Understanding God: how God "thinks"

I am going to give you an analogy and a case study that will help you to understand "how" God "thinks" (by that I mean his perspective on human actions). My purpose is not to help you to try to understand what cannot actually be understood by humans (or even by angels, who while they share God's vision they cannot comprehend how its perfection originates in God, which is why they constantly praise God in heaven). Rather, I am going to help you to look at a sad and unpleasant earthly issue and be better able to make just, righteous and virtuous choices and thus form your own opinions accordingly. I've thought of a few analogy and case studies so here is the first one.

As you know, many people who oppose abortion understand that even certain forms of birth control have shades of abortion, since they destroy the created embryo by not allowing it to implant, etc. While the Catholic Church and others of their belief oppose all forms of terminating preborn life, they recognize that there is a difference between contraception (preventing the embryo from even forming in the first place) and abortion (destroying or hindering the growth of an actual embryo). Thus the Catholic Church opposes both but for different reasons, though both rest on the reverence and valuing of all human life. Contraception is opposed because there is a Biblical prohibition of "spilling one's seed on the ground," which means that all sex acts should occur in a marital situation that is open to the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. So contraception is opposed because it appears that God has instructed that the raw material of pregnancy should not be discarded, wasted or hindered from combining into a pregnancy. Abortion is opposed because it is viewed as not only being devaluing of life and irreverential toward God's commission to be fruitful and multiple, but because it also violates the Commandment against killing. So that is the medical and spiritual background against which this case study takes place.

One way people promote both birth control and abortion is to accuse those who oppose either or both of those practices of being "insensitive" and "cruel" in certain situations. The usual situation is whereby a victim of rape seeks an abortion. Now, the specific case study I want to give to you is the situation regarding why some people oppose giving "morning after" so called "emergency contraception" pills to a rape victim. In other words, working in slightly different ways, these pills create an environment hostile toward a pregnancy either occurring (if it has not yet happened) or the embryo if it is in place being able to attach and grow. Many people, including those of good will and emotional thoughtfulness, wonder how people can be mean as to "condemn" a rape victim to a possible pregnancy.

Before I move to the analogy, where I explain God's way of thinking in the matter, let me remind you that I am not an absolutist, as I have blogged before. I believe that a small child who is raped and pregnant and who is seeking an abortion for the good reasons of her extreme youth and her fragile health, should receive one, and the sin of abortion thus rests upon whoever allowed the rape to occur. I remind you that I blogged about the most recent case of this happening so that you are not distracted in reading my analogy by the thought that I am insensitive and inflexible, for I am not, obviously.

So let's go back to the case study, which is a teenage or adult woman (in other words, not a child as I outlined above) is raped and seeks immediate "after the rape" "emergency contraception," which is medicine that either aborts the newly formed embryo or prevents the sperm and egg from fertilizing, if they had not yet. So I am speaking of someone who could bear a child with the normal risks of pregnancy, but not the additional risk and trauma of a little child being raped.

Here is the analogy that helps shed some light on how God views this dilemma. Imagine there is a poor and primitive village of indigenous people in a remote area, where they barely eke out a living to support themselves, but are otherwise content. One day a man goes insane and kills a married couple, leaving their small child alive, but now with no one to provide for her. How would you feel if the village decided to kill the small child, because they could not support her in the place of her parents and, and this is the important point, the fact that she is now unsupported is the result of a crime.

So think this through. These well meaning villagers have now lost two pairs of hands and legs that used to raise food, build dwellings, haul water, etc due to the crime of murder, and now with that loss of sustenance providing married couple, the village is stuck with a burden, the little girl, that did not exist before, and all because of a crime.

I'll bet many of you have to haul yourself back from the slippery slope of "understanding" that the "poor indigenous" people just "might have to" make a "tough decision" and being "unable to support the little girl" "through no fault of their own" and "because of someone else's crime," they just "can't support the little girl due to this crime" and thus (how long can we delay saying it?)... they kill her, either outright or by allowing her to starve or perish due to wild beasts in the forest, or from exposure to the cold.

No, God would not "understand" that. God would think that the people who do have enough to eat and shelter don't deserve to have even the little they do have if they cannot raise, support and comfort the little girl whose parents, those two able bodied workers, were murdered. Odds are that God would hardly bless the future of the village who killed the child because "they could not support her." Indeed, these villagers would all have to answer to him when they receive on their inevitable death personal judgment.

Now that you understand "how God thinks" in the analogy, now look back to the case study. In both situations you have a helpless child due to a crime (in the case study, due to rape, in the analogy, due to the murder of the parents). God does not want to hear lame, selfish and craven excuses from a poor village who murders due to poverty, so how much less does God want to hear such excuses from a society that has health care, hospitals, welfare, parents and grandparents with salaries, and the potential for adoption?

It is a hard message to understand how God thinks because his thought is entirely based on love and justice. No human can ever live up to that, but they sure should not provoke the obvious because of greed and selfishness, or, and this is understandable, where shattered emotions and self pity due to the rape can lead, due to the weakness of human nature, of blaming the child for "ruining" their "plans." "My life has been ruined, I've been raped and if I have this child I have to pay money and lose a year of college before getting my high paid job and giving the baby away in adoption." Put in God's point of view, while he understands the broken, selfish weakness of humanity (after all, Eve had everything and she still wanted more in the Garden of Eden), it is hardly as noble and kind hearted as humans think they are being when they urge a rape victim to consider "emergency contraception" and/or abortion.

Back to the analogy. Maybe those lazy ass villagers ought to work a little harder to grow a few more crops, rather than just the bit they have, in order to not murder the child. Maybe their doing so would result in them discovering a vein of gold in a stream that they had not noticed before. Sometimes even those in extreme economic situations through genuine kindness can exert themselves even more to support a child, rather than say "We'd like to but we can't."

God is the ultimate democrat, because every life is equally precious in its creation and its potential in his eyes. Many people alive today exist because somewhere in their family tree someone did not abort a child due to rape in warfare or other circumstances.

I hope that this case study and the accompanying analogy has helped you understand one aspect-a very important one-of God's "thoughts." More so I hope this helps you to not have knee jerk reaction to even painful events when developing your own stance, attitudes, thoughts, feelings and ultimately policies and decisions, where you react to the obvious sympathy and empathy without considering all the routes that genuine mercy, virtue and righteous do take place.

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

Why the faiths are conservative re: new ideas

Why the faiths are conservative regarding new ideas

Regular readers know that I am always watching the news or looking up topics of personal interest to me with one ear and one eye ready to receive an idea of an important topic or “case study” to discuss with you. Yesterday I got an idea of how to pull together and explain something that many find puzzling and that, as a result, has led them away from the orthodoxy of the Abrahamic faiths (Jewish, Catholic, Muslim). It is one of the primary reasons for the freefall that humans are in right now, one that must stop.

Many feel that, for example, the Catholic Church refuses to move with the times regarding ideas of science, also known as “progress,” and “spirituality,” also known as, well, heresy. Using the Catholic Church as an example it is alternately ridiculed, with the poster child for that being its condemnation of Galileo, and outright hated, for its perceived opposition to “medical procedures,” such as cloning, euthanasia, abortion, embryonic research. These same modern people who don’t understand and who criticize or at the very least have their faith diluted would also feel the same way about Islam and Orthodox Judaism and their equivalent conservatism, except of course the critics come from Christian heritage and thus marginalize the faith of the Muslims and Orthodox Jews (and certainly because of political correctness would think twice about taking on either group). So the Catholic Church is not only “fair game” to moderns who genuinely misunderstand and thus mock and hate, but it is also the last bulwark for western society against humans continuing their freefall and grave error.

When one asks the Catholic Church why yes to something and why no to something they cite scripture, doctrine and tradition. It is at that point that moderns shut their ears, roll their eyes and say, “Well, that is all out of date.” If the critics are kind they allow that maybe such rules and restrictions were “once valid” but are no longer. But here is the problem and I’ll give it to you in a series of specific examples so you can best understand. The problem is that humans never make the right decision when they first encounter a new idea or a new discovery and sometimes that error lasts with terrible results for decades and even centuries.

I want to first address myself to the most extreme of the liberals and peace activists who might be reading this. You and your cause for peace are the primary example I can cite. How many of you think that humans have ever made a good decision as the result of a new discovery in weapons? I think you would be the first to agree, due to your positions, that no great humanitarian breakthrough was ever achieved by the invention of the spear, sword, gun, cannon, bomb or missile. Put aside for the moment what conservatives will reply, which is that guns allowed people to hunt game and thus feed more people because one can equally argue in theory that this resulted in quick extinction of wild species and did not aid either agriculture or domestic animal husbandry. One can argue that weapons allowed defense against aggressors. But who had the weapons first? The aggressors are always the first to use weapons; not the defenders.

This is why the Bible states that humans must look forward to the time when metal is not used in swords, but in plows and pruning hooks. This is an example of where if anyone had gone to the Church for guidance as weapons are being developed, the Church would have been the first to question it and cite scripture. Notice how even in the bloody times of the Old Testament, the faithful fought with primitive weapons and no where are technology advances praised, even in the cause of conquering Canaan. Rather, the faithful won by their faith in God, their determination and zeal, and also through clever leadership and tactics. Yet they fell to the stronger Babylon, a military might, in time. So because the powers that be that develop weaponry never came to the Catholic Church for their “blessing,” we lack what would have been a shining example of what I am talking about, which is to see that the Church resists “progress” that it thinks will slip out of the control of human hands.

It is now easier to understand why the Church resisted-but no where near as much as they have been demonized-new understandings of the solar system. In fact it was a Catholic deacon Copernicus who was primary in this understanding and he was never censored. But the Galileo example is used to the point of nausea and so let me address it head on. If you read the Bible from front to end-the whole text-you will see that it is filled with praise and glory regarding the heavenly bodies, the stars, the moon, the sun, the sky itself and planets that moved (though at that time they did not understand that was what they were). However, there is a vast difference between the praise the Bible heaps on the planets and what humans are tempted to do. In the Bible it is understood that the heavens are not only the glory of God’s creation and to only be praised accordingly, but they are also practical gifts. All three of the faiths used a lunar based calendar and the moon is praised in the Bible and the Qur’an for its giving of light and a timetable for humans. Thus the scriptures, written in pastoral and agricultural times, are the first to admire the practicality of the warmth and light of the sun, the light and clock of the moon, and the beauty of the stars in determining the seasons by which humans live.

However, right in the scripture next to the praise of the heavenly bodies is stern warning not to use them for occult purposes, for fortunetelling and witchcraft. This is because it is God’s word, obviously, but why is it God’s word and why would God have such a warning? Again, it is the reason that humans never use such “discoveries” for the correct purposes. The Church was fine with people looking through these new optics called telescopes and as I said, Copernicus himself was of the Church. The problem is that during centuries that was rife with astrology and occult beliefs, the Church is very cautious about new “discoveries” that seem to challenge humanity’s responsibilities and purview and God’s realm. So long as the earth remained the center of the solar system and all the rest was put there due to God’s mercy in creation and his gift of practical goodness of light, heat and time management for humans, God’s word was easier to understand and follow. However, once people started talking about the sun being the “center” of everything, the Church as a body understood to its core what it has known about humans since the beginning: “Oh, oh.” The Church realized that human nature being what it is, new discoveries are never chalked up to even more glory and understanding of God; they are seized upon by power brokers, both occult and secular.

This is why the knee jerk reflexive position of the Church is to deny and stall with certain scientific discoveries. Astronomy is a particularly important example through the centuries because it not only seemed to make confusing what the Bible teaches (not that the Bible is a science text but the idea the sun is put there for the benefit of humans by God) but there is always the occult temptation of astrology: to actually benefit and harm people according to godless “rules.” This is also why the Church is rightfully cautious about new sources of "spirituality." For example, the Freemason organization was at one point in good standing and acceptable to the Church. However, it was easy to see where a fraternal interest in mysteries such as numbers, the universe, architecture and other solid interests took a turn to the arcane and the occult. That is the problem: when humans succumb to the subtle temptation of ego, where they view themselves as mini-wizards because like Saurman in the "Lord of the Rings" they get to close to the objects of their study. They stop being students and admirers of God's creation and start thinking they are the one who "really" understand and "wield" the power. When organizations cross that line that is why and when you see the Church disapprove of the faithfuls' participation... they see it not in terms as a "rival" to their "old fashioned" ways but recognize another of the countless times humans fall into the temptation of their own discoveries into harmful usage for both the faithful and everyone else.

So in this generation we have the great crisis of eroding value of life by humans versus what is life affirming doctrine by the Catholic Church. This battlefield is called “medicine.” The Catholic Church is portrayed as being unkind opponents to “medical advances” to “save lives.” (Though obviously an abortion never saved the life of the aborted baby), but I will confine my comments to embryonic research and so forth. Let’s look at how great human history in the ethical use of new discoveries of “medicine” by looking at three examples. The first example is the discovery of tobacco. Native Americans cultivated tobacco for ritual use, not for habitual smoking in recreation. Humans quickly latched onto tobacco for recreational use and became addicted for generations. That would not be a good example of a bad use of a medical discovery in and of itself except for one little detail. As recently as the 1940s and 1950s humans marketed cigarette smoking to the public as “healthy,” as a health improving and promoting activity. Three hundred years after the discovery of tobacco as a product for smoking humans were increasing their pushing of it as a health remedy, rather than recognizing at all its dangers. Those of you old enough to remember can recall along side me how many years of battle it has taken to get public recognition that no only were cigarettes not adding to one’s health but they were the source of much of the illness in the population at large and cutting lives drastically short. So tobacco is an obvious example of why humans never seem to get the big “discoveries” right.

The second is one that is less well known by young people today, but it involves radioactivity. When radioactivity was discovered, it was actually viewed as, yes, you guessed it, a medical advance, and I don’t mean its use in diagnostic x-rays and so forth. Look back in the history and you will find that humans quickly decided that radiating each other promoted good health. People were given doses of radiation as tonics, not for the targeted use that it now has, with the greater safety controls. Just like tobacco people immediately thought that radiating each other with radioactive particles would somehow give them “better health” and “cure illnesses.”

How could people be so stupid? Well, consider this. During the time of the discovery of radioactivity there were people, mostly British, who flocked to Egypt because they were fascinated with the culture and discoveries and mystique. And what did they do? They decided to dig up the bodies of mummified people, grind it up into dust, and take it as-you guessed it-health tonics. Yes, at the turn of the century wealthy people ground up and ate the remains of mummies. It’s not like someone told them, “Hey, mummies have a lot of vitamin Xyz so it is good for you.” Humans all on their own make the most terrible and scarily occult decisions imaginable. All of it comes back to the temptation, just as in the Garden of Eden, to “become like God” and control life. It is not so long after this that a few decades later someone had a close encounter of the wrong type, probably as bush meat, with monkeys or apes in Africa and HIV/Aids made the jump from the simian blood stream to humans. That is why the Bible has such a long list of unclean animals. Look at the example of the prohibition from eating birds of prey such as falcons and eagles. Look at the worry today about avian flu jumping from birds to humans from wild bird populations, just as HIV/Aids did from simians. Everyone knows that is the reason pork is prohibited, because of the dangers of poorly cooked pork and the disease (remember swine flu?)

Thus the holy scriptures are far from being naive or backwards and if anything HIV/Aids, swine, avian flu and "mad cow disease" demonstrate why God prohibited certain foods and food preparation practices. As another example, one point of pride of the Qur’an is that it reveals the existence of atomic matter, for example, over a thousand years before atoms were “discovered” by humans. Scripture is neither ignorant of science or naive. Today we have astronomers studying “what kind of sun is needed to support planets that could support life.” Yet the Church is mocked and demonized because the Bible teaches that the sun is a gift from God to humans to do what? I can’t hear you? The sun is a gift by God to humans to support human life.

Here is another example of how humans just can’t seem to get it right. How good did humans do when they “discovered” electroshock therapy for use in psychiatry? I mean, does anyone want to watch a rerun of “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest?” I know what I am talking about because my former father in law was, way before I met him, given electroshock therapy. It was brutal, it was scarring and while it supposedly “cured” one ailment to use the expression “the operation succeeded but the patient died” would be quite appropriate. I’m told that nowadays they call it something different and that it “really works” for “certain patients,” and I knew one such patient in the hospital where I interned. But let me tell you, if there is not an early warning poster child of a horrible misuse of a medical “breakthrough” I don’t know what a better one is.

Look at how ridiculous humans are at even trying to identify the great “curative foods.” One year coffee is bad and the next year coffee is good. We can all list the “good foods” and “good vitamins” and the “bad foods” and the “bad additives,” but wait a minute, can we? Can we really do that? Is not vitamin C the greatest thing one year, then discovered to cause heart problems if taken over a certain dose the next year, and then the year after that it is great again with no mention of the heart problems? And do we not see headlines “Vitamin C does not cure cancer” as if anyone with a brain ever thought that it did? But humans, like eating the mummy dust a mere one hundred years ago, want to make themselves gods and goddesses. They think that there are magic answers (found in science, of course) to all medical and spiritual “problems.” And now we find that we don’t even mind pushing around the cells of a human embryo in a laboratory and call that being “advanced” and “kind” and “being a humanitarian.” Yet those who discover ways to accomplish the same without being ethically challenged are marginalized, unfunded, not given publicity, and told “Well, yes, but your cure won’t be in time to save that celebrity with Parkinson's disease.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J_Fox

That, my friends, as my end of year message for what has been another year of the downfall of humanity, is the reason the Orthodox Jews, the Muslims and the Catholic Church are the bastions of caution about “discoveries” and “breakthroughs” in “medicine” and “spirituality.”

Debunk cults and answer "Who am I?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics (3)

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

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

The priesthood of the Old Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone can baptize in a dire emergency

It is important that people realize that anyone, even if you are not baptized yourself, can give a Catholic baptism to an adult or a child if your intention is sincere and if a priest cannot be obtained, in the event of a dire emergency.

An example would be at an accident scene where the injured, whether baby, child or adult, has not been baptized and is in danger of dying right away. This is documented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1256, 1240) and in my day was taught to all Catholic youngsters. Here is the procedure.

You need some sort water, even the tiniest amount. The usual place to look is if there is a puddle or source of water nearby. If water is absolutely not available you can use a fluid such as soda or any liquid available (such as windshield wiper fluid), whatever is at hand. If there is absolutely no fluid you can spit in your hand and use that.

Pour or if small amount wipe the fluid on the child or adult's forehead while saying:

"(Speak their name here), I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Thus, if the infant or adult dies, you have baptized them fully within the grace of baptism of the Catholic faith. This isn't a "retrograde" or "enforced conversion," the person does not "become a Catholic against their will." It demonstrates that Catholics affirm that they are all, both priests and laity, within the "priesthood of Christ" and they can, in dire emergency, confer the grace of Baptism on those who are at risk of dying without that grace.

Obviously if the child or adult survives, you must speak to a priest to obtain advice about how to proceed.

I hope you have found this useful, but obviously hope that you never have to use this function of our shared "common priesthood."

In the past I've had a small vial of water in my traveling first aid kit in case I have ever had to do this. I've only been first on the scene of an accident once, and the men were not in danger of death, so I've not had to do this myself, but have been prepared since earliest childhood to do so, if need be.

RIP Cardinal Dulles, what great faith he kept

Do read the story of Cardinal Avery Dulles. What a remarkable God centered man, and the story of his conversion is beautiful. I remember the tree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/13dulles.html

Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics (2)

This next topic is so vast and important that I’m going to present it in easy to understand sections that build upon each other. The topic is the Catholic priesthood, and understanding what it is to be a priest.

First I must make the point that I am, as I explained in my introduction, using Catholic doctrine as the basis for this tutorial. This does not imply that only the Catholic Church contains the practices I describe throughout this series, as different Christian denominations maintain, or not, differing components from the mother Church. However, with the exception of the Orthodox Church, the “eastern tradition,” all Christians up until the Reformation had the common doctrine and furnishings of worship as I describe here in this series.

What is the priesthood, and what does it mean to be a Catholic priest, and where does the current structure of the priesthood come from? First, let me address a modern misconception that the priesthood is an “elite” position with a “job description.” That concept has never been true, and is wrong for two reasons. One is that under Catholic doctrine all the faithful are considered priests, called the “baptismal priesthood.” The second reason this is wrong is that the “ministerial priesthood” is not a job description to which one attains, but has its roots in the priesthood of the Old Covenant, which has the purpose of offering sacrifice.

So that you don’t have to believe me, but read the actual words of the Catholic Church, here are readings from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The correctness of the Catechism is, by the way, a responsibility of the Pope, one of his “job responsibilities!” This means that the Pope “signs off” on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all updates and clarifications. This is not a work of the Pope’s “infallibility” per se; it is, rather, one of his responsibilities as Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ to ensure accuracy and “quality control.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church is, to quote Pope John Paul II in his introduction, “a compendium of all catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals… a point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions.” This means that the Catechism is a statement of doctrine that the Church has always maintained and guarded, but assembled into one reference book so that local churches can have the complete set of doctrine from which to draw upon as a resource locally. Pope John Paul II even calls it a “reference text.”

Thus, here is the Catholic doctrine regarding the priesthood of all the faithful.

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church, “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be…a holy priesthood.”

Let me explain. Far from demeaning parishioners, the lay people, and “reserving priesthood for the elite hierarchy,” Catholic doctrine has always maintained that all the faithful are members of the priesthood. This is called the “baptismal priesthood,” and each member carries out their participation in the priesthood of Christ according to their vocation. I cannot tell you how annoyed I have been with non-Catholic Christians who blatantly lie, willfully or out of ignorance, that the Catholic priesthood is somehow elitist and separating of the people from Jesus Christ, when the opposite is true. In fairness in the crisis of faith that affects all Christians in this society, Catholics themselves of the past two generations have lost track of the realization that they, through Baptism and Confirmation, have been initiated into the very real priesthood of Jesus Christ. They are then speechless when non-Catholics criticize them, quoting from scriptures the very basis that yes, indeed, Catholic doctrine agrees, which is the priesthood of the faithful. I sigh in extreme exasperation and get headaches of annoyance, and my blood pressure rises, I won’t hide those facts from you.

While leaving discussion of infant Baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation to later tutorials, let me make this pertinent point. I’ve explained it before in posts under the tag of Baptism, but now you probably understand it more easily. Baptism of infants is a continuation of the washing and swaddling that Israelite infants received after their birth to bring them to the Temple and be initiated into their faith. John the Baptist did not “invent” baptism and he didn’t “mean for it to be for adults.” John the Baptist recognized that a new baptism will be needed when the Messiah comes; that no longer the washing of the infant, the putting of the infant in new swaddling clothes, and taking the infant to the Temple with the appropriate sacrifice made one a member of the faithful that the Messiah will call. John the Baptist, called by Jesus the greatest born of human woman, understood that a new Baptism is needed, of water and Spirit. This Baptism was given, obviously, to adults as the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant took place, with the coming of Jesus Christ. But the Catholic Church always understood that infants are to be consecrated to God at their birth, just as had been true of the Israelite infants. This is the Baptismal origin of both the practice of baptizing infants and the Catholic doctrine that upon their baptism they are part of the “baptismal priesthood.”

Recognizing that infants cannot have a vocation other than to be infants, the active period of the “baptismal priesthood” of children commences at their thirteenth birthday when they receive the sacrament of Confirmation. Again, without preempting what I want to explain about this sacrament in future tutorials, I will make some simple points. At thirteen in the Israelite tradition of the Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, children are viewed as being adults regarding their responsibility to God and their faith. Confirmation is a continuation of that understanding and, again, it is where the Old Covenant meets the New Covenant. This is why the Catechism section that I have just quoted calls the priesthood of the Christian community, the laity, a “baptismal priesthood” but one where the faithful are fully “consecrated” “through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.”

Yes, you Catholic parents who are reading this and who have either not baptized your child or had them receive Confirmation; this is why there is a problem. It is not the Catholic Church being “mean” but rather, these are the steps one takes to be consecrated, to be made a sacred member of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, exactly as when in the Jewish faith, the Bar Mitzvah boy must actually study and do his Bar Mitzvah to be the Bar Mitzvah boy; just thinking good thoughts and going to synagogue is not the same.

So this directly addresses the dignity of the laity. The Catholic laity is not only dignified, it is priestly and each and every person, male or female, married, single or divorced, straight or gay, rich or poor are a member of the “baptismal priesthood” and are “consecrated” “in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king” if they have received Baptism and Confirmation, period. From the point of those sacraments onward, throughout one’s life, it is “each according to his own vocation” that the baptismal priest exercises their priesthood. Here is further explanation.

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its won proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially. In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace-a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit-, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its won sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Notice that rather than being an upward hierarchy, “the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood.” Thus the “ministerial priesthood” serves the baptismal priesthood, the common priesthood. To summarize:

1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the “common priesthood of the faithful.” Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.

1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgeicum), and pastoral governance (munus regendi).

1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. This configuration to Christ and to the Church, brought about by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains for ever in the Christian as a positive disposition for grace, a promise and guarantee of divine protection, and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church. Therefore these sacraments can never be repeated.

I’m going to wrap up this segment of discussion here, even though I know it raises even more questions! But I want to keep this a “one topic at a time” approach as much as possible. Therefore my summary point of this section is that Christians should understand that Catholics, through Baptism and Confirmation, are considered of the priesthood of Christ and that while this differs from the ministerial priesthood, there is a dignity of vocation that if anything is under-recognized and under utilized among Catholics themselves. Rather than agitating an erroneous belief that the Catholic “hierarch” somehow “keeps down the dignity” of the laity, everyone needs to understand that Catholic doctrine most clearly states as it has from Apostolic times that the opposite is true. When I write later about the apostolic basis for the understanding of the sacrament of Confirmation, you will see that even more clearly. I honestly have been disappointed with many Catholics at their lack of understanding of the dignity and the calling of the baptismal priesthood.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics (1)

The Catholic Church is structured the way it is because it believes that when God intervenes in human life, such as when he reveals his presence; he not only leaves behind the words that are exchanged but also tangible gifts. In other words, God never comes “empty handed,” and he does not expect the faithful in return to live only upon the words of his prophets, or of Jesus Christ.

The tangible generosity of God is abundantly clear throughout the Bible. From the moment of creation to the ministry of Jesus Christ, God provides tangible and real gifts of goodness along with the words of those who proclaim Him. God provided creation itself and material abundance to Adam and Eve. God provided specific direction of how to approach, worship and house his earthly presence to the patriarchs and the priests of the Israelites. God’s prophets performed tangible miracles of healing on God’s behalf. God made gifts of the prophets themselves, living breathing people who carried out his will, rather than only giving continuing words of exhortation to the people. God gave people both religious practices and rituals and secular teaching for following the right paths, such as how to make a verbal contract through witnessing. God provided a place, the Mercy Seat of the Ark, and the Meeting Tent, where people could come to his prophets, notably Moses, with both their religious and their secular problems and receive counsel. These are just the highlights of the clear record that God has of bringing not only his words of instruction, comfort and exhortation, but also tangible structures, both physical and ritual, as gifts that magnify and continue the grace that God has bestowed.

In my recent 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit post about Wisdom, I cite as one example that God appears to King Solomon in a dream, and offers him anything that he asks for. King Solomon asked for wisdom in the form of an “understanding heart,” and God granted him that request. God did not simply instruct King Solomon, leaving only God’s words of advice to recall, but God actually infused King Solomon with the tangible gift of Wisdom, that did not exist previously and that could henceforth be seen most clearly by all who observed King Solomon.

Judaism continues to understand that God has given them tangible gifts in addition to his words. For example, the Sabbath is a continuing gift by God to Jews as the day of their rest, when neither work nor worries should concern them. Compare the difference in a gift where if God had said, “You ought to take time off from work on a regular basis,” and then leave it up to humans and oppressive bosses to obey that or not, versus the gift of a mandated day of rest once a week. The Sabbath is an example of a continuing tangible gift that is real, physical, and measurable and not just the citing of scripture about what one should or should not do.
Likewise Islam contains gifts from God that are beyond the gems of God’s actual words, but are also tangible and measurable. One example is the prohibition of usury. Again, God could have given “good advice” that one should not charge usury, and then leave it up to humans and oppressive money managers to obey that or not. But God gives the Muslims the gift that they will not be oppressed by usury, period.

The early Christian Church which is by definition the Catholic Church likewise looked for and identified the continuing gifts of God that have been given to them. Recognizing that Jesus Christ, Savior, is the gift of God to all of humanity, the Apostles and disciples who were all drawn from their Jewish faith foundations understood very well that it was not only the words of Jesus Christ, or his washing of the stain of original sin, that God gives to them. Exactly as Moses created at God’s behest ritual and physical structures so that God’s gifts can be shared with the faithful, the Apostles and disciples, and after them the early Church fathers, identified what tangible gifts Jesus Christ brought with him to “furnish” the faith.

Consider the Last Supper. Jesus had the Apostles hire a room, one with a table, couches, and all the service needed for dinner. They did not have the Last Supper by standing up in the air, with no physical furnishings, with no shared custom, and instead only the words of Jesus to linger in oral and then book form. Jesus role modeled not only the love of God and God’s teachings, but also how to “furnish” the faithful with the physical and ritual structures that are also the true gifts of God. Thus Jesus did not eliminate the sacrificial altar; he fulfilled it and gave to the disciples the form and the ritual of the furnishings of how future worship of God should take place: the altar in the Catholic Church that at each Mass commemorates the Last Supper.

How often have good Christians today said, “I wish I could have been there when Jesus was alive, and have seen him and spoken with him?” Well, the gift of God is that at every Mass one is there with Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. God always thinks ahead, just like in the gift of the Sabbath, so that future generations are not deprived of his gifts. It’s not like God allowed only Adam and Eve to celebrate the Sabbath and then no one else, or the first generation of Israelites got a day off each week, but next generations do not. God intends that ALL the faithful Christians be able to attend the Lord’s Supper, to be in the physical presence of Jesus Christ, generation after generation. I am astounded by how many Christians, both Catholics and not, fail to understand this gift. When one celebrates the Sacrifice of the Mass, one is invited to be present at the Lord’s Last Supper, in his physical presence, and in the presence of the faithful Apostles and saints. Every time someone misses Mass they are not attending an opportunity to be in the physical presence of Jesus Christ as he celebrates the Last Supper!

Somehow many Christians, as a result of the Reformation, and also the corrupting influences of self congratulatory modernism, view Jesus Christ in only two dimensions: 1) what he taught, and thus what words and role modeling he provided to be “like Jesus” or “following Jesus” and 2) that he provided the pathway for salvation. But there is a third dimension of Jesus Christ, which is that he was a real person who brought real gifts from God by which to furnish the faithful and the Church in their lives throughout the generations.

Thus the sacraments and the structures of the Church, both physical and ritual, are the Church’s discernment of what actions of Christ are demonstrations of continuing, real gifts that God has given to be carried forward. Because Jesus instructed to continue to perform the Last Supper in memory of him, this is exactly what the Church has done. This is why each Catholic Church has a consecrated altar, which is the Last Supper table. That is why each Catholic Church has a tabernacle, which houses the hosts (sacred bread) that is the actual presence of Jesus Christ at each Last Supper. No one “misses out” on having been the good Apostle at the Last Supper because the Last Supper is real and alive, with Jesus Christ present, at every Catholic Mass, regardless how humble the surroundings and regardless how many generations have passed since the first Last Supper.

So sure, Christians who are not Catholics and who “only believe in the scripture” are accepting God’s gift of salvation. But goodness gracious, I do not understand the bitterness regarding the Holy Eucharist by many toward the Catholic Church. Such bitterness and rejection is a profound blindness and missed opportunity. It is like the child who sees only the one gift provided by their father under the Christmas tree, and ignores the other gift by the same father. The child says to the father, “I only need this one gift!” Well, sure, but the father gave the child two gifts; why would the child not want to even open the second gift from the father? That is how it is when those who have an extreme view of Jesus Christ having brought “only” his words and his salvatory power totally miss out on the additional gifts provided by God through Jesus Christ. In a way it is like Jews who do not celebrate the Sabbath. They still believe in God and they still merit the graces of their faith, but it’s like they are saying, “Hey God, I don’t want the day off each week!” This is what it is like when Christians who demean the Holy Eucharist consider the sacrament to be “not essential to their salvation, and actually an ‘addition’ to ‘the faith.’” Huh? I continue to be astonished that people cannot discern the difference between following Jesus and accepting his salvation message and accepting a gift that Jesus himself left for them, wrapped, “under the tree,” and not even unwrapping it to look inside. Jesus left the gift of being with him at the Last Supper, with his physical and living presence, for every generation after him and there is that gift, every day at one’s local Catholic Church.

Preaching, prayer, communal worship and Bible study are joys of the word of God. I will write more about them in future topics. They do not “compete” with the other gifts that God has given through Jesus Christ, which is to be invited to be at his table, in his physical presence, through all generations, available every day and every place on earth where a Church and a priest celebrating the Mass can be found. That is why I never attend non-Catholic worship services, not because they are wrong, but I miss too much not being at the Lord’s Table. Even if I have to listen to the most listless and ineloquent sermon, ha, I would not trade being at even the most prayerful and heartfelt Christian service with the chance to be that day once again in the physical presence of Jesus Christ as we are once again at the Last Supper in the communion of the faithful, as good Apostles taking our place in front of the table.

I hope that you have found this enlightening and helpful. I could write much more on this topic, but I want to keep these topics high level in making their general point. Here my point is to understand that God always gives tangible gifts that can be the joy and benefit of each generation of believers; God does not expect people to live only with the verbal and behavior implications of his words, and ignore the other gifts that he likewise leaves wrapped under the tree. Think about it. For example, every country that has a Catholic Church has, by definition, in their midst, the table set for the Last Supper with the physical presence of Jesus Christ. Even if that country is not Christian they have the benefit of being gracious hosts of the physical presence of Jesus Christ, seated at the Last Supper, in their midst! Those who attend the Sacrifice of the Mass are accepting the continual invitation of God to participate, even two thousand years later, at the actual Last Supper in the physical presence of Jesus Christ. And, unlike Elvis, Jesus never “leaves the building.” Thus the faithful Christians and who are not Catholic, but attend their own places of worship, can rather than criticize, be heart warmed that not only is Jesus present wherever the two or more gather in his name, but he also has the table set nearby.

Understanding faith in God via Catholic topics

I am starting a new series of tutorial posts.

My intention is to address and instruct all believers in the basics of faith in God while using Catholicism as the basis of my discussions.

In other words, each post will take a simple topic, but one that is often misunderstood, from the Catholic doctrine, creed, tradition and practices, explain its scriptural and other origins and foundation.

If appropriate I will then comment how the Catholicism compares to the other Divine Faiths, and also to non-Catholic Christian denominations.

These will not be scholarly treatments but as is my tradition, plain speaking and plain talk so that everyone can understand. I think much more is gained by explaining in everyday speech what the basic ideas are and those who are so inclined can do scriptural and scholarly further reading on their own. As I've stated before I tend to write in the way I imagine I would speak if I were in the same room with everyone.

I hope that everyone will find this helpful and interesting.

Example of Catholic teaching hierarchy works

There were recently headlines in the secular press about a Catholic priest who told his parish, in writing, that voting for President Elect Obama was a sin. Any properly formed Catholic knows that he was in error (yes, priests are human and make errors). That is why there is a hierarchy of the faith in the Catholic Church, to correct theology misstatements when they occur, not to be oppressive "meanies" as the secular press tries to paint. So here is an article that shows how the error is corrected within the Church, and this is how the normal process should occur regarding doctrine. The problem is that there has been slowness or weakness in correction for too long.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805820.htm

PRIEST-OBAMA (UPDATED) Nov-14-2008 (460 words) xxxn

Priest's remarks on Obama voters said not to reflect church teaching

By Dennis Sadowski
Catholic News ServiceWASHINGTON (CNS) -- The administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., said a pastor who told his parishioners they should refrain from receiving holy Communion if they voted for President-elect Barack Obama did not "adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teaching" on abortion and conscience.

"Any statements or comments to the contrary are repudiated," Msgr. Martin T. Laughlin said in a Nov. 14 statement.

Father Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's Church in Greenville, S.C., said in a letter to his parishioners that Catholics who voted for Obama, who supports legalized abortion, would have to be reconciled with God through the sacrament of penance before faithfully receiving Communion again. The letter was published on the front page of the parish bulletin Nov. 8-9.

Msgr. Laughlin said that Father Newman's comments "diverted the church's clear teaching on abortion" by pulling it into the "partisan political arena."

Quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Msgr. Laughlin said that Christ gives everyone "the freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith."

"Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion," he said.

The diocesan administrator also urged Catholics throughout South Carolina to unite to support Obama and other elected officials "with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child." He invited people to pray for the new president and his administration as they take office Jan. 20.

In his letter, Father Newman said members of his parish who voted for Obama had placed themselves "outside of the full communion of Christ's church and under the judgment of divine law."

"Persons in this condition should not receive holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the sacrament of penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation," he wrote.

The priest called Obama "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president."

Father Newman's letter also reminded parishioners to pray for the president-elect and "to cooperate with him whenever conscience does not bind us otherwise."

"Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good," Father Newman wrote.

Calls made to Father Newman Nov. 14 were not returned.

Bishop Slattery contributes great defense of life

Bishop Slattery joins the group of cardinals and bishop who have responded to the recent scandalous misrepresentations of the sanctity of human life and Catholic doctrine. Each contribution has been wonderful, and this one demonstrates how every bishop has such a valuable pastoral and humanitarian instructive role.

I commend ALL who are speaking out with the courage and clarity of Christ, in his name.


http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=573

Bishop Slattery Issues Response to Pelosi, Biden Abortion Remarks
9/10/2008 - EOC Staff

In recent weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden have been asked by Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" to explain their personal opinions on the question of “When does Human Life Begin?” The essence of their views, which they both claim are developed from their experience as Catholics, is first, that the tradition is inconsistent (Pelosi), and second, that even if it is clear, it is a matter of personal faith which, in a democracy, ought not be imposed on others (Biden). Having made their views public, and by presenting themselves as Catholics, both Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden have invited a discussion about the legitimacy of their views.

I, and other bishops, have already stated that Speaker Pelosi’s position is clearly inconsistent with Catholic teaching, and to promote such a view is scandalous. There are many witnesses in the tradition that clearly state the Catholic view in opposition to Speaker Pelosi.

In view of the absolute duty that we all have of protecting innocent human life, it is also necessary to respond publicly to Sen. Biden’s remarks. In his interview, Sen. Biden explained that although he was prepared as a matter of faith to accept the teaching that life begins at the moment of conception, it would be wrong in a pluralistic society to impose that judgment on everyone else, who may be just as ardent as he is in their own faith. He remarked that abortion is “a personal and private issue.”

Sen. Biden’s remarks reflect two erroneous beliefs. It is plainly false to assert that the answer to the question of when human life begins is limited to the realm of personal and private faith and that therefore there is no basis for preferring one position over another. While it is true that Christian revelation provides a framework for understanding human nature, there is also biological evidence on when human life begins, that all persons of good will, and not just Christians, may examine. Also, the division that Sen. Biden creates between privacy and social responsibility is tenuous. He supposes that social responsibility ends at the point that we turn the decision over to individuals.

Modern science clearly proves that human life begins at conception. At the moment when DNA from the mother and the father combine, a new, unique human being, who will develop continuously until death, is created. From then on, the early zygote functions as a human being. It has specifically human enzymes and proteins, and, over time, it develops complex human tissues and organs. After this genetic transfer, it can never develop into any other kind of being. Even as it develops through the process of pregnancy, the human nature of the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby never changes. It is this nature that directs and causes the miraculous physical transformation that takes place during the pregnancy.

In fact, the desire of some persons to destroy embryos in order to harvest stem cells is dependent upon the reality that they are already biologically human. Sen. Biden’s support for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would therefore be at odds with his stated belief that life begins at conception. Contrary to some misconceptions, the early human embryo is not a vague collection of tissues without specificity. In fact the exact opposite is true. The first cells of this new human being contain all of the information that will guide its development throughout life. The process of embryonic and fetal development involves “switching off” the complete power of the early cells so that they only take on one function, like being a heart cell.

While there are some members of our society who would like to define this biological human being as someone who does not share our basic human rights, such as the right to its own existence, this is a dangerous path. We, as a human society, have gone this way before, with disastrous results. Inevitably, it ends with the act of murdering those whom we objectify, as we have seen with the lynching of African Americans, or the Holocaust, or the countless other genocides of the 20th century. Whenever we treat another human being as an object, a thing, that we may do with as we please, rather than as a human person made in the image and likeness of God, we diminish, and inevitably destroy that being, and ourselves.

It is also paradoxical to suggest that by throwing the cloak of “privacy” over the act of abortion, that individual choice can transform an evil act into something that is good, or even tolerable. If, as Sen. Biden believes, human life begins at conception, it is difficult to see how that view can be reconciled with the position that we, as a society, should legally allow individual persons to decide on their own if murder is wrong.

The modern day notion of “privacy” assumes that there is a neat division between the individual who makes a decision, and the rest of the human community. A “private” decision is one that is limited to the individual. However, in the case of abortion, this decision has implications not only for the mother, but also for the father, both of their immediate families, and, in fact, for all of our society. The mother and the father lose a child, the family a niece or nephew, or grandchild, and the rest of us, a companion in life. How we protect, or ignore, these smallest members of our human community defines who we are as human persons.

A democracy, in order to flourish, must attend to the defense of the values that are essential to the human community. Ignoring this hard work and simply relegating abortion to the sphere of individual choice allows a cancer to eat at our very core, as we permit some human persons to sacrifice the lives of others for their own personal reasons. As Catholics, we cannot accept the premise that in the name of “privacy” all choices are equally right.

Sen. Biden has opposed federal funding of abortions and backed the ban on partial birth abortions, and for that he should be commended. Yet, his justification for continuing to allow Roe v. Wade to stand as the law of the United States is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Once an evil is truly seen for what it is, neither can an emphasis on “privacy” excuse one’s moral responsibility to act to stop it, nor can defining murder as a “right to choose” change what it is that is actually chosen.

Trusting always in the protection of Our Blessed Lady, whose immaculate womb first tabernacled the Word made Flesh, and asking for your prayers, I am

In Domino

Edward J. Slattery
Bishop of Tulsa

Archbishop Niederauer statement very good

I am very pleased with the statement by the Most Reverend George H. Niederauer regarding the scandalous misstatements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Read it in its entirety at this link.

http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle14b.htm

***
I think the statement is excellent in both its pastoral and its doctrinal balance. Archbishop Niederauer takes the time to allow the reader into both the doctrinal and the pastoral thought process and this is very valuable to both the faithful and to observers of the Catholic faith. He has done a great service in the construction of this document.

Some within the Catholic community have expressed disappointment at his statement stopping short of a bottom line ultimatum regarding the continued receiving of the Holy Eucharist sacrament by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, that is not appropriate until after their face to face conversation. But I would also point out something that I am sure Archbishop Niederauer is referring to but not yet closing the door until they have had clarity of dialogue. That is that, as you read in the letter, the Church understands that some of the faithful may grapple silently in their hearts with one or more of the Church's teachings, yet still receive the sacraments in good heart. The difference is when people try to publicly, or privately (though we have no way of knowing those instances) attempt to lead faithful individuals or the community as a whole away from Church doctrine and undermine their faith. In a word, that is "leading someone into sin," something that Jesus Christ warned against in no uncertain terms.

When Speaker Pelosi made her scandalous representations of herself being an expert in Church doctrine AND then stating her "interpretations" which were in direct opposition to some of the most fundamental of Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life, in my opinion she was publicly attempting to lead the faithful into sin. She was not a person, an individual, grappling in her heart with an issue, even one as basic as the sin of abortion, who nonetheless keeps her doubts to herself or her family and her pastor, and who can continue to receive the sacrament in good faith and heart. I know there are certain Catholics I could mention who grapple with understanding why lying and thievery are so wrong. (*lame laugh*) But it is when a Catholic takes to the public secular "pulpit" and promotes defiance of Church teaching that they need to be barred from the Holy Eucharist.

If after their conversation Speaker Pelosi acknowledges that she does not speak for the Church, that she did not fully understand the sanctity of life doctrine and its infallibility in that it is consistent from the very Apostolic beginnings of the Church, and she furthermore retains her internal conflict and support of abortion into an individual matter of her own soul, then I expect that Archbishop Niederauer is leaving room for allowing her to continue to receive in good faith. I believe this is why, correctly, he describes the internal dilemma that some faithful may have about an issue, but still receive the sacrament in good faith. It is the attempt to be a "Piper" to lead the faithful into having doubt about their doctrine by a self proclaimed "expert" that is so scandalous and places her in jeopardy of being sinfully unworthy of the Holy Eucharist in sacrament. I wish them well in their dialogue and commend the Archbishop for his very balanced but firm, appropriate and comprehensive letter that leads up to the anticipated pastoral conversation and outcome.

DELIGHTED at Catholic Bishops' Responses

Something good comes out of even the bad, and even the scandalous, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops plus individual Bishops have demonstrated this in a way that gives me pride and delight. Here is the USCCB official statement in reply to the scandalous and dreadful slander by Speaker Pelosi of the pro-life anti-abortion doctrine of the Catholic Church.

http://usccb.org/

Further, I am delighted to see the growing list of Bishops (and most especially the statement by Cardinal Egan of New York http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=8803) who reinforce the statement of the USCCB, issue their own statements, are demonstrating pastoral responsibilities in guiding their flocks, and who are standing and bearing witness to the truth of the Catholic Church.

THIS is what is needed to provide the fullness of truth to the faithful and by influence of sanctity and good will, to society as a whole. I commend all of you and praise you for taking the lead. Bishops must spend less time on administrative and other secular distractions and be sure to be prompt in guiding their flocks through times of confusion and indeed, lead in their formation and strengthening of faith. Ultimately all will be strengthened and purified by your examples, you will see.

God bless, and I hope this is the beginning of more active witness, faith formation and defense of our doctrine and truth by the Bishops.

It is never too late to acknowledge the truth

This is a very important story and is very well worth reading. It is pertinent to recent discussion about how important it is to correct errors while one is still alive, even if it is many years after they happened.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13425

snip

In this weekly email newsletter, President of Human Life International, Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, shared a letter he received that caused him “to shed tears of gratitude.” The author, a former priest who had protested Humanae Vitae in 1968, had written to tell Fr. Euteneuer about his conversion from dissident priest to his acceptance of the controversial and prophetic encyclical.

The writer of the letter had decided to sign HLI’s “Humanae Vitae Pledge,” promising loyalty to the teachings of the Catholic Church, obedience to the teachings of Humanae Vitae, and “to embrace God’s precious gift of life.”

“There is for me a special significance in signing this Pledge, and [it] will give me a peace of mind and heart that I have not experienced since 1968. In 1968 I was a young Franciscan priest studying in the Graduate School of Religious Education at Catholic University,” the man wrote.

***
Do read this whole thing, it is very moving and also very typical of decisions that were made in the 1960's and 1970's that must be faced today. I commend the former priest for his continuing devotion and for this act of outstanding moral integrity in signing the pledge and allowing his story to be used to encourage others. THAT is how souls are saved, my friends, by leading others to the true light by example.