Sorry for the lack of new post over the last couple of weeks but, between having a pregnant wife, having surgery and, preparing for my Confirmation class's actual confirmation, I've been to busy to share my thoughts and feelings on all of the stuff that has been going on within the faith.
I will try to get some posts that I've been working on up and running by the end of the week if not by early next week.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The Good Thief and Catholic Teaching
Every good Christian has heard the biblical account of the Good Thief, the bandit who, along with a cohort, were both crucified with Christ, and every good Protestant will quickly use the story of the Good Thief in order to demonstrate holes in Catholic theology and dogma. The Protestant will usually start out by asking a Catholic the following question:
Protestant: "Is it true that you Catholics believe that baptism saves you?"
Catholic: "Yes, we do believe it does."
Protestant: "Don't you Catholics also believe that your works can get you into heaven?"
Catholic: "While works do help, it is God's Grace that merits the eternal reward."
Protestant: "Then how is it that the thief that was crucified along with Christ was, according to Luke 23:42-43, going to be in Paradise with Jesus if he never was baptized nor did he do any good works as a thief?"
Here we see an attack at two basic dogmas of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Baptism is called into question as well as the concept of Justification, that is, how are we justified as righteous and holy enough to truly be called the sons and daughters of God? While the subject of Justification deserves its own post, and I WON'T be going in to that in this post, the bigger subject is the following: How can a Catholic respond to this accusation?
The reason why I bring this topic up is because yesterday was the feast day of Saint Dismas, b.k.a., "The Good Thief." While his name is never stated in the bible, the apocryphal 4th century work entitled The Gospel of Nicodemus, states in the 10th chapter that the name of the penitent thief was "Dysmas" and the non-penitent malefactor was named "Gestas." What is mentioned in Scripture, however, is what we will be looking at.
In Luke 23:39-43 we read the following:
Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man had done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." The replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Hanging there on the cross, he finally saw himself as a sinner, so he was able to admonish the other thief as an evildoer. He also saw that, as a sinner, he needed healing so he confessed his sin and - with his heart stirring toward righteousness - he bore witness to the false conviction of an innocent man, that being, Jesus. And lastly, he realized who really was next to him, that right there in his agony stood none other than God Himself.
This closer examination reveals that the Good Thief did 3 things, that is, he did 3 works:
#1: The Good Thief rebuked a sinner, namely the other thief.
#2: The Good Thief gave a confession.
#3: The Good Thief acknowledged Christ as the Messiah.
What we need to realize is that, much like St. Peter, it wasn't his human heart that realized the truth of Christ but it was through the work of God the Father. Essentially, it was the Grace of God that first provoked the Good Thief as he anguished and united his cross with that of Jesus. Filled with this grace, as well as a new faith in God, he was awakened; this all led the Good Thief, Dismas, to put his new found faith into action and into works.
This is an excellent example of the much larger Catholic teaching on Justification which essentially states that God freely gives you Grace, which in turn leads you to have faith and, after you have faith in the one and only God, it is up to you to put that faith into action. After all, can a person who is filled with the grace of God and has faith in Him simply lock themselves up in a room and expect to be a good Christian? Or, is a person who has been blessed by His grace and has fervent fealty to Him supposed to go out and evangelize and proclaim His message? It is only in this Catholic understanding that James 2:14-17 can make any sense.
As for the Good Thief not being baptized, CCC# 1259-1260 state explicitly the Catholic belief in a Baptism of Desire, therefore, had the Good Thief of had the opportunity to have been baptized, it is almost certain that he would have.
Lastly, as a personal thought, I would like to state my personal opinion about the Good Thief. For me, it means that it is never too late to come to know who God is and what he wants you to do for him in your life. For Dismas, this meant the he would be the archetype for such a belief but, for us, it can mean much more. And indeed it does mean much more, for unlike the Good Thief, we already know who Jesus is and what he did and to not take that gift of knowledge and put it to use in our own lives is truly wasteful and insulting to God.
To think, if we only had half of the faith that the Good Thief had as he hung next to Christ...what miracles we could achieve! Saint Dismas, pray for us!
Protestant: "Is it true that you Catholics believe that baptism saves you?"
Catholic: "Yes, we do believe it does."
Protestant: "Don't you Catholics also believe that your works can get you into heaven?"
Catholic: "While works do help, it is God's Grace that merits the eternal reward."
Protestant: "Then how is it that the thief that was crucified along with Christ was, according to Luke 23:42-43, going to be in Paradise with Jesus if he never was baptized nor did he do any good works as a thief?"
Here we see an attack at two basic dogmas of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Baptism is called into question as well as the concept of Justification, that is, how are we justified as righteous and holy enough to truly be called the sons and daughters of God? While the subject of Justification deserves its own post, and I WON'T be going in to that in this post, the bigger subject is the following: How can a Catholic respond to this accusation?
The reason why I bring this topic up is because yesterday was the feast day of Saint Dismas, b.k.a., "The Good Thief." While his name is never stated in the bible, the apocryphal 4th century work entitled The Gospel of Nicodemus, states in the 10th chapter that the name of the penitent thief was "Dysmas" and the non-penitent malefactor was named "Gestas." What is mentioned in Scripture, however, is what we will be looking at.
In Luke 23:39-43 we read the following:
Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us." The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man had done nothing criminal." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." The replied to him, "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Hanging there on the cross, he finally saw himself as a sinner, so he was able to admonish the other thief as an evildoer. He also saw that, as a sinner, he needed healing so he confessed his sin and - with his heart stirring toward righteousness - he bore witness to the false conviction of an innocent man, that being, Jesus. And lastly, he realized who really was next to him, that right there in his agony stood none other than God Himself.
This closer examination reveals that the Good Thief did 3 things, that is, he did 3 works:
#1: The Good Thief rebuked a sinner, namely the other thief.
#2: The Good Thief gave a confession.
#3: The Good Thief acknowledged Christ as the Messiah.
What we need to realize is that, much like St. Peter, it wasn't his human heart that realized the truth of Christ but it was through the work of God the Father. Essentially, it was the Grace of God that first provoked the Good Thief as he anguished and united his cross with that of Jesus. Filled with this grace, as well as a new faith in God, he was awakened; this all led the Good Thief, Dismas, to put his new found faith into action and into works.
This is an excellent example of the much larger Catholic teaching on Justification which essentially states that God freely gives you Grace, which in turn leads you to have faith and, after you have faith in the one and only God, it is up to you to put that faith into action. After all, can a person who is filled with the grace of God and has faith in Him simply lock themselves up in a room and expect to be a good Christian? Or, is a person who has been blessed by His grace and has fervent fealty to Him supposed to go out and evangelize and proclaim His message? It is only in this Catholic understanding that James 2:14-17 can make any sense.
As for the Good Thief not being baptized, CCC# 1259-1260 state explicitly the Catholic belief in a Baptism of Desire, therefore, had the Good Thief of had the opportunity to have been baptized, it is almost certain that he would have.
Lastly, as a personal thought, I would like to state my personal opinion about the Good Thief. For me, it means that it is never too late to come to know who God is and what he wants you to do for him in your life. For Dismas, this meant the he would be the archetype for such a belief but, for us, it can mean much more. And indeed it does mean much more, for unlike the Good Thief, we already know who Jesus is and what he did and to not take that gift of knowledge and put it to use in our own lives is truly wasteful and insulting to God.
To think, if we only had half of the faith that the Good Thief had as he hung next to Christ...what miracles we could achieve! Saint Dismas, pray for us!
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Let us all pray for our new Pope:
V. Let us pray for Francis, our Pope.
R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. (Ps 40:3)
Our Father, Hail Mary
O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis I, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Schismatics dream of a Pope for heretical ideals
In my last post I spoke at length about how Pope Benedict XVI's decision to freely resign of his own volition is totally reconcilable with Scripture as well as Tradition, as such we as faithful Catholics relegate the decision of the next man to occupy the Throne of St. Peter to the will of God working through the hearts and minds of the Cardinals.
There are, however, millions upon millions of people who would much rather entrust the election of the next Pope, not to the will of God nor the eminent power of the Holy Spirit but, they would rather the next Pope be selected based on worldly whim and "progressive" attitudes. Unfortunately, these are two attributes that not only go against the truth that is revealed in Christ but, are blatantly and shamelessly at odds with who God - in His eternal majesty - is; there is no profane caprice in God's nature and there is most certainly no "changing of the mind" for God either, for if the latter were even possible then each and every shred of evidence working in favor of the Christian faith would candidly be up for debate and would totally undermine any conviction in God.
But, perhaps, that is exactly what anti-Catholics are attempting to do and there is no better example than this recent article I stumbled upon whilst perusing the intertubez. Entitled, "Wanted: A pope who looks ahead, not backward" the author of this opinion piece, Marney Rich Keenan, makes a desperate plea (to the cardinals? to dissenting "c"atholics?) that what the Catholic Church needs is a "forward thinking" Pope that will undo all of the old and stuffy traditions of the Church and usher her into a new era. Again, if the Catholic Church is in fact Christ's one and only Church, then by her divine origin IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO CHANGE for God never changes (see Hebrews 13:8).
As such, it therefore behooves me to tear apart this straw-man argument in order to demonstrate that this author has no idea of a) basic Catholic beliefs, b) basic Catholic dogma, c) Church history d) has never read any major Papal encyclicals and e) should do some simple research before expressing her opinion; that last point also applies to all "c"atholics who share in her wrongfully conceived conclusion. NOTE: I will not reproduce all of the article here, I will only address major errors, please read the article first.
"Most likely, the lack of discussion on what we'd like to see in a new pope is a reflection of our powerlessness over the process. Indeed, the choosing of the new pope is a centuries-old ritual, cloaked in secrecy during which the College of Cardinals, a group of about 120 cassock-wearing, accomplished church politicians burn ballots and send smoke signals..."
Time and time again, we always hear the same thing from the schismatics: "If only we had some input as to who gets to be pastor!" This is not only a repudiation of the Holy Spirit working at the local parish level but it is also an explicit statement in favor of a "Christ-my-way" protestanized form of Christianity! The "c"atholics who advocate that the laity should have part as to who the shepherd should be are usually the ones who have huge disagreements with basic Catholic theology, therefore, Ms. Rich Keenan, to suggest that we are "powerless" over this process is to state that we are somehow better suited to understand the fullness of our faith better than the men who were called by Christ to do so. See Universi Dominici Gregis for more info on why the College of Cardinals is of importance in selecting a Pope.
Additionally, you are in error in stating that we are "powerless" in this process. As the faithful laity, we are to unite our prayers with the will of God and ask that a new and faithful servant may serve as the Bishop of Rome. To say that we are powerless when we have God on our side, is to refuse Christ's sacrifice and denounce the only Church that He established but, then again, isn't that exactly what you are intent on doing?
Moreover, to state that the College of Cardinals are a group of "church politicians" is wholly absurd because the Roman Catholic Church IS NOT nor will it ever be a democracy, period. Either you believe that the Church is guided by God or not, it's really just that simple. Again, this is the drivel of an angry heretic who wishes to undo Holy Mother Church's teachings for contemporary indulgences.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the new pope could strike a balance between tradition and modernism?...rather than advocate a smaller church with more ardent believers, opened the church to more people by being relevant. What about a pope who loosened all those Thou Shalt Nots (like reversing its position on contraception) and broadened the church's appeal?.
Let's first talk about modernism, this is what modernism really does:
Had Ms. Rich Keenan have gone back about 100 years, she would've easily have come upon Pope Saint Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Domini Gregis. In this encyclical Pope Pius X teaches us the following about the modernists in paragraph 13:
Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.
Indeed, Pope St. Pius X argues, quite masterfully, that MODERNISM IS A HERESY! It is a heresy because it does away with an all important source of authority, that is, tradition, and, in doing so, it also strikes at Divine Revelation by rejecting the Deposit of Faith instilled by Christ. Had Ms. Rich Keenan have done any form of critical research she would've noted that just 2 months before Pascendi Domini Gregis was issued, Pope Saint Pius X published a syllabus that contained 65 errors of mondernism called Lamentabili Sane. If Ms. Rich had wanted to form a rational opinion, she could've also have looked to St. Pius X's predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, who wrote at length in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus about the errors of modernist thought when interpreting Holy Scripture. If Ms. Rich Keenan had wanted to, she could've also have studied an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII's predecessor, Blessed Pope Pius IX, entitled Syllabus of Errors, which also detailed 80 different errors, including modernism. Indeed, had the author of this hit piece have done ANY investigative analysis, she would've come to the fact that, by advocating for a modernist Pope, she is in fact advocating for a heretical Papacy. Let it be thoroughly clear: Modernism is a heresy; as Pope St. Pius X put it in Pascendi paragraph 39 (my emphasis):
We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?
Ms. Rich Keenan also states a preposterous notion that the next Pope should open up the church by making it "more relevant" as well as doing away with the Church's teachings against the evils of contraception as a way to "broaden the appeal" of the Church to more people. No other passage of Scripture best summarizes just how wrong she is than the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. In it, the rich man and Lazarus both die and the poor man, Lazarus, makes it to Abraham's Bosom while the rich man - who had everything - is sentenced into eternal torment. From the depths of hell, the rich man cries out to Abraham and the following exchange occurs in Luke 16:27-31:
..."Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment." Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them."
"No, father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." Abraham said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
To Ms. Rich Keenan, I say the following: if people, by their own free will, choose to ignore the truth then, as clearly stated in Scripture, not even Jesus Christ being risen from the dead will change their mind! Their hearts are so closed to the truth that the only way they can accept it is on their own terms and not God's. A more utterly selfish way of ostracizing God from your life, there is not.
What if we had a pope who struggled to pay his own bills, who understood that most couples live together before marriage, a pope whose son was bullied because he was gay or whose teenage daughter got pregnant?...
"A pope who struggles to pays his own bills?" Ms. Rich Keenan, do you happen to know what the average median income for a priest is? By all accounts the national average is the same as or lower than the average U.S. citizen's household income and, with American households having issues paying bills, suffice it to say, that the same occurs with priests. Personally, the pastor at my parish revealed to my wife and I at dinner that he makes much less than $30,000 per year and he's been a priest for over 10 years! As for a pope understanding what a young gay man or a teenage girl has to go through, I can assure you that many faithful priests have helped young adults in these types of situations through the power of the confessional.
A pregnant teenage girl will encounter a community of hope and charity if she simply submits to the grace of God in the Sacraments and to Church teaching or, she could go to a cold and sterile operating room and have the life within her body rip out of her. Is it any wonder why the Catholic Church is so hated for it's pro-life stance?
Is it any wonder why the Catholic Church is so hated for it's apt treatment of homosexuality? The Church has always taught that homosexual acts - not the homosexual person - are grave offenses to God. The Church asks all people with homosexual tendencies to bind themselves to chastity and Christ's cross which is exactly the same thing it asks of all heterosexual people! The issue here is that homosexuality IS NOT EQUAL to heterosexuality, the Church makes that clear but, the Church also makes it clear that homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and respect because they too are children of God. In light of this truth, a priest can easily reassure a young gay man that he is loved by God and that God doesn't want him to sin and that he must take up his cross of homosexuality and bear it all for His love.
As for cohabitation, CCC #2931, states it to be a nothing more than a "trial marriage" that not only corrupts what marriage is supposed to be but, it doesn't guarantee that a marriage will come from it, a fact that every secularist can attest to. As the last line in that paragraph so correctly puts it:
Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages." It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.
One only need to look at other writings to see just why cohabitation is a waste of time and love, Humane Vitae explains just what evils await those who choose to cohabitate and contracept. Blessed Pope John Paul II addressed in 1981 the act of cohabitation in his work Familiaris Consortio (see paragraphs 81-84). Additionally when one reads Familiaris in light of Blessed Pope John Paul II Theology of the Body, cohabitation and pre-marital sex are strictly at odds with God's divine plan.
What if we had a pope who stopped marginalizing women, especially nuns...the nuns were accused of promoting "radical feminist themes" and engaging in corporate dissent against church teachings on contraception, homosexuality and the ordination of women.
The Vatican speaking out against incredulist nuns does not mean that they are being marginalized. While the LCWR does represent close to 80% of all women religious, not all nuns fall into the heresy that some of the LCWR leadership has chosen to be a part of. The fact of the matter is that several of these nuns have chosen to go against Church teachings, and in doing so, have incurred the wrath of Rome...what a surprise. Let me ask you Ms. Rich Keenan, if you went against say, work policy at your job to the point of undermining your employer, would you think that when your boss found out he/she wouldn't have some choice words for you, even though you're doing a good job? This is exactly what these dissident nuns have put themselves in, they have abandoned the teachings and are in need of reprimand, plain and simple.
I've done several posts on these dissident nuns, see here, here, here, here and here.
I realize I'm suggesting that the pope, the human being Catholics consider to be the closest thing to God - Jesus' understudy - is wholly out of touch with Western culture...the pews continue to empty and priests are few and far between...
We Catholics think that the Pope is "the closest thing to God?" That is such an imbecilic and theologically incompetent statement, that words escape me:
Catholics DO NOT view the Pope as some sort of god-man or "Jesus' understudy," we see him as the successor to the Throne of Saint Peter and head of the Roman Catholic Church, that's it. There are certain perks that come with such a great responsibility but, to state that we view him as God on Earth is totally without any historical merit nor precedence. The Pope is a man, he is the leader of the Church and the visible head of the church much like our President is the representative of our nation.
Please see CCC #880-887 lest someone else besides me think of you as a fool, thanks. As for a stagnant membership growth, in 2011, the Catholic Church in the U.S. grew by .57%, while U.S. seminaries are continuing to show growth for the religious vocation as well as worldwide.
To be sure, the pope is not chosen by a majority of Catholics but by a hierarchy, locked in tradition and infinitely slow to change. But the faithful's idea of a suitable earthly leader shouldn't be a dream.
"To be sure, the pope is not chosen by a majority of Catholics but by a hierarchy who have been given the honor and grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit, locked in tradition, a tradition that is not only the oldest in all of Western civilization but also important since it is a source of Divine authority and infinitely slow to change in the same way that all powerful God is infinite and never changes. But thefaithful's heretics and schismatics idea of a suitable earthly leader shouldn't be a dream, it should be considered a nightmare. For when we give over the power of Papal selection to earthly men and not to God's will, only trouble will befall the Catholic Church. But, then again, maybe that's exactly what some people want."
There, I fixed it!
There are, however, millions upon millions of people who would much rather entrust the election of the next Pope, not to the will of God nor the eminent power of the Holy Spirit but, they would rather the next Pope be selected based on worldly whim and "progressive" attitudes. Unfortunately, these are two attributes that not only go against the truth that is revealed in Christ but, are blatantly and shamelessly at odds with who God - in His eternal majesty - is; there is no profane caprice in God's nature and there is most certainly no "changing of the mind" for God either, for if the latter were even possible then each and every shred of evidence working in favor of the Christian faith would candidly be up for debate and would totally undermine any conviction in God.
But, perhaps, that is exactly what anti-Catholics are attempting to do and there is no better example than this recent article I stumbled upon whilst perusing the intertubez. Entitled, "Wanted: A pope who looks ahead, not backward" the author of this opinion piece, Marney Rich Keenan, makes a desperate plea (to the cardinals? to dissenting "c"atholics?) that what the Catholic Church needs is a "forward thinking" Pope that will undo all of the old and stuffy traditions of the Church and usher her into a new era. Again, if the Catholic Church is in fact Christ's one and only Church, then by her divine origin IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO CHANGE for God never changes (see Hebrews 13:8).
As such, it therefore behooves me to tear apart this straw-man argument in order to demonstrate that this author has no idea of a) basic Catholic beliefs, b) basic Catholic dogma, c) Church history d) has never read any major Papal encyclicals and e) should do some simple research before expressing her opinion; that last point also applies to all "c"atholics who share in her wrongfully conceived conclusion. NOTE: I will not reproduce all of the article here, I will only address major errors, please read the article first.
"Most likely, the lack of discussion on what we'd like to see in a new pope is a reflection of our powerlessness over the process. Indeed, the choosing of the new pope is a centuries-old ritual, cloaked in secrecy during which the College of Cardinals, a group of about 120 cassock-wearing, accomplished church politicians burn ballots and send smoke signals..."
Time and time again, we always hear the same thing from the schismatics: "If only we had some input as to who gets to be pastor!" This is not only a repudiation of the Holy Spirit working at the local parish level but it is also an explicit statement in favor of a "Christ-my-way" protestanized form of Christianity! The "c"atholics who advocate that the laity should have part as to who the shepherd should be are usually the ones who have huge disagreements with basic Catholic theology, therefore, Ms. Rich Keenan, to suggest that we are "powerless" over this process is to state that we are somehow better suited to understand the fullness of our faith better than the men who were called by Christ to do so. See Universi Dominici Gregis for more info on why the College of Cardinals is of importance in selecting a Pope.
Additionally, you are in error in stating that we are "powerless" in this process. As the faithful laity, we are to unite our prayers with the will of God and ask that a new and faithful servant may serve as the Bishop of Rome. To say that we are powerless when we have God on our side, is to refuse Christ's sacrifice and denounce the only Church that He established but, then again, isn't that exactly what you are intent on doing?
Moreover, to state that the College of Cardinals are a group of "church politicians" is wholly absurd because the Roman Catholic Church IS NOT nor will it ever be a democracy, period. Either you believe that the Church is guided by God or not, it's really just that simple. Again, this is the drivel of an angry heretic who wishes to undo Holy Mother Church's teachings for contemporary indulgences.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the new pope could strike a balance between tradition and modernism?...rather than advocate a smaller church with more ardent believers, opened the church to more people by being relevant. What about a pope who loosened all those Thou Shalt Nots (like reversing its position on contraception) and broadened the church's appeal?.
Let's first talk about modernism, this is what modernism really does:
Had Ms. Rich Keenan have gone back about 100 years, she would've easily have come upon Pope Saint Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Domini Gregis. In this encyclical Pope Pius X teaches us the following about the modernists in paragraph 13:
Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.
Indeed, Pope St. Pius X argues, quite masterfully, that MODERNISM IS A HERESY! It is a heresy because it does away with an all important source of authority, that is, tradition, and, in doing so, it also strikes at Divine Revelation by rejecting the Deposit of Faith instilled by Christ. Had Ms. Rich Keenan have done any form of critical research she would've noted that just 2 months before Pascendi Domini Gregis was issued, Pope Saint Pius X published a syllabus that contained 65 errors of mondernism called Lamentabili Sane. If Ms. Rich had wanted to form a rational opinion, she could've also have looked to St. Pius X's predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, who wrote at length in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus about the errors of modernist thought when interpreting Holy Scripture. If Ms. Rich Keenan had wanted to, she could've also have studied an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII's predecessor, Blessed Pope Pius IX, entitled Syllabus of Errors, which also detailed 80 different errors, including modernism. Indeed, had the author of this hit piece have done ANY investigative analysis, she would've come to the fact that, by advocating for a modernist Pope, she is in fact advocating for a heretical Papacy. Let it be thoroughly clear: Modernism is a heresy; as Pope St. Pius X put it in Pascendi paragraph 39 (my emphasis):
We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?
Ms. Rich Keenan also states a preposterous notion that the next Pope should open up the church by making it "more relevant" as well as doing away with the Church's teachings against the evils of contraception as a way to "broaden the appeal" of the Church to more people. No other passage of Scripture best summarizes just how wrong she is than the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. In it, the rich man and Lazarus both die and the poor man, Lazarus, makes it to Abraham's Bosom while the rich man - who had everything - is sentenced into eternal torment. From the depths of hell, the rich man cries out to Abraham and the following exchange occurs in Luke 16:27-31:
..."Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment." Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them."
"No, father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." Abraham said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
To Ms. Rich Keenan, I say the following: if people, by their own free will, choose to ignore the truth then, as clearly stated in Scripture, not even Jesus Christ being risen from the dead will change their mind! Their hearts are so closed to the truth that the only way they can accept it is on their own terms and not God's. A more utterly selfish way of ostracizing God from your life, there is not.
What if we had a pope who struggled to pay his own bills, who understood that most couples live together before marriage, a pope whose son was bullied because he was gay or whose teenage daughter got pregnant?...
"A pope who struggles to pays his own bills?" Ms. Rich Keenan, do you happen to know what the average median income for a priest is? By all accounts the national average is the same as or lower than the average U.S. citizen's household income and, with American households having issues paying bills, suffice it to say, that the same occurs with priests. Personally, the pastor at my parish revealed to my wife and I at dinner that he makes much less than $30,000 per year and he's been a priest for over 10 years! As for a pope understanding what a young gay man or a teenage girl has to go through, I can assure you that many faithful priests have helped young adults in these types of situations through the power of the confessional.
A pregnant teenage girl will encounter a community of hope and charity if she simply submits to the grace of God in the Sacraments and to Church teaching or, she could go to a cold and sterile operating room and have the life within her body rip out of her. Is it any wonder why the Catholic Church is so hated for it's pro-life stance?
Is it any wonder why the Catholic Church is so hated for it's apt treatment of homosexuality? The Church has always taught that homosexual acts - not the homosexual person - are grave offenses to God. The Church asks all people with homosexual tendencies to bind themselves to chastity and Christ's cross which is exactly the same thing it asks of all heterosexual people! The issue here is that homosexuality IS NOT EQUAL to heterosexuality, the Church makes that clear but, the Church also makes it clear that homosexuals are to be treated with dignity and respect because they too are children of God. In light of this truth, a priest can easily reassure a young gay man that he is loved by God and that God doesn't want him to sin and that he must take up his cross of homosexuality and bear it all for His love.
As for cohabitation, CCC #2931, states it to be a nothing more than a "trial marriage" that not only corrupts what marriage is supposed to be but, it doesn't guarantee that a marriage will come from it, a fact that every secularist can attest to. As the last line in that paragraph so correctly puts it:
Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages." It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.
One only need to look at other writings to see just why cohabitation is a waste of time and love, Humane Vitae explains just what evils await those who choose to cohabitate and contracept. Blessed Pope John Paul II addressed in 1981 the act of cohabitation in his work Familiaris Consortio (see paragraphs 81-84). Additionally when one reads Familiaris in light of Blessed Pope John Paul II Theology of the Body, cohabitation and pre-marital sex are strictly at odds with God's divine plan.
What if we had a pope who stopped marginalizing women, especially nuns...the nuns were accused of promoting "radical feminist themes" and engaging in corporate dissent against church teachings on contraception, homosexuality and the ordination of women.
The Vatican speaking out against incredulist nuns does not mean that they are being marginalized. While the LCWR does represent close to 80% of all women religious, not all nuns fall into the heresy that some of the LCWR leadership has chosen to be a part of. The fact of the matter is that several of these nuns have chosen to go against Church teachings, and in doing so, have incurred the wrath of Rome...what a surprise. Let me ask you Ms. Rich Keenan, if you went against say, work policy at your job to the point of undermining your employer, would you think that when your boss found out he/she wouldn't have some choice words for you, even though you're doing a good job? This is exactly what these dissident nuns have put themselves in, they have abandoned the teachings and are in need of reprimand, plain and simple.
I've done several posts on these dissident nuns, see here, here, here, here and here.
I realize I'm suggesting that the pope, the human being Catholics consider to be the closest thing to God - Jesus' understudy - is wholly out of touch with Western culture...the pews continue to empty and priests are few and far between...
We Catholics think that the Pope is "the closest thing to God?" That is such an imbecilic and theologically incompetent statement, that words escape me:
 |
| Words may escape me, but Ms. Rich Keenan's ignorance doesn't. Who let this woman opine on something she knows nothing about? |
Please see CCC #880-887 lest someone else besides me think of you as a fool, thanks. As for a stagnant membership growth, in 2011, the Catholic Church in the U.S. grew by .57%, while U.S. seminaries are continuing to show growth for the religious vocation as well as worldwide.
To be sure, the pope is not chosen by a majority of Catholics but by a hierarchy, locked in tradition and infinitely slow to change. But the faithful's idea of a suitable earthly leader shouldn't be a dream.
"To be sure, the pope is not chosen by a majority of Catholics but by a hierarchy who have been given the honor and grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit, locked in tradition, a tradition that is not only the oldest in all of Western civilization but also important since it is a source of Divine authority and infinitely slow to change in the same way that all powerful God is infinite and never changes. But the
There, I fixed it!
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Pope Benedict XVI and the 4 cups: A theological defense of Pope Benedict's resignation
There has been a lot of hulabaloo about Pope Benedict the XVI's willful departure from Pontifical duty and most of this chatter has tended toward a negative view of the Pontiff's actions. There have not only been attacks from anti-Catholics, heretics and conspiracists but, from within the Church as well. Indeed, a lot of people are still processing exactly what this all means and, in the upcoming weeks as Pope Benedict's resignation nears, there will be A LOT of both speculation and ill sentiment towards the office of the Pope by both Catholic and Protestants alike; one truly has to wonder why a sitting Pope wouldn't remain atop of St. Peter's throne until death? Why didn't Pope Benedict run the full course of his Papacy?
In trying to answer this question, let us ask ourselves the proverbial question: "WWJD?"
Would Jesus have ever given up? Would Jesus have known when it was "time to quit?" Did Jesus ever, by his own will, give up on an endeavor? Did Jesus ever concede? In trying to answer these questions we can easily flip through Scripture and pull out passages to demonstrate arguments for and against this supposition. However, if we take a deeper theological look at Jesus' Passion in light of the Passover, I think we can easily answer those questions as well as reconcile Pope Benedict XVI's personal decision to depart from the Papacy and, furthermore, we will prove it by illustrating a very pivotal moment during Christ's Passion.
The Passover Feast has been celebrated by devout Jews for over 3,000 years. This fact relegates us as Christians to come to a better knowledge of Judaism due to the fact that Jesus Himself celebrated the Seder meal along with various other spiritual ceremonies that we modern-day disciples do not have the luxury to know from first-hand knowledge. In as much as the Passover Seder is concerned, we have to take into account at least two things:
1. The Passover is a covenant between God and his people.
In Exodus 12:14 we read the following concerning the celebration of the Passover:
This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution.
And again ten verses later in Exodus 12:24, which states:
You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendants...
To this day, the covenant feast of the Passover is still celebrated by all faithful Jews, it not only ties them all to a common heritage but, it also gives them a familial bond to God. So intense is this bond that God referred to the nation of Israel as "his firstborn son" in Exodus 4:22-23 when He tells Moses to go and confront pharaoh. Indeed the simple fact that God chose the Hebrews to be His own is reason enough for all Jews to celebrate!
2. The Passover Seder is a meal that commemorates the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt.
As described in Exodus 12, the Passover meal entails a lot of specifics that the ancient Hebrews were to do so that the Angel of Death would literally "pass over" the homes of the faithful. Exodus 12:3-9 details exactly what the Jews were to do, among other things, it states that families were to acquire a year old unblemished lamb that was to be slaughtered at twilight. The lamb's blood was to be applied to the doorposts of the Israelite's homes with a bunch of hyssop, while the lamb itself was to be roasted and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. No part of the lamb was to be eaten the following day and any remains were to be burned, additionally, the Jews were to dress as if they were prepared to take flight.
One thing that we must not forget is that the Passover meal is broken up into 4 parts. It is these 4 parts that are not only integral to Jesus' Passion but, to my argument as well. The Passover has 4 cups of wine that MUST BE drank in commemoration of the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt and, in drinking these 4 cups of wine, the Jews are reminded of God's 4 promises found in Exodus 6:6-7 (with my emphasis):
"Therefore, say to the Israelites: I am the LORD. I will free you from the forced labor of the Egyptians and will deliver you from their slavery. I will rescue you by my outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and you shall have me as your God. You will know that I, the LORD, am your God when I free you from the labor of the Egyptians."
The structure of celebrating the Passover using the 4 cups is as follows:
The 1st cup signifies the blessing of the festival day, it is called the Kiddush Cup; kiddush means sanctification in Hebrew. As God's first promise found in Exodus 6:6, this sanctification comes by God bringing the ancient Jews out from under the burden of the Egyptians.
The 2nd cup, called the Cup of Plagues, signifies judgement. In this part, a young child usually asks the rabbi or eldest participant the following question, "why is tonight different from all other nights?" At which point 4 different questions are asked and the story of the Jew's exodus out of Egypt is retold. The second half of Exodus 6:6 proclaims God's judgement via the 10 plagues He wrought upon Egypt which rid the Jews of Egyptian bondage. At the end of the 2nd stage of the Passover, all the participants sing Psalm 113 which is called "the Little Hallel" and drink from the second cup.
The 3rd cup is called the Cup of Blessing. At this stage in the Passover, the actual meal is eaten and, as prescribed per Exodus 12, a roasted lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread are eaten. The lamb is to remind them of the sacrifical lamb that saved the ancient Jews and bitter herbs to recall the bitterness of bondage that the LORD God freed them from. After the final piece of unleavened bread (called the Afikoman) is eaten, the celebrant of the feast concludes this part by passing around the third cup which beckons the faithful Jew to God's third promise of salvation when He said that He would redeem the Israelites with his "outstretched arm." Psalms 114-118 are then sung, these psalms collectively constitute what is called "the Great Hallel."
The 4 cup is introduced after the singing of "the Great Hallel." This fourth cup signifies the joy that is to be had by praising the LORD God for His fulfillment of His fourth promise found in Exodus 6:7 and, that is, of making the Israelite nation His own. After this cup is drank, the rabbi or celebrant of the feast says the following phrase: "Tal telesti" which means "it is finished" or, "it is consummated." At this point the Passover Seder meal is officially over.
These are the steps to observing a proper Passover meal and, of critical importance, is the fact that these are the steps that Christ did all his life up until His final Passover in the upper room with his Apostles. It is in His final Passover, i.e., the last supper, that we find Jesus doing something remarkably at odds with Jewish tradition, in Mark chapter 14 verses 22 through 25, we read the following:
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
Clearly then we see that Jesus is celebrating the Passover (see Mk 14:12) with His Apostles and, knowing now the 4 steps of the Passover, we can correctly conclude that Jesus and the Apostles are in the 3rd step of Passover since they are eating and a cup of wine gets passed around. Now, taken by itself this isn't anything out of the ordinary for a Jew to read or listen to BUT, it is what happens in Mark 14:26 that separates this Passover from all others. Mark 14 verse 26 says the following:
Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
So then, what do we have here? We have the end of the 3rd stage being completed because Scripture points out that they sang a hymn, that is, "the Great Hallel" and, after singing it they go out to the Mount of Olives. Now this may not seem odd or weird to us modern day Christians but to any Jewish reader of Mark's Gospel, they would seriously find issue with Jesus' actions, why? BECAUSE JESUS FAILED TO END THE PASSOVER MEAL! By not drinking the 4th cup, Jesus has unambiguously and definitely chosen not to end the Passover.
This presumption is made all the more recognizable when Jesus, while praying in the Garden at Gethsemane, says the following in Mark 14:35-36,
He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour might pass by him; he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will."
What cup is Jesus talking about if not the 4th cup? The 4th cup which will end the Passover and see the nation of God redeemed by a sacrifical lamb! This is what Jesus meant when he asked for "this cup to be taken away," Christ knew that when the Passover would end, so would His life. He knew that soon, he would be forced to take up His cross (literally) and be sacrificed for all; Luke 22:41-42 depicts the same scene in which we hear Jesus say:
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done."
How, you may ask, does any of this have to do with our current Pope, Benedict XVI? Well, like I stated at the onset of this post, the real question is whether or not Jesus ever gave up. In the same manner that Christ carried His Cross, Benedict XVI has had to carry the huge burden of the Papacy upon his shoulders and the task that Joseph Ratzinger was given, was truly one of self-sacrifice for the honor of Christ's one true Church.
So, did Jesus know when to give up? Yes, by all accounts he did. He gave Himself up when He knew that all that he was sent here to do had been fulfilled, the same as Pope Benedict XVI. In Mark 15:23, we see that Jesus has finally carried His cross to Golgotha and the Roman soldiers offer Him wine drugged with myrrh but, as the Scriptures dictates, he did not take it. Jesus had the opportunity at that point to end the Passover sacrifice only if He would've drank from that cup but, he suffered on. Matthew 27:34 recounts the same information, it states:
...they gave Jesus wine to drink mixed with gall. But when he had tasted it, he refused to drink.
Luke 23:36 also states the same thing:
Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine.
Notice that in Matthew's narrative, Jesus actually tasted the sour wine but, refused to drink. Again, He choose to carry on regardless of the weight of our sins. However, there did finally come a time when Jesus, having known that His hour had come, did give Himself up and this happens precisely when he drinks the final cup of wine. In Mark 15:36 & Matthew 27:48, we see that a bystander comes and gives Jesus wine to drink off of a sponge, immediately in both Gospels, Jesus gives out a loud cry and dies. It is in John's Gospel, however, that we get to see exactly what happened at the foot of the cross, remember, St. John was actually there!
In John 19:28-30 we get to see the Passover - that originally began in the upper room - finally come to a close. The evangelist writes:
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I thirst." There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
Notice what St. John tells us, he states that Jesus knew that His hour had come and so he willingly and freely asked for that final 4th cup of wine which was placed on a sprig of hyssop (Exodus 12:22!) and, most importantly, he says the words that any rabbi would've said to end the Passover celebration! By stating "It is finished" (tel telesti) Christ ended the Seder and introduced all of us to eternal life.
With regards to Pope Benedict XVI, what we have to appreciate is the fact that, much like Jesus, he too has had numerous times to quit and yet, he continued on. He continued on even in the face of the sexual abuse crisis, corruption allegations, a financial scandal and, most recently, the traitorous actions of his own butler. He knew that leading the 1.3 billion Catholics of the world would be no easy task and, truly, such a heavy load could take a toll on almost any of us much less an 85 year old man in poor health.
Therefore I suggest that we, as Catholics, not look at our 265th Pontiff in a bad or negative light but, that we continue to have faith in the Office of the Papacy - an office that is protected by the Holy Spirit itself! That we as Catholics ardently pray for our current Pope, because he will certainly be praying for us even in retirement and, let us never forget, that Jesus knew when his time had come and so we too must acknowledge and respect that Pope Benedict XVI has freely and willingly also realized the same thing.
St. Peter, first Pope of the Catholic Church, pray for us!
In trying to answer this question, let us ask ourselves the proverbial question: "WWJD?"
Would Jesus have ever given up? Would Jesus have known when it was "time to quit?" Did Jesus ever, by his own will, give up on an endeavor? Did Jesus ever concede? In trying to answer these questions we can easily flip through Scripture and pull out passages to demonstrate arguments for and against this supposition. However, if we take a deeper theological look at Jesus' Passion in light of the Passover, I think we can easily answer those questions as well as reconcile Pope Benedict XVI's personal decision to depart from the Papacy and, furthermore, we will prove it by illustrating a very pivotal moment during Christ's Passion.
The Passover Feast has been celebrated by devout Jews for over 3,000 years. This fact relegates us as Christians to come to a better knowledge of Judaism due to the fact that Jesus Himself celebrated the Seder meal along with various other spiritual ceremonies that we modern-day disciples do not have the luxury to know from first-hand knowledge. In as much as the Passover Seder is concerned, we have to take into account at least two things:
1. The Passover is a covenant between God and his people.
In Exodus 12:14 we read the following concerning the celebration of the Passover:
This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution.
And again ten verses later in Exodus 12:24, which states:
You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendants...
To this day, the covenant feast of the Passover is still celebrated by all faithful Jews, it not only ties them all to a common heritage but, it also gives them a familial bond to God. So intense is this bond that God referred to the nation of Israel as "his firstborn son" in Exodus 4:22-23 when He tells Moses to go and confront pharaoh. Indeed the simple fact that God chose the Hebrews to be His own is reason enough for all Jews to celebrate!
2. The Passover Seder is a meal that commemorates the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt.
As described in Exodus 12, the Passover meal entails a lot of specifics that the ancient Hebrews were to do so that the Angel of Death would literally "pass over" the homes of the faithful. Exodus 12:3-9 details exactly what the Jews were to do, among other things, it states that families were to acquire a year old unblemished lamb that was to be slaughtered at twilight. The lamb's blood was to be applied to the doorposts of the Israelite's homes with a bunch of hyssop, while the lamb itself was to be roasted and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. No part of the lamb was to be eaten the following day and any remains were to be burned, additionally, the Jews were to dress as if they were prepared to take flight.
One thing that we must not forget is that the Passover meal is broken up into 4 parts. It is these 4 parts that are not only integral to Jesus' Passion but, to my argument as well. The Passover has 4 cups of wine that MUST BE drank in commemoration of the exodus of the Jews out of Egypt and, in drinking these 4 cups of wine, the Jews are reminded of God's 4 promises found in Exodus 6:6-7 (with my emphasis):
"Therefore, say to the Israelites: I am the LORD. I will free you from the forced labor of the Egyptians and will deliver you from their slavery. I will rescue you by my outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my own people, and you shall have me as your God. You will know that I, the LORD, am your God when I free you from the labor of the Egyptians."
The structure of celebrating the Passover using the 4 cups is as follows:
The 1st cup signifies the blessing of the festival day, it is called the Kiddush Cup; kiddush means sanctification in Hebrew. As God's first promise found in Exodus 6:6, this sanctification comes by God bringing the ancient Jews out from under the burden of the Egyptians.
The 2nd cup, called the Cup of Plagues, signifies judgement. In this part, a young child usually asks the rabbi or eldest participant the following question, "why is tonight different from all other nights?" At which point 4 different questions are asked and the story of the Jew's exodus out of Egypt is retold. The second half of Exodus 6:6 proclaims God's judgement via the 10 plagues He wrought upon Egypt which rid the Jews of Egyptian bondage. At the end of the 2nd stage of the Passover, all the participants sing Psalm 113 which is called "the Little Hallel" and drink from the second cup.
The 3rd cup is called the Cup of Blessing. At this stage in the Passover, the actual meal is eaten and, as prescribed per Exodus 12, a roasted lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread are eaten. The lamb is to remind them of the sacrifical lamb that saved the ancient Jews and bitter herbs to recall the bitterness of bondage that the LORD God freed them from. After the final piece of unleavened bread (called the Afikoman) is eaten, the celebrant of the feast concludes this part by passing around the third cup which beckons the faithful Jew to God's third promise of salvation when He said that He would redeem the Israelites with his "outstretched arm." Psalms 114-118 are then sung, these psalms collectively constitute what is called "the Great Hallel."
The 4 cup is introduced after the singing of "the Great Hallel." This fourth cup signifies the joy that is to be had by praising the LORD God for His fulfillment of His fourth promise found in Exodus 6:7 and, that is, of making the Israelite nation His own. After this cup is drank, the rabbi or celebrant of the feast says the following phrase: "Tal telesti" which means "it is finished" or, "it is consummated." At this point the Passover Seder meal is officially over.
These are the steps to observing a proper Passover meal and, of critical importance, is the fact that these are the steps that Christ did all his life up until His final Passover in the upper room with his Apostles. It is in His final Passover, i.e., the last supper, that we find Jesus doing something remarkably at odds with Jewish tradition, in Mark chapter 14 verses 22 through 25, we read the following:
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many. Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
Clearly then we see that Jesus is celebrating the Passover (see Mk 14:12) with His Apostles and, knowing now the 4 steps of the Passover, we can correctly conclude that Jesus and the Apostles are in the 3rd step of Passover since they are eating and a cup of wine gets passed around. Now, taken by itself this isn't anything out of the ordinary for a Jew to read or listen to BUT, it is what happens in Mark 14:26 that separates this Passover from all others. Mark 14 verse 26 says the following:
Then, after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
So then, what do we have here? We have the end of the 3rd stage being completed because Scripture points out that they sang a hymn, that is, "the Great Hallel" and, after singing it they go out to the Mount of Olives. Now this may not seem odd or weird to us modern day Christians but to any Jewish reader of Mark's Gospel, they would seriously find issue with Jesus' actions, why? BECAUSE JESUS FAILED TO END THE PASSOVER MEAL! By not drinking the 4th cup, Jesus has unambiguously and definitely chosen not to end the Passover.
This presumption is made all the more recognizable when Jesus, while praying in the Garden at Gethsemane, says the following in Mark 14:35-36,
He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour might pass by him; he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will."
What cup is Jesus talking about if not the 4th cup? The 4th cup which will end the Passover and see the nation of God redeemed by a sacrifical lamb! This is what Jesus meant when he asked for "this cup to be taken away," Christ knew that when the Passover would end, so would His life. He knew that soon, he would be forced to take up His cross (literally) and be sacrificed for all; Luke 22:41-42 depicts the same scene in which we hear Jesus say:
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done."
How, you may ask, does any of this have to do with our current Pope, Benedict XVI? Well, like I stated at the onset of this post, the real question is whether or not Jesus ever gave up. In the same manner that Christ carried His Cross, Benedict XVI has had to carry the huge burden of the Papacy upon his shoulders and the task that Joseph Ratzinger was given, was truly one of self-sacrifice for the honor of Christ's one true Church.
So, did Jesus know when to give up? Yes, by all accounts he did. He gave Himself up when He knew that all that he was sent here to do had been fulfilled, the same as Pope Benedict XVI. In Mark 15:23, we see that Jesus has finally carried His cross to Golgotha and the Roman soldiers offer Him wine drugged with myrrh but, as the Scriptures dictates, he did not take it. Jesus had the opportunity at that point to end the Passover sacrifice only if He would've drank from that cup but, he suffered on. Matthew 27:34 recounts the same information, it states:
...they gave Jesus wine to drink mixed with gall. But when he had tasted it, he refused to drink.
Luke 23:36 also states the same thing:
Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine.
Notice that in Matthew's narrative, Jesus actually tasted the sour wine but, refused to drink. Again, He choose to carry on regardless of the weight of our sins. However, there did finally come a time when Jesus, having known that His hour had come, did give Himself up and this happens precisely when he drinks the final cup of wine. In Mark 15:36 & Matthew 27:48, we see that a bystander comes and gives Jesus wine to drink off of a sponge, immediately in both Gospels, Jesus gives out a loud cry and dies. It is in John's Gospel, however, that we get to see exactly what happened at the foot of the cross, remember, St. John was actually there!
In John 19:28-30 we get to see the Passover - that originally began in the upper room - finally come to a close. The evangelist writes:
After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I thirst." There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
Notice what St. John tells us, he states that Jesus knew that His hour had come and so he willingly and freely asked for that final 4th cup of wine which was placed on a sprig of hyssop (Exodus 12:22!) and, most importantly, he says the words that any rabbi would've said to end the Passover celebration! By stating "It is finished" (tel telesti) Christ ended the Seder and introduced all of us to eternal life.
With regards to Pope Benedict XVI, what we have to appreciate is the fact that, much like Jesus, he too has had numerous times to quit and yet, he continued on. He continued on even in the face of the sexual abuse crisis, corruption allegations, a financial scandal and, most recently, the traitorous actions of his own butler. He knew that leading the 1.3 billion Catholics of the world would be no easy task and, truly, such a heavy load could take a toll on almost any of us much less an 85 year old man in poor health.
Therefore I suggest that we, as Catholics, not look at our 265th Pontiff in a bad or negative light but, that we continue to have faith in the Office of the Papacy - an office that is protected by the Holy Spirit itself! That we as Catholics ardently pray for our current Pope, because he will certainly be praying for us even in retirement and, let us never forget, that Jesus knew when his time had come and so we too must acknowledge and respect that Pope Benedict XVI has freely and willingly also realized the same thing.
St. Peter, first Pope of the Catholic Church, pray for us!
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Episode 2, Part 4
Final part of this Throwing Down the Gauntlet Episode! Sorry for the delay in getting this post up but, unfortunately, my PC got a virus and I was forced to redo A LOT of what I already had written. Let this be a lesson to all my fellow bloggers: always keep a detailed list of all of your sources! Anywho, enough of my personal issues, here you go guys...Part 4!
The oft used passage favored by Protestant to refute any veneration of
Mary. In this passage – much like the ones mentioned above -
Jesus is not distancing Himself from
His Mother or slighting her as some would suggest. Rather, He is telling us
(again) that blood relations are not
what is important and that it doesn't matter if you are a
relative of Jesus - as if that were something
to boast about. What is important is to hear the Word of God and obey.
Mr. Bohr dares not to venture into this explicit view of Scripture because, once taken as a whole, his personally contrived view of Luke 11:27-28 completely falls apart. Luke 11:27 simply reiterates Luke 8:21 in that Jesus wants us to hear the word of God and do His will, this is the teaching that Scripture is attempting to lay out and not, as Mr. Bohr would have us believe, a teaching against praising the Blessed Virgin!
Origen: These same mighty works are
still done every day; the veil of the temple is rent for the Saints, in order
to reveal the things that are contained within. The earthquakes, that is, all
flesh because of the new word and new things of the New Testament. The rocks
are rent, i.e. the mystery of the Prophets, that we may see the spiritual
mysteries bid in their depths. The graves are the bodies of sinful souls, that
is, souls dead to God; but when by God’s grace these souls have been raised,
their bodies which before were graves, become bodies of Saints, and appear to
go out of themselves, and follow Him who rose again, and walk with Him in newness of life; and such as are worthy to have their conversation in heaven
enter into the Holy City at divers times, and appear unto many who see their good works.
@ 46:22 – “Now let’s examine
a couple of references to Mary during the ministry of Jesus. Mark 3 verse 21 and then we’ll jump down to verses
31-35. Jesus had been working non-stop and His mother and brothers and sisters
thought he was at the point of a nervous breakdown…and they’re going to come
and take him home…were Mary and His brothers and sisters in tune with the
purpose of His ministry, with the purpose of what he was doing? Absolutely not!”
Mr. Bohr would have us depict Mary as
being unfaithful to her Son because she thought that he had gone crazy. However,
this definitely seems like a stretch when we consider that there is no explicit
mention of Mary in Mark 3:21, this verse states the following:
When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for
they said, "He is out of his mind."
In other words, it was Jesus’ relatives
who are taking Him to of gone insane – not Mary. This same manner of thought can
actually be crossed-referenced in John 7:5 in which the evangelist basically
repeats the same notion in regards to His relatives when he states:
For his brothers did not believe in him.
It is clearly obvious that in Mark 3:21,
it was his kinsmen who did not believe. Additionally, if we look at the term
that is used in Mark 3:21 for relatives,
we see that the Greek uses the phrase οἱ παρ' αὐτοῦ
or, hoi par autou, which literally
translates as “those with him” to
refer to who it was that went to go seize a hold of Jesus. One need only look
at several Protestant bible translations to see that even they don’t agree with
this phrase meaning relatives:
Therefore, to state that Jesus’
mother along with his brothers and sisters, as Mr. Bohr states, were the ones
who went to go seize Jesus is not in line with the original Greek text nor
other numerous Protestant bible versions. And, as stated before, this verse
NEVER mentions Mary, Mr. Bohr here is simply implying that she was present
among those who came to get Him.
Mr. Bohr continues his assault on
the Blessed Virgin by suggesting that Mary was unfaithful to Jesus because she
did not understand the “purpose of His
ministry.” This is without a doubt the most absurd thing that Mr. Bohr has
said in this entire video up to this point! He’s basically saying that Mary -
who biblically speaking was known to ponder things in her heart (see here @40:47) -
forgot that He was the Messiah and, because she forgot that he was the Son of
God, she arrived at the wrongful conclusion that the Son of Man had gone
insane!
Considering the biblical evidence,
this goes against who Mary was: she was a favored young girl endowed with grace
that was visited by an angel and told she would bear the Savior of the World.
She was told by the angel that her barren cousin was pregnant which she later confirms
when she goes to visit her. Her cousin prophesies that her child is the Lord
and then, after Jesus’ birth, some wise men from the East come to pay Him
homage and adore Him. She then lived with the Word Incarnate for over thirty
years in which time she ate with Him, prayed with Him and talked with Him but
yet – according to Mr. Bohr – all of this must’ve simply slipped her mind when
she lost faith in who her son actually was. Really Mr. Bohr, really?
NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT STATE
THAT MARY EVER LOST HER FAITH IN HER SON, considering all that she knew about
Him, only a daft person bent on showcasing Mary as anything but extraordinary,
could come to this proposition. Additionally, if the author of Mark's Gospel had wanted to depict Mary as having lost faith in her Son then he could've very easily of done so. For we see in Mark's Gospel the reoccurring theme of the Apostles being perplexed at the mysteries that Jesus is revealing (Mk. 9:32, 10:32;38) as well as Peter being rebuked by Jesus for not being able to accept the fact that the Messiah must suffer (Mk. 8:33)! Not only that but chapter 14 is chock full of instances in which the faith of his Apostles are clearly shaken to the core: In Mark 14:10-11;43-45 we see Judas' betrayal, in Mark 14:66-72 we see Peter denying Jesus three times and in Mark 14:50, it is quite obvious that all 11 Apostles have deserted Him. My point is this, if the Holy inspired Gospel writer had wanted to demonstrate that Mary had ever lost faith in her Son, he had ample opportunities to do so. However, there is no explicit demonstration of such an event EVER recorded, therefore, Mary NEVER lost faith in Him.
As for the latter verses that Mr. Bohr jumps to, Jesus Christ is simply stating that the familial bond is no match for the true spiritual bond that comes through Christ Himself. In other words, the “true family” of Jesus are those who accept Him; this same passage is repeated in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21, of particular note is that in Luke 8:21 Christ says the following:
As for the latter verses that Mr. Bohr jumps to, Jesus Christ is simply stating that the familial bond is no match for the true spiritual bond that comes through Christ Himself. In other words, the “true family” of Jesus are those who accept Him; this same passage is repeated in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 8:19-21, of particular note is that in Luke 8:21 Christ says the following:
“And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are
these which hear the word of God, and do it.”
Basically, only the ones who hear
the word of God and act upon it can truly be called members of Christ’s family.
Nothing in the synoptic passages of these readings ever suggest that Jesus is
somehow negating or disowning His mother nor that Mary somehow “lost her faith”
in Jesus.
@ 48:02-49:03 - “Jesus
once encountered a lady who really felt that it was a great privilege for Mary
to give birth to Jesus. Notice Luke 11 and verses 27 and 28…”
Moreover Luke details Jesus’
journey through Jerusalem from Lk. 9:51 to Lk. 19:27, in which we see Jesus constantly
tell those who want to be his disciples that they must give up familial ties
and personal material possessions. In Luke
9:57-62, Jesus tells some men who want to
follow him that to be a true Christian disciple family bonds and obligations
cannot distract you from proclaiming the kingdom of God.* In Luke
12:29-34, Christ says that one is to give up
their belongings and give them to the poor, basically a true follower of Jesus
must deny himself worldly goods in favor of the love of God. In Luke
14:25-27, Jesus tells the large crowd that in order
to follow Him, they must,“…hate father
and mother, wife and children, brothers
and sisters…” Is Jesus here telling
His believers to have disdain and animosity against their family? ABSOLUTELY
NOT!!! He’s simply stating that His followers can never put anything above God especially family and, it is in this
context, that Luke 11:27-28 must be understood.
Mr. Bohr dares not to venture into this explicit view of Scripture because, once taken as a whole, his personally contrived view of Luke 11:27-28 completely falls apart. Luke 11:27 simply reiterates Luke 8:21 in that Jesus wants us to hear the word of God and do His will, this is the teaching that Scripture is attempting to lay out and not, as Mr. Bohr would have us believe, a teaching against praising the Blessed Virgin!
Furthermore if praising Mary is a bad
thing, then why did God let Gabriel praise her at the annunciation with his
greeting? Doesn’t this also mean that Mary’s cousin Elizabeth sinned when she
exalted Mary during her visitation to
Elizabeth’s home? Wouldn’t of St. John, in Elizabeth’s womb, have blasphemed by
leaping for joy when he heard Mary’s voice? Without a doubt, Mr. Bohr makes a
very obtuse and inconsistent interpretation of this passage in light of the
context in which it is framed.
@
50:12-51:55 – “Now we need to examine the
one reference to Mary after the Resurrection of Jesus. It’s found in the Book
of Acts, it is the final reference to Mary in the New Testament. After Acts 1
verses 13 and 14 there are no more references to Mary. It says there in Acts 1
verses 13 and 14…[quotes passage]…you
know it’s really exciting to notice that
His brothers came around, His brothers actually were in the upper room and they
accepted Jesus as the Messiah...there is no special emphasis here placed upon
Mary, they’re not praying to Mary, they’re not exalting Mary. In fact the
central figure on the day of Pentecost is…Peter.”
Mr. Bohr states that it’s exciting to
see that the brothers of Jesus finally came around to accepting Jesus as
Messiah. Here Mr. Bohr, again, incorrectly asserts that Jesus had some form of biological
siblings. However, if we are to believe that verse 14 states that Jesus’
biological brothers were there in the upper room, then verse 15 would’ve made
Mary a very “busy” woman:
In those days Peter stood up among the
brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said…
Basically, if verse 14 was talking about
Jesus’ biological brothers, then surely, the very next verse – which mentions His
brothers - has them numbered at around 120!
And, lest some of you think that I’ve deliberately misinterpreted this
passage, the Greek word used here is ἀδελφός or, adelphon, which means brother.** So, if we are to follow Mr. Bohr’s rationale, then not only
was Mary not a perpetual virgin but, she would’ve had to have been remarried as
well as birthed 2 children every year until the year 60 A.D. in order to
reconcile Scripture with the notion that Jesus had 120 or so brothers via His
mother Mary! Sounds rather ridiculous, doesn’t it?
One thing that is exciting though, is
the fact that Mr. Bohr acknowledges the primacy of St. Peter in Acts, indeed it
is in the Book of Acts that we see the Prince of the Apostles shine with all of
the authority that Jesus bestowed upon him as he was to create Christ’s one and
only church. It is through the Book of Acts that we see who Peter is; indeed in Acts 1:15-22, Peter - with the rest of the Apostles and disciples of Jesus - stand
up and declare that it is only lawful that the office of Judas be occupied by
one of the brethren. Notice that he isn’t stating a suggestion, St. Peter –
with the authority given to him by Jesus – infallibly states that succession is
necessary per Scripture & per his authority in Jesus’ new church. They then
they draw lots and Matthias is chosen; nobody states any disapproval nor
comments to the contrary. Peter has spoken.
In Acts 2:14, we see the supremacy of
St. Peter again as he delivers the very first sermon at Pentecost. In chapter 3,
verses 1-8, we see him heal a crippled man much to the amazement of the
Israelites present. In chapter 4, Peter and the Apostles are put before the Sanhedrin
and accused of blasphemy and in verses 8-13, Peter stands up and proudly
proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah; so bold are his actions that the Jewish
elders decide to let him go! Why, because the Vicar of Christ has spoken!
In Acts 5 we see that Ananias, and his
wife Sapphira, attempt to trick Peter out of money that he had given to the
Church, Peter confronts him and, when Ananias denies retaining the money, he
promptly drops dead. An hour later, Sapphira arrives and Peter asks her if it
is true that they sold the land for a certain amount. She then lies to Peter
and dies right there on the spot! Why did this happen? Because, as Peter told
Ananias in verse3 and 4, they did not lie to a man but to the
Holy Spirt – that is, to God Himself. In chapter 10, St. Peter is the first one
to baptize a gentile; think about that, Peter receives the very first
non-Jewish convert and there is not so much as a peep from the community nor
any of the other Apostles & disciples! This situation gets to a head in
chapter 11 when the circumcised Jewish believers confront Peter in Jerusalem, he basically tells them that God spoke to him in visions (see verses 5-10
which depict the gentiles as “unclean animals”) and that they were to allow the
gentiles into the Church. Is there any further bickering from this
confrontation? No, want to know why? Because the Head of the Apostles, the Primus inter pares, that is, the first among equals, has declared
it to be so by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, in Acts chapter 15 we see the
biggest of all of the scandals that rocked the early church. In Acts 15:1, we
are told that some members of the early church were going around saying that
unless you were circumcised, in accordance to Mosaic Law, you cannot be saved.
This matter was so serious that St. Paul & St. Barnabas go to Jerusalem to
discuss the matter with the Apostles. At this meeting in Jerusalem, known as
the Council of Jerusalem, some of the Pharisees whom
had become believers in Christ decried that circumcision was necessary, after
all, God said that circumcision was to be an “everlasting covenant” (see Gen. 17:9-14) and therefore could not be undone.
As the debate is raging on, we see the
pre-eminence in Peter yet again. Acts 15:7-11 states:
After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them,
"My brothers, you are well aware that from
early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles
would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart,
bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no
distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why,
then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the
disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On
the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus,
in the same way as they."
Can you imagine the riot that broke
out? It’s one thing to be the leader of a church but, to say that the
everlasting covenant which the Lord God gave unto the Jews as a sign that they
were His people is now null and void? Without a doubt there had to of been so
much in-fighting that the early Church began to divide, right? Acts chapter 15
verse 12:
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and
Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles
through them.
There was no melee,
disagreement, discussion nor argument. Why? Peter, the first Pope, had spoken.
I must note at this point that this study has to do specifically with Mary and,
to go about Christian history and prove that Peter was the first leader of the
Catholic Church, would be rather demeaning to my argument. As such, let us
continue with Mr. Bohr’s and the SDA’s view of who Mary is.
@ 52:06-52:33 – “…some
people might assume that because her death is not mentioned, maybe she was
assumed into heaven after she died…it is not so significant that the death of
Mary was not mentioned because, most of the deaths of the disciples are not
mentioned either. We simply don’t know about the deaths of most of the Apostles
and we don’t know about the death of Mary.”
For
a more detailed analysis of the Assumption of Mary, see here at 19:58. As for the deaths of the Apostles, the only reason Mr.
Bohr can say that he doesn’t know anything about their deaths is because his Church
history only extends to the latter half of the 19th century. Mr.
Bohr implores this tactic in order to repudiate any claims that might be had in
determining what happened to the Apostles via extra-biblical resources. Like
most Protestants, Mr. Bohr has ignorantly refused to look at any historical
evidence, from within Christian history, that my shed light on knowing more
about the deaths of the Apostles; ironically enough, he chooses to take the
word of Ellen G. White - a prophetess who’s predictions are extremely questionable
– instead of the word of Catholic presbyters and historians that lived during
Christianity’s early era. Let’s quickly see what happened to the Apostles per
Christian history and Church Tradition, click here for an interactive map of showing where the Apostles died at.
PETER
Martyred in Rome, crucified upside down - Verified by
Roman historian Josephus as well as St. Clement of Rome who wrote, around 90
A.D., in his Epistle to the Corinthians
chapter 5.
ANDREW
Martyred
in Patras via crucifixion – the apocryphal work Acts of Andrew, written around 260 A.D., states that he was bound to a
cross in the shape of an "X". Historian Eusebius mentions this work in Book III of his Church History (see chapter 25)
and St. Epiphanius in his Panarion also makes
mention this work.
JAMES (son of Zebedee)
Martyred in Jerusalem,
beheaded with a sword – Acts 12:1-2, state that it was
Herod Agrippa I who killed James. Additionally Eusebius, in Book II of his
Church History (see chapter 9) makes mention of this fact.
JOHN
Died at Ephesus of old
age.
PHILLIP
Martyred in Hierapolis
– according to the non-canonical work Acts of Philip, which was
written in the mid 300’s, St. Philip converts the wife of a high ranking city
official, which in turn enrages the official, and he has St. Philip, his
brother and sister crucified.
THOMAS
Killed in Mylapor – the
Gnostic work, Acts of Thomas, states that he was killed by a band of soliders who were sent by
an idolatrous priest (see paragraphs 159-168).
MATTHEW
Died of old age –
Gnostic writer Heracleon, writing in the first half of the second century, states
that St. Matthew was never martyred. In St. Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata Book 4 chapter 9 (circa 200
A.D.), he too makes mention of this fact.
JAMES (son of Alphaeus)
Martyred via
crucifixion in Egypt – Roman Historian Josephus makes mention of him in the 20th
Book of his Antiquities of the Jews chapter 9. Eusibius mentions him in his Church
History Book II chapter 23, St.
Jerome also mentions his death in his De
Viris Illustribus (see chapter 2) which was written around the late 4th century and St.
JUDE (Thaddaeus)
Martyred via clubbing
and beheading in Persia.
SIMON (the Zealot)
Martyred by being sawed
in half. He was a traveling companion of Jude, tradition holds they were
martyred together.
MATTHIAS
Martyred in Ethiopia – Tradition states that St. Matthias was
stoned and beheaded by non-believing Jews.
PAUL
Martyred by beheading
in Rome - Eusibius states in Church
History, Book II chapter 25, that Paul
was martyred during the persecution of Nero. St. Jerome also states this in De Viris Illustribus chapter 5.
This is but a very
limited view of all of the different early Church documents that can be used to
determine just what happened to the Apostles. Mr. Bohr cannot make any type of
claim for any particular form of historical astuteness because his church lacks
the pedigree to do so. The Catholic Church, however, stands above all other
Christian churches due to her derivation and, it is because of her origin that
we, as Catholics, have so many of the answers that Protestants don’t have or don't want to
know about.
@52:35-53:38 - “The last
group that resurrected were those who came forth from the grave when Jesus
resurrected in Matthew chapter 27, verses 51 to 53. The next group which will
resurrect, according to the New Testament, are those who will come forth from
the tomb when Jesus descends from heaven with the shout, the voice of the
archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. We
find this very interesting reference in ‘Manuscript Releases Vol. 5’…notice
this comment: Mary, the mother of our Lord has not been raised….All the prayers
offered to Mary fall to the ground. Mary’s ears have not yet been pierced by
the sound of the trump of God.”
In terms of the
Church’s interpretation of Matthew 27:51-53 - a resurrection occurrence that
only happens in the Gospel of Matthew - one need only look to St. Thomas
Aquinas’ mid 14th century work Catena
Aurea. In chapter 27 of his commentary on
Matthew, Aquinas details what the early Church Fathers believed this passage to
mean:
St. Jerome: As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did
many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord’s resurrection; yet
notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the
Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead.
“The holy city” in which they were seen after they had risen may be
understood to mean either the heavenly Jerusalem, or this earthly, which once
had been holy. For the city of Jerusalem was called Holy on account of the
Temple and the Holy of Holies, and to distinguish it from other cities in which
idols were worshipped.
When it is said, “And appeared unto many,” it is signified that this
was not a general resurrection which all should see, but special, seen only by
such as were worthy to see it.
St. Remigius: But
someone will ask, what became of those who rose again when the Lord rose. We
must believe that they rose again to be witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection.
Some have said that they died again, and were turned to dust, as Lazarus and
the rest whom the Lord raised. But we must by no means give credit to these
men’s sayings, since if they were to die again, it would be greater torment to
them, than if they had not risen again. We ought therefore to believe without
hesitation that they who rose from the dead at the Lord’s resurrection,
ascended also into heaven together with
Him.
These similar
interpretations all derive from the fact that, as the Apostle’s Creed
states, Jesus - like all men – experienced death and, according to CCC #632,
“His soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as
Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.” St. Peter also
mentions this occurrence, in 1Peter 3:18-20 we read:
For Christ also
suffered once for sins, the
righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made
alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made
proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago…
So, what we have here is the fact that Jesus, after
his bodily death, went into the depths of sheol
and delivered, from captivity, the souls that had been held captive there (see Psalm 86:13) and, in doing so, Jesus freed from slavery those
who were dead and raised them up into eternal glory. So manifested was the
power of the resurrection that, those whom were raised in Christ, began to
appear here on Earth! As Matthew 27 verses 52 & 53 states:
…and the
graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were
raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went
into the holy city and appeared to many.
This was the power that Jesus wrought at the
resurrection, the power to give life to the dead. However, we are now forced to
take note of what Mr. Bohr stated at the 52:52 mark when he quoted 1Thessalonians 4:16. Mr. Bohr mentions that “the next group” that resurrects will be
those who await the mighty shout of God which is proclaimed with the sound of a
trumpet. He further goes on to mention that Mary too is awaiting this sound to
“pierce her ears” so that she may also be resurrected. Now, you might say this
is an odd way of looking at the resurrection after all, according to CCC #1022,
upon death the soul:
…either
enters into the blessedness of heaven - through a purification or
immediately, - or immediate and everlasting damnation.
Well to the vast majority of Christians, this is the
view of what happens to us when we die, you either go up or, you either go
down. Unfortunately, the SDA church, doesn’t share this view, because they
believe in the wholly Millerite belief of “soul sleep.” This concept basically states that when you
die, your soul “goes to sleep” and it remains “asleep” until Jesus’ coming, at
which point, your soul will be awaken and judged. This is why Mr. Bohr, in
quoting Manuscript Releases Vol. 5,
has the audacity to state that it is of no use to ask the Blessed Mother for
prayers since they fall on deaf ears.
This belief of “soul sleep” is so at odds with
historic Christianity and Scriptures, that I find it necessary to elaborate
more on this subject. To begin with, where does the SDA get this idea? They get
it from Scripture, in particular, Ecclesiastes 9:5
which says:
For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, and they have no
more reward for the memory of them
is forgotten.
From this one
passage, taken entirely out of context, the SDA deduce that, since the dead
know nothing and yet they are awaiting resurrection, they must be – for lack of
a better theological term - “asleep”. Hence, the Seventh Day Adventist believes
that at death the individual goes into some sort of a spiritual sleep state, in
other words, when Christ returns, He will awaken the faithful SDA member and
take him/her to their eternal reward. However, it is the latter half of Ecclesiastes
9:5 that is the ultimate undoing of the concept of “soul sleep;” notice that
the second part of this verse states that there is no reward nor memory for the
dead and, when we cross-reference this SDA belief against Scripture, we find
that the concept of “soul sleep” becomes very questionable if not entirely
anti-biblical.
If we are to take the SDA’s word
at face value then there are several times in the Bible that demonstrate, quite
succinctly, that the dead are not necessarily “asleep.” Case in point, 1Samuel 28 in which
me see that Saul, being afraid of the advancing Philistine army, goes to the
witch of Endor to conjure up the spirit of Samuel the prophet who was already
dead. Through God’s merciful and divine ordinance, He allows the ghost of
Samuel to appear and speak to Saul, in which Samuel tells Saul that he has
continued to be an enemy of God and that both he and his sons will be dead by
the next day as well the fact that the Israelites will be overtaken by the
Philistines (verses 18 & 19). Clearly then, it is noted that Samuel – although dead – was
not “asleep,” the author of 1 Samuel mentions that the witch was able to
describe who she saw and that, almost immediately, Saul recognized that she was
in fact describing Samuel (verse 14).
In Luke chapter 16 verses 19-31, we hear about the story of Lazarus and the rich
man. In this parable, Jesus tells his listeners that both the rich man and
Lazarus die and that Lazarus is taken into the bossom of Abraham and the rich
man is sent into torment. This is a very hard parable to reconcile with the
concept of “soul sleep” because by the SDA’s very definition, the rich man –
who is dead – should’ve been “asleep” but, he is not. The rich man is asking
Abraham – who is dead and should also be “asleep” – to send Lazarus – who is
dead and should also be “asleep” – to his family and warn them of eternal
damnation. Abraham – who obviously isn’t “asleep” – speaks to the rich man and
tells him that his time has come and that there is no way to warn his family.
The interesting thing here is that, once again, the dead are alive and communicating which explicitly demonstrates that they are not “asleep.” The SDA may make mention that this is simply a parable that Jesus is imploring in order to teach a bigger theological truth, to which an unanswerable question can be posed to the Seventh Day Adventist: name one parable that is not based in real life? Time and time again, Jesus always uses real life situations, based in reality, in all of His parables so that his listeners would understand them. The SDA would thus have us believe that Jesus made up the story of Lazarus and the rich man without ever basing it on something that was real! That Jesus totally fabricated this parable is indeed a preposterous assumption in order to justify the Seventh Day Adventist’s doctrinal view.
The interesting thing here is that, once again, the dead are alive and communicating which explicitly demonstrates that they are not “asleep.” The SDA may make mention that this is simply a parable that Jesus is imploring in order to teach a bigger theological truth, to which an unanswerable question can be posed to the Seventh Day Adventist: name one parable that is not based in real life? Time and time again, Jesus always uses real life situations, based in reality, in all of His parables so that his listeners would understand them. The SDA would thus have us believe that Jesus made up the story of Lazarus and the rich man without ever basing it on something that was real! That Jesus totally fabricated this parable is indeed a preposterous assumption in order to justify the Seventh Day Adventist’s doctrinal view.
This is but two examples of there
being a consciousness even in death, some others include:
-Matthew 22:32-33 - Jesus states that God is not “the God of the dead” but, the God
of the living.
-Philipians 1:23 – St. Paul states he looks forward to dying in order to be with Jesus,
he does not state he looks forward to some form of spiritual slumber. St. Paul
reiterates this again in 2Corinthians 5:6-9.
-1Peter 4:6 - Much like 1 Peter 3:19, St. Peter makes mention that the
gospel was preached to the dead.
-Revelation 6:9-11 – St. John mentions that he saw the martyrs and heard their cry for
justice.
The thing we must understand is
that the belief in “soul sleep” is – much like the Seventh Day Adventist Church
- a relatively new invention and historical Christianity begs to differ on this
concept that is so central to the SDA belief system.
Bonus point of truth: An interesting parallel can be made from Saul’s
meeting with the witch at Endor in 1 Samuel 28 and the Annunciation in Luke 1.
In 1Sam 28:21, after the appearance of the ghost of Samuel, the witch of Endor
tells Saul the following: “…your maidservant has obeyed your voice, and I have put my life in my hands and heeded the
words which you spoke to me.” This is
almost identical to what Mary says at the
appearance of another supernatural entity, the angel Gabriel, in Luke1:38 in which Mary states: “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it
be to me according to your word.” This is an
excellent set of passages that can easily do away with the SDA’s view of
Mary and “soul sleep” in one fell swoop!
@53:37 – “…so this leads us to ask a very important question and that is,
‘who then is this Mary who is appearing at different parts of planet Earth at
present?’ If Mary died, and was buried, and she is awaiting the resurrection,
who are these entities that appear all over the world claiming to be the Virgin
Mary?”
Here we have Mr. Bohr
attempting to cast some form of fantasmagorical and insidious curtain over the
apparitions of the Blessed Virgin. While I won’t go into a robust defense of
such appearances of Mary in this post, what I will say is this: as stated
earlier, when Jesus died, he went and preached to the souls who were imprisoned - Scripture tells us this much. At which point these souls were freed from the
bondages of death (see Heb. 2:14-15) and, according to
scripture itself, these released souls WERE
SEEN by many (see Matt. 27:53). Clearly then, by
God’s own grace and mercy, He allowed these newly resurrected souls to appear
to people, so then, why wouldn’t He also allow the Mother of God to do so as well
in our present time? Surely, if these souls that Jesus HAD TO preach to were
allowed to materialize back on Earth, to proclaim the gospel to others, then,
without a doubt, Mary too can also be used by God in this same way as well.
The issue here is that
the Seventh Day Adventist cannot get over the totally fallacious and erroneous
notion of “soul sleep.” Without being able to jump over that hurdle, Mr. Bohr
has to leap to the assumption that, since Mary is still waiting to be
resurrected, all of these apparitions must be demonic or otherworldly. However,
as Catholics we know that Mary is
already resurrected, she is in full communion with God the Father, her Son, the
Holy Spirit, all of the angels and all of the saints and by virtue of Jesus’
sacrifice, we too are in communion with the heavenly court; therefore to the Catholic,
it is not an impossibility that Mary could in fact appear here on Earth if God
so willed it.
@54:13 – “Now I would like to deal with one final reference and that is the reference to the woman who is ‘clothed with the Sun’ and who is standing on the moon. I have visited, for example, many Roman Catholic Cathedrals and I’ve discovered that many times Mary is depicted as standing on the moon, clothed with the Sun, having a crown of twelve stars on her head, with the baby Jesus in her arms and also trampling upon the serpent…Now is this woman of Revelation chapter 12 actually Mary? If you look carefully at the text, you will find that it is not Mary.
@54:13 – “Now I would like to deal with one final reference and that is the reference to the woman who is ‘clothed with the Sun’ and who is standing on the moon. I have visited, for example, many Roman Catholic Cathedrals and I’ve discovered that many times Mary is depicted as standing on the moon, clothed with the Sun, having a crown of twelve stars on her head, with the baby Jesus in her arms and also trampling upon the serpent…Now is this woman of Revelation chapter 12 actually Mary? If you look carefully at the text, you will find that it is not Mary.
While Mr. Bohr
correctly states that the woman of Revelation chapter 12 CAN BE the church
represented symbolically, it has also historically (I wonder why a church
that’s only been around for 150 years has such an issue with Christian
history?) been view as representing Mary. To begin with, let’s do what Mr.
Bohr says we ought to do, let’s look “carefully at the text” and see if this
can be a symbolic representation of Mary. Let’s begin by reading some of
Revelation chapter 11 and into Revelation chapter 12 without any breaks, the
reason we need to do this is because this is the way the original text was
written, verses and chapters were put in during the medieval era (by a Catholic Cardinal!), so let’s see if
there is some form of continuation between these two chapters starting off at
Revelation 11:19 and ending at Revelation 12:6 we read:
Then God's temple in heaven was
opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were
flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a
violent hailstorm. A
great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed
with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve
stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give
birth. Then another sign appeared
in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on
its heads were seven diadems. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to
the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to
devour her child when she gave birth. She gave birth to a son, a male child,
destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his
throne. The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared
by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty
days.
In his vision John sees the temple, a
very significant thing for any Jewish convert to Christianity because the
temple at Jerusalem had already been destroyed by the time John penned his
apocalypse. Think about that for a second, the most holiest of buildings for
the Jews, which God commissioned and dwelt in, is seen by John in heaven and in
the temple but, even more interesting, is that immediately after seeing the ark
of His covenant, who does John see? A woman! Upon close examination, there
seems to be a definitive connection between the ark of His covenant and a woman
and, why wouldn’t there be?
Let’s not forget that it was in John’s
gospel, at the Wedding Feast at Cana, that Mary and Jesus are introduced on a
proverbial “seventh day” and, just like in the Book of Genesis, Mary is called
woman in the same manner that Eve is also called simply woman. As I have
already stated in Part 3 of this Episode, Mary is constantly depicted by the Early Church Fathers as the Second Eve, as well as the Ark of the New
Covenant; therefore I would suggest to you that, when St. John sees the ark of
the covenant and then immediately he sees a “woman,” one could very ardently
argue that the woman clothe with the sun is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant –
the same Ark that John sees in Revelation 11:19!
Additionally, this interpretation bares
more weight when we read in Revelation 12:5 that the woman,
“…gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the
nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught
up to God and his throne.”
Naturally, this is speaking of Christ so
therefore the woman CAN BE thought of to be Mary. Moreover, to have Mary depicted
as stepping on the serpent’s head is a very apt depiction of who Mary is in
light of the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Mr. Bohr simply doesn’t realize that
while the woman CAN BE interpreted to represent the Church, it can also
symbolize Mary as well as the people of Israel. However, the true anti-Catholic
cynic, will likely point out that Revelation 12:2 states that the woman “cried
out in labor and in pain to give birth,” and then they will say that this cannot be Mary
since labor pains are a condition given by God due to the very first sin
committed by Adam and Eve. So, if we Catholics believe that Mary was
immaculately conceived, that is, she was born without original sin, how is it
that the woman in Revelation is having birthing pangs? Very simply put, the
“pains” the woman in Revelation is having need not necessarily be those of actual and physical labor pains; St. Paul wrote the following in Galatians 4:19,
“My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of
childbirth until Christ is formed in you…”
Are we to therefore assume that St. Paul
was having labor pains or, can we conclude that the work that St. Paul is
undertaking, to fully convert the Galatians from paganism, is a hard and at
times difficult job? St. Paul also uses the same analogy in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3
when he states:
“Now, brothers and sisters,
about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very
well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While
people are saying, ‘Peace and safety,’ destruction
will come on them suddenly, as labor
pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.”
Again, St. Paul describes the pains of
birth as an analogy, this time he uses it to describe the feeling of what awaits those who are not ready for Christ’s
eminent return. Hence, the fact that the woman in Revelation 12 is experiencing
labor pains need not mean literal birthing pangs. As I mentioned, the woman
clothe with the sun CAN BE interpreted to be Mary, the Church, or Israel, for Mr.
Bohr to make the assumption that this CAN ONLY be interpreted as a
symbolic representation of solely the Church, is to take a very narrow view of
scripture.
This is also one of the greatest pitfalls in all of Protestantism, Protestants tend to think of dogma and biblical interpretation as “either/or,” that is, dogma can be either X or Y but never “both/and.” It is this latter view which the Catholic Church adopts: the woman clothed with the sun can be Mary as well as both the Israelites and the Church; and, when it comes to interpreting Revelation, the reader must take into consideration the symbolism used. In Revelation 17:9-8, we see that:
This is also one of the greatest pitfalls in all of Protestantism, Protestants tend to think of dogma and biblical interpretation as “either/or,” that is, dogma can be either X or Y but never “both/and.” It is this latter view which the Catholic Church adopts: the woman clothed with the sun can be Mary as well as both the Israelites and the Church; and, when it comes to interpreting Revelation, the reader must take into consideration the symbolism used. In Revelation 17:9-8, we see that:
“Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are
seven mountains on which the woman sits. There are also seven kings. Five
have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he
must continue a short time…”
So, even in this passage, the seven
heads are described to be both
mountains and kings. It is therefore
up to the reader to discern what is being taught lest they incorrectly
interpret what Jesus was telling John to write down. Therefore, for Mr. Bohr to
eliminate 1 possible, and very applicable, interpretation of who the “woman clothed
with the sun” signifies, is to do away with the fullness of Christian history
as well as the fullness of Scripture.
I'll conclude with what our current Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, said in his General Audience on August 23, 2006, in regards to Revelation chapter 12:
I'll conclude with what our current Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, said in his General Audience on August 23, 2006, in regards to Revelation chapter 12:
“This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at
the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all
times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ
ever anew. And she is always threatened by the dragon's power. She appears
defenseless and weak. But
while she is threatened, persecuted by the dragon, she is also protected by God’s
comfort. And in the end this Woman wins. The dragon does not win.”
Indeed, the dragon will never win. He lost in his battle against Mary, for he was unable to make her waver in her faith. He will lose against the New Heavenly Jerusalem for the celestial court is primed for battle, and so long as we as Christians have faith in God's only Begotten Son, Satan will lose his battle against the Church and Her faithful.
St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us!
St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us!
* Seems to
me that an unmarried priesthood would be the only type of disciple who could
fulfill this requirement. Now, which church is it that has only unmarried
Christian men as priest…?
**I would
really suggest all Protestants to open up their version of the Bible and see if
Acts 1:15 has the word brother being
used. The fact of the matter is that Protestant translators have replaced the
word brother here with other words in order to suit their interpretations.
However, the Greek language coupled with simple common sense here lends to the
credence that the term brother need not be that of blood descendant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)