Kissing and Worship

A recent comment:

Yes, Darren, it's true Jeremiah 10 is referring to forming idols...so a fragrant evergreen decoration is no sin. But how do you justify all those idols that Catholics put everywhere? In their gardens, on their walls, their jewelry, statues of Mary and saints and crucifices galore? If they aren't objects of worship, why do they KISS them? Stop worshipping objects of wood and stone. Turn your worship upward to your Holy Father. (And I don't mean the Pope!)

Just like trees, paintings, cars, or people, statues are not "idols" unless they are worshiped.

I've been to many Masses, and "kissing" is not a common occurrence, except when the priest kisses the Holy Bible and the altar.

Even so, a kiss is not worship. A priest does not worship the Bible when he kisses it. Judas was not worshiping Jesus when he kissed Him. Members of the early Church did not worship Christians when they greeted each other with a "holy kiss."

I don't worship my wife when I kiss her. In-love teenage girls did not worship stationery when their handwritten letters were SWAK (Sealed With A Kiss). An old-fashioned gentleman doesn't worship a woman when he kisses her hand.

A kiss is a sign of reverence, respect, love -- but certainly not an unmistakable gesture of worship that is reserved for God alone!

Ask any Catholic if he or she worships an object of wood or stone, and the answer will be "Of course not!" Do you think the Catholic is mistaken?

What does it mean to "worship," anyway? Can a person accidentally worship something against his will? If he can "worship" something mistakenly or unknowingly by a mere external action (kissing a crucifix, decorating a Christmas tree, etc.), does that kind of "worship" have any meaning? It would be empty, which is hardly a trait of worship.

Real worship is adoration that arises from the heart and expressed in actions. It is paying homage to our Creator, recognizing God's supremacy in the universe and beyond. It is recognizing who and what He is, and submitting our will to His in love.

Viewing artwork as a reminder of God and of heroes of the Faith -- like an overseas military man looking at a photo of his wife or children -- does not constitute "worship." They are visual representations, reminders, of something else. The man who kisses the photo of his wife is not worshiping Kodak paper. Neither is he necessarily worshiping his wife.

Worship, by definition, cannot be mere lip service.

A reasonable person will therefore understand that Catholics do not worship objects of wood and stone.

"Church Is Cancelled -- It's Christmas!"

I'm wondering if the Catholic Church is the only place in these parts of Texas to go for Christian worship on Christmas Day.

I've heard from several non-Catholic friends who say they never have church on Christmas because their churches want you to spend time with family.

Why can't the family spend time at church? Don't we claim Christmas as a Christian holiday? I know that churches have services on Easter morning -- so what's the deal with Christmas? Or why not have a Christmas Eve service instead (if not in addition to)? And what of those people who don't have any family to share with?

Why not cancel services on Super Bowl Sunday so that football-loving families can spend some quality "down" time with each other?

I do understand that sometimes we don't "feel" like going to church. But we do it anyway on Sundays because we know it is part of the Christian life. Is Christmas not more special than an odinary Sunday? Why have a "religious" festival that is recognized, shared, and celebrated by the whole Church, but then not assemble as a church in commemoration of the birth of the God-Man?

We should welcome the Christmas celebration -- not sleep when He comes.

I know that sounded preachy. Sorry. But it's still something to consider.

Unrelated: Jeremiah 10 and the Christmas Tree

Having grown up believing that Christmas is pagan and not to be observed by Christians, one classic scriptural misinterpretation I had was believing Jeremiah 10 condemned Christmas trees.

Read the passage for yourself here.

When I became of age and seriously began to "prove" my childhood faith to myself, I "proved" that God despised the practice of cutting down a tree from the forest, putting it on a stand, and decking it with gold and silver. Jeremiah described this so clearly, so explicitly -- how better could he have spelled out the plain truth about Christmas trees?

I later realized that my understanding of this passage was chiseled and fashioned by what my church had already taught me. I was already "suspicious" of Christmas, so I was quick to cling to conclusions when I saw such words (especially in the King James Version) as "tree," "axe," "deck," "gold," "silver," and "workman" (which I mistakenly understood to be synonymous with "lumberjack"). What else could this be except the modern Christmas tree? I thought. How could everyone be so blind?

Well, it took me a few more years myself to begin to see.

The chapter is properly understood when seen in its context of idolatry.

In this chapter, the Lord references "gods," "idols," and "images" (verses 11,14); in the KJV they are "gods," "graven image," and "molten image." Since when is there a commandment against using a tree as decoration? There is none. Why should God be angry with that? But He is sorely opposed to idolatry.

We see, therefore, that God opposes the practice of fashioning an image or statue (of any material) that is to be used as an idol -- an object of worship. Anything that takes the place of the true God -- whether a wooden idol, another person, or your own pride -- falls under the category of "idolatry," but in this context, God is specifically addressing the use of literal idols.

I have never known anyone to worship a Christmas tree. Now that I observe Christmas and have a decorative tree, I know with certainty that I do not worship it. It is not worshiped by those who view Christmas in the spiritual sense in which it's intended, and neither is it worshiped by those who see Christmas as a mere secular holiday as an excuse to party and accumulate material goods.

If a thing is not worshiped, and if it's not made by pagans to be an object of worship, it's not an idol. Is this not sensible?

Moreover, in verse 5 of Jeremiah 10, God mocks these idols by saying they are "upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne [i.e., carried], because they cannot go." In whose imagination might a Christmas tree appear to walk and talk? My artificial Christmas tree does not resemble anything that walks and talks; it resembles a blue spruce. It doesn't have a face, head, torso, arms, or legs. It's a bushy tree!

Was the tree of life in the Garden of Eden an idol? It had fruit that, if eaten, would provide eternal life. Who would label that tree an idol, or even a symbol of idolatry? No one. And no one assigns Christmas trees with the divine attributes of the tree of life of Genesis, so how can one conclude they are idols?

No matter how much someone wants to make it a sinister object of false worship, the Christmas tree is merely a decoration. If indoor decorative trees are an abomination, then let's ban the popular plastic ficus trees from Wal-Mart.

I don't question the sincerity of those Christians that are anti-tree and anti-Christmas, for I was one of them, and I know I was sincere. But I do know that my rejection of all things Christmas gave me a deficient understanding of the Incarnation, which is crucial and at the heart of Christianity. This all-important emphasis, I fear, is what anti-Christmas Christians are missing out on.

Instead, they're too busy cramming modern-day Christmas trees into the pages of the Old Testament.

The Rosary: Beads on a String, Not Genie in a Bottle

Does praying the Rosary guarantee instant "yes" answers to our supplications? Not at all.

God is not our Genie whose job is to grant all our wishes. If that's what He did, He would not be the God of love. As all parents know, to love a child is not to grant the child's every request; it is to provide for the child and do what is ultimately best for the child, who is often short-sighted and self-centered. Doing what's best may even mean allowing the child experience a kind of "suffering" now in order to achieve a positive result later. . . .

(See full post here.)

The Rosary Reader (Blog)

I just began a new blog. Add a comment to let me know what you think. Thanks.

The Rosary Reader

Christmas Really Does Honor Christ!

As Advent season arrives again, so does the annual explosion of anti-Christmas rhetoric. As if we don't get enough of it from atheists, some of it is published by various Christian sects who sincerely intend to restore the true Faith -- the Faith that was "once delivered to the saints," without extra, man-made garbage to pollute the clear water of the Word. Unfortunately, their pure intentions can lead to absurd conclusions, such as: Christmas is pagan.

One article that caught my attention this year is entitled "Does Christmas Really Honor Christ?" I truly mean no disrespect to the author (for I once held his views), but the more I read such articles, the more juvenile I perceive "Christian" arguments against Christmas to be.

Among them are:

• We don't know Jesus' actual date of birth, so we're not honoring Him by observing December 25, which is a date pagans used to honor their own "gods."
• We're not worshiping Jesus in "truth" because certain aspects of some traditional nativity scenes are factually incorrect (e.g., the wise men appearing at the manger instead of at the house in which the holy family later lived).
• Santa Claus is a lie.
• Many people suffer depression during the holidays.
• Illicit use of alcohol and sex occur during the holidays.
• Unlike the wise men, we give gifts to each other rather than to Jesus.
• Birthday celebrations are pagan, even the Lord's.
• The Puritans opposed Christmas.
• Neither Jesus nor His apostles taught others to celebrate his birthday.
  

I'm not opposed to addressing these and similar issues, since I had to deal with them before, but a more troubling accusation deserves attention here.

Did Jesus ever grow up?
From the aforementioned article:

Even more serious, however, is the false impression given by Christmas that Christ is simply a helpless baby. A little girl viewing a nativity scene was heard to ask her mother: "Did Jesus ever grow up?" Why did she ask? "Well," she responded, "he hasn't grown at all since I saw him last year!" And the impression left at Christmas is just that, that Christ was a helpless babe, not the ruling King that He is, one who will soon rid the earth of all unrighteousness (Psalm 2:9,12; 110:1,2; Revelation 12:5; 19:15,16).

In his zeal to promote the pure gospel, the author not only insults the intelligence of his adult readers, but minimizes the essential truth of Jesus' birth!

First, Christmas does not limit our view of Jesus as a sweet little baby at the exclusion of all else, just as Good Friday does not leave the impression that Jesus is a helplessly limp, dead "savior on a stick." All aspects of Jesus' earthly life and ministry are essential and should be seen as a whole.

Second, the author comes from a tradition (my tradition, in fact) that almost seems to mock the idea of us celebrating the arrival of a baby Jesus, whose image represents the Incarnation -- God becoming flesh -- which is the one, central truth of Christianity that distinguishes itself from all other religions!

The idea that God, who, as Creator, precedes time and space, would enter time and space to be born just like one of us -- to be one of us in order to intercede for us and eventually save us -- is a mystery so awesome, so mind-blowing, so incomprehensible, that it deserves profound contemplation, not dismissal. Apart from it being logistically baffling, the Incarnation is a great act of love. It is the cause of angelic celebration.

In the introductory chapter of his Gospel, John describes it as true light that comes into a world of darkness. The chapter is intentionally reminiscent of Genesis 1, for Jesus' arrival was the beginning of a "new creation." His birth by a humble virgin in Bethlehem was the turning of the greatest page of hope in history.

I don't mean to be preachy, but I want to emphasize that the birth of Jesus was no small thing; it was monumental.

Not just a "birthday party"
Further, it should be understood that Christmas is not merely a "birthday party" for Jesus. He doesn't need cakes, party hats, or noisemakers -- or poorly sung songs that end with "and many moooore!" No, the emphasis is not on His "birthday," but rather that God entered this world in the flesh. That's the all-important mystery of Christianity.

The wise men of the East did not see the baby Jesus on the exact date of His birth, but they rejoiced nevertheless to see His day. "[A]nd going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him" (Matthew 2:11). This scene -- of "the child with Mary his mother" -- is not a representation of Nimrod and Semiramis or any other "pagan" scene, but one that should invoke praise and thanksgiving -- and worship.

Likewise, when Jesus was brought to the Temple for the purification according to the law of Moses, after His circumcision at the end of eight days, Simeon rejoiced at seeing the child Jesus (Luke 2:27-35). He rejoiced, even though He missed the "birthday party," which, by the way, was attended by the shepherds, and by a multitude of the heavenly host with song: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!" (2:14).

When we celebrate Christmas, we join Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the angels, the wise men, Simeon, and everyone else who celebrated and worshiped the Lord as a baby.

Just as they all awaited the coming of the Christ, so do we await His coming. This season of Advent stirs us to watchfulness, to be ready, for His Second Coming, as well. Our minds are focused on both the baby Jesus humbly born in a manger and the great and powerful King of Kings who will come again in glory at the end of this age. Both demand our preparedness.

If you hope to have a full and complete and saving Christology, you have to guard against false gospels. And sometimes you do have to wash away the extra, man-made garbage that pollutes the clear water of the Word. Just be sure you don't throw out the Baby with the bathwater.

Televangelists

The commercialism I see surrounding many televangelists is off-putting to me.

This past weekend, I added a picture with T.D. Jakes to my collection of photos with well-known, pseudo-Christian teachers, including Garner Ted Armstrong and Joel Osteen.

I visited Jakes and Osteen with a good friend of mine just to say we saw them, to have something to talk about later.

Osteen's church is a feel-good mega-concert hall designed to increase people's faith so they can think and grow rich. And I was turned off by Jakes' people shouting in the lobby to "Get your t-shirts! Sweaters! CDs! . . . " (they were louder than the peanuts-and-beer pushers at the previous night's Dallas Mavericks game). Garner Ted Armstrong sensationalized his view of the end-times and his self-professed role in them (he is now deceased).

After our photo-op with T.D. Jakes, my non-Catholic friend said, "I'd rather go to a Mass." We left before the service started.

I've noted that so many who would emphasize to Catholics the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus are terribly preoccupied with their own preachers and ministry-marketing gimmicks.

I would rather spend some one-on-one quiet time with the Lord in the Eucharist, with the Scriptures in hand.

The Great Repression

Man is higher than beast in a fundamental way. Rather than one who works on instinct alone, he is a rational being who can make decisions based on what is good and bad, right and wrong.

Yet, so many people advise us to "go with your instinct," to follow your feelings, to let your impulses lead you wherever they will. This insures that you will express your true self, who you really are. Often this is said in the context of sex, or in some aspect of business or personal relationships, but it could be set in any number of contexts. It is represented as a virtue; on the other hand, they say it's destructive to "repress" your desires.

Who wants to be guilty of "repressing" something? That doesn't sound good. It's a negative-sounding word -- to "repress."

The truth is that it depends on what you're repressing.

Bishop Fulton Sheen, in one of his Life Is Worth Living telecasts entitled "How to Psychoanalyze Yourself," explains that when you repress something, you express something else; when you express something, you repress something else. He gave the example of an alcoholic. When the alcoholic represses his alcoholism by intentionally avoiding alcohol, he expresses love for his wife and family. When he represses his love for his wife and family, he expresses his alcoholism.

The alcoholic's instinct -- his immediate desire that screams for instant gratification -- is to drink himself silly. But as a human being, he is able to choose the higher road and make a "right" decision because of his rational nature. That rational nature is what separates the men from the boars, or any of the other animals.

Therefore, for the alcoholic to satisfy his instinctive cravings without consideration is to betray his own nature. That is to say, he "represses" that which makes him a human being. He is the one who truly commits the self-destructive act of "repression."

He should instead express his higher nature as a human being by exercising his rationality, choosing to do what is right, even if it means denying his impulses. To do otherwise is to participate in the Great Repression that has bankrupted countless souls in the human economy.

Quick-Fix Faith

The following was written by Msgr. Zacharias Kunnakkattuthara, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Palestine, Texas, for today, the nineteenth Sunday in ordinary time. Used with permission.

Psychologists have long claimed that a vital sign of maturity is the ability to delay gratification. Children in their natural immaturity will insist on having what they want immediately. Their desire is all-consuming, and they will have what they want now or go ballistic. As adults we should have developed enough maturity to value something other than immediate gratification of our desires. We should be able to take the longer look and live according to commitments we have made and goals we have set.

An ocean of immaturity surrounds us today. Our consumer culture, with its endless products and its marketing genius, stimulates our desire and convinces us that we need what is being offered. The culture promotes instant and effortless consumption. How can we get "fast food" to people faster? How can our products be made more "user-friendly"? This attitude becomes so pervasive that we believe we should not have to wait for anything.

Cartoonist Gary Trudeau once showed a young couple leaving a suburban church. It seems the cool, contemporary minister has slipped up and used the word "sin." The couple says to the minister, "We're looking for a church that meets our needs." What would Jesus say about a "user-friendly" church? We live in a culture that both reflects and encourages the immaturity that expects both instant and effortless gratification, even in the realm of our spiritual needs.

Jesus and our culture will never make peace. The "what's-in-it-for-me" approach to religion, the search for an effortless spirituality, and the desire for a "quick-fix" faith will not find their answer in Jesus. In the New Testament it costs for follow Jesus. What it costs, however, is more than worth the joy of receiving the gift of God's kingdom.

In Susan Howatch's novel Absolute Truth the adult son of an Anglican bishop talks with his father, about leaving his work at the BBC to serve the Church. His father says it isn't true that people can only serve God by doing what they hate and making themselves miserable. The son points out that the Christian faith is about suffering. His father suggests that he see "suffering" as effort. "Christianity's about effort . . . about shedding blood, sweat and tears to be what you've been designed by God to be and do what you've been designed by God to do. That's certainly not incompatible with personal fulfillment and lasting happiness. What's incompatible is not bothering to find out who one is, settling for something other than what one should be, tramping on others in order to realize a self designed by the ego instead of valuing and caring for others in order to realize the true self designed by God."

Your friend in Jesus,
Msgr. Zach

Garner Ted and Me (Photo)

I just rediscovered this water-stained photo testament of my history as an Armstrongite.

GTA had a good beer buzz going on at this moment.

This picture was taken at the graduation service of Imperial Academy in the summer of 1996. I had completed the church's two-year theological program. It was the last year Imperial Academy conducted classes full time. It was also the second year.

It was roughly three years or so after this photo was taken that I began inquiring about Catholicism.

Mystery of the Racist

The Catholic Church, as its ancient name implies, makes no distinction between ethnicity and the races. Racism is unwelcome in God's house.

On the other hand, it was taught in the house of the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, in which I was reared.

I've been reading the blog Shadows of WCG almost every day since it began a few months ago. Its young, prolific author "J.," an ex-WCG member, offers a daily critique of historical Armstrongism. I don't have the time or interest to delve into all that "J." does, but every morning I still like to see what's on his mind.

HWA's racism
Because of "J.'s" blog, I recently blew the dust off my copy of Mystery of the Ages, which HWA considered his finest work, and which his posthumous devotees revere. The Philadelphia Church of God, true to HWA's review of his own book, advertises the book this way on its home page:

I marked up my copy of the Philadelphia Church of God's reprint of HWA's book, because it's astounding what his followers let him get away with. One absurd theme (out of many) I've seen in this book is racism.

Here are some choice quotes, with all emphases by the original author. Not all of them are blatantly racist on their own, but through them as a whole, in their context, HWA's racism is unveiled at last! (Does the "W" in HWA stand for "whitey"?)

There was rampant and universal interracial marriage -- so exceedingly universal that Noah, only, was unblemished or perfect in his generations -- his ancestry. He was of the original white strain. . . .

It is evident that Adam and Eve were created white. God's chosen nation Israel was white. Jesus was white. . . .

The one man God chose to PRESERVE the human race alive after the Flood was perfect in his generations -- all his ancestry back to Adam was of the one strain, and undoubtedly that happened to be white -- not that white is in any sense superior. . . .

God intended to prevent racial intermarriages. But man has always wanted to violate God's laws, intentions and ways. . . . As mentioned before, God had set the bounds of the races, providing for geographical segregation, in peace and harmony but without discrimination. . . .

God had intended geographical segregation, not integration of the races. . . .

The probability is that these people [the ancient Hebrew nation] were all -- or nearly all -- of the white racial strain, unchanged since creation. . . .

Undoubtedly, one reason [one purpose for choosing Israel] was to preserve the original physical racial strain. . . .

God had chosen a nation of almost perfect original strain in its generations -- its ancestry. Also they had the quality heredity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). . . .

Here was a people of almost clear racial strain, and the God believing heredity of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. . . .

God started his chosen nation off -- even though brought out of slavery -- with all the natural advantages of a superior heredity. God pulled them out of slavery and gave them a new and fresh start. One might say they had everything God-given going for them. . . .

The nation Israel under Moses was ONE RACE -- very little interracial marriage had marred their racial nationality. . . .

The Promised Land was then called Canaan. Canaanites, racially dark, had settled in the land. . . .

GOD INTENDED TO KEEP THEM PHYSICALLY SEPARATE from other nations -- both nationally (racially) and religiously. . . .

Jesus Christ was born of the tribe of Judah, and it was necessary that HE be of the original pure racial strain, even as Noah was.

The following quote is in the context of what the eschatological kingdom of God will be like, after the resurrection of the saints who will rule over humans on this earth. In other words, this is what paradise will be like:

It seems evident that the resurrected Noah will head a vast project of the relocation of the races and nations, within the boundaries God has set, for their own best good, happiness and richest blessings. This will be a tremendous operation. It will require great and vast organization, reinforced with power to move whole nations and races. This time, peoples and nations will move where God has planned for them, and no defiance will be tolerated. . . .

HWA just identified himself as the "Elijah to come" (whom John the Baptizer only foreshadowed), in addition to being the plain ol' end-time "apostle," before writing,

Also the indication is that the teaching of spiritual truth -- of the true gospel, the spiritual conversion of the world -- will be directed, worldwide, from this Headquarters Church, under Elijah and the overall direct supervision of Jesus Christ. . . .

Jesus is in trouble if He appoints HWA in the kingdom to be the teacher of truth -- the same guy who wrote that the Israelites were white, "not that white is in any sense superior," and a few pages later wrote that God gave ancient Israel "all the natural advantages of a superior heredity."

Absurdity abounds in Mystery of the Ages, and it's sad that people still promote the book on television and in Wall Street Journal ads. I remember when the current leadership of the Worldwide Church of God (who now rejects HWA's teachings) first pulled the book out of circulation because of certain errors they had intended to edit. HWA's hardcore followers were outraged.

The continued arm hold of Armstrongism
Today, some moderate Armstrongites ("Reformed Armstrongites," as some like to be called) will admit that HWA had some few things wrong here and there -- that some of his teachings could have been explained a little differently, that his arguments could've been tighter, that he didn't have the theological sophistication to explain the "truth" in precise terms -- but they insist his main teachings were correct (Saturday Sabbathkeeping; avoidance of "unclean meat"; soul sleep; Trinitarianism is a satanic doctrine; Christmas and Easter are pagan abominations; Jesus' Second Coming has been imminent since at least 1934, and how much more imminent is it now!; man's destiny is to become Gods -- each person will become a God; etc.).

But even the moderate Armstrongites cannot escape the powerful psychological and spiritual grip of this man, this demonstrably false prophet. They prefer the comfort of being under the cool, dark "Shadows of WCG." They don't want to see the harsh light, because it would hurt too much. It would be too painful to admit that their years of sincere devotion to a belief system was in vain.

I say it was "in vain," but I don't mean to say it's unredeemable. While I let go of HWA's teachings as a fairly young adult, I grew up chin-deep in his church. I am thankful for the lessons and unique perspective that I have as a result. It may not sound like it sometimes when I rant, but I do have compassion for those who cannot leave. They really don't know any better. And sometimes when they almost do, they turn their head -- they turn back like Lot's wife.

They need the prayers of Catholics and all other Christians to find the strength that God has already given them to leave Armstrongism behind and to embrace the truth -- not the "plain truth," but the glorious Truth that is Jesus Christ.

It's clear to us now why the current WCG leadership could not merely edit HWA's book; it had to be abandoned. And its abandonment is no mystery for the ages. It was simply the right thing to do.

A False Prophet Nails Himself

As one with a background in Armstrongism, I was intrigued by this quote from Herbert W. Armstrong, made several decades before his death in 1986. I've read the quote before, but it's more astonishing to hear it in his own voice. This quote is found at approximately 68:30 on the timer (less than 5 minutes into the video):

I want to tell you that all this weather disturbance means a terrible famine is coming on the United States, that is going to ruin us as a nation inside of less than twenty more years. All right, I stuck my neck out right there. You just wait twenty years and see whether I told you the truth. God says, if a man tells you what's going to happen, wait and see. If it doesn't happen, he was not speaking the word of God, he's speaking out of his own mind. You watch and see whether these things happen. You see who's speaking to you, my friends.

I am sure that his strongest modern-day apologists might defend him by disagreeing with him on that point.

I think this lengthy video would interest current Armstrongites, ex-Armstrongites, and those who are curious about the story of the Worldwide Church of God. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a big fan of the current WCG -- but this is still fascinating.

Statues and Icons (That Catholic Show #5)

Blair, Which Church?

It's been rumored widely that UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair is considering conversion to the Catholic Church. (I just learned this.) My understanding is that he has been a nominal Anglican, but that he has close ties to the Catholic Church.

If true, this is great news. It is good when anyone comes "home" and is fully united to the Church that Jesus built -- the very Body of Christ.

Troubling, however, are the rumors that Mr. Blair, while not yet Catholic, has already been receiving Holy Communion regularly. Priests that permit this are contravening Church teaching.

Not Everyone May Eat at the Table
This, from paragraph 1400 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

Because Holy Communion both represents and strengthens communion with the Church, which Catholics believe is the Catholic Church, then, in ordinary circumstances, it makes sense that a non-Catholic should not receive the Eucharist.

For example, if a person disbelieves the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus (in a real way, not merely symbolic), then that person is not in full communion with the Church. Just as he presumably would not desire to partake of "the Lord's Supper" with Jehovah's Witnesses because he does not share their beliefs, neither should he want to partake of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

To receive the Eucharist, a person must be "visibly" and "invisibly" in communion with the Church. If he's not Catholic, then, "visibly," he is not in communion. There is little question here; he should not receive the Lord on his tongue. If he is Catholic, but is guilty of mortal sin, then neither is such a person in communion with the Church. He must first be reconciled through the Sacrament of Confession. That's why it is gravely wrong for "Twice-a-Year Catholics" (those who attend Mass rarely, usually only on Christmas and Easter) to hop into line to receive the Eucharist. They first need to hop into the line to Confession, and sincerely repent like everyone else.

If I correctly understand Mr. Blair's public views and voting record concerning abortion and marriage, then right now there are things "visible" and "invisible" that should prevent him from taking Holy Communion.

Catholic by Desire?
An unknown "church source" has reportedly defended Mr. Blair's alleged reception of Catholic Holy Communion. A Times article says the source claims "that Mr Blair was a Catholic by desire and that this did not necessitate a formal conversion."

This "source" misapplies the concept behind the "baptism of desire," which is summarized thusly in paragraph 262 in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

Unless for some reason he is not free to become Catholic, Mr. Blair cannot be "Catholic by desire," because if he desired it, he would make that step to become fully Catholic. Otherwise his "desire" would be empty, meaningless. But if, for argument's sake, his conversion is somehow impeded against his will, then he should respect the teachings and rules of the Church with which he desires to commune.

I'm interested in what lies ahead for Mr. Blair. I hope and pray for the best. But which will it be? Full, legitimate communion with the Catholic Church? Or something else?

The Pope and the Holocaust

Why Only Pentecost?

Why do Catholics and mainstream Protestant denominations celebrate the Feast of Pentecost, but not the other festivals listed in Leviticus 23 and Deuteronomy 16? Do we just "play favorites," simply ignoring or even rejecting Passover, Unleavened Bread, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles?

No. Keep in mind that we (at least Catholics) celebrate and meditate on key Christian events. We commemorate and rehearse things like the Annunciation; the Birth of Jesus; His Baptism; His Death, Burial, and Resurrection -- and the Descent of the Holy Spirit. We are obviously very Jesus-centered in our religion.

The Holy Spirit descended in a spectacular way on Pentecost. Not only did flames rest upon the heads of those who were waiting in obedience and praying with Mary, but the Spirit also lit a fire under their backsides, so to speak, and gave them power from on high to spread the gospel of Jesus and His kingdom to all nations in all the world. We celebrate, therefore, the gift of the Holy Spirit -- which is no small matter. There are innumerable lessons, teachings, and meditations to draw from Pentecost.

It is for the express Christian significance of Pentecost that we observe this day.

Israel's annual feasts
That's not to say the other Jewish festivals aren't "Christian" in a real sense. In these other holy days, there is a tremendous amount of symbolism that points us to Christ.

• Jesus is the "Lamb of God" not because of any physical resemblance, but because He, in the place of the Passover lamb, was our true sacrifice that truly forgives sin -- not in type or symbol, but in reality.
• St. Paul used imagery from the Feast of Unleavened Bread to illustrate the nature of sin (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).
• Trumpets were used, among other things, as calls to assembly and to announce war-making. As Christian soldiers, we can extract spiritual lessons from the Feast of Trumpets and recall that Jesus' return to earth and the resurrection of the saints will be announced with "trumpets."
• The Day of Atonement is fulfilled by Jesus who is our atonement. As the one Mediator and High Priest, He unites us with God.
• Just as Israel was to observe a festival that commemorated their living in temporary dwellings when they left Egypt, so we as Christians recognize that once we have left "Egypt" (sin), we are still sojourning in a land that is not our own. We are seeking a new country, a heavenly county, our "land of promise" -- "the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:10).
  

While these days featured shadowy glimpses of Christian realities that were to come, they were also very Israel-centric, or "Jewish." They were harvest festivals that related to ancient Israel's times and circumstances and history. Since God chose Israel from among all the other nations of the earth for a certain purpose -- in preparation of the coming of Jesus -- then naturally the pre-Christian holy days that God gave them would be about their nation and their role in salvation history. In that way, these days are worthy of our attention.

Calling all men
With the coming of Christ, however, God is calling all men (not just the nation of Israel) to Himself. It all started with the man Abraham, then the clans that came from Abraham, then the nation of Israel. Finally, it culminated in Jesus, who, with His apostles, has shared God's revelation to all the earth. God is no longer dealing primarily with one nation among all nations; He is dealing with all peoples of the earth -- including those whose ancestors did not cross the Red Sea or inherit a land of promise!

The "universalization" of God's gift of salvation, as we see in the Acts 2 account of Pentecost, is why we observe that day. It is fundamental to Christianity. It marks the inauguration of the Church, the ethnically blind instrument God is using to reach His children. Once the Church reaches these children though the power of the Holy Spirit, they become part of the Church -- they become part of Jesus' Body. And perfect union with Jesus is our eternal destiny.

For the sake of argument, if Jesus had been conceived or born on Hanukkah -- the Festival of Lights -- then surely the Church today would be observing Hanukkah, pointing out that Jesus is the true Light of the world, the Light of life, and that we should let our Light shine before men to glorify the Father. It would be for these reasons that we would celebrate Hanukkuh -- not strictly because of the rededication of the Jewish temple, the commemoration of which being the day's original, primary focus.

As an interesting aside, apparently Jesus had no issue with an "extrabiblical" religious holiday such as Hanukkah, since He was walking about the temple on that day, speaking publicly (John 10:22-31). He did not speak against it, but rather spoke to the Jews about His miracles, which arguably could be connected to the fact that Hanukkah is associated with a miracle. ("The Temple in Jerusalem was purified, and the wicks of the Menorah miraculously burned for eight days with oil enough for only one day" -- Wikipedia.) Christian lessons could easily be expounded from this. But still, it is fundamentally "Jewish," even though it does carry spiritual lessons for all of us.

Keep your "Christian focus"
One unorthodox Christian publication recently began an article with these words:

Most professing Christians acknowledge just one of God's holy days -- Pentecost. . . . But what does it mean to them? To most, it is merely a celebration of the "birthday" of the church, or a time of changing the colors of their religious robes. But the real meaning goes deeper than this. Much deeper. Pentecost is rich with symbolism. Let's take a quick overview of this God-ordained day.

The article then goes on to explain the very Christian significance of this day that you and I already understand, but the writer represents one of several movements that insist we as Christians should be observing all the Jewish festivals, and that we are sinning if we don't. Also, they condemn as pagan and sinful our celebration of clearly Christian days, such as Christmas and Easter, because they "hide" the plan of God.

But, in fact, the opposite is true: Christmas and Easter plainly reveal monumental Christian events that are absolutely crucial -- and as central as central can be -- to God's plan for man. Focusing exclusively on the holy days of Israel and rejecting Christian holy days can lead to many theological deficiencies which, potentially, can distort the Christian message.

Note, also, how these same preachers and writers characterize Catholics (and mainstream Protestants) as "professing Christians" (not true ones) who blindly follow empty traditions and are superficially concerned with wearing right-colored robes. But you should know better than that.

They would have you limit your observances to shadows and not the realities. They would have you be like the hungry dog who only sniffs and looks at his master's finger, oblivious to the fact that the finger is pointing to a bowl of fresh-mixed Gravy Train.

Be prepared. Learn your Faith. Read the Bible. Read the Catechism. If you have questions about challenges to the Faith, search for answers. Ask someone who can shed light on these challenges.

Don't fall prey to false teachers. Instead, fall down and pray -- that you may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. And praise God for sending us His Holy Spirit, who was given to the Church two thousand years ago on the day of Pentecost.

Reading Pope's Book Scott-Free

On the same day last week, I received both Scott Hahn's new book (Reasons to Believe) and Pope Benedict's new book (Jesus of Nazareth) in the mail.

It's not hard to imagine why I haven't been blogging much during the spare time that I have.

I tried to read Hahn's book first, or at least at the same time as the pope's, because his is a breezy, interesting, and easy-to-read style -- as well as insightful -- and anything by Pope Benedict seems a little daunting. I wanted to "warm up" to it.

But now I've put Scott's book aside. B16's is so rich, yet accessible. I don't generally like the overused term, but this pope's latest book is "spiritual food," and it really hits the spot. It's a nutritious alternative to the junk that's been coming out for years about the so-called "historical Jesus" (who barely resembles the Jesus of faith in any way). The book's forward and introduction alone are well worth the money. I'm looking forward to getting deeper into this great work.

Since Christians believe that everything revolves around the truth of Jesus, it is good to occasionally knock down the false "Jesuses" that are fabricated from the minds of pseudo-intellectual unbelievers.

No, not just knock them down. Knock them out of the park!

And this theologian extraordinaire-turned-pope is just the heavy hitter to do it.

My "Accent"

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Inland North   You may think you speak "Standard English straight out of the dictionary" but when you step away from the Great Lakes you get asked annoying questions like "Are you from Wisconsin?" or "Are you from Chicago?" Chances are you call carbonated drinks "pop."
The South
The Midland
The Northeast
Philadelphia
The West
Boston
North Central
What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

Idol Words: "Catholics Worship Statues!" (Part 1 of 3)

Instead of feeling inspired or lifted up, some anti-Catholic religious folks get a case of the "oogies" when they encounter religious icons and statues, believing them to be idols.

Having been raised in an anti-Catholic home, I recall as a young person seeing a portion of midnight Mass on television once, live from the Vatican. Seeing all those "graven images" was almost frightening, because I felt I was witnessing real-life, modern-day paganism -- the very practices God had hated and condemned for thousands of years since the beginning of human history. I thought I was peering into the sanctuary of Satan.

What I didn't understand, however -- but now do -- was that the commandment against making "graven images" is in the context of worshiping false gods. It is an extension of "You shall have no other gods before me."

Here it is in Exodus 20:2-5 (NKJV):

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

You shall have no other gods before Me.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

If you read this in a narrow, literalistic way, you might conclude that anything carved to look like something else violates the commandment. This would include anything from the decorative owl carvings I own to the national memorial at Mount Rushmore.


But when the commandment speaks of a "carved image," it is synonymous with an "idol" (the word used in the NIV). An idol is, or represents, a false god -- something that is worshiped in the place of the true God. That's why even Protestant churches teach that anything that comes between you and God (money, sex, fame, power, possessions, etc.) is your "idol."

Carved images were never strictly condemned in Scripture, not even in religious settings. Quite the opposite -- God commanded them to be used by the nation of Israel.

Four-Sentence Excerpt From Pope's New Book

A Christian friend of mine has a copy of Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI's first book as pope. I commented elsewhere about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's previous books being difficult to understand, so I asked my friend how this one looked.

He emailed:

I've just read enough to see that it appears to be very readable. I think I'm going to like it a lot. Here's a little example of the good writing you'll find in the book:

But now we must listen more carefully to the text. It continues: "As the Scripture has said, 'Out of his body shall flow rivers of living water'" (Jn 7:38). Out of whose body? Since the earliest times there have been two different answers to this question.

Pretty clear writing, eh? It's pretty much that way all the way through, as best I can tell from just paging through and reading bits and pieces here and there. It's also very biblical. At times he sounds like an evangelical explaining what various scriptures mean.

It's not an extensive review, but it prompted me to order the book at Wal-Mart.com ($15.23 including tax and shipping).

Knowing that this would be his first title as Pope Benedict, maybe he hired some good editors to make it read in a more "Holy Father" style than a "seminary professor" style.

The Bible Does NOT Interpret the Bible

The word "interpret" is a dirty word to some Christian fundamentalists, believing that the Bible should never be "interpreted." Instead, they say "the Bible interprets the Bible."

I say that's silly. We have to interpret the Bible in order to understand it. If this sacred text is the object of interpretation, it cannot be the interpretor.

I believe certain Christians prefer to avoid speaking of "interpreting the Bible" because, ironically, they misinterpret 2 Peter 1:20,21:

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (NIV).

(Note: When isolated from its context, this is admittedly more confusing in the King James Version, which reads: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.")

Peter is not saying, as some understand it, that the prophets in Scripture must not be interpreted; he's saying that the prophets didn't invent their own prophecies. They didn't write them based on how they interpreted events and situations of their time -- their prophecies were inspired directly by God.

But we still have to read and understand them -- that's what it means to "interpret"!

I Googled the phrase "bible interprets the bible," and, after skipping over the results from my former church tradition, I came across this dandy paragraph:

The text of Scripture must be interpreted by historical exegesis, taking an account of its literary forms and devices, letting Scripture interpret Scripture and not relying on the knowledge of man. The reason we should let the Scripture interpret itself is because the bible always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about, but man continually makes errors. If man interprets the bible then the interpretation is open to error, but if the bible interprets the bible, it will always be completely true. This is why the exegesis of passages is important, so that we know what the scripture is actually saying, contrary to what we think it is saying.

I appreciate what the writer intends to say; he just isn't saying it correctly. His first sentence contradicts itself. Read it again and try to make sense of it. How can a person insist on "not relying on the knowledge of man," and then proceed to use "historical exegesis," taking into account "literary forms and devices"?

The definition of exegesis is "critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible." You can't escape "interpretation" by hiding behind the word "exegesis."

I am sure the writer -- and all those who claim not to "interpret" Scripture -- really means that we should not interpolate our own ideas into the Bible. In other words, we should read Scripture carefully, trying to avoid reading things into it that were not intended by the original author. That would be sloppy interpretation.

Our goal is correct interpretation. What we think Scripture is saying ought to match what it is actually saying.

How to Recite the Rosary

Since the Rosary has been on my mind lately, I'm posting this link so you can download and view the PDF file shown above. This document shows how to pray the Rosary. It's excellent for people who are unfamiliar with the Rosary but want to know the bare-bones mechanics of how it is prayed.

This document is free to copy and distribute, and it was created by the industrious people at New Advent.

The Rosary: A Chain of Events

I briefly discussed the Rosary before ("Not All Repetitions Are 'Vain'"), but I want to clarify another aspect of this cherished Catholic prayer.

The first time I arrived early for Mass and witnessed a large group of parishioners reciting the prayers of the Rosary in unison, it struck me as almost haunting. Everyone was kneeling, thumbing their beads, and vocalizing ready-made prayers in a collective monotone voice that echoed throughout the church.

I wasn't used to that at all. It sounded almost pagan . . . whatever "pagan" sounds like.

But it all makes sense when you realize what's really happening. The Rosary prayers are not to be empty-headed recitals -- but quite the opposite! They are to be prayed with a full head of gospel meditations! The one who is praying should (ideally) have his mind focused on one of the "mysteries" (i.e., revealed truths) of Christianity.

Thursdays, for example -- like today -- are typically set aside to meditate on the "luminous mysteries," which are events from Jesus' earthly ministry. They include:

1. The Baptism in the Jordan
2. The Wedding at Cana
3. The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God
4. The Transfiguration
5. The Institution of the Eucharist

In other words, during the first set of the "Hail Mary" prayers, which an outside spectator may mistake as dull and vain, the pray-er in reality is heart-deep in meditation on Jesus' baptism in the Jordan.

He may be pondering the importance of baptism, and how it is the normal entry gate to salvation through Jesus Christ; he may be imagining how John the Baptizer must have felt baptizing the Lord; he may be "listening" to John's words, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world"; he could be placing himself at the scene, so to speak, to witness the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus as a dove, and listening to the words of the Father, whose words resounded from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased"; he might be piecing together this baptism, which was done as our example, with the "born again" conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus -- found just two chapters later in the Gospel of John.

With just ten "Hail Marys" per mystery, time flies by quickly. I've caught myself going much more slowly when I notice I'm near the end. Oftentimes, the only way you know it's time to go to the next set (unless you want to continue that meditation) is when your fingers and thumb encounter the larger, "separator" bead. Then it's time for the next set -- that is, if you're ready to move along.

The reason the vocalized prayers sound either hurried or "dreary" to some is that the one who's praying is focused on the meditations and not on making colorful voice inflections. With practice, the combination of vocal prayer and meditative prayer has a way of harnessing your full attention.

Imagine the benefits of daily recitation of the Rosary. It's a prayerful rehearsal of the whole gospel story. Impure thoughts of any brand are replaced by the scenes of salvation history, revealed to us by Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.

What better way to purify your mind on a daily basis?

Save Over $10 on Offical U.S. Catechism

If you go to your bookstore to buy the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults, you'll pay $24.95 plus tax (plus gasoline if you have to drive far to get it).

I got mine for a little over $15. You can, too, if you order by May 15.

I don't mean to sound like a cheesy salesman, but I know I would appreciate the tip:

Go to Adoremus Books to get it. Now, here's the catch -- you get $10 off if you sign up for a Google Checkout account. This discount is only good for first-time users of Google's answer to "PayPal."

Paying with Google Checkout brings the price to $14.95. If your total order is at least $25, you get free shipping. So I bought a 50-cent plastic ruler to bump it over $25 (before discount). That means my final cost was $15.45 -- saving at least $10 compared to driving to the book store.

My plastic ruler arrived broken, but I didn't complain. I was more interested in reading about the Eternal Ruler.

Sit, Stand, and Kneel (Rosary Army)

Spidey and His Web of Faith

(BEWARE: The following post may spoil the movie for you if you haven't seen it yet.)

Last night I watched Spider-Man 3. I give it all eight thumbs up -- not just for its amazing action, but for its Christian themes. I did some World Wide Web-crawling of my own, and apparently I'm not the only one who saw Christian elements within. In this movie, it's just plain obvious.

Spider-Man 2
When I saw Spider-Man 2, I detected what I thought to be Christian imagery. In this movie, the miracle-working Web-Head fell out of favor with the populace, the hearts of which were hardened against him.

But Spidey loved them while they were yet sinful citizens, and he was willing to sacrifice his life to save them from a train wreck. The method he employed to do this was with arms outstretched and his hands bound, enduring great pain and suffering by his own free will. Notice, too, the hole in the side of his costume.

True, this is all cruci-fiction, but there is nothing fictitious about what it portrays: the power of love. The passengers' ride on the Gospel Train was a turning point in the movie.

The Web-Slinger acted as a selfless savior. As shown in the picture, He was fully Spider-Man and fully Peter Parker, one person with two natures. He collapsed as if dead, and then "came back to life," as it were, when he regained consciousness before a host of witnesses in the train, who came back around to believe in him.

Spider-Man 3
In the third movie, which I just viewed, I saw Peter Parker acting out the Christian life.

Because of his successful crime-fighting career and all the accolades he received, Parker swelled with pride. This opened the door to sin's overpowering darkness, represented by the black, creepy-crawly extraterrestrial symbiote that enveloped him and increased his capacity for doing evil.

His conscience, however, was a law unto itself. Despite the gravity of his sins, something inside tugged at him. Finally, when he hit his low point (when he hit his beloved Mary Jane), he felt a strong conviction, realizing what kind of monster he had become.

When he stepped outside, he gazed upon the cross. This cross was at the top of a nearby church -- a Catholic church, I might add. He webbed his way up the church and sat prayerfully on the side of the church tower underneath the cross.


He then entered the structure and attempted to tear off the black "sin-biote" that had overtaken him. He was successful only during the sounding of church bells, which symbolize a call to worship.

It seemed odd -- but fascinating to me -- that, immediately following the church scene, Peter Parker basked in and found great comfort in taking a shower. It looked like a deliberate reference to the cleansing waters of baptism, after which his repentance continued to deepen.

Some time after Peter's sacramental shower, the real killer of Uncle Ben offered a confession of his murder to Peter. After the killer expressed remorse, both were in tears, and, as if serving a priestly function, Peter confidently spoke the words, "I forgive you." The killer went away knowing he was truly forgiven.

We also saw two people who died in the end: one who repented and one who did not:

1. Harry, who had been Spidey's enemy, changed his heart and became Peter's friend again. It turned out as was foreshadowed earlier in the film: he gave his life for Peter.
2. The other person, Brock (or "Venom"), loved the sin of the symbiote that attached itself to him after Peter had ridden himself of it. Brock had full opportunity to be freed from the symbiote, but as it was about to meet its end, Brock ran toward it and thereby shared in its fate of incineration -- a type of hell.

Even the shadiest of moviegoers find themselves at least inwardly rooting for Peter Parker to triumph over evil in all its forms, whether they be outside forces or internal temptations.

For no matter who we are, we all admire goodness and the integrity of truth. What not everyone realizes is that Jesus is the embodiment of truth, and that as Catholics we are blessed with the full revelation of that Truth.

As we reflect on this, we are provided with plenty of reasons to Marvel.

"Routine-istic"

I think she blended "routine" with "ritualistic."

My Filipino friend was explaining why she became Baptist after moving to America a few years ago as a lifelong Catholic, citing routine Catholic rituals that didn't hold her interest. Her parish went through the same old things week after week.

Her new Baptist church, on the other hand, studies the Word of God and offers a warmer, friendlier environment, she says in so many words.

For me, at least, it's hard to reason with someone wooed by the warmth of a good Southern Baptist church without sounding argumentative or academic. I understand that not everyone who betrays her Catholic Faith is a victim of the warm fuzzies, but for those who are, I'm at a loss for words. While there's little I can say, of course there's much I can pray.

Still, I consider what my friend said, and I end up explaining it to myself in a way I can understand. (It's all about "cultivating the Catholic conscience.")

First, the Catholic Church is the premiere "Bible Church." It's the Church that preserved the Bible, canonized the books of the Bible, and exists as the Church of the Bible. We are engaged visually by the biblical scenes portrayed in works of art. We are engaged auricularly as we hear the numerous readings that systematically work their way through the Word of God, the Bible. And, most importantly, we are engaged spiritually by literally communing with the Word of God through the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

If you're looking for a solid "Bible study" -- examining the depths of Holy Writ -- then there are many such Catholic Bible studies. It's just not the goal of the divine liturgy. Mass is a class, but for the spirit and not necessarily (although sometimes) for the intellect. That's what Wednesday- and Sunday-night Bible studies are for. You cannot read the works of Catholic writer and teacher Scott Hahn, for example, and claim that Catholics have little to offer those who hunger for in-depth Bible study.

If you're looking for social networking, you can go to any number of your parish's activities -- but Mass is not the live Catholic version of Yahoo!'s "Chat Central."

You can find friends and studies easily enough as a Catholic, but most importantly you get:

• All the sacraments, notably the Eucharist and Reconciliation
• Bishops and priests who are given authority to say Mass
• The pope, successor to St. Peter, the "rock" upon whom Christ built His Church, who shepherds the "Church militant" (i.e., the Church on earth)
• Authentic teaching handed down by the apostles, preserved and codified by the Church's Magesterium throughout its history

Yes, it's easy to get hooked on a religious feeling, but why not seek to be reeled in by the Truth who will set you free?

I'll pray that my friend returns to full communion with the Church, which, in obedience to Jesus' ancient instruction, goes through the "same old things week after week": celebrates Mass (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

Suppertime Sin?

Have you ever sat at the dinner table in front of steamed veggies, a lean and seasoned pork chop, mashed potatoes, and a cold glass of milk, wondering whether consuming this meal is sinful -- opposed to Christian teaching?

Some Christians, for religious reasons, object to that lean and seasoned pork chop being on the dinner table. Citing Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, they insist that it is "unclean meat," which God forbade the ancient Israelites to eat. That much is true -- God DID command them to avoid certain meats. But do these laws pertain to Christians -- now?

I thought they did. I was raised in a church that taught it was a sin for a Christian to eat pork, lobster, shrimp, catfish, and a host of other foods. I believed that to do so was to disobey God's instructions, and that it was the cause for numerous health problems in society. Listing various "clean" and "unclean" meats, the Bible presented us with a divine diet. I believed it was the Maker's menu for the health of humankind.

When I was older, however, I reached another conclusion. Based on a more fair and critical examination of Scripture, I came to understand the historic Christian understanding of these and certain other laws -- that they were given to a particular audience and were not intended to apply universally to all societies throughout the ages.

Very simply, in the interest of time (and your attention span), here is my belief regarding clean and unclean meats:

While it is possible that unrecorded health issues of the time were included, God gave Israel their dietary laws as a sign or reminder that He separated them from among the other sinful nations to be His people. Since God is no longer dealing primarily with the nation of Israel, but calling all nations to repent and to be His people, the laws that distinguished Israel from her neighbors have served their purpose. They do not directly pertain to our circumstances, and therefore serve no practical purpose now.

Wherever these clean and unclean meats are discussed in Scripture, the reason for them is either implied or explicitly stated. It is most clearly stated in the following passage:

Leviticus 20:24-26:
I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations. You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

As Christians, we are free to choose to avoid certain meats (or even all meats) based on conscience and nutritional views. It is a mistake, however, to claim biblical authority for demanding that catfish dinners be banished from the Christian's menu.

A Hare Out of Place

Rabbits are known for their rate of multiplying, but this little guy almost divided himself into 1000 when he barely escaped the whirring blades of my Snapper riding mower this weekend.

He had been hiding in some tall grass, and I saw the little fur ball leap from out of the mowing deck, it seemed. I thought I had "processed" a squirrel, but the bunny ears gave it away. I hopped off the mower to more carefully examine him. Seeing that he was fully intact, I took him home to show the wife, and, because of her natural ability with animals, he seemed at ease and was willing to pose for some photographs.

After the photo shoot, I released him near the place where I almost prematurely ended his math career.

I am reminded of how some people think I over analyze things because I'm always asking questions and trying to solve every "what if." But I'm hoping this puts it to rest: Although sometimes I come close, I'm not a hare-splitter.

Passover and Easter

The Bible does not stand alone as a victim of sloppy interpretation. Most any text -- some more easily than others -- can be misread and misunderstood.

I recently received a comment on one of my older posts. The commenter undoubtedly believes that Easter is a pagan holiday to be avoided, and that Christians instead should observe the "Lord's Supper" only on the night of the Jewish Passover.

Because I find it valuable to examine the beliefs of the Early Church, the commenter posted a quotation from ancient historian Eusebius (pictured above), who cited a letter from Polycrates to the Roman bishop Victor. Polycrates, based on a tradition he says comes from the apostle John, insisted on observing the date of the Jewish Passover, while Victor insisted on maintaining the Sunday observance for Easter. Earlier that century, Polycarp had the same argument with Anicetus.

The anonymous commenter concludes, "So now, who left the teachings of the first generations of Christians?"

I am sure the commenter overlooks certain points when reading this account from Eusebius' History of the Church:

1. It's evident that there was a certain kind of authority or primacy associated with the bishop of Rome -- both Victor and Anicetus. Why did Polycrates and Polycarp insist on talking to the Roman bishop unless he had some sort of widely recognized authority in church matters? It also appears the Roman bishop had the authority to excommunicate whole parishes and regions from the faithful. (Note: This is long before Constantine and the Council of Nicea of A.D. 325.)
   
2. The whole controversy was over specific dates, not specific celebrations. The truth is that they debated when to celebrate a special annual observance of the the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Both sides of the controversy were speaking of the same event, but argued over when it was to be observed. It was not "Should we keep 'God's Passover' or 'pagan Easter'?" There is no evidence that the pope was trying to force a new celebration upon Christians. Thus there was no outcry against colored eggs, Cadbury bunnies, or pagan accoutrements (secular, modern "Easter" symbols didn't arrive till much later).
3. Polycrates and the others Asiatics on his side also observed a form of Lent. The length of "the fast" leading up to Easter (or Passover, whichever you wish to call it) also varied according to different traditions. But, unlike the anonymous commenter, they still observed this already ancient tradition.
4. Despite their differences, after their visit, "Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect." If Polycarp thought Anicetus was falling headlong into paganism, why did he agree to administer the Eucharist? By the way, because of their strong views, surely this particular Eucharistic celebration was held neither on the Jewish Passover date nor on Easter Sunday. It would have been an ordinary weekly Sunday, which was a customary practice for both of them.

There are other things I would like to point out, but not knowing for sure who the anonymous commenter is, I don't know which points to address.

To read about this in fuller context, read all of chapter 24 in Eusebius' work here.