Levels of commitment, including to God

We could write a book on this topic. I'd rather discuss it in conversation and Q&A format, but since that is not possible at this time, I want to jot down some thoughts here that will help you to align your thoughts and philosophy about commitment. It will help you to understand faith-and God himself-more clearly, and your own perceptions and actions.

First, I want to give some secular examples about how it is difficult to truly understand someone else's commitment to "a cause" or a truth over time. Commitment is not an absolute that remains unchanged by time and circumstance. An easy example is two different soldiers in an army. One seems the more totally committed, being very patriotic and military based in his or her orientation. The other person is more casual about their commitment, being correct in their service but not outstanding. However, in a battle, the first performs correctly, doing his or her duty, while the second one, back pressed to the wall, performs an extraordinary act of courage and losses his life for the greater good, whether the course of the battle itself or to protect his or her buddies under fire. Who was, in the long run, the "most committed?" The "higher" on the "commitment 'scale?'" You can see that such a view that it can be measured or compared is entirely bogus. One goes on to a honorable life long service to country and military, while the other average Joe or Mary had average service, and then in a burst of heroic circumstance, gives his or her life. You can't really weigh between the two at all. Each walked their own path of service, honor and righteousness.

There is much argument about the value of an aging life, in a time of pressures to allocate medical costs and even have "death panels." Consider this, then. There is a temptation to look at someone's "contribution" to life. OK, let's look at that. One person is a "producer," who is still active in some highly value societal role. The other was a wallflower, kind of a person who blended into society at large, perhaps a housewife and mother, who is now an aged widow, and whose children are away. She is in a nursing home and increasingly "out of it," and thus not a "contributor." Who is more "worthy" of a fixed number of health care dollars? Well, let's look at what happens. The first person, yes of course, goes on to be "productive" until his or her death. People feel a righteous glow when they get all the medical expenses "care" that he or she needs throughout. Liberals especially feel awesome and "good" in making sure he or she can be "productive" and receive entitled medical care. Cool. The other person slowly fades away in the nursing home. She gets less awesome care because she's old, alone and "dying anyway." No one does anything bad to her, but the mindset, of course, is that it's a low payback investment to give her excellent care at the end of a fading life. Perhaps so. But have you considered all the payback, really?

One day a nurse aide at the nursing home is discouraged, she is young and just starting out, studies are hard, money is tight, hours are long. She is tending to that woman and while so, they talk. That old lady gives the nurse's aide a little encouragement, speaking from her own humble experience as a mom. Like a tiny mustard seed, her words actually matter to the discouraged aide, and over time, especially after that nursing home resident dies, the aide has a new lease on life, a new encouragement, just from that casual conversation near the end of the woman's life, but toward the beginning of the aide's. She goes on to be a great success (in whatever measure of success you have).

Which person was more "committed to productivity" and "worthy?" The first person does their job and leads their life like "normal," by "normal" current societal expectations. The second person was "just a mom" and an "old lady" yet without an agenda, gave advice, not some secret formula, but just good old mom type of belief to the nurse's aide who tended to her, when that aide needed it, and it ended up being a life changing conversation that only unfolded in its significance over time. Good thing that old lady wasn't euthanized, huh?

Suppose the old lady was in a coma and could not talk? They still have total worth as humans because HELPLESS HUMANS ARE LIKE CLAY IN YOUR HANDS. ABUSED OR NEGLECTED ALL YOU DO IS DEMONSTRATE HOW FAR YOU ARE FROM BEING GODLY. After all, the Bible and the Qur'an explain that God took inanimate dust, clay, and made human life. Even when a person is not "productive" or even conscious, they are still the clay by which YOU who ARE "in power" demonstrate if you are godly, and give them the most care that is possible with dignity and life GIVING orientation, not TAKING, or if you are publicly or in secret, against being godly, for you rob the person of their dignity and "manage" the "amount of care" that they receive. Trust me, the dust that God created man from wasn't worth too much either.

So which of the two people, the normal life as "productive" or the normal life as aged end of life "mom" was more committed, more worthy, and more "productive?" You cannot possibly compare: no human being is even 1 percent capable of such an evaluation.

Now, look at being committed to God. There is no point where you are "safe" and "committed enough." Each person throughout their life works on their commitment and even follows different forms of commitment (or even detachment, as ill advised as that may be.) Again, you cannot critique someone else's form of commitment to God: only God can do that, and He will. There is a difference between speaking to someone on a wrong path (such as idolatry), so I'm not saying "live and let live" there, because their eternal soul is worth at least one chastising conversation with them, face to face....or what I am speaking of, which is again, you cannot as a human evaluate someone else's commitment to God. That is the heart of the totally bogus argument about Catholic celibate male priests. People have no right to claim that they are "entitled" to a form of commitment that was in place even before Christ, which is the celibate religious male. John the Baptist was such. At the time just before Jesus, there were many men who were celibate, often living as ascetics in the desert. Men have a perfect right to continue to follow God in that form. Christian men chose to emulate CHRIST in that regard, not the apostles, so the argument that deacons were men, women, had families and sex lives is bogus, because it has nothing to do with the FACT that there is a group of people, celibate men, who select via their calling a form of commitment to God called the Catholic priesthood. It's not like a job title.

So what does a woman do who wants to preach? Well, duh, the first thing to do is to recognize that it is an EQUALLY VALID BUT DIFFERENT FORM OF COMMITMENT TO GOD. I mean, Einstein didn't even have to be channeled to explain that one. I enjoy certain women's preaching very much; those who are firmly rooted in service to God with a genuine heart, not as a power grab. Sometimes I like to listen to Joyce Meyer when I'm channel flipping. One reason is that she is proclaiming the Kingdom, not trying to chip away at someone else's form of commitment (like the priesthood) as a power grab.

I have never met a woman who truly "wants" to be a Catholic priest. They want that "job title," but they don't want what it really is, which is a MAN who decides to follow CHRIST by giving his all, including celibacy. It's like this: I never wanted to be a Boy Scout because, duh, I'm not a Boy. I was a Girl Scout for a year or so but was bored because it was too poorly led locally by women who didn't have their heart in it.

Think back to that example of the soldiers. If one really wants to commit to God, one simply has to commit to His Kingdom first, and then walk through YOUR OWN LIFE based on that commitment. It may just being a good and honorable guy or gal through your life, or it may be turning your entire life over to God. As we see by failed priests, it is not the title or the form of the commitment that is worthy, but the worthiness that the person brings to their choice.

A mediocre priest may, without his even knowing, led very important people to Christ (by important I mean those who might have been lost otherwise). Like the elderly mom, even an average priest saves souls. But someone who is on a total ego trip about their "calling" may turn away people from the Kingdom, as they bog people down in worldly power and attachment, politics, divisiveness and argument. So a "top bishop" may work against the Kingdom without even realizing it, because they make it "all about them and their calling."

I hope this is helpful. I understand this is just scratching the surface of the topic, but I have faith you all have brains, ha, and surely get what I am pointing you towards here.

Today's thoughts about the priesthood

Regular readers know that one of my constant prayer intercessions are for increased vocations, specifically for priests.

While reading another cautiously optimistic article about increased enrollments in seminaries and a new tide of young people who are giving serious thoughts about becoming priests, I thought of another way to explain the joy of the calling to what many perceive to be a thankless (or even unnecessary) "job."

For a Christian, acknowledging Christ as both Lord and Savior is a lifelong endeavor. One does not "Savior insurance policy" one's way into making Christ truly the Lord of their life. So the analogy I thought of just now is that a priest provides continual soul maintenance and "preventative medicine."

We know in the field of medicine that "preventative medicine" is both essential and also neglected, perceived as being not glamorous or profitable. However, those of all religions who are called to their faith's vocations understand that they are like maintenance people/preventative medicine experts rather than glamorous surgeons who operate one time to save a life. Christians are, and should be, no different. Even if one has that moment of committing to Christ and thus, as many evangelicals call it, "being saved," to hold only that view is to believe that one surgery fixes all of a person's medical problems for life. We know that it obviously not true in real life. Likewise, as we read in the Bible the Old Testament priests were there for the ongoing health of each person's soul, which does stumble often during life, if one is honest. Sin, temptation, bad thoughts and bad behavior abound. Also, just as in a marriage, one's connection to God must be constantly demonstrated and renewed, or it is suspect as being hollow and taking the "marriage" partner for granted.

So I often think of priests as, yes, those who save souls for God, the way evangelicals think of the Great Commission, but day to day I think of priests as the preventative medicine guys, the ones who carry the burden of continual maintenance (which any corporate employee can tell you is the least glamorous but most essential job in a company). Many individuals witness and bring people to God, if Christian, through Christ. But the priests maintain the sacraments, the methods that Jesus provided through his example, in order to keep the relationship with God flowing and growing, helping their flock to avoid the dangers and pitfalls, and helping them in the stumbles that many take throughout life.

I hope that this reflection has been helpful and ask you to join me as I pray for and support growing vocations, and the young men who are called to be deacons and priests. Likewise too I never forget the women and men who are called to consecrated religious life in communities, and I pray too for their increase in both numbers and their fervor for God as he really is, ever present in all the people.

My opinion regarding bishops attached to abuse charges

I am writing this to give my opinion about bishops who are, with good reason (not witch hunt false charges), attached to the sexual abuse charges of either covering up or, equally as bad, being negligent in overseeing the purity of spiritual subordinates.

I believe every one of you who covered up or who looked the other way, or who should have investigated but did not, should offer your resignations. This is why.

Being a bishop does not, no matter how much the verbiage and process sound like it, confer higher status or spirituality. I'm saying this in comfort, not in criticism. You must not become so attached to the responsibilities, authority and prestige of being a bishop so much that you view stepping away from it as a diminishing. The highest genuine honors of serving God, and one's flock, is to be a parish priest or priest to a community, or even the contemplative life.

If any of you bishops (including ones who are not in some sort of hot water) cannot follow the imagery I am going to offer you, you have to do some prayer and soul searching.

Imagine that you are no longer serving a bishop's capacity, but you are back to being a parish priest, or one attached to a seminary in a formation capacity, or even entering contemplative service in a monastery. How much of this image makes you feel diminished? Compare this to the feeling of release and of being freed of burdens that separate you from first hand contemplation of God through celebrating the Mass, hearing confessions, prayer, etc.

It is not just humility that caused many saints, when priests, to literally flee when the role of bishop was thrust upon them. Most saints genuinely preferred being parish priests, or members of a community, or contemplatives than they did seeking that princely office. Some of them feigned madness or stupidity to avoid it ha.

If you are really in service to God and his flock, most of you should feel that if your bishop responsibilities were taken from you, that it would be a relief and that once again you are getting down to the brass tacks (American slang for back to the basics, the fundamentals). The more a person seeks being a bishop (or outside the Catholic church, giving themselves that title) the more I wonder why they are seeking it so very much. Usually the answer is that it is viewed as a promotion.

Friends, brothers, though, remember one thing. A promotion upward in human circles is usually a lateral promotion or a downward promotion away from God. Layers of artificial concerns intrude upon even the most well meaning bishop's office. If you stop thinking of a bishop's chair as being a promotion or "increased authority," you will move closer, again, to God. This is why I think this is a valuable mental imagery exercise of visualization for even well functioning bishops who are serene and capable in their calling. Once in a while remember that it's not really a promotion and, further, the most humble duties of a priest is usually that which is closest to God's heart.

I hope that you have found this helpful.
Honoring always JMJ.

Understanding the Catholic priesthood

With recent articles about the Roman Catholic Church accepting religious and laity from the Church of England (Anglican, Episcopal), among the usual hype and accusations arises again a fundamental misunderstanding about the Catholic priesthood being reserved, except in the case of converts, for celibate men. There is some historical perspective that is needed (of course) that I've alluded to before, but I had the idea to condense it to one point, well, OK, maybe two points :-) in this posting to help. I especially hope this helps young people (hi again!) who have been deprived of so much factual history, say nothing of the deprivations of faith history.

Like the similar subject of infant baptism (which I have written a fair amount about here) there is the misunderstanding that the practice, due to either doctrine or tradition, of celibate men setting themselves aside for the worship of God is some sort of invention of the Catholic Church. That simply is not true and here are the facts you need to know.

During the time leading up to the birth of Jesus, and certainly during his childhood and adulthood, many Jewish men remained single and celibate by choice. In fact, these were individual decisions. Thus these were not priests who are following rules to be celibate, it was a grassroots movement of many individuals making that decision. Instead of being among the married Jewish priesthood, these men tended to set up a place for themselves as hermits and itinerant preachers. This is where another "Catholic" "invention," of hermit celibate monks and also "holy women" also derived from, by the way. In the times of Jesus there was a rich tradition and grassroots movement of many men individually deciding to 1) be celibate and have no family or intimate relations and 2) dedicating their lives to contemplation, prayer and preaching of God.

It was from this rich and vibrant large population of men that yes, you guessed it, John the Baptist arose. He is the "where is that in the Bible" source for understanding a man who when he became of age did not marry or have intimate relationships and instead left his family behind to be an itinerant preacher and/or a hermit.

When the Catholic Church explains that its doctrine and tradition of a celibate male priesthood is modeled after Jesus Christ, they are correct. But here is where the listeners of that statement often make the wrong conclusion. They conclude that the Apostles are the "models of the priesthood," not Christ himself. The Apostles and disciples are the models for the celebration and worship of the Christian/Catholic faith and much of the structure, of course, especially through the writings and admonitions of St. Paul. But notice what I am saying carefully because too many people are defensive/attacking on this subject and they miss the point. Jesus Christ is the model of the celibate priest, not the Apostles or the disciples.

So now you can understand there is three "generations" of celibate males who dedicate themselves solely to sanctification and serving God:

First generation: Jewish men who remain single, celibate and become hermits and/or preachers, dedicated entirely to God.

Second generation: John the Baptist, who elects all of the above in that first generation, but he is specifically preparing the way for Jesus Christ.

Third generation: Jesus Christ, who elects all of the above but is also the first priest, since he IS the sacrifice that priests offer to God (that's their "job" description) and he is the third "generation" of the celibate man devoted entirely to God's work.

It is that logic and understanding that the Roman Catholic Church realized in the centuries after Jesus died and resurrected, which is why it "didn't happen right away" and thus is "not in the Bible."

Young people, you in particular need to understand a point about "what's in the Bible" and "not in the Bible" (and the same for the Qur'an, if you are Muslim) since that's what you hear a lot of Christians hurtling accusations against each other (not to their credit or to the faith's honor, by the way). Here's the bottom line. It is essential that God be believed and understood strictly by what is in the Bible (or the Qur'an if you are Muslim). But regarding religious practice and doctrine, Jesus did not spell out everything in A-B-C as if he is the new dictator and future generations are all dummies. Jesus left plenty of room for common sense. So here I will give you an example to use to remind yourself when you must go "by the book" and when it is expected that common sense be used.

Where in the Bible does it say that youth ministries and children's Bible study be established? I can't find it anywhere in my Bible! ;-)

Yet the very people who are often the harshest critics of Catholics for "making up" "stuff" that is "not in the Bible" have "Sunday school" divided not only by adult or children but also by "seniors," "singles," etc. Instead of attending the main Sunday service children go to their "own" Sunday school groups. Um, where's that in the Bible? In fact, that is contrary to how doctrine would have been taught to any Jewish child during the time of Jesus. How do we know that? "That's in the Bible." Children went to the same Temple and watched the same sacrifices, said the same prayers as the adults. They did not go into a separate room where they were shown cartoons, videos, and watched a "pretend" sacrifice of a plush toy "bull."

Jesus did not say "Let the children come to me, but have them attend a watered down 'age appropriate' worship service in a separate room, and be sure to make the Bible 'fun.'" In fact, that is no where in the Bible and it is a fact that children were never kept away from even the most "icky" and difficult of the services, such as the sacrifices of animals on the altar.

But would I not be an annoying prig if I ran around to all the well meaning denominations and chided them for having age and marital status segregated Sunday school classes AND for allowing children to skip the adult or, rather, as is my point, the one and only worship service? Would I not sound a little intolerant?

That is my whole point. When people hurl the same accusation toward the Roman Catholic Church, which has pondered and structured itself based on both scripture and tradition (including common sense) for two thousand years, these people who accuse are ignoring the same "common sense" things that their denominations chose to do that are not in the Bible, such as separate worship service (aka the Bible is fun playtime) for children.

Here is where you have to use faith and reasoning, as I've given you other examples before, young people. If the Bible does not say it is now "OK" to separate children from the main worship service, why do so many churches do so today? And is that the "right" thing to do, even if it sounds "logical?" So to exercise your faith and logic, when you have such a situation, think of why the opposite just might be true. Might God have always intended that just as the Jews in the time of Jesus brought the youngest to observe even the most solemn and difficult of the religious rite that God still, in the time of Christianity (and Islam) still indicate through his silence and "no change in policy" that children are supposed to worship at the same service as the adults, period? Might God not know better than human beings do? Might God not know better that faith is stronger if children have the integrated undiluted weekly worship service as the adults, crying babies and all? Might God never wanted people to dummy down and use cartoons and videos and "fun games" and song and dance for children "praise and worship?"

This is where you have to understand that the Bible states all that there needs to be known about God, about understanding and serving him, but that neither God nor Jesus tells you how to get dressed in the morning and how to tie your own shoes. (The Bible does emphasize modesty). The priesthood is exactly the same situation. People are expected to derive common sense conclusions based on what is in the Scripture AND what is religious tradition.

So far from being a deviation and a veering off, celibate men who devote themselves in a sanctified way to God is a mainstream common practice brought into perfection by first John the Baptist and then bringing forth the perfection of Jesus Christ, first priest. The Roman Catholic celibate priesthood is modeled on Jesus Christ, who is the "descendant" of a vibrant recognized status of holy celibate men who are dedicated to doing only God's work. Thus the evolution of Jesus Christ as first perfected model of the celibate Christian priest is not a sudden idea that popped into someone's head centuries later. It is the recognition that there is a calling, a traditional, God given calling to be 1) a priest and 2) to be celibate and sanctified only to God. They are two branches of tradition (the Jewish priests and the celibate holy hermit/preaching males) that fused in Jesus Christ's personage and person.

I have no problem with charitable questioning, debate and discussion and I understand that some are too committed to their own wisdom to accept the traditions and doctrine of others. But I have always had a real problem with religious or "spiritual" hypocrisy. Believe me, I'm not being hard hearted when I question to myself why in the world do so many denominations have segregated praise and worship when that is most assuredly not in the Bible (except for separate seating in the synagogue for men and women and that is for reason of modesty). Much of the Bible (see especially proverbs) involves the teaching of God to children, but it's not done via song and dance and cartoons and Sunday school, but by direct participation from birth in the mainstream and only worship practices. Notice Jesus did not go to the "kiddies section" when as a twelve year old boy he went to the Temple and Joseph and Mary lost track of him for several days. There was no "kiddies section." So please, do not tell me that the "celibate priesthood" is not in the Bible, and then go down the hall to your properly assigned segregated by age and marital status worship experience!

Young people, I hope you understand what I have written here and think about it because it really is about something near and dear to your hearts, which is truth, choices, freedom and authenticity. How is pressuring the Catholic Church (which they will never do) to eliminate the doctrine of a celibate unmarried priesthood anything but an attempt to eliminate a choice? Can you imagine what John the Baptist would say if he were alive today and were told that? Tell him and the thousands of other celibate hermit/preaching Jewish males who made their own choices that some people think that "priests" can't "really understand" the "problems of the people" unless they are married, or even actively gay? What would John the Baptist say? Something like this: "Priests are not supposed to understand the 'problems of the people,' they are supposed to serve God and help the people to understand God, not themselves."

This is a long and complicated topic, which is why I am not going into all the other points that are necessary to a full understanding (such as the "job description" of the priest who conducts sacrifice to God rather than leads a "praise and worship" experience, and the difference is fundamentally important). The purpose of this particular posting on this subject was to focus on two things:

1. There is a historical and Biblical tradition of celibate holy Jewish men, and Jesus was a continuation of that rather than a "first" and,

2. The hypocrisy of "it's not in the Bible" is almost ridiculously easy to refute, as I did with the example above that no one questions today, so rife has it become as a non-Biblical "common sense" deviation, which is to separate children from adult worship, and/or create based on marital status segregated Sunday school classes, even choirs, etc. LOL, where's that in the Bible?

I hope that you have found this helpful and please pray for the strength, comfort and dedication of the many good Catholic priests, rather than contribute to misunderstanding at best or at worst demonizing and tearing them down. That is certainly not "in the Bible" either.

Bible Reading: 1 Machabees 4:36-51

Just to give you some context, this is a historical book that centers around the history of the Jews while under the command of Judas Machabeus and his brethren. The Jews were persecuted and occupied by a number of invaders, and Rome was on the horizon, though they were not yet conquered by Rome. The scripture I am including here describes how the Jews recaptured a holy place and see the desecration that had taken place, and how they respond. These events are less than two hundred years before Jesus was born.

1 Machabees 4:36-51

Then Judas and his brethren said: Behold our enemies are discomfited. Let us go up now to cleanse the holy places and to repair them. And all the army assembled together, and they went up into mount Sion.

And they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burnt, and shrubs growing up in the courts as in a forest or on the mountains, and the chambers joining to the temple thrown down.

And they rent their garments, and made great lamentation, and put ashes on their heads, and they fell down to the ground on their faces, and they sounded with the trumpets of alarms, and they cried towards heaven.

Then Judas appointed men to fight against them that were in the castle, till they had cleansed the holy places. And he chose priests without blemish, whose will was set upon the law of God: and they cleansed the holy places, and took away the stones that had been defiled into an unclean place.

And he considered about the altar of holocausts that had been profaned, what he should do with it. And a good counsel [remember counsel is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit] came into their minds to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the Gentiles had defiled it; so they threw it down.

And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. And they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former. And they built up the holy places, and the things that were within the temple, and they sanctified the temple and the courts.

And they made new holy vessels, and brought in the candlestick, and the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. And they put incense upon the altar, and lighted up the lamps that were upon the candlestick, and they gave light in the temple. And they set the loaves upon the table, and hung up the veils, and finished all the works they had begun to make.


This is one of my favorite passages in the Bible that deals with historical events. There are several reasons I love how these events were recorded in the scripture, which Catholics consider part of the sacred canon of the Bible, while Jews (who do celebrate the memory of these events in their sacred calendar) and Protestants do not consider it part of the canon. The first reason that I love this passage is that it allows the reader over two thousand years later to look over the shoulders of these soldiers and witness their response when they see how their holy places and God's house were profaned. Soldiers were extremely pious. They were distraught at the profanity they had found.

Second they then get down to business and restore the sanctity of the place. Again one is able to look over the shoulder of the leader, Judas, as he considers how to handle the resanctification of the holy place. Here is a mention of the Holy Spirit giving him counsel, advising him to tear down the sacred altar because having been profaned it cannot remain as it is without being a blemish and a shame to those who would worship there. At the same time, though, Judas realizes that deciding what to do with the removed stones of the altar is beyond him or anyone alive among the Jews, and so they put the stones aside "till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them."

This shows two things. One is that the Jews continued to have faith that God would send a prophet when it is time, and so even though it had been very long since a prophet had arisen from God among the people, with confidence they put aside this complex and thorny decision for the next prophet. Secondly it shows their great humility. No one pushed forward and declared themselves to be "wise" enough to know what to do with the profaned stones, or claim to be "channeling" God (yikes) as we see so often today among the multitude of false prophets abroad around the globe. This is why I share this passage with you because it is a crucial part of understanding a genuine relationship with God.

Another thing I love is the loving care where they record how they sanctify and restore the temple, the courts and the altar. They understand that this is God's home, because wherever an altar is sanctified to him, God commits that his presence is there.

I hope you have enjoyed this reading and come to love it as much as I do. And remember that though they did not live to see it, around one hundred and fifty years after these events a prophet came to the Jews indeed, however he was the Messiah himself, Jesus Christ.

Oh, and here is something else to share with you. Chapters four and five describe how Judas fights against all the various oppressors, retaking lands that had been captured. On one particular day this is written:

1 Machabees 5:67

In that day some priests fell in battle, while desiring to do manfully they went out unadvisedly to fight.

This is just information about what had happened, not a hidden message or exhortation about the role of priests. But it does tell you, if you want to understand Biblical times better, that while no one stopped priests from fighting with the army, it was a very rare event because priests are the precious role of serving God and are not, in general, considered as military resources. Lest anyone imagine a role of "fighting priest," I include this passage to show you there is no Biblical justification for warrior priests at all.

Two things: the world's most important jobs

Parenthood and Priesthood.

My condolences to those who are mourning the passing of Father Richard John Neuhaus.

I know what you mean, on First Things, about how he just simply cannot be replaced. Every good priest, actually, is like that, for only he has heard confessions, celebrated the Holy Mass, and represented Jesus Christ in his work, whether in the public eye as Father Neuhaus or in the smallest of congregations.

My true condolences to you all on the unique loss of such a great man, priest, friend, role model and friend of Christ.

Bible Reading: Hebrews 5:1-9

[These are the words of St. Paul describing the Christian priesthood, modeled upon Christ as the High Priest.]

For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

He is able to have compassion on the ignorant and erring, because he himself also is beset with weakness, and by reason thereof is obliged to offer for sins, as on behalf of the people, so also for himself.

And no man takes the honor to himself; he takes it who is called by God, as Aaron was.

So also Christ did not glorify himself with the high priesthood, but he who spoke to him, Thou art my son, I this day have begotten thee.

As he says in another place, Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech.

For Jesus, in the days of his earthly life, with a loud cry and tears, offered up prayers and supplications to him who was able to save him from death, and was heard because of his reverent submission.

And he, Son though he was, learned obedience from the things that he suffered; and when perfected, he became to all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech.

[When St. Paul says that Jesus became "perfected," he does not mean that Jesus was not already perfect. St. Paul means that after Jesus resurrected from the dead he was perfected in wearing his glorified heavenly body, even as he stayed on earth in that glorified body for forty days before ascending to heaven. Remember that St. Paul never met Jesus of the earthly body, but met the resurrected Jesus in the glory of heaven on the road to Damascus.

Likewise, when St. Paul says Jesus "learned" obedience, it is not like Jesus wasn't already in perfect obedience from boyhood. In the Bible "learned" often means the same as "practiced." Thus St. Paul is explaining that Jesus practiced and thus provided the role model of perfect obedience even when there is great suffering, if it is God's will. You have to use common sense when reading the Bible. For example they use the word "knew" his wife to indicate having intimacy to bear a child; it's not like the husband and wife didn't "know" each other until that moment. Likewise perfected and learning are words that describe repetitions and progressive actions, not indicating the lack of those qualities "previously."]

Debunk cults and answer "Who am I?"

So if there is no reincarnation “Who am I?” LOL, trust me; I understand human nature, so that when all the false beliefs one has been taught and has held fall away, there is a puzzling gap that remains.

If you are asking yourself that question, you have to do two things.

One is that you have to discover for the first time, or rediscover, your own identity, as you would have as a child, where you learn what you like doing, what you dislike, what moves your heart, and what leaves you cold, your biological and cultural roots, and those of your neighbors, and who you love, and who you respect. You learn to find teachers who are not “gurus” but are the type that every human has looked up to throughout history: the man who taught you how to fix a car, the woman who finally made algebra comprehensible to you, the author who has a gift for selecting a topic, such as a period in history, and makes it both interesting and relevant (without pushing an agenda).

The second thing you need to do is to believe in the one God and rediscover your relationship with him. Why is that important? Because the very need to feel “special” and “enlightened” that first drove you to cultist belief is a result of not knowing that all elevation and all loftiness of human spirit comes from God and God alone. Only by realizing that God has unique and loving knowledge of each and every person, regardless of their station in life, can one be elevated and can one feel “enlightened” and “special,” not by making up elitist false history. This is a key understanding of both Christianity and Islam, and that is why they both swept the world with millions of converts and believers, not because of the “sword” or the “Inquisition.” Christianity and Islam shed the light on the truth that God is one, all knowing, and has egalitarian love and concern for each and every human being. Humans realized in both their heads and their hearts the truth of this, and thus threw away their “magical thinking” and their demeaning belief in idols. No babbling self proclaiming “high priestess” of “arcane knowledge” and “past lives” can elevate a single human being one iota in their spirituality and, instead, she demeans her followers by denying them the lofty heritage that is truly theirs: adopted child and beloved of God, able to have a personal relationship with God of worship, service, faith and salvation.

Ha, so I am definitely not unsympathetic, and I never have been. I’m on the side of the angels, who, as Jesus explained, rejoice more at the return of one sinner than in the routine goodness of the faithful. What has distressed me is the stampede toward sin, rather than back toward God, of the past forty years of human history and society. To this day I still wish that even the most vile sinners and disgracefully evil humans find the light and have sincere and total conversion. I have faith and comfort that those who have wronged God and their neighbors so dastardly will be judged by God and thrust into hell, but it’s not like I’m spending my time wishing for their “comeuppance.” Even those who have done personally terrible things to me, I hope that before they are either smited by God and thus are punished in life, or who glide through life on their evil, and then upon death find themselves in eternal hell, hear and understand the truth, repent and make amends with full sincerity (even if being honest and sincere is like a rusty piston in an engine that has trouble working properly at first). It does not make what they did go away, or “OK,” but it would save them from hell and that would satisfy what I consider to be part of my ministry.

So who am I and why do I speak with such authority? If you are sane and well balanced you can relate to me as a human who has a very good understanding of God, but I understand that it’s hard for others to make the flip from thinking we are “reincarnated” players and actors to who we really are. I have both extremes to deal with. One extreme is the New Agers who have had to detox from thinking that I am “reincarnated” whoever they have labeled me with at different times over the past sad and wasted years. They have a gap, where they wonder, “If she is not reincarnated, then how does she know all of these things?” I am sympathetic and will give you an analogy (of course), kind of a literary device to plug the gap while you detox from that way of thinking. The other extreme are those who think they are Bible thumping literalists, but who have actually strayed far from the word of God by assuming that they have individual “insight” into what God “really means and plans to do,” such as having the nerve to interpret Dan and Revelations to assign timing and characters to “the Rapture,” “Antichrist identity,” and “the tribulations.” They ignore that Jesus Christ himself stated very clearly that he himself does not know the timing of the End of Days and that only God knows that. But this does not stop these extremists, who cherry pick the Bible and profane it with their own interpretations and declarations, and also make it into forms of money making entertainment. That extreme actually has the nerve to question me, wanting me to self identify according to the Bible (since that is all they do, assign actors and writing scripts to Biblical prophecy). Well, the analogy and the literary device I will share with the New Agers will also suit the Biblical false prophets just as well.

Before I give the analogy let me point out several things. First of all, as I’ve repeatedly explained, I am not reincarnated and neither is anyone else. Second, people have guardian angels; they are NOT angels. I mean, duh, how hard is that to understand? Humans are humans and angels are angels and they abide in different realms and are totally different from each other. Humans are of matter, energy and time; angels are not of matter, energy or time. So I’m not an angel and neither is anyone else. Third, I am not “revelating.” In other words, I am not adding one iota onto scripture. Instead, I am constantly pointing people back to scripture, to believe it as it is, the final and complete word of God. I am a witness, not a “revealer,” and so, obviously, understand that none of you are revealers of God’s will either. Fourth, I am not a prophet, and neither are any of you. I am not prophesying, either in the sense of conveying God’s words to humans, or in forecasting the future, and neither are any of you. Fifth, I’m not an alien, ha ha ha, that is so stupid I’m embarrassed I have to type this, but hey, I know it needs to be said for that branch of the morons so here it is: I am not an alien and neither are any of you.

So who am I? First you must read and understand what I wrote about the baptismal priesthood, the common priesthood, of the Catholic faith. I am a member of the baptismal priesthood and thus can proclaim with full confidence my faith in Catholic doctrine. Rather than wonder “who I am” to speak with such authority, I wish more Catholics would understand and embrace their faith and exercise their baptismal priesthood. By the way, in January it will be fifty five years since I was baptized, my fifty fifth anniversary of my baptismal priesthood and I certainly wish that I was received by others as fifty five years of baptismal priesthood rather than what it has felt like, which is fifty five years of martyrdom. It would be funny if it wasn’t so awful, and the abuse of me used to enable demeaning and flight from God, rather than true living in the Spirit of those who stalked me and my family. But back to my main point; understand that the baptized faithful ALL are expected and able to speak with authority to witness to their faith.

Second, you must understand that what seems like “revealing” teaching that I offer on this blog was well known by centuries of humans prior to this poorly formed and ignorant past several generations of humans. With modern mores and technology people have become, honestly, stupider. So I am not revealing new information; I am teaching people how to slow down and READ what is in black and white in front of you, ALL of the Bible (including the books the children of the Reformation discarded) and to understand the Spirit in which it was written, including in the cultural and faith context of the time. Back when people were agricultural and humble, they “got” the scriptures far more than they do today. All I am doing is explaining what even the average educated person knew even fifty years ago. You don’t better understand God by throwing out books of the Bible, cherry picking only certain sections to read as validating your own imagined self righteousness and further, not understanding the basics of the customs of the times that you are reading (worse, sneering that parts of the Bible are “old fashioned” and “oppressive.”) So the second thing to understand about me is that I am explaining what many of the average wise people in any time in Christian history, both educated and unlettered, could have explained to you in my place.

So how can I speak with total confidence and clarity regardless of the question or topic? It is because I speak only with total Fear of the Lord and within the Spirit. I have absolutely no other motivation but one hundred percent purity of Fear of the Lord. My entire motivation and the endless well of my spiritual being is Fear of the Lord. Spiritually I am comprised of one hundred percent Fear of the Lord. I was born with and am filled totally with the first gift of the Holy Spirit, Fear of the Lord. I cannot have either less Fear of the Lord or more Fear of the Lord than I have had with perfect constancy throughout my life. When one has total Fear of the Lord, one has total comprehension of the Lord’s ways.

So what is the Biblical reference and analogy, the literary device that I have promised to help those who cannot grasp the simplicity of what I have explained above? Read this passage from Ezekiel, where Ezekiel is first called by God to be his prophet. In this very well known calling God and the Cherubim appear to Ezekiel. Ezekiel has described the Cherubim, the firmament above them, and is about to describe how he viewed God. The first line of that description is Ezekiel 1:26:

Above the firmament over their heads something like a throne could be seen, looking like sapphire. Upon it was seated, up above, one who had the appearance of a man.

Think of me not as God, or one of the Cherubim, but as the big blue chair that God is sitting in during this one and only appearance as such. In other words, I am not the throne of God, but I can be thought of as the “big blue chair” that he sits in when he calls Ezekiel. God does not derive his authority or his greatness from the throne he sits in, nor does the throne hold any power or authority of its own; only God has that. But you can use the literary device of thinking of me as being of service in the most humble way to the Lord God, by being the blue chair that he “sat” in during one Biblical “event.”

Just as altar servers kneel to hold up the open Bible so the celebrating priest can read from it during Mass, making their own bodies a book stand in service of God, I am perfectly pleased and honored to think of myself, to help you to better understand, those of you who struggle, as a big blue chair used one time in order to provide “seating” while God “sits” and calls one of his greatest prophets. The chair is not talking and the chair is not creating doctrine. The chair is the witness and the lowest servant of God. This is why my gift of the Holy Spirit, Fear of the Lord, allows me to speak with authority, because it gives me humble and perfect witness to God, where I am “the observer” and not “the author.” No analogy is perfect, and this one really isn’t, but it occurred to me as a way that I can explain the fundamentals of my identity to help those who have been deprived of faith and logic to plug the gap in how they view me, a human, while they remediate themselves.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics (4)

While thinking about how to structure the next segment of my topic regarding priests and the priesthood, I realize that everyone will better understand and benefit if I make an aside and introduce a topic that is foundational, which is to understand the Holy Spirit. This is because I realize that as impressed as readers are by my pointing out the apostolic succession of the laying on of hands and their ability to consecrate through the Holy Spirit, it is easy to misunderstand what exactly is meant by the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Holy Spirit. This is one of the problems many have with understanding not only Catholic doctrine, but their own Christian denomination’s doctrine, whatever that may be. Therefore, here are some easy to understand discussions of the Holy Spirit just to provide a basic and sound foundation.

The Spirit is mentioned everywhere in the Bible. Thus the idea of the Holy Spirit is not something that Christians imagined or made up in order to explain the unseen, but rather, God specifically states on some occasions that he is going to do this, or he is going to do that, while at other times God specifically refers to the Spirit. You need go no further than the very first three lines of the Bible to observe this distinction.


Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
The earth was waste and void;
Darkness covered the abyss, and the spirit of God was stirring above the waters.
God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good.

Remember, the information in Genesis was provided by God to Moses. Thus Moses (and the scribes after him who copied and passed down what Moses received from God) was very careful to be as precise as humanly possible (and God would have guided them in that). Thus, the use of the word “spirit” in Genesis 1:2 is the deliberate phrasing of God, and not just an artistic or ignorant manner of human speech. So why would God express himself as God in certain circumstances in the Bible, yet as the Spirit at other times? Why would God “be” God sometimes, and “be” the Holy Spirit other times? And, for that matter, how can Christians believe that Jesus Christ is Son of God, and thus is part of the Almighty, yet pray to God and clearly state that God is the Father and is still in heaven while Jesus was on earth? Let us look at an analogy (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?)

This is an analogy that is absolutely theologically incorrect and inadequate, but it is absolutely valuable and valid for humans to better understand God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in proper context, so use this analogy with confidence. We all know, or at least can imagine, a fine, righteous and upstanding man, one who has a living father, who has a son of his own, and who has a job. This same man will have a certain relationship between himself and his son. Yet, when that man is with his own father, he is the same man but the relationship is different when one speaks to the father who raised you, than when you are with one’s own son. Then, imagine that this good man also has a job that requires him to be inspirational to his employees and to his colleagues, to customers, and indeed, all around him. For the analogy remember this could be any form of job; I am not speaking of a religious vocation kind of job. He might be a construction manager, a military man, in the government, a teacher, the director of a not for profit agency, or in charge of purchasing for a grocery store chain. Whatever this man’s job, he must inspire and exhort those around him to trust in him, to trust each other, and to do the very best that they can at all times.

You can see, then, that this is the same man, but one whom with goodness and precision unfailingly meets the needs of the situation. When he is the father he provides love, guidance and structure. When he is the son he transmits the values he obtained from his father, and treats his father in turn with love and respect, obeying the wishes of his father. When he is the inspirational leader with his words and example he transmits to the many shared goodness of objective, and thus he “gets things done” through many hands other than his own. Likewise, as a first step of understanding, you can think of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the same way. Obviously God is God, and only God. But God as all knowing and being of everything that ever was or ever could be, is filled with goodness and precision in how he uses his almighty powers, his will, in specific situations. He does this in order to accomplish two things:


1) Provide for a richness and diversity of dialogue with humans, so that there are many ways to experience God’s love, his touch and his dialogue in one’s life,
2) To make the influence of God easier to understand and to relate to by humans.


This is, obviously, one reason that Jesus Christ was born of a woman, born as a human, and not, let’s say, a big talking multi-colored rock. It would be more difficult for humans to love and have confidence in God-to say nothing of understanding him-if God had sent a multiple light pulsing hunk of unidentifiable rock with supernatural powers that voiced its love for humans, but did not walk with them, teach them, go fishing with them, argue with the scribes and Pharisees with them, be hungry with them, comfort them when they have sinned, and ultimately, proved with his own body that there is life after death when God resurrected him. How could one better understand God than through Jesus? Through Jesus, God is not only providing salvation and helping humans to better understand, love and serve God, but God is also helping humans to better understand the reality and nature of life, both earthly and eternal, and also to better understand their own human nature. Thus, Jesus Christ is also a role model, which is why he is often called “The New Adam,” as Jesus demonstrated how humans should behave, rather than how they do and did.

In the same way, God is the Holy Spirit and works through the Holy Spirit in order to individualize his internal dialogue with each and every person on earth (believer or not). Again, the Holy Spirit is a companion to all, no matter what their state in life, rather than, to use the example above, a mighty rock dropped in the midst that provides “answers” and demonstrates power. The Holy Spirit is the breath of God, moving like the air, or like water, among all humans all the time, working on each heart and soul in a totally individual way, one human being at a time. I’ve just posted the series of posts on the topic of the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit. Well, you can also think of the Holy Spirit as the first gift of God to humans: the gift of God himself in the perpetual presence of his inspiration among humans and indeed within each human, no matter what is their station in life.

So this should help you understand that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the constancy of God himself but comprises the way that God himself has chosen to interact with and love humans for their own ease of understanding and their own betterment.

Second, this should help you to understand that the Holy Spirit is not at all the same as “magic,” or “spirituality.” Humans cannot control the Holy Spirit or use the “power” of the Holy Spirit to perform arcane or extrasensory actions. Further, one cannot “summon” or “accumulate” the Holy Spirit, the way that the false prophets, the New Agers and the magicians, feel that they can “manipulate” natural and spiritual “forces.” How to make this even clearer to you? First of all, think of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. None of them grant power and control over either natural forces or human behavior or “spirituality.” All of the gifts of the Holy Spirit are attributes received through grace that elevate the goodness of the human who receives them and enhances their dialogue with God, not their dialogue or control of fellow human beings, or any part of God’s creation. The second way to make the difference clearer is to think of the analogy of the good boss: he transmits the role model and the inspiration through his own words and deeds, not by giving the employees a larger “tool” or tangible object. Likewise the Holy Spirit’s gifts are all about dialogue with God; they are not about nor can they be used for manipulating physical or spiritual phenomena.

You can better understand this by studying the greatest example of the Holy Spirit’s interaction with humans, which is Pentecost. Read this:


Acts 2:1-13
And when the days of Pentecost were drawing to a close, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a violent wind blowing, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues as of fire, which settled upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak.
Now there were staying at Jerusalem devout Jews from every nation under heaven. And when this sound was heard, the multitude gathered and were bewildered in mind, because each heard them speaking in his own language. But they were all amazed and marveled, saying, “Behold, are not all these that are speaking Galileans? And how have we heard each is own language in which he was born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and visitors from Rome. Jews also and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we have heard them speaking in our own languages of the wonderful works of God.”
And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others said in mockery, “They are full of new wine.”

Now, the first thing to notice is the sound coming from heaven, like a violent wind that filled the entire house. God does not need to have touches of “drama,” so why is the Holy Spirit expressed first as this great wind? This is so humans would be able to observe and understand that they are receiving a gift. God made it clear as a matter of both faith and reason that he is giving them a gift, and that their sudden abilities would not be perceived as being the result of one’s own talents, or other “explanations.” So the characteristic wind of the Holy Spirit is the knock on the door so that people can perceive they are about to receive a gift from God.

Second, the Holy Spirit appears as a flickering flame (that is what the parted tongues means, to show that the flame is alive), one flame for each of the faithful who were gathered there. Again, why is this? So that it is not misunderstood as “magic”; only each of the faithful received their own parted flame. So it is not like the room became “enchanted” or that this “power” descended upon everyone in the vicinity. If, for example, a scribe who persecuted Jesus Christ happened to be walking by that house, it’s not like he would suddenly be walloped by the Holy Spirit and “converted” or “enlightened.” Each gift of the Holy Spirit is targeted to the recipients who were waiting for what Jesus Christ had promised to send them from God. So this is to help you better understand that this was not some group “enlightenment”; it was highly targeted and individual.


Further proof that it was individual is that each person now heard the other speak “the wonderful works of God” (in other words, they spontaneously started to preach) in their native languages. Here is how to better understand what happened. Think of a big urban area such as Los Angeles, New York or London, where there are many immigrants who have many different native languages, yet they all speak English in order to get along in everyday life. These disciples were like that, born of many different places, yet understanding Aramaic and Hebrew in order to have daily converse in Jerusalem. Suddenly, instead of hearing each other speak in Aramaic or Hebrew, or even Greek, they hear each other speaking in their own native language. Each person is not speaking in his or her own language; they are hearing the other person speak to them in their own native language! They were not babbling in unknown tongues, far from it, and they did not receive “instant multi-lingual ability.” Here is what happened. Suppose you were the only Roman who was born speaking Latin in the room. You would have then heard the other disciples speak to you in your native Latin! In turn, they would have heard you speak to them in whatever was their own native language.


Many people have misunderstood this passage thinking that it means that people were either babbling in mysterious arcane language or suddenly gained ability to speak in multiple languages. It is neither and instead, a very precise visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit occurred. People listened to each other and heard the other person speak to them in their own “homeland” language.


We know that people were not actually speaking aloud with new language abilities because observers who were not disciples thought that the claims that people were hearing each other speak in their own native languages as being the result of drunkenness. If people were actually, for example, all suddenly proficient in Latin, to stick with our example, bystanders would have noticed that they were speaking in Latin. Instead, it’s like the Roman turned to an unbeliever and said, “That guy just preached to me in my home language of Latin!” and the bystander says, “I didn’t hear anything and he didn’t say anything other than his usual language; you must have imagined hearing him speak Latin to you because you are drunk.”


It is St. Peter, in his discourse, who understands what happened and explained it to those gathered. He correctly understood the language phenomenon as a SIGN of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, not an actual change in language. So like the wind and the individual flames, the one time experience of hearing each other speak in your own native tongue was a visible wrapper on the gift, so that the disciples understood that they have received an otherwise invisible gift. St. Peter (and I consider this discourse to be an example of the Pope explaining and interpreting what God has wrought) immediately cites scripture from the prophet Joel where St. Peter recognizes that as Joel explained that God will send signs of his works, now have the disciples received signs of the gift of the Holy Spirit, gifts to each one of them individually which must be unwrapped and revealed over time. You can read St. Peter’s discourse in Acts 2:14-36, and what he was quoting from Joel in Joel 2:28.

Now, read this carefully so you can now understand how the Holy Spirit is, and is not, “transmitted.” Here is what happened when those who had not believed, and had not therefore received the Holy Spirit, reacted after hearing St. Peter’s explanation.


Acts 2:37-41
Now on hearing this they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
But Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children and to all who are far off, even to all whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
And with very many other words he bore witness, and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation.”
Now they who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Be careful not to jump to the conclusion that those who converted and were baptized now received the Holy Spirit exactly as had the Apostles and disciples, for they had not. If the Holy Spirit was going to do so, the Holy Spirit would have appeared “again” to announce first with wind, and then with three thousand individual parted tongues of fire that each of the newly baptized had received the exact same gift of Holy Spirit as the Apostles and disciples (and the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was there too). But that is not what happened. You see, those who believed and were the companions of Jesus through his life, to his crucifixion and resurrection, received the Holy Spirit as it came only to them “one time only.” That can never be imitated. Why is that? The invisible gift of the Holy Spirit received by the disciples was the authority to give birth to the Church. Now their period of waiting was over, and they had received the authority, those who were the companions of Jesus, who were in the room waiting for the consoler that Jesus had promised. The gift of the Holy Spirit was authority, each Apostle and disciple expressing it as he or she undertook their individual vocation and calling.

This, then, demonstrates to you that the first act of authority was undertaken first by St. Peter, who interpreted what this sign from God meant, and second to baptize “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” This is the moment that St. Peter was able to promise and assure that baptism is now a sacrament that is invoked in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. The Holy Spirit gave the Apostles and disciples not a bunch of new languages and miracle working ability but authority.

Acts 2:42-3
And they continued steadfastly in the teaching of the apostles and in the communion of the breaking of the bread and in the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; many wonders also and signs were done by means of the apostles in Jerusalem, and great fear came upon them all.

The Apostles now, through the virtue of the Holy Spirit, invest authority in that which they were already doing, which is baptism, the breaking of the bread (the Eucharist) and development of a liturgy (in the prayers, certain prayers said in common). Notice the emphasis on the great fear that came upon the soul; this is the first gift of the Holy Spirit, “Fear of the Lord.” It is one thing to see Jesus transfigured, or the Holy Spirit descend upon him when he was baptized by John the Baptist, or even to see with one’s own eyes Jesus ascend into heaven, because that’s all happening to Jesus, in whom you believe. It is quite another thing when one receives a direct infusion of the Holy Spirit as happened to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost. Now that the received authority and the Holy Spirit directly, they suddenly felt the real Fear of the Lord, as the reality of his greatness and presence is felt by one’s self, not just by observing it in the Lord Jesus Christ. So far from ego gratifying magic or “increased spirituality,” the first and only infusion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost brought great authority, and with it, understanding and great Fear of God. It was signs of their authority, particularly St. Peter and later St. Paul, who received the Holy Spirit directly from the resurrected Christ, that they could work wonders and signs (miracles) and also reward for their humble acceptance of Fear of the Lord.

So when the Holy Spirit is transmitted by means such as baptism, or the laying on of hands in the sacraments of Confirmation, or for the priesthood in Holy Orders, the Holy Spirit is transmitted in different ways appropriate to what dialogue is taking place with God at that time. This is demonstrated as I pointed out, the first three thousand who were baptized received the gift of the Holy Spirit, but not in the exact form that the one and only time that the Apostles and disciples received it. Thus the “authority” form of the gift of the Holy Spirit is transmitted according to the calling of the person receiving.

Acts 3:1-11
Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer. And a certain man who had been lame from his mother’s womb, was being carried by, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple called the Beautiful, that he might ask alms of those going into the temple. And he, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked for an alms.

But Peter, gazing upon him with John, said, “Look at us.” And he looked at them earnestly, hoping to receive something from them. But Peter said, “Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, that I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk.”
And taking him by the right hand, he raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles became strong. And leaping up, he stood and began to walk, and went with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God. And they recognized him as the man who used to sit for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.
Now as he clung to Peter and John, all the people ran to them in the portico called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.

Study and understand, therefore, how the gift of the Holy Spirit manifested in St. Peter. Peter and the other Apostles were able to perform miracles, such as cast out demons, when Jesus was alive, using his authority, even if Jesus was not right there next to them. In fact, you can read how chagrined they are when one of their attempts to expel a demon failed. But now Jesus was not there with them, having resurrected and ascended into heaven. With Pentecost the Apostles, especially St. Peter, received authority to perform mighty miracles, using the name of Jesus Christ. You can now understand and distinguish between how St. Peter, for example, in turn gives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and how he does not. St. Peter transmits authority, to perform baptism for the remission of sins, to conduct a liturgy that includes the Holy Eucharist and the authority of a call to the priesthood… but St. Peter cannot transmit the miracle performing gift of the Holy Spirit. St. Peter performs miracles through the authority given to him and the others who were there at Pentecost, but the gifts of the Holy Spirit are authority and fear, not arcane knowledge or “power” that can be taught or “passed on.”

Acts 4:5-14
Now it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers and elders and Scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem with Annas, the high priest, and Caiphas and John and Alexander and as many as belonged to the high-priestly family. And setting them in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what authority or in what name have you done this?”

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are on trial today about a good work done to a cripple, as to how this man has been cured, be it known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God has raised from the dead, even in this name does he stand here before you, sound.

This is the authority by which Catholic doctrine states that Catholic priests represent the actual presence of Jesus Christ in the fullness of his authority. St. Peter states that Jesus, who was crucified by the very people in the room, does “stand here before you, sound.” St. Peter, speaking in his full authority, is stating to them that when they speak to him, they are speaking to Jesus Christ’s authority, for St. Peter only acts on the behest of the living and present Jesus Christ. This is the Biblical justification of the Catholic doctrine I cited in the previous post, sections 1548 and 1549. I repeat here 1548.


1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis.

Back to the cited scripture:


This is “The stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the corner stone. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we may be saved.”
Now seeing the boldness of Peter and John, and finding that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they began to marvel, and to recognize them as having been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been cured standing with them, they could say nothing in reply.

Many people think that the signs of the Holy Spirit are the gift of the Holy Spirit, and that is wrong. Signs are not the gifts; they are the “attention getters” to bolster faith. Speaking in tongues is not the gift of the Holy Spirit; it is a sign. The gift of the Holy Spirit at its most fundamental root and core is authority. Only the Apostles and disciples, and the Blessed Virgin Mary received the new authority by which to invoke the name of Jesus Christ and to transmit authority in turn. Remember, while the Apostles and disciples performed miracles in the name of Jesus when Jesus was still with them, they waited in the room for the authority before commencing this new stage, the birth of the Church. It is only after receiving the authority of the Holy Spirit that they stopped their period of waiting, of dormancy, and obtained the authority to stand in front of the questioners and state that Jesus Christ is there, sound, with them. And with the authority that they, particularly St. Peter and later St. Paul, received from the Holy Spirit, what was their first gift of the Holy Spirit? They received Fear of the Lord.
And of course, what was the first thing that the questioners had asked? Not “How did you do that miracle cure?” but “By whose authority?”


Everyone can call upon the name of Jesus Christ, but not everyone is given the authority of his name to work signs and miracles. That is what must be very plainly and humbly understood. No one can be “just like the Apostles.” Only the Apostles, the disciples and the Blessed Virgin Mary received the first, the initial conferring of the authority of the Holy Spirit. What St. Peter initiated, by this authority and by the direct words of Jesus when he was with him, was the means by which the sacramental gifts of the Holy Spirit are conferred, not the original authority itself by which he and his companions planted the Church.

The Holy Spirit-God’s gift
733 “God is Love” and love is his first gift, containing all others. “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”
734 Because we are dead or at least wounded through sin, the first effect of the gift of love is the forgiveness of our sins. The communion of the Holy Spirit in the Church restores to the baptized the divine likeness lost through sin.
735 He, then, gives us the “pledge” or “first fruits” of our inheritance: the very life of the Holy Trinity, which is to love as “God [has] loved us.” This love (the “charity” of 1 Cor 13) is the source of the new life in Christ, made possible because we have received “power” from the Holy Spirit.
736 By this power of the Spirit, God’s children can bear much fruit. He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear “the fruit of the Spirit:…love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” “We live by the Spirit”; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we “walk by the Spirit.”
Through the Holy Spirit we are restored to paradise, led back to the Kingdom of heaven, and adopted as children, given confidence to call God “Father” and to share in Christ’s grace, called children of light and given a share in eternal glory.

So you see that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit as giving “power,” putting that word in quotations to indicate that there is no better word to provide, but that power is a word that connotes to humans a force that is different than the actual power of the Holy Spirit, which is love and the ability to bind humans closer to God in affection and understanding. So just to make sure that you know the difference, let’s look at some specific examples of transmitting the Holy Spirit.


Priests transmit and confer the Holy Spirit when they perform a blessing. Let’s look at this example because it is an area that is rife with misunderstanding. Let us say that someone purchases a rosary and asks the priest to bless it. What is happening? First of all, it is not “magic” making the inanimate object of the rosary an idol or having numinous power within it. A blessing is an opportunity to enhance one’s receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit of Piety. It is because you believe that you request the priest to bless. When the priest blesses your rosary you both receive infusion of the gift of Piety. Now, if it was “magic” you would think that having a hundred rosaries blessed, or a thousand, gives you a hundred or one thousand “doses” of “Holy Spirit.” That is not the case, obviously. That is because the gift of the Holy Spirit resides in your heart and soul, and not in the rosary object. A person who gets one rosary blessed and uses it through their whole life has the same “amount” of Piety as someone who gets ten rosaries and has each of them blessed, because it is the opening of your heart to God in Piety that is the gift and yields fruit (the fruits of the Holy Spirit are listed above in 736).

Notice that I mention that the priest also receives gift of the Holy Spirit when he blesses the rosary for you. This is because with every action that he takes in ministering to the flock, the Holy Spirit rewards him too with the gift of Piety. Now, how can you “cultivate” “more” “gifting from the Holy Spirit” if you so desired it? An example would be to purchase or create quantities of rosaries, take them to be blessed, and then distribute them to people in need of them. You are given the gift of Piety when you profess your belief in God by, for example, having a rosary blessed for yourself. You are cultivating the gift of Knowledge when you exercise charity, such as going out of your way at your own time and expense to provide blessed rosaries to others, because you are serving God. Remember that the gift of Knowledge from the Holy Spirit is to both worship and serve God. The fruits of, for example, this providing of blessed rosaries for the needy, or for those in the armed services, would be peace, kindness and goodness (and patience!) You are being charitable and assisting those in need in their faith, and those are considerable gifts from the Holy Spirit.

We often see priests, deacons, bishops, cardinals and the Pope blessing babies. Watch the next time that the Pope blesses a baby in the crowd. Yes, he is both transmitting the Holy Spirit and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit himself. A baby being blessed is not a magic charm of sorts to guarantee some sort of fortunate life, but it is something better, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. When the Pope blesses a baby, for example, he is bolstering the faith of that baby, even though the baby of course is not yet aware of anything beyond the concerns of a baby. The Pope when he blesses is invoking from the Holy Spirit a gift of Piety to those around the baby, those who brought the baby to him. It is because they believe that they bring the baby to him, hope for a blessing and have great joy when they receive one. Likewise, the soul of the baby, no matter how young, feels the touch of the love of God when the baby receives a blessing from a servant of God. That touch can be receptive to greater faith and love as the baby grows. This is how the Holy Spirit is transmitted.

Then there is the means that we started out with discussing, which is the laying on of hands in the apostolic succession. Again, it is not magic that is transmitted, but the authority of God through Jesus Christ. When one is baptized the Holy Spirit is invoked and the gift is conferred that one has access to the forgiveness of sins and also one becomes part of the common priesthood, the baptismal priesthood. One receives the authority, through apostolic succession, to be of the common priesthood of God. When one receives Holy Orders one receives the authority, through apostolic succession, to be part of the ministerial priesthood. If one wants to really somewhat analyze the gifts of the Holy Spirit that is received at Holy Orders, they are Fear of the Lord, Piety and Knowledge, often with remarkable early infusions of Fortitude and Counsel. It is not “magic” but rather the power and authority by which St. Peter, standing in front of the very people who crucified Jesus, says to them, “in this name does he stand here before you, sound.”

When Holy Orders are conferred, through the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the deacon, priest or bishop is indeed following in the footsteps of St. Peter, able to state that Jesus Christ, too, stands there, sound. This does not mean that the priest, for example, has powers of miracles, or is even necessarily of even part of the purity and virtue of Jesus Christ. As we have seen in the horrible and sad scandals, very flawed and even criminal people have received Holy Orders. You must remember, though, that while human beings fail, the Holy Spirit never fails, and while human beings may be dirtied by sin or disgrace, this does not change one iota of the truth of God, or the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister’s sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always sign of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.


1551 This priesthood is ministerial. “That office…, which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.” It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and servant of all. “The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him.”

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church is stating is that the “sacred power” of the priest does not come from the priest, who is by definition a flawed vessel, but directly from Christ. Thus a priest who falls into dire sin, as we have seen in the sex abuse tragedy, harms the “apostolic fruitfulness of the Church,” in that they harm and wound the innocent and their faith, but his sinfulness does not mean that Christ was not present in the fullness of the sacramental responsibilities of the priest. “The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way” means that the Holy Spirit only guarantees the real presence of Christ in the sacraments as administered by even a sinful priest, but the Holy Spirit cannot be understood as being some sort of guarantor of human, even priestly, behavior. If that were true, then all of human history would be different, because God would have then decided to force good behavior on all humans, and then they would be no longer his children, or even humans, but slaves, and God just is not like that.

So the transmission and invoking of the Holy Spirit is never stained and is never anything but the pure infusion of grace from God. After all, remember that the Holy Spirit moves constantly working among all humans, believers or not, good or evil, rich or poor, consecrated or laity. St. Peter denied Jesus Christ three times yet two months later he was standing in front of those who had crucified Jesus, speaking with the fullness of the authority of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ himself. Humans fail but the Holy Spirit never fails. It is a lot to think about, isn’t it?

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics (3)

In the previous post I explained Catholic doctrine that all of the faithful comprise the “baptismal” or “common priesthood.” Now I will start to explain the “ministerial priesthood” of the Catholic Church.

The first thing that one must understand is that “priest” is not a fancy or exclusive word for “preacher.” When someone outside of the Catholic Church (or churches that retain the shared understanding of the priesthood) is conducting a praise and worship service, they are not “priests” by a different name. A priest is a person who is consecrated to God and who conducts sacrifice to God. Thus the second thing that you must understand is that the Catholic priests is a result of the merged faith understanding of that function from first of all the ancient priests of Israel and second the initiation of the Christian priesthood by Jesus Christ himself, first priest. Rather than explain this more, I will use the rest of this post to just cite explanatory passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The priesthood of the Old Covenant

1539 The chosen people was constituted by God as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” But within the people of Israel, God chose one of the twelve tribes, that of Levi, and set it apart for liturgical service; God himself is its inheritance. A special rite consecrated the beginnings of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. The priests are “appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”

1540 Instituted to proclaim the Word of God and to restore communion with God by sacrifices and prayer, this priesthood nevertheless remains powerless to bring about salvation, needing to repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly and being unable to achieve a definitive sanctification, which only the sacrifice of Christ would accomplish.

1541 The liturgy of the Church, however, sees in the priesthood of Aaron and the service of the Levites, as in the institution of the seventy elders, a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant…

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men.” The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, “priest of God Most High,” as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique “high priest after the order of Melchizedek”; “holy, blameless, unstained,” “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

[If you want to find the Biblical reference of Melchizedek read Genesis 14:18-20. Melchizedek was “the priest of the Most High God” who blessed Abraham, when he was still named Abram. After that blessing it is then that God appears to Abram to encourage and direct him, and to promise him the multiplying of his seed like stars (fathering the divine faiths). Further, in Psalm 110:4 King David recalls Melchizedek by name as the role model of all priests. Thus, St. Paul in his Letter to the Hebrews 7:1-13 like King David cites Melchizedek as the role model of the office of the priesthood and links Jesus Christ as priest to Melchizedek Hebrews 7:14-28 and also in Hebrews 5:1-10.]

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: “Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.”

[The Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist is, as I’ve explained in the first post in this series, the invitation to be at the table of Jesus Christ as in the Last Supper in his physical presence. It is not, as some extremists falsely accuse, denying that Jesus Christ is the only priest and further that he was sacrificed once for all. Catholics are not “redoing” Christ’s sacrifice over and over; Catholics offer the daily ability to attend the first, only and for all sacrifice in the form of attending Jesus Christ at his table.]

1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis…

1551 This priesthood is ministerial. “That office … which the Lord committed to the pastors of his people, is in the strict sense of the term a service.” It is entirely related to Christ and to men. It depends entirely on Christ and on his unique priesthood; it has been instituted for the good of men and the communion of the Church. The sacrament of Holy Orders communicates a “sacred power” which is none other than that of Christ. The exercise of this authority must therefore be measured against the model of Christ, who by love made himself the least and the servant of all. “The Lord said clearly that concern for his flock was proof of love for him.”

1552 The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ-Head of the Church-before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.”

1555 “Among those various offices which have been exercised in the Church from the earliest times the chief place, according to the witness of tradition, is held by the function of those who, through their appointment to the dignity and responsibility of bishop, and in virtue consequently of the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line.”

1556 To fulfill their exalted mission, “the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.”

[To explain the latter quite simply: All bishops can trace their consecration, the “laying on of the hands” both symbolically and literally to the Apostles of Jesus Christ. Yes, you read correctly. There has been an unbroken chain of the “laying on of hands” from the Apostles to today’s bishops. You can view that with names provided to as early as can be documented (names exist back to the one Cardinal, Scipione Cardinal Rebiba (1541-1577), written records before that were not kept) on the web site of the Catholic hierarchy. Here are links for several bishops, cardinals and Popes and if you look at the left hand column, you see that “laying on of hands” Apostolic lineage. For example, in the apostolic lineage of Pope John Paul II, you can count twenty one “laying of hands consecrations” in his lineage back to Cardinal Rebiba.

The Apostolic lineage of Pope Benedict XVI:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bratz.html
The Apostolic lineage of Pope John Paul II:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bwojtyla.html
The Apostolic lineage of Cardinal Egan (New York):
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/began.html
The Apostolic lineage of Bishop Besungu (Congo):
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbesu.html

So this is what you need to understand. When the average ordinary Catholic receives the sacrament of Confirmation, which is the laying on of hands by the Bishop, he or she is receiving the sanctifying laying on of hands that has been passed on in unbroken succession from the laying on of hands of the Apostles themselves. So when I as a thirteen year old received the sacrament of Confirmation, which I've written about before on this blog, my local Bishop in the laying of hands with consecrated oil is allowing the participation of the confirmed in the unbroken Apostolic succession of the laying on of hands.

Holy Orders-the priesthood-is the receiving of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that was given to the Apostles at Pentecost, and has been in unbroken chain passed down for nearly two thousand years to the present time through spiritual gift transmitted by the laying on of hands by the bishops to ordain bishops, priests and deacons.]

1594 The bishop receives the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders, which integrates him into the episcopal college and makes him the visible head of the particular Church entrusted to him. As successors of the apostles and members of the college, the bishops share in the apostolic responsibility and mission of the whole Church, under the authority of the Pope, successor of St. Peter.

1597 The sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by the laying on of hands followed by a solemn prayer of consecration asking God to grant the ordinand the graces of the Holy Spirit required for his ministry. Ordination imprints an indelible sacramental character.

1600 It is bishops who confer the sacrament of Holy Orders in the three degrees.

[The three degrees are bishops, priests and deacons.]
I hope that you have found this helpful and interesting!