When a child is surprised by a punishment, even a small act of discipline can seem larger than it really is; the shock makes it harder to stomach.

I have the task of giving Catechetical instruction to my little parish here in Des Moines, and I know that there are a few issues that I need to cover that may be a bit new to some of my people. Yet, the final question is not "how can I squeeze them through the door?", but rather "how can I be faithful to God in my calling?" These are God's sheep and I am appointed to shepherd them in His behalf. I must tell them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have to give account for how I led them, and that means that I will be asked whether I taught them "all things whatsoever [Jesus] commanded" (Mt 28:20). If I cannot say that I explained "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), then I am remiss in my calling and their "blood" is on my hands.

I pray that every Ordinariate-bound priest is telling his Ordinariate-bound parish everything about the Catholic faith. Not only the dogmas, not only the spiritual life and practices, but also what it means to behave like a faithful Catholic. We all have examples of unfaithful Catholics, and we should not use them as the standard where we judge ourselves. The fullness of the faith comes in "heart, soul, mind and body" and to love the Lord any less is not pure love. Priests, fulfill your ministry and teach your people all they need to know. Parishioners, listen to your priests, and with humble hearts receive the "faith of our fathers". This is the only way to serve our gracious Lord with joy and gladness.

Competing Systems

2011-08-26T22:42:00.003-05:00

When the Northern Kingdom of Israel was taken into exile by the Assyrians in the eighth century B.C. she lost most (if not all) of her culture because the people were forced to intermarry with the attacking Assyrians. Thus, eventually diluting any Jewish culture out of the descendants, a new society was born from the ashes of the previous one. The Samaritans are likely the half-bred descendants of this very practice of intermarriage. A similar intermarriage has occurred in our day, but it is an intermarriage of beliefs rather than of people. In spite of its different nature, it is just as effective, if not more so, in causing harm to the children who are brought up under it.

When a child is trained in two differing systems of thought or philosophy, they will be tempted to decide between the two. A child is not capable of fully synthesizing two different systems, so they will have to make a choice. They will only follow one or the other. Jesus made it clear that even adults cannot serve two different systems of thought at the same time (Matthew 6:24). When children encounter this type of challenge, their fallen nature steps in and leads them to choose the system that provides the maximum pleasure to self. The younger child is too impressionable to be able to make a wise choice between worldliness and godliness; he does not know the difference between right and wrong (cf. Isaiah 7:16) and will almost always succumb to the temptation to sin.

Giving children the religious education that is needed is a challenging task, but it is the responsibility of every parent to ensure that their children are fully trained in Christian faith and morals. The Catechism words it wonderfully:

The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. "The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute." The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

If parents fulfill the responsibility of the education and formation of their children's souls, and yet at the same time, allow (or even force) influences that fully contradict that education and formation, then they are either destroying or at the least corrupting all the good work that is done. Music today is filled with the praises of immorality and vulgarity; movies endorse children's rebellion against their parents and a host of other sins; public schools require children to view the world without God. These influences, and a long list of others, are the very things that will be competing against the godly influences that will come from proper education and spiritual disciplines that the parents are supposed to be providing for their children. If the child gets an hour at Mass on Sunday, and maybe a couple other times in the week, and then is bombarded with 30 hours of public school, 10 hours of Hollywood movies, and 10 hours of pagan music (and the last two are conservative estimates) then what will be the predominant influence in that child's life?

Older children (i.e. teens) who have been brought up with a consistent portrayal of Christian truth and not been forced to deal with a radical dichotomy of belief are better equipped to say no to the world when they encounter it. They are able to decide between right and wrong because they have been trained how to do so (Heb 5:14). Yet, this assumes that the child has been properly trained in what the Lord commands of us; that the child has learned the disciplines of the Christian life, and knows what it means to submit to the teachings of the Church. Then, when the world comes rushing at the child in his older years, he can make the proper decisions and choose what is good and right.

The responsibility and accountability that is given to parents is a daunting task. Many bring up their children in "the nurture and admonition of the world", and the evidence is all over our society. For Christian parents who know they have a higher law to obey, we must be careful that we are not ruining the work that is done by allowing evil to have a seat at "the table". Guard your children's hearts, souls, minds, and bodies. Protect them and prepare them. They are supposed to be the arrows that we shoot at the world (Psalm 127:4) to bring it to the feet of Jesus. Let them be strong arrows and not broken ones.

Wake Up Calls

2011-08-23T23:56:00.002-05:00

While in Seminary, I took part in a "prison ministry" where I went once a week to a local prison and preached to a group of inmates. I got all kinds of responses; from positive to threatening. Since then I have come into contact with a few different situations where I was able to minister to prisoners. They are a unique bunch. Most claim their innocence and say that they "were framed". It is possible that it may be true for a few, but (fortunately) not all are innocent. I am currently corresponding with a prisoner who makes no excuses for his sins. He admits he did it, and that he is there because God used this for his good.

Although there are some prisoners who try to give you the "story" about their innocence, most know that they are guilty and that they got caught. There is a healthy honesty in this one that I am seeking to help right now. He did not get much in the way of academic education, and he knows it. He says that he wants to get his life straightened out again, get a job when he is out, and find a good Church. He has never been a part of a Church before, but apparently God snagged this man's heart while behind the bars.

What is it that makes us sit up and take a look at who we are? What does God use for each of us? It will be different from one person to the next, but it usually is something dramatic and often is painful. C.S. Lewis called pain, "God's megaphone" and that is quite accurate. Our gracious Lord sends things into our lives to wake us up and tell us that we have gone off the path. As so many of us are seeking to return to unity with the See of Peter at this time, there are numerous stories that I have heard that tell how God caused each of us to decide we are going to Rome. In these last stages, it can be tempting to change our minds and head back to "Egypt" where there is the comfort and security that we got used to (God called it "slavery").

For each of us there is something that God used to give us the wake up call, and I wish I knew why He did not give the same call to everyone. I have some Christian brothers who are not following me in this path, and I am saddened for them. They have chosen to remain in schism, and I can only say that I would be there too were it not for God's mercy to me. Listening to others resist communion with the Catholic Church is like listening to a blind man describe what he sees when his eyes are closed. Empty and pitiful words. As we come closer and closer to full union, it is our responsibility not to attack those who choose a different path. We must remember to pray for them, and ask God to give them a "trial" or "challenge" that will help them to open their eyes to the beauty of unity. For, "there but for the grace of God go I".

What is the Real Reason?

2011-08-20T16:16:00.002-05:00

A number of years ago, I was called to visit one of the families in my parish. They wanted to speak to me about something that they "were concerned about". These types of visits always put knots in the stomach of just about any priest. I was a bit nervous about the visit, because this family always seemed to have a "problem" with something at the Church. One of the uncomfortable aspects about visiting this home was the aroma. It was not dirty, just the opposite rather. It was very clean, but the mother happened to take great care to ensure that her home had pleasant smells. She took so much care that the potpourri and air fresheners were often enough to knock you down. I have a very sensitive sense of smell, and that made it all the more noticeable for me; but I never complained about it. Naturally, the mother took this concern personally as well, so she also wore strong perfumes.

So I arrived at the home expecting a plethora of aromatic excitement. I walked in to it just as expected. A pleasant smelling home--but strongly so. We all sat down, and began to discuss the "issue". The father got right to the point: he wanted me to stop using incense in Mass. The smell was "too strong" and caused his wife's allergies to act up. I do not need to go into any further details about the rest of the discussion. Needless to say they did not see the complete disconnect between what they were saying and doing.

Why is this so common in Christians today; especially American Christians? We are so determined sometimes to get what we want, that we ignore the fact that there is not a well thought out reason for it. We want it so we go after it; regardless of whether it completely contradicts our own behavior in the rest of our lives. One thing that I try to teach people who are having relational problems, is how to get to the bottom of the disagreements that occur. Often the point that we are making in our discussion, is not the actual concern that we have, but more of a smoke-screen to cover up what we are really thinking. This often happens when we know that there is a problem with the real reasons and (often subconsciously) we follow a line of thinking that is completely irrational.

In Ecclesiastical matters, this is also the case. Many of those Christians who wish to avoid communion with the Catholic Church (Protestant or Eastern Orthodox) will give reasons to explain why they do not need to submit to the See of Peter that are clearly a desperate attempt to justify schism. We all understand the need for unity, and the fact that our Lord makes it a non-negotiable (cf. John 17:21). Yet, Christians who are entrenched in schism and division will work to defend their sectarian behavior while ignoring the fact that unity of the Church is not an option. As a sedevacantist nun said recently (right after she was reconciled with the Catholic Church) "we became our own personal Magisterium". I confess that I did this very thing for years. No, I did not call it a Magisterium; I called it "private interpretation". Easterns often call it "sacred tradition", but it is still division.

The family I mentioned at the beginning of the post was not really concerned about the wife's allergies. It took a while, but they admitted so. They were concerned about something else entirely. "Smells and bells" reminded them of the Catholic Church, and they knew that Catholicism was evil because Catholics believe that Mary is the fourth person of the Trinity (maybe that would be a Quadernity?!). Why does each of us have the particular convictions that we have? It is essential that we each examine our hearts to determine whether we are really being honest with ourselves in our pursuit of what we believe. Are we taking our stand based on what pleases self, or is it truly based on what pleases God? Knowing the difference is not as easy as many think, but it separates faithfulness from unfaithfulness.

Reconciled Sisters

2011-08-19T09:33:00.003-05:00

Here is an encouraging story. It is about some sedevacantist sisters who realized that they were wrong and returned to Mother Church. Though not exactly the same as my story, I can relate to their transition from resisting the Pope's authority (as all schismatics do) to coming to see their error. We truly live in an age of reconciliation.

Mike Monsoor, R.I.P.

2011-08-17T11:04:00.005-05:00

Honorable service, especially when one gives his life for others, should always be recognized. Here is a story that got me choked up, and I wanted to share it with all of you. The sailor pictured below is, Navy Petty Officer, PO2 (Petty Officer, Second Class) EOD2 (Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Second Class), Mike Monsoor. (April 5th, 1981 ~ September 29th, 2009)

Mike Monsoor was awarded the "Congressional Medal Of Honor", for giving his life in Iraq when he jumped on, and covered with his body, a live grenade, thereby saving the lives of a large group of Navy Seals that was passing by.

Mike Monsoor's funeral was at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery, in San Diego, California. The six pallbearers removed the casket from the hearse, and then on each side of Mike Monsoor's casket his family members, friends, fellow sailors, and well-wishers lined up in a column. The column of people continued from the hearse all the way to the grave site. What the group did not know at the time was, every navy seal (45 to be exact) that Mike Monsoor saved that day was scattered throughout the column.

As the pallbearers carried the rosewood casket down the column of people to the grave, the column would "collapse"
and form a group of people that followed behind. Every time the casket passed a Navy Seal, he would remove his gold trident pin from his uniform, and slap it down hard, causing the gold trident pin to embed itself into the top of the wooden casket. Then the Navy Seal would step back from the column, and salute.

In case you do not know what a "Trident Pin" is here is an explanation:
After one completes the basic Navy Seals program, which lasts for three weeks, this is followed by Seal qualification training, which is fifteen more weeks of training. This is necessary to continue improving basic skills and to learn new tactics and techniques, and is required for an assignment to a Navy Seal platoon. After successful completion, trainees are given their Naval Enlisted Code and are awarded the Navy Seal Trident Pin. With this gold pin they are now officially Navy Seals.

It was said, that you could hear each of the 45 slaps from across the cemetery. By the time the rosewood casket reached the grave site, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from the 45 trident pins that lined the top.

Selfish Decisions

2011-08-16T22:54:00.000-05:00

We are truly a prideful people today. I spoke to a man recently who had joined the Catholic Church so that he could become a monk. Then he left because they told him that the Catholic Church would never ordain women to holy orders. In an apparent fear that someone will force us to do something bad, we end up having a resistance to all authority. This man is just one example of a "plague" that has hit the Church in a radical way. No I do not mean "radical" like I used the term in high school (for something that was considered "cool"), but in the literal meaning: "at the heart" of the issue.

We have been hit by a "plague" of enlightenment thinking. At the heart of it, there is no true difference between the action of the pagan who denies the existence of God, the spiritualist who thinks that she is already God, and the Christian who rejects historic dogma because it makes him "unhappy". They are each choosing to do something, or believe something, based on their personal (and selfish) motivations. When this type of decision is considered, we submit it before the throne of self-comfort and if it passes then the action is carried out.

The American spirit of self-reliance has done more to destroy the Christian faith in some people than all the cult groups combined. It has driven us away from the Church's traditional practice of humble submission. Some will react and say "that's the old way" and claim that today "we think for ourselves". Yet, that does not make it right. In this way, "thinking for ourselves" means "thinking in isolation". It is comparable to one man trying to build a skyscraper with a hammer, three nails, and an old log. When we think in isolation we remove ourselves from the assistance provided by the Saints who have gone before us, and end up without help.

Thinking in the context of the traditions of the Church means not only having a full team to "build" with, but also being able to stand on their shoulders so that we can see farther than we could alone. By ourselves we will always choose selfish conclusions and reject those things that humble us. I recently spoke to someone about the grace of God and told him that we can all be thankful for what God has done for us. His response was to step out of the context of those who have gone before. He said "speak for yourself, I got where I did because of my own hard work and I'm not giving up any of the credit". Choosing to isolate himself from the Church's understanding of the doctrine of grace, he ends up saying things that are tantamount to heresy.

How do we make decisions today? Is it truly based on an objective effort to choose what is best, or are we becoming more and more a selfish people who "look out for number one" before all else? Even choosing the right thing can be done for selfish reasons, and that gives us each good cause to sit down and pray that the Lord would grant us the wisdom to look past our selfish desires and see instead what is truly good and right. Jesus gives us the means to do this, if only we will listen to Him.

Technological Dependence

2011-08-12T15:39:00.001-05:00

What an interesting world we have formed. God created it, but we have given it shape, and the shape we have given lately is not exactly beautiful. I have not posted anything lately because of a computer crash that came out of "nowhere". Everything was running fine, and I had been keeping it clean from viruses and spyware (etc.) but still the hard drive went "kaboom". It was under warranty so it is being replaced (though it still will not be here for a few more days), and I am writing on my wife's computer so that I can get something posted. I have been thinking about this whole thing for a while now, and my recent experience has made it even more clear. We have invented a number of things that were supposed to be there to help us, but now, rather than being a help, they have become a necessity that we depend on. We all know that if the electrical grid went down, society would come to a grinding halt. Why have we developed such shaky structures and placed ourselves at their mercy?

What does our future hold? If things go poorly, how many will survive? Which of us can endure life without the luxuries that we are so used to having? Furthermore, it is humbling to realize that our forefathers did just fine without these things. True, they had a harder life, but they were not dependent on "stuff" like we are today. They endured the cold winters and the hot summers without air conditioning or modern insulation. We are still inventing machines that do all sorts of fancy things, and yet they break down on a regular basis because we only know how to make fragile machines, rather than machines that last. Our desire for "new" gadgets has made us run headlong into quantity without quality. This leads to an extremely fragile system that becomes dependent on the poorly (but quickly) manufactured devices. We can watch a movie on our cell phone, but few know how to fix dinner if the electricity goes off.

Pride has caused this, and pride will be what makes it worse. In our current economic crisis, many in the world are worried. Yet at the same time, many in world are confident that the civil government will fix the problems (to say nothing about whether it is their responsibility to begin with). Nowhere in the Scriptures are we promised that the comforts of technological advancement will continue, but even Christians are acting like this is a basic assumption of life.

It was eleven years ago, but we seem to have forgotten the fear that gripped so many people before "Y2K". No, it did not happen the way the doom and gloom screamers said it would (and I am not now predicting any "doom and gloom"). Did we learn anything from that experience though? It does not seem like we did. Society is extremely fragile today, and it rests on a fragile edifice. If we are relying on the structures of today's society, then we are likely going to be very disappointed in a time of trial. If we can sincerely pray (as it says in Proverbs) that God would give us no more or less than we need, then that "no more than we need" may very well be a lot less than we currently have.

There is certainly nothing wrong with working hard and rejoicing in the blessings that God gives as a result. I know that I will miss air conditioning and digital music (among a host of other things) if the world has a disaster that makes it fall back a couple hundred years. Yet, whether it does or not, where is our hope? Do we receive technology with thankful hearts and remember that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away"? Or do we receive it with pride and say "look at how wonderful we are?" At the height of his self-aggrandizement (Dan 4:28-30), King Nebuchadnezzar was thrown down by God to live like the animals in the wild (Dan 4:31-33). Are we so foolish as to think the same could not happen to us?

The Church will endure no matter what, but that does not mean that every individual parish will endure. The bride of Christ is promised a permanency unlike any other institution in creation. God will always be with His people who persevere. We may have to do without many of the grand and fancy things that we are used to now, but then where is our treasure? Where our heart is there will be our treasure also. Ask yourself whether God is really the One non-negotiable in your life. Are we truly willing to give up all for the sake of Jesus Christ?

Technological Disaster

2011-08-05T10:23:00.003-05:00

So sorry that I have not posted anything lately. My computer crashed and it is taking a great deal of time and money to get it up and running again. Not only is this the main computer I use to write my posts and prepare sermons on, but it appears I have lost everything that was on it as well. Technopoly! I only have minimal access to email and I can make this short post for now. Please bear with me, and your prayers would be greatly appreciated. God bless you all!

My Life for You

2011-07-29T18:38:00.002-05:00

A few years ago the feast of Holy Innocents came on a Sunday. I was the priest of a small congregation and there was not a priest anywhere nearby that I could call on to say Mass for me on that day. Normally I have no problem with the feast, but that year things were different. My wife had just recently lost a child to a miscarriage. To make it even more challenging, this was the second child that the Lord had chosen to take from us (by miscarriage) in the previous year and it was particularly painful for us. The congregation knew about the situation and they were very supportive; even to the point of encouraging me to cancel services for that day, but I chose not to. In the presence of God and His people was the very place that my wife and I wanted to be.

I have to admit that preaching about those infant boys who died at the hands of King Herod made me get choked up more than once. They gave their lives so that Jesus could live; what an awesome picture of holy martyrdom. I did not make reference to our personal experience in the sermon, because I did not want to turn myself into the topic of the message. I cannot now think of a sermon that was ever more difficult to preach.

The loss of a loved one is always painful and challenging. It causes us to think of our own mortality and helps us to remember all the beauty that was added to our life by the one who died. Yet the loss of a child is even more difficult because we assume that the parents are supposed to outlive the children. Children expect to bury their parents, but not usually the other way around. Parents want to hand their heritage on to their children so that they can do the same with future generations. When that is taken out of our hands, however, we are thrown into a state that makes the world seem upside down.

Yet, to lose a child that has not even been born is unlike any of the other experiences. The parents have never even held the child that miscarries; by the determination of God alone, that privilege is taken out of their hands. They have become attached to the baby, but that attachment is not the same as what a parent experiences when the child has been born and they are able to hold him in their arms. The feeling is something that cannot be explained, and can only be understood by someone who has gone through it.

Since that last miscarriage, my wife has born us another child. Little number five is now 18 months old and she is doing wonderfully. Yet, she would not even have been conceived if that previous miscarriage had not happened. If my wife had carried that other child full term, it would have gone past the time when our little one that we now have would have been conceived. Only God knows the details and the timing of events, but it is hard to ignore the fact that one of our children gave his life for the sake of the other. Similar to the baby boys who gave their lives so that Jesus could live. Both were done innocently and unknowingly.

What can we learn from this? That God has plans and ideas that go far beyond what we can grasp. Why does He take one and allow another to be born? How does He choose the time in our lives that this is going to happen? We rely on Him to make the best choices for us, but we often do not understand just why He does things the way He does. There is a second thing, though, that we should all be able to learn. That is the fact that all of life is focused on the principle of "my life for you". Whether in the mundane act of washing the dishes or mowing the lawn, or in the amazing self-sacrifice of a soldier who dies for his country, we should see that each of us is to live here as Jesus lived (and there are many more examples throughout the world).

We are to live not for self, but rather for others. We are put here to help one another. When God said that it was "not good" that man should be alone, He did not just mean that man would get lonely. He also meant that when man is isolated he tends to focus on himself to the exclusion of others, and that is entirely contrary to the whole concept of love. Love, the greatest of commandments, is entirely "otherly". Love God, and love neighbor. Notice in Jesus' words He says to love our neighbor "as ourselves". In other words, He assumes that everyone is able to love themselves, but love of self without love of others is a twisted application of love. It is no longer oriented the way God wants. So each of us is to live "my life for you". For some that will mean only the simple service that treats others as though they are Christ Himself (cf. Matt 25:31ff). For others it will mean the ultimate sacrifice; some by actively willing it, and others by passively submitting to the will of our gracious Lord. However it comes, Jesus gave up His life for us, and calls us to give up our lives for one another as well.

Modesty (again)

2011-07-28T10:38:00.003-05:00

I could have said this (and, actually, I have at various times), but coming from a mother of 12, it has a whole lot more impact. Please read the link (and if you hate what she says, then repent).

Lessons From My "Un-Cat"

2011-07-28T10:31:00.002-05:00

Everything I need to know about being a good Christian I learned from my cat. Well, not really, but it sounds good and I hope I got your attention. Actually, there are a few principles that I have gleaned from the behavior of one particular cat (who was not much like the typical cat). This is a cat that I owned (and, no, he did not think he owned me--remember I said he was different) who was affectionately referred to as an "un-cat" (he passed away years ago, and I truly pray that I will see him again in eternity). He certainly looked like a cat from the outside, but he was a unique animal (he appeared to the eye to be a Norwegian Forest Cat--but I know that was only a disguise). Generally speaking, I am more of a "dog person" than a "cat person", mainly because cats tend to be fiercely independent and dogs tend to be more loyal; that is just my preference though. This cat, however, broke those rules of how a cat is expected to behave.

You are probably asking by now what it is that I learned. Lesson number one: Always forgive others, and do so quickly. He never showed even the slightest inclination to hold anything against someone who had hurt him. I have heard stories about cats that would urinate in their owner's shoes simply because the owner did not feed him on time, but this cat did not have an unforgiving bone in his body. We prefer to withhold forgiveness though, because it makes us feel like we have control over others. Though I have never heard of a person urinating in an adversary's shoes, we do other things that are just as cruel (if not more so). Our looks of contempt, snide remarks, and enjoyment at another's discomfort, are all aspects of this very same hateful lack of forgiveness. Jesus warns that those who are unforgiving, will themselves not be forgiven. One of the beauties of the Catholic Church is her comfortable diversity; she has many different types of members (definitely not homogeneous) who are expected to look at each other with the attitude of "that's between you and God". In most cases this works out wonderfully in local parishes; though there are instances that this is not so, they are (in my experience) few and far between. Acknowledging beforehand that we all sin and often do so against each other, it a great help in preparing us to forgive others. It is going to happen, so ready yourself now to deal with it in a godly fashion.

Lesson number two: Never hold a grudge. This goes right on the tail of lesson number one, but it has a distinct aspect. My cat would not only forgive, but he helped you to forget that you had done something to him. Once I accidentally stepped on his tail because I did not see him behind me. Some cats will quickly bare their claws and give a hefty swipe at the perpetrator for a simple misdeed as this, but not him. He not only let it pass, but he distracted me from what happened by encouraging me to play with him. As a priest I have counseled many people who were afraid to try to reconcile because they were sure that the person they wronged would not forgive them. If you have been wronged, you should never harbor anger or hatred toward the person who wronged you. You should be seeking to make it clear (depending on the circumstances) to the other person that you are ready and willing to forgive (cf. God's self description in Exodus 34:6). What do we do to help allay the discomfort of someone who has wronged us? No, we should not be bragging about our "gracious spirit" but we can definitely make it clear that we "suffer long" and are willing to "bear all things" (1 Cor 13:4, 7). Usually our sinful hearts lead us to try to make the offender feel bad just a little longer. What if each one of us sought to go out of our way in the opposite direction to show our enemies that we do not hate them? What if we were to make a sincere effort to show those brothers who have hurt us that we are not holding it against them?

Lesson number three: Physical affection is essential for mental and spiritual well being. I have seen many cats that enjoyed affection, to a certain limit of their own choosing. Most cats like to be petted, but they also like to be in control of how and when. My cat believed that petting (as well as scratching under the chin and behind the ears) was physically and emotionally nutritious. He treated it like a food group. One of the reasons that there is so much dysfunction in families today is because they have lost the art of loving one another. Most parents are either too affectionate (unto sin) or too little affectionate to their children today. Rarely do we find well adjusted children who have been taught what is enough affection, and what is too much. The result is that we end up with a society of sexual deviants on one side and emotionally unstable people who cannot stand being touched on the other side. With families this way, it is easy to see how Churches also become dysfunctional and treat each other, at best like strangers, and at worst like lepers. There is a reason that the early Church greeted one another with a Christian kiss (men to men, and women to women); they knew that each of us need sincere affection. Time together with Christian brethren is more than a nicety, it is needed. Sometimes a simple pat on the shoulder or a hug can go a long way to encourage someone who needs to know that he or she is loved.

Lesson number four: A good romp through the hills is important, but always return home. This is not especially unique, as most cats who live outside enjoy this. The longest my cat ever stayed away was about 24 hours. I have to admit I did fret a bit that day; not sure of where he was. Then he returned home, in perfect condition, and though he did not appear hungry (there were plenty of critters up in those hills to fill his stomach), he was clearly lacking in physical affection. He went around to every member of the family and insisted on a good ten minutes of play and petting. His behavior said, "I missed you and I hope you're glad I'm back". He never was gone that long again, but he often would wander off to roam in the hills. We all need a vacation from the hectic nature of modern life on a regular basis, but that should never keep us from returning to the community of the Church. Life in the community is essential for us. It is not good that man should be alone, and we need those outside of our own family in order to help us along in our spiritual walk. Going off to be alone (or at least with just our immediate family) is important, as Jesus Himself showed us. Yet, there are very few who can remain alone (like the hermits of the past) and not become maladjusted. People today who isolate themselves--for whatever anti-social reason they come up with--are often the weakest in their faith. The occasional "time alone" becomes an all encompassing passion that feeds itself. The habit of "me-time" can easily turn our soul into a self-serving beast. We were created as social beings, and that means we need to learn to value that social interaction.

God wants us together in a community, not just to receive, but also to give. We are to learn from our brethren, and we are to be ready and willing to help them also. Yet, if we are the type who are anti-social and do not like physical proximity with other people, then we are not going to be able to integrate well into the body of Christ. The eye cannot say to the hand "I have no need of you". If we are unforgiving of others or holding grudges against them, then we drive people away and hurt ourselves in the process. Each of us carries baggage with us that makes sociability difficult (overly social people have problems with proper social interaction as well--i.e. they are friendly to a fault), and each of us is supposed to overcome it. Every form of resistance to the brotherhood of the local parish stems from pride, and that is what makes it so hard to give it up. It feels like cutting off an arm, when it is actually removing a horrible tumor. In whatever way it is within our grasp, let us be at peace with one another and seek to make the body of Christ a true reflection of the One-ness of our Triune God; individual persons, yet unified in perfect joy.

Debating Like a Christian

2011-07-22T23:52:00.001-05:00

It was an evening Bible study in a Protestant Church where I was serving as pastor. Almost everyone in the Church had shown up and they appeared excited about learning more about their faith. The study was an overview of many of the details of the historic Church; not a Church history course, but more a lesson in historic theology. It seemed a safe enough subject, but I was still thrown off my balance by the degree of contention and argumentativeness that showed up that night.

The subject for the evening was simple: people have had many different points of view in the history of doctrinal beliefs, but debates and quarrels have never been without casualties. I sought to teach these people how to deal with theological disagreements. Using examples from Church history, I laid out for them many of the bitter squabbles that led to a continual stream of more and more division among the people of God. Then I made a case for fighting the good fight without destroying our Christian brother in the process. The history of the Church is replete with examples of those whose first goal was to win a debate; somewhere further down the list was the goal of "love thy neighbor as thyself". When we come into a battle this way, we usually forget that there is a person on the other side of the disagreement. The "opponent" becomes an enemy who must be conquered.

There were a few questions that came up in that Bible study, but then disagreements arose. Some wanted to say that it was a sin to allow your brother to maintain a mistaken belief. Others wanted to say that we should only allow people into the Church who were in complete agreement with the Church's teaching. One person argued that if people were hurt by his telling the truth it was just a sign that they were weak. Over the next forty-five minutes I proceeded to watch seventy-five people bite and devour one another over the manner of dealing with disagreements. No one actually shouted, but it was close. For the next three weeks afterward I fielded phone calls and complaints about what new ideas I was trying to "force" on them. Yes, though it sounds ridiculous, they fought over whether it was right to be at peace with one another.

I only mention that it was a Protestant congregation to give the context, not to say that all Protestants are like this (I personally know many who are not). Yet, the acceptance of Sola Scriptura often leads to this very type of disagreement. Over the last couple of decades the Catholic Church has acknowledged that she can learn from her "separated brethren" and has sought to understand and apply some of the truths that Protestants seem to know better than Catholics. The problem with this is that it has also led to Catholics picking up certain bad behaviors that Protestants have fallen to. One of the worst that I have seen is this spirit of contentiousness. This is the spirit that says, "I know I'm right so why should I have to listen to others?" If you "know" you are right, then you should also know that humility is required. This is why disagreements do not get solved, and why they frequently degenerate into a brawl. If each person in a debate made their first goal "truth" rather than their personal position, they may actually learn that their position is wrong.

We are not fighting for the truth if we refuse to listen to the merits of the other position. Instead we are only spending our time waiting while the other is speaking so that we can get our comments in. Largely, Christians today are not teachable. They want to tell others what they believe rather than to learn. I know some people who ask questions of others (both in person and on the web) merely to argue about the answer; they do not really want to know what the other person believes. No disagreement will ever be resolved if all we do is throw our ideas at each other like bombs in a war. Approaching one another with the humble heart that says "you are my brother and I may have something to learn from you" will radically change our ability to grow in Christ. Let us seek this for the whole of God's Church.

Democracy

2011-07-22T00:11:00.003-05:00

I know have not posted anything for a while. I am terribly busy right now, but I came across this quote and thought it was wonderfully insightful.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

It was not actually said by Benjamin Franklin (as many people mistakenly believe), but it is still good.

Grow or Die

2011-07-17T23:04:00.000-05:00

I was sitting in an airport in Denver and a man walked straight up to me and said "Chori! You don't recognize me do you?" I stared for a few seconds with a dumb look on my face, and finally while swinging my head from side to side I said, "I'm sorry, I usually remember a face, but I can't place you. Have we met?" "It's me, Kevin, from high school! Do you remember?" Now, I remembered a Kevin, but he was shorter, had longer hair, and did not have a mustache. Furthermore, the Kevin I knew would never have worn a three-piece suit even if you had threatened his life. He insisted that he was the same rowdy, tough guy that I went to school with, but I knew better. I pointed out to him the noticeable differences and said that they were proof positive that he was not the Kevin I knew. He had changed and could not be identified as the original Kevin; this was an impostor. Apparently saddened by my insistence, he walked away.

The above story is completely fictional, but it is for a point. No one would be foolish enough to have this type of response. People grow older and change. Admittedly, the changes people go through usually do not involve things like growing a third arm out of the middle of their backs, or transforming into a halibut, but they change nevertheless. These changes are not disconnected from who they were before; they change in ways that are consistent with their previous self as described the first paragraph. As people grow older, they learn new things and as a result they mature. Furthermore, they often choose to dress differently and maybe even cut their hair differently. The changes are issues of outward appearance and inward wisdom, but there are never the extreme changes from one type of being into another.

If someone who had known my wife back when I first met her had not seen her for the intervening 21 years, and then suddenly saw her today, they would likely be shocked at her differences. Yet, they would still recognize that it is her. She has calmed down, dresses more conservatively, and is a happy housewife. Not changes that are earth-shattering, but they are changes just the same. The same goes for me; 21 years ago I had long hair, no beard, no glasses, and I was barely 108 pounds (soaking wet).

The Catholic Church is the same. She has grown and matured in many areas. She has learned a better understanding of the trinity. She has finalized the canon of Scripture. She has deepened her understanding of liturgy. All of these things are "growths" rather than any kind of a distortion of her being. There are other areas, though, that many people today look at and say that the "change" is so drastic that her identity has been lost. They claim that the Catholic Church of today is no longer the same Church of 1500 years ago. Unfortunately, that is because they do not understand what is truly "growth" towards maturity, and what is an inconsistent and drastic change. There are many who believe that if you can find any differences between the Catholic Church today and the Catholic Church of, for example, A.D. 800, then they have proven that she has fallen away. Not true by a long shot.

The illustration at the beginning should make it clear that we should expect growth changes from people. In the same way, we should expect that the Church, as the Bride of Christ, will experience growth changes. In fact, if she did not grow more mature, and learn more about her Lord, then she would stagnate and die. Any Christian which thinks that in this life the Church must stop growing at any point and stay (or should I say "stagnate"?) where she is, is sadly mistaken. This is death. If a person stops maturing and remains unchanged in life, the body will atrophy and die; it is no different for the Church. As a corporate body, the Church cannot ever, this side of eternity, become deceived into thinking that she has arrived and that she never needs to continue to move toward perfection. No, she does not change her doctrine, but, yes, she must grow to understand it better and learn more about her Lord.

I have heard a number of people tell me that the Catholic Church needs to return to "the way she was during the first 1000 years of Church history". This is just as foolish as the people who are willing to do everything possible to make themselves look 18 years old when they are 45. For the Church to do this would mean a rejection of maturity, and rejection of life. Scripture tells us that she is being perfected by her ministers "till we all come in[to] the unity of the faith" (Eph 4:11-13). This will not have occurred until the Church, in unity, is standing firmly in the "fullness of Christ". She has a long way to go to arrive at that point, and yet some of her children are demanding that she never reach it. Growth is not only essential, it is inevitable. To insist otherwise is to insist that the gates of Hell should prevail over the Church, and that is something that Jesus promised would never happen.

Schism and Error

2011-07-14T23:51:00.001-05:00

The Church in Corinth in the first century had a number of strikes against it. Long before the Church was started, the city was well known for it sinfulness. There was a fairly well known term in the first century that was derived from the reputation of Corinth. To "corinthianize" (in a rough English translation) meant to indulge heavily in sexual immorality. Imagine the stigma that rests on the community and how difficult it would be to deal with that in a recently converted parish. The congregation itself was fraught with factions (1 Cor 1:11-12), immorality (1 Cor 5:1), liturgical abuse (1 Cor 11:20), heresy (1 Cor 15:12), and rebellion against the clergy (1 Cor 16:15-16). What a wonderful group of people to be around.

I have pastored a number of different congregations in Protestantism, and each has had its good and bad. Although I have been dragged through the "gauntlet" a few times and have seen each of the above sins at one time or another in those congregations, I cannot say that I have ever seen all of them in the same place at the same time. Whoever the pastor was that was over that congregation (Stephanus? cf. 1 Cor 16:15), his job was like trying to herd cats. His work had to receive the help of an Apostle, and that shows just how difficult it was for him. When a Bishop has to come to resolve a dispute in a parish things have gotten pretty bad.

Yet, in spite of all these troubles, and all the different admonishments that the Apostle Paul had to give them, he never once told the faithful to leave the congregation. He had more than enough opportunities to say "those four of you who are left and are faithful, just leave and start a new congregation down the street", but he never did. He tells them just the opposite: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor 1:10)."

Unity always trumps disagreements; unity without compromise of the truth; unity with unswerving adherence to the faith of our fathers. There is only one Church, and the parishes that are a part of it cannot merely go off and start again (despite the arguments of Eastern Orthodox and Protestants). Regardless of the error or abuse that may be slithering around in the body of Christ, we are never told that division is acceptable. When people leave they are always portrayed in a negative light (cf. 1 John 2:19). Similarly, the Apostle John never tells the faithful in the seven Churches of the Apocalypse to leave their parishes but rather to endure (cf. Rev 2:24 & 3:4). He tells them to remain faithful, and seek to be a good example of the grace of Christ by overcoming all that is against them. There is not a single instance anywhere in Scripture where the faithful are told to leave the Church because of an error and go start another.

Schism and division is always wrong, and should be healed at the earliest possible opportunity. The only thing that keeps God's people apart is their own pride. There are no arguments to defend a continued separation; reunion to the historic Church submitted to the successor of Peter is an essential and the work must be done to bring it about. The Catholic Church possesses the Holy See of Peter as the Church of the first century did, and union with her is required for full and proper catholicity. She may have some problems, like the Corinthian Church, but leaving is never an option. We have been born into this division, and are not equally responsible as were those who caused this division, but the responsibility does rest on us to restore unity. We are supposed to be willing to accept the errors of our brothers for the good of the Church as a whole. I would rather join the most modern and liberal Catholic parish in the world, than to be divided from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Crossing the Street

2011-07-13T15:52:00.003-05:00

This might make you sick to your stomach (it did for me). A family that we met years ago who attend a Protestant Church (which shall not be named) recently had a bad experience. A relative of the family who does not speak English lives with them and has a form of dementia. He has been attending services with them for quite a while, but is not a member. The leadership of the congregation told the family that he needs to become a member, but his dementia prevents him from clearly understanding what membership means. The solution? The leadership decided it is time for the family to leave the Church and go somewhere else. I am not joking, and I am not making this stuff up. "If your suffering gets too annoying, we'll excommunicate you!" It appears that the "Priests and Levites" (Luke 10:31-32) have found a way to make you pass on the other side of the road so that they do not have to bother with it themselves.

People today do not want to help others. We look desperately for excuses to avoid helping each other; often when people do go the extra mile and provide help, they do it because they are expecting something in return. This is not only true in the common person that you meet on the street; it is also true in Churches. A while ago, I was approached by someone who was in need (not financial) and neither I nor anyone at my parish was really suited to provide the assistance. So, I started calling Churches in the area near to where the caller lived. One after another I received responses of "I don't think I can do that" or "I don't know of anyone who can help", even before the full explanation was given of what was needed. The issue that this person needed help with was not really that big of a deal, and would not take much time. The required circumstances were not rare; you pass by people every day who are perfectly capable of helping out here. Priests and Levites are still heading to the other side of the street.

The whole principle that Jesus is getting at when He tells us to "go with him two" when we are asked to go one mile, is self-sacrifice. Love is best defined as self-sacrifice, and we must realize that we are serving self instead of sacrificing self when we refuse to help someone in need. There are legitimate times when we are unable to help someone, but I am speaking about those times when we are able, but we make excuses to avoid doing so. If someone asks for help, we should be seeking how we can do more than he or she asked, rather than seeking how we can get out of it and still smell like a rose. Even our Lord Jesus, Who sought to have the cup removed, said "not my will but thine". He surrendered to what was right, over and against what His personal desires happened to be.

How do we respond (especially those of us who are clergy) when someone calls and asks for help. We should always seek to be careful in how we help others so that we do not enable them in their sin and if they take our help and abuse it, then they will give account for that before God on Judgment Day. Yet, once we have done what we can to be careful, if we are truly able to help, we are supposed to "give to him that asketh thee" without thought of what we will be getting in return. No, we are not supposed to give until it destroys us financially or emotionally, but rarely does someone ask us for things like this. So few people are exemplifying this behavior that when it is done, people are usually shocked. The example of parents to their children and clergy to their parishioners is essential for others to be encouraged to faithfulness in this area of life.

It is always easier to push someone away when they need help, than it is to kneel down and help them. People do it all the time (and not all of those who refuse to help are laymen). I teach my children (especially my boys) that they need to be on the lookout for people in need. The person who dropped something, the old lady looking for where she parked her car, the little child looking for his parent; these are all people in need and "I'm busy" is just what went through the mind of the Priest and the Levite who passed to the other side of the road. Christ asked us, "if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?" Is that not the very point of His own sacrifice on the cross? We only are able to love Him because He acted first to love us. He made the first move to provide help to us poor sinners who were not loving Him. Are we not able to the same?

A Quote from Chrysostom

2011-07-12T22:21:00.001-05:00

"For, there are even men worse than wild asses, living as it were in the wilderness, and kicking; yea the more part of the youth amongst us is like this. For indeed having wild lusts they thus leap, they kick, going about unbridled, and spend their diligence on no becoming object.

And the fathers are to blame, who while they constrain the horsebreakers to discipline their horses with much attention, and suffer not the youth of the colt to go on long untamed, but put upon it both a rein, and all the rest, from the beginning; but their own young ones they overlook, going about for a long season unbridled, and without temperance; disgracing themselves, by fornications, and gamings, and continuings in the wicked theatres, when they ought before fornication to give him to a wife, to a wife chaste, and highly endued with wisdom; for she will both bring off her husband from his most disorderly course of life, and will be instead of a rein to the colt.

For indeed fornications and adulteries come not from any other cause, than from young men's being unrestrained. For if he have a prudent wife, he will take care of house and honor and character. "But he is young," you say. I know it too. For if Isaac was forty years old when he took his bride, passing all that time of his life in virginity, much more ought young men under grace to practise this self-restraint. But oh what grief! Ye do not endure to take care of their chastity, but ye overlook their disgracing, defiling themselves, becoming accursed; as though ye knew not that the profit of marriage is to preserve the body pure, and if this be not so, there is no advantage of marriage. But ye do the contrary; when they are filled with countless stains, then ye bring them to marriage without purpose and without fruit.

"Why I must wait," thou wilt say, "that he may become approved, that he may distinguish himself in the affairs of the state", but of the soul ye have no consideration, but ye overlook it as a cast-away. For this reason all things are full of confusion, and disorder, and trouble, because this is made a secondary matter, because necessary things are neglected, but the unimportant obtain much forethought.

Knowest thou not, that thou canst do no such kindness to the youth, as to keep him pure from whorish uncleanness? For nothing is equal to the soul. Because, "What is a man profited," saith He, "if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his own soul." But because the love of money hath overturned and cast down all, and hath thrust aside the strict fear of God, having seized upon the souls of men, like some rebel chief upon a citadel; therefore we are careless both of our children's salvation, and of our own, looking to one object only, that having become wealthier, we may leave riches to others, and these again to others after them, and they that follow these to their posterity, becoming rather a kind of passers on of our possessions and of our money, but not masters.

Hence great is our folly; hence the free are less esteemed than the slaves. For slaves we reprove, if not for their sake, yet for our own; but the free enjoy not the benefit even of this care, but are more vile in our estimation than these slaves. And why do I say, than our slaves? For our children are less esteemed than cattle; and we take care of horses and asses rather than of children. And should one have a mule, great is his anxiety to find the best groom, and not one either harsh, or dishonest, or drunken, or ignorant of his art; but if we have set a tutor over a child's soul, we take at once, and at random, whoever comes in our way. And yet than this art there is not another greater. For what is equal to training the soul, and forming the mind of one that is young? For he that hath this art, ought to be more exactly observant than any painter and any sculptor."

A Shameless Society

2011-07-10T23:03:00.003-05:00

I have used this illustration before, so excuse me if you already heard it. Once when I was about five years old, I had had a particularly grouchy day. The bad mood hung over my head like one of those rainclouds in the comics. Realizing that I was making Eeyore look cheery, my grandmother sought to scold me. She said that I had spent the entire day disagreeing with everything others said. My firm response: "No I didn't!" Sometimes our behavior is self-incriminating, and sometimes self-incrimination is an understatement. It may seem ridiculous that someone would respond with the very error that he is being accused of, but (once again) sin makes you stupid. We are frequently blinded by our sins so that we cannot see exactly what we are doing.

This came back to my mind recently when I was reading a few articles and the attached comments that have been posted on a couple different websites. As I like to say, the quickness of the internet is both its best and worst aspect. Those I speak of had posted comments and either took little time to think about what they are saying, or they have pitifully cold and callous hearts. Their words were both acerbic and acidic. The tongue is a world of iniquity and burns others like a fire (James 3:6). What makes this so extraordinarily sad is that the articles in question were calling for people to be less "biting" and "angry" in their speech. They were encouraging those who comment on articles to control their writing and seek peace with others. Many of the responses make my stomach turn; I can only guess at the feelings of those people that the comments were directed towards. Those who were guilty of the "vitriol" responded with more vitriol. Am I the only one who sees this?

When someone reads an article that says "please don't do 'x' anymore" and responds with doing "x" some more, they are clearly not paying attention to what they are doing. We cannot see perfectly into a person's heart or life when we read his comment on the internet (written in a fury, with no apparent concern for the feelings of the recipients, and sent out in a lengthy 2.7 minutes), but the "overheated" feeling of his spirit shows itself quite well. We are naturally defensive, but this type of defense is self-destructive. "It is a sin to murder", "Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to kill you for saying that!"

"Love thy neighbor" does not mean that it is okay to be hateful to someone on the internet because you cannot see his face. Backbiting one another with snide comments is not helping us to stand out as God's people. Furthermore, it certainly is not giving a good example to the Vatican as some of us are being considered for entrance into the Ordinariate. It is sort of like a bride-to-be throwing a conniption fit on the day before the wedding; the groom is thinking, "what am I getting myself into?" Speaking just today with one of my parishioners we were lamenting how unabashedly rude our society has become. We are "shameless". In other words, nothing shames us much anymore. People are not ashamed to do that which used to cause embarrassment to almost anyone.

We live in a rude culture today. It is common to find people who have no manners and very little tact, and now this is creeping its way into the Church. There are certainly times when we need to be firm and direct. Parents need to discipline their children; employers will need to correct a wayward employee; a man may be required to admonish a Christian brother that he is behaving sinfully; all of these are situations that call for words and actions that may be considered harsh in other contexts. Yet, this does not justify cutting someone down in order to win an argument. Many people live as though winning an argument is the highest priority in life. This type of selfishness can only continue so long before it turns and bites you back.

There are some who just do not see how deeply they have fallen, and for those of us who either have not fallen, or fell but have recovered from it, we need to seek to be the best example we can. In times like this, we have all the more powerful opportunity to stand out. Speaking with grace is not as hard as we may think. The Spirit of God is there to enable each of us to obey Him. We are told by our Lord that we are supposed to, "let [our] speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt (Col 4:6)." Many out there want to speak with evil words and a hateful tongue. They are belligerent and there is little that we can do to help them but pray. There are others, though, who either do not realize what they are doing, or they do realize but have no one to help them. It is these latter two groups that we need to seek to help. A "soft answer turneth away wrath" and our example of a "soft answer" will be a testimony to the grace of Christ to all those in desperate need.

Pillars and Caterpillars

2011-07-09T10:20:00.004-05:00

There are two types of people in the Church. The first are like pillars, and the second are like caterpillars. Pillars take the load on their backs and do the work to support and uphold the Church. They know that the individual parish will only survive if its members are actively engaged in the work to maintain it. Caterpillars merely crawl in and out; they consume as much as they can solely for themselves. Their goal is to eat without any thought for others, so that they can make themselves into a pretty butterfly. Pillars accept the heavy load and do so for the sake of others. Caterpillars just sit and try to maintain the status-quo. Pillars are the type of people who seek to help their neighbor; they are like the good Samaritan. Caterpillars are the type of people who always take and never give; they are happy when others get corrected but never want to be corrected themselves. Which are you?

Heat Index

2011-07-08T10:19:00.000-05:00

We had an unusually hot day here in Des Moines recently. The actual temperatures only hit about 95 degrees, but the heat index was 110. The locals have told me that this is really out of the ordinary. Heat index has always been a bit of an oddity to me. I understand the basic principle that other factors of the climate (humidity, wind, etc) affect how the air actually feels, but just how does one determine what precise temperature it "feels like" when the thermometer says something different? Regardless, they put out a "heat advisory" to warn people to be prepared (drink extra water, do not do strenuous labor outside for long periods of time, watch for signs of heat stroke, etc.).

Jesus told parables because all the world is a parable. All of creation is a revelation of the Almighty Creator. Here it is no different, for God is telling us about ourselves. Have any of you noticed that we all have our own personal "heat index"? In other words, both the extenuating factors in our lives as well as our personal set of recent experiences will all have an influence on just how things appear to us. There is no one-to-one correlation, as though we were able to make a chart for how you will respond to any given situation. If things are going positive lately and a bad experience occurs, you could view it as horrible (in contrast to how you feel) or you could view it as minor (because your positive attitude made it easier to accept); the opposite is also true. Yet it is these little details of life that play in to how we respond to the vicissitudes of life.

Life for most of us is challenging right now. Our world is worried about Muslim terrorists; economies are teetering; prices are rising; we are being led by politicians who seem to want to make things worse; and the Church is being attacked on numerous fronts. There is much to fear, and we appear to be taking it out on one another. We snap and snipe, and look for ways to cut each other. It is said that the first step toward sobering up an alcoholic is for him to admit he has a problem; likely true. The first step toward stopping a caustic attack on another person is to admit that we are liable to be tempted to do it. Prepare yourself for how you are going to treat others when you are under a great deal of stress. Pray more often, avoid situations where the temptation will increase, watch for signs that your tongue (or finger on the keyboard) is getting defensive.

What is your heat index in life right now? Is there a potential of things feeling worse than they really are? Are you letting life's circumstances control your mood? There is no excuse when you know you are able to overcome something but refuse to do so. We always look for excuses and say "its not my fault" or "you don't know how much stress I'm under". In truth, God knows and won't allow it to be too much for you. He always provides a way out of the temptation (1 Cor 10:13). Time to take a personal assessment and determine what your "index" is and take the necessary actions to help you to love God and neighbor as you are called to do.

Importance

2011-07-06T09:22:00.001-05:00

We all want to be important. We all want to be needed by others. This is not a bad desire, it is the longing for significance which can drive us to serve God in powerful ways. The problem arises when that desire begins to control us. When this happens we make bad choices and quickly fall into satisfying our pride. The line between being a useful tool in the hands of God and believing that God needs us to get His work done is often hard to distinguish. I like to remind people that the Church can get along just fine without them, but they cannot get along fine without the Church. The illusion that any one of us is indispensable to the Kingdom of God is heinous. The only indispensable One is Christ.

Christians fall into this temptation in a number of different ways, but frequently it is a "Martin Luther" type of behavior (though not limited to Protestants). This is what I call it when someone stumbles into the "I found a truth everyone else has forgotten" frame of mind. I knew a man, years ago, who fell into every new theological fad that came his way. He was constantly bringing me these new "discoveries" that he had come across, and asking if they were true. In response I was constantly telling him that they were not true. I heard, through a mutual acquaintance, that about a year after I spoke to him last he had swallowed (hook, line, and sinker) a new error and had made it his life goal to spread the news about it.

This same error is what often leads people to accept goofy new ideas: they are hoping to be a "discoverer" who can open up new possibilities to others. It is an awful temptation that pulls at our vanity. Down deep we want to hear someone say how important we are, and that drives us to all types of sinful behaviors. It shows up in conversations, in Internet "comboxes", and in emails. Yet, wherever it appears it always has the same foundation: pride.

Another manifestation of this is seen when we have a "juicy tidbit" of information that others want to know. Whether gossip or not, if we use "hidden" truths for an ego boost we are sinning against the author of truth. What should truth be used for? It is not that hard to figure it out: for the good of all men. Yet, we all want to have that piece of information that we are "not at liberty to divulge" so that we can make others believe we are important. It makes us feel like we are special and that we have some kind of power over others. Pride is what took the devil down, and it takes us in the same way. It never serves us, though, in the way we want. Rather than making others stand back and look at us with awe, using truth for our own personal gain always drives others away.

When prideful people drive away everyone from their lives, the desire to be important does not disappear suddenly. This is why many people easily become shut-ins who have no friends other than their pets. They used to stay at home and have no contact with other people, but now with the Internet they can sit in front of the computer screen all day long and wield the sword of pride against scores of people that they have never even met. These people troll around and seek ways to appear "important" and "wise" and others who read their comments can easily be drawn in to their traps. If you are one of these people, repent now and stop harming other people. If you are prone to listen to these people, then use wisdom and do not let them reel you in. Importance here on Earth does not usually translate to importance in Heaven, for those who receive their reward now, have none waiting for them in eternity. Seek faithfulness, not "importance", and you will always be useful to the Kingdom of God.

Sigh...

2011-07-06T00:11:00.002-05:00

Here is a useful post on another blog. The author speaks about the same thing that I have been admonishing people about for quite a while: the need to control out mouths and learn how to show love for our brothers. The entire article was quoted over on theAngloCatholic.com. Responses were interesting. The most depressing responses were from those people who were guilty of the very thing the author is speaking of; they said "but, I'm right!" Some people just do not get it (insert sound of deep and heavy sigh here).

The World is Changing

2011-07-01T13:09:00.000-05:00

A couple thousand years ago, Alexander the Great conquered a large portion of Asia Minor, and a section of northern Africa. In doing so he also conquered Judea, and took it from the hands of the Medo-Persians who had conquered it last. Although his empire crumbled into various factions soon after his death, he had one method of domination that was so powerful that it even had a major impact on the Roman Empire that came into authority later. Referred to by historians as "Hellenization", Alexander and his heirs sought to incorporate pagan Greek ideas of culture into the societies that he conquered. They wanted their subjects actually to become like Greeks, not just obey them. Not entirely successful with everyone (as can be seen in the history of the Judas Maccabees and his family), they were successful, though, with a large portion of their subjects. In fact, there were a number of Jews who came to see their faith as an embarrassment, and claimed that "new times" were upon them and that it would be better for all Jews to "get with the program" (my paraphrase) and accept the Hellenistic culture.

Although God warned the Jews never to seek to be like the nations around (Deut 7:1ff), some accepted Hellenism to the fullest. They went so far as to try to cover up their Judaism in a number of creative ways. The division between those who had been influenced by Hellenistic culture and those who (at least in their own perspective) had not was still around in the first century Church as can be seen in the book of Acts (cf 6:1ff). Subsequent centuries show that this influence of Hellenism was fought with at various times, but eventually was driven out with force. Yet, the fact that it was still present in the first century shows just how influential it was when first implemented three centuries before. One can almost hear the Jews in the third century B.C. saying "times are changing" and trying to encourage their brethren to leave behind the "old traditions" and follow the more modern lifestyle of Hellenism. Jesus, a couple centuries later, did bring change. Yet, it was not the change of Hellenism, but rather the change of the infancy of Judaism into the maturity of the Church. He did not do away with the godly wisdom of our Hebrew forefathers, rather He applied it in its fullness to bring about the New Covenant.

While Judaism tried for forty years after Jesus' death to retain her priesthood, her sacrifices and her temple, the Church was moving forward. The Apostles, inspired by the Spirit of God, were teaching that there was One True Priest, Who had been, Himself, a Final sacrifice, and encompassed in His own body a True Temple. This also meant that there was to be found within His people a new priesthood, new liturgical sacrifices, and a spiritual temple that could never be destroyed. Jesus completed all the intent and purpose of the Old Covenant and granted the completion to His people so that they could possess it in all its glory.

Yet, down through time, there have been other "Alexanders" who have sought to enforce their culture and tell the Children of Abraham (cf. Gal 3:27-29), that they need to accept the new ways and let go of those "old" styles of religion. Men will always seek ways to reject the truth of God, and the claim to modernization is not new. Remember, we have already been told, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9). This means that, in principle, all things are just variations on what has always been around. Computers are just fancy writing instruments, and cell phones are only fancy smoke signals. Modernism, per se, is nothing more than the same temptation that the serpent gave to Eve: "do this so that you will learn new things and be a better person than you were before!" (see Gen 3:5).

Either we accept it and follow the path that the world is setting out for us (as happened and is still happening in the Episcopal Church in America), or we stay true to our forefathers and realize that while times change, the truth does not. True, things are changing in Churches throughout the world. Even Catholics are openly promoting various forms of wickedness (priestesses, etc.). Studies show that many today want a less creedal, less hierarchical, and less strict Christianity. Some are even saying that if the Church does not accept this that it will die. A simple perusal of history shows that what these trends have caused in Churches throughout the world: immorality and chaos. If the Church stands firm then it will not die; it may end up smaller, but it will indeed be stronger. God always blesses faithfulness and punishes compromise. The Jews were often tempted to be "like the nations around" and the temptation is upon us today. Only if we stay firm and keep our trust in Christ alone will we come out on the other side standing confident in the grace of Christ.

Enlightened Choices

2011-06-29T09:19:00.003-05:00

Abortion is a choice--a choice for death. Death is a part of this fallen world, but woe unto him (or her) who chooses it for his own convenience and comfort. Those who contend that they are promoting "pro-choice" have only moved the discussion into the realm of selfish pride. This type of thinking is a direct result of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment cry that "man is the measure of all things" flies in the face of all that the Bible and Sacred Tradition tells us.

When we ourselves become the determining factor in the "measurement" of the world, then we also become the individual determining factor of right and wrong. Those who would acknowledge that "God is the measure of all things" cannot also hold that man possesses this position. If God is the measure, then He alone can determine righteousness; when man usurps God's place, then he becomes (in his own mind) the only one to determine righteousness. Situational ethics is a direct, and legitimate, descendant of the Enlightenment.

Yet, the average person today is not so mentally acute as to recognize something as sophisticated as this kind of an argument. We have generally lost touch with reality and are seeking more and more to live in a fantasy world (see this article for an example). We are more content to remain out of touch with the reality of our lives and try to continue our existence in an imaginary movie that goes on in our own minds. This follows perfectly as a consequence of Enlightenment thinking. The early Enlightenment philosophers would not have liked this imaginary world, but this is what their ideas lead to. If I am the measure of all things, then I must be the one to decide all things for myself. If I decide all things for myself, then I can decide my own morality as well as my own reality.

Any insistence on one's right to choose things in this life is also an insistence on one's independence from God. Yes, God does grant us the privilege to choose certain things, but that does not mean we have the right to choose contrary to the law of God. We are only supposed to be making the choices that God grants to us, and whether an unborn child lives or dies is not one of those choices (God alone is Lord of the womb!). Only a mind in subjection to God Almighty can make right choices. Thus, only the one who does not demand his right to choose, can actually choose aright. Something of an irony exists here: you have to give up the right to choose in order to find the right to choose.

The Enlightenment has led to a host of academic and mental errors in mankind. Education, politics, society, and family life are just a few areas that have been harmed by this methodology. If those first men who sought to find an "enlightenment" in their lives could have seen what it would lead to today, I wonder if they would have ceased the effort. Hindsight is 20/20, but whatever choices we make in life, they will always lead to consequences. Some of those will have a good outcome and some will have a bad outcome. When we make choices, we must always factor in the sinful nature of man and his tendency to turn everything to his own ends.

Do you have a choice? Yes, you do. Have you been given a freedom to choose however and whatever you wish? Yes, you have. Are there consequences to your choices? Yes, and they are eternal.

Living Water

2011-06-27T22:53:00.003-05:00

One of the most beautiful images in Scripture is that of "living water". The concept of water that provides eternal life is the root of the idea of the "fountain of youth" that many people thought they could find. Scripture does offer this very fountain to us in many places, but there are a couple of them that are more revealing than others.

First, we read in the gospel of John (7:37-38) that Jesus said He was going to offer the water of life to any who would come to Him in humble submission. The Apostle explains for us just what that "living water" is that Jesus is going to provide. In the next verse (placed in parentheses in the AV to show its explanatory nature), John tells us that the "living water" is the "Holy Ghost". Although verse 38 is somewhat hard to understand (how does the Holy Spirit flow "out of [our] belly"?), the one point that is perfectly clear is that the living water is the Spirit of God. Those hearing this statement did not fully understand it because they had not received the Spirit in His fullness, but they would understand it later.

Jesus is predicting the coming of the Spirit at that first Christian Pentecost, and saying that He is going to send the Spirit to us. Those who "thirst" for the Spirit and "believe" in Christ will be the ones who receive this awesome gift. Frequently we take the Spirit for granted and that is to our own detriment. Like the child who rejects the most expensive birthday gift his parents buy for him, we disappoint our Heavenly Father when we think little of the presence of the Spirit in our lives. God calls the Holy Ghost "the Spirit of Christ" because of the radically deep relationship that the Two now possess in this present Messianic age (cf. 1 Peter 1:11, etc.). He wants us to have "His Spirit" for our good, and the image of living water is important to help us see the essential nature that the Spirit has to our spiritual lives. This is why Jesus wants to send the Spirit out from Himself and unto us; we cannot survive spiritually without Him.

In another passage written by the Apostle John, we are told something similar. In the Apocalypse, we read of a "pure river of water of life" (Rev 22:1ff) that gives life and health to all those who come to serve Jesus as their King. It is the river that nourishes the tree of life and enables it to provide healing for the "nations" (22:2). Imagery abounds, and we do not want to be overly specific in the details, but a few things can be seen easily by even the most casual observer. The "river of life" clearly ties back to John's other usage of the same term in his gospel (as we saw above). The fact that the Spirit is said to be "poured out" upon God's people in so many places in Scripture is no accident. Neither is the fact that the Spirit is directly tied to our Baptism. He is that living water that comes to us in so many ways.

In Revelation 22:1 we have the "river of life" tied to the "throne of God and of the Lamb". The triune description is unmistakable. The salvific waters of Baptism that come through the ministry of the Holy Spirit are sent by the Father and the Son both, Who come to us in our Baptism. Furthermore, the fact that it is the river that enables the "tree of life" to heal the nations shows the interconnection between the work of the Spirit in the world, and the redemption provided by the Cross of Christ (which is the true "tree of life"). This is already hinted at earlier in Revelation when we are told that those who "overcome" will be given the privilege of eating of the "tree of life" in "paradise" (Rev 2:7), for that is where the fullness of redemption is granted.

What makes this beautiful, is the triune nature of the work. The Father and Son are working in full accord with each other, and the Spirit is applying the work that the Two are doing so that it is always the work of the Three in One. Each Person of the triune God has His own individual work, and each is working in union with the others. The Father sent the Son and the Son sent the Spirit. Yet the Son does not send the Spirit on His own, for the "river of life" proceeds out of the throne of God and the Lamb. It is by the authority of both the Father and the Son that the Spirit is sent forth, and He proceeds from them both (Rev 22:1). It would be somewhat silly for the Spirit to proceed only from the Father when it is the Son Who promises to send Him. The Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son to show the unity that the Three hold. We profess this when we say of the Spirit that He, "proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified".

How Do You Decide Truth Without Truth?

2011-06-25T00:21:00.002-05:00

The Catholic Church holds that she has been given a promise of Papal (magisterial) infallibility, and that this is for the sake of God's people. Without this gracious work of Christ, His people would be left to confusion and constant uncertainty. There would be no way to know just who is right in His interpretation. This is one of the greatest possible blessings that a Christian can imagine: complete confidence in doctrinal accuracy.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches left the protection of the See of Rome in the Great Schism a thousand years ago. They claim to have the truth, but reject the authority of the Pope (which they had formerly held to for well over a thousand years) and now claim that they will only come back when the Pope behaves the way the East wants (sounds an awful lot like Protestantism). They no longer have the protection and certainly of doctrinal accuracy that is present in the Rome, so they reinvent it and apply it instead to the collective episcopacy of Orthodox Churches. Then the Protestant "reformation" occurred and we end up with 33,000 denominations separated from Rome. We all know the consequences of private interpretation.

Here is where the rubber hits the road: all non-Catholics have given up the promise of papal infallibility, and are therefore without the very blessing that Jesus wanted all of His people to have so that they could easily be able to determine what is true and what is false. Jesus did not desire that His people be left in the situation of having to figure out whether Rome is the true church or not. He meant for us to submit to the authorities He has given. He meant for us to rest in His promises, with peace and hope. Once someone steps out of that promise, coming back is just as hard as it is for a complete pagan (because you don't have the confidence in an authoritative interpretation).

So then, how does someone decide what is truth, when they have given up the very source of truth that Jesus has provided (cf. 1 Tim 3:15)? It is like a man who gave up his eyes and is trying to find them by looking for them; he has no eyes with which to look for his eyes. It is a pitifully circular disaster. I sympathize with everyone who is struggling with this because I went through it myself. It is incredibly humbling to have to submit in an area that you have essentially been trained not to submit in: the determination of truth. Yet, this is much of what it means to be Catholic; to remain humbly submissive to the authorities given to you, and trust Jesus to protect you. If you are struggling with this, then you are in my prayers.

A Dangerous Prayer

2011-06-21T15:31:00.001-05:00

Standing around talking about prayer, someone asked "what was the most powerful prayer you ever prayed?" Various responses gave stories of remarkable healings , and other amazing provisions of God. I did not know it at the time, but I had prayed my most "powerful" prayer ever just a few months before. I did not expect much from it at the time (is that not how we usually are? we mistake the big stuff for small stuff!), but it was later to become the seed of the most life changing event I have ever experienced.

So, you ask, "what was that prayer?" It probably is not what you would think. I cannot now remember the exact words, but I can tell you the substance, for it has become an oft repeated prayer in my life. "Lord God Almighty, be merciful to me and show me each and every errant belief that I have, and help me, by Your grace, to accept the truth, whether I like it or not." I have come to realize that this is either the stupidest or smartest prayer in the world. The reason is because the one praying it is either going to experience extreme sadness, extreme joy, or both. When was the last time that you took everything that you believed and threw it on the ground at Jesus' feet? That can be terrifying. Sacred calves make great hamburger, but the owner usually gets a belly full of it (cf.Exod 32:20).

Years ago I was encouraged to receive "counsel" from a man who was booted out of the pastorate after his wife left him (not exactly a prime example of pastoral wisdom). Trying to accept the possibility that God can reveal His truth through anyone, I decided to listen to what he had to say. As he and I spoke, I discovered a glorious truth (that the "counselor" never intended to give); it did not come from his words as much as from his manner of thinking. He revealed to me the destructive force that lies at the root of all Protestant thinking. When private interpretation is the rule of the day, one can never be one hundred percent sure that he is completely settled in his beliefs. The next day can always have the revelation of a new doctrinal concept that was not known before, and if that new concept contradicts anything from before, then one's whole belief system can change. For most Protestant Christians this is never experienced, but for the few who spend time studying God's word with a desire to learn and grow, this is a sincere danger.

The massive number of possible changes to one's theology is staggering for a Protestant. When I saw this I began to realize that there was nothing stable about the belief system that I had learned. This made me step back from my experiences and beliefs and attempt to look at them in somewhat of an objective manner. Truly, we can never be completely objective (our nature is subjective and this means we are always "looking at things from our own eyes") but it is good to attempt to see things from other's perspectives. Once I realized the shaky status of virtually every belief in my Protestant system, it frightened me enough to have to ask, "how do I know what is right and what is wrong?" Today there are a fair number of "new" ideas in Protestant circles. Being a part of Protestantism during the late 80's and early 90's exposed me to a long list of new discoveries in theology. My degree from a liberal Methodist school showed me, especially well, that old doctrines were boring, and everyone wanted to be viewed as coming up with a new concept or doctrine (this appears to be the entire purpose of a PhD degree).

The end result of this shock to my theology was to create a sense of weakness in my spirit. I threw up my "spiritual" hands and said to God, "correct me". At the time I did not expect much to happen. I still believed that I could find a better form of Protestantism. Then it happened; presuppositions began to fall away, and the edifice that seemed so firm just a few short months before, was beginning to show cracks. It affected my preaching significantly. I began to quote more from the Church fathers (Chrysostom especially) and gave far less credence to private interpretation. A few people noticed it and asked what had happened. At the time I still thought that Protestantism could be saved from its sectarian nature, but that belief would also fade over time. Since then, I have come to see that Protestantism fractures because it has broken away from the only mooring that can hold it together. Similarly the Eastern Orthodox Churches have little true unity because they have the same break, but at least they have retained the historic practices of the Church and not completely fallen into subjectivism.

In Protestantism, there is always the possibility that some individual will come to discover something in the Bible that no one has seen before and that will change what he believes. In Catholicism, there is always the possibility that the Church will come to understand something that she did not understand before and that it will deepen your faith in God; there is never anything truly new in Catholicism. The prayerful attitude of Catholicism is "Lord deepen our faith and lead us into all truth". The attitude of Protestantism appears to be "Lord deepen our faith and confirm that what we already believe is true".

After serving in Protestant Churches for over ten years, I never once met anyone who was willing to ask the Lord to show them every errant belief that they held. It certainly was not in my subjective nature to pray this; it was only by the grace of God that I ever did. Most of us assume that every belief we hold is exactly right. Even cradle Catholics should not be so presumptuous. If your beliefs are all perfectly accurate then you have nothing to worry about, and asking God to help you correct any errors is not faithlessness, it is humble submission. If there is anything that needs correction (maybe it is just a correction in focus, or emphasis), then you have placed yourself, by praying in this way, in the only place where you can truly be corrected and moved forward in your faith.

Once again I will say it. This prayer is dangerous. If you are sincere, and God really does answer it, you are in for a challenge. If you really do want your faith to be challenged, and in the end strengthened, then pray this prayer. Brace yourself, for God loves you enough to answer it. Yet, do not say the words merely for the sake of wanting to feel like you are pious; God knows if you are sincere or not and He will not answer the prayers of the self-righteous. The worst thing we can say to God is "I refuse to change", for that is the heart of rebellion. Bend your knee, bow your head, and pray, "Lord God Almighty, be merciful to me and show me each and every errant belief that I have, and help me, by Your grace, to accept the truth, whether I like it or not."

Catholic Knight Comments on the Wuerl Report

2011-06-17T23:05:00.005-05:00

Here is a helpful exposition of some of the issues that came up in Cardinal Wuerl's report at the USCCB conference from my friend The Catholic Knight. He makes some good points that I thought my readers may find encouraging.