Today's the Feast of the Holy Archangels Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael

From Today's Office of Readings
Reading A sermon of Pope St Gregory the Great

You should be aware that the word “angel” denotes a function rather than a nature. Those holy spirits of heaven have indeed always been spirits. They can only be called angels when they deliver some message. Moreover, those who deliver messages of lesser importance are called angels; and those who proclaim messages of supreme importance are called archangels. And so it was that not merely an angel but the archangel Gabriel was sent to the Virgin Mary. It was only fitting that the highest angel should come to announce the greatest of all messages.

Some angels are given proper names to denote the service they are empowered to perform. In that holy city, where perfect knowledge flows from the vision of almighty God, those who have no names may easily be known. But personal names are assigned to some, not because they could not be known without them, but rather to denote their ministry when they came among us. Thus, Michael means “Who is like God”; Gabriel is “The Strength of God”; and Raphael is “God’s Remedy.”

Whenever some act of wondrous power must be performed, Michael is sent, so that his action and his name may make it clear that no one can do what God does by his superior power. So also our ancient foe desired in his pride to be like God, saying: I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven; I will be like the Most High. He will be allowed to remain in power until the end of the world when he will be destroyed in the final punishment. Then, he will fight with the archangel Michael, as we are told by John: A battle was fought with Michael the archangel.

So too Gabriel, who is called God’s strength, was sent to Mary. He came to announce the One who appeared as a humble man to quell the cosmic powers. Thus God’s strength announced the coming of the Lord of the heavenly powers, mighty in battle. Raphael means, as I have said, God’s remedy, for when he touched Tobit’s eyes in order to cure him, he banished the darkness of his blindness. Thus, since he is to heal, he is rightly called God’s remedy.

Source: Universalis.com

The Sound of Silence

Folks, last September 9 Anthony Esolen wrote a piece called "A Lot of Sound, No Music," for InsideCatholic.com that was picked up by the Catholic Education Resource Center and I think you ought to read. Esolen wonders the following:

Recently my family and I watched The Sound of Music for perhaps the twelfth time -- probably the last great musical that Hollywood ever produced. It made me wonder if I could list the reasons why such a movie could not now be made.

And these are the reasons why not:

The movie takes for granted that some things are holy.

There is such a thing as innocence -- and it is not the same as ignorance.

There are such things as children, thank God.

There are such things as boys and girls, and men and women.

Today, no one can sing. No one knows why people ever sang.

A good, solid piece. Read it all here.

Video: God Alone is Enough

The song alone says it all.

Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time

These are today’s Mass readings. Enjoy your Christian Sabbath!

• Reading 1
• Responsorial Psalm
• Reading 2
• Gospel

St. Michael, Defender of Children

by Joseph Meaney, Human Life International

I  was struck by a passage in scripture showing St. Michael the Archangel defending children. The Old Testament Book of Daniel relates the following:

But at that time Michael shall rise up, the great prince, who standeth for the children of thy people: and a time shall come, such as never was from the time that nations began, even until that time. And at that time shall thy people be saved every one that shall be found written in the book. - Daniel 12:1

In what period of history have children, especially those waiting to be born, faced such tremendous threats to their lives? How is it possible that almost 2 billion children have been killed by surgical abortion worldwide since 1960 and the response of even pro-life people is so muted? Today there are countries like Russia where 52% of pregnancies end in abortion. Evil on this gigantic scale has to have a satanic origin, and St. Michael is the one who first defeated the Devil's plans.

Please join HLI in our prayer campaign to St. Michael the Archangel using the powerful prayer first given to the Church by Pope Leo XIII. The response so far has been extraordinary. We have had to print over 2.5 million prayer cards just to keep up with the requests from our website.

We made prayer cards in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, but a big surprise was the Arabic-speaking interest for this prayer invoking the intercession of the Prince of the Angels. So far, we have produced over 500,000 of the St. Michael prayer cards in Arabic. On a recent trip to Lebanon I was impressed at how easy it was to distribute thousands of these cards. Arab-Christians are the main recipients, but looking over the prayer I did not see anything that a pious Muslim could not pray with us.

Please join us in reciting this prayer and asking the Church to re-institute it after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Many parishes and individuals already follow this traditional practice, but the Holy Father has not mandated the prayer after mass since 1965. Given the unprecedented attacks from the diabolical culture of death since then, HLI believes it is time for the Church to massively storm Heaven again and ask for St. Michael's aid in converting those most deeply involved in the sin of abortion.

Sign our petition and order St. Michael prayer cards to help us distribute them ever more widely.

We have received the support of priests and bishops from around the world and in Rome for this campaign, but it is very important to mobilize the laity. The sensus fidelium, or belief and practice of faithful Catholics, has since the early centuries guided the Church, including calling for the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother. Millions of persons invoking St. Michael in our hour of pro-life need will be a powerful spiritual counter-attack against the slaughter of the innocents and the ruin of souls.

Latinos with perceived Jewish roots, "returning" to Judaism

Folks, a while back I talked about Islamic Proselytism Increasing Among Latinos in New York and now this piece from CNN, Brooklyn family keeps Latino-Jewish traditions alive, sends me in the direction of an increasing "return to Judaism" movement in Latino communities that I've seen gaining exposure in the media:

Every Friday evening, the Núñez family sits down to a traditional religious dinner. Like most families in their Crown Heights neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, their Jewish Sabbath meal includes blessings over the wineand bread, the company of family and friends and excellent food. But for the Núñez family, the Sabbath table would not be complete without salsa picada and jalapeno dip.

Moshe Núñez , an information technology consultant and motivational speaker, was born to a Mexican father and American mother and raised in Guadalajara, Mexico.

His wife, ChanaLeah, grew up in Panama, the daughter of a Salvadoran mother and American-born father.

"Our home is a Latin American home," Núñez says.

"We bring into our home a mixture of the American and Latin culture, and that's reflected in the way we eat. We also enjoy hosting guests, so it's a very Hispanic thing, and a Jewish thing." The couple and their two children moved to Brooklyn's Crown Heights area about five years ago so their son, Michael, 17, and daughter, Simcha, 18, could have "the best Jewish education available," Núñez says.

Crown Heights is the headquarters of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, a branch of Hasidism that is itself a form of Orthodox Judaism. Among the thousands of Hasidic families in the neighborhood, a significant number are also Latinos, Núñez
says.

"There are a lot of Latin American Jews here," Núñez says. "Some of them have moved from countries like Venezuela, Colombia and Argentina, where there's political unrest. We make a life here, settle down and become part of the fabric of American society, but we still don't lose our roots."

Please continue reading here.

Commentary. Like I said before, the lightly catechized, the lightly evangelized, will go anywhere where they feel accepted and part of a greater, living whole, when compared to the narrow-minded emotionalistic Protestant, Pentecostal Christianity on one side - the fastest growing Christian sect among Latinos - and a Catholicism perceived as watered-down, shallow, boring, politically compromised, and decadent on the other. Hidden through these perceptions - whether or not justified - lies a blurry image of Jesus of Nazareth, his claims, and his utter actuality. The Latino shift to Islam and Judaism doesn't surprise me, even though I do find it sad, and disquieting. It represents a failure of the Church and, since the Church is not only the bishops, priests, deacons, and religious, but all of us, it represents our failure to be conscious missioners of the Name of Christ.

But unlike Islam, I think we can meet Judaism face on within Catholicism, despite the baggage of centuries of mutual suspicion and less than exemplary behavior by many Catholic Christians. The Association of Hebrew Catholics, "a work in progress faithful to the Magisterium," is "working to preserve the identity and heritage of Catholics of Jewish origin within the Church, to enable them to serve the Lord and all people within the mystery of their irrevocable calling." And since in Christ there's no more Gentile or Jew, this association is open to every Catholic Christian of whatever background.

Pie in the sky? I don't think so, but something long overdue.

With all due respect, although contemporary Jewish authorities are competent to determine who is and isn't a Jew within Judaism, they lack such competence within Christianity and within the Catholic Church. Other than little "t" tradition and custom - apart from political, social, and cultural pressures, some of which were unjustifiably harsh, granted, and that's an understatement - there is nothing in the Church's discipline precluding Catholics of Jewish ancestry to retain a spectrum of Jewish practices within creedal Catholic Christianity. I think the Association of Hebrew Catholics has made giant strides to make that truth clear.

If you are a baptized Catholic attracted to your real or perceived Jewish roots, you are not alone. Within the Church there is a group of people who think and feel like you. You can meet Christ in Hebrew in the Catholic Church; there's a place to engage Christianity's Jewish roots in the qahal of Yeshua HaMashiach .

I find that beautiful and say, Amen!

To end: Jesus' question that we find in the Gospels, "Who do men say I am?" still resonates today and remains current, and actual. He asks that question today from every man, woman, and child. How we answer this question will have tremendous repercussions in how we live our lives and how close we approach God and how deep we abide in His Love. You will only find this love in Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, blessed God forever, Amen.

Greetings, Gnostics from the Palm Tree

Folks, first, I want to welcome all the actual and would-be visitors reflected from the Palm Tree Garden Gnostic Forum. This is just the second time in five years I get your attention. I am a Benedictine, and I am bound by the rule to welcome you as Christ, even though my judgment upon Gnosticism is most severe.

Gnostic exegesis of the Old and New Testament is defective, deceptive, irrational, and deluded. It has no grounds on fact. Gnostic “Christianity,” when they refer to their system as such, is a counterfeit and pose a clear, distinct, and present danger to the eternal salvation of the Gnostic dabblers, proselytes, practioners, acolytes, etc.

Any system that makes the serpent in the Garden of Eden the real hero of the story because it brought “gnosis” to the children of men, instead of rebelion, fall, and ruin, is suspect in my book.

Gnosticism is the primal heresy. It’s Paganism purified from animism; it’s dualistic, and spiritualized. Its referents are not the God revealed in Jesus Christ but it is a “god” alright, it is God as Satan fantasizes Him: big, large, utterly transcendent, utterly numinous, hater of matter, lover of “spirit,” unloving, disinterested, condescending, barely tolerant of the existence of Creation.

Gnosticism in its Christian incarnation is a reaction to the simplicity of the Gospel: that God so loved the world that He sent his Only Son so that whosoever believes in Him might not perish, but have eternal life; that God is Love, and that those who don’t love are not of God, because God is Love. It’s too easy, too simple, an insult to human intelligence, say the Gnostics. There has to be something more, something hidden for our bodily-trapped spirits to ascend to, leaving the kindergarten gibberish of carnal Christianity to the intellectually and spiritually less able.

Popular Christianity is for the uncouth masses, imply the Gnostics; Gnosticism is the faith of a courageous elite who dares to leave conventional Christianity behind in search of the ultimate gnosis.

If you believe this I urge you, for the Love of Love, to reconsider your premises.

Feel free to browse about, and leave your comments but please kindly have in mind that I don't fuel flame wars or feed trolls.

P.S. My name is Teófilo and not "this guy." Also, I do have 48 Google/Blogger followers, that's true, but also I am privileged to have over 340 subscribers, thank you. Not a large base when compared to Oprah, but you know, considering the thousands of choices out there, I am privileged and humbled by their patronage. Don't diminish them.

Errata Errata

Folks, my apologies for the many typos and errors of expression in the article about St. Mary's Byzantine Church. The lesson learned here was: do not blog about anything after 10 PM, especially after drinking a delicious glass of Bristol Cream Sherry. I must avoid it! Thank you for your patience and tolerance.

St. Mary's Byzantine Church: A Church Transfigured

Folks, last weekend I had the blessing to attend a wedding at St. Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church in Johnstown, PA. I had been there several years ago and I was deeply disappointed at its interior decor. It looked, shall we say, garish to me. I understood the parishioners were proud of it, don’t take me wrong, and that it revealed something of their history. But the church had little if anything of “Byzantine” inside.

All that changed when Monsignor Raymond Balta became pastor and the transformation has been total. I want to share some of the pictures I took of the sanctuary prior to the wedding. The pictures don’t do it any justice but I want you to see them and share in the awe with me. Click on the pictures to see them larger.

This is the altar view:

I asked Monsignor if an iconostasis was planned and he told me that he intended to have one built, but that he just “didn’t see it” yet. I told him to that I was willing to wait, if the artistic vision was to hold steady.

This one below is a view of the “Protection of the Theotokos” icon adorning the vault above the altar. Sorry it’s a bit blurry:

The one below captures some festal icons of Our Lord; the opposite corner – not pictured here – displays festal icons of Our Lady.

This is another detail. A true blaze of gold, magenta, crimson, and azures:

The Church is located at 411 Power Street, Johnstown, PA 15905. The telephone number is (814) 535-4132. Liturgy times are Tuesday thru Friday at 8:00 AM; Saturday at 4:00 PM, and Sunday at 10:00 AM.

St. Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church is now, truly, an Eastern Rite church. Come and see!

What is a Gnostic? - Read it in their own words

Folks, after receiving a rather vituperative comment on the brief summary comparison on the previous post, The Teachings of Jesus according to the Catholics and to the Gnostics Compared, I decided to research the matter a bit. The results are equivalent to say "I've discovered America." Duh.

The Gnostics are not hiding. They operate in the open daylight. Their beliefs are public and open for inspection.

They have a church (The Ecclessia Gnostica), a catechism, a lectionary, and a liturgy "which resembles the Mass of the Roman Catholic communion," which they declare to be "the supreme transformational rite of Christian Alchemy." Their church is presided by a scholarly gentleman, the Rt. Rev. Stephan A. Hoeller, who is also their bishop and I would say, the main force behind the restoration of Gnosticism within a liturgical structure resembling that of the Catholic Church, as well as of their principal historical narrative.

Bishop Hoeller is also the author of the first critical study of Carl Jung'sRed Book, "The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead." They are pretty laudatory of Jung as well as of many other likely-minded authors, such as Elaine Pagels. You can all check it out here.

But, what is a Gnostic? Bishop Hoeller answers this question himself in his essay of the same name, What is a Gnostic?:

To understand Gnosticism, said Hans Jonas, one needs something very much like a musical ear. Such a Gnostic "musical ear" is not come by easily. One person who seemingly possesses it is Professor Clark Emery of the University of Miami. In a small work on William Blake, Emery summarizes twelve points on which Gnostics tended to agree. Nowhere in the current literature have I found anything else so concise and accurate in describing the normative characteristics of the Gnostic mythos. Hence I shall present it here as a suggested collection of criteria that one might apply in determining what Gnosticism is. The following characteristics may be considered normative for all Gnostic teachers and groups in the era of classical Gnosticism; thus one who adheres to some or all of them today might properly be called a Gnostic:

•The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.

•As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.

•A female emanation of God was involved in the cosmic creation (albeit in a much more positive role than the leader).

•In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.

•For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.

•Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.

•Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.

•What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.

•Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.

•Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.

•The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.

•Since the effort is to restore the wholeness and unity of the Godhead, active rebellion against the moral law of the Old Testament is enjoined upon every man.

Like I've said, they are completely "in the open" thanks to our blessed 1st Amendment rights. In their own words again:

Today in the United States we no longer need to disguise our Gnostic interests and dedications by locking them behind sealed portals or lodges and temples. Happily we have no need to guard our teachings and practices with passwords and handshakes. Our church is open to all those who wish to avail themselves of our sacramental ministrations, and our teaching ministry offers its instruction to all who wish to receive it. Safeguards and stratagems that were advisable in the 18th Century need no longer form a part of our Gnostic procedures today.

In other words, they consider themselves heirs and users of Freemasonic tradition.

I don't want to slide into the world of paranoid conspiracy. That's not the aim of this blog, which is simplify to testify to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and how to live it with simplicity and purity of heart. I will say this, though: I see nothing in the above lists of defining Gnostic beliefs contradicting what I wrote in the comparison table published The Teachings of Jesus according to the Catholics and to the Gnostics Compared.

How do you face the resurgent Gnosticism? By prayer, fasting, and loving one another as Jesus, True God and True Man, taught us to do.

- Greetings, Gnostics from the Palm Tree

The Teachings of Jesus according to the Catholics and to the Gnostics Compared

Speaking of Gnosticism (since yesterday we were speaking about C.G. Jung) , I want to share with you yet another table, this one comparing two diametrically opposed “Jesuses” and what they say and think, the biblical Jesus held by Catholics and other Christians as “the Only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages,” and the one proposed by the Gnostics, today’s dabblers in the Occult, hermeticism, religious syncretism, and the New Age on the other. The table is inspired by the one printed in the book Stolen Identity: The Conspiracy to Reinvent Jesus, by Dr. Peter Jones, a professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California. I added some details where I thought needed it, since I don’t have the same limitations Dr. Peters faced on the printed page, and changed one or two details to bring a couple of statements in line with Catholic teaching.

Jesus’	Gnostic	Biblical
God	Universal, impersonal spirit God in everything who hates the blind creator God – the God of the Bible	God of creation, good Father; Redeemer who reveals himself and requires obedience from His creatures
Message and Ministry	Speaks of no kingdom because there is no king; states that the Kingdom is completely within, that created reality is evil and that anyone claiming to be “king” must be defeated.	God rules over his creation; He is the rightful King over his people; His Kingdom is not univocally within; transforms the earthly into the heavenly.
Birth	Jesus not born physically, no family lineage, not born of a woman.	Jesus of Jewish lineage, really born as a human baby from a real woman; born under the law, in time and space.
Humanity	No interest in history; no chronology; no context for Jesus’ life.	Jesus really embodied; suffered temptation; knows physical weakness.
Divinity	Everyone is divine, nothing special about Jesus’ divinity; not His disciples’ Master; everyone’s a Messiah.	Jesus is the only begotten (monogeneis) God; the disciples fear Jesus; He’s Master over his creation; with God before creation.
Spirituality	Quiet the mind; knowledge, not worship; meditation, not prayer; spirituality of “joining opposites.”	Faith, not gnosis; rational reflection; prays to the Father in heaven.
Sexuality	Sex a spiritual experience; androgyny; ecstatic unity with all things; extreme libertinism or extreme asceticism.	God-created heterosexuality; meant for producing physical offspring; unity, communion, and communication between one man and one woman.
Morals	No law, therefore no sin (“Sin is ignorance”); the Creator regarded as evil; we make our own law; we have no king, no master.	Sin is judged; sin demands punishment; God’s law defines sin; we are made righteous by the Spirit of God.
Death	Physical life is to be despised; death cannot touch divine soul; someone else died in place of Jesus; the death of Jesus illusory.	Death is an enemy; Jesus’ death is redemptive; it was a real, physical death; death was defeated by His resurrrection.
Resurrection	Resurrection is symbolic; it’s a escape from the body’s prison; it’s spiritual, not physical.	Resurrection is physical; a transformation; a New Creation.

I believe we can recognize the Gnostic “Jesus” in many major religions, movements, and “spiritualities” throughout the world past and present. The Gnostic Jesus is the Jesus of Islam, who didn’t die on the Cross but who was replaced by Judas; he's the Jesus of Theosophy, one “ascended master” among many others and not necessarily the highest or most important one; it’s the Jesus who blesses homosexual activity, same-sex marriage and gender identity-ism for whom objective masculinity and femininity do not exist. He’s Nietzsche’s Übermensch who transcends every value and moral category by forging his own; a Jesus who would’ve approved of something like the Heaven’s Gate cult, whose members thought their bodies hindrances and suicide a liberation.

One item that is not recorded in this table but that I think should be in it is that the Gnostic Jesus is both Anti-Semitic and Anti-Judaic, that is, he hates Jews as a people and Judaism as a religion. That’s why Gnostics hate the Old Testament or Hebrew Scripture, because they were inspired by the evil creator or demiurge of this world, and also hates the Jewish people as the standard-bearers of these Scriptures. Throughout history we have seen where this has led and what has happened whenever and wherever we have allowed this Gnostic illness to infect the attitude of too many Catholics against the Jews.

Ironically, it is the Gnostic Jesus the one that gets all the good press nowadays, while the real one is reduced to the status of fable, legend, and “big misunderstanding.” Place the template of Gnosticism against many of the things that are happening today in the world and you will understand the meta-history of our times better.

- See also What is a Gnostic? - Read it in their own words .

- Greetings, Gnostics from the Palm Tree

Carl Jung Analyzed

Folks, the NYT Magazine published last week an article about pioneering psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, on the impending publication of his "Red Book." The article was written by Sara Corbett and is entitled The Holy Grail of the Unconscious.

After you read that article, please read these somewhat dated but still shocking counterpoints here, here, and here.

Ten Things to Know about Working for Christian Unity

Source: USCCB

1. The Commandment for Christian Unity Comes from Christ Himself.  On the night before he died, Christ prayed, “May they all be one…so that the world may believe.” (Jn 16:21ff)  Christ prayed for it.  We have to pray and work for it too.

2. The Biggest Stumbling Block to the Credibility of the Gospel is a Divided Christianity. Sadly, modern society is not well disposed towards religion in general and Christianity in particular.  As the world has become more secular, one of the chief arguments people use against Christians is that we simply don’t have our act together.  We need to change that perception if we want to be taken seriously. 

3. Working for Christian Unity is Integral to the Life of the Church. The Apostle Paul constantly worked and prayed for unity in the Church. So too should today’s Catholics. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II said:  “Thus promoting Christian unity, is not just some sort of "appendix" which is added to the Church's traditional activity.  Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work and consequently pervades all that she is and does...”

4. “Convergence” not “Compromise” is the Key to Christian Unity. Working for Christian unity does not mean giving up what is essential to the Catholic faith simply to get along with other Christians. Rather, it is searching for ways to express the truth of the gospel. For Christians the Truth is not a something, but a someONE, and that is Jesus the Christ. Like a wagon wheel with Christ at the center and each Christian on the spokes, in the search for truth, the closer we get to Christ, the closer we get to one another. 

5. Ecumenism Happens on Many Levels.  Ecumenism can happen in a marriage where the spouses come from different Christian traditions or through a program between a parish and a local Orthodox, Protestant or Evangelical congregation.  Or it could be on the diocesan, national, or international level. 

6. The First Work of Unity is Prayer. Christians can and should pray together for unity.  When we join our prayers for unity to the prayer of Christ, then unity is possible. This is a sign of the real, but imperfect communion which we share in our common baptism. However, because we are not in full communion, Catholics should not receive the Eucharist in other churches and vice versa. 

7. The Second Work of Unity is Common Work and Witness.  Working together in areas of common concern is a powerful step toward unity. What we can do together, we should do together, especially in acts of charity. Many parishes and congregations work together to run common food pantries, social service agencies, medical clinics and emergency response teams. 

8. The Third Work of Unity is Dialogue. Once Christians have prayed and worked together, it makes sense to explore the beliefs, practices and doctrines we hold in common. Dialogue starts with seeking to know the other and often there is more that unites than divides us. When we understand where we converge, we can begin to honestly explore the theological and practical issues that still divide us. 

9. Apathy and Proselytism are Opposed to Unity. We live in a privileged time. The animosities that brought about a divided Christianity are no longer present. Yet we cannot sit back and do nothing. Likewise, proselytism, or the deliberate targeting of another Christian or group of Christians for the sole purpose of getting them to reject their church to join another, is not allowed.  Some people may feel called in conscience to change from one tradition to another, but “sheep stealing” is unacceptable.

10. Achieving Unity is Going to Take a Long, Long Time. We have lived in a divided Christianity for almost a thousand years. Christian unity is not going to be achieved overnight. But by praying together, working together and engaging in charitable, deliberate dialogue, we can work with the Holy Spirit so that the prayer of Christ at the Last Supper, “that they all may be one…that the world may believe” will come to fruition.  We have lived in a divided Christianity for almost a thousand years. Christian unity is not going to be achieved overnight. But by praying together, working together and engaging in charitable, deliberate dialogue, we can work with the Holy Spirit so that the prayer of Christ at the Last Supper, “that they all may be one…that the world may believe” will come to fruition.

Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time

What are you doing reading this? It’s Sunday! Go to Mass! Spend time with your family! Oh, OK, read today’s readings and then, GO!

• Reading 1
• Responsorial Psalm
• Reading 2
• Gospel

“Take me up to the ball game”

Folks, yesterday my youngest son and I had the opportunity to attend to our first professional ball game and witness our Pittsburgh Pirates defeat the San Diego Padres 5 to 1. We had a great time at PNC Park, a beautiful facility and, as you will see, we had a great view of the whole thing. Click on the picture to see it bigger.

This is the field being prepared for the game.

 

This is a view of the Pittsburgh skyline from our seats:

Play ball! The game’s underway…

 

We had a great time and finally, a childhood dream of mine to see the Pittsburgh Pirates at play became a reality, Deo gratias.

Education for Purity

Father Nicolas Schwizer

The purity which was in Mary was a gift, for us it is an arduous task. Why?

a) Because of original sin. Before original sin, man possessed the gift of integrity: Harmony between intellect, will and heart: “harmony between the animal, the angel and the child of God in us.”

b) Because of the atmosphere in which we live. Our era is characterized by estrangement from God, by the loss of its supernatural orientation. The material, the exterior passes to a first level. We have come to sexualization: especially seeing in the woman all that is physical, corporal. There is also a growing loss of modesty, of delicateness and of the protecting values of purity. Influencing this situation is the lack of authentic love in the homes which leads youths to seek love elsewhere in spite of the fact that emotionally and psychologically they are not prepared or mature for this.

What is the body? Father Kentenich, the founder of the Apostolic Schoenstatt Movement, makes clear that “the body is the mirror, companion and instrument of the soul.”

a) Mirror or expression of the soul: The soul manifests itself through the body. It expresses itself in the exterior (in the way of thinking, feeling, acting or dressing). Exterior expressions without spiritual meaning are senseless expressions (caresses without true love). What I do should express what I am (authenticity!)

b) Companion of the soul: We cannot have an attitude of rejection, of mere peaceful cohabitation with the body or disregard the body, but neither can we divinize it into a cult which does not correspond to it: According to Father Kentenich, the adequate attitude is the cultivation of the body. There has to be an intimate relationship: valuing, caring and being responsible for the body.

c) Instrument of the soul: When the soul wants to act, it needs the body as an instrument, but the body should be directed by the soul, that is, by the intellect and the will. The roles should not be reversed.

All of this enlightens the treatment we should give to the body. Father Kentenich says we should treat it with “respectful love and with wise severity.”

With respectful love because it is God’s temple, God’s dwelling, a Shrine. God dwells in us. Our body is a consecrated reality.

We should use the body as it pleases the Lord. We should especially treat it with respect: for example, do not play with it nor play with the instincts; act respectfully, in the manner of dressing, in how we speak.

That has consequences for nourishment: healthy and adequate food for each one’s health, quantity: for resting: sufficient sleep, vacations, sports, etc.

In addition, we must treat the body with wise severity. Because of original sin, the harmony between body and soul has been shattered. The body tries to impose on the soul and tries to subject it to its whims and likes. This requires that we treat it with severity, but not in a tyrannical way, rather wisely and with diplomacy.

We must apply the law of the “agere contra” (acting or going against): to do the opposite of what the instincts and impulses dictate to me. Make sacrifices which help the body to be more noble and to overcome its whims: laziness, gluttony, the tendency to enjoy things excessively, comfort, least effort, a fancy for sedatives, slavery to smoking, etc. We must seek our weak point in this sense and never lose sight of it.

Questions for reflection

1. Do I take care of my body? How do I take care of it?

2. Which are my weaknesses?

3. What can I give up in order to strengthen my will?

"The basic errors of the followers of the Pope"

Folks, my Orthodox brother - he would probably call me "friend" - Panagiotis Demetriadis left the following comment on the post Catholic-Orthodox Reunion Reported "Within a Few Months" and I thought it deserved to stand alone. You may interact with it here or in the original post.

Friends and Brothers,

It is, as an good student of contemporary ecumenical history would know, one of the basic errors of the followers of the Pope to contend that what divides their confession from the Orthodox Church can be solved in a few months time. Rather, the auto-syneidisis of the laos tou Theou that Catholicism's experience and beliefs are not the Church's and not the Saints' is that which keeps those ecumenist hierarchs at the Phanar and elsewhere from signing yet another false union.

And what does their conscience say? That the problems of the Pope and his followers are not limited to the filioque and primacy/infallibility (still held and confessed), but also include the idea that the Grace of God is created (blasphemy from an Orthodox point of view), that we are *guilty* of the sin of Adam and Eve "original sin"), that the Mother of God was "immaculately" conceived (i.e. free of the ancestral sin and its effects), that - and here is one that is never discussed in those stuffy dialogue rooms, but is indicative of the state of contemporary catholicism more than most things - the charismatic movement is blessed and inspired by God (the Pope having blessed it and blessing it every year in Rome), that the messages being attributed to "our Lady" in places like Medjegore (sp?) or Damascus or hundreds of other "visions" occuring over the past few decades are not spiritual delusion but of God, that the phenomenon of the "stigmata" from Francis of Assisi down to Padre Pio are consistent with Christian spiritual experience and the witness of the Fathers, etc. etc. Any serious study of contemporary spiritual trends in catholicism as compared to the 2000 year old experience of the Orthodox ascetics and Saints would reveal a huge chasm between the two - certainly not bridgeable without deep repentance.

The conscience of the Orthodox Faithful - as expressed by the Church's Saints in every age, including our own (by such lights as Elder Sophrony of Essex, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Saint Justin Popovich, Saint Nicholai Velimirovich, and others) - is that which does not and will not permit another false union. Until the obstacles stated above are removed and true repentance is experienced, neither individuals nor "churches" will be united.

When will those interested in union with the Orthodox every learn that the voice of the Church is heard first and foremost in Her Saints - not the present Patriarch of Constantinople or representative to the European Union?

Do you want to know what the Orthodox believe and teach and think? Read the lives of the Saints of every age, but especially of this past century. When you do that, you'll clearly see that the sentiments of the above-mentioned "archbishop of Moscow" are at best dreamy, at worst, deceptive.

God bless you all.

P.D.

Who would be the first one to tackle that one. I am planning my own response. What do y'all think?

- Follow the parallel conversation at the FreeRepublic's Religion Board.

If the Church were to advertise...

...it might very well look like this:

On Ex-President Carter's Slurs and Slanders

Folks, according to CNN and other Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American," Carter told "NBC Nightly News." "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."

"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply," Carter said.

Commentary. As a member of the military and a patriotic American, I find South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during Obama's speech to Congress last week inappropriate and as subsequent events have proven, unfortunate. His outbursts gave the Democrats an irresistible opportunity to paint all opponents of President Obama's fiscal and health policies as racists and extremists. Congressman Wilson walked right into that one. As a veteran congressman, he should have known better.

That's why President Carter feels extremely comfortable in playing the race card and from the bottom of the deck. Yours truly has known racism first hand. I simply don't condone it. Racism is against the core of my Catholic Christian faith.

Therefore, I reject Mr. Carter's - and the growing Lefty chorus' - accusation of racism simply because I have chosen to exercise my prudential judgment and question the President's policies. By golly, the USA is still a democracy and I have a right to voice my opinion and to question policymaking at all levels of government and I will not be shouted away from my rights. I will continue to exercise my prudential judgment on these matters wherever and whenever I see fit.

I just wanted to vent a little and inform all concerned that calling me "racist" or any other such sobriquet will distract me from questioning the details of President Oblama's health reform legislation and deficit spending. Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

The ELCA’s Recent Apostasy as a Fruit of the Reformation’s Poisoned Tree

A theological analysis.

Folks, as previously reported, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S., through its “Churchwide Assembly,” last month adopted several resolutions that validated cohabitation as an acceptable Christian lifestyle, affirmed the moral goodness of stable same-sex relationships, and removed any impediments for homosexual persons in same-sex relationships to freely exercise the pastoral ministry within the ELCA. I termed these moves a falling into “abject apostasy” or abandonment of Christian teaching. I haven’t changed my mind but in fact, my stance has hardened.

Now, I am sure that many will dismiss my judgment as “presumption.” After all, I am not Lutheran. Why is this any business of mine? Well, because I’m a Christian and sadly, the theological malaise affecting the ELCA is not foreign to the Catholic Church or any other Christian Church or ecclesial body for that matter. Though I am a committed advocate of Catholic exclusivity and indifferent to accusations of “triumphalism,” I’m not blind to the fact that Lutheranism as a global Christian movement is still very close to the Catholic Church in many respects, sharing so many things in common that it’s easy for me to identify myself with those Lutherans wishing to cling to historical Christian truth but that now feel betrayed by their denomination. I feel this empathy not only empowers me to speak knowledgably about this sad turn of events, but also compels me to do so in order to give prophetic witness to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Conscience Factor

Let’s begin by comparing and contrasting the Catholic and Lutheran notions on “conscience.” The Catholic view on “conscience,” as recorded in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is as follows:

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law…

Compare this with the ELCA’s definition of “conscience” or “bound conscience”:

"Conscience," as used in these documents, is neither a "little voice" on your shoulder nor an inborn list of universal rights and wrongs. The social statement understands “conscience” in the way that follows the Apostle Paul, who understood conscience as the unconditional moral responsibility of the individual person before God (Romans 2:15-16). Conscience then concerns not a person’s opinion, but a person's personal identity and integrity before God.

The Catholic Church begins by affirming what the ELCA denies by means of a simplistic caricature, that conscience is present in a person’s innermost being and that it enjoins him to act; the ELCA dismisses the Catholic stance outright as that of an inexistent “little voice on your shoulder” or as “an inborn list of universal rights and wrongs.”

To put it plainly, to the ELCA, a conscience lacks any objective contents. Rather, the ELCA sees conscience more as an “attitude” derived from “personal identity” – which they fail to define – and “individual responsibility” before God. We’ll come back to this shortly, after we discuss how Lutherans link this notion of conscience with the individual believer’s interpretation of the Bible obtained by means of “free examen.”

Free Examen, Diversity in Scriptural Interpretation, and “Free” Conscience

“Free examen” is one of the least commonly known Protestant tenets and a corollary of sola scriptura, the tenet holding that “Scripture alone” is the single rule of faith and morals for the Christian. “Free examen” means that the individual believer can read and interpret the Bible and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit can extract from the Bible “everything that is necessary for salvation” without the intervention or mediation of a hierarchical body like the Catholic Church.

Lutherans are well aware that different people will understand the Bible differently and, through their reading, upbringings, and life experiences, they will “bind” themselves “in conscience” to their manifold interpretations. Rather than sorting out which biblical interpretations may either inform or misinform an individual conscience, the ELCA has sidestepped the issue completely, and defined conscience as a construct oriented to foster the tolerance among Lutherans of contradicting, even opposite moral mindsets. Therefore, the ELCA allows in principle the equal standing before God and before the community of believers with diametrically opposed moral consciences:

Second, when Christians disagree strongly about an ethical issue of great magnitude, it is important to realize that the difference may not grow out of pride or selfish desires. Rather, it may be because the other’s conscience is bound to a particular interpretation of Scripture and tradition. What is at stake in respecting a conscience that believes strongly about a moral matter of great import is nothing less than the good of the neighbor (Romans 14).

The emphasis of “conscience-bound” is not on declaring oneself to be conscience-bound. Rather, we are bound in love by the conscience of the other—that is, we recognize the conscience-bound nature of the convictions of others in the community of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:28-29). For Lutherans, the reality that people hold deep faith convictions that may be in conflict with the deep faith convictions of others is not merely a procedural or political difficulty because we bear one another’s burdens as sisters and brothers in Christ. For one member to suffer because his or her conscience has been offended is for all of us to suffer.

ELCA theologian Timothy Wengert has aptly summarized the ultimate consequences of this view on “bound conscience” and spins out a rather negative assessment of its value:

It is one thing to say, “This is what I believe Scripture says about this issue.” It is quite another to insist that others must adhere to our interpretation. When Christians differ over interpretations of Scripture, no one may simply arrogate to him or herself the authority to judge others but must always beware of “spirituality,” presumption, and pontificating, that is “enthusiasmus,” literally, worshiping the god within (en theou). Moreover, one cannot simply assume that someone else’s position is merely a matter of stubbornness or pride. Instead, one must carefully discern where the neighbor’s conscience is in relation to a particular interpretation of God’s Word. Thus, pastoral concerns and protection for the weak or bound conscience must never be placed out of bounds in theological discussion, especially when dealing with matters of ethics and morality about which Christians fervently disagree.

Wengert equates a “weak conscience” with a “bound conscience.” For him the ideal conscience is one that is not irrevocably bound to any interpretation of Scripture! And what does he propose as the right “pastoral attitude” toward those of “weak” or “bound” consciences? He suggests a pastoral attitude of understanding, perhaps condescending, yet of unyielding “tolerance”. Those of “weak” or “bound consciences” should be heard during “theological discussion, especially when dealing with matters of ethics,” but, since they fall short of the ideal, their opinions should not be allowed, when possible, to control the ELCA’s overall “moral policy”.

That’s exactly what happened when the ELCA reached its resolutions on sexuality and ministry last August.

Critical Judgment of the ELCA's Moral Stance

The ELCA as a denomination embraces moral relativism: they hold that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths (neither objective nor subjective), but that the validity of these propositions relative to social, cultural, or historical circumstances and we may add, diversity in Scriptural interpretation. By denying that conscience has an objective content (no “inborn list of universal rights and wrongs”) they deny that any standard exists by which to assess the objective truth of an ethical proposition. What is left is for the individual to respect the differing consciences within the ELCA and elsewhere, while exercising one’s own “responsibly”. Approval of cohabitation, same-sex union, and the admission of active homosexuals to the ministry then may become morally “good” choices within their relativistic moral universe.

To be fair, ELCA’s documents speak a lot about the need for compassion and acceptance and that’s a part of Christian witness and service to others, I agree. But also, I expected that such stance would lead to neutrality on the whole range of possible moral actions available to Christian believers. We should’ve expected that ELCA pastors and counselors would’ve limited themselves to exact individual responsibility solely from this sense of “unconditional moral responsibility of the individual person” and his or her “personal identity and integrity before God” whatever that may mean to each individual. But that’s not how events panned out.

By affirming the legitimacy of committed and stable extra-marital unions, of same-sex cohabitation, and by welcoming same-sex couples of this kind to the active ministry in the ELCA, the moral-relativists and theological technocrats now controlling the denomination have abandoned all pretense at neutrality and imposed a view that openly violates the “bound consciences” of numerous fellow Lutherans, the technocrat’s claims to respect these Lutherans and include them in the ELCA’s intramural theological conversations notwithstanding. The fact is that Lutherans of “weak” or “bound” consciences now find themselves a powerless minority within the ELCA’s power structures.

Future historians will have to investigate if the exclusion of “conscience bound” Lutherans from the ELCA’s power structures happened by accident or by design. But I must conclude, and I hope you do too, that embracing moral relativism inexorably leads to power games in which the “theological enlightened” and “unbound,” who are also the ones more likely to know and move the levers of power, will always have the advantage in this game, whether in the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the Catholic Church.

I am pleased to report that not every ELCA Lutheran approves of the travesty perpetrated upon their denomination by the enlightened technocrats now controlling the denomination’s moral stance. The members of the Lutheran Coalition for Reform (“Lutheran CORE”) have vigorously criticized and opposed the ELCA’s new proposals in language sometimes approaching that of the Catholic moral tradition. And yet, I am afraid that even this is too little, too late and ultimately bound to fail for as long as they hold to the tenets of sola scriptura and “free examen.” The probability of “out-of-bounds” moral teaching will persist in Lutheranism as the fruit of the poisoned tree of the Protestant Reformation.

It gives me no pleasure, however, to document, strengthen, and magnify the evidence of the ELCA’s apostasy. Along with their Episcopalian cousins, they stand as a warning to others. There, but for the grace of God, we go. This is sobering and should be continuously in our minds and hearts as we strive to live as Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, in Word, Sacrament, and Example.

Catholic-Orthodox Reunion Reported "Within a Few Months"

I don't think so.

Folks, this according to the National Catholic Register:

The Catholic Archbishop of Moscow has given a remarkably upbeat assessment of relations with the Orthodox Church, saying unity between Catholics and Orthodox could be achieved “within a few months.”

In an interview today in Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper, Archbishop Paolo Pezzi said the miracle of reunification “is possible, indeed it has never been so close.” The archbishop added that Catholic-Orthodox reunification, the end of the historic schism that has divided them for a millennium, and spiritual communion between the two churches “could happen soon, within a few months.”

“Basically we were united for a thousand years,” Archbishop Pezzi said. “Then for another thousand we were divided. Now the path to rapprochement is at its peak, and the third millennium of the Church could begin as a sign of unity.” He said there were “no formal obstacles” but that “everything depends on a real desire for communion.”

On the part of the Catholic Church, he added, “the desire is very much alive.”

Archbishop Pezzi, 49, whose proper title is Metropolitan Archbishop of the Mother of God Archdiocese in Moscow, said that now there are “no real obstacles” on the path towards full communion and reunification. On issues of modernity, Catholics and Orthodox Christians feel the same way, he said: “Nothing separates us on bioethics, the family, and the protection of life.”

Also on matters of doctrine, the two churches are essentially in agreement. “There remains the question of papal primacy,” Archbishop Pezzi acknowledged, “and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement.”

Prospects for union with the Orthodox have increased markedly in recent years with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, whose work as a theologian in greatly admired in Orthodox circles. Benedict is also without the burden of the difficult political history between Poland and Russia, which hindered Polish Pope John Paul II from making as much progress as he would have liked regarding Catholic-Orthodox unity.

Relations have also been greatly helped by the election of Patriarch Kirill I earlier this year as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest of the national churches in the Orthodox Church. As the former head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external relations, Kirill met Benedict on several occasions before and after he became Pope, and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is well acquainted with the Roman Curia and with Catholicism.

Commentary. With all due respect to His Excellency Archbishop Pezzi, this is an over-enthusiastic, over-confident, over-optimistic assessment. Not that I am the foremost expert on this issue, but even I can see that all the things that must be in place for this to happen - a Pan-Orthodox Council, for example - are still years away.

A Pan-Orthodox Council is the only synodical organ that, as I understand it, can deputize someone to speak on behalf of the whole Orthodox Church in any reunion conversation. Ongoing Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogues are just that, conversations between Catholic and Orthodox theologians from various jurisdictionsbut not acting as legates of the Orthodox Church as a whole. Although these theological dialogues are valuable, the bind no one in the Orthodox Church. Only their maximum synod, this "Pan-Orthodox Council" may deputize that kind of power, again as I understand the issue, and before that synod takes place, the Orthodox Church faces a daunting task of intramural housekeeping across its many jurisdictions, some of them are recalcitrant anti-Catholic and of various degrees of contested canonical recognition.

This report is overblown - another "over" word, sorry about that. Although I believe in miracles, I don't think this is one. Let us keep praying for unity between Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

- Simultaneous coverage at the Typika Blog.

Today's We Celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross

From today's Office of Readings
A discourse of St Andrew of Crete
The cross is Christ's glory and triumph

We are celebrating the feast of the cross which drove away darkness and brought in the light. As we keep this feast, we are lifted up with the crucified Christ, leaving behind us earth and sin so that we may gain the things above. So great and outstanding a possession is the cross that he who wins it has won a treasure. Rightly could I call this treasure the fairest of all fair things and the costliest, in fact as well as in name, for on it and through it and for its sake the riches of salvation that had been lost were restored to us.

Had there been no cross, Christ could not have been crucified. Had there been no cross, life itself could not have been nailed to the tree. And if life had not been nailed to it, there would be no streams of immortality pouring from Christ’s side, blood and water for the world’s cleansing. The legal bond of our sin would not be cancelled, we should not have attained our freedom, we should not have enjoyed the fruit of the tree of life and the gates of paradise would not stand open. Had there been no cross, death would not have been trodden underfoot, nor hell despoiled.

Therefore, the cross is something wonderfully great and honourable. It is great because through the cross the many noble acts of Christ found their consummation – very many indeed, for both his miracles and his sufferings were fully rewarded with victory. The cross is honourable because it is both the sign of God’s suffering and the trophy of his victory. It stands for his suffering because on it he freely suffered unto death. But it is also his trophy because it was the means by which the devil was wounded and death conquered; the barred gates of hell were smashed, and the cross became the one common salvation of the whole world.

The cross is called Christ’s glory; it is saluted as his his triumph. We recognise it as the cup he longed to drink and the climax of the sufferings he endured for our sake. As to the cross being Christ’s glory, listen to his words: Now is the Son of Man glorified, and in him God is glorified, and God will glorify him at once. And again: Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world came to be. And once more: “Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.” Here he speaks of the glory that would accrue to him through the cross. And if you would understand that the cross is Christ’s triumph, hear what he himself also said: When I am lifted up, then I will draw all men to myself. Now you can see that the cross is Christ’s glory and triumph.

Source: Universalis.com

Mass Readings for Today

Reading 1

Responsorial
Psalm

Reading 2

Gospel

Enjoy your Christian Sabbath Day!

Fr. Al Kimel: A Brief Reply to Fr. McBrien on Eucharistic Adoration

Fr. Al Kimel

I just left the following comment over at the NCR site:

Fr McBrien's article is so very, very bad it is hard to know where to begin. McBrien argues that eucharistic adoration must be understood as a "step backward," but at no point does he offer an argument. The failure to offer real argument needs to be emphasized. McBrien tells us that Catholics do not believe that the eucharistic transformation is sacramental, not literal or physical. The intimation is that eucharistic devotion is dependent upon an improper and deficient understanding of the real presence. But this is false. For one thing, I do not know what Fr McBrien means when he says that the eucharistic change is not "literal." Surely it is in fact a *literal* change, a change in the order of being. Bread and wine have become the Body and Blood of Christ and are no longer--literally--bread and wine. The species are not metaphorically Christ; they literally are Christ. McBrien is correct to note that the change is not physical or chemical. It is not a change that any scientist or empiricist would be able to detect. But it is a real change, nonetheless. Bread and wine have become the Body and Blood; they have become the risen Christ. To say that the change is "sacramental" only tells us that we are not to understand the change in a grossly materialistic or chemical fashion; but it most certainly does not call into question the primary assertion, viz., the bread and have have truly, really, and substantially become the Body and Blood.

This is the question that I put before Fr McBrien: Do you in fact believe that the consecrated elements are the Body and Blood of Christ? I am sure that he would answer, yes, just as any good Episcopalian or Calvinist would, so let me posit a second question to test his affirmative answer: Are you willing to pray to and prostrate yourself before the consecrated elements *within* the eucharistic liturgy? Before we can address the propriety of eucharistic adoration *outside* the liturgy, we must first address the question of adoration *within* the liturgy. This is the practical test that separates Catholic faith from all forms of Zwinglianism. Others in this thread have noted that the Eastern Orthodox do not practice eucharistic adoration outside the Divine Liturgy, but they have ignored the fact that the Orthodox have no reservations whatsoever about adoring the eucharistic Christ within the Liturgy. This adoration is powerfully enacted in their Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified, in which worshippers will often prostrate themselves before the Holy Gifts.

It is wrong to posit a conflict between the purpose of the eucharistic change--namely, Christ becomes our food; he becomes present that we might feed upon him--and the propriety of adoration. Precisely because our Lord objectively becomes our food he is now objectively present as an object of our adoration. There is no conflict here. Just ask St Thomas Aquinas. While it is true that extra-liturgical veneration of the Blessed Sacrament does not appear in the history of the Church until the 12th century (to which I can only respond, so what?), adoration of the Blessed Sacrament within the liturgy is much earlier. At least as early as the 9th century the celebrant of the Sarum rite would pray to the Host: "Hail forever, most holy flesh of Christ, to me before all and above all the greatest sweetness." And as early as the 6th century in Syria, the celebrant was instructed to speak these words to the consecrated bread:

I carry you, living God, who is incarnate in the bread, and I embrace you in my palms, Lord of the worlds whom no world has contained. You have circumscribed yourself in a fiery coal within a fleshly palm--you Lord, who with your palm measured out the dust of the earth. You are holy, God incarnate in my hands in a fiery coal which is a body. See, I hold you, although there is nothing that contains you; a bodily hand embraces you, Lord of natures whom a fleshly womb embraced. Within a womb you became a circumscribed body, and now within a hand you appear to me as a small morsel.

Until very recently, all Catholics understood, believed, and confessed the real eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ and adored him in the Blessed Sacrament. Until very recently ...

One Minute

59 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.

One minute of silence in honor of the victims and heroes of September 11, 2001.

Book Review: N.T. Wright’s “Who Was Jesus”

Who would’ve said that at when I finished reading N.T.Wright’s Who Was Jesus? most of the academic paradigms I used to guide my reading and understanding of the New Testament were to shift so drastically to the side of historicism. Yet, that’s exactly what happened. It’s not that I didn’t know there was something seriously amiss, incomplete, selective, and ultimately seriously wrong with some of the tools I’ve been told to trust, but that I didn’t know how to construct a convincing, rational counterargument to those who diminish the historical value and accuracy of the New Testament. That was until now.

Nicholas Thomas "Tom" Wright (born 1 December 1948) is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and a leading New Testament scholar. His literary output on the subject is, well, vast. Yet, his prose is not dry and academic, but endearing, inviting, clear, concise, direct and even humorous, qualities that make Who Was Jesus? easy to read, to digest, and to ponder.

Basically, this short work (about 100 pages), published in 1992, is a three-pronged critique of three popular works by three different authors on New Testament exegesis: Australian Barbara Thiering, British A.N. Wilson, and an American, the retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong. I admire Bishop Wright’s classy praise of each of these authors when they deserve it, but when he goes for the kill, Bishop Wright’s critique is devastating.

To tell you the truth, I’d never heard of Thiering until I read about her in Who Was Jesus?, although I have a vague memory of her being interviewed as an expert in one of the many History or Discovery Channel’s biblical documentaries – or rather, hit pieces. Thiering seemed to have pioneered an exegetical method called the “pesher technique” that allowed her to affirm that the Dead Sea Scrolls should be read as a “decoder” for the Gospel. The technique led her to assert that, among other things, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, divorced her, married someone else, had children, travelled the Mediterranean – it almost sounds like that other thing, The Da Vinci Code, but without the excitement, and almost as fictional. It gets weirder, but then I will be spoiling it for you if I continue. Bishop Wright took her to task and disassembled her technique strand after strand until nothing substantial was left.

A.N. Wilson is a better known author, a biographer and a novelist. Bishop Wright thinks that, of the three, Wilson is the closest one to a real epiphany regarding the historical character of the Gospels. Then again, Bishop Wright disassembles Wilson’s construct piece by piece, demonstrating all his false assumptions and incorrect conclusions along the way, until the reader is left to wonder how Wilson ever thought that he was qualified to write a scholarly book on the New Testament to begin with.

Two things remained with me from this section. The first one has to do with the penchant of all skeptics, either atheist/agnostic types like Wilson was when he wrote this, or Gnostic/New Age types like Thiering, that they and they alone are giving us the straight historical dope of what “really happened” and that the Gospels themselves, and/or the traditional interpreters are “biased” and therefore unreliable conveyors of objective historical knowledge. Bishop Wright takes this conceited attitude to task. No one is “dispassionate.” Why is it that Wilson – or any atheist for that matter – pretends to know the objective facts about the Gospels and the New Testament when their passion for iconoclasm is evident in everything they say or write? How are they “dispassionate” observers? Would you trust either General Tommy Franks or Osama Bin Laden to write “dispassionate” accounts of the War in Afghanistan? Yet, that’s what Wilson and company ask of us, to believe their own claims of objectivity.

The second thing is a “prophetic” statement Bishop Wright made about A.N. Wilson. After cleaning from the layers of confusing pseudo-data that Wilson covered it with, and re-presenting the image of the real historical Jesus anew to Wilson and to the reader, Bishop Wright said: “I hope that Wilson himself will come to recognize this, and will think again about Jesus. If he has changed his mind once, there is no reason why he should not do so again.” In fact, this year of 2009, 12 years after Bishop Wright took him to task, A.N. Wilson returned to the Anglican Church of his youth, much to the atheistic community’s dismay. That’s what happens when a seeker of truth really seeks the truth, and not unreasonable facsimiles thereof, based on their subjective ego projections.

Anyway, the third author Bishop Wright takes to task is the now retired Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, John Shelby Spong. Now, he is an author that I’ve actually read. Since then, I’ve always felt that there was something “farcical” about his approach to Scripture interpretation, and I say “farcical” because in Bishop Spong’s case it borders on the comedic. After deconstructing Bishop Spong and his “midrash” technique of interpretation as he did the others, and upon reading Bishop Spong’s styling himself as a “persecuted hero…along with John Robinson, David Jenkins and Hans Küng” Bishop Wright tartly added “though he lacks the historical sense of the first, the quicksilver mind of the second, and the enormous learning of the third.” Ouch, that one must’ve hurt. It is an ad hominem argument to say the least, but a damned good one.

Finally, Bishop Wright pulls all the strands together into a final chapter where the image of Jesus is restored to its original, pristine form: a first century Jew, who, while acting well within the religious parameters, ethos, and language forms of his day, claimed that the God of Israel was acting uniquely through Him, and that the Gospels, being historical biographies as they are, capture the essential facts of His claims.

If believing in the historicity of the Gospels is so reasonable, why are Jesus’ claims so difficult to accept? Let Bishop Wright answer that question in his own words:

Aye, there’s the rub: to do this will cost no less than everything. But that is perhaps what one should expect. Pearls of great price do not come cheap.

Just ask A.N. Wilson. Bottom line: read Bishop Wright’s Who Was Jesus?

Welcome New Subscribers and Followers!

Folks, for two days in a row the number of subscribers to this blog has been holding steading above the 300 mark according to Feedburner, along with those who follow me via Twitter (now over 500) and Facebook (35). Since I consider that a milestone, I want to take this opportunity to share some personal thoughts as well as share with you some points on using this site:

1. First and foremost: thank you. I am humbled that you have chosen Vivificat! as a site you will visit and/or read periodically. I realize you have thousand of other choices, yet you have chosen to stick with me for a while. I can't promise that you and I will agree on everything all the time but, even when we disagree, I hope we can still be friends.

2. A lot of the growth has taken place after the latest redesign, an inspired one carried by one George Weis of Tekeme.com. George is awesome and I don't hesitate to recommend him to you for your own blog design needs. His work speaks for itself: it is beautiful, meaningful, contemplative, and efficient. Kudos and congrats and my heartfelt thanks to George.

3. All external hyperlinks are now charged with "Snapshots." If you want to see where a given hyperlink is leading you to, hover your mouse over it and a picture of the target URL should pop up. I find this feature useful to explore the blogs on my blogrolls, since their RSS feed windows usually open and I can scan what they are talking about at the moment, without leaving my page - unless of course, I choose to read what they are saying. Try it, and I know you'll find it useful.

4. I Tweet. How couldn't I? In fact, I Tweet more than I blog because I usually can conjure up something 140 characters long or less faster than I can write a longer, well-considered post. My latest Tweets are displayed on the right sidebar. Click here if you wish to follow me on Twitter.

5. Vivificat has a Facebook presence via Networked Blogs. If you have a Facebook presence, you may follow Vivificat there. Now, if you want to follow me on Facebook, I am usually a little bit more picky as to who I "friend" in Facebook. Don't let that deter you. Send me a request via my Vivificat page in Facebook and we'll talk.

6. I'm also in MySpace, although I don't use that service a whole lot. But I am more liberal receiving friends there, so try me!

7. The Comments Box are at your disposal. I only have two interrelated rules: no obscenities, no blasphemies. A blasphemy is injurious speach against God; obscenity is, well, I can't describe it but I know it when I see it. Other than that, pretty much everything else goes. You are responsible for what you say, not me. My only advise is that if you don't want people to think you a fool, don't write foolish things!

That's it for now! And again, thank you for making Vivificat a place to visit in your blog-surfing. May the Good Lord bless us all.

Fr. Richard McBrien decries Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration

Folks, Fr. Richard McBrien, the "Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame," had this "theological essay" published today in the online edition of the National Catholic Reporter (NCR), entitled Perpetual eucharistic adoration in which he affirms the following:

Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI's personal endorsement of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today...Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.

I left the following comment that, if it doesn't clear the NCR's censors, well at least you will be able to read it on this blog:

You see, sir, this is exactly the kind of statements that makes it difficult for us - Catholics that I suppose you would consider "illiterate" or less than "well educated" - to take you seriously as an authentic voice of Catholic teaching for today. If the words of Pope Benedict - your ultimate superior - are "not withstanding," then, what does that make of your own words? Frankly, this superior attitude of yours make your words un-Christian, and irrelevant.

I find tragic that you have descended to this level. Because of this, and due to other recent, well-known developments, one school my college-aged, Catholic-educated son will not be attending will be Notre Dame. And we will both be praying for you next time we visit our local Perpetual Adoration chapel in Western Pennsylvania.

I find it amazing that this gentleman is still allowed to teach as a Catholic theologian but then again, this is Notre Dame what we are talking about.

Islamic Proselytism Increasing Among Latinos in New York

Folks, the Brooklyn Rail site has published a very interesting article, entitled The Latino Crescent: Latinos make a place for themselves in Muslim America, which I think y'all ought to read. Of note:

“Are there any Catholics in the room?” he asked. A young dark-haired woman with a copy of El Coran, the Qu’ran in Spanish, resting on the table in front of her, quietly raised her hand and cringed slightly under the attention turning her direction.

Repeatedly, Robayo stressed the similarities between Christianity and Islam—the belief in one God, and the many common prophets, including Jesus. Many converts say that they find the Christian idea of the Trinity complicated and that the monotheistic simplicity of the Islamic concept of tawheed—the “one true oneness of God”—has great appeal.

“You may say in Spanish ‘dios,’ in English ‘God,’ in Arabic ‘Allah,’” Robayo told the crowd. “Is dios and God different?”

“Dios es grande,” he said.

Robayo shared a story about his mother, a Roman Catholic, whom he picks up after Mass most weeks. While there, he admires the beauty of the statues of Jesus and the saints, but appreciates that in Islam there are no images. Robayo likes the notion of a direct, unmediated conversation with God that Islam promotes, a straightforward approach that appeals to many Islam converts.

The article was written by photojournalist Lyndsey Matthews. Read it all here.

Commentary. Two things to appreciate here: Christians can become Muslims in the US in peace and without fear. In Muslim majority countries, conversions from Islam to Christianity are risky propositions. I am sure that, despite "Dios" being "Grande," this discrepancy is seldom addressed in Muslim comparative religion sessions in Brooklyn.

The most important thing to appreciate here is the failure of vision, missionary impetus, evangelical outreach, and catechetical formation by Catholics in Brooklyn. The thin veneer of Catholicism that passes for religious identity among Latinos becomes meaningless to many of them and therefore, easy to shed in favor of other religious beliefs, not only Islam.

The question is not "why are they leaving us" but "what are we doing to hold these precious souls for Jesus Christ and His Church?"