I started out planning to blog about something else (which I will), but I came across this historical information that will help you in your faith & reasoning development. In the past few postings I've mentioned how the Bible states that even foolish thoughts, and then of course obviously mean and unrighteous thoughts, are sins, even if no one takes action on them. I explained that and gave the scripture references in previous posts some time ago.
Well, I know that one of the things you need to think about is: how has accurate and complete understanding of the Bible diminished so much over the two thousand years of Christianity that my explaining the Bible has this information has become a news flash? Something that very, very, VERY few pastors and other moral leaders know about or if they do, even mention? Why does no one warn their flock that even foolish thoughts are considered by God to be sins?
Before you, or anyone, can answer that question, you need to "fact find." Young people (yes, hi there, I think of you fondly as always), the scientific method and the use of problem solving logic means that like a detective, you trace how far in history from the time of the Bible writings to the present that awareness of this particular admonishment in the Bible exists in both the religious and secular consciousness.
Thus I want to give you an example of how, while leafing through my prayerbook, I came across written evidence that just over three hundred years after Jesus Christ lived that people still knew full well and embraced the Bible teaching that foolish and sinful thoughts are actual sins. So while I'm not planning to spend time studying this for you, I thought, hey! What a perfect example to show you how to reconstruct how modern thought has gone so wrong. So the first step is to trace since the time of Jesus, using impeccable written factual sources (not imaginings of false prophets and 'psychics') what people actually thought and did regarding the topic that you are studying, in this case how the Bible states that foolish and sinful thoughts are sins, even if no actions follow.
Here is some background of the person I am going to quote. Ambrose was born around the year 320 AD (and thus was born nearly three hundred years after Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected) into a upper class family in the Roman Empire. Ambrose's family had been Christian for several generations. Ambrose had in his family tree, in fact, a Christian martyr, St. Soteris. Ambrose and his family received classic legal education, so they were well educated and prepared for high civil office, so Ambrose became a lawyer and a governor. When a local bishop died, Ambrose was sent to help sort out arguments among the people about who should be appointed bishop in the place of the deceased. As he addressed the crowd on this subject a child in the crowd called out that Ambrose himself should become bishop! The crowd agreed and the two arguing sides with their respective candidates fell into agreement about Ambrose (who was shocked and did not want to be the bishop). He was well on his way up the lawyer and government "career ladder," and was still studying and deepening his own individual faith. But because the people wanted him so badly and basically drafted him, he was baptized, received the holy orders of priesthood, and was consecrated Bishop of Milan (Italy) all within a month of time! He was very obviously a pious and sanctifying man from the start (the people's instinct was correct!) He gave to the Church and the poor his considerable personal wealth, he sorted through the problem of the genuinely poor from those who were shams, he studied scripture and doctrine for twenty three years, was a prolific author and being a priest, as all bishops are, Ambrose celebrated Mass (the Holy Eucharist) every day. He even raised the three grandchildren of a friend.
With that as background, seeing this was a holy man who didn't even in fact seek out fame or a livelihood due to his sanctity, here is what he wrote, with his opinion of his own sinfulness! This is a long prayer he wrote that he recited before celebrating the Holy Eucharist (the "Lord's Supper") in daily Mass and I include here the opening of the prayer and the places where you see evidence of the realization of those times that all people are considered prone to sin, including of mere thoughts that are foolish or unworthy:
O Gracious Lord Jesus Christ, I, a sinner, presuming not on my own merits, but trusting to Thy mercy and goodness, fear and tremble in drawing near to the Table on which is spread Thy Banquet of all delights. For I have defiled both my heart and body with many sins, and have not kept a strict guard over my mind and my tongue....
...To Thee, O Lord, I show my wounds, to Thee I lay bare my shame. I know that my sins are many and great, on account of which I am filled with fear. But I trust in Thy mercy, for it is unbounded...
...Hearken unto me, for my hope is in Thee; have mercy on me, who am full of misery and sin, Thou who wilt never cease to let flow the fountain of mercy. Hail, Thou saving Victim, offered for me and for all mankind on the tree of the cross...
Remember, O Lord, Thy creature, whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Blood. I am grieved because I have sinned, I desire to make amends for what I have done. Take away from me therefore, O most merciful Father, all my iniquities and offences, that, being purified both in soul and body, I may worthily partake in the Holy of Holies...
...I purpose to partake, may be to me the full remission of my sins, the perfect cleansing of my offences, the means of driving away all evil thoughts and of renewing all holy desires, and the advancement of works pleasing to Thee...
Do you see how often this obviously holy man (remember, the crowd proclaimed him when he had no clue of wanting to leave a high career for the sanctified priesthood) emphasizes and repeatedly confesses and asks for help for his sins of thoughts????
If you ever wonder what holy people confess to God, that is what it is. Truly holy and sanctified people continue to "renew all holy desires" by acknowledging that all humans have foolish, evil and sinful thoughts. This is the genuine humility before God that ALL believers should have, which is the acknowledgment that even the holiest of people have, due to being broken vessel human beings, regardless of their level of faith, have to mindfully struggle against having even silly and mean or vain thoughts, say nothing of how profound a sin that thinking, even idly and fleetingly, thoughts about sinful matters are.
So, young people, and others, this is how you can see that no, we don't "lack evidence" of "what the church was like" and "what people believed" "back then" in "Biblical times." This lawyer/governor who became priest/bishop only a few hundred years after Christ left plenty of written evidence of his thoughts and what the people believed, and what they retained of their understanding of the Bible, both Old and New Testament. The notion that even idle, foolish and sinful thoughts are actual sins (as the Bible states) was a hot forefront belief several hundred years after Christ.
Thus, young people, and others, you now have a piece of your investigation, if you were doing so, that for certain in the four century that the knowledge that bad and foolish thoughts are sin was well known and frequently meditated about and prayed regarding, including DAILY by this Bishop of Milan, Ambrose.
Those of you new to studying the saints, let me explain that they were not tucked away in a corner. Ambrose, while he was living, was studied by many who would become great saints themselves. Further, while there was no email, ha, or post office, there was indeed snail mail and these people were all in correspondence. So if you continue your investigations you will see that a writing by a priest or bishop was never a "personal" so called "interpretation of scripture." This was the prevailing belief, kept intact from Old Testament times and the times of Jesus, that foolish and bad thoughts are indeed sins.
I hope that you have found this helpful both in further understanding what I have been reminding people about what the scriptures actually say, but also as you can see that you don't have to imagine and make stuff up, but you can look at written agenda-free evidence to deduce what people knew and believed, and how the word of God is preserved, and when parts of it started to fall out of public consciousness. Here we have filled in the blanks of several hundred years, knowing that the early Christians were keenly aware of what the Israelites knew and what those who followed Jesus knew, which is that God states that foolish, bad, mean and/or sinful thoughts are indeed actual sins, whether actual action follows or not.
Showing posts with label Saints. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saints. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Understanding prayer to the saints/miracles
Here is a quick explanation of how to understand the reality of deceased Christian saints and their role in the occurrence of miracles in present times. Now, when I say saints, I do not mean the individuals who form the body of the faithful even though Christians have great comfort and assurance that those true to the faith are “all saints,” just as they belong to the commonality of priesthood. In this particular blog posting I am referring to those individuals who are declared saints because of their extraordinary sanctity (remember, this being living life in service to God and keeping one’s purpose holy as best as possible, whether of the laity or ministry) and who have demonstrated extraordinary gifts from God through grace, such as martyrdom or the performing of miracles when they were alive. For example one of the disciples of Jesus, Stephen, became the first martyr after Christ’s death and resurrection, as detailed in the Book of Acts, thus he is in the rolls, “canonized,” St. Stephen. In modern times, however, there has grown increased confusion among many (mostly due to poor faith formation and inter-denominational resentment and misunderstanding) about 1) why do “Catholics pray ‘to’ saints when one should only pray to God and 2) how can dead saints perform miracles. I will clear this up for you here.
First of all, all Christians who study the scripture recognize that only God performs miracles. God has freely, as is His right, chosen human instruments to perform miracles. It is the human hands and the human faith that put the miracle in motion, but God is the cause, the source and the fuel of the miracle. This was true when Moses performed miracles (and you can read in the scriptures how God gives Moses precise instructions what to do), when the prophets performed miracles and in its culmination, when the Son of God, Jesus Christ, performed miracles. By the way this is one of my reflective types of blogs where I’m not going to leaf through the Bible for references, since I know that you can find them yourself J
We know that Jesus Christ performed miracles at God’s behest because there is extensive dialogue where the preparation that Jesus made (such as praying and fasting) is documented in the Gospel and, further, how Jesus coaches the Apostles and the disciples when they are also called upon to perform miracles, such as the casting out of demons. So you can read those parts of the Gospel and recognize that Jesus was given fullness of miracle fulfillment by God, from God alone, so that Jesus’ authority was unquestionable. Jesus would, for example, move into a village or region and cure all of the sick who were brought to him. Yet you can read that there are times Jesus both cannot and will not perform miracles because there was so little faith by the people.
This does not mean that Jesus’ “magic” or “tricks” were not working, or that his ability to perform miracles was less than perfect. This means quite obviously that God would not reward those of no or little faith with the incredible gift of a miracle. Why in the world would God, through Jesus, perform miracles where people were openly of no or little faith. Ironically, as you recall from the scriptures, it was in Jesus’ own hometown where he could do the least in miracles because of their low faith and open disbelief. This is, by the way, as an aside, instructive for you to understand another example of how the Bible teaches what really happened even when it doesn’t detail specifics. What I mean is that by using faith and reasoning you can better understand the “mystery” of “how Jesus spent the first thirty years of his life.” Well, duh, obviously he was not performing miracles, or the belief of his hometown would be higher than elsewhere, rather than lower. So when the scriptures report that Jesus followed in his earthly father Joseph’s footsteps and was a carpenter, well that is what he was doing. The Bible does not need to say “Jesus was a carpenter and because it was not yet time for his public ministry he did not perform any miracles.” I mean, a little common sense, please!
Jesus started performing miracles during his public ministry because that is when God gave him the authority to speak and preach for Him and also to demonstrate as a gesture of faith that he is indeed who he claimed to be, and this was through miracles. Jesus explains that himself, praising those who believe after seeing a miracle, but praising even more those who believe without seeing a miracle.
Therefore Jesus accordingly was empowered by God to allow certain Apostles and disciples the ability to perform miracles. This was greatly increased after Jesus died and resurrected, just as he said would happen, because he sent from God the Holy Spirit to aid them at Pentecost. This is another way for you to see what the Bible does not have to explicitly detail for you that the ability to perform miracles comes from God through the Holy Spirit. Neither St. Peter nor St. Paul’s miracles were of their own doing, of course, but they “worked” because of their faith, their understanding of what to do as Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit have taught them, and also using the power of God through the Holy Spirit. Performing miracles is neither in the “DNA” nor is it “talent.” The reverential authors of each book or epistle in the Bible frequently acknowledge and glorify that what they do is through the Holy Spirit from God, not their own ability.
So you can read in both the Old Testament and the New Testament many examples of God giving the instructions and the authority and the grace to the prophets and the early Christians to perform miracles where it is necessary to be done in order to increase faith and win souls. God does not confer miracles as shortcuts through the difficult realities of life. How do we know that? We know that Jesus cured many who were crippled and lame. If God intended this to be a “shortcut” through a difficulty of life, God would simply have allowed Jesus to miraculously forbid all human bodies to ever have broken or twisted limbs again. If miracles were for anything other than increasing the people’s faith, when Jesus cured the woman of the hemorrhage he could have simply miraculously changed the chemistry and biology of how blood clots or does not for everyone all at once. It is abundantly clear throughout the Bible and most particularly through the many words and deeds, with explanations, of Jesus that the performing of miracles exists at all in order to periodically reinforce faith.
This is because human beings are such limited broken vessels that God, of course, knows that they need visible signs through the ages. Even the Apostles, who had every reason to have ironclad faith since they saw the progression of the thousands of miracles that Jesus performed, would be “wowed” by a particular one and have a further strengthening of faith. I am thinking of how awed they were when Jesus calmed the stormy seas, and walked on the water, even though they had already seen much of the power of God that he exhibited beforehand. No, God most certainly does not allow miracles just for some few, or the many, to have shortcuts through normal difficulties of life, such as illness. God uses miracles as the instrument of faith that he knows human beings always crave and always must have on a periodic basis in order to believe what they cannot see, which is God and His heavenly Kingdom at work.
Now that you understand more clearly how to interpret the very real miracles that are documented in the scriptures by Jesus, the prophets and the saints while they lived, now you can better understand how God allows participation by deceased saints in miracles to strengthen faith.
Again, one must use all: scripture, faith and reasoning in order to understand, as much as possible, God’s ways and his will in these matters. Examine the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse. God “delegates,” to use a modern term, roles to individual angels. Why is that? I mean, if God is all powerful, which does God have angels perform certain tasks for him? Why doesn’t God just chastise using his own hands the disbelievers on earth during the final days? No one can really say why God does what he does and that is not the point. One is supposed to, like good and observant children, observe what God does and says and learn more about him accordingly. We learn from the Book of Revelation that even in heaven God assigns tasks, for whatever reasons he has, to individual angels! All of the power and the determination of what is to be done is entirely God’s; the miracles and the chastisements are all God’s will, all God’s power, and all God’s implementation. For whatever reasons God has, however, even in heaven God uses individual angels to accomplish his will.
That is an important fact of knowledge one must glean from the scriptures. We can all understand why God sends angels in those extraordinary times that form the scriptures of our faith history to speak to humans directly, as when Gabriel came to speak to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why, though, would God in heaven delegate activity to angels in heaven? Because that is how it is in heaven. God’s will animates and keeps alive all the eternal spirits who live in heaven, both angels and humans who achieve salvation in paradise. We all know that God created humans in the first place to know him, to love him and to serve him. Does this service stop in heaven, when those blessed by being in heaven are closer to him than ever? Of course not, since that does not even make sense, to think that when alive humans know, love and serve God but when in heaven they know and love him but no longer serve him! Because it is not necessary for faith to know the details of how and why, God does not include the details in the scripture. But we do observe in the Book of Revelation that 1) angels perform tasks for God in heaven and 2) St. John is able to see some humans in heaven, specifically the elders before the throne who cast their crowns down in front of God and worship him.
Having a crown means a person is kingly and glorified. To take one’s crown off and cast it at the feet of another means that one is in total service to the other. That is the message of why St. John was permitted to see that activity in front of the throne, so that he can transmit through what he saw increased faith that 1) humans are indeed in heaven and 2) they continue to serve God.
So, no, it is “not in the scripture” that “dead saints can perform miracles.” But what is in the scripture is that 1) living saints performed miracles at God’s authority and instruction, 2) angels serve God in heaven in heavenly and earthly tasks and 3) blessed human elders in heaven are observed casting their crowns in service in front of the throne of God. There is far more reason to believe that God permits the participation of saints in heaven in God’s tasks, including when he determines a miracle is appropriate on earth, than there is evidence to the contrary.
This is why through the centuries the Church believes the testimony, after great discernment regarding its reliability, of those who have received a great blessing such as a miraculous cure after prayer directed to a saint. The saint is not being worshipped. Prayer is a petition to ask for favor and proper prayer to a saint, such as St. Peter or St. Paul, centers upon asking for their strength of example in earthly matters and their loving intercession with God in heaven. One does not worship St. Peter or St. Paul; one asks St. Peter to be a role model, for example, or for St. Paul to intercede on one’s behalf with God. So let me repeatedly clear up that misunderstanding that praying to a saint is worshipping them.
In fact, people “prayed” to each other all the time in old English. “Do, pray tell,” would be an expression one person would say to another when what that person was doing was earnestly requesting someone to disclose something. “Pray” would mean, “Pretty please, I really want you to” do something. Pray thus became a synonym for asking God for something, even if it is just his attention as one prays to him.
Why, then, have centuries of people reliably testified that prayers to, very frequently, St. Joseph, St. Mary (the Blessed Virgin Mary) and St. Jude, one of the Apostles, delivered often miraculous “results?” God is obviously in control and is the one who hears and answers the prayerful petition. Obviously that even if one prayed to St. Joseph, our Lord’s earthly father, for example, God is the one who hears and grants or does not grant the prayer. If it displeased God that the saints be approached for their intercession, then believe you me many of your ancestors would not be around! God has a way of letting people know through the generations what displeases him. Instead we have a solid, documented two thousand year history of average people praying to individual saints and some, at times even many, of them have had their prayers answered by God. Obviously it was the “wrong” thing to do, God would not grant their prayers. The angels repeatedly tell humans in the scriptures not to worship them when they appear, but to worship only God. People who pray to the saints and ask for their help are not worshipping them: they are asking for their intercession with God. Again, you can never go wrong by following the example shown in the scripture. Do not worship anyone but God, but you can and should petition anyone holy to intercede with God, especially if you know that person is in eternal service to God.
Does anyone here reading this blog think that St. Paul, for example, is not in heaven? OK, that’s good. Now, if you were traveling with St. Paul when he was alive, would you have a problem if he were the one to pray to God on behalf of all of the travelers? For example, can you imagine being with St. Paul as he preached to the Gentiles, risking his life and the lives of those (like you) who travel with him, and everyone feels really good that St. Paul is the one praying to God on behalf of everyone present? Is that not, in fact, what happens when a pastor leads a congregation in prayer? Do you jump up and say, “No, I’ve got to pray to God directly myself all the time; you cannot be my ‘go between?’” Of course you would not think like that. Likewise, I invite you to imagine being one of the many thousands of Christians who personally accompanied men and women who would become saints when they were alive. How many of you do not think that everyone with them felt really good when they were the prayer intercessor to God on behalf of the group? I mean, duh.
So now St. Paul is dead these past several thousand years and most certainly in heaven. If he would, and did, gladly pray intercession for those of the faithful who traveled with him on earth, why do you think that he would stop doing so in heaven? Would he mind? Would God mind? This is the beautiful and glorious intersection of faith and logical reasoning capabilities.
Two human expressions come to mind: “No one is ever insulted by a good tip” and “Put in a good word with the boss for me.” If a saintly and holy person while alive would lead a group in prayer, using their service and obedience to God as a way to “put in a good word with the boss” on behalf of all together, why in the world would anyone think that they would be even more stingy, rather than more generous, in that in heaven than on earth? Who when evangelizing or doing missionary work in dangerous areas would be insulting God or St. Paul if they prayed to St. Paul for strength, guidance and intercession with God, he, Paul, who had set the example to be followed in his tireless and painful evangelizing? To not pray to St. Paul for help seems to me like refusing to use the person who “wrote the book,” so to speak, on what you are trying to do! You are not worshipping St. Paul nor bypassing God when you pray for his intercession, any more than you would be worshipping St. Paul or bypassing God if when a living companion of Paul’s in their travels sat nearby as Paul prayed to God and interceded on everyone present’s behalf! How much more so is St. Paul’s ongoing service to God in the strengthening of faith when St. Paul is for all eternity in God’s presence, perhaps casting his crown at His feet!
This is why generations of Christians, and remember, Protestant or not, we were “all Christians together” for one thousand five hundred years, prayed to St. Joseph for intercession in fatherly matters, to St. Mary (the Blessed Virgin Mary) in motherly matters, to various saints for help in health, in matters of virtue, in time of war and grave peril, and to help them in their faith and their carrying the Gospel into dangerous lands and times. Many generations of Christians who could not read or write and who lived primitive lives had a better understanding that they were 1) not worshipping saints and 2) were tapping into the good will of the intercession of the sanctified with God and not bypassing God than modern people seem to be today. Rather in glorifying in the richness of the sanctified who care only about serving God and increasing the faith among those alive, too many have a distrust and a total misunderstanding of their own faith forefathers!
So, then, what can we logically reason, based on our faith, is the reason that God does answer prayers that have been directed to his saints who are in heaven with him? First of all, if you truly are as strong in your faith as you say that you are, you totally understand that God never does anything mean or evil; God is goodness and all goodness comes from God. What kind of God would not answer a request that he is inclined to grant just because it “arrived through a saint.” I mean, what? One must examine one’s own lack of faith in God’s goodness if you feel that a specific same request he would grant if the person prayed “to God alone,” but would “turn down” “because it came through a saint!” Christians need to do much better at witnessing to the all mercifulness and goodness of God. God is not churlish nor is he a jealous bureaucrat. Rather, as Jesus taught, God loves and considers family those who hear him and believe. God simply would never “resent” or rebuff a prayer that “comes to him” (which he of course knows about even before you realized you were going to make that prayer) through one of his beloved family of the faithful.
As an aside, speaking of delegation in heaven, did you notice in Luke 16 that the poor man Lazarus who died and went to heaven is being held in Abraham’s bosom? Why not God’s alone? God’s is big enough, hmm, as he is infinite and thus can hold and comfort all humans who arrive in heaven. Jesus himself states that this man Lazarus is being held in Abraham’s bosom. Abraham, we know, as the forefather of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, who served dinner to God, who argued with God on behalf of the sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah, is much loved by God. Anyone of any faith and Biblical knowledge has to concede that. How does God reward such a man when he arrives in heaven? One could say that just being with God for all eternity is enough reward, and it is. But no human can understand the infinity of God’s love and generosity. Jesus by telling this story not only makes the point about the punishment in hell of the rich man who neglected Lazarus, but Jesus is also implicitly telling all who hear him and understand that God’s work of love continues in heaven, and he shares that joy and that work with those who gain heaven. Abraham in heaven is able to personally comfort an unknown man who was alive centuries after him, treated like the dregs of the earth, suffering and starving to death, when that man reached heaven.
That is one reason that Jesus was cautioning when the mother of the Apostles James and John wanted to delegate in advance that they sit at Jesus’ right and left hand in the Kingdom. We focus on the main points of that particular scripture when we realize that Jesus is staying 1) if they follow me they will be martyrs and 2) only God dispenses who sits at the right and left hand of whom in heaven. But you cannot miss, especially when you combine this with another passage I will mention next, that Jesus is saying that much more goes on in heaven under God and God’s alone direction than humans realize. Remember the disciples asked Jesus the theoretical question about a woman who is widowed and remarried many times, which husband she is married to in heaven? Jesus responds that people are not given in marriage in heaven. Like the question about the right and left hand of Jesus in the Kingdom, Jesus is, without elaborating, letting people understand that God has purposes and plans in heaven too. So Abraham may, or may not be, at any given point in heaven, hanging around with Sarah, his wife. Abraham is also serving God by comforting in blissful heaven a poor peon of a man who had been abused and died nameless and in shameful neglect on earth.
And now I tie the loop together for your understanding the scripture even more. The man in hell asks Abraham if he will allow Lazarus to send to him a drop of water to ease his torment. Do you notice that the man in hell is not saying that God will be mad at him if he asks for intercession through Lazarus or Abraham? I am being a little droll here, but only a little. The Bible says and demonstrates what it says and demonstrates, and Jesus Christ says and demonstrates what he means, what is the truth of what actually happens and “how it works.” The man in hell is now humbled, in eternal torment, and he well understands that the man he neglected, who is now in heaven, is precisely the person to ask for intercession as, obviously, is Abraham. Jesus is sharing a snapshot of “how it looks” and how it “works,” both in heaven and in hell, in this crucial passage in the Gospel. Jesus is not only making the main point that even a presumably pious Jew who is a believer, but who neglected his neighbor, will end up in hell, but Jesus is also giving a snapshot that God shares the bliss in heaven and that the saints/prophets are still active in their service to God, in ways that humans can’t really understand. Abraham is not sitting around with a harp. The forefather of all the monotheistic faiths is comforting in person a man who was the lowest of the low in how he was treated on earth.
If one really reads the passages that I have alluded to above, I’m not sure how anyone can think that the saints, the holy servants of God, are not alive and in his active service in heaven for all eternity. If you would not hesitate to have one of them when they were alive pray to God in leadership and intercession for their companions, including you, if you had been there, why would you doubt the merit and reality of their petitions to God as they are beside him in heaven?
I hope that you have found this helpful.
First of all, all Christians who study the scripture recognize that only God performs miracles. God has freely, as is His right, chosen human instruments to perform miracles. It is the human hands and the human faith that put the miracle in motion, but God is the cause, the source and the fuel of the miracle. This was true when Moses performed miracles (and you can read in the scriptures how God gives Moses precise instructions what to do), when the prophets performed miracles and in its culmination, when the Son of God, Jesus Christ, performed miracles. By the way this is one of my reflective types of blogs where I’m not going to leaf through the Bible for references, since I know that you can find them yourself J
We know that Jesus Christ performed miracles at God’s behest because there is extensive dialogue where the preparation that Jesus made (such as praying and fasting) is documented in the Gospel and, further, how Jesus coaches the Apostles and the disciples when they are also called upon to perform miracles, such as the casting out of demons. So you can read those parts of the Gospel and recognize that Jesus was given fullness of miracle fulfillment by God, from God alone, so that Jesus’ authority was unquestionable. Jesus would, for example, move into a village or region and cure all of the sick who were brought to him. Yet you can read that there are times Jesus both cannot and will not perform miracles because there was so little faith by the people.
This does not mean that Jesus’ “magic” or “tricks” were not working, or that his ability to perform miracles was less than perfect. This means quite obviously that God would not reward those of no or little faith with the incredible gift of a miracle. Why in the world would God, through Jesus, perform miracles where people were openly of no or little faith. Ironically, as you recall from the scriptures, it was in Jesus’ own hometown where he could do the least in miracles because of their low faith and open disbelief. This is, by the way, as an aside, instructive for you to understand another example of how the Bible teaches what really happened even when it doesn’t detail specifics. What I mean is that by using faith and reasoning you can better understand the “mystery” of “how Jesus spent the first thirty years of his life.” Well, duh, obviously he was not performing miracles, or the belief of his hometown would be higher than elsewhere, rather than lower. So when the scriptures report that Jesus followed in his earthly father Joseph’s footsteps and was a carpenter, well that is what he was doing. The Bible does not need to say “Jesus was a carpenter and because it was not yet time for his public ministry he did not perform any miracles.” I mean, a little common sense, please!
Jesus started performing miracles during his public ministry because that is when God gave him the authority to speak and preach for Him and also to demonstrate as a gesture of faith that he is indeed who he claimed to be, and this was through miracles. Jesus explains that himself, praising those who believe after seeing a miracle, but praising even more those who believe without seeing a miracle.
Therefore Jesus accordingly was empowered by God to allow certain Apostles and disciples the ability to perform miracles. This was greatly increased after Jesus died and resurrected, just as he said would happen, because he sent from God the Holy Spirit to aid them at Pentecost. This is another way for you to see what the Bible does not have to explicitly detail for you that the ability to perform miracles comes from God through the Holy Spirit. Neither St. Peter nor St. Paul’s miracles were of their own doing, of course, but they “worked” because of their faith, their understanding of what to do as Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit have taught them, and also using the power of God through the Holy Spirit. Performing miracles is neither in the “DNA” nor is it “talent.” The reverential authors of each book or epistle in the Bible frequently acknowledge and glorify that what they do is through the Holy Spirit from God, not their own ability.
So you can read in both the Old Testament and the New Testament many examples of God giving the instructions and the authority and the grace to the prophets and the early Christians to perform miracles where it is necessary to be done in order to increase faith and win souls. God does not confer miracles as shortcuts through the difficult realities of life. How do we know that? We know that Jesus cured many who were crippled and lame. If God intended this to be a “shortcut” through a difficulty of life, God would simply have allowed Jesus to miraculously forbid all human bodies to ever have broken or twisted limbs again. If miracles were for anything other than increasing the people’s faith, when Jesus cured the woman of the hemorrhage he could have simply miraculously changed the chemistry and biology of how blood clots or does not for everyone all at once. It is abundantly clear throughout the Bible and most particularly through the many words and deeds, with explanations, of Jesus that the performing of miracles exists at all in order to periodically reinforce faith.
This is because human beings are such limited broken vessels that God, of course, knows that they need visible signs through the ages. Even the Apostles, who had every reason to have ironclad faith since they saw the progression of the thousands of miracles that Jesus performed, would be “wowed” by a particular one and have a further strengthening of faith. I am thinking of how awed they were when Jesus calmed the stormy seas, and walked on the water, even though they had already seen much of the power of God that he exhibited beforehand. No, God most certainly does not allow miracles just for some few, or the many, to have shortcuts through normal difficulties of life, such as illness. God uses miracles as the instrument of faith that he knows human beings always crave and always must have on a periodic basis in order to believe what they cannot see, which is God and His heavenly Kingdom at work.
Now that you understand more clearly how to interpret the very real miracles that are documented in the scriptures by Jesus, the prophets and the saints while they lived, now you can better understand how God allows participation by deceased saints in miracles to strengthen faith.
Again, one must use all: scripture, faith and reasoning in order to understand, as much as possible, God’s ways and his will in these matters. Examine the Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse. God “delegates,” to use a modern term, roles to individual angels. Why is that? I mean, if God is all powerful, which does God have angels perform certain tasks for him? Why doesn’t God just chastise using his own hands the disbelievers on earth during the final days? No one can really say why God does what he does and that is not the point. One is supposed to, like good and observant children, observe what God does and says and learn more about him accordingly. We learn from the Book of Revelation that even in heaven God assigns tasks, for whatever reasons he has, to individual angels! All of the power and the determination of what is to be done is entirely God’s; the miracles and the chastisements are all God’s will, all God’s power, and all God’s implementation. For whatever reasons God has, however, even in heaven God uses individual angels to accomplish his will.
That is an important fact of knowledge one must glean from the scriptures. We can all understand why God sends angels in those extraordinary times that form the scriptures of our faith history to speak to humans directly, as when Gabriel came to speak to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Why, though, would God in heaven delegate activity to angels in heaven? Because that is how it is in heaven. God’s will animates and keeps alive all the eternal spirits who live in heaven, both angels and humans who achieve salvation in paradise. We all know that God created humans in the first place to know him, to love him and to serve him. Does this service stop in heaven, when those blessed by being in heaven are closer to him than ever? Of course not, since that does not even make sense, to think that when alive humans know, love and serve God but when in heaven they know and love him but no longer serve him! Because it is not necessary for faith to know the details of how and why, God does not include the details in the scripture. But we do observe in the Book of Revelation that 1) angels perform tasks for God in heaven and 2) St. John is able to see some humans in heaven, specifically the elders before the throne who cast their crowns down in front of God and worship him.
Having a crown means a person is kingly and glorified. To take one’s crown off and cast it at the feet of another means that one is in total service to the other. That is the message of why St. John was permitted to see that activity in front of the throne, so that he can transmit through what he saw increased faith that 1) humans are indeed in heaven and 2) they continue to serve God.
So, no, it is “not in the scripture” that “dead saints can perform miracles.” But what is in the scripture is that 1) living saints performed miracles at God’s authority and instruction, 2) angels serve God in heaven in heavenly and earthly tasks and 3) blessed human elders in heaven are observed casting their crowns in service in front of the throne of God. There is far more reason to believe that God permits the participation of saints in heaven in God’s tasks, including when he determines a miracle is appropriate on earth, than there is evidence to the contrary.
This is why through the centuries the Church believes the testimony, after great discernment regarding its reliability, of those who have received a great blessing such as a miraculous cure after prayer directed to a saint. The saint is not being worshipped. Prayer is a petition to ask for favor and proper prayer to a saint, such as St. Peter or St. Paul, centers upon asking for their strength of example in earthly matters and their loving intercession with God in heaven. One does not worship St. Peter or St. Paul; one asks St. Peter to be a role model, for example, or for St. Paul to intercede on one’s behalf with God. So let me repeatedly clear up that misunderstanding that praying to a saint is worshipping them.
In fact, people “prayed” to each other all the time in old English. “Do, pray tell,” would be an expression one person would say to another when what that person was doing was earnestly requesting someone to disclose something. “Pray” would mean, “Pretty please, I really want you to” do something. Pray thus became a synonym for asking God for something, even if it is just his attention as one prays to him.
Why, then, have centuries of people reliably testified that prayers to, very frequently, St. Joseph, St. Mary (the Blessed Virgin Mary) and St. Jude, one of the Apostles, delivered often miraculous “results?” God is obviously in control and is the one who hears and answers the prayerful petition. Obviously that even if one prayed to St. Joseph, our Lord’s earthly father, for example, God is the one who hears and grants or does not grant the prayer. If it displeased God that the saints be approached for their intercession, then believe you me many of your ancestors would not be around! God has a way of letting people know through the generations what displeases him. Instead we have a solid, documented two thousand year history of average people praying to individual saints and some, at times even many, of them have had their prayers answered by God. Obviously it was the “wrong” thing to do, God would not grant their prayers. The angels repeatedly tell humans in the scriptures not to worship them when they appear, but to worship only God. People who pray to the saints and ask for their help are not worshipping them: they are asking for their intercession with God. Again, you can never go wrong by following the example shown in the scripture. Do not worship anyone but God, but you can and should petition anyone holy to intercede with God, especially if you know that person is in eternal service to God.
Does anyone here reading this blog think that St. Paul, for example, is not in heaven? OK, that’s good. Now, if you were traveling with St. Paul when he was alive, would you have a problem if he were the one to pray to God on behalf of all of the travelers? For example, can you imagine being with St. Paul as he preached to the Gentiles, risking his life and the lives of those (like you) who travel with him, and everyone feels really good that St. Paul is the one praying to God on behalf of everyone present? Is that not, in fact, what happens when a pastor leads a congregation in prayer? Do you jump up and say, “No, I’ve got to pray to God directly myself all the time; you cannot be my ‘go between?’” Of course you would not think like that. Likewise, I invite you to imagine being one of the many thousands of Christians who personally accompanied men and women who would become saints when they were alive. How many of you do not think that everyone with them felt really good when they were the prayer intercessor to God on behalf of the group? I mean, duh.
So now St. Paul is dead these past several thousand years and most certainly in heaven. If he would, and did, gladly pray intercession for those of the faithful who traveled with him on earth, why do you think that he would stop doing so in heaven? Would he mind? Would God mind? This is the beautiful and glorious intersection of faith and logical reasoning capabilities.
Two human expressions come to mind: “No one is ever insulted by a good tip” and “Put in a good word with the boss for me.” If a saintly and holy person while alive would lead a group in prayer, using their service and obedience to God as a way to “put in a good word with the boss” on behalf of all together, why in the world would anyone think that they would be even more stingy, rather than more generous, in that in heaven than on earth? Who when evangelizing or doing missionary work in dangerous areas would be insulting God or St. Paul if they prayed to St. Paul for strength, guidance and intercession with God, he, Paul, who had set the example to be followed in his tireless and painful evangelizing? To not pray to St. Paul for help seems to me like refusing to use the person who “wrote the book,” so to speak, on what you are trying to do! You are not worshipping St. Paul nor bypassing God when you pray for his intercession, any more than you would be worshipping St. Paul or bypassing God if when a living companion of Paul’s in their travels sat nearby as Paul prayed to God and interceded on everyone present’s behalf! How much more so is St. Paul’s ongoing service to God in the strengthening of faith when St. Paul is for all eternity in God’s presence, perhaps casting his crown at His feet!
This is why generations of Christians, and remember, Protestant or not, we were “all Christians together” for one thousand five hundred years, prayed to St. Joseph for intercession in fatherly matters, to St. Mary (the Blessed Virgin Mary) in motherly matters, to various saints for help in health, in matters of virtue, in time of war and grave peril, and to help them in their faith and their carrying the Gospel into dangerous lands and times. Many generations of Christians who could not read or write and who lived primitive lives had a better understanding that they were 1) not worshipping saints and 2) were tapping into the good will of the intercession of the sanctified with God and not bypassing God than modern people seem to be today. Rather in glorifying in the richness of the sanctified who care only about serving God and increasing the faith among those alive, too many have a distrust and a total misunderstanding of their own faith forefathers!
So, then, what can we logically reason, based on our faith, is the reason that God does answer prayers that have been directed to his saints who are in heaven with him? First of all, if you truly are as strong in your faith as you say that you are, you totally understand that God never does anything mean or evil; God is goodness and all goodness comes from God. What kind of God would not answer a request that he is inclined to grant just because it “arrived through a saint.” I mean, what? One must examine one’s own lack of faith in God’s goodness if you feel that a specific same request he would grant if the person prayed “to God alone,” but would “turn down” “because it came through a saint!” Christians need to do much better at witnessing to the all mercifulness and goodness of God. God is not churlish nor is he a jealous bureaucrat. Rather, as Jesus taught, God loves and considers family those who hear him and believe. God simply would never “resent” or rebuff a prayer that “comes to him” (which he of course knows about even before you realized you were going to make that prayer) through one of his beloved family of the faithful.
As an aside, speaking of delegation in heaven, did you notice in Luke 16 that the poor man Lazarus who died and went to heaven is being held in Abraham’s bosom? Why not God’s alone? God’s is big enough, hmm, as he is infinite and thus can hold and comfort all humans who arrive in heaven. Jesus himself states that this man Lazarus is being held in Abraham’s bosom. Abraham, we know, as the forefather of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, who served dinner to God, who argued with God on behalf of the sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah, is much loved by God. Anyone of any faith and Biblical knowledge has to concede that. How does God reward such a man when he arrives in heaven? One could say that just being with God for all eternity is enough reward, and it is. But no human can understand the infinity of God’s love and generosity. Jesus by telling this story not only makes the point about the punishment in hell of the rich man who neglected Lazarus, but Jesus is also implicitly telling all who hear him and understand that God’s work of love continues in heaven, and he shares that joy and that work with those who gain heaven. Abraham in heaven is able to personally comfort an unknown man who was alive centuries after him, treated like the dregs of the earth, suffering and starving to death, when that man reached heaven.
That is one reason that Jesus was cautioning when the mother of the Apostles James and John wanted to delegate in advance that they sit at Jesus’ right and left hand in the Kingdom. We focus on the main points of that particular scripture when we realize that Jesus is staying 1) if they follow me they will be martyrs and 2) only God dispenses who sits at the right and left hand of whom in heaven. But you cannot miss, especially when you combine this with another passage I will mention next, that Jesus is saying that much more goes on in heaven under God and God’s alone direction than humans realize. Remember the disciples asked Jesus the theoretical question about a woman who is widowed and remarried many times, which husband she is married to in heaven? Jesus responds that people are not given in marriage in heaven. Like the question about the right and left hand of Jesus in the Kingdom, Jesus is, without elaborating, letting people understand that God has purposes and plans in heaven too. So Abraham may, or may not be, at any given point in heaven, hanging around with Sarah, his wife. Abraham is also serving God by comforting in blissful heaven a poor peon of a man who had been abused and died nameless and in shameful neglect on earth.
And now I tie the loop together for your understanding the scripture even more. The man in hell asks Abraham if he will allow Lazarus to send to him a drop of water to ease his torment. Do you notice that the man in hell is not saying that God will be mad at him if he asks for intercession through Lazarus or Abraham? I am being a little droll here, but only a little. The Bible says and demonstrates what it says and demonstrates, and Jesus Christ says and demonstrates what he means, what is the truth of what actually happens and “how it works.” The man in hell is now humbled, in eternal torment, and he well understands that the man he neglected, who is now in heaven, is precisely the person to ask for intercession as, obviously, is Abraham. Jesus is sharing a snapshot of “how it looks” and how it “works,” both in heaven and in hell, in this crucial passage in the Gospel. Jesus is not only making the main point that even a presumably pious Jew who is a believer, but who neglected his neighbor, will end up in hell, but Jesus is also giving a snapshot that God shares the bliss in heaven and that the saints/prophets are still active in their service to God, in ways that humans can’t really understand. Abraham is not sitting around with a harp. The forefather of all the monotheistic faiths is comforting in person a man who was the lowest of the low in how he was treated on earth.
If one really reads the passages that I have alluded to above, I’m not sure how anyone can think that the saints, the holy servants of God, are not alive and in his active service in heaven for all eternity. If you would not hesitate to have one of them when they were alive pray to God in leadership and intercession for their companions, including you, if you had been there, why would you doubt the merit and reality of their petitions to God as they are beside him in heaven?
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
One more time about the error of "reincarnation"
There is no such thing as reincarnation, there never was and there never will be. I have written and explained about this topic repeatedly. I'm "returning" to the topic one more time to speak about a specific about this false belief that particularly irks me, since it is not even logical.
If you are going to fantasize about being "reincarnated," which you are not, at least have the common sense not to imagine being a reincarnated saint. How foolish is that? Would they not be the LAST persons to ever be "returned?" I mean, even Buddhists ought to understand that, as a Christian (or Patriarchal) saint is the equivalent of having achieved nirvana, to use one of their concepts. A saint, especially one who is martyred, has achieved perfection within God through Christ and they would be the LAST that anyone could fantasize as being.
What an ego trip! When will you people deal with the "one and only for once" that you ACTUALLY are?
To think that God (aka "the universe" in your wacky worldview) would "recycle" a saint shows such unbelievable ignorance of divinity that it really takes my breath away. Don't flatter yourselves. And those who were raised by their profane parents to believe that you are reincarnated anyones, especially saints, I am really sorrowful that you have had such crap shoved into your minds that can only have created neurosis. Do yourselves a huge free health favor and really push to understand what I've been saying and drop the belief in reincarnation (unless that is your orthodox traditional cultural ancestral family faith, where you believe in it in principle but do not run around trying to "identify" yours or anyone else's so called "past lives.") In my experience the people who most believe they are reincarnated divinity of any sort, such as saints, are the most lacking in genuine God oriented saintly outlook and are, instead, sadly, self obsessed and also obsessed with "merit" and "grace" like they are baseball scorecards and not genuine understanding of those Christian concepts.
Saints are those who are the MOST absorbed into the Godhead upon death, for goodness sakes.
Sheesh. It would be funny if the deeds done in the name of believing in "New Age" form of "reincarnation" have not been so terrible.
If you are going to fantasize about being "reincarnated," which you are not, at least have the common sense not to imagine being a reincarnated saint. How foolish is that? Would they not be the LAST persons to ever be "returned?" I mean, even Buddhists ought to understand that, as a Christian (or Patriarchal) saint is the equivalent of having achieved nirvana, to use one of their concepts. A saint, especially one who is martyred, has achieved perfection within God through Christ and they would be the LAST that anyone could fantasize as being.
What an ego trip! When will you people deal with the "one and only for once" that you ACTUALLY are?
To think that God (aka "the universe" in your wacky worldview) would "recycle" a saint shows such unbelievable ignorance of divinity that it really takes my breath away. Don't flatter yourselves. And those who were raised by their profane parents to believe that you are reincarnated anyones, especially saints, I am really sorrowful that you have had such crap shoved into your minds that can only have created neurosis. Do yourselves a huge free health favor and really push to understand what I've been saying and drop the belief in reincarnation (unless that is your orthodox traditional cultural ancestral family faith, where you believe in it in principle but do not run around trying to "identify" yours or anyone else's so called "past lives.") In my experience the people who most believe they are reincarnated divinity of any sort, such as saints, are the most lacking in genuine God oriented saintly outlook and are, instead, sadly, self obsessed and also obsessed with "merit" and "grace" like they are baseball scorecards and not genuine understanding of those Christian concepts.
Saints are those who are the MOST absorbed into the Godhead upon death, for goodness sakes.
Sheesh. It would be funny if the deeds done in the name of believing in "New Age" form of "reincarnation" have not been so terrible.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Some small good news on the occult frontlines
Well, I can't really give specifics, but there is some small good news, I believe, in my ongoing attempt to educate, redeem and rescue the cultists who have practiced occult and even black magic, and who have stalked me.
I have reason to believe that finally even the most psychotic of them is finally convinced that I am not "reincarnated St. Lucy."
Don't worry about the details of how I know; it's kind of an inside joke.
I have reason to believe that finally even the most psychotic of them is finally convinced that I am not "reincarnated St. Lucy."
Don't worry about the details of how I know; it's kind of an inside joke.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Do not pray intentions to angels except the 3
This is very urgent and important. When you are doing "intentional" prayer (asking for intercession or for strength or inspiration) never pray "open ended" to angels. The only exceptions are the Biblical archangels (Michael, Raphael, Gabriel) and it is also OK to ask one's guardian angel for protection, as Jesus mentioned them explicitly. Do NOT pray to "angels" in general except to honor them as a community in the liturgy, where the intentions cannot be mistaken and are properly directed.
Why is that? First of all it is obvious that one should not pay homage through intercessory prayer to non-Biblical figures. Yes, angels are mentioned in the Bible: but both the angels that chose heaven, and those who chose to follow Lucifer into not serving. When you "open end" prayer to "angels" you are addressing both groups, dummies. God only knows who is responding to you. Many of you who invoke the power and protection of angels in general are receiving responses from "the other place."
In fact, the Qur'an also makes this clear because God brings the obedient angels with him and tells them to pay homage to Adam. By this God is doing two things. He is demonstrating that angels love and honor humans only because God loves humans; they do not do so "naturally." Angels are not the fluffy little cuddly spirits with pretty Renaissance gowns that only want to tiptoe around and give you stock tips and help you out of jams you have gotten yourself into that modern New Agers have made them. Angels are fully devoted to God and are quite fierce (read Apocalypse again if you need a reminder).
Thus it is fine and appropriate to honor the angels as a group within the liturgy of the Mass, for example, as in that consecrated time and space it is obvious who is being mentioned. We know that because the Lord instructed Israel to ornament the Ark with angels. Thus it is fine and appropriate to honor and respect angels in the organized place of Christian worship.
It is also scripturally sound to, within reason, appeal to the three Biblical archangels as they have been clearly identified as being messengers of benevolence from God to humans. Thus it is fine to ask Michael, Raphael and Gabriel for assistance and spiritual strength and purity.
Also, one's individual guardian angel is a gift from God, so obviously one can turn to one's guardian angel, such as in the traditional prayers of the evening. One's guardian angel is of the Holy Spirit, and obviously one is in totally pure handling when one commits one's self to the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, as I mentioned, Jesus, when chastising the disciples who sought to block children from approaching him, mentioned that their guardian angels constantly face God and therefore one has total confidence in knowing that it is scripturally sound to be respectful of one's own guardian angel and to know of their totality of connection through the Holy Spirit to God.
However, when you address prayer intentions to "angels" in general, you have an inaccurate image in your mind of what angels are and what they "do." Thus, if you think you are getting "a response" you should be quite alarmed. The demonic powers jump at every opportunity to mimic what one thinks one is evoking. This, by the way, is one of the dire and deadly errors of paganism. Paganism assumes knowledge of qualities of spirits that both don't exist and are also inaccurate representations of natural forces. Thus when one appeals in what one thinks is a good frame of mind and intention to spiritual forces that one is inaccurate about in the first place, Satan, the demons and also human's own unconscious hubris tends to accept that invitation to "put on the mask" and "respond," and thus starts messing with your mind and your soul. That never ends up in a good place.
I cannot believe the foolishness by which several generations of New Age and other inclined people have called down upon themselves a "spirituality" that is, to put it kindly, imaginary angel imitating. I have commented before that the genuine angels have quite a disgust for humans who do that and if you don't believe me, reread the Apocalypse, for there it all comes to a head. Notice those are not named angels (except for Michael) who wield the destruction and tribulations upon earth.
So stick with praying to God, to asking for the intervention of Mary, Joseph, and the saints, who you know are with God and pure in his eyes and respond only to his will. Honor angels as the servants of God in the liturgy, and of course one can safely address the Biblical three archangels who are designated messengers to humans, and also one's own guardian angel (but understanding they are gifts themselves, not gift and favor dispensers to you). Only God dispenses favors, gifts and grace.
Innocence of intention is absolutely no protection. If you "innocently" pray to angels in general, Satan deludes the innocent even more eagerly and quickly than the cynical. When so called "intuitives" and "psychics" bring you descriptions of angels and "messages" from them, the demons ("jin" if you are Muslim) are laughing their asses off, because you sure are not receiving messages from God's angels. They do one of two things. They either watch your own mind fool yourself and laugh, laugh, laugh, or they take on the appearance of what you think you are invoking and laugh, laugh, laugh as they mislead you to a very bad place, under some very sweet outer coating and coverage.
Whenever you are tempted to "channel" an "angel" or "the angels," reread the Apocalypse and then decide not, repeat, not to pray to "angels" in general.
Why is that? First of all it is obvious that one should not pay homage through intercessory prayer to non-Biblical figures. Yes, angels are mentioned in the Bible: but both the angels that chose heaven, and those who chose to follow Lucifer into not serving. When you "open end" prayer to "angels" you are addressing both groups, dummies. God only knows who is responding to you. Many of you who invoke the power and protection of angels in general are receiving responses from "the other place."
In fact, the Qur'an also makes this clear because God brings the obedient angels with him and tells them to pay homage to Adam. By this God is doing two things. He is demonstrating that angels love and honor humans only because God loves humans; they do not do so "naturally." Angels are not the fluffy little cuddly spirits with pretty Renaissance gowns that only want to tiptoe around and give you stock tips and help you out of jams you have gotten yourself into that modern New Agers have made them. Angels are fully devoted to God and are quite fierce (read Apocalypse again if you need a reminder).
Thus it is fine and appropriate to honor the angels as a group within the liturgy of the Mass, for example, as in that consecrated time and space it is obvious who is being mentioned. We know that because the Lord instructed Israel to ornament the Ark with angels. Thus it is fine and appropriate to honor and respect angels in the organized place of Christian worship.
It is also scripturally sound to, within reason, appeal to the three Biblical archangels as they have been clearly identified as being messengers of benevolence from God to humans. Thus it is fine to ask Michael, Raphael and Gabriel for assistance and spiritual strength and purity.
Also, one's individual guardian angel is a gift from God, so obviously one can turn to one's guardian angel, such as in the traditional prayers of the evening. One's guardian angel is of the Holy Spirit, and obviously one is in totally pure handling when one commits one's self to the Holy Spirit. Most importantly, as I mentioned, Jesus, when chastising the disciples who sought to block children from approaching him, mentioned that their guardian angels constantly face God and therefore one has total confidence in knowing that it is scripturally sound to be respectful of one's own guardian angel and to know of their totality of connection through the Holy Spirit to God.
However, when you address prayer intentions to "angels" in general, you have an inaccurate image in your mind of what angels are and what they "do." Thus, if you think you are getting "a response" you should be quite alarmed. The demonic powers jump at every opportunity to mimic what one thinks one is evoking. This, by the way, is one of the dire and deadly errors of paganism. Paganism assumes knowledge of qualities of spirits that both don't exist and are also inaccurate representations of natural forces. Thus when one appeals in what one thinks is a good frame of mind and intention to spiritual forces that one is inaccurate about in the first place, Satan, the demons and also human's own unconscious hubris tends to accept that invitation to "put on the mask" and "respond," and thus starts messing with your mind and your soul. That never ends up in a good place.
I cannot believe the foolishness by which several generations of New Age and other inclined people have called down upon themselves a "spirituality" that is, to put it kindly, imaginary angel imitating. I have commented before that the genuine angels have quite a disgust for humans who do that and if you don't believe me, reread the Apocalypse, for there it all comes to a head. Notice those are not named angels (except for Michael) who wield the destruction and tribulations upon earth.
So stick with praying to God, to asking for the intervention of Mary, Joseph, and the saints, who you know are with God and pure in his eyes and respond only to his will. Honor angels as the servants of God in the liturgy, and of course one can safely address the Biblical three archangels who are designated messengers to humans, and also one's own guardian angel (but understanding they are gifts themselves, not gift and favor dispensers to you). Only God dispenses favors, gifts and grace.
Innocence of intention is absolutely no protection. If you "innocently" pray to angels in general, Satan deludes the innocent even more eagerly and quickly than the cynical. When so called "intuitives" and "psychics" bring you descriptions of angels and "messages" from them, the demons ("jin" if you are Muslim) are laughing their asses off, because you sure are not receiving messages from God's angels. They do one of two things. They either watch your own mind fool yourself and laugh, laugh, laugh, or they take on the appearance of what you think you are invoking and laugh, laugh, laugh as they mislead you to a very bad place, under some very sweet outer coating and coverage.
Whenever you are tempted to "channel" an "angel" or "the angels," reread the Apocalypse and then decide not, repeat, not to pray to "angels" in general.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Understanding God: advice and role models
In my previous post in the series “understanding God” I explained how the error of predestination is the result of misunderstanding the attribute of God’s all knowingness. I want to dovetail a related concept here, just to build upon this basis of understanding.
God is impossible to fully understand, not because he keeps part of himself secret, but because his vastness of “perspective” is genuinely unknowable. In fact, the more that the great religious minds have come to know God, the more they are in awe of all that is unknowable by the human mind, which is bounded by limitations of matter, energy and time. Saint Thomas Aquinas is the shining example of the saint who most used intellectual and logic capabilities to explain faith and through the centuries many have revered and studied him for precisely that reason. He is the one who has brought generation after generation to God through “the human mind.” Thomas Aquinas left volumes of writings, all based on faith and logic through reasoning, which are treasures today. Still, what was the thing that enraptured him so much that ultimately he stopped writing? It was the mystery of God in the Holy Mass, specifically in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The way that God reveals himself, physically and spiritually, in the Holy Mass, in all its mystery and simplicity was what gave Aquinas more understanding, and at the same time more awe of the mystery, than any intellectual progress in understanding God.
Before I continue on my main point, let me make an aside. Many people outside of the Catholic Church misunderstand why Catholics venerate the saints so much. There are two reasons, one of which is related to how we understand being part of their community, the “communion of saints,” even as they are already in heaven and we are still alive here on earth. The other reason that I want to explain to you is that the saints are teachers and role models, not just as examples of holiness and redemption, but also in the many varied ways that each of them grew in their understanding of God. There are many techniques, for lack of a better word, for individuals to better understand God and often one or two saints are role models that a person can relate to in their progress themselves toward understanding God. St. Thomas Aquinas has for centuries been the inspiration for those who desired or needed to approach their understanding of God through a rigorous path of logic and reasoning. He is one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church. Yet in direct proportion to his logic, reasoning and intellectual approach to God, Aquinas also had an intense and mystical communion directly with God, one that yielded miraculous fruits. Thus one of his titles is “The Common Doctor,” for he leads the average person to reason their way to God, while another of his titles is “The Angelic Doctor,” for his mystical qualities are comparable to how the angels themselves know God. I cannot recommend St Thomas Aquinas highly enough, therefore, to modern generations for veneration and role modeling in emulating his intellectual approach, and being inspired by the divine gifts that he, in parallel, received.
In his prologue to his best known work, The Summa Theologica, he wrote: Since the teacher of Catholic truth must instruct not only the advanced but also the beginners, according to the word of St. Paul (1 Cor. 3:1-2), “as to little ones in Christ, I fed you with milk, not with solid food…” so that the purpose and intent of this work is to treat those things that pertain to the Christian religion in a manner suitable to the instruction of beginners…with confidence in the divine help, try to present the contents of sacred doctrine as briefly and clearly as the matter allows.
Father Rengers in his book “The 33 Doctors of the Church” comments that “St. Thomas, who fought fro and is remembered for his emphasis on the place of reason in theology, relied primarily on the guiding hand of divine love” and quotes St. Thomas, “Ardor precedes illumination, for a knowledge of truth is bestowed by the ardor of charity.”
Just as another aside, Shiite Muslims have a similar understanding of saints with Catholics, where they understand that saints are to be revered, but not worshipped, and that saints are the role models for not only their virtue but also their methods of learning about God and teaching accordingly.
Therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas, who has such an intellectual approach to teaching about God, role models and articulates two important things to bear in mind,. One is to always remember that “baby steps” are needed in understanding and teaching about God, not demonstrations of one’s supposed intellectual prowess and “sophistication” of thought. He critiques previous works as being too difficult and agenda driven for many to learn from, and that is a problem that moderns are especially vulnerable toward. Indeed there is an entire industry of very marginal people writing books about God and faith who have little if any solid factual education, particularly in Christianity, yet peddle to the public books filled with the most bizarre and arcane claptrap, presented as “lofty” and sophisticated “spiritual insight.” In contrast, the greatest “expert” in God in modern times, Thomas Aquinas, always built his writings on solid intellect and baby steps, ensuring that neither his doctrine nor the readership goes even one inch astray. When Aquinas taught he started with the basics, from truly the very beginning, such as why God created humans, and what are the attributes of heaven, not with sweeping declarations of his “personal revelation” and condescending “wisdom.” The true geniuses, especially those on the subject of God and faith, are always remarkably humble and allow only one step at a time on solid factual and theological foundation that is not of their own invention.
The second thing that Aquinas role models and articulates is that when writing about God, one cannot, no matter how intellectual, write from a perspective of no love. No one can accurately discuss or represent God if one does not have or actively aspire to having love of God. At the face of this, moderns might object that loving God presents then “bias” into written works about God, but on examination that is ridiculous. God is love and all of love comes from God. One cannot genuinely write about God, including in a strictly intellectual way, without having love of God, “ardor” as St Thomas calls it or at the very least is seeking to have love of God, acknowledging that as his or her objective in writing and study. To attempt to write about God without loving God as God exists (and not how you wish him to be) is like a chemist trying to write about chemistry but not believing in hydrogen, or a physician writing about the treatment of wounds and refusing to believe that bandages exist, or a home builder who seeks to build a shelter but refuses to believe there is such a thing as walls and a roof. Thus one cannot explain or study God without feeling love of God as he is, since ultimately the sum total of understanding God is understanding and feeling love of God. One can no more understand God without loving God than one can hope for rain in a drought yet not believe in water.
So to understand God one must take baby steps based on sound and factual basis of reasoning, but one must also have love of God in one’s heart as one’s motivation, even if that love is painfully imperfect at first. One other error that moderns make is the excessive focus on God, specifically in Jesus Christ, as some sort of symbol of unconditional “love,” a love that excuses sin, and is not actually directed toward genuine love of God or genuine, rather than self serving, loving charity of neighbor. If one reads the Gospels, yes, Jesus preaches a great deal about love and charity, but he also in equal measure dishes out a great deal of criticism and reminder of the penalty of failure and of a continually sinful and godless life, which will end in being burned as the chaff. Moderns, ever since the so-called hedonistic “Love Generation,” ignore the reality of what Jesus taught about God and instead portray Jesus as some sort of pastel colored ever forgiving and ever accepting love machine. In order to write intellectually honest and correct works about God, one must have genuine love of God as either one’s reality or one’s objective, and not an agenda driven self serving interpretation of the “endless boundaries” of God’s love.
For example, many of the saints loved to read about God and write about God. But there is a remarkable difference between their motivations and the motivations of many today. The saints loved to read about God because they loved God, not because they were trying to analyze, dissect and understand him with the intent of controlling his powers. For example, when one is truly in love one wants to know more about the object of one’s love because love creates the desire to know more and immerse one’s self in the loved one’s milieu. One should not, however, wish to read more and more about one’s loved one as a way to manipulate and control him or her. Thus one who is well balanced seeks to read about God because one loves God, or wishes to love God or love him even more, and not to wrest imaginary “secrets” out of God as a way to accomplish some sort of secondary agenda in one’s life.
Likewise the saints loved to write about God because, again, they loved God and wished to share their love of God with others. Similarly, many moderns also misunderstand and misuse their own motivations for writing about God. Far too many, especially in the so-called New Age arena, write about God in order to show off their supposed enlightenment and cash in on it. I’m not saying that one cannot charge money for a book, to earn a living or to at least break even in the cost of publication. What I am saying is that too many so called “spiritual” writers write about God or their New Age “spirit” as ways to self promote. They often proclaim their “humility” while at the same time puffing up their possession of spiritual “insight” and “gifts.” Thus you have New Age Hindus or Buddhists or whatever actually writing and marketing books about Jesus Christ, and then doing the “talk show circuit” as “spiritual experts.”
Think again about my example of the chemist who wants to write a chemistry book but does not believe in the existence of hydrogen. Would you want to read anything that he or she has to say? Would you want to conduct any of his or her experiments? I mean, go ahead, light up that cigarette since hydrogen does not exist, LOL. That would be irresponsible and crazy enough, to be a chemist who does not believe in the existence of hydrogen and teaches accordingly. However, imagine this. Suppose it is a biologist who writes that chemistry book and the biologist is both is not a chemist, but also does not believe in hydrogen! So that author would not even be an irresponsible expert; he or she would be an irresponsible non-expert, a uneducated intruder into the field of chemistry.
Now imagine that a biologist writes a book about chemistry where not only do they not believe in hydrogen, but they think that neon has been treated “unfairly” and does not get sufficient “attention,” and thus pushes a “neon agenda” throughout their chemistry book. “It’s not fair that neon is an inert gas,” the author thinks, and decides to insert neon into many equations and chemical reactions in the place of the actual element that occurs there. They do not believe in hydrogen, and they think that neo does not get enough attention. Thus they teach that the chemical formula for water, H2O, is actually Ne2O. Need some water? Smash some neon and oxygen together!
To understand God one must understand God the way God actually is, based on the facts of God’s interaction with the faithful and his inspired words on the subject, not on how someone wants God to be in order to enable their own agendas. The saints are the reliable way who show the genuine path to understanding and loving God, and that is why thousands of these role models exist. The saints have all come to God in a myriad of lifestyles and life experiences, so there’s a saint that resonates somewhere for anyone in any station of life. However, they all come together in one commonality, which is orthodox and reliable, faith and reasoning based understanding and love of God. None of them, no matter where they came from in life, “made up” out of their own minds their own theology and their own “interpretation” of God. They found their way on their own paths to the same God; they did not invent different Gods as the result of “going their own way.” I cannot believe how foolish people are today when some of them basically say they are finding the “right” God who “suits their needs.” I’m sorry, but there’s only one God, the powerfully eternally consistent one, who is waiting when your life is over and you are judged, and it’s not the “convenient” God who was “best suited to your lifestyle.” God is God and the same God, no matter what people are doing on earth, or even if this planet is blown to smithereens. God never changes and it does not matter one iota if you think that God is not “suitable to your present needs.”
To summarize, just as one learns how to drive a car from someone who knows how to drive, one can rely on studying one or more of the saints for ideas about how to better understand God and make him real in your life. Do not let “the blind lead the blind.” People used to read about and study the saints so that they would have ideas and role models about how to learn about God, not to follow the saints to the stake, LOL. Many saints were not martyrs and had even ordinary and non-dramatic lives, with the problems and challenges that all average people encounter in life.
Let me give an example of how that works best, and how that might be misunderstood. St. Paul has been through the centuries one of the most frequently role modeled of the saints, but there is a correct way to role model St. Paul and an incorrect way to role model St. Paul. Remember that Paul, when he was still Saul and a violent persecutor of Christians, was an ardent believer in God. Saul was extremely God fearing and very studious in his Jewish faith. It was this love of God that became extremist zealotry which motivated his erroneous persecution of Christians. In a way Saul was like the Pharisees who persecuted Jesus because obviously the Pharisees believed very much in God. So both Saul and the Pharisees were filled to overflowing with belief in God’s existence and in the tenets of their faith. In a way Saul was better than the Pharisees because he was not a hypocrite. Saul did not have the material and prestigious benefits of the wealth of the priesthood, for example; he was a tent maker. However, obviously Saul was worse off than those Pharisees who only argued with Jesus but who personally did not seek his death, leaving that to the other Pharisees. Saul did not argue with Christians; he sought to arrest them and have them killed. Then Saul was thrown from his horse on the way to Damascus by the light and the voice of the resurrected Christ, and he was converted.
Therefore St. Paul has been a role model for many generations of Christians who relate to several aspects of his life: his belief in God but disbelief in Jesus, his dramatic conversion rather than one based on gradual study, his transformation from a destroyer of a faith to a planter of churches, and his suffering for the faith through many trials and pains after his conversion to Christianity. However, I have noticed that St. Paul has been somewhat popular as a modern role model for those who did not believe in God at all. I’m not saying that such moderns are not welcome to use St. Paul as a role model, far from it, I welcome it. But I need to point out that an important aspect of understanding St. Paul is that he always was a God fearing pious believer. The resurrected Christ’s confrontation with him did not prove to Saul that God existed, since Saul always believed that, but was irrefutable proof of the identity of Jesus Christ as specifically the Savior and the Messiah. Moderns who do not believe in God but seek him through St. Paul’s role modeling tend to make one mistake accordingly. Moderns who do not believe in God and role model themselves after St. Paul tend to maintain an inner weakness toward disbelief and pagan practices. This is because St. Paul does not offer in his own life a refuting of total disbelief or of pagan superstitions because he himself had no need of that witness and testimony in his own life, since he always believed in God.
Thus selection of a “role model” saint is very important to proper faith formation. People who have no belief in God or cultist pagan New Age temptations are often better off emulating saints who grew up in pagan households who then converted. They can surely, and should, venerate and honor St. Paul studying, as all aspiring and actual Christians should, his life and his writings. But for moral support and for approaching God through the proven path that is most near one’s own actual situation in life, one should look at the other saints for guidance and both moral and intellectual support. For example St Justin Martyr is one of the best known and helpful of the saints to those who come from a disbelieving, pagan, or excessively secularized pseudo-intellectual background. Justin Martyr lived circa 100-165 and was of a very educated pagan family. As a pagan teacher of philosophy, rhetoric, history and poetry he was inspired by an old man who had met to study Christian Scripture. He became a Christian at the age of thirty, debated with pagan philosophers, and opened a school of philosophy. Justin Martyr was raised as a child, became an intellectual, a teacher and ultimately converted when paganism was by far the majority, and Christianity was the radical, persecuted minority. Thus someone with a very godless background, especially one that was intellectual, can especially relate to Justin Martyr and his existing writings.
For many generations Christian men, whose vocation was to have an average married life with children looked to St. Joseph, spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and stepfather to Jesus, for their path and inspiration, even though Joseph authored no testimonies or sacred literature. During the generations where many did not read or write, who were poor, and who attempted only to do the best they could for their families, the deeds of St. Joseph, his obedience to God, and his love of Jesus were all the inspiration that they needed. They read about the Apostles, studied the Bible and their catechism, but they simply loved St. Joseph. I still remember the time when millions of men looked to St. Joseph for their support and strength, finding God through St. Joseph’s humble and unique example. Oddly we live in times where people buy St. Joseph statues and bury them in the ground upside down so that they can have “better luck” in selling their real estate properties. Maybe that has not been the right approach to God, no? St. Joseph is often forgotten except as a pagan practice to shill someone’s real estate. How sadly the times have changed. As St. Joseph has fallen away as a role model for the average Christian man, we have a real estate crisis (where his statue was used for pagan purposes, not totally a coincidence) plus we have the epidemic of stepfathers and “boyfriends of the mother” brutalizing and killing infants. A generation of humans is very much like the saints that they emulate, and, to their detriment, the saints that they ignore or defy in role modeling. I can think of no more stark example, except for the degrading of God himself, of the downfall of an entire category of humans (men) and their falling away from the best human role model they ever had, St. Joseph, spouse of Mary and step father to Jesus.
Thus to better understand God it is obvious that hundreds and indeed thousands of saints who have already found their way there can and must provide role modeling and example setting to people from a full diversity of life experience and perspective.
Further, one does not better understand God by omitting one’s God given intellect and believing any baloney that anyone makes up and sells to you, including your own self delusion. Far from abandoning reason and intellect, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are rich in the opportunities to use your brain, not put it in mothballs (or some other chemicals).
Additionally, love of God, even if it is unknown to you or painfully incomplete, must be your motivation for seeking to understand God. Motivations other than love of God all lead to truncated, misleading or dead ends and great error in interpretation. Likewise, however, the love of God must be understood correctly, and not as human labeling of weakness or hedonism as being justified by some open ended sloppy agenda based philosophy of supposed “love.” God’s love is infinitely strong and infinitely pure, and one cannot understand God if one has an unwillingness to understand that. God is both understanding and forgiving, but one must also remember that God’s purity of love is never compromised. Thus that which is stained and full of sin, no matter how much God “loves all his children,” cannot enter heaven.
The many paths to finding the one true God as demonstrated by the thousands of saints, both famous and mostly unknown, demonstrates again that God wishes all to find him, and does not “predestine” anyone to heaven or hell. Like evolution and natural selection has developed many thousands of species of birds in nature, for example, each person finds the same God in their own heart and soul through various paths. What is important to remember is, however, that the paths are all real and grounded on actuality, not self invented delusion. The saints demonstrate that people can and do come to God in various directions at various times in their lives: some were child saints, holy at even a small age, while others became saints late in life after much error and sinfulness. Obviously if people were “predestined” God would not have allowed such many examples of those who individually find sanctity and role model to others. Just to close this topic, here is the statement of the Catholic Church doctrine regarding predestination:
1037. God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of the faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:
Father, accept this offering
From your whole family
Grant us your peace in this life,
Save us from final damnation,
And count us among those you have chosen.
God is impossible to fully understand, not because he keeps part of himself secret, but because his vastness of “perspective” is genuinely unknowable. In fact, the more that the great religious minds have come to know God, the more they are in awe of all that is unknowable by the human mind, which is bounded by limitations of matter, energy and time. Saint Thomas Aquinas is the shining example of the saint who most used intellectual and logic capabilities to explain faith and through the centuries many have revered and studied him for precisely that reason. He is the one who has brought generation after generation to God through “the human mind.” Thomas Aquinas left volumes of writings, all based on faith and logic through reasoning, which are treasures today. Still, what was the thing that enraptured him so much that ultimately he stopped writing? It was the mystery of God in the Holy Mass, specifically in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The way that God reveals himself, physically and spiritually, in the Holy Mass, in all its mystery and simplicity was what gave Aquinas more understanding, and at the same time more awe of the mystery, than any intellectual progress in understanding God.
Before I continue on my main point, let me make an aside. Many people outside of the Catholic Church misunderstand why Catholics venerate the saints so much. There are two reasons, one of which is related to how we understand being part of their community, the “communion of saints,” even as they are already in heaven and we are still alive here on earth. The other reason that I want to explain to you is that the saints are teachers and role models, not just as examples of holiness and redemption, but also in the many varied ways that each of them grew in their understanding of God. There are many techniques, for lack of a better word, for individuals to better understand God and often one or two saints are role models that a person can relate to in their progress themselves toward understanding God. St. Thomas Aquinas has for centuries been the inspiration for those who desired or needed to approach their understanding of God through a rigorous path of logic and reasoning. He is one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church. Yet in direct proportion to his logic, reasoning and intellectual approach to God, Aquinas also had an intense and mystical communion directly with God, one that yielded miraculous fruits. Thus one of his titles is “The Common Doctor,” for he leads the average person to reason their way to God, while another of his titles is “The Angelic Doctor,” for his mystical qualities are comparable to how the angels themselves know God. I cannot recommend St Thomas Aquinas highly enough, therefore, to modern generations for veneration and role modeling in emulating his intellectual approach, and being inspired by the divine gifts that he, in parallel, received.
In his prologue to his best known work, The Summa Theologica, he wrote: Since the teacher of Catholic truth must instruct not only the advanced but also the beginners, according to the word of St. Paul (1 Cor. 3:1-2), “as to little ones in Christ, I fed you with milk, not with solid food…” so that the purpose and intent of this work is to treat those things that pertain to the Christian religion in a manner suitable to the instruction of beginners…with confidence in the divine help, try to present the contents of sacred doctrine as briefly and clearly as the matter allows.
Father Rengers in his book “The 33 Doctors of the Church” comments that “St. Thomas, who fought fro and is remembered for his emphasis on the place of reason in theology, relied primarily on the guiding hand of divine love” and quotes St. Thomas, “Ardor precedes illumination, for a knowledge of truth is bestowed by the ardor of charity.”
Just as another aside, Shiite Muslims have a similar understanding of saints with Catholics, where they understand that saints are to be revered, but not worshipped, and that saints are the role models for not only their virtue but also their methods of learning about God and teaching accordingly.
Therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas, who has such an intellectual approach to teaching about God, role models and articulates two important things to bear in mind,. One is to always remember that “baby steps” are needed in understanding and teaching about God, not demonstrations of one’s supposed intellectual prowess and “sophistication” of thought. He critiques previous works as being too difficult and agenda driven for many to learn from, and that is a problem that moderns are especially vulnerable toward. Indeed there is an entire industry of very marginal people writing books about God and faith who have little if any solid factual education, particularly in Christianity, yet peddle to the public books filled with the most bizarre and arcane claptrap, presented as “lofty” and sophisticated “spiritual insight.” In contrast, the greatest “expert” in God in modern times, Thomas Aquinas, always built his writings on solid intellect and baby steps, ensuring that neither his doctrine nor the readership goes even one inch astray. When Aquinas taught he started with the basics, from truly the very beginning, such as why God created humans, and what are the attributes of heaven, not with sweeping declarations of his “personal revelation” and condescending “wisdom.” The true geniuses, especially those on the subject of God and faith, are always remarkably humble and allow only one step at a time on solid factual and theological foundation that is not of their own invention.
The second thing that Aquinas role models and articulates is that when writing about God, one cannot, no matter how intellectual, write from a perspective of no love. No one can accurately discuss or represent God if one does not have or actively aspire to having love of God. At the face of this, moderns might object that loving God presents then “bias” into written works about God, but on examination that is ridiculous. God is love and all of love comes from God. One cannot genuinely write about God, including in a strictly intellectual way, without having love of God, “ardor” as St Thomas calls it or at the very least is seeking to have love of God, acknowledging that as his or her objective in writing and study. To attempt to write about God without loving God as God exists (and not how you wish him to be) is like a chemist trying to write about chemistry but not believing in hydrogen, or a physician writing about the treatment of wounds and refusing to believe that bandages exist, or a home builder who seeks to build a shelter but refuses to believe there is such a thing as walls and a roof. Thus one cannot explain or study God without feeling love of God as he is, since ultimately the sum total of understanding God is understanding and feeling love of God. One can no more understand God without loving God than one can hope for rain in a drought yet not believe in water.
So to understand God one must take baby steps based on sound and factual basis of reasoning, but one must also have love of God in one’s heart as one’s motivation, even if that love is painfully imperfect at first. One other error that moderns make is the excessive focus on God, specifically in Jesus Christ, as some sort of symbol of unconditional “love,” a love that excuses sin, and is not actually directed toward genuine love of God or genuine, rather than self serving, loving charity of neighbor. If one reads the Gospels, yes, Jesus preaches a great deal about love and charity, but he also in equal measure dishes out a great deal of criticism and reminder of the penalty of failure and of a continually sinful and godless life, which will end in being burned as the chaff. Moderns, ever since the so-called hedonistic “Love Generation,” ignore the reality of what Jesus taught about God and instead portray Jesus as some sort of pastel colored ever forgiving and ever accepting love machine. In order to write intellectually honest and correct works about God, one must have genuine love of God as either one’s reality or one’s objective, and not an agenda driven self serving interpretation of the “endless boundaries” of God’s love.
For example, many of the saints loved to read about God and write about God. But there is a remarkable difference between their motivations and the motivations of many today. The saints loved to read about God because they loved God, not because they were trying to analyze, dissect and understand him with the intent of controlling his powers. For example, when one is truly in love one wants to know more about the object of one’s love because love creates the desire to know more and immerse one’s self in the loved one’s milieu. One should not, however, wish to read more and more about one’s loved one as a way to manipulate and control him or her. Thus one who is well balanced seeks to read about God because one loves God, or wishes to love God or love him even more, and not to wrest imaginary “secrets” out of God as a way to accomplish some sort of secondary agenda in one’s life.
Likewise the saints loved to write about God because, again, they loved God and wished to share their love of God with others. Similarly, many moderns also misunderstand and misuse their own motivations for writing about God. Far too many, especially in the so-called New Age arena, write about God in order to show off their supposed enlightenment and cash in on it. I’m not saying that one cannot charge money for a book, to earn a living or to at least break even in the cost of publication. What I am saying is that too many so called “spiritual” writers write about God or their New Age “spirit” as ways to self promote. They often proclaim their “humility” while at the same time puffing up their possession of spiritual “insight” and “gifts.” Thus you have New Age Hindus or Buddhists or whatever actually writing and marketing books about Jesus Christ, and then doing the “talk show circuit” as “spiritual experts.”
Think again about my example of the chemist who wants to write a chemistry book but does not believe in the existence of hydrogen. Would you want to read anything that he or she has to say? Would you want to conduct any of his or her experiments? I mean, go ahead, light up that cigarette since hydrogen does not exist, LOL. That would be irresponsible and crazy enough, to be a chemist who does not believe in the existence of hydrogen and teaches accordingly. However, imagine this. Suppose it is a biologist who writes that chemistry book and the biologist is both is not a chemist, but also does not believe in hydrogen! So that author would not even be an irresponsible expert; he or she would be an irresponsible non-expert, a uneducated intruder into the field of chemistry.
Now imagine that a biologist writes a book about chemistry where not only do they not believe in hydrogen, but they think that neon has been treated “unfairly” and does not get sufficient “attention,” and thus pushes a “neon agenda” throughout their chemistry book. “It’s not fair that neon is an inert gas,” the author thinks, and decides to insert neon into many equations and chemical reactions in the place of the actual element that occurs there. They do not believe in hydrogen, and they think that neo does not get enough attention. Thus they teach that the chemical formula for water, H2O, is actually Ne2O. Need some water? Smash some neon and oxygen together!
To understand God one must understand God the way God actually is, based on the facts of God’s interaction with the faithful and his inspired words on the subject, not on how someone wants God to be in order to enable their own agendas. The saints are the reliable way who show the genuine path to understanding and loving God, and that is why thousands of these role models exist. The saints have all come to God in a myriad of lifestyles and life experiences, so there’s a saint that resonates somewhere for anyone in any station of life. However, they all come together in one commonality, which is orthodox and reliable, faith and reasoning based understanding and love of God. None of them, no matter where they came from in life, “made up” out of their own minds their own theology and their own “interpretation” of God. They found their way on their own paths to the same God; they did not invent different Gods as the result of “going their own way.” I cannot believe how foolish people are today when some of them basically say they are finding the “right” God who “suits their needs.” I’m sorry, but there’s only one God, the powerfully eternally consistent one, who is waiting when your life is over and you are judged, and it’s not the “convenient” God who was “best suited to your lifestyle.” God is God and the same God, no matter what people are doing on earth, or even if this planet is blown to smithereens. God never changes and it does not matter one iota if you think that God is not “suitable to your present needs.”
To summarize, just as one learns how to drive a car from someone who knows how to drive, one can rely on studying one or more of the saints for ideas about how to better understand God and make him real in your life. Do not let “the blind lead the blind.” People used to read about and study the saints so that they would have ideas and role models about how to learn about God, not to follow the saints to the stake, LOL. Many saints were not martyrs and had even ordinary and non-dramatic lives, with the problems and challenges that all average people encounter in life.
Let me give an example of how that works best, and how that might be misunderstood. St. Paul has been through the centuries one of the most frequently role modeled of the saints, but there is a correct way to role model St. Paul and an incorrect way to role model St. Paul. Remember that Paul, when he was still Saul and a violent persecutor of Christians, was an ardent believer in God. Saul was extremely God fearing and very studious in his Jewish faith. It was this love of God that became extremist zealotry which motivated his erroneous persecution of Christians. In a way Saul was like the Pharisees who persecuted Jesus because obviously the Pharisees believed very much in God. So both Saul and the Pharisees were filled to overflowing with belief in God’s existence and in the tenets of their faith. In a way Saul was better than the Pharisees because he was not a hypocrite. Saul did not have the material and prestigious benefits of the wealth of the priesthood, for example; he was a tent maker. However, obviously Saul was worse off than those Pharisees who only argued with Jesus but who personally did not seek his death, leaving that to the other Pharisees. Saul did not argue with Christians; he sought to arrest them and have them killed. Then Saul was thrown from his horse on the way to Damascus by the light and the voice of the resurrected Christ, and he was converted.
Therefore St. Paul has been a role model for many generations of Christians who relate to several aspects of his life: his belief in God but disbelief in Jesus, his dramatic conversion rather than one based on gradual study, his transformation from a destroyer of a faith to a planter of churches, and his suffering for the faith through many trials and pains after his conversion to Christianity. However, I have noticed that St. Paul has been somewhat popular as a modern role model for those who did not believe in God at all. I’m not saying that such moderns are not welcome to use St. Paul as a role model, far from it, I welcome it. But I need to point out that an important aspect of understanding St. Paul is that he always was a God fearing pious believer. The resurrected Christ’s confrontation with him did not prove to Saul that God existed, since Saul always believed that, but was irrefutable proof of the identity of Jesus Christ as specifically the Savior and the Messiah. Moderns who do not believe in God but seek him through St. Paul’s role modeling tend to make one mistake accordingly. Moderns who do not believe in God and role model themselves after St. Paul tend to maintain an inner weakness toward disbelief and pagan practices. This is because St. Paul does not offer in his own life a refuting of total disbelief or of pagan superstitions because he himself had no need of that witness and testimony in his own life, since he always believed in God.
Thus selection of a “role model” saint is very important to proper faith formation. People who have no belief in God or cultist pagan New Age temptations are often better off emulating saints who grew up in pagan households who then converted. They can surely, and should, venerate and honor St. Paul studying, as all aspiring and actual Christians should, his life and his writings. But for moral support and for approaching God through the proven path that is most near one’s own actual situation in life, one should look at the other saints for guidance and both moral and intellectual support. For example St Justin Martyr is one of the best known and helpful of the saints to those who come from a disbelieving, pagan, or excessively secularized pseudo-intellectual background. Justin Martyr lived circa 100-165 and was of a very educated pagan family. As a pagan teacher of philosophy, rhetoric, history and poetry he was inspired by an old man who had met to study Christian Scripture. He became a Christian at the age of thirty, debated with pagan philosophers, and opened a school of philosophy. Justin Martyr was raised as a child, became an intellectual, a teacher and ultimately converted when paganism was by far the majority, and Christianity was the radical, persecuted minority. Thus someone with a very godless background, especially one that was intellectual, can especially relate to Justin Martyr and his existing writings.
For many generations Christian men, whose vocation was to have an average married life with children looked to St. Joseph, spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and stepfather to Jesus, for their path and inspiration, even though Joseph authored no testimonies or sacred literature. During the generations where many did not read or write, who were poor, and who attempted only to do the best they could for their families, the deeds of St. Joseph, his obedience to God, and his love of Jesus were all the inspiration that they needed. They read about the Apostles, studied the Bible and their catechism, but they simply loved St. Joseph. I still remember the time when millions of men looked to St. Joseph for their support and strength, finding God through St. Joseph’s humble and unique example. Oddly we live in times where people buy St. Joseph statues and bury them in the ground upside down so that they can have “better luck” in selling their real estate properties. Maybe that has not been the right approach to God, no? St. Joseph is often forgotten except as a pagan practice to shill someone’s real estate. How sadly the times have changed. As St. Joseph has fallen away as a role model for the average Christian man, we have a real estate crisis (where his statue was used for pagan purposes, not totally a coincidence) plus we have the epidemic of stepfathers and “boyfriends of the mother” brutalizing and killing infants. A generation of humans is very much like the saints that they emulate, and, to their detriment, the saints that they ignore or defy in role modeling. I can think of no more stark example, except for the degrading of God himself, of the downfall of an entire category of humans (men) and their falling away from the best human role model they ever had, St. Joseph, spouse of Mary and step father to Jesus.
Thus to better understand God it is obvious that hundreds and indeed thousands of saints who have already found their way there can and must provide role modeling and example setting to people from a full diversity of life experience and perspective.
Further, one does not better understand God by omitting one’s God given intellect and believing any baloney that anyone makes up and sells to you, including your own self delusion. Far from abandoning reason and intellect, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are rich in the opportunities to use your brain, not put it in mothballs (or some other chemicals).
Additionally, love of God, even if it is unknown to you or painfully incomplete, must be your motivation for seeking to understand God. Motivations other than love of God all lead to truncated, misleading or dead ends and great error in interpretation. Likewise, however, the love of God must be understood correctly, and not as human labeling of weakness or hedonism as being justified by some open ended sloppy agenda based philosophy of supposed “love.” God’s love is infinitely strong and infinitely pure, and one cannot understand God if one has an unwillingness to understand that. God is both understanding and forgiving, but one must also remember that God’s purity of love is never compromised. Thus that which is stained and full of sin, no matter how much God “loves all his children,” cannot enter heaven.
The many paths to finding the one true God as demonstrated by the thousands of saints, both famous and mostly unknown, demonstrates again that God wishes all to find him, and does not “predestine” anyone to heaven or hell. Like evolution and natural selection has developed many thousands of species of birds in nature, for example, each person finds the same God in their own heart and soul through various paths. What is important to remember is, however, that the paths are all real and grounded on actuality, not self invented delusion. The saints demonstrate that people can and do come to God in various directions at various times in their lives: some were child saints, holy at even a small age, while others became saints late in life after much error and sinfulness. Obviously if people were “predestined” God would not have allowed such many examples of those who individually find sanctity and role model to others. Just to close this topic, here is the statement of the Catholic Church doctrine regarding predestination:
1037. God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of the faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:
Father, accept this offering
From your whole family
Grant us your peace in this life,
Save us from final damnation,
And count us among those you have chosen.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Nativity of Jesus brought great danger
Even in the time of joy of Advent, with the anticipation of the birth of Jesus Christ, and the wonder and glory of the actual Nativity, one must keep a very important grim reality in mind, if one is to truly understand God, the gift of Jesus Christ, and humans’ own behavior.
The best way to do this is to recall the following while celebrating Christmas. While the faithful celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ over at least a long weekend, most likely a week, and of course many celebrate throughout the month or more, the actual Infant Jesus and the Holy Family, Joseph and Mary, barely had a day to celebrate his birth. One might assume that I mean the temporary lodging in the stable and the poverty of the Lord’s birth, but no that is not what I mean.
Matthew 2:1-3, 7-8, 11-13, 16
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi came from the East to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and have come to worship him.” But when King Herod heard this, he was troubled, and so was all Jerusalem [comment: meaning the powerful in his court and among the priests] with him.
Then Herod summoned the Magi secretly, and carefully ascertained from them the time when the star had appeared to them. And sending them to Bethlehem, he said, “Go and make careful inquiry concerning the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and worship him.”
And entering the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they worshipped him… And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their country by another way. But when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying, “Arise, and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and remain there until I tell thee. For Herod will seek the child to destroy him.”
Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the Magi, was exceedingly angry; and he sent and slew all the boys in Bethlehem and all its neighborhood who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the Magi.
Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiahs the prophet, A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be comforted, because they are no more.
Yes, within mere days of the birth of Jesus, angels warned both the Magi, who had innocently given Herod the news of the Savior’s birth, and Joseph to flee for Herod planned to kill Jesus. So much faster than we have our tree, our gifts, and our dinner, the Holy Family had to run to save the life of the newborn Jesus.
What is worse, Herod had no way of knowing that the angels had warned the Magi and Joseph, so when he got no further information from the Magi, he decided to have killed every innocent baby who MIGHT be Jesus. Thus he had all infant boys under the age of two in two villages cruelly slain by sword. Imagine the innocent families who had no knowledge of anything having soldiers storm into their village, declaring war on their baby boys and spitting them on swords right in front of the mothers.
Because Herod had no way of knowing that the Holy Family had been warned by angels and fled, he did not pursue them, thinking they were still in the region. Thus those baby infants were the first martyrs of the Church, and are honored three days after the Nativity of Jesus Christ, on December 28. Herod in his deep and dark evil killed every little baby boy who “might” have been Jesus, and thus never thought to mount a pursuit of the Holy Family (since he knew not who they were but yes, think about it, his agents could have found out). But he thought he “took care of the problem” by slaughtering every little baby boy in those two villages under the age of two.
Imagine being Joseph and Mary. Many focus on the Holy Family being away from their home when Jesus was born, and being poor having to be in the stable. But mere days after the birth of Jesus they were fleeing the soldiers of King Herod who came with slaughtering swords, so at Christmas one must also remember the dire peril they were in, and the sacrifice of the innocent babies, who distracted Herod and thus saved Jesus from pursuit.
One cannot really understand the gift of Jesus from God without understanding this slaughter at the mere rumor of his arrival. This is something older children, and most certainly adults, must understand and remember in order to truly appreciate the risk and the grace of the gift of the Infant Jesus to a world ensnared by the most wicked of sin.
From Christian Prayer, the Liturgy of the Holy Hours:
December 28
Holy Innocents, Martyrs
Come let us worship the newborn Christ who crowns with joy these children who died for him.
Clothed in white robes, they will walk with me, says the Lord, for they are worthy.
These children cry out their praises to the Lord; by their death they have proclaimed what they could not preach with their infant voices.
From the mouths of children and babies at the breast you have found praise to foil your enemies.
The just are the friends of God.
They live with him forever.
-The just are the friends of God.
They live with him forever.
God himself is their reward.
-They live with him for ever.
Glory to the Father…
-The just are…
At the king’s command these innocent babies and little children were put to death; they died for Christ, and now in the glory of heaven as they follow him, the sinless Lamb, they sing for ever. Glory to you O Lord.
…The Holy Innocents gave witness not by words but by their life’s blood,
-give us strength to be your witnesses before men, both by words and by actions.
They were not ready for battle but you made them fit to win the palm of victory,
-now that we are prepared for victory, do not let us despair.
…You rewarded the child martyrs with the first share in your kingdom,
-do not let us be cast out from the unending heavenly banquet.
You knew persecution and exile as a child,
-protect all children whose lives are in danger from famine, war and disasters.
Our Father…
You see, Catholics do not worship the infant martyrs, but they remember them, 2000 years after they, through no choice of their own, were slaughtered as the first martyrs. We also allow ourselves to imagine their joy and reward from God, as they would have been the "first" into heaven to learn of the arrival of the Messiah and their role.
Understanding the Holy Innocents, Martyrs helps you to understand the Catholic attitude toward saints. They honor and revere with great solemnity the reality that the Infant Jesus had to flee with his family mere days after birth to save his life, a life that was put at risk by naive Wise Men with enthusiastic and worshipful big mouths. Honoring these little baby saints reminds us all that martyrdom at the hands of evil humans accompanies the arrival of good. This is one reason the Catholic Church often references the blood of martyrs, not because they are gory or wishing for such a fate, which is so obviously unjust. The newborn Jesus' life was preserved as innocents were slaughtered by their own people sent by their own King and his evil insecurity.
December 28 is a very important day to me, it always has been, for this reason, to honor the Holy Innocents and their grieving families, and to explain to people to recall that the gift by God of Jesus to humanity was not just someone who “understood poverty,” but whose very life was at risk at the hands of the very people he came to save. This, incidentally, is why fictionalized ex-Bible accounts of the boy Jesus performing miracles is not true; after the slaughter of the Holy Innocents it is not as though the Holy Family exactly proclaimed any miracle working of Jesus and thus might draw down not only on themselves but others another slaughter such as had taken place days after his birth.
Many wish that the spirituality of Christmas could be enhanced. Well, a first step is learning the facts that Jesus had less time in the manger than the average family has a long weekend of Christmas celebration, before he had to flee, and the Holy Innocents became the first martyrs even before one word was preached, and John the Baptist would have been only six months old himself.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
The best way to do this is to recall the following while celebrating Christmas. While the faithful celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ over at least a long weekend, most likely a week, and of course many celebrate throughout the month or more, the actual Infant Jesus and the Holy Family, Joseph and Mary, barely had a day to celebrate his birth. One might assume that I mean the temporary lodging in the stable and the poverty of the Lord’s birth, but no that is not what I mean.
Matthew 2:1-3, 7-8, 11-13, 16
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, Magi came from the East to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and have come to worship him.” But when King Herod heard this, he was troubled, and so was all Jerusalem [comment: meaning the powerful in his court and among the priests] with him.
Then Herod summoned the Magi secretly, and carefully ascertained from them the time when the star had appeared to them. And sending them to Bethlehem, he said, “Go and make careful inquiry concerning the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and worship him.”
And entering the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they worshipped him… And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their country by another way. But when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying, “Arise, and take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and remain there until I tell thee. For Herod will seek the child to destroy him.”
Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the Magi, was exceedingly angry; and he sent and slew all the boys in Bethlehem and all its neighborhood who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had carefully ascertained from the Magi.
Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiahs the prophet, A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be comforted, because they are no more.
Yes, within mere days of the birth of Jesus, angels warned both the Magi, who had innocently given Herod the news of the Savior’s birth, and Joseph to flee for Herod planned to kill Jesus. So much faster than we have our tree, our gifts, and our dinner, the Holy Family had to run to save the life of the newborn Jesus.
What is worse, Herod had no way of knowing that the angels had warned the Magi and Joseph, so when he got no further information from the Magi, he decided to have killed every innocent baby who MIGHT be Jesus. Thus he had all infant boys under the age of two in two villages cruelly slain by sword. Imagine the innocent families who had no knowledge of anything having soldiers storm into their village, declaring war on their baby boys and spitting them on swords right in front of the mothers.
Because Herod had no way of knowing that the Holy Family had been warned by angels and fled, he did not pursue them, thinking they were still in the region. Thus those baby infants were the first martyrs of the Church, and are honored three days after the Nativity of Jesus Christ, on December 28. Herod in his deep and dark evil killed every little baby boy who “might” have been Jesus, and thus never thought to mount a pursuit of the Holy Family (since he knew not who they were but yes, think about it, his agents could have found out). But he thought he “took care of the problem” by slaughtering every little baby boy in those two villages under the age of two.
Imagine being Joseph and Mary. Many focus on the Holy Family being away from their home when Jesus was born, and being poor having to be in the stable. But mere days after the birth of Jesus they were fleeing the soldiers of King Herod who came with slaughtering swords, so at Christmas one must also remember the dire peril they were in, and the sacrifice of the innocent babies, who distracted Herod and thus saved Jesus from pursuit.
One cannot really understand the gift of Jesus from God without understanding this slaughter at the mere rumor of his arrival. This is something older children, and most certainly adults, must understand and remember in order to truly appreciate the risk and the grace of the gift of the Infant Jesus to a world ensnared by the most wicked of sin.
From Christian Prayer, the Liturgy of the Holy Hours:
December 28
Holy Innocents, Martyrs
Come let us worship the newborn Christ who crowns with joy these children who died for him.
Clothed in white robes, they will walk with me, says the Lord, for they are worthy.
These children cry out their praises to the Lord; by their death they have proclaimed what they could not preach with their infant voices.
From the mouths of children and babies at the breast you have found praise to foil your enemies.
The just are the friends of God.
They live with him forever.
-The just are the friends of God.
They live with him forever.
God himself is their reward.
-They live with him for ever.
Glory to the Father…
-The just are…
At the king’s command these innocent babies and little children were put to death; they died for Christ, and now in the glory of heaven as they follow him, the sinless Lamb, they sing for ever. Glory to you O Lord.
…The Holy Innocents gave witness not by words but by their life’s blood,
-give us strength to be your witnesses before men, both by words and by actions.
They were not ready for battle but you made them fit to win the palm of victory,
-now that we are prepared for victory, do not let us despair.
…You rewarded the child martyrs with the first share in your kingdom,
-do not let us be cast out from the unending heavenly banquet.
You knew persecution and exile as a child,
-protect all children whose lives are in danger from famine, war and disasters.
Our Father…
You see, Catholics do not worship the infant martyrs, but they remember them, 2000 years after they, through no choice of their own, were slaughtered as the first martyrs. We also allow ourselves to imagine their joy and reward from God, as they would have been the "first" into heaven to learn of the arrival of the Messiah and their role.
Understanding the Holy Innocents, Martyrs helps you to understand the Catholic attitude toward saints. They honor and revere with great solemnity the reality that the Infant Jesus had to flee with his family mere days after birth to save his life, a life that was put at risk by naive Wise Men with enthusiastic and worshipful big mouths. Honoring these little baby saints reminds us all that martyrdom at the hands of evil humans accompanies the arrival of good. This is one reason the Catholic Church often references the blood of martyrs, not because they are gory or wishing for such a fate, which is so obviously unjust. The newborn Jesus' life was preserved as innocents were slaughtered by their own people sent by their own King and his evil insecurity.
December 28 is a very important day to me, it always has been, for this reason, to honor the Holy Innocents and their grieving families, and to explain to people to recall that the gift by God of Jesus to humanity was not just someone who “understood poverty,” but whose very life was at risk at the hands of the very people he came to save. This, incidentally, is why fictionalized ex-Bible accounts of the boy Jesus performing miracles is not true; after the slaughter of the Holy Innocents it is not as though the Holy Family exactly proclaimed any miracle working of Jesus and thus might draw down not only on themselves but others another slaughter such as had taken place days after his birth.
Many wish that the spirituality of Christmas could be enhanced. Well, a first step is learning the facts that Jesus had less time in the manger than the average family has a long weekend of Christmas celebration, before he had to flee, and the Holy Innocents became the first martyrs even before one word was preached, and John the Baptist would have been only six months old himself.
I hope that you have found this helpful.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Profile of a lesser known saint
From "Dictionary of Saints" by John J. Delaney, Doubleday.
Vici, Blessed Antony (1381-1461)
Of religious parents, he was born at Stroncone, Italy
became a Franciscan lay brother when twelve,
and despite ill health remained religious the rest of his life.
He was deputy master of novices
under B. Thomas of Florence at Fiesole
when he was twenty-six, and in 1421 he
accompanied Thomas on a papal mission to suppress
the heretical Fraticelli in Siena and Sicily,
a mission that lasted ten years.
In 1431, Bl. Antony retired to the friary
of the Carceri near Assisi and spent
the next thirty years there living in great austerity.
He was sent to St. Damian Friary in Assisi
in 1460 and died there on February 8.
Numerous miracles by him were recorded
after his death, and his cult was
confirmed in 1687. He is known as
Bl. Antony of Stroncone.
(February 7)
Vici, Blessed Antony (1381-1461)
Of religious parents, he was born at Stroncone, Italy
became a Franciscan lay brother when twelve,
and despite ill health remained religious the rest of his life.
He was deputy master of novices
under B. Thomas of Florence at Fiesole
when he was twenty-six, and in 1421 he
accompanied Thomas on a papal mission to suppress
the heretical Fraticelli in Siena and Sicily,
a mission that lasted ten years.
In 1431, Bl. Antony retired to the friary
of the Carceri near Assisi and spent
the next thirty years there living in great austerity.
He was sent to St. Damian Friary in Assisi
in 1460 and died there on February 8.
Numerous miracles by him were recorded
after his death, and his cult was
confirmed in 1687. He is known as
Bl. Antony of Stroncone.
(February 7)
Friday, October 10, 2008
Agree with Pope Benedict re Pope Pius XII
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805150.htm
snip
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Among the thousands who crammed into St. Peter's Basilica for a Mass commemorating Pope Pius XII, many were hoping for an announcement about his beatification, a step toward sainthood. That didn't happen. Pope Benedict XVI strongly praised Pope Pius and prayed that his sainthood cause would make progress, but he made no promises and set no dates. He did not declare Pope Pius "venerable," the step that would have advanced the cause and, no doubt, would have prompted much applause in the basilica. To make sure that no one got the wrong idea, the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, told reporters not to expect the pope to go off and sign such a decree immediately after the Mass. The pope was demonstrating his "spiritual union" with those hoping for canonization, but gave no indication about future steps, Father Lombardi said.
***
I agree with Pope Benedict and others who have defended Pope Pius XII from inaccurate and unfair attacks about the vigor of his intervention to save as many Jews as possible during World War II.
But I also agree with Pope Benedict going slowly about Pope Pius' sainthood cause. I do not see a linkage even though many will draw that obvious conclusion.
I think it is obvious that Pope Benedict is wisely slowing down the Vatican "saint factory" in general, and that Pope Pius will be part of that slower and more discerning process.
People, I know that everyone "wants" to see "their own" modern day saints declared. Everyone wants someone from their gender, culture, ethnic group, profession, age group, you name it, people seem to want saints declared that reflect their own image in the mirror. That is human and very understandable, but is actually an expression of weakness of faith rather than strength of faith.
We have people today who want "modern" and "representative" saints declared, but who actually know very little of the bona fide saints who have been declared through the ages, and do little to follow the lessons of their sanctity. Jesus himself cautioned that the Jews did not listen to Moses or Elijah, when he told the story of the rich man in hell who ignored the poor starving man Lazarus. This is an example of how the saints and prophets are to remain alive in their lessons and sanctity today, and not a constant rush to find a "representative, modern example of saint so that someone can 'believe more.'" If you need a saint the same color, ethnicity, age or gender as you to believe, then you aren't believing all that strongly in the first place.
Having said that, I share the joy when a saint is declared, such as the first female Asian Indian saint. But those glories and honors have been diluted by the recent several decades "frenzy" to push "representative" saints through the pipeline, whether they were actual saints or simply the good and pious believers that they undoubtedly were.
Pope Pius XII would be the last person who would want the honor of being a saint, as he already has received his reward in heaven, and he was a very humble man. This is not to say that he should not receive that declaration, should the facts and miracles be authentic and bear out in investigation. But I am saying that all real saints would be horrified to know their earthly advocates feel that they "must be declared saints" in order to "strengthen the faith" (by those who imply "modern 'inclusiveness'" is important).
All these holy people would ask why the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and all the "traditional" and lesser known saints are not more than enough proof and model for current day "faith" and role models of sanctity.
snip
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Among the thousands who crammed into St. Peter's Basilica for a Mass commemorating Pope Pius XII, many were hoping for an announcement about his beatification, a step toward sainthood. That didn't happen. Pope Benedict XVI strongly praised Pope Pius and prayed that his sainthood cause would make progress, but he made no promises and set no dates. He did not declare Pope Pius "venerable," the step that would have advanced the cause and, no doubt, would have prompted much applause in the basilica. To make sure that no one got the wrong idea, the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, told reporters not to expect the pope to go off and sign such a decree immediately after the Mass. The pope was demonstrating his "spiritual union" with those hoping for canonization, but gave no indication about future steps, Father Lombardi said.
***
I agree with Pope Benedict and others who have defended Pope Pius XII from inaccurate and unfair attacks about the vigor of his intervention to save as many Jews as possible during World War II.
But I also agree with Pope Benedict going slowly about Pope Pius' sainthood cause. I do not see a linkage even though many will draw that obvious conclusion.
I think it is obvious that Pope Benedict is wisely slowing down the Vatican "saint factory" in general, and that Pope Pius will be part of that slower and more discerning process.
People, I know that everyone "wants" to see "their own" modern day saints declared. Everyone wants someone from their gender, culture, ethnic group, profession, age group, you name it, people seem to want saints declared that reflect their own image in the mirror. That is human and very understandable, but is actually an expression of weakness of faith rather than strength of faith.
We have people today who want "modern" and "representative" saints declared, but who actually know very little of the bona fide saints who have been declared through the ages, and do little to follow the lessons of their sanctity. Jesus himself cautioned that the Jews did not listen to Moses or Elijah, when he told the story of the rich man in hell who ignored the poor starving man Lazarus. This is an example of how the saints and prophets are to remain alive in their lessons and sanctity today, and not a constant rush to find a "representative, modern example of saint so that someone can 'believe more.'" If you need a saint the same color, ethnicity, age or gender as you to believe, then you aren't believing all that strongly in the first place.
Having said that, I share the joy when a saint is declared, such as the first female Asian Indian saint. But those glories and honors have been diluted by the recent several decades "frenzy" to push "representative" saints through the pipeline, whether they were actual saints or simply the good and pious believers that they undoubtedly were.
Pope Pius XII would be the last person who would want the honor of being a saint, as he already has received his reward in heaven, and he was a very humble man. This is not to say that he should not receive that declaration, should the facts and miracles be authentic and bear out in investigation. But I am saying that all real saints would be horrified to know their earthly advocates feel that they "must be declared saints" in order to "strengthen the faith" (by those who imply "modern 'inclusiveness'" is important).
All these holy people would ask why the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and all the "traditional" and lesser known saints are not more than enough proof and model for current day "faith" and role models of sanctity.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Interesting St. Augustine sermon quote re belief
Still researching my original topic. Anyway, I wanted to share this quote from the great St. Augustine (354-430) from one of his sermons. I want to use it as a way to illustrate some of the faith and reason interpretive skills I've been teaching. He said:
The Church is spread throughout the whole world: all nations have the Church. Let no one deceive you; it is true, it is the Catholic Church. Christ we have not seen, but we have her; let us believe as regards Him. The Apostles, on the contrary, saw Him, but they believed as regards her. (Sermon 238).
Rather than just gliding over these sentences and thinking, "Well, that's a nice statement of faith," analyze it like a scholar. You can glean these observations by doing so:
1. During the 4Th century every nation (that is, all the nations that were known of at that time in history) had at least a few Catholic present.
2. Therefore, people who state that the faith does not exist are incorrect, because obviously there is a shared belief that has penetrated every nation, whether it be a small presence or a large one, the point is that the common belief is unified through all nations in some degree.
3. The basic premise of faith is the ability to believe what one has not physically seen, so he reiterates that the Catholic Church is the "see-able" part of the faith, since obviously they cannot see Jesus Christ, who passed from the earth several hundred years previously.
4. The Apostles had the ability to see Jesus Christ in person, while they had to "have faith" in the future Catholic Church.
See, from a few sentences you can get solid facts about Church and societal conditions at this time in faith history plus a very interesting observation about faith. I'm not sure many people have thought about the fact that the Apostles "had" Jesus right in front of them; they had to have "faith" in the future Catholic Church. People today have the Catholic Church, and have to have "faith" in Jesus, who they do not have physically present in their midst (and will not until the End of Days).
Slowing down and reading what someone writes, whether clerical or a layperson, from a point in time and not just glossing over it as just another thing to say gives real insights about not only that person's beliefs and assertions, but actually kind of a spyglass back into that point of time in human and faith history. This is similar to what I wrote two postings ago about St. Jerome's letter suggesting the making of alphabet blocks. Reading a saint's letters tell you something valuable about 1) his idea for a child's instruction and 2) this was a girl child he was advising, so it's not like the stereotype that no one cared about teaching and educating young girls at all. Without having an agenda he wrote this letter giving kindly advice to family friends, and thus modern readers get a glimpse into the much more nuanced behavior and attitudes of the 4Th century than people often assume.
The Church is spread throughout the whole world: all nations have the Church. Let no one deceive you; it is true, it is the Catholic Church. Christ we have not seen, but we have her; let us believe as regards Him. The Apostles, on the contrary, saw Him, but they believed as regards her. (Sermon 238).
Rather than just gliding over these sentences and thinking, "Well, that's a nice statement of faith," analyze it like a scholar. You can glean these observations by doing so:
1. During the 4Th century every nation (that is, all the nations that were known of at that time in history) had at least a few Catholic present.
2. Therefore, people who state that the faith does not exist are incorrect, because obviously there is a shared belief that has penetrated every nation, whether it be a small presence or a large one, the point is that the common belief is unified through all nations in some degree.
3. The basic premise of faith is the ability to believe what one has not physically seen, so he reiterates that the Catholic Church is the "see-able" part of the faith, since obviously they cannot see Jesus Christ, who passed from the earth several hundred years previously.
4. The Apostles had the ability to see Jesus Christ in person, while they had to "have faith" in the future Catholic Church.
See, from a few sentences you can get solid facts about Church and societal conditions at this time in faith history plus a very interesting observation about faith. I'm not sure many people have thought about the fact that the Apostles "had" Jesus right in front of them; they had to have "faith" in the future Catholic Church. People today have the Catholic Church, and have to have "faith" in Jesus, who they do not have physically present in their midst (and will not until the End of Days).
Slowing down and reading what someone writes, whether clerical or a layperson, from a point in time and not just glossing over it as just another thing to say gives real insights about not only that person's beliefs and assertions, but actually kind of a spyglass back into that point of time in human and faith history. This is similar to what I wrote two postings ago about St. Jerome's letter suggesting the making of alphabet blocks. Reading a saint's letters tell you something valuable about 1) his idea for a child's instruction and 2) this was a girl child he was advising, so it's not like the stereotype that no one cared about teaching and educating young girls at all. Without having an agenda he wrote this letter giving kindly advice to family friends, and thus modern readers get a glimpse into the much more nuanced behavior and attitudes of the 4Th century than people often assume.
Saint recommends child's alphabet play letters
While researching something just now, I can across something so cool. St. Jerome, who lived from 342-420 AD and is one of the great doctors of the church, wrote a letter with this advice for educating an infant:
"Have letters made for her, of boxwood or ivory, and let them be called by their names. Let her play with them, and let the play be part of her instruction..."
He was one of the great Doctors of the Church, and here in latter part of the 4Th century, he is advising her parents about how to make and use what we call today alphabet blocks, except he's suggesting carving each of the actual letters. Far from being isolated from family life and understanding raising children, many saints showed great wisdom and heart in how children should be kindly raised.
"Have letters made for her, of boxwood or ivory, and let them be called by their names. Let her play with them, and let the play be part of her instruction..."
He was one of the great Doctors of the Church, and here in latter part of the 4Th century, he is advising her parents about how to make and use what we call today alphabet blocks, except he's suggesting carving each of the actual letters. Far from being isolated from family life and understanding raising children, many saints showed great wisdom and heart in how children should be kindly raised.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
That lost Brazil balloon priest
I better not see how "saintly" he was because he lost his life doing a stupid balloon stunt to "raise money for a trucker's spiritual rest stop."
Shut up and stop the secular drama! He wasted what could have been a long life of ministering to the poor by doing this stunt.
Those who encouraged him should be ashamed and beg God for mercy. You should have donated to his beloved cause so that he NOT go up in the balloon, rather than pledging for him to go and risk his life. How stupid! Don't think that God is unaware that there was a hidden motivation having to do with the giggle factor of a men's "rest stop" along the road with this whole fund raising "idea."
If he was really saintly instead of a chump to the instigators he would have taken two chairs and a blanket or umbrella to a trucker's rest stop one day a week and sat and listened to confessions. That is how the real saints of old time did it. They didn't 'raise money' with 'stunts' for built facilities. They sat in huts, under blankets or out in the open and listened to confessions for hour after hour. THEY were there, not the building. A PRIEST hearing confession brings people to God, not a building. Another dead and wasted priest and another trucker homo joke. God's not laughing.
Shut up and stop the secular drama! He wasted what could have been a long life of ministering to the poor by doing this stunt.
Those who encouraged him should be ashamed and beg God for mercy. You should have donated to his beloved cause so that he NOT go up in the balloon, rather than pledging for him to go and risk his life. How stupid! Don't think that God is unaware that there was a hidden motivation having to do with the giggle factor of a men's "rest stop" along the road with this whole fund raising "idea."
If he was really saintly instead of a chump to the instigators he would have taken two chairs and a blanket or umbrella to a trucker's rest stop one day a week and sat and listened to confessions. That is how the real saints of old time did it. They didn't 'raise money' with 'stunts' for built facilities. They sat in huts, under blankets or out in the open and listened to confessions for hour after hour. THEY were there, not the building. A PRIEST hearing confession brings people to God, not a building. Another dead and wasted priest and another trucker homo joke. God's not laughing.
I wonder how life is going for those who used to...
... believe that they are "special" because they are "reincarnated so and so" and have "past lives?" I wonder how it now feels to know that this is a crock of s*** and that it's even more disgraceful for a supposed Christian, Jew or Muslim to have believed that New Age garbage?
For years I have been disgusted beyond belief knowing that some "Christians" actually go to church and worship Jesus while thinking their stupid arses hold someone reincarnated and, blasphemy beyond belief, thinking they are saints, angels or of Jesus' family (or persecutors).
That's one reason I no longer enjoy going to Mass, because I know if I am there then there are at least a few people who actually profane the church with their presence thinking they are divine participants because of a "past life." It makes me want to puke and throw Clorox and ammonia everywhere they have put their dirty rumps and blasphemous minds. I ought to apply to Clorox for a grant.
I have not yet encountered a single person on earth, nor will I, who has had one genuine saintly thought, say nothing of having any "residual" of a saint's personality or spirit. There are people who have genuine charity of a nearly saintly degree (Mother Teresa for example) but trust me, even that is not the mindset of a genuine saint. Even she, while she was an amazing woman full of charitable grace, I have to wonder if anyone will see genuine miracles of curing, the hallmark of a true saint's crowning in heaven. Humble as she was, she was vulnerable to the secular publicity machine and that is what tainted her faith, in part, and is not a sign of an unquestionable saint. I'm fully aware that people in modern times have fabricated some "miracles" on "behalf" of saints, particularly during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. I am glad, by the way, that Pope Benedict XVI will steward a time of more caution, though I wonder if he will catch fabricated stuff still in the pipeline. God will, trust me on that for sure.
For years I have been disgusted beyond belief knowing that some "Christians" actually go to church and worship Jesus while thinking their stupid arses hold someone reincarnated and, blasphemy beyond belief, thinking they are saints, angels or of Jesus' family (or persecutors).
That's one reason I no longer enjoy going to Mass, because I know if I am there then there are at least a few people who actually profane the church with their presence thinking they are divine participants because of a "past life." It makes me want to puke and throw Clorox and ammonia everywhere they have put their dirty rumps and blasphemous minds. I ought to apply to Clorox for a grant.
I have not yet encountered a single person on earth, nor will I, who has had one genuine saintly thought, say nothing of having any "residual" of a saint's personality or spirit. There are people who have genuine charity of a nearly saintly degree (Mother Teresa for example) but trust me, even that is not the mindset of a genuine saint. Even she, while she was an amazing woman full of charitable grace, I have to wonder if anyone will see genuine miracles of curing, the hallmark of a true saint's crowning in heaven. Humble as she was, she was vulnerable to the secular publicity machine and that is what tainted her faith, in part, and is not a sign of an unquestionable saint. I'm fully aware that people in modern times have fabricated some "miracles" on "behalf" of saints, particularly during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. I am glad, by the way, that Pope Benedict XVI will steward a time of more caution, though I wonder if he will catch fabricated stuff still in the pipeline. God will, trust me on that for sure.
By the way, one misconception is that saints have "dark nights of the soul" and that therefore a person who lacks perfect faith can be a saint. Wrong! A saint first has the perfect faith, and then may be troubled by the phenomenon of the dark night of the soul. But first a saint must achieve that place of perfect faith (surrender to God as a tool of his will in total obedience). The dark night of the soul is not a rubberstamp that someone who has some sort of belief, but who never achieved a saint's obedience in faith, has "saint potential" or even a saint's mindest. He or she most assuredly does not.
A genuine saint is someone who is completely swept away with being a tool of God and completely submissive to his will. Trust me, there's no one like that walking the earth these days.
So the nerve of people who not only believe in that clap trap of "reincarnation" and "past lives" but who actually ascribe to themselves the identity of holy people who have gone before not only disgusts me beyond belief, but makes me tremble for how they will suffer when they discover the truth, perhaps in the mouth of hell.
I pray, though I no longer care in the tender and loving way that I once did, that they repent and reform while still alive, and learn to thank God for the one soul and one genuine life that they have received from him, before they die and discover they are judged for eternity based on that one and only life.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Another way to understand Catholic relics
I just thought of an analogy for better understanding the uniquely Catholic reverence for the relics of saints.
Everyone knows someone, or has read about, who has lost a loved one in a tragedy, especially a child, and who as a result leaves their bedroom and things untouched. We know people who in their grief, especially parents, leave the very clothes the child last wore and held laying on the bed, in the closet, and all their things and furnishings as they were when they died. I know of fathers who still hug the clothes of their child who has passed, smelling the fragrance of their baby who grew up and left the world too soon in tragedy.
Catholics likewise have a love and attachment of comfort in their grief for the remains and furnishings of the saints. But with Catholics the aroma of comfort they "smell" is the fragrance of sanctity. Catholics venerate the remains of the saints because they love and long for what they cannot physically touch, because it is with God, but can "smell" because of the abundance of grace that was in that saint when he or she lived, and memories remain to give one strength. So just as the grieving parent is not worshipping their child's furnishings in an idolatrous way, but drawing sweet yet painful comfort from their clothes and room, so are Catholics not worshipping the relics of the saint, so much as they are pressing themselves against the containers that once held so much grace from God that it still resonates with that aroma of sanctity today, as they seek comfort from the hurts and uncertainties of life's hardships.
I hope this helps to better understand.
When a few years ago I kissed a relic of St. Francis I thought, "Old friend," with affection. I tapped my Franciscan rosary to the glass front of the reliquary with the same thoughts, so when I look at that rosary I think with fondness of him. I have it set aside in my "Catholic first aid kit," ha, not because I now think it is loaded with supernatural power, as it certainly does not work like that, but because if someone should ever need to "feel" the faith I can tell them that story and let them hold the rosary. The reason miracles do occur in connection with relics is entirely of God's will and is connected to the person's recognition of grace at work.
Everyone knows someone, or has read about, who has lost a loved one in a tragedy, especially a child, and who as a result leaves their bedroom and things untouched. We know people who in their grief, especially parents, leave the very clothes the child last wore and held laying on the bed, in the closet, and all their things and furnishings as they were when they died. I know of fathers who still hug the clothes of their child who has passed, smelling the fragrance of their baby who grew up and left the world too soon in tragedy.
Catholics likewise have a love and attachment of comfort in their grief for the remains and furnishings of the saints. But with Catholics the aroma of comfort they "smell" is the fragrance of sanctity. Catholics venerate the remains of the saints because they love and long for what they cannot physically touch, because it is with God, but can "smell" because of the abundance of grace that was in that saint when he or she lived, and memories remain to give one strength. So just as the grieving parent is not worshipping their child's furnishings in an idolatrous way, but drawing sweet yet painful comfort from their clothes and room, so are Catholics not worshipping the relics of the saint, so much as they are pressing themselves against the containers that once held so much grace from God that it still resonates with that aroma of sanctity today, as they seek comfort from the hurts and uncertainties of life's hardships.
I hope this helps to better understand.
When a few years ago I kissed a relic of St. Francis I thought, "Old friend," with affection. I tapped my Franciscan rosary to the glass front of the reliquary with the same thoughts, so when I look at that rosary I think with fondness of him. I have it set aside in my "Catholic first aid kit," ha, not because I now think it is loaded with supernatural power, as it certainly does not work like that, but because if someone should ever need to "feel" the faith I can tell them that story and let them hold the rosary. The reason miracles do occur in connection with relics is entirely of God's will and is connected to the person's recognition of grace at work.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Advice for evangelicals exploring monastic ideas
I just read this article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/03/the_unexpected_monks/
It talks about how a growing number of evangelicals are looking into some of the principles of monastic life, and similar traditions of the Roman Catholic religious orders, to revitalize their faith and secular lives. I think it's great and I hope this becomes a growing trend. So I need to make some suggestions.
One is that don't put the cart before the horse. The reason for religious orders such as monks and nuns was not for the simplicity, charity and social work, those are wonderful byproducts. The purpose of these communities was, and remains, to have daily Mass, the sacraments, and continual communal and solitary prayer. The "chores" and lifestyle choices are therefore organized AROUND the original priority of full time devotion to prayer to God. So evangelicals who want to design a new model for their secular lives ought to first define the times and amounts of daily prayer and worship service attendance in each day and that becomes the foundation of the rest of your decisions. For examples, monks decided what simple foods to eat around the two problems 1) when to time meals around the devotions and the chores and 2) what food they could obtain. It's not like they wondered "what Jesus would eat" but they ate what they could raise on their farm land that sustained them, or what they could get in donations. So worrying about pudding or jello is not your priority. If you want to be like a monk you plan your prayer life (and of course the hours of your secular jobs and child care responsibilities) and then eat the food that will sustain you in the prayer life and your responsibilities. If cheese doodles before your equivalent of Vespers gives you the satisfaction and calories then go for it. It's the prayer that matters and your simple approach to it.
To help also on some historical perspectives I'm going to post a number of stories of real people who became religious order members. These are taken from "Dictionary of Saints" by John J. Delaney. This is because many evangelicals don't know the human social history of life in the "dark ages," "medieval times," the renaissance," and so forth and so stereotype people who became priests, monks, and nuns. For example many were married people with children who became widowed, or their children died, or they entered into celibate marriages. Often they were orphans. So monastic or nunnery life was often a "second career," to put it in modern terms. If you read stories about real people and their life circumstances it can give you more perspective about choices you make today to thread some aspects of monastic or religious order practices into your individual set of life circumstances.
Hope this helps.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/03/the_unexpected_monks/
It talks about how a growing number of evangelicals are looking into some of the principles of monastic life, and similar traditions of the Roman Catholic religious orders, to revitalize their faith and secular lives. I think it's great and I hope this becomes a growing trend. So I need to make some suggestions.
One is that don't put the cart before the horse. The reason for religious orders such as monks and nuns was not for the simplicity, charity and social work, those are wonderful byproducts. The purpose of these communities was, and remains, to have daily Mass, the sacraments, and continual communal and solitary prayer. The "chores" and lifestyle choices are therefore organized AROUND the original priority of full time devotion to prayer to God. So evangelicals who want to design a new model for their secular lives ought to first define the times and amounts of daily prayer and worship service attendance in each day and that becomes the foundation of the rest of your decisions. For examples, monks decided what simple foods to eat around the two problems 1) when to time meals around the devotions and the chores and 2) what food they could obtain. It's not like they wondered "what Jesus would eat" but they ate what they could raise on their farm land that sustained them, or what they could get in donations. So worrying about pudding or jello is not your priority. If you want to be like a monk you plan your prayer life (and of course the hours of your secular jobs and child care responsibilities) and then eat the food that will sustain you in the prayer life and your responsibilities. If cheese doodles before your equivalent of Vespers gives you the satisfaction and calories then go for it. It's the prayer that matters and your simple approach to it.
To help also on some historical perspectives I'm going to post a number of stories of real people who became religious order members. These are taken from "Dictionary of Saints" by John J. Delaney. This is because many evangelicals don't know the human social history of life in the "dark ages," "medieval times," the renaissance," and so forth and so stereotype people who became priests, monks, and nuns. For example many were married people with children who became widowed, or their children died, or they entered into celibate marriages. Often they were orphans. So monastic or nunnery life was often a "second career," to put it in modern terms. If you read stories about real people and their life circumstances it can give you more perspective about choices you make today to thread some aspects of monastic or religious order practices into your individual set of life circumstances.
Hope this helps.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
From Pope Benedict's Q&A with Priests
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070724_clero-cadore_en.html
All the Saints also always come with God. It is important - Sacred Scripture tell us from the very outset - that God never comes by himself but comes accompanied and surrounded by the Angels and Saints. In the great stained glass window in St Peter's which portrays the Holy Spirit, what I like so much is the fact that God is surrounded by a throng of Angels and living beings who are an expression, an emanation, so to speak, of God's love. And with God, with Christ, with the man who is God and with God who is man, Our Lady arrives. This is very important. God, the Lord, has a Mother and in his Mother we truly recognize God's motherly goodness. Our Lady, Mother of God, is the Help of Christians, she is our permanent comfort, our great help. I see this too in the dialogue with the Bishops of the world, of Africa and lately also of Latin America; I see that love for Our Lady is the driving force of catholicity. In Our Lady we recognize all God's tenderness, so, fostering and living out Our Lady's, Mary's, joyful love is a very great gift of catholicity.
All the Saints also always come with God. It is important - Sacred Scripture tell us from the very outset - that God never comes by himself but comes accompanied and surrounded by the Angels and Saints. In the great stained glass window in St Peter's which portrays the Holy Spirit, what I like so much is the fact that God is surrounded by a throng of Angels and living beings who are an expression, an emanation, so to speak, of God's love. And with God, with Christ, with the man who is God and with God who is man, Our Lady arrives. This is very important. God, the Lord, has a Mother and in his Mother we truly recognize God's motherly goodness. Our Lady, Mother of God, is the Help of Christians, she is our permanent comfort, our great help. I see this too in the dialogue with the Bishops of the world, of Africa and lately also of Latin America; I see that love for Our Lady is the driving force of catholicity. In Our Lady we recognize all God's tenderness, so, fostering and living out Our Lady's, Mary's, joyful love is a very great gift of catholicity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
