"the greatest Christian who ever lived?!"

This is in one of the Rev. Billy Graham's daily question columns: "The Apostle Paul was the greatest Christian who ever lived."

Goodness, people who know me know that I love and admire Billy Graham, and I often agree with him. But now to 1) set the record straight and 2) show that I do not hesitate to critique even those I often agree with, here goes.

That is a flat out wrong statement and incredibly misleading. Its potential to be misleading is why I am going to make this a small case study in faith.

First of all, if you ask anyone why they admire Paul (say nothing of actually designating him the greatest Christian) they would start to list the many works of Paul.

Oh dear. Hmm. Yep, you got it. They fall into the trap of putting works before grace.

Paul himself would rip his hair out if he caught anyone calling him the greatest Christian based on his many works. After all, writing the Epistles is works, not grace. Evangelizing is works, not grace. Even miracles are works, not grace. Standing up to others in debate is works, not grace.

Paul received grace when he, as the Christian persecutor Saul, was thrown from his horse by the resurrected Jesus Christ. Everything after that was works. Yes, of course, these were works inspired by the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of Jesus Christ, but you can say that about the Twelve Apostles, the disciples, the martyrs and many, many, MANY unnamed and unknown early Christians.

So it is impossible to state who is the "greatest Christian," period. In fact, Jesus Christ rebuked the Apostles when they argued among themselves who was the greatest. Why would someone as wise as Rev. Graham then apply the label that Jesus did not permit his own Apostles to claim?

Rev Graham, like just about every other Christian (and many non-Christians) today is vulnerable to that slippery slope of admiring works, works, works, even as they preach grace, grace, grace. I have yet to have a conversation with any grace admiring Christian whose thoughts, deeds and preachings actually match their professed admiration of grace! It is nearly impossible to find anyone who is able to have a conversation about God, sanctity and the Holy Spirit without them focusing one hundred percent on works, works, works.

That is why Jesus Christ nipped all that sort of thought and talk right in the bud when the Twelve Apostles debated who was the greatest even among themselves, say nothing of being the greatest Christian of all time!!!

There is no such thing as "the greatest Christian of all time." If there was such a person, you would have to have an amount of GRACE measuring device, not an amount of WORKS measuring device. Who can measure how much grace exists in a person? Only God and the angels (the angels being able to observe grace in humans through God's eyes).

If someone were to search in the Bible (as they should, as the scriptures should be the first reference point, no?) to see if there is a "grace measuring device," what would they find? Read along with me:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women."

...

And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God."

Luke 1:27-28, 30

Mary is the only person in the scripture to receive word from God directly that she is full of grace. No matter how much you might leaf through the Bible citing folks who were "blessed" and who received blessings (such as health, children, prosperity) from God, Mary is the only one who is documented to have been "full of grace" (grace being the unmerited by WORKS gift from God) in the Bible.

Thus if someone is going to have a "let's declare the greatest Christian who every lived" contest, where a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, the Bible states that Mary is the only one who is 1) full of grace and 2) was in such a state before her "works," which was to bear the infant Jesus.

You can see why Jesus nipped discussion of being "the greatest" right in the bud with Apostles. Will not all of you do the same, to avoid the misleading temptation of excessive honoring of so-called works? Paul would be the first to rip his hair out by the roots if he were alive to hear such discussions.

Now, just to complete this discussion, let's exercise our logic and faith using an analogy. Well, it is not so much an analogy but to help you to use Mary, therefore, as a kind of litmus test if one were determined to know "the greatest Christian" based on grace.

If you did not have an angel, Gabriel, sent by God to know that Mary was "full of grace," how would you go about finding someone in modern times (let's say the last thousand years) who has "a lot of grace?" How in the world could you identify and measure it? A person who is a theologian? Oh oh, that's works. A person who does a lot of 'good deeds?" Oh oh, that's works. Someone who plants many churches? Oh oh, that's works. Someone who is an inspiring preacher, puts out DVD's and has a great "following?" Oh oh, that's works. Someone who seems wise and filled with knowledge of God? Oh oh, that's works.

There have been many who would be considered in the "top thousands" list of "greatest Christians," but you will never know their names because they were unrecognized as such in their times. They are the grandmothers and grandfathers who raised children of true faith and who were of humble origins, and probably never conducted a particular good deed, so to speak, in their life. Think of the many unknown anonymous people who clung onto in secret their Christian faith when under dictators, for example, doing nothing other than making sure they prayed, kept their Bibles, and raised their children as genuine Christians. They wear the invisible crowns from God of being filled with grace, not works, and being not-rich, not-famous, not-schooled and not-historic figures, they went to the Lord known only to Him.

So that is the first thing to keep in mind, that the more one is clothed in works, the less one is able to actually see their invisible robes of grace. Paul is actually so laden with works (righteous works, don't get me wrong) that it is impossible for modern people to appreciate what grace he had indeed. People are dazzled by works so much that they do not see the quiet invisible soft folds of grace underneath. They assume that great grace abounds, but that actually is not true, if you check the scriptures. Scriptures teach how to recognize grace only via the gifts and the fruits of the Holy Spirit, not through church plantings, arguing with others about the faith, documenting "how the early church worked," or even via miracles and other God given deeds (yep, remember deeds means works).

Thus the second thing to think about when one ponders who is a "great Christian" (forget about the "greatest" or whatever) is to observe the following in people as they GENUINELY ARE, and not via their visible works and "deeds."

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit:

Fear of the Lord
Piety
etc. (look them up under my previous postings)

The Fruits of the Holy Spirit:

Continence
etc. (look them up under my previous postings)

You will see that these are genuine qualities of character, not deeds. You see, when grace from God (and God alone) infuses a person, that person exhibits these qualities, listed above, not increasing "deeds" or "works," regardless how worthy they are.

The most obvious example might be someone who is a generous person but with average or lukewarm faith in God. He receives grace from God and instead of "increasing his charitable works and good deeds," dedicates more and more of his day to his prayer life, if that is his calling from God. Using that logic you can understand how an average or lukewarm charity giver might receive grace from God and actually renounce the secular life and become a priest or a deacon. Grace is not the petrol for making a car go to more and more numerous and varied worthy destinations! Grace is living within gratitude and glorification of the one and only God who gave you "the car." That is the vast difference between deeds/works (however worthy) and grace.

No one can be a "great Christian" without having an inflow of grace that is beyond any merit or receipt due to works. The word "great" has to be reserved for those who really are "great" and not, like the vast majority, "acceptable" or "good enough." Do not kid yourselves, most Christians who achieve heaven do so because they received at least a "C" on their report card; very few have even B's or, much as you may think so, A's. Most Christians who make it to heaven are "good enough," and by no means "great," especially in these modern times where people are so goal and agenda driven, even in their faith, thinking they can "list" their ways into heaven. Even those who know better and who truly love the Lord must always guard against 1) the temptation of works and 2) the worse temptation that they can evaluate and assess someone else's acceptability to God, even someone who seems slam dunk obvious like St. Paul.

This is why I am making such a big thing of this one observation, because I have repeatedly seen that it is at the core and heart of many of the diversions among Christians of one hundred percent fidelity to God. Works, works, works and the "I'm OK, you're OK" mindset is the ruin of many good Christians and blinds them to potential receipt of grace.

I hope you have found this helpful.

Spiritual envy: part two, case study

I'm now going to explain how the Blessed Virgin Mary is the greatest recipient of the sin of spiritual envy directed against her of any person in modern times. Yes, she's dead and in heaven and thus does not suffer to her face while alive the wrongs that spiritual envy induces, but remember I explained that there is a destructive influence on everyone involved, including distant second tier persons, of spiritual envy. I will make this a case study and it will help you to 1) better understand the destructiveness of spiritual envy and 2) better understand some of the false preaching that is prevalent today.

I must first say that this is a subject that makes me seethe. Those of you who are innocent and earnest in your wanting to learn more about this, understand that my seething does not, of course, extend to you, and that much of it is actually on your behalf.

Here are the two ways that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the victim of spiritual envy. I'm going to start by outlining the symptoms, and then backing you up into understanding the error and envy that these symptoms result from, and of course, the scriptural sources for correct reverence toward Mary.

1. The unbelievably frequent description of Mary, particularly around Christmas, both in "entertainment" (understandable heathen Philistines) and from the pulpits (unforgivable, and I even hear it from supposedly orthodox Catholics) as follows. I am going to let my seething come through here in the sharpness of my caricature: "Just think, Mary was JUST LIKE ANY GIRL, why EVEN YOU! She was just some poor, knocked up young girl, ignorant like everyone else in those days. She probably was nowhere near as pretty as those artists make her out to be, and she probably had dirty smelly feet and was just, you know, like some third world peasant girl. Gosh she must have been embarrassed to be knocked up by some older guy who she was only engaged to... oh wait, that's right, he isn't the father *tee hee.* So when it's Christmas time instead of reading the scriptures (all of it) and remembering who Mary really was, just imagine that you, you silly girls, COULD HAVE BEEN HER! Wheeeee!!!! Doesn't that make Mary "relevant to today!" She probably had BO too! And of course she was unsophisticated and clueless! But look how God could raise up even someone, well, you know, common and grubby like her!"

2. The Christian denomination or nondenominational (fill in the blank who) has "trouble" with "how the Catholic Church" "views" Mary. Like the Catholic Church is wrong. No, dumb wads, we actually read and believe the Bible, thank you very much.

*SEETHE*

OK, now I can relax that I took out the garbage and dumped it on the curb. Now let's get on with the actual Biblical Mary.

1. Mary was far from "uneducated" or "simple." We know this because she cites Old Testament scripture, complex and lesser known scripture, by heart as part of her indwelling by the Holy Spirit.

What Mary said:

[Mary was newly pregnant with Jesus and stated the following to her cousin Elizabeth]

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; and his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy-Even as he spoke to our fathers-to Abraham and to his posterity forever" Luke 1:46-55.

Scripture from which Mary is citing:

[This prayer was given to God by Anna, the mother of Samuel, who was the priest who anointed at God's instruction the first King of Israel, Saul, and then when God turned against Saul for Saul's sins, King David. Anna had been bullied and picked on for being unable to conceive a child. She prayed to God for a child and promised that if God gave her a child that she would dedicate that child to God's service. When God gave her a son, the boy Samuel, true to her word she kept him only until he was weaned and then gave him in service to God at the temple.]

My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies, because I have joyed in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord is; for there is no other besides thee, and there is none strong like our God. Do not multiply to speak lofty things, boasting. Let old matters depart from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of all knowledge, and to him are thoughts prepared. The bow of the mighty is overcome, and the weak are girt with strength. They that were full before have hired out themselves for bread: and the hungry are filled, so that the barren hath borne many; and she that had many children is weakened.

The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill, that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them hath set the world. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness, because no man shall prevail by his own strength.

The adversaries of the Lord shall fear him: and upon them shall be thunder in the heavens. The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall exalt the horn of his Christ 1 Kings 2:1-10.

Spend some time studying the two scripture passages, which were separated by over one thousand years. Anna's prayer would not have exactly been a mainstay of regular preaching and worship in the synagogue during the time of Mary, though it would have been well known by the devout. The fact that part of Mary's canticle to Elizabeth is Holy Spirit induced prophecy while part is the most pertinent threads from Anna's prayer shows that this "young girl" knew her scripture by heart and was further able to extract from the scripture, under divine inspiration, those sentiments and prophecy most directly related to Jesus as Messiah and Mary as chosen by God for the highest favor. You can see why I seethe at all the totally un-Biblical implications that Mary was just a simple and uneducated girl; even a total dimwit can see that is not true if you actually read the Bible.

2. Mary was not just "any girl" or by any means "typical" of other girls, then or now, or EVER.

What the angel Gabriel said:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though among women" Luke 1:28.

Let me explain this to you slowly. What is grace? Grace is gift and favor given to humans, who cannot merit it for themselves in any way, since all grace is the gift of God. The vast majority of people go their entire lives without receiving much actual grace at all. Grace cannot be earned, but it most assuredly is given to those who are in the process of sanctifying themselves to God (as I've explained previously sanctification is putting God first by dedicating one's day to day life to God's will and service). So the vast majority of people receive some, but not much, grace during their entire life. Yet Mary, that "young girl" of modern cartooning is heralded by Gabriel, before she even knows that she will become pregnant with Jesus, with the title, the honorific of "full of grace." Mary is already full (and full means full, as in filled up, filled to the top, filled in every part of her spotless being) with GRACE. Um, who exactly can claim that? "Just a regular girl?" I think not. No one but Jesus himself due to his being and Mary due to God's planning and proclamation have been or will be full, as in complete, in grace.

Even those who are not envious and/or in denial of Mary do make in all innocence this mistake, so beware of that, and also another mistake that I explain now: Grace is not the same as a blessing. Grace is an actual infusion of gifting and purity from God, while a blessing is good wishes that anyone can bestow upon anyone else. We even say "bless you" when someone sneezes. So some people who don't understand the difference think that the angel is blessing Mary, as in giving her a blessing. He is not. He is stating what has already occurred and what God prepared Mary for: 1) Mary is already full of grace, so she's got as much grace as she can contain already and 2) Mary is already blessed by God. That is the situation before she even has explained to her the mission of the angel and her role as mother of the Messiah and Savior. So she already had all grace and blessing before even being in this extraordinary service to God as being mother to his son.

When people fool silly and stupid people of this generation into thinking "any of you girls" can "imagine what it would have been like if they were in 'Mary's position'" they are lying and defaming Mary. No one in their right mind would have DREAMED of saying such foolish delusion prior to this incredibly ignorant and arrogant, self satisfied, ego maniacal past few generations.

It is impossible to imagine what it is like to be filled with grace because only Jesus, by God's nature, and Mary, by preparation and conferral by God, have ever been in that state of grace. So no, nobody can identify with Mary, or Jesus, to that level. Humans can sympathize with Mary and Jesus in their suffering, for example, but they cannot at all empathize with either of them, as no one can have a reference point of the perspective of someone who is filled with grace and thus filled with God's given pureness.

In the Qur'an it is written And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above all the women of the world Surah 3:42.

Before progressing further regarding the true nature of Mary, let me reintroduce the point about spiritual envy. It is obvious that many people, both individuals and groups, in modern times (the past several generations) have a wrongheaded view of Mary that can only be attributed to spiritual envy. No one can claim to be Christian and be so stingy and denying of the God given grace and purity of Mary that deserves continual praise and role modeling, and that does not take one iota "away" from Jesus. What believer in God thinks that anything even can be "taken away" from God? How is adhering to what the scripture most clearly in black and white shows, for anyone to read, giving "too much to Mary" and "taking away" from Jesus? That is the very transparent and lame excuse, and I know first hand, for spiritual envy of Mary herself and also the institutions that continue to honor, love and revere her as she actually was and remains, now, in heaven.

3. Mary as prophetess.

We have already seen in the first scripture how Mary prophesies in her canticle to Elizabeth, even before Jesus is born, how the ongoing salvatory impact of Jesus will demonstrate God's mercy from generation to generation. Mary also, in a way, receives prophetic insight from the Holy Spirit regarding when it is time for Jesus to perform his first miracle. I marvel (not in a good way) about how many miss this point in the miracle of the wedding at Cana.

First I will tell you what happens using common speech. They are at a wedding and when the groom, the host, runs out of wine, Mary nudges Jesus to do something about it (and she does not mean his charge card; obviously this would have to be a miracle). Jesus rebukes Mary that it is not his time to go public with his miraculous abilities, but Mary overrides his objections and tells the wedding steward to do whatever Jesus tells him to do. Jesus obliges and performs the miracle.

This is an example of how one grace filled person can "know" when to urge the other grace filled person to action. Think about it. If you were just the average guy or gal who hung around with Jesus, would the first "miracle" occur to you to recommend to Jesus when you are at a wedding and they've run out of wine? Huh? Absolutely not. The "average" person would think of many much more dramatic or urgent situations to urge Jesus to perform his first miracle. But none of them would be ultimately as fraught with grace and meaning as the turning of water into wine miracle. Only Mary, filled by God with grace, would have been able to discern that moment, hearing and knowing and "magnifying" that moment and that place and that situation. Why was it so important? Read Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the vine dressers (the fruit of the vine being, of course, grapes for wine). When Jesus told that parable the chief priests and Scribes sought to kill him (Luke 20:19). Soon after that Jesus at the Last Supper took the cup of wine and said "take this and share it among you; for I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:17-18, 20).

Mary by virtue of her fullness of grace hears the Holy Spirit and triggers the moment of Jesus' first miracle, which will be the foundation of his ministry, as Messiah and Savior, as both the true vine and the fruit of the vine.

And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now Jesus too was invited to the marriage, and also his disciples. And the wine having run short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you" Luke 2:1-5.

Do you better understand what a disservice it is to, at best, willfully marginalize Mary's role in faith and salvatory history? After all, none of his newly called disciples realized that this was the time and the place where Jesus should perform his first miracle. Only the woman full of grace, his mother, could hear the prompting and be bold enough to insist that Jesus do so and he complies. Let me address the reason that Jesus seems to first object. I bet now you understand it, though. Jesus is not really objecting, he is saying "My hour has not yet come." That refers to what happens to the son, the cornerstone who is rejected, and is killed by the vine dressers, as I cited for you to read on your own in Luke 20. In Bible speak Jesus is not refusing, but saying that this is the beginning indeed that will lead to the hour that has not yet come, but will.

4. Mary as constant disciple to Jesus.

While those who are in error or those who are spiritually envious of Mary emphasize her low key presence and lack of much "mention" in the Gospels, what is actually emphasized is the continuity of her continual presence throughout Jesus' ministry. Mary did not sit around at home wondering how Jesus is doing while he traveled: she was there. By the way, notice how Mary was invited to the wedding at Cana and "Jesus too was invited" :-) The wedding at Cana needs to be understood as the turning point, as this was when Jesus performed his first miracle and thus his God given authority, having just been baptized and having called the first disciples. Jesus attends the wedding that Mary was invited to, and him also. Mary urges him to perform his first miracle in relation to the fruit of the vine-the wine-and Jesus does so. From this point onward Mary is following him as his most constant disciple, and Jesus has now by action, not by words, proclaimed his public ministry.

Now, you need to understand about Biblical life to understand this next part. Mary, as a widow, had to be supported by her son. Mary thus could not sit around back at the homestead, even if she wanted to, as Jesus was her source of support and Mary tended to him as they would have had they been at home. Mary and the brethren of Jesus were the core of the growing Christian model of the group accompanying Jesus in his ministry while at the same time providing the necessities of life along the way. Ha, you say, how do you know this? Yep, "it's in the Bible." This is why with Jesus' last breath on the cross he gave Mary to the Apostle John as John's mother, and John as her son, as Jesus had to hand over both that symbolic and literal role to John! It's not because they needed to update their business cards to say that John was now the son of Mary since Jesus had been crucified! It was because in those days the eldest son, (and thus, obviously) the only son, provided for his mother, whether at home or "on the road." Mary was with him throughout. I've blogged about this before but this is why Jesus had such pity for the widow who had just lost her only child, her son, and thus decided when encountering the funeral procession to raise him from the dead. Mary and Jesus were in exactly that same position where Jesus, ministry or not, had to support and provide for Mary, his mother, at all times.

Mary remained in the background, as did most of the many nameless disciples, so that those who would freshly hear the words of Jesus could press to the front. This is why you do not hear "mention" of Mary any more than you hear mention of the dozens of unnamed disciples who followed Jesus and the Apostles. She was with them on the outskirts whenever Jesus was about his business. You can read about this when Jesus uses the time that Mary and the brethen (Jesus' other relatives) wanted to speak with him but could not get through the crush. Jesus was not rejecting them, but rather (since he saw them all the time accompanying him) he delayed speaking to them so that he could show the crowd that those who follow his word are his family too.

Likewise when a woman raises her voice in the crowd and praises Mary, Jesus is not rejecting praise of Mary, but as per his ministry, redirects the praise to God. These are examples of how Jesus role modeled how believers must always look toward God, not from any rejection of Mary, of course, but from the ease with which the crowd could understand that the closeness of Mary and the brethren of Jesus to Jesus was now being extended to themselves, through Jesus. In other words, Jesus is saying that instead of focusing on the specialness of himself or of Mary, to start to think of yourselves as special family to Jesus and thus to God through your faith. This is as far of a marginalizing of Mary as you can get; rather, people are invited by Jesus to share in that specialness of closeness to him held by Mary and the brethren of Jesus (and all those unmentioned disciples who also were continually present). Thus Mary is continually present through the ministry of Jesus, through the crucifixion, and after his resurrection, through Pentecost, and then accompanying the Apostle John in all his ministry. The thought of Mary settled in some village is bogus and reflects a total lack of understanding of the handing over of Mary's care by Jesus on the cross to John. The care of Mary meant Mary's constant accompanyment of John, even in her advanced age to the area that is now the country of Turkey, as John unceasingly performed his evangelizing to his own great age of one hundred.

5. Protestants have no reason to marginalize Mary. but historically they have and still do. They should not and first of foremost, because Luther loved and revered her too.

I don't want to get too far afield from the main point, so I will leave it to you to research, if you want to, the depth of feeling that Luther himself had for Mary. I raise the point about Protestants, though, since we are left with the following fallout:

o "Anything but the Catholic Church" syndrome has falsely led many Protestants to marganalize Mary due to rejection of and spiritual envy of the Catholic Church. This is an example of what I alluded to in my first post on this subject, which is that once one is of a mindset toward spiritual envy, one starts to cherry pick scripture, highlighting those parts that seem to support one's view (the two instances I gave where Jesus is viewed, incorrectly, as rebuffing Mary presence and praise of her) while eliminating all reference to the remaining basis for legitimate and consistent reverence for Mary's role in the Church.

o "No one is as good as Mary was supposedly, so she could not have been so either" or "I could have been Mary too" syndrome has latched onto the first syndrome and is rampant in modern times. This too is based on spiritual envy of Mary. Here people deny that someone as Mary was really did exist (the usual attacks on her Immaculate Conception, the snarky comments that she "must have been sinful too" because "all humans are sinners," thus ignoring the "full of grace") thereby concluding that the biblical Mary was not really as she really was. The whole point of Mary is that she WAS the one and only; she was, as both Gospel and Qur'an attest, the purest and totally unique. Spiritual envy blinds many today to that obvious truth because they are, incredibly, jealous of the purity of the mother of the Savior.

Even more ludicrous is the notion that while no one could have really been as pure and good as Mary, therefore the "Mary claimant and imitator/imposter" field is wide open. People start to think if Mary could not have been as unique, predestined, God filled in grace and purity, if she must therefore in their minds be something "less" than that, this "opens the field" to people claiming to "channel" Mary or to be "reincarnated" Mary. This is all, again, spiritual envy based. It is back to my original exposition of the links where envy leads to denial and then coveting. Many modern people envy what Mary really was and remains (step one) so they deny that she was exactly as the Bible and the Qur'an state (step two) and then, having "cut her down to size," they next figure they can claim some portion of the spirituality of Mary that they so envy and covet (step three). Thus you have egregious and blaspheming charlatans who lay claim to a spiritual identity that belongs (as each does, of course) to only that one and only original person, but they do so only after denying and diminishing it enough that they can think they can reasonably claim it as their own.

I hope that this helps you, dear reader, to understand through this crucial faith case study how spiritual envy is a terrible sin full of actual destructive power that resonates through generations and erodes genuine faith even in those who are not fully culpable and participating. As I pointed out above, I've been shocked (hardened and saddened as I am) by proportedly orthodox thinking Christians, including Catholics, who bought into the barefoot dirty waif who though ignorant and ordinary becomes baby Jesus momma. Let's put it this way. I would be willing to bet you an awful lot that Luther, when he died and faced his maker, was very glad that he never lost sight of who Mary was, and what reverence and love is due to her. It would be wise to make this the last Christmas where knocked up "I can relate" Mary baby Jesus momma is promulgated in entertainment and preaching. Yes, tired as I am I got to seething again here, as I do whenever I think of that plain out insulting image of Mary. I won't lie, I've wanted to punch some preachers in the nose when I hear that rubbish and Hollywood, I'd totally given up on them anyway but seething remains.

Young people, hi again, hope you've hung in there through this long exposition and that it's helpful to you. Do not be afraid to believe the truth that genuine God given purity and goodness did exist on earth and remains so, of course, in heaven. All this in the praise of the name of Jesus.

A favorite prayer card depiction of Mary

I really love this depiction of Mary and had to hunt around a bit to find where I had last seen it on the Internet, so here it is....

http://thewindowshowsitall.blogspot.com/2008/08/marian-title-star-of-seaaugust-29.html



Centuries, indeed, nearly two thousand years, of fishermen have asked Mary's help and protection while at sea.

Bible reading: Luke 1:51-52

He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly.

At last! Vatican to smack down Mary peddlers

Better late than never. It is far, far late but this is essential to cleansing the Church and restoring piety and sanity. As I said, as much as I dearly loved Pope John Paul II the pseudo Mary manipulators had him wrapped around their dirty fingers.

Hurrah for Pope Benedict XVI! Now I hope this report is accurate and that this comes to fruition soon. Hell is filling up quickly with those who have peddled the Mother of Jesus for their own perverse self gratifications.

http://te-deum.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-translation-of-petrus-article.html

Dead sculptor Robert Graham

Boy is he regretting the profane statue he made of the Blessed Virgin Mary for that abomination of a cathedral in Los Angeles.

He portrayed her with hair cropped like a prostitute who had her hair cut in disgrace, dressed in sackcloth and looking like a boy.

Boy, is he regretting it, when it is exactly too late.

Repent while you can.


By the way, if as an "artist" you find you just can't "resist" the "inspiration" to be negatively revisionist about the only good and holy people who ever lived, I suggest you convert to Islam where graven images are forbidden. It might save your soul. It just might.

Mary, Queen of Martyrs

Now that you have read about the Holy Innocents, Martyrs, you can better understand one of Mary's titles, the honorific: Mary, Queen of Martyrs.

As Virgin and Mother of Jesus Mary gave birth, and within days King Herod created the first martyrs, slaying dozens if not more of local babies who fit the timing of possibly being Jesus. With the martyrdom of the Holy Innocents, Mary, who would face the worst as Jesus himself is martyred as an adult, Mary in a very real sense took on her first title as Mother of all Martyrs, for the Holy Innocents were born into martyrdom as Jesus was born as the bodily reality from Mary.

Goya has a painting of Mary as Queen of Martyrs, and you see that they are in heaven with her, of all ages. Mary becomes the adopted mother of all who are martyred for her Son's sake.

Mary's Song

My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for behold,
from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things;
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is on them that fear him,
from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered
the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats (thrones),
and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things,
but the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of
his mercy.
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to
his seed for ever.

A Christmas meditation

Here is a Christmas mediation, and the subject is the Blessed Virgin Mary. I thought of this analogy for those who are somewhat estranged in their understanding of her, especially those who do not understand the Catholic (and, incidentally Muslim) perspective of her. I thought of an analogy to help understand her and more importantly, God’s perspective of her.



Suppose that you find yourself having to cross, on foot, a hot and dry desert, and you have no supplies. You’ve walked as far as you can without water, and find, to your joy, an oasis with sparkling clear water. You drink your fill, but you are now faced with a stark reality. You have nothing with you to carry some of the water from the spring, and you know that you have far more distance to go, farther than you could possibly last without water. You pray to God asking for help, and you hear him answer. He tells you to look in a nearby small indentation in the rocks. You look and to your joy, there are two large ewers, and while they are large and heavy, you know that you can manage to carry one.

The first ewer is made out of some sort of metal; you do not know what kind. When you remove the lid you find it is already filled. It is packed to the top with an oily ointment that is some type of heavy perfume, or perhaps a medicine. You realize to your dismay that even if you could empty it out, in order to fill with water, that residue of both the metal and the remaining ointment would contaminate your water and perhaps cause you great harm. With a rapidly beating heart and great concern, you turn to the second ewer. You find to your joy it is completely different. It is a pure and empty ewer made completely of clean and transparent heavy glass. You select that ewer, take it to the spring, fill it with the life giving water, and are able to go safely on your way across the desert.

"Hope she's not 'one of ours'" phenomenon

Regular readers know that a while back I blogged about the phenomenon of stereotyping, specifically when one hears of something really bad (such as a crime) one sometimes hopes "Gosh, I hope he (or she) is not 'one of us.'" I related in that blog post that my ex-husband, a secular Jew, would say that when he hoped that some financial scandal was not done by "one of his," and I explained in that blog that the origin of that was about a terrible nursing home scandal many years ago. (You can read my blog article on that topic by clicking on the label "Thank God he isn't one of us," which takes you to an article on subversive humor, though what I am writing about now sure is not funny to me.)

Well, I am not immune, because when I read something that strikes a certain unpleasant chord, I think "I hope that he (or she) is not 'one of us''' and by that I mean Catholic.

I had that thought twice tonight while reading the news and surfing the web. The first time I was safe, and the event I was reading about did not involve the Church. But alas, I saw something truly offensive on a liberal laity Catholic site, yikes, totally cringe worthy. I saw an image that I feel was exploitative and disrespectful of Mary, while claiming to appeal to her values in a specific area of her patronage. I really was shocked and seriously disappointed. And I had the double disappointment, the perpetrator being both a Catholic "one of us" and a woman "one of us." Ugh, that happens a lot, to be honest. Many western women have totally lost touch with not only relating to other women who happen to be traditional, but as a result of that, they have lost touch with the genuine Mary too. Even non-traditional men are actually, in my opinion, better at comprehending Mary, as are traditional women. But modern women seem to, even as they revere Mary, manipulate her, from their base of misunderstanding. That's not cool. That's very not cool. Or as my ex- would say, "That's not kosher either."

I actually decided not to write the little article I was going to post, because if I got readers interested in this topic, I did not want them to Google and come across what I found, as it would just unravel the whole ecumenical point that I was going to make. Yikes.

Very important lesson about Bible and history

Here is a very important piece of information about human social history that has a great bearing on your ability to understand certain passages in the Bible. It also provides context for what people may think were confusing sexual and inheritance mores (customs, rules and attitudes).

Being able to be absolutely certain of maternity and paternity was essential to human survival throughout most of human history. This is because whatever the parents accumulated in their lifetime was passed on to their legitimate children. This was true whether you were the poorest of the poor or a wealthy monarch (but you will see there are special considerations a bit later in this posting). The vast majority of people throughout human history had very little to pass on to their children, but what they did have was vital to survival. For example, the tools that the father had in order to hunt, fish, farm, build and protect his family were the main “inheritance” of the legitimate offspring. Likewise the tools the mother had in order to farm, maintain the family’s supplies of clothing, food, and water were her prized possessions. Look at the children in Haiti today, searching for fresh water in their hurricane flooded villages. Notice the prized possessions they are holding: buckets, pails, plastic containers and bowls to carry water should they find it. For much of human history a simple barrel, pail or bucket was often one of the family’s prized possessions and meant the difference between life and death. Notice in the Bible many events take place near the well. Each water drawer would bring his or her family’s own prized bucket to the well in order to obtain life maintaining water for the family.

Another example is utensils. People did not use them and when they were developed, they were for the rich. This is why people such as the Chinese serve food in bite sized pieces, “pre cut” so to speak. This is because another prized family possession was the single knife. It was used in hunting, carpentry and to prepare food. This is why the custom of the man of the house carving the turkey developed. The man had the only family knife, using it on behalf of his family, and passing it on to his son. Eventually in medieval times families often acquired a single spoon. That was a prized possession and often it was first in the form of a ladle for broth and soup. So most families had at most a single example of a prized, usually hand crafted or inherited tool that was essential to survival. Thus paternity of children in the family was obviously something that was not trifled with because the offspring literally inherited the very humble but essential accoutrements of the family to survive.

Now, think about the kings and queens. Not only is wealth inherited through their offspring but title and position. Additionally the royalty in all cultures were viewed as having some divine right and lineage, and that too was passed on to their offspring. So many royal households developed customs to ensure legitimate offspring that people today would totally misunderstand, especially since today everyone has the viewpoint of “pleasure” rather than “duty” and “survival.” So here is one example of what often happened when the king or his heir married. Court attendants were often required to be in the bedchamber and observe the actual first sexual intercourse of the king and queen, or the prince and princess. This was to ensure that both the king was not hiding an impotency, but more importantly, that the queen, should she become pregnant, had done so with her legitimate spouse, the king.

When I was a teenager there was a charming historical fiction story about King Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain, regarding this very requirement of the consummation of their marriage. In this fictional account the young king has to explain to the very young queen bride what is going to happen. But he fakes the actual encounter so that the courtiers are satisfied they have observed their mating, and then later in privacy they have their actual first moment of intimacy.

The second time you see this type of rule take place is upon the imminent birth when the queen is isolated in the bedchamber with attendants but also court observers. This is so that a false baby is not swapped with the baby that is the real heir. The birth watch would go into effect for weeks before birth was expected, in order to foil anyone smuggling in a false baby and claiming the queen had just given birth to that infant.

Unfortunately modern people, especially you young people, are no longer taught about these customs and their reasoning in school. But this gives you a great disadvantage to understanding why what seemed like oppressive cultural mores developed and also you have trouble understanding the implied meaning in Biblical scripture that would be very obvious to any scholar of the period. Worse, a dirty and twisted interpretation is placed on very holy and clean statements because many today view every custom as either an example of lust, self gratification, or “oppression of the weak.” Trust me; no queen “minded” ensuring that her heir was accepted without question as being legitimate. They didn’t worry that someone was watching “what sexual position” the king and queen used on their honeymoon. (In fact, that is one reason that beds had curtains, so even the courtiers in the room obviously were not tracking each bead of sweat and whose hand was doing what). It was in everyone’s interest to follow these rules and no one was being “oppressed” and they certainly were not being peeping toms for the kicks of it.

So how does this have a bearing on understanding the Bible? In today’s Mass the Gospel reading from Matthew describes how the Virgin Mary came to be with child through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, and Joseph’s puzzlement and reaction. The first point I want to make is that the angel Gabriel in addition to being the announcer of the conception functions as the “court witness.” The conception occurs invisibly while Gabriel is present. This is why Gabriel is named and these details are preserved in the scripture. Mary was, essentially, being declared a Queen at that moment, and the royalty of her descending from the House of David and now bearing the heir who would be Jesus is being affirmed. This is why ancient people all the way through Medieval and Renaissance times had absolutely no trouble understanding what is described as the Queenship of Mary. Reading the scriptures people well understood that the pregnancy of the Queen was witnessed to make absolutely unquestionable the legitimacy of the heir. This is why it is the most insulting scandal that modern people have even questioned the virgin conception of Mary and that was totally unthinkable among people until these crass times. Gabriel, as God’s courtier, “witnessed” the conception, exactly in the tradition of kings and queens that actually continued on for hundreds of years after the time of Mary and Jesus.

Second, there is a verse that people with dirty minds in their ignorance have glommed onto, showing their total lack of understanding, as they try to argue that surely Mary and Joseph were sexually intimate (since these people cannot imagine otherwise, to their shame). The verse is Matthew 1:25.

Matthew 1:25
But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.

People who are ignorant of their own history and who possess dirty and weak minds read into that a chronological statement, which is totally in error. It is only a statement of affirmation, not of chronological activity. In other words, just as courtiers would continue to witness that the queen was not with any other man but the king, Matthew is routinely documenting that Joseph was not intimate with Mary during her pregnancy. This is, again, exactly as the courtiers would have observed and witnessed to the sanctity of the pregnancy of the queen throughout her term. Thus the meaning of “until she had borne her firstborn Son” does not mean they didn’t have sex until after Jesus was born. It is a statement of witnessing that just as Gabriel witnessed the royal conception, there was no other intimacy during her term of pregnancy. That is the only meaning of this statement and it is far from implying that Mary and Joseph had sexual relation, for they most certainly did not and it is ignorant and scandalous to imply otherwise. There is no word other than “until” that really could be used to satisfy modern readers who are ignorant of the intent. The Gospel is a document of the divine royalty of Jesus, not an account of intimacy events. Thus Gospel writers phrased things correctly in accordance with the standards of bearing witness to the legitimacy of the royal heir.

That is also why the word “firstborn” is used. This is not an implication that there was intimacy between Joseph and Mary and that they had children. Far from it, as you will see when you remind yourself of the essential legitimacy in royal households of the first born. That is where no chances are taken. Courtiers observe the “honeymoon” and birth in order to ensure that the first born is absolutely positively totally legitimate. From the second born onward, people “relax” more. We all know that kings throughout history ran around and did some seed spreading. But they sure did not do it when they were trying to establish their legitimate first born. So the courtiers did not observe conceptions after the first born, although efforts against baby swapping upon birth continue unabated, as that was a constant threat. It would be easy for someone to kill the queen in childbirth (when things were so medically risky anyway) and substitute a baby for the grieving king to think it is his own. This is why Matthew phrased things that seem mysterious and full of implication to modern ignoramuses, but were clean and proper in their phrasing to those of the time who understood the critical points of witnessing to the conception and birth of the firstborn heir.

As an aside, this is, as I’ve mentioned before, another reason why Gabriel is the angel who provided the Qur’an on behalf of God to the Prophet (PBUH). Gabriel is in addition to being kind of the archangel of God’s announcements is also the “witness” to the legitimate conception of gifts from God. This is why the Qur’an is filled with references to Mary, and information about the birth of Jesus (Isa). Gabriel is repeating his witnessing of the legitimacy of the conception of Jesus to those who would hear and believe the word of God in the Qur’an and he is also, by implication, witnessing to the legitimacy of the “conception” of the Qur’an.

The Arab culture has missed that point because they did not have the customs of concern about the legitimacy of the firstborn in exactly the same fashion as did the West and Mediterranean. This is because order and legitimacy was maintained through the system of multiple wives. So they missed the connection in their scholarly work between witnessing the conception of Jesus and witnessing the conception of the Qur’an. They, correctly, interpreted Gabriel as being the sign of the legitimacy and high honor that God has given to them, and they also preserved the sanctity in the purity of Mary in their honoring of her. But this is a little extra insight to give all of you, readers, about how God operates within the culture of humans in order to do all things correctly and with mercy. In other words, God gives affirmations that are well understood in their contemporary times, but later as people forget their own history (or do not understand the culture of the other) they misunderstand or miss out in enjoying the blessing.

This is one reason why I find such great refreshment in reading the Talmud and the interpretations and teachings of the great Jewish rabbis, especially the Chassidim. Unfailingly they understand the culture within which Biblical events took place and thus can extract and extrapolate incredible spiritual insight and truth. For example, through their formidable and accurate knowledge of both law and custom, they have successful recreated through spiritual interpolation conversations that took place (for example, with Moses) that are not documented in the Torah or the books of the Bible. How can they do that? Well, all comes from the grace of God, but the mechanism is that their minds totally retain the context of the participants, even thousands of years ago, so that they can know with certainty what the reactions and even spoken words to certain events most certainly had to be. Whenever I read what they wrote (as I did for some time yesterday, as refreshment), I find myself nodding and thinking to myself, “Ah, how refreshing. They get it; they still get it and truly understand.” Even when they disagree or I know they are too far out on a limb in their speculation, they are never untrue to the spirit of what did actually happen. Modern Christian biblical scholars could learn a lot from them, and they should.

I hope this helps. It certainly should. I can’t believe how skewed and smoky the lenses of modern humans have become to understanding even their own history and cultural ways and as a result, what distorted and depraved views they have acquired.

Mary criticism hurts me deeply, Bible commentary

No one is forced to honor and love the Blessed Virgin Mary, but we all know that there are some people who go out of their way to defame and insult her memory and her reality in the Communion of Saints. These people do it for a variety of reasons, ranging from atheists who like to bull bait when they see the faithful gather to honor Mary all the way to certain Christians who misuse the Gospel to do what they think is "protecting giving Jesus all his due" so that like a bank account with limited funds "others beside Jesus don't get anything that is 'taken away' from Jesus." Honestly, I find both equally hurtful.

Since I'm in a mindset this early morning (pre dawn) to help readers in placing the Bible in its proper context, I will mention a few of the things that those of good genuine heart need to remember when interpreting scripture and the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Family, including all of the saints. By the way, I must take time to praise the many people who have become much more learned in these matters and express themselves so well in defense and amplification of the Catholic faith when they are commenting in inflammatory threads and so forth. I see that people are truly regrounding themselves in understanding and glorifying their faith, and patiently but firmly addressing the all too familiar and tiresome usual criticisms and insulting misstatements. So I do notice and am very gratified!

Many scripture quoters who diminish Mary quote how Jesus corrected the woman in the crowd who blessed Mary for being his mother, directing her to bless instead those who hear and believe. While most people understand what that is about in truth, there are persistent people who totally miss the point. If Jesus had yelled back, "Yeah, she's great, and you can be just like her if you hear and believe" I think that would have been abundantly clear. That IS what he was saying to the crowd. Jesus was pointing out that biological blessedness is not the highest form in the sense that spiritual family who believe in God have access to the same blessedness of Mary his mother. Jesus would have said the same thing if some guy had shouted out, "Blessed is your father Joseph who protected you when Herod slayed the infants, for we would not have you if Joseph had not been a good stepfather." Jesus would have agreed, but would have cut him off exactly the same way as he did the woman who blessed Mary, repointing the lesson back to the fundamental that it is not family connection and biological relationship, however holy and blessed, but the "virtual" (to use the modern term) family community of the faithful that should be blessed! So I really fume (and despair of the charity of the insulter) when people use this event of Jesus taking an opportunity to teach to look beyond biological reality to attack or diminish Mary, when Jesus was doing no such thing, and was in fact inviting people to operate at the same level of faith and virtue AS her!

Speaking of Joseph, Mary attackers and diminishers like to point out that she, to put it in modern business terms, does not have much "ad space" in the Gospels! They are so totally lost in understanding both the original purpose of the Gospels and Epistles AND their continuing purpose that like modern publicity hounds they read into lack of "press coverage" of Mary that she is not a significant mover and shaker and player. It's like they feel that there are only so many print pages and so many minutes on "Access Hollywood" aka the Gospel that they don't want "anything to take away from Jesus" and gloat that Mary therefore gets short press. Um, well, this was addressed even when I was a young girl and the nuns were excellent at pointing out that even the beloved Joseph, earthly father of Jesus, did not get a mention at all after the adult public ministry of Jesus began. Goodness, it just should not take much genius to understand that one cannot measure how much Jesus loved a person, whether Mary or Joseph, by how much "press" they got in the Gospels. And one certainly cannot deduce God's very opinion on the matter, except to continually remember how Gabriel sent by God and speaking for him greeted Mary. Again, this attitude of counting "mentions" as some sort of measure of importance is an example of modern day distortion of faith and giving in to temptation of giant egos who think human words have more importance than what God is saying with them.

As an aside, here is a useful Bible reading mental exercise. Remember that the Bible is totally accurate and is God inspired, and therefore holy. Let's open to a verse at random. Philippians 1:9:

And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge and all discernment.

(I'm not kidding, I actually opened my childhood Bible to that passage!)

By the way, this Epistle was written by St. Paul to his first European church.

Anyway, so here is an example of sacred scripture, the divinely inspired and protected words of St. Paul.

Here are two exercises to consider to help you be more fully accurate and enriched in your Biblical comprehension.

1) St. Paul is praying that this one church receive more discernment and knowledge regarding their charity. Since he doesn't mention any other churches does that mean they are all "OK?" Or that he doesn't care if they get more of the above? Is he implying that his first European church has special need for grace? Or a problem?

See, when you take one sentence out of the Bible and then obsess that no one else got mentioned that way, you totally miss the point of what is being said. In the Bible the vast majority of things are exactly as obvious as they seem to be, and humans should not word smith and read motives into what they set themselves up as judging what is and is not being said. And thus if you read the entire Epistle you have restored the context in which St. Paul, writing from prison, is praising this Christian community, and giving them some guidance about issues they are facing. Pulling one sentence out of inspired text and then applying paranoid human motivations could, and often does, result is total skewing of the intentions of both the writer but also of God himself.

2) "And this I pray, that your charity may more and more abound in knowledge and all discernment." This is sacred text.

Is this? :

"And this I pray"
"that your charity may"
"more and more abound in knowledge"
"and all discernment."

Are those four examples of sacred text? Obviously not. In fact, a mini anti-Christ wannabe could use each of those four sentence fragments to justify that he or she is the source of prayer, that he or she can dictate charity, that more and more knowledge (even of evil) is good, and that he or she is the source of all discernment. I'm only slightly exaggerating in order to make the point that one cannot take sacred scripture and word smith it to one's own interpretation, AND, to also point out that the sentence sections and the words themselves are not sacred. Is the word "and" sacred because it is in the Bible? Therefore, is each individual word and punctuation mark sacred? And those left out not? Obviously not.

People used to be motivated by common sense and charitable generosity, so you did not have to teach them these obvious matters and exercises. But modern society is so ego centric, narcissistic, agenda ridden, phony, false and plastic that it's like I feel I have to teach many people how to have a reality based clear uncomplicated thought process again. And I guess I do.

So I will leave this topic, thinking that it actually is helpful in two points, the example of how it is uncharitable and Biblically incorrect to diminish people in the life of Jesus based on willful misinterpretation of what he said and did AND a reminder to discern (that word again, it is so important) the difference between sacred scripture and the words, punctuation and sounds that comprise its presentation in written format.

Bible reading: 2 Kings 5:4-5 and commentary

David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

In Hebron he reigned over Juda seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned three and thirty years over all Israel and Juda.

***
I selected this Bible passage for three reasons. One is that I rarely tired of speaking about David, and teaching about his unswerving belief and piety. Isn't it interesting that one of the greatest men who ever lived leaves behind no great buildings to be archaeologically dug, no great works of art in the museums, and no "legacy" material that is political, but only of God and his love for God.

The second reason is that this is an easy passage to view once again that the Bible is a historical document in addition to a faith document. Here you see that not satisfied with just generalities about his age and reign, records are kept of his specific times of rule, in both years and months. Anyone who calls the Bible mythology in any way shape or form has clearly never read it with an open mind and good intention.

The third reason is to point out that David was anointed King at virtually the same age as Jesus emerged to start his public ministry. I and other scholars have had to remind people that the quiet of Jesus' time as a child and a young man was entirely consistent with the cultural and religious belief of those times that no youth had anything worthwhile to say in public until he was a man of thirty years. Thus St. John the Baptist also started his public preaching at around that age too. So I wish to point out that here is a very clear example of the age of King David being recorded, reflecting not only the cultural mores but God's will, since God was the one who revealed the existence and chosen status of David at that stage in his life, receiving the word personally from God. By the way, this concept of thirty years old being the threshold to wisdom and public life responsibility carries through in the laws of the USA, where the President must be at least thirty years of age!

2 Kings 2:1, 4

And after those things David consulted the Lord, saying: Shall I go up into one of the cities of Juda? And the Lord said to him: Go up. And David said: Whither shall I go up? And he answered him: Into Hebron.

And the men of Juda came, and anointed David there, to be king over the house of Juda.

I mentioned in a previous blog post, providing part of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that my favorite title for her in that section of the litany is "Tower of David." Here is the reason why. Jesus is directly descended from David through both Mary and her spouse Joseph. Joseph being the Blessed Virgin Mary's chaste spouse was Jesus' stepfather, but the lineage is still very significant and prophetic. Since the father's lineage was the one that was most carefully recorded, St. Matthew in his Gospel opens with the precious material of the genealogy of Jesus through his father, St. Joseph, since he was of course considered in every way Jesus' father and Jesus had all the rights of his lineage. (St. Matthew 1:1-17.)

However, Mary being the virginal biological mother of Jesus, and having the direct lineage back to King David (who was one of the great prophets of the coming of the Messiah), bore the fruit of Jesus on the tree of King David. To give birth to the Messiah is, to me, the building of the great Tower of David, the legacy for all of humankind. So as I mentioned, archaeologists and "historians" scowl because they cannot find monuments inscribed "King David was here." But just as the prophets had prophesied, the eternal monument of Jesus, the gift, the legacy of the tree of King David, can well be described as Mary being, for having conceived the Messiah, the Tower of David.

Names of Mary, for peaceful contemplation

This is from the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A litany is a form of reverential prayer consisting of a series of short phrases that are lists of attributes or titles. I want to include here just a portion of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary because this section is both inspirational and poetic, but also soothing and comforting.

Mirror of justice,
Seat of wisdom,
Cause of our joy,
Spiritual vessel,
Vessel of honor,
Singular vessel of devotion,
Mystical rose,
Tower of David, *
Tower of ivory,
House of gold,
Ark of the covenant,
Gate of heaven,
Morning star,
Health of the sick,
Refuge of sinners,
Comforter of the afflicted,
Help of Christians, *
Queen of Angels,
Queen of Patriarchs,
Queen of Prophets,
Queen of Apostles,
Queen of Martyrs,
Queen of Confessors,
Queen of Virgins,
Queen of all Saints,
Queen conceived without original sin,
Queen assumed into heaven,
Queen of the most holy Rosary,
Queen of Peace.

One can never go wrong, and only have increased serenity, pondering these qualities and titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

* My favorite "one" of this group? Tower of David. I'll explain the reasons in a second post tomorrow. It's past five AM in the morning now! zzzzzz

* By the way, the line "Help of Christians" was added to the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572). This is just another example of the enormous continuity and range of the Church's 2000 year history, as this litany was already a long time in use when the Pope makes a beautiful addition to this prayer over four hundred years ago.

Reconciling about Mary in Qur'an, Bible tradition

Surah 19 has beautiful description of the Annunciation to Mary and the birth of Jesus. Christians are often puzzled by the passage that seems to indicate Mary had a painful childbirth, since Biblical tradition and the visions of Church approved mystics state otherwise. Here is the passage:

And the throes (of childbirth) compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten!

Then (the child) called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you.

Christians, notice that Mary and baby are in dialogue as he is being born! And remember, this is Gabriel, the angel of the Annunciation, who gave this dialogue to the Prophet (PBUH). So what is the meaning?

The Qur'an is not a repeat of the Gospels, and so details of the Gospels are not repeated here, but given in imagery by Gabriel to the Prophet. The birth pain refers to the prophecy that Mary's heart will be pierced by a sword, due to what will happen to her child, Jesus. Gabriel explained it through dialogue in the communion between Mary and Jesus during his birth, the mutual knowledge that there will be a great pain and suffering to come, but Jesus assures Mary that from her God "has made a stream to flow."

So this is another place where the Qur'an is truly supportive of the events, rather than contradicting the Gospels. The purpose was not to say that Mary had physical pains or regrets at the birth of Jesus, far from it. It shows that at the moment of his birth they were in total mutual dialogue of the enormous pain to come, but that she would lean on a palm (the sign of martyrs) and God will make the stream, the Messiah and Savior, flow from her.

I hope this is helpful. I love what the Qur'an says about Mary and remember, Gabriel would not give the Prophet misinformation. It just has to be understood in its context. As I've blogged before, the Qur'an provides detail the Gospel does not, such as the speech between Mary and Jesus at birth, since Jesus could speak at birth. The Gospel was not much for "baby Jesus details," and so the Qur'an must be prized for when such precious insight is included.

Remember, Jesus was born under conditions where Mary and Joseph had profound silence about him for many years. Even after Jesus had ascended to heaven, Mary would not have spoken of the interior dialogue that she and Jesus shared, so the Apostles would not have had this information to record, even if they were inclined to (they would not, because the Gospels were of bearing witness to Jesus public ministry, and not a 'biography'). That is why the reunion between Mary and the resurrected Jesus is never mentioned or explained in the Gospel. Their profound and lifelong shared communion through the Holy Spirit was entirely private and never shared. And that is appropriate, because only the public ministry of the adult Jesus needed to be witnessed and proclaimed. So the Church tradition and revelation of approved mystics is entirely correct that Mary had complete obedience, a pain free birth, and no regrets at all, being full of obedience and grace. The Qur'an correctly explains in dialogue form the profound awareness of the dire pain (the piercing of Mary's heart, the crucifixion of Jesus) that both would share and the anguish both would feel.

Bible Reading: Luke 1:46-53

Luke 1:46-53

And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; and his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly…”

Addressing priests, bishops, & called to vocations

While commenting on a blog about the status of vocations as it pertains to the level of bishops, I was able to put into words some of my views on vocations, and why priests deserve much more credit than they receive. My comments might also be helpful to those starting in on their vocations, or even long time priests who have reached a period of spiritual aridity, or have been too afflicted by the pressures of the world.

Most everyone understands that when one first thinks about being a priest, in the very early stages, they describe it as hearing a call or an attraction to vocation. The first thing that the potential future priest may feel, often as a youngster, is a pull to the vocation itself. It is the “job” that is what seems to be the voice that God uses to call them with. So I do not mean that they view it just as a secular job but one that serves God, far from it. But what I mean is that the language of inner, interior dialogue, the invitation, that God extends tends to center around “what the priest would be doing for God,” as in the specifics of the service. The young proto-priest often envisions himself performing priestly roles, and may admire priests in his parish, or long distance role models such as the Holy Father in Rome.

But what these proto-priests, who first hear the call to vocation, don’t realize is that a second dialogue that is much more subtle is taking place. That is, to hear an invitation from someone who loves them dearly to love them in return. At the same time that God is extended the “call to vocations” by framing the dialogue as being about having a “job” that is in service to God and his flock, there is a second conversation which is, especially if one is a youngster, the first spiritual invitation to love and be loved.

I would explain to you, even though most priests probably could not explain it themselves this clearly, that their formation is not just learning the “job” of priesthood, but understanding and developing their personal love relationship with God. We all know priests who are marvelous, while others struggle. Some of this is a matter of how much they are able to take the love they freely exchange with God and now magnify God’s love onto their parish, or whatever their assignment or religious community. The most successful and serene priest is the one who is not the most “hip” or the most “modern” or the most “popular,” but the one who can authentically magnify the love he has learned about with God onto his flock.

A bishop, then, finds an even greater challenge, which is why it is so daunting to some, but welcome to others. Just at a time when one must bear an extra burden of secular administration types of responsibilities, one must also magnify their learning of God’s love onto and throughout their entire diocese or archdiocese. They are literally the interpreters of their personal “love dialogue” with God for now tens of thousands of people, or even a million. It is an enormous challenge for the consecrated clergy at all levels, but one must have special appreciation for this part of their vocation that they themselves often do not recognize, understand, or give themselves credit for. This is one reason why the Blessed Virgin Mary loves the priesthood and prays continually in God’s presence for their intentions. This is because she well knows, and indeed foretold that, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior” (Luke 1:46-47).

With those words, Mary essentially wrote the first lines of the job description of future Catholic priests and bishops. Just as her purpose was to “magnify” the Lord, with “rejoicing,” it is the vocation of priests and bishops to magnify their personal love dialogue with God so that it is visible and easily attained by their flock. THAT is their number one task, in addition of course to the sacraments, most especially the Sacrifice of the Mass, though obviously that is the shared expression of worship of God’s love for his flock.

Priests and bishops also have much more serenity with the personal sacrifice, including chastity that they have made through their vocations when they mindfully deliberate and promote this magnification of God’s love. As a priest is formed, and then throughout his maturing, he must constantly work on, and benefit from, his personal dialogue of love with God. In some ways it is like any love relationship in that there is potential for miscommunication, aridity, or the competition of outside forces. Recommitting and refreshing oneself in one’s personal dialogue with God is only enhanced when one recognizes that he must “magnify” this love dialogue for his flock. Magnification means to make visible what the eye cannot see without assistance. A priest who can take the love dialogue he feels with God and now “display” it through his works, words and feelings onto his flock is “magnifying.” Likewise, the bishop does the same although the day to day activities differ from that of a parish priest.

I have to emphasize that I do not mean to rack up a longer list of charitable works in the name of Jesus. And I do not mean that the flock must be made happier because "you" love them. What I mean is to display the depth of love that you have with God in public, magnifying it, just as a spouse who is with someone he or she adores does so automatically with just a look. A priest cannot be serene and totally fulfilled in his calling if he is not continuing, even through periods of aridity, to be "in love with God" on a personal level and in dialogue. It is that love of God that YOU feel that should translate into your demeanor, works, and deeds, as naturally as rain falls. You are not magnifying your personal feelings toward the flock in imitation of Christ, you are magnifying the love dialogue that you have with God himself onto your flock. (And no, this does not mean you tell them your secret prayers to God! :-)

When one learns how to dialogue with God in his love, he is truly accessing something that is infinite and immeasurable. It is a source of refreshment, rather than a burden. Unlike activities that place a physical, intellectual or emotional strain on a person, increased access to God’s love and the sharing of it with others only refreshes and sustains, rather than depletes. This is one of the unspoken but obvious ways that the Blessed Virgin Mary endured what she did during her life, and two thousand years later, continues to touch the hearts of millions through her intervention and understanding. It is not her power that she wields, but instead, she continues to magnify her love dialogue with God onto all of those who believe and listen.

So I hope that those in the priesthood, bishops, those in formation, and those considering vocations take these words of illumination, explanation and encouragement to heart, and God bless all who serve him.

Women are not to be consecrated clergy

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, and how much simpler to make it. The Catholic Church correctly identifies priesthood as the continuation of the example that Jesus Christ, first priest, established, which is the celibate male priest completely dedicated to God.

I'm tired of the un-Christ oriented arguments that these 'women advocates put forth.' It is all about Christ and there should be no priest who ever forgets that.

I don't care if one of the disciple's Aunt Angie's grannies' oldest daughter had a responsible position in the early Christian church. That does not change one iota that the priesthood is entirely modeled upon and follows the footsteps of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is the final statement I will blog on this subject, because it is tiresome and feeds the self pitying ego of those who push for 'women clergy' instead of being oriented toward the integrity of the Church. (The sight of women showing off their priest costumes disgusts me, and I do not mean to be unkind, but I can only be honest and truthful. I want to retch whenever I do not page fast enough and actually see one of their snapshots.)

If Jesus had intended for women to be priests, the Blessed Virgin Mary would have been heard from in the Scriptures as a voice of authority after Pentecost. None of you can claim to do what she did not.

Discussion closed.

How cultists fool pious/needy gulliable Christians

Here's another lesson in discernment.

How do people who claim to have "visions" of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus, or other divine beings do it? How do they get so many people to believe them?

Well, there's always a pool of spiritually poor people who are seeking. These people often lack confidence in themselves in their personal lives, and therefore they are very likely to believe that someone has a "special" ability that they themselves don't have. So people with poor self esteem are more likely to believe that some person claims to see Mary "daily" because they are vulnerable to believing someone else's "specialness," that they themselves don't feel. People who lack strong faith that is grounded on knowing that they are all equal before God tend to think that there are "special" people who have "special" "gifts" and "spiritual access."

The second way people are fooled is that these people are careful to give good safe messages, such as "Mary said to pray," "Mary said to pray," "Mary said to pray." They learned their lesson when they tried to manipulate September 11, 2001 to try to "predict the next attack" or milk some divine message out of it, but none of that panned out or made any sense. So they are back to the tried and true "safe" messages that have nothing to do with doctrine or warnings. So people think, "Oh well, what's the harm in believing these 'visionaries?' They are just telling us to pray!"

The third way people are fooled is the people seem sincere and modest. Trust me, if you really saw Jesus or Mary, you'd be transformed in a way that is indescribable. The gullible think that "Oh, she's the same humble person even though 'Mary speaks to her.' She must be authentic because she's soooooo humble and unchanged." Um, read the Bible. No one is the same after encountering true divine revelation.

The fourth way they fool you is they fool themselves. They really think they are seeing or hearing "Mary" or some other divinity. The innocent explanation is that they cannot distinguish between their own unconscious thoughts and urges and reality. This is quite common as people in this media crazy age are less grounded in reality, and less able to edit their own thoughts that come from a variety of personal issues or neediness.

The not innocent explanation is that they are hooked up with someone they believe is either the divinity reincarnated or someone who is psychic who is hooked up with someone they think is the divinity, either mentally or via stalking a person they think is the reincarnated divinity. So they get a photo of this person and can look you in the eyes and say, sounding like butter would not melt in their mouths, "I saw Mary today." What they mean is: 1) I saw the person I think is Mary reincarnated 2) I saw a psychic who thinks he or she is in touch with Mary and he or she "shared" their "channeling" with me 3) I took out my copy of a photo of someone I think is Mary or who talks to Mary and looked at it, and gosh, is that not "within the spirit of the truth so I can say I 'saw' 'Mary'?"

Oh, and here's another way to "smell a rat" among these "visionaries." Notice they tend to be obsessive about reporting the "times" that they have their "visions." They also tend to post their own birthdays on their web sites. This is because they are practicing occult beliefs, namely astrology and numerology. I mean, if no one else can see the apparitions, then who cares about exacts "times" that Mary or etc. appeared, and doubly "who cares" about the birthdays of these "visionaries?" We don't even know what century some true martyrs died, say nothing about ooooooh loooook she's an Aquarius...... no wonder Mary appears to her......oooooh ooooooh. And she appeared at 9:40! oooooooh that adds up to "Mary's" number of "13"......ohooooohhhhooooo how "holy" and "authenticating."

They think God does not see all of this manipulation and know the truth. Oh boy, are they in trouble, as are all who support them. Hell will be paid, and you can take that to your time stamped bank.