JMJ. Ok, this is just going to be a short screed and no, I'm not in favour of changing our Mother's most favouritest prayer. But I'll tell you one thing for sure. When I became a Catholic it took me a good while to remember the three mysteries and then remember which days they were said on. (Is that good sentence structure? Never mind.)
And then His late Holiness, John Paul II added the luminous mysteries. Talk about throwing a monkey wrench in the works! Back to the old drawing board. And which days do we say which mysteries on now? I know it's not really that big a deal and maybe I'm exaggerating a bit... And then I got the IDEA. Why not just start a rosary and make it never-ending? A perpetual rosary.
So I did it. I had just purchased an MP3 player for listening to music while walking the dog and doing other chores. Put a bunch of good albums on it, put it in the drawer, and haven't used it a lick since then. I started praying the Rosary most any time I had down-time. Driving the car, walking the dog, working in the yard, ad infinitum.
I pray all four mysteries in order and then the finishing prayers and start over. Doesn't matter what day it is, nothing to remember. Ok, it's not usually any more attentive than it ever was--I'm still working hard on that but I get a real bang out of saying to Her, "I beg to continue Thy perpetual Rosary, Blessed Mother." And then I happily pick up where I left off.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
"The Barque of Peter"
JMJ. Just what makes a Catholic a Catholic? I'll give you a few moments to think about that question. It's not rhetorical, it's totally serious, and at the very basis of all that I will talk about in this entry. Before we get into Scripture, though, let's look at a little history. History is factual.
Christ formed one church two thousand years ago. Like Christ who was visible and tangible, so was that church visible and tangible. He called twelve men to whom He gave all authority on heaven and earth. They in turn ordained others to take their places. The teachings of that holy church are clearly Catholic. One has only to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers to see that those teachings are not remotely Protestant.
A thousand years later, the Orthodox (Eastern) church left the sure protection of the Roman Pontiff. Since that unhappy incident there has been a breaking-away of many nationalistic Orthodox Churches, each with its own governing patriarch. Didn't Jesus will that we be one? Hmmm. Five hundred years later the Roman (Western) church was in need of a house-cleaning. Instead, the Protestant reformers also revolted against the authority of Peter. As a result, we now have some 30,000 separate Protestant denominations--all teaching the truth and all speaking with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Hmmm. Neat trick, eh?
Which brings me to St. Matthew, specifically Matthew 16: 13-19. The passage is longish so I'll trust you to read it later. Briefly, Jesus asks His disciples who the people think He is. The answers are four-- John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Think about how amazing this is. Four different interpretations of the sayings and actions of a Man whom they saw face to face for three years! And two thousand years later people pretend to tell us the truth of the Scriptures without an infallible authority.
But Christ left us one. He knew there would be error. The only one of the twelve to declare correctly was Simon. "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jona! For flesh and blood [your own guesses] has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you you are Peter, [Kepha] and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This seems fairly innocuous but only until you consider that "Rock" is an appellation used in the Old Testament exclusively in reference to God! One human, and one human alone, is identified so closely with God. Later, Jesus is required to pay the Temple tax. He directs Simon to cast for a fish and to take the shekel he will find and pay the tax for both Jesus and himself. Even later, following His resurrection, He Who had described Himself as the Good Shepherd, commanded Peter to feed His sheep. The shepherd's crook had been passed.
No one else in either Testament had been so closely associated with God and the duties of a regent. To answer our initial question then--a Catholic is one who has given himself in total and trusting submission to the living Word of God and refuses to leave the sure protection of the Church's infallible teaching. One who denies the authority of the Vicar of Christ ultimately denies the Saviour Himself. It can't get any simpler than that. Amen.
Christ formed one church two thousand years ago. Like Christ who was visible and tangible, so was that church visible and tangible. He called twelve men to whom He gave all authority on heaven and earth. They in turn ordained others to take their places. The teachings of that holy church are clearly Catholic. One has only to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers to see that those teachings are not remotely Protestant.
A thousand years later, the Orthodox (Eastern) church left the sure protection of the Roman Pontiff. Since that unhappy incident there has been a breaking-away of many nationalistic Orthodox Churches, each with its own governing patriarch. Didn't Jesus will that we be one? Hmmm. Five hundred years later the Roman (Western) church was in need of a house-cleaning. Instead, the Protestant reformers also revolted against the authority of Peter. As a result, we now have some 30,000 separate Protestant denominations--all teaching the truth and all speaking with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Hmmm. Neat trick, eh?
Which brings me to St. Matthew, specifically Matthew 16: 13-19. The passage is longish so I'll trust you to read it later. Briefly, Jesus asks His disciples who the people think He is. The answers are four-- John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Think about how amazing this is. Four different interpretations of the sayings and actions of a Man whom they saw face to face for three years! And two thousand years later people pretend to tell us the truth of the Scriptures without an infallible authority.
But Christ left us one. He knew there would be error. The only one of the twelve to declare correctly was Simon. "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jona! For flesh and blood [your own guesses] has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you you are Peter, [Kepha] and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This seems fairly innocuous but only until you consider that "Rock" is an appellation used in the Old Testament exclusively in reference to God! One human, and one human alone, is identified so closely with God. Later, Jesus is required to pay the Temple tax. He directs Simon to cast for a fish and to take the shekel he will find and pay the tax for both Jesus and himself. Even later, following His resurrection, He Who had described Himself as the Good Shepherd, commanded Peter to feed His sheep. The shepherd's crook had been passed.
No one else in either Testament had been so closely associated with God and the duties of a regent. To answer our initial question then--a Catholic is one who has given himself in total and trusting submission to the living Word of God and refuses to leave the sure protection of the Church's infallible teaching. One who denies the authority of the Vicar of Christ ultimately denies the Saviour Himself. It can't get any simpler than that. Amen.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
"A Confession of Confusion"
JMJ. I confess to being confused. Maybe conflicted is a better word. Yes, conflicted. Bear with me as I try to sort things out because, in so doing, mayhap you, o Reader, will be spared my travail. I am terrified of world-wide Islam. Not just radical Islam, but Islam in general. Liberals try to make a distinction between the religion itself and its fanatic fringe.
I don't think it's possible to do that, though. And that stems from the unassailable fact that the Quran cannot be separated from the culture. Then, too, Islam suffers from the same problem that Protestant Christianity has--no centralised authority. Modern Christians seems to think that the Church Christ left us is a democracy when it is anything but. It is a monarchy with One King, Jesus, and one regent, the Holy Father.
So it is not with Islam. Every imam claims to interpret the Quran for himself and his "congregation" (for want of the correct term.) And every ayatollah issues fatwas proclaiming this or that and condemning this or that. But it cannot be denied that verses in the Quran proclaim that Islam is the true religion and all others, primarily Christianity and Judaism, have been superseded. therein lies the problem in inter-faith dialogue. A Muslim assumes first that everyone else is inferior. And therein lies part of my conflict. What is to prevent any Muslim from becoming "radical?"
This is the same phenomenon that we had in Viet Nam. the Vietnamese who worked on the base during the day might fight with the Viet Cong at night. The peaceful villager, through intimidation, might hide infiltrators. The pilgrims traveling to their homes during the Tet holy days might well be Viet Cong or North Vietnamese soldiers. An ally looks no different from an enemy. A wonderful Muslim man lent my wife and me the down-payment for our first home. Muslim friends were invited to our wedding. But Osam Bin-laden's right arm is a Saudi physician and the Muslim living next door to you could possibly be part of a terrorist sleeper-cell. There is just no way of knowing.
I am an American and my constitution, which I swore to up-hold, says that everyone has the right to freedom of the practice of his or her religion. A church, therefore, under our law, is no better than a synagogue or mosque. And that is the way it should be. And yet Christianity and Judaism do not qualify for that same equality in the Muslim world because of the mind-set already mentioned--they are inferior to Islam. That is why the building of a church or the outward practice of Christianity or the wearing of a cross or crucifix are all illegal in the Muslim world.
I have a problem with that. and I have a problem accepting a world religion that is so paranoid that it condemns to death one of its adherents who converts to another religion, that stones to death anyone who commits a serious religious offense, or which applauds honour killings. This is not my culture, it is a sick culture because it denies the God-given worth of each individual. It is the command of my Saviour that I love my neighbor as myself and with His help (and ONLY with His help) I may actually accomplish that someday. But I will resist Islam with my dying breath if need be. I guess that's the message that's important.
Love the Muslim but resist Islam!
I don't think it's possible to do that, though. And that stems from the unassailable fact that the Quran cannot be separated from the culture. Then, too, Islam suffers from the same problem that Protestant Christianity has--no centralised authority. Modern Christians seems to think that the Church Christ left us is a democracy when it is anything but. It is a monarchy with One King, Jesus, and one regent, the Holy Father.
So it is not with Islam. Every imam claims to interpret the Quran for himself and his "congregation" (for want of the correct term.) And every ayatollah issues fatwas proclaiming this or that and condemning this or that. But it cannot be denied that verses in the Quran proclaim that Islam is the true religion and all others, primarily Christianity and Judaism, have been superseded. therein lies the problem in inter-faith dialogue. A Muslim assumes first that everyone else is inferior. And therein lies part of my conflict. What is to prevent any Muslim from becoming "radical?"
This is the same phenomenon that we had in Viet Nam. the Vietnamese who worked on the base during the day might fight with the Viet Cong at night. The peaceful villager, through intimidation, might hide infiltrators. The pilgrims traveling to their homes during the Tet holy days might well be Viet Cong or North Vietnamese soldiers. An ally looks no different from an enemy. A wonderful Muslim man lent my wife and me the down-payment for our first home. Muslim friends were invited to our wedding. But Osam Bin-laden's right arm is a Saudi physician and the Muslim living next door to you could possibly be part of a terrorist sleeper-cell. There is just no way of knowing.
I am an American and my constitution, which I swore to up-hold, says that everyone has the right to freedom of the practice of his or her religion. A church, therefore, under our law, is no better than a synagogue or mosque. And that is the way it should be. And yet Christianity and Judaism do not qualify for that same equality in the Muslim world because of the mind-set already mentioned--they are inferior to Islam. That is why the building of a church or the outward practice of Christianity or the wearing of a cross or crucifix are all illegal in the Muslim world.
I have a problem with that. and I have a problem accepting a world religion that is so paranoid that it condemns to death one of its adherents who converts to another religion, that stones to death anyone who commits a serious religious offense, or which applauds honour killings. This is not my culture, it is a sick culture because it denies the God-given worth of each individual. It is the command of my Saviour that I love my neighbor as myself and with His help (and ONLY with His help) I may actually accomplish that someday. But I will resist Islam with my dying breath if need be. I guess that's the message that's important.
Love the Muslim but resist Islam!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)