Some People

In this case, I mean traditionalists.  They just make me so angry especially when they accuse those that attend the OF as being judgmental and closeminded when I find that it is the traditionalists that are so judgemental and arrogant and judge others by their very untenable and unrealistic standards.  If you don’t fit into a very narrow definition of who they define as Catholic, they call that person a modernist and evil and a heretic.  How is that not judgemental?  Or saying that someone that prefets the OF to the EF is stupid and that if you were really Catholic you would only attend the “real” Mass in Latin.  I won’t get into how they think women are the cause of all men’s sins or how women need be dressed in burqas or that all women need to be slaves to their husbands (women are not to be educated by the way; women are only good for being stay at home wives and mothers with no personality or dreams or talents whatsoever).

I’ve heard that if something makes you angry that it means it’s something you need to give into it because you are rebeling and it is something you need to be doing because you know that you need to be doing it but are rebeling and being angry because you want your way instead of God’s way.  For example if being forced to wear a veil causes you to be angry, then you need to be wearing a veil and give in otherwise you are sinning.  This isn’t true.  Anger is a sign that something is wrong, most of the time.  Yes, there are times when feeling anger is inappropriate but that has more to do with the person than the cause of the anger.

I want to go more into this but it is very late and I need sleep.

Anger, Rage, and Abuse

This post at Why Not Train a Child? really highlights some of the issues I have today.  The anger that I was not allowed to acknowledge or express when I was a child when my mother spanked me usually for something I didn’t do (my mother just preferred to spank me).

I was not allowed to be angry.  Anger was bad.  Only Mommy could be angry and when Mommy got angry I was in deep trouble.  When Mommy was angry, I was scared.  Even when Mommy wasn’t angry, I was scared because I didn’t know what would set her off.  It didn’t matter if I did or didn’t do something, if one of my sisters did something, I was the one that got in trouble, got screamed and yelled at, got spanked.  I was the Bad Girl.  I couldn’t do anything right and Mommy didn’t love me when I was bad.  I was almost always bad.  Bad Girls like me go to Hell.

Now I have a lot of anger and rage that boils under the surface and it wants out.  But I’m not allowed to be angry or have rage.  As a woman, we are taught that we are to be nice and happy and cheerful and never feel anything bad.  As a victim of abuse, I was taught that my anger was bad.  That my feelings were bad.  That I was bad.  When I was being abused, I didn’t know that I was being abused.  I thought everyone went through the same thing.  Everyone got yelled and screamed and spanked by their mother.

Now I know I have anger and rage and it sits there.  Sometimes it’s pretty quiet and I don’t have to worry about it coming out.  Then there are other times (like reading garbage by traddies) that it just wants to burst out and beat the crap out of somebody.  But I’m not allowed to have anger or emotions.  Feelings are bad.  Other people can have them.  I can’t.  I have to hide, squash the anger and the rage and deny it’s existence if I want to be even remotely acceptable as a person.  Other people are allowed to feel and express anger.  I am not.  I am expected to keep quite and be nice and happy.  But I can’t.  I just want to pound the stuffing out of something.  I feel like if I don’t get the anger and rage out then it will consume me, that I’ll end up in jail (not because of what I did but because of me) or locked up in a mental hospital because I am not socially acceptable to my family (which I already am not) or to society (which I pretty much am not anyways).  I feel like there are rules and expectations and freedoms for everyone and that those rules and expectations and freedoms are different or are not allowed for me at all.  Other people get to have fun and have friends and be loved.  I am not allowed to have fun or have friends or be loved.  I am not worthy of those things.  I am BAD.  Therefore, I must be so horrible that a whole set of rules apply just to me.  I am not allowed to have anger while everyone else is.  They are allowed to express their anger and there are not consequences while I am not allowed to have anger at all and if I showed that anger in anyway or even just felt it then I would need to be harshly punished.  Remember, I am BAD.  I deserve to be punished.

That mentality led me to doing some very harsh things to myself because I believed that if I was punished enough then everything would be alright, that I would be good enough, that I would be finally lovable, that I would be worthy, that I wouldn’t be arrested and thrown in jail for the rest of my life (still not sure where this came from but it was a major fear for many years; I still get anxious any time I see a police car even though I have never committed a crime and have had mostly positive interactions with the police).  I am not the only one.  I also call myself names, hit myself in the thighs ( I didn’t want anybody to see or know how bad I really was).  While I wasn’t raised in a patriarchal/quiverful/fundamentalist/traditionalist household I was raised in a household that had a mother that believed in corporal punishment and kept a paddle in the kitchen in open view and was very willing to use it. I felt by punishing myself I could stop my mother from punishing and abusing me.  Granted, a lot of what I did I didn’t do until I was in my teens.

I remember once (I don’t remember what I did) that I believed I had been so bad that I couldn’t sleep in my own bed but rather had to sleep on the floor in the downstairs bathroom (which had a shower stall, a toilet and sink so it was quite small and it was off the laundry room).  I remember being in tears not wanting to be sleeping in the bathroom but knowing that I had to sleep there because I was so bad.  I was in there for some time.  I even lay on the floor, so much in tears, thinking this was the only way to make things better.  Eventually, I left the bathroom and slept in my own bed.  The thing is, nobody knew what I had done.  It was the middle of the night and everyone but I was asleep.  I didn’t know that at the time I was depressed.  I just thought I was worthless and needed to be punished.

Even on my own as an adult I’ve felt that I needed to be punished.  I remember cooking one of those pasta dinners in a box.  I hadn’t been watching it and a lot of it stuck to the bottom of the pan and parts were burned.  I have to step back a moment and add that I struggle with my weight and how I view my body.  Even though I was never overweight till very recently, I was never a size 2 either.  I was healthy.  Yet my mother saw me as fat and called me fat and stupid to my face.  Even when I was a size 6 and had actually lost weight (when you live somewhere where you have to walk everywhere to do anything you lose weight) my mother still called me fat to my face.  She also didn’t like the fact that I was a vegetarian at that time (though it was fine when K decided to be a one) Well, I saw that burned food and while regular people would probably throw it out and/or salvaged the part that wasn’t burned, I decided that since I had screwed up so badly and that I couldn’t waste food because that would be a sin, that I had to eat the burned part and then starve myself to lose weight.  And yes, I am in tears at this point.  I was forced to eat a lot of food I didn’t like or couldn’t eat (there are foods due to texture or the digestive reaction that I have that I can’t eat certain food) growing up.  I think I ate three bites of it, in tears (which is what I am right now, in tears), and eventually threw it away even though I believed that I would be going to hell for wasting food like that.  As you can tell, I still have problems with food even as an adult who can cook and eat anything she wants.

At this point, I am going to have to stop.  I am getting too upset.  And I don’t want to make my depression worse.

Why I Need to Get In Touch With My Inner Bitch: The Traddies are At It Again

After reading this post at The Church Fanatic (I am in the process of writing an article about it for this blog but I am doing a lot of research for it so it will be a while) and seeing this thread at CAF, it seems like the Traditionalists are trying to out-extreme the extreme fundamentalists.  What’s worse, is that they seem to be able to convince innocent people that their opinions are Church dogma and that if they don’t follow they are going to Hell.  To top that, I get persuaded that I am not being a good enough Catholic, I start thinking all these horrible thoughts that I need to dress in a burqa, consider myself leading men into sin if they see my wrist, and that I need to go to the Latin Mass because the Mass I attend isn’t good enough even though I wouldn’t want to go anywhere near those kinds of people and there isn’t one near me anyways.

Actually, traditionalists have had such an impact on me that my thoughts go towards thinking

-I am horrible just for being born a woman (not true) (what’s worse is hearing this kind of claptrap from women who hate themselves) God made me woman.  God doesn’t make junk therefore I am not horrible for being born a woman

-not wearing skirt/dresses all time means I’m not dressing right (I’ve gained so much weight due to my depression that I only fit into my pants)

-that I need to be a stay at home mom (I’m not married nor do I feel called to marriage and I have to stipulate that this thought is along the lines of I have to be a stay at home mom but everyone else that is other women can have careers and hobbies and such while I have to stay home and never go out except to Mass) ( it goes along with my depression and the thought processes that I learned/fell into growing up) I was taught/learned that I wasn’t good enough, wasn’t smart enough, wasn’t athletic enough, wasn’t pretty enough so the only thing I was good for was being a mother and staying home.  Yes, my mother used to tell me I was stupid, that I wouldn’t amount to anything, and that I was going to Hell.  Can we say screwed up?  Oh, she loved to tell me I was fat when I was a size 6.

-that I am going to Hell because I’m not getting it, not living the Catholic faith “right”, not praying the Rosary 24/7 (I actually pray three decades of it on the way home from work because the local Catholic radio station airs it when I get off in the morning but I have issues with the concept to mother and Mary as my mother when my own mother abused me.  Plus, I want a mother all to myself and not one I have to share.  I know that’s selfish but that’s where I’m at emotionally when it comes to healing from the mother’s abuse.  Again, this comes from the traditionalists who want conformity and uniformity and not the universality that is the Church.  Traditionalists are so focused on the external that Jesus and God are practically forgotten except as a hammer to beat people over the head with to force people to follow the “traditionalist’ way of doing things.

There are more and they are usually worse at work (I work graveyard security and the radio doesn’t work in my patrol vehicle so I’m left with my thoughts).  Suffice it to say, I need to get in touch with my inner bitch.  What I mean by that is accepting and being pleased with the fact that I am a woman, that I have power as woman, and that I can and do make things happen.  That I can and should stand up for myself.  That taking care of myself is okay.  That I matter as a person.  That I am worthy of love and respect, not because of what I do but because of who I am.

I am me and that is Good.

I do not need to be afraid of me as I was taught.  I am not a bad person because my mother said so or because I don’t adhere to some anonymous traditionalist’s ideal.

I am me and God is okay with that.  He loves me for me.  He created me.  Like I said,  He doesn’t make junk.

 

 

There’s Something About Mary (with some help from a Fransiscan Brother)

Until a few days ago and a few post by Brother JR on CAF, I did not have a good outlook or view of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Now, I didn’t have a problem with her being the mother of Jesus or being ever virgin or conceived without sin.  I understand and accept all the Church’s teachings on Mary.

I did have a problem with people who claimed the Rosary was a “magic cure-all” and that just praying it once would fix all the problems in your life and you would be so holy and perfect afterwards.  I am not a big fan of the Rosary and it is nice that it is a private devotion that is not demanded of us.

As I have posted before, my  mother abused me while I was growing up so I have a problem with mothers and yes, the Blessed Virgin Mary is included in that.  She’s someone else’s mom.  NOT mine.  Yet, I would read and hear about people who supposedly had problems with their mother (I love the ones that compared her having a fight with her mother to the severe emotional, physical, and sexual abuse another poster mentioned and said that after praying to Mary once her relationship with her mother fixed and everything was better and that the abuse victim just needed to pray the Rosary and ask Mary to be her mother and her real life mother would be healed and they would become best friends) (gag me with a spoon) saying that they went to Mary and their own relationships with their mother was fixed or they took on Mary as their mother.  Abuse is hard and it takes an extreme toll on its victims.  We are not healed magically by saying a prayer and asking someone we have no interest or connection to to be our mother and heal all the damage that was done to us by someone who was supposed to love and care for us.  So when people told me that I could have the Blessed Virgin Mary as my mother, all I could think, was no, she’s somebody else’s mother and I’m without a mother who will love me.  People just don’t understand what that means.  It’s not like I can snap my fingers and everything will be fixed and healed and there will no longer be abuse in the world.  It doesn’t work that way.  I want my own mother but I’ll never have one because the one I had didn’t want me and didn’t love me and there is nothing that will change those facts.

Then there is the whole idea that Mary did nothing beyond give birth to Jesus and then led a quite life hidden in the background and was a two-dimensional background character.  Many Catholics, especially traditionalist Catholics, see Mary as someone who was practically invisible and the only model for women. They say that women need to be Mary-like and to them that means: quiet, servile (not in the loving service to others but more like a slave), inferior to men, baby-factory, stay-at-home mother, no emotions, no personal opinions, no education, passive, no personality, does everything that a man tells her to do, basically not even a real person but a robot.

Then there are the posts by Br. JR, a Fransiscan Brother of Life that tell the truth about Mary (and about women in general).  I’ll let his words speak for themselves.

First:

In fact, the Catholic Church was probably the most liberal institution when it came to women. Long before there was a women’s movement, Catholic women were very independent and powerful. It’s just not that noticeable in light of today’s culture. However, if you look at it in light of the world prior to Vatican II, Catholic women rather liberal compared to their Protestant counterparts.

We have a long history of women founders of religious congregations, monasteries and even some orders. Men did not govern these communities. In women’s monasteries, the Abbess ruled and no man ruled over her. In a religious congregation the Mother Superior ruled. In Catholic schools, hospitals, orphanages and other Catholic institutions the sisters ruled.

These women ran their own institutions, managed their own property, had money and budgets, made laws that governed them, traveled around the world without permission and supervision from men. Some abbesses ran dioceses. A few wonderful examples are: Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, Frances Xavier Cabrini, Katherine Drexel, and Elizabeth Ann Seton. These women were missionaries, pioneers in their fields of ministry and leaders in the Church. Mother Teresa was the most recent of these powerful women and she began her work in the world circa 1946, during the WW II era, but long before Vatican II.

No one dared to contradict them, not even the bishops. They were a force to be reckoned with. Teresa of Avila had a wit that could outshine any bishop or Jesuit. Mother Teresa made Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II nervous, though they loved her.

Elizabeth Ann Seton gave Archbishop Carroll a run for his money. When he gave her the statutes that St. Vincent de Paul had written for the Daughters of Charity so that she could model her congregation on St. Louise de Marillac, Elizabeth gave them back to the Archbishop and said that she would not lead the new congregation because there was no place for a mother in the statutes. Elizabeth simply told Archbishop Carroll, “I’m a mother first.” Archbishop Carroll had to add to the statutes that those sisters who were mothers could keep their children and raise them. As I understand it, there were two widows with children in the original group.

About Mary:

I’m not sure if I agree with the image that some people paint of being like Mary, because I would never say that Teresa of Avila or Mother Teresa were unlike Mary. I believe the opposite. They were very much like Mary. Like Mary, they conformed to Christ in all things.

If we look at Mary, she was a very strong figure, not a retiring figure at all. We know that she lived in different cities, that she followed the Church as it grew. She did not spend her life in retirement in Nazareth. We see her in Jerusalem when Jesus is crucified. Jerusalem was more than two days away from Nazareth in those days. Why was she there? She did not live there. The only conclusion is that she followed her son and his disciples to Jerusalem. We hear from the Church Fathers that she was in Ephasus after the Ascension. Why? She was with the Church, probably with John, according to Polycarp. Luke tells us that she went to the Hill Country to visit Elizabeth. Scholars believe that this may be the area that we call the Golan Heights, which is quite a distance from Nazareth. Regardless of Elizabeth’s physical address, she did not live in the same city. Mary goes out to her. Back then, women did not travel without their husbands. But tradition does not mention Joseph being present in Elizabeth’s home or at John’s birth. However, it tells us that Mary was present and probably three months pregnant when she returned home and rejoined Joseph.

We also see Mary in Cana. From the wording of the story, one can extrapolate that Jesus was with her, not the other way around. She was the invited guest and Jesus and his friends went with her to the wedding. This is inferred in the familiarity between Mary and the servants. No one approaches Jesus with the concern about the wine, as would have been the proper thing to do. Mary speaks to the servants with authority, “Do whatever he tells you.” It is probable that she died in Ephesus, which is a long way from Nazareth, if not in Jerusalem.

We tend to paint Christian women, especially Mary, as more demure and retiring than is historically true. I’ve often wondered if it may be a cultural influence, more than a Catholic influence. The Orthodox have the same stories about Mary, independent of the Western Church. They also have ancient legends that portray a more dynamic Mary and their nuns are also very independent and very influential in their Churches.

My answer to your question is that this absence of women in the forefront has nothing to do with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass or even with being Catholic. It’s really the culture or preference of a community. If you begin to tell women that they cannot do things that are not prohibited, that’s when you fall into gender discrimination. If women want to assume a more retiring role, of their own free will, there’s no rule that says they cannot do so.

And then there’s:

To understand how St. Therese understood Mary, you may want to read what I wrote in Post 33. St. Therese is identifying with Mary the contemplative, which is very true. She is not implying that Mary lived a hidden life or an inactive life. That is contrary to Carmelite Tradition. Carmelite tradition teaches us the opposite . . . Mary was very involved in the life and ministry of her son and the early Church. At the same time, she was also the contemplative. If we could blend Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese into one person, we would have a more complete picture of the historical Mary.

We have created an image of Mary that is more consistent with out imagination than with history. Our image of Mary is the quiet woman who is in the background and who is demure, says and does very little because she is humble.

Mary is humble. However, humble means honest. She is certainly that when she says that all generations shall call her Blessed. That’s not a demure woman speaking. That’s a woman who is very confident about herself and her role in Salvation History. She is very active in Jesus ministry. She’s present at many events, times and places outside of Nazareth. History tells us that she did not remain in Nazareth, but traveled with the Church as far as Ephesus. We’re not sure whether her last day on earth was at Ephesus or in Jerusalem, but we know one thing for sure. It was not in Nazareth in the quiet of her home. We also know that the Apostles refered to her as Mother. St. Polycarp gets this from St. John. The early Eastern Christians, who would later become the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a long oral tradition of Mary as an active participant in the life of the Church during Apostolic times.

We can see a woman who is very much a contemplative, a woman of intense prayer, silence and dedication to the Lord, but also a woman who was a missionary, an intercessor, and even a source of consolatioin for the early Christians. In other words, she was not hidden as we use that word.

Hidden, as St. Therese uses the word is more like her spiritual mother, St Teresa of Avila who did what she had to do and at the same time tried to do it without calling too much attention to herself. The truth is that she attracted a lot of attention, but Teresa tried very hard not to do so. The same is true for Bl. Mother Teresa and St. Therese. That’s the true meaning of hidden in Christian Mystical Theology.

Plus:

This is Mystical Theology speaking, not history. The Mystical Theologian focusses on the activityof grace on the soul. What was kept hidden from her contemporaries was the nature and scope of the activity of grace on her soul and the anatomy of her soul. God works on Mary in the secret and silence of her soul. Mary does not share that with the world. We can only assume and extrapolate from the bits of information that we have through Christian Tradition. There is the silence of Mary found in the writings of St. Louie and St. Therese.

St. Therese does this very well, because she’s a cloistered nun; therefore, she understands the whole concept of a hidden life, without being in obscurity. I think that many very traditional Catholics believe that being like Mary means being almost anonymous. That is not Mary. That is not the Mary of St. Therese nor St. Louie. Catholics to the other extreme, I hate to call them liberal, because in my book liberal has a very positive meaning, these other folks to the left, believe that Mary was a passive figure who did not do much. That’s not Mary either.

That’s why I said above, if we could blend the three Teresas: Teresa of Avila, Therese of Liseux and Teresa of Calcutta, that’s the real Mary.

Notice, that she’s such a complex person and there is so much richness to her soul that it would take three of our giants to give us a glimpse into the historical Mary. As far as the anatomy of Mary’s soul, you can forget that. Everything that God did there will remain hidden to us until God wishes for us to know it and only as much as he wishes for us to know.

There is a wonderful book about her by a Capuchin Franciscan Friar The Silence of Mary by Ignacio Larañaga. This book and the writings of St. Louie changed my life.

These posts were really helpful in giving me the first, real picture of Mary and what women mean to the Church.  NOT the burqa covered robots that some Catholics want and agitate for.  Mary was and is a real human woman and this is the first time I saw her this way rather than a lofty figure that was unreachable.  I am grateful of Br. JR’s words.

Warning: Traditionalists are Hazardous to Your Health

It’s true.  Reading “Tradionalist” material is seriously dangerous to your mental and physical health.

It will cause you to get angry because you start thinking you have been lied to, deceived, and that you aren’t a good enough Catholic.

It will cause you to get depressed because you start thinking you are a bad and horrible Catholic that will never be good enough, that you aren’t being heard or loved by God because you aren’t praying in Latin/veiling/not wearing skirts/homeschooling/praying the Rosary five times a day/attending only the EF and putting down and calling everyone else who attends the OF heretics and horrible Catholics and name calling priests and bishops because they aren’t forcing the EF on everyone and supressing the OF outright.

It will cause you to get angry because only you see how the world will be saved by going back to the EF and destroying the OF because it isn’t pretty enough Mass with horrible translations when you know that praying in Latin is the only way God will hear you and answer your prayers otherwise you are just babbling.

It will cause you to get angry that women have rights, can wear pants, work, drive, etc. when they should be confined to the home, barefoot and pregnant and if they get out of line, beaten to keep them in line because they are second class creatures that God created to serve men entirely and not to be individuals of their own.

It will cause you to start thinking that you are doing everything wrong because you not obeying these “wise and all knowing” “traditionalists” who seem to have it all together and are perfectly holy and even can read the mind of God.

It will cause you to beat yourself up, start starving yourself and calling it fasting since you didn’t go far enough during Lent, saying yes to everyone who asks you for a favor even though it will cause you great harm to agree, and allow everyone to walk all over you and abuse you because you’ve come to believe that this is what a “Good Catholic Woman” looks like.

It will cause you to start looking for all the sin in other people’s lives from not wearing skirts (which lead a man to damnation since it is a woman’s fault he sins), to sending their children to public schools which “traditionalists” all know are bastions of pagan homosexual anti-Catholic propoganda that will lead poor Johnny straight to Hell if you don’t perform an exorcism according the pre-Vatican II rite to using NFP which says that you are distrusting God and his command to be fruitful and multiply to women enjoying sex to talking about sex at all to women not submitting like a slave and doing whatever their husband commands and do it right now or you are going to Hell and taking the whole family with you.

It will cause you to start thinking of seriously beating yourself with a whip  show that you are sorry for all the mortal sins you committed just today (which since you are a woman means you commit more mortal sins and more horrible ones at that then men who are nearly perfect and women are demons from Hell) (women commit a mortal sin just by existing).

It will cause you to get very angry because you realize that no matter what you do or don’t do or dress or pray that you are going to Hell anyway, just like your mother always predicted.

I wish “Tradionalist” Catholics would learn that all they are doing is hurting people and the Church.  NO one wants to be hurt especially not in the name of Jesus.

Triduum

The three holiest days on the Catholic calendar told in pictures (with passages from the Gospel of Matthew):

Holy (Maundy) Thursday

“ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.  For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.  But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.”

Good Friday

“ Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?” Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.” And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing.  Then Pilate said to Him, “Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?”  But He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly.

Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished.  And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”  For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.  While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.  The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!”  Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”  Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”  And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”  Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him.  And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”  Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head.  And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.   

Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross.  And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull,  they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink.  Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:
“ They divided My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.”

Sitting down, they kept watch over Him there. And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him:

THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left.  And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”  Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said,  “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”  Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?“ Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, “This Man is calling for Elijah!”  Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.  The rest said, “Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.”

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

Holy Saturday

Well, that one you’ll just have to attend Mass for.

Have a blessed Triduum.

Women Hating is Alive and Well and promoted by Traditionalists

In the Traditionalist forum at CAF, there are a couple of threads dealing with the role women play in the Mass and the leadership/servantship roles they play in the parish.  The “Traditionalists” are out in full force in wanting women to be kept in their place aka the kitchen.  They see women as baby factories (Not mothers and wives and with career vocations of their own, no sir) and as slaves of men.  They hate women.  They think women need to learn that their place is silent and unseen not only at Mass but also in the home with a man to make all their decisions for them since they aren’t capable of thinking properly or making good decisions.  Women are not even people worthy of dignity and respect because they are made in the image and likeness of God.  No, they are seducers and prostitutes and drag men into sin.  They need to learn their place and if that means a beating then so be it.

Now, thankfully the CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH that women are inferior or weak or need to stay at home or be uneducated.  Considering the highest example of humanity is a woman (Mary) and that THREE doctors of the Church are women, the Catholic Church is much more welcoming and loving of women.  Many of it’s members are not.  Male and female.  I have met many women who want to go back to having no rights, to not being educated, to having no legal protection, to getting rid of abuse and rape laws, to outlawing divorce, to keeping women at home and under the dictatorship of a man (not a husband that is the spiritual head which is much different).

They think these things are pleasing to God and that the Church has always taught this abuse of women.  She has not.  Yes, there have been men and women who have spoken and written that women are unrepentant seducers, that they are inferior and weak, and not capable of higher learning but they do not speak for the Church.  They Do NOT SPEAK for the Church.  The Church through Pope John Paul II wrote Mulieris Dignitatem that underscored and highlighted the value and dignity that women brought to the Church and to society at large.

The Catholic Church does not teach or endorse the abuse of women, their devaluing as members of the Church and society, or the twisted use of Catholic teaching to hurt women in any way.  By hurting women, you hurt men and you hurt the Church.  If I only knew and met only Traditionalists on my journey in the Catholic faith, I probably wouldn’t want to be Catholic or to remain Catholic if these were the kinds of people I would have to spend my life and eternity with.  They aren’t very happy and they don’t like women and they hate anyone who doesn’t agree with them.  I hate it when people hate women and would do anything to subjugate them or abuse them or even kill them because they don’t fit into their narrow world view.  Sexism is alive and well even in American not just among “Traditionalist.”

The Healing Process

Everyone wants to heal.  But they never really tell you that it’s difficult.  Oh they say it, but you don’t quite believe them.  Right now I’m going through a really rough, tough patch in my healing process and there are times when I wish I wasn’t.  My emotions are all over the place.  I cry too easily.  I fall back into depression.  I feel like there is no future, that I can’t get any farther, that where I am at now (especially in regards to career) is where I will always be.  It doesn’t help that my abuser doesn’t recognize, refuses to admit that she abused me and that her choices affected me and affected me deeply.  Some days are so bad that I honestly don’t want to get out of bed, don’t want to go to work or do anything.

It’s tough and it isn’t fun.  But, once I get through this, I hope that I will be better than I am now.  That is the only thing that makes it worth it.  Pain without purpose seems pointless especially when you are trying to heal.  It doesn’t help that I can’t really explain or talk about this with people largely because they won’t/don’t/can’t understand or I’ve tried in the past to talk about my abuse and haven’t been believed or I’m just comfortable discussing this with some people.

Signs/Symptoms of a Radical Traditionalist

Having come across so many radical traditionalists in my time on CAF and even one or two in real life, I thought I’d come up with a set of diagnostic criteria for a radical traditionalist, not unlike the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV for psychologists and psychiatrists.  This isn’t perfect and I know I probably forgot things but this is what I have so far.

For a diagnosis of Radical Traditionalist, three or more of the following criteria may be met (OB is obscure):

-Believes the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, usually referred to as the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM) is the only valid form of the Mass.  Everything else is inferior, heretical, or Protestant.

-Holds the 1917 Code of Canon Law above the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

-Believes Latin in the only language of the Catholic Church.  All prayers, private or public, are to be said in Latin.

-Believes God only understands Latin.

-Believes Palestrina and Gregorian chant that is sung by an all male choir is the only form of music, esclesial or secular, allowed.

-Believes the Rosary is the supreme and highest devotion.  It is the only prayer, besides the Mass, that is necessary for salvation.  Believes anyone who does not pray the Rosary is not a Catholic.

-Believes the Ordinary Form of the Mass, normally referred to the Novus Ordo and refuses to use the forms of the Church, in the vernacular is inefficacious, is invalid, does not present a valid Eucharist, is inferior, and Protestant.  Believe people who attend the OF are either Protestants or heretics.

-Believes communion on the tongue while kneeling at a communion rail is the only way to receive the Eucharist.  People who are unable to kneel are deemed irreverent.  Communion in the hand is considered heretic and pagan.

-Believes the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima is the only Marian apparition or at least the highest.   Believed to be the best Marian devotion and the only one worthy of belief.  Believe Catholics who do not believe it, follow what was said, or refuse to acknowledge it are heretics.  Requires automatic believe in this apparition as a criteria as to being a real Catholic.

-Believe Confession is required every week.

-Believe most things are a mortal sin, especially if they say so.

-Believe no woman is allowed anywhere near the sanctuary.  This even means the first pew unless they are a nun/sister praying the Rosary.

-Believe there is a strict dress code for every occasion.  This only applies to women and children.

-Believes women are required to veil at all times.  Mantillas only.  Hats and other forms of headcovering are not allowed.  No hair is allowed to show otherwise a woman will be inciting a man to sin.  She is at fault if a mans sees even one strand of hair.

-Believes women are required to wear dresses or skirts (dresses are the preferred option) down to the floor with full length sleeves and extreme high collars.  The prefered style is fundamentalist Mormon.

-Believes women who dress in pants or skirts above the toe are inciting men to lust and other sexual sins and just asking to be raped.

-Believes women are responsible for men’s sins, especially sexual sins.

-Believes the Church does not go far enough is legislating modesty and dress.  Believes the Church should dictate a strict dress code for everyone that must be strictly adhered to at all times.

-Believes women are to be minimally educated.

-Believes women should never work outside the home.

-Believes no one should go swimming do to the immoral form of dress required.

-Believes women are meant only to be wives and mothers, and occasionally sisters but nothing else.

-Believe Natural Family Planning (NFP) is contraception and goes against God’s will.

-Believes the number of children a couple will have is should be entirely left up to the providence of God.  Any abstinence, NFP, or any other method is contraception and a mortal sin.  A mother’s health, a family’s finances, etc. are irrelevant to family size and having children.

-Believes all children should be homeschooled.  All other forms of schooling are tools of the devil.

-Believes colleges, universities, high schools, elementary schools, public and Catholic are bastions of radical feminism, secular humanism, and atheism.

-Believes sheltering children from every interaction with the world and especially other people will make them strong Catholics.

-Believes TV, radio, movies, computers, and any other media that is not explicitly Catholics is immoral, a tool of the Devil, and never allowed in the home.

-Believes EWTN doesn’t go far enough.

-Believes most Bishops, priests, and Catholics to be outright heretics and have no knowledge of the faith.

-Believe Michael Voris is the second coming and like his in the face style and name calling of bishops and fellow Catholics.

-Believe Colleen Hammond is the go to authority for dress and follow her rules exactly.

-Believes if the book is not the Bible, the Early Church fathers, or one of  a select few writers then the books are immoral and advocating devil worship.

-Believe only young earth creationism.

-Believes they must call all behavior not exactly like theirs a sin and everyone who does not believe like them a heretic.

-Believes they are the only one on the right path to Heaven.  Everyone else, except for a select few, is going to Hell.

-Believes having fun is a sin.

-Believes contemporary music is immoral regardless of the lyrics.  Some classical music by some Catholics composers is acceptable.

-Believes the organ is the only instrument.  All other instruments, regardless of use, is profane.

-Believes that quoting documents from Vatican II is sinful and will only cite pre-Vatican II documents to support their arguments, even if they are off topic or have nothing to do with a topic or are out dated.

-Will ignore, put down, or trash Vatican II.

-Believes happiness and joy are useless and pointless especially in the spiritual life.

-Believes it is necessary to point out every little flaw and mistake a priest makes as necessary to stop liturgical abuse.

-Believes liturgical abuse is extremely rampant in OF/NO parishes and have never existed in EF/TLM parishes.

-Believes the Baltimore Catechism is the only necessary catechism.

-Believe the 1950s were the Golden Era of Catholicism in America.

-Believes the 1960s were the end of the Catholic Church in America.

-Believes Council of Trent trumps Vatican II.

-Wants all Catholics to be exactly like them.

-Believe unity is the sam thing as uniformity.

-Believe the EF/TLM would solve all the problems in the Church, including but not limited to sex abuse by priests, lack of vocations.

-Believe a college education is worthless unless you are going to be a lawyer or a doctor.

-Believe they are the only true Catholics and everyone else is a Protestant heretic.

(OB)-Believe women who dress in pants or in skirts above the toe are guilty for their own rape.

(OB)-Believes all Protestants are going to Hell.

(OB)-Believes Jews were abandoned or are ignored by God.

(OB)-Believe Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox are to be Latinized.

(OB)-Believe that is a person receives any sort of spiritual consolation, you are doing something wrong or are possessed by a demon.

 

This is not an exhaustive list but it does include what I have seen, read, and heard.

You Do Not Have Authority (But You Certainly Act Like a Nut)

There are people out there (i.e. the Internet) that think they have the authority to dictate how other people live their lives.  I find this especially true on CAF (Catholic Answers Forums in the Traditional Catholicism forum and in the Liturgy forum and the Spirituality forum).  Since almost all of the posters are LAY people (meaning they are just people who have no faculties granted them through ordination to the diaconate, priesthood, or bishopric or theologians and are just regular people that sit in the pews) they have NO AUTHORITY to tell people how to live their lives or what prayers they have to pray or what not to say or eat to be considered a “real” Catholic.  Remember that when some nobody gets on their stupid soapbox and screams that those who attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass are not worshipping God and that everyone must pray in Latin and the women must be in burqas.

Remember they have no authority.

Only the Church Herself can say if she wants the Mass to be entirely said in Latin (or Greek or Russian or whatever language) and that BOTH forms are valid.  Only the Church Herself can say if she wants women to veil (She says it is a private devotion just like the Rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet, etc.) and since she hasn’t said anything it is a private devotion that cannot be foisted on women.  Trust the Church not some random poster on the Internet.

Rant of the Week

I’ve been meaning to update here but life got in the way.

Why do people have to denigrate someone to support their position?  If Person A doesn’t agree with Person B, do so charitable, don’t resort to name calling the person or the position the person has taken.  Person A is quite able to disagree with Person B’s position on Position X  but Person A should do so in a way that does not resort to calling Person B names or saying that Positions X is stupid or pointless or even inferior.  You can demonstrate that someone’s position is ill-thought out through logic and well supported reasoning.

“Traditionalists” and I qualify that, denigrate those who do not worship the EF  (Extraordinary Form) and attend the OF (Ordinary Form) solely.  And yes I mean, worship the form and not in the form.  They name call those that who attend the OF liberals and heretics and stupid and refer to the OF, a valid form of the Mass, as an inferior product that comes from the Devil and Protestants.  I have yet to see a “Traditionalist” say anything positive about the OF and practically condemn them to Hell those that don’t agree with them or attend the EF solely.  ”Traditionalists” seem to prefer denigrating people rather than sharing in love their love of the EF.  Basically, the only Catholics they will call Catholics are the ones that worship solely in the EF, pray exactly like them in Latin, think their own view in the only view, put down and condemn those that don’t agree or worship exactly like them, want uniformity instead of unity (they want automatons rather than individuals created in the image and likeness of God), and berate people for even thinking the OF is valid.

Now, there are people who prefer the OF solely who also denigrate the EF but those seem to be few and far between compared to the ones that denigrate the OF.  It’s like the only position to qualify as a “Traditionalist” is to hate and especially the OF and to bring up abuses that haven’t happened in 30, 40 years. (I haven’t seen anything that truly qualifies as an abuse in the nearly 30 years I’ve been attending Mass.  I have seen things that were questionable but they didn’t last long.)  Yet people seem to think their preference is set in stone rubrics that must be followed or the Mass isn’t valid and they are going to find another parish.  Wow.  Didn’t know the Mass was about us.  I thought and was taught it was about worshipping God.

We are taught to love our neighbor.  Not love somebody only if they completely agree with us on every little thing.  That’s impossible and dangerous.

Dress Code Dictators

So I spend time on Catholic Answers Forums.  While there are a few sub-forums that I don’t visit on purpose or that I am not interested in, the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum is one I read to help understand people who make claims that sound “more Catholic than the Pope” especially about things like dress, Mass preference, etc.  There are times when I wish I didn’t because the sheer gall and hatred and need to dictate other peoples’ lives angers me.  How does someone on the Internet have the right to tell me how to live my life?

This thread really ticks me off because it lays the decline of American society solely at the feet of women and how they dress.  Tell me, when did men get a free pass from sin?  Because, honestly, I see this attitude and these types of posts a lot on CAF, especially in this sub-forum.  Men can’t and don’t have to control themselves because WOMEN are the ones making them sin.  It’s those bad, mean, immodest women who causing men to sin and end up in hell.  BS!  Men make a choice to sin.  They are just as responsible for the decline of American society as women are because some of them dress pretty immodestly too (though that is not the only reason American society is Culture of Death).  So it completely unfair and untrue that if women dressed in dresses and skirts then men wouldn’t sin and society would be pure and wonderful.  Get out of Fantasy Land!  It has never and will never exist.  A world where everyone is virtuous and there is no sin only happened once and look what happened there.

I hate it when people, especially women, dictate what others should wear.  As long as it’s modest, it’s okay to wear jeans and t-shirt, or a skirt, or capris.  Each women will have their own individual style.  They shouldn’t be made to be fashion clones just so a small but horribly vocal group can pat themselves on the back for being the most modest and not causing men to sin and making everyone follow their narrow version of their interpretation of Catholicism while looking down on everyone else for not being as holy and perfect as they are.  You never hear a dress code dictated for men (they also have their own individual style that as long as it is modest is fine).  The Church only calls for modesty, not a strict list of what is and is not allowed.

I’ve also added a New Link to The Catholic Fanatic, a blog about someone who is recovering from the extreme Traditionalists and Dress Code Dictators.

A Declaration

Yes, at 4:40 in the morning.  Well, it is what time it is here.

I am a feminist.  There.  I said it.  And being a feminist is a good thing.  However, there are forms of feminism that are bad: radical feminism, any form that supports abortion and contraception and “sexual freedom” and bashing men and supports the homosexual lifestyle.  Those are anti-women and anti-men.

Abortion is anti-women because it’s about choosing to punish yourself and a baby for existing as a person and being able to give life and for being a women.  It’s also anti-men because it doesn’t care about men as fathers or as people.  Abortion is anti-people because it is indiscriminate in who it kills: girls, boys, gays, straight, the innocent, the potentially successful, the potentially disabled, etc.  Abortion basically says that you aren’t good enough to exist because you don’t fit in some arbitrary category about who and what a person is.  Abortion isn’t a choice or a freedom.  It’s a death sentence for the baby and for the mother.  It puts the mother in a continuous cycle of sexual abuse and prostitution.  A women who uses abortion to “get rid of a problem” abuses herself.  No woman is free when they get an abortion.  NO woman is free when they have sex with anybody outside of marriage.  They are abusing themselves and selling themselves as prostitutes that aren’t getting paid to have sex.

Bashing men also bashes women.  Men can’t exist without women and women can’t exist without men.  It’s biologically impossible.  If there was only one sex, then they wouldn’t be women or men.  There would be no concept of male or female, man or women.  The words and concepts wouldn’t exist in our language because there would be no need for them.  While I’m certain there are people who would love to eliminate such words, it’s impossible and entirely impractical.   It just wouldn’t work.  We need men and women and we need them to be different.  Yes, there are people who are trying to do with mother and father and what they mean but they will fail.  Not only do we need them, to eliminate them would eliminate what makes humans unique.  Actually, it goes beyond that.  It would destroy society.  Society as a whole needs mothers and fathers and men and women.

I believe in equal pay for equal work.  Now, it has gotten better but there’s always room for improvement.  There is also room for improvement in how people are compensated for their work and how work is valued.  Value shouldn’t be based entirely on monetary value but on what that person brings to the company or whatnot and not how much money they can make for the company at the expense of that individual’s health and personal relationships.

I believe rape, abuse be it sexual, physical, emotional, spiritual, verbal, psychological, or mental and neglect are crimes against people regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, creed, ethnicity, etc. and should be prosecuted as such.  A spouse has no right to rape their spouse or beat them because they are married or to verbally abuse them because they think they can.  Parents should abuse their children nor should children abuse their parents.  A gay partner can’t beat their partner and get away with it.  It’s a crime against a person.  While I have problems with the homosexual lifestyle, they are still people who should be treated with respect and crimes against them should be investigated and prosecuted.

I believe a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her life.  If she wants to be a wife and mother and work, I support that.  If a woman wants be a wife and mother and be a stay at home mom, I support that too.  If a woman wants to work but stay permanently single, I support that as well.  If a woman believes she is called to the religious life and chooses to follow that, I support that as well.  I don’t support people who dictate how other people should live.  I have no right to tell Woman A or even Man A what to do with their lives.  I can’t make them work in a particular field or make them get married and no one else should either.  They can seek advice and counsel from people they trust but should make their own choices about their life.  And I will defend a women’s right to determine her own life.

I believe women are the biggest oppressors of women.  They are the ones who watch others like a hawk and talk about people behind their back and pass judgement on them because they don’t live exactly as they do.  If a woman wants to dress like a Goth (does anybody still dress like a Goth anymore?), as long as she dresses modestly (this is predicated on her and the society she lives in) then she can dress like a goth.  Or a punk.  Or in jeans and a t-shirt.  Or dresses.  Or formal suits.  No one can dictate what she wears unless she works in a particular industry that requires a uniform for work (even the typical office has a “uniform” for how to dress).  Women are the biggest believers about the lies of women: that they are weak, inferior, support things that hurt women, uneducable, shouldn’t be allowed to work, shouldn’t be allowed to receive a college/university degree, that the only thing a women can do is get married and have children and stay at home, that women who don’t revolve their lives around men have something wrong them or are lesbians.

I believe people are individuals with their own unique life experiences. No one is automaton and people shouldn’t make people into clones of themselves just because it makes their lives easier or because they think they have the power to do so.

Now there are people who are going to have a problem with me, a Catholic, being a feminist.  Yet all that I posted doesn’t contradict anything the Catholic Church teaches.  Being a feminist isn’t anti-Catholic.  It’s pro-humanity.  The Catholic Church was the first feminist force in the world.  Now there were people in the Church, but not the Church Herself, that advocated beliefs and practices that were anti-women but they weren’t the Church.  They were sinners who got tangled up in the details and pushing their own agendas rather than focusing on Jesus.  Jesus is very pro-women as demonstrated in the Gospels.

Let the tomato and lemon throwing commence.

Reality Sets In

With my new schedule at work, I’ve been wanting to update here more often.  So far, that hasn’t happened.  I’ve been so tired from working especially picking up overtime since my relief has been sick a lot lately (we’re all concerned about him) so I’ve been covering some of his shifts.  And don’t know what to post about.  I have ideas but I don’t know how relevant they are, how I feel about posting about them, how well I could write about them, etc.  So I’m going to ramble which I can be rather adept at, usually when it’s not necessary (I’m not much of a talker in real life and especially bad at explaining things.)

Something that has been bothering me is the need of some people to impose their spirituality and their spiritual practices on everyone else.  That their personal devotions are the only devotions that are allowed and should be followed.  I’ve seen people push the Rosary, the Brown Scapular, the Divine Mercy Chaplet, Carmelite or Charismatic spirituality, St. Theresa of Liseux, St. Padre Pio on people usually by saying these private devotions will “cure” everything; that they are the only prayers one needs; that by not conforming they are being “Protestant;” that they have all the answers.  They don’t recognize that each person is unique and prays in the way that they can and that God calls them to pray in the best way for Him to reach that person.  What works for one person may not work for another person.  I don’t feel called to Franciscan spiritual though the Church recognizes it as one of many beneficial spiritualities and the Church doesn’t have a problem with that.  The Church Herself doesn’t adhere to one spirituality and doesn’t require Her children to either because She recognizes that each of us are unique individuals, not automatons.

Yet there are Catholics that believe and demand that there is only one spirituality/devotion that is absolutely necessary, usually the one that the person is trumpeting.  They refuse to acknowledge or accept otherwise.  This is a huge turn off, even detrimental if they want more people to learn about, practice that spirituality or devotion.  If someone is in my face about the Rosary, telling that just by praying it once all my problems will be cured, that everything wrong with me will be healed in a moment, that it’s the only prayer a woman needs, and won’t listen to anything I say, that’s a huge turn off to me.  I’ve had this happen to me and have seen it a lot. I would have a hard time taking this person seriously because even the Church doesn’t say this.  The Church and Jesus himself never said that prayer was magic.  Yet people treat devotions and spiritualities like this which is detrimental to not only the person being encouraged to try a new devotion but also to the devotion/prayer itself.  The Church treats its members as adults yet people like this treat fellow Catholics like stupid children who can’t be trusted to dress themselves.

Faith isn’t a feeling yet this seems to be a big problem for people who go looking for excitement, for entertainment, etc. in the Mass.  I’ve posted here about Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman and the effect that TV, movies, Internet, etc. have on people.  I see this play out in the Mass not only in the Ordinary Form but also in the “young people” who seek out the Extraordinary Form.  Now, not all those who seek out the EF are necessarily looking for entertainment but I believe there are those that do go for ‘the show.”  People my age have been raised almost exclusively on TV, movies, the Internet exploded with us, etc. and that has an effect on how we view our faith.  How much of this is TV’s fault and how much is our fault? And don’t our parents play a role in all this?  People are taught to be entertained, to constantly seek out pleasure, to seek out the latest newest fad, to seek out the pretty lights and flashy clothes.  I’m not trying to denigrate the EF but I am pointing out that people’s reason for seeking out one particular Mass over another is impacted by our  excessive exposure to the media and entertainment and that people need to be aware of this.  If you are looking to get something out of the Mass, you are completely missing the point.  You are at Mass to worship God, not to be entertained by Him.

Why is it if someone hears something questionable in a homily they automatically assume the priest is a heretic?  I’ve seen multiple posts to this effect on a forum I belong to.  Why can’t it be that Father just doesn’t have the innate talent for homilies?  Or that he’s sleep deprived and he’s lucky enough to stay awake long enough to celebrate Mass? Or that he practiced his homily one way but it came out another way and he didn’t realize it until after Mass?  Or that he’s still afraid of public speaking no matter how much prayer and practice he’s said and done?  Or that he’s still a new priest and still learning?  Or that the priest doesn’t and probably won’t put things the same way you do?  People seem to be waiting for the priest to make one teeny tiny mistake so they can pounce on him and denigrate him.  Isn’t the media and the Devil doing enough of that already?  If you denigrate the priesthood, you denigrate Jesus himself.  Maybe you should think twice about what you say about a priest.  Don’t criticize unless the priest asks for constructive criticism otherwise it’s all about putting someone down to puff yourself up and there’s something very, very wrong with that.  It’s called sin.

When did Latin become the only language in the Church?  Considering there are 23 sui juris Churches, only one rite the Latin Rite uses Latin.  Greek, Aramaic, Russian, Arabic, and probably a language or two, at least, that I can’t think of are also used in the Liturgies.  Latin is only applicable to the Latin Rite and even then wasn’t the only language used in the Latin Rite.  The Latin Rite has never been uniform in it’s use of Latin in it’s liturgies.  It’s only with the Council of Trent and the suppression of other rites at that time that Latin really came to dominate the Latin liturgy.  Yet, even Latins still use Greek when we pray Kyrie eleison (Lord, have mercy).  And one does not need to pray in Latin to have their prayers heard or answered.  God’s bigger than that but I still see people saying that we need to pray in Latin and that only prayers said in Latin are “effective.”  Considering God is the one listening and answering prayers, I think He’s the only to judge if praying or not praying in a particular language is necessary for it to be effective.  I’ve only come across Him saying that we need to pray and St. Paul saying to pray without ceasing but nothing about all our prayers need to be in Latin.

All of us are on a journey in our faith.  We each follow the same path using a roadmap that is unique to each of us.  What works for you may not work and probably won’t work for me but that doesn’t mean that you should abandon it because it only applies to you.  God didn’t create clones, He created individuals whom He loves as individuals but also as His children.  God doesn’t pigeon-hole us so don’t pigeon-hole others in their journey and how they live their Catholic faith.  Your eyes should be on Christ.  Don’t take them off Him or you will lose your way.

Blessed Christmas

Sorry I haven’t updated in so long.  I’ve been busy with a new, full-time job that leaves me tired all the time (the schedule I have isn’t the greatest).  I intend, after the beginning of the New Year, to update more often.

This time of year is either a blessing or a curse for people.  For some, it’s even both.  I fit into both categories.  Christmas is hard on the personal front (family issues that have gone on for nearly three decades at this point) and a blessing in that it is the celebration of the first Advent of Christ as a small, helpless baby who would thirty-three years later save the world through his death and resurrection on the cross.  Pretty powerful stuff.  We don’t always remember that.  We focus on the gifts and the TV specials and the parties and the good feelings.  Sometimes these are focused on to the detriment of what Christmas and Advent really mean.  Preparation for the coming of Christ first at his birth and later when he comes at the Second Coming.

As a Catholic, we focus on preparing for both advents with Advent.  We remember not only Jesus’s birth and the dangerous circumstances surrounding it. (Herod did order and carry out the killing of numerous infants and those under the age of 2 in order to protect his earthly position.  People who abort their babies are no better than Herod hence the Feast of the Holy Innocents celebrated on December 28 to remember not only those killed by Herod but also those killed by abortion.)

It wasn’t a feel-good story that Jesus came.  He was born to a teenage mother (Mary) who was married to an older man (Joseph) who wanted to divorce her in order to prevent himself and her from shame.  His foster-father was a poor carpenter.  Mary and Joseph had to travel when Mary was about to give birth because of a government census.  Mary had to give birth in a stable without any medical support.  Then they had to flee from their homeland or risk being killed and moved to a foreign country where they didn’t know the language.

Yes, they were visited by shepherds who were nobodies at the bottom of the social economic ladder.  And by astrologers from the East who didn’t know they were to find the King of the Universe in such poverty conditions.  Yet they gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh that alluded to his future death.

Jesus lived in obscurity for thirty years before he began to preach his message of salvation from sin and repentance.  And many of disciples still left him.  He was then betrayed by someone he had personally chosen and abandoned by all his friends save one.  He was crucified as a common criminal out of love for mankind.  He died a criminal’s death while his own mother watched.  Three days later he rose from the dead.  He left the Holy Spirit to guide the new church he had founded on Peter and ascended into heaven.  He promised to come again.

There are people who don’t want to hear this or want it watered down.  They don’t want the truth.  They want to hear only that which will make them feel good.  Or they say that Jesus lied or that wasn’t what he meant because if they acknowledged the truth then they would have to change, to repent, to acknowledge that they are sinners in need of a saviour.  Worse than that, they attack those that do acknowledge and accept this fact and accept Jesus.  Or they attack those who also believe in Jesus but don’t believe exactly as they do.

I won’t preach peace on earth and good will towards men.  Without God’s grace, it isn’t possible.  And wasn’t possible until the King of the Universe came as a helpless baby born into poverty over 2000 years ago.

For some of us, Christmas is a time of depression, increased abuse, financial worries, etc.  It’s not a happy time.  It may be a time of year that people want to avoid.  For some it’s a reminder of loss of a loved one or home or family or a job.

And yet, it can still be a time of hope.  It isn’t easy and isn’t much but it can be there.  For myself, I can cope with the celebration of Christ’s birth.  I can’t cope very well with the family issues and past abuse and the focus on material goods and the need to keep or surpass the Joneses.

Till then: Blessed Christmas.

Judge Not Salvation

Luke 6:37

“Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (NKJV)

I point out this particular passage because I find, especially on the Internet in blogs and other venues on the Internet, the words and conclusions of those that declare someone intelligent or stupid, beautiful or ugly, saved or damned.  The last particular dichotomy is one I see the most especially from those who believe in a very narrow, out there set of beliefs though there are those who are supposedly who seem “mainstream” (thinking and believing like everyone else) who also determine people’s eternal fates.  Now, this is nothing new, judging people acceptable or rejectable by some arbitrary set of definitions.  The concept of us versus them has been around since we humans have had the ability to classify and assign value to those classifications.  How else would our ancestors have known that one group was an enemy or another group was a friend or that a friend had turned into an enemy.  But it is more than that.  It is a matter of fear but also of pride.  If Person A says the Person B isn’t a person or less than a person because they (I’m going to use an absurd example here) use the color purple to color in a picture of a flower and that by doing so they reject the superiority (as defined by Person A) of the color red, then Person A is operating from a place of pride.  Now Person A may also be operating from a place of cultural influence but even then it is still a matter of pride.

Christians, in some cases especially American evangelical fundamentalists, certain American developed Protestants (I refer to those Protestant sects that were created in the US after 1800 and especially those groups that developed in the 1900s like Calvary Chapel and non-denominational churches) predicate much of their interactions with Christians who don’t belong to their church in determining their likelihood of becoming a notch on their belt (“winning souls”) or damning them to Hell for not having the “correct beliefs (read “Not agreeing with exactly every word, small thing, and made up rules and regulations that the “pastor” and/or “elders” have come up with) (usually done to Catholics because they believe in a “false gospel” and “added beliefs and kept pagan ones”).

This determining of the eternal destination of others is not only problematic but un-Christian.  It attempts to place the judger in the place of God.  Only God alone can determine if a person is to go to Heaven or Hell.  No one can know if they are saved (there is no assurance of salvation i.e. no one knows if they are bound for heaven or hell) (CCC quotes 1741, 456-460).  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), “By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. “For freedom Christ has set us free.” In him we have communion with the “truth that makes us free.” The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” Already we glory in the “liberty of the children of God.””  Now there is more to salvation but it is important to understanding that salvation isn’t just about one specific thing be it saying a prayer or having a relationship or “being saved” or being freed from sin.  Salvation isn’t simple and it is not complex either.  It is, however, wonderful and desired of all men.  Not just a select few who dress the right way or say prayers in a certain way.  Further in the CCC 456-460, “

456 With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

457 The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:⁷⁰

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?⁷¹

458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.”⁷² “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”⁷³

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”⁷⁴ On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: “Listen to him!”⁷⁵ Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: “Love one another as I have loved you.”⁷⁶ This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.⁷⁷

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature“:⁷⁸ “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”⁷⁹ “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”⁸⁰ “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”^”

Many err on this because they want to be in “the right” and determining someone’s eternal destination gives that person a smug feeling of superiority, smug satisfaction of knowing that they and they alone have the truth and Jesus, and that they are better than everyone else because they have the “correct” beliefs, the “correct” behaviors, the “correct” “interpretation” of the Bible, and that Jesus and God speak to them all the time and reveal all that they need to know and what to decide.  They have a very narrow view of the world.   Sounds a bit like Gnosticism doesn’t it?  It is but it is also lack of charity, not loving one’s neighbor, pride, selfishness, not loving God.

With recent celebrity deaths and the deaths of loved ones, neighbors, friends, and others, I have seen in the blogosphere several posts where the poster has unequivocally determined the final eternal judgment without any input from God.  They determine where this person had gone based on their own criteria, usually what that particular poster believes.  They refuse to entertain let alone respect the fact that judgment is God’s and God’s right alone.  He gives that right to no one else yet there are those who certainly talk and believe that they have and use this un-given right to judge others, usually quite harshly and with great venom.  Many times they cast them into Hell for doing something the poster doesn’t like even if it is not a sin.

Then there are those who judge others not to be Christian because they don’t believe what they do, they belong to a different theology or sect, they are Catholic, or they aren’t in communion with the Catholic Church (I’ve seen this from many Catholics in regards to Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox, calling them names and saying they are schismatic or even heretics (which is false)).  Again, many who do this belong to or adhere to evangelical fundamentalist ideology.  Actually, many are likely to be weak in faith and understanding of their own faith.  They may know a few basics and are sent out or even forced out to “win” converts, i.e. make members for that group.  This tends to be more common.  Way of the Master is a good example.  They use a flawed opening question, “Are you a good person?” to break the ice.  It’s a loaded question meant to start the ‘sales pitch.  If the questionee answers yes, then the questioner follows up with more questions and into the Ten Commandment (note they use a different numbering order than Catholics and Lutherans use where 2 is not to have idols where as Catholics have you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (the first reads like legal definition if you were to look at a section in the criminal code for a state you would have the offense (I am the Lord you God. You shall have no other gods but me) and the elements that make up that offense (no other gods, no graven images, etc.)).  They then go through the Ten Commandments to see if you have broken any of them, which everyone had at least at one point in their lives.  However, it’s a trap.  They continue through the sales pitch to get you to say a prayer to accept Jesus as you personal savior (remember, they’re selling a product and they have to” make a sale” to be a good Christian).  That’s it.  They don’t follow up, usually.  They tell you to join a “Bible-believing” church and that’s it.  Way of the Master only believe, or limits their definition of a Christian to somebody who had gone through this process (accept Jesus as savior, say a prayer, join a “Bible-believing church) so Catholics and even liturgical Protestants such as Lutherans are considered apostate because they follow a false gospel and added pagan elements in their worship (because organized worship like a liturgy is pagan, apparently).

Those who consider people not to be Christian because don’t believe as Group A does.  Group A’s definition of a “Christian” will be defined not by essentials but by non-essential or even disciplines rather than doctrine.  For example, no dancing, no smoking, no playing cards, no pants on women, no watching movies, long hair on women, no partying, no mixing between genders, marriage only (no single life), mandatory Bible reading for a set period of time a day, no wearing makeup, no jewelry, women aren’t allowed to work, women aren’t allowed to serve in any kind of ministry or service, praying in tongues, praying in a specific manner, not praying spontaneously, must win converts, contemporary worship songs, no musical instruments, etc.  These are all disciplines (subject to change) and some are even deliberate misreading of the Bible (marriage only, women have no place, praying in tongues, no musical instruments, anything with regards to women).  Catholics are typically called apostates or heretics for:

-supposedly adding to the Bible (which is laughable since the CATHOLIC CHURCH put the Bible together!),

-believing in false or pagan doctrines such as Mary as the Mother of God (Nestorianism, a heresy, denies that Mary is the Mother of God),

-Mary as the Queen of Heaven (again, Biblical; just look to the mother of kings in the Old Testament where the mothers were Queens and sat at the King’s right hand and offered advice and supplications/petitions) (if you ask someone else to pray for you, you can certainly ask a saint to pray for you),

-the Mass (which can be found in parts of Saint Paul’s letters and in the Book of Revelation),

-praying to saints (again in Revelation) (if you ask someone else to pray for you, you can certainly ask a saint to pray for you otherwise you would never be able to ask anyone to pray for you since you can only pray to Jesus, according to that logic),

-salvation by works (Ephesians 2:4-10) (“⁴ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, ⁵ even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), ⁶ and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, ⁷ that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not of works, lest anyone should boast. ¹⁰ For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Good works were set aside for us to complete for our salvation.”)(again, not true and very Biblical that we can’t just say a prayer and we’re saved; we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)). We are not saved under the Jewish law, true enough, but we must obey Jesus’ commandments: love God and neighbor, and to eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood (John 6:51-58) (“⁵¹ I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”  ⁵² The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”  ⁵³ Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. ⁵⁶ He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”)

Yet there are Christians who don’t look to Jesus’ words but to Saint Paul.  They have to be read all together rather than in isolation and separate.  Plus, they have to be read in context.  Paul is writing to a specific audience in a specific place about a specific problem.  Many who read the Bible assume the Bible can be read and interprets (everyone interprets what they read) that it can be done the same today as it was when it was written.  That the meaning and application of a passage is the same then as it is today.  Not true.  Some passages are very specific for the time and have no real application to today (passages referring to slavery for example) and so cannot be applied or used in a contemporary sense.  Others are misinterpreted, deliberately in some cases, to support a specific belief or practice that isn’t Biblical at all (Ephesians 5:22 is used by some men and some “churches” as a means to oppress and abuse women when the meaning of the verse is more than just submission; you have to read the verses before and after to understand the whole meaning and context). (emphasis mine)

Catholics are the first Christians.  Catholics believe in Jesus and have a personal relationship with Him in the Eucharist.  Yet, many say Catholics aren’t Christians because they don’t believe exactly as Person A or Group B, etc.  They do not determine if someone is Christian or not.  Only the individual and God truly know.  Anyone else is just guessing or making false judgments against their neighbor which is a sin and lack of love for their neighbor.  It bothers me but mostly it saddens me when I read posts or blogs or what not by people who accuse or vilify or condemn others for not believing as they do or calling Catholics apostates and heretics and condemning them to Hell for nothing more than a lack of understanding or deliberate ignorance on the part of the poster.  Most people do not want to learn the Truth.  They are satisfied with the little truth they have and so stay in their comfort zone.  If they learned that Catholics are truly Christians, that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and gave us the Bible and preserved it and all the beliefs such as the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity down through the ages it would destroy some people because they can’t handle change especially in their world view.  They would refuse to believe because it means they were wrong (coming from pride) and wouldn’t accept the Truth.  They would hang on to that pride because it gives them false comfort and a false sense of superiority.  They want their own easy truth to swallow.  They don’t want The Truth handed down and preserved by the Apostles to the Bishops and the Priests of the Catholic Church for over 2000 years.  They don’t want to be wrong.  They would lose their sense of self especially if their identity is built upon a specific belief system or set of beliefs (Mrs. Smith is a Baptist preachers wife and will always be one and if she didn’t have that, she wouldn’t know what to do with herself because being a Baptist preachers wife is all so knows; it’s who she is).

With regards to Catholics who don’t consider Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox as Catholics, this again comes from pride.  All contain the fullness of Truth and have preserved that Truth for over 2000 years.  Praxis, meaning actual practice, varies and has always varied by culture and region.  The Latin Rite of the Church is not the normative right of the whole Church.  It is only normative in the Latin West.  Latins are not superior or better or holier than Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox.  While there are divisions, there are similarities and the fullness of Truth.  All hold the fullness of Truth, as I have already stated.  Yes there is a difference is ecclesiology (how the church is organized and governed) but the Sacraments are the same and the graces available are the same.  I’m not up on the differences but in some ways it doesn’t matter because I am to love my neighbor.  I have no need to convert them to the Catholic faith because they already have it.  Unfortunately, many Latins don’t see this or refuse to see this and it leads to prideful posts and behaviors and even in some cases, attempts to proselytize (convert or perish mentality of evangelization).  They will even damn them to Hell.  Unfortunately, some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are no better and refuse to see the similarities and that they are all brothers and sisters in Christ and rather resort to name calling (calling Latin Rite Catholics Protestants) or resorting to nationalism (there are divisions along ethnic and nationality but I’m totally not up on the differences but again comes down to pride and lack of love of neighbor rather than a love of the Truth).

Judge not lest ye be judged.  Remember that rather than falling into sin.  It isn’t easy but it is possible.  Love your neighbor.

Linking Up

A few links related to what I post about here.

The New International Version of the Bible is being updated.  Which is interesting to say the least especially with regards to gender language.  Why do people think using gender inclusive language is a good idea?  The books of the Bible were written for a specific audience, with a specific purpose, and changing the language can actually be detrimental.

Michael Shanks (aka Dr. Daniel Jackson) speaks out about SGU.  Many in the comments hold the same opinion as before and won’t watch it.

The Dugger Family are adding a new member. No. 19 is on the way.

The suspected kidnapper Phillip Garrido, who reported kidnapped a girl back in 1991 and was found recently, (he has not yet been convicted so he is only suspected/alleged) seemed like a regular guy, according to those who did business with him.

Erich Kunzel, Cincinnati Pops director has died at the age of 74. (As someone who loves music, this is sad. Prayers for his family.)

Yes, corrupt police officers still exist. Rookie New York cop gets sentenced in bank robbery after conspiring with a bank teller at the bank he robbed, twice.

5th anniversary of the Beslan school attack.  A sad and terrible day for all.

From the Wall Street Journal, Afghan warlord, a non-Pashtun, has joined with the Taliban.  It’s demonstrates the shift and despair in Afghan, a country that has been riddled with war for nearly 30 years.  Afghans see no way out so they find a way to at least survive.

Why Churchless Christianity Doesn’t Work.  Authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck in their book Why We Love the Church explains that Christianity was institutional even in the beginning.  Even more so, “a church has order, offices, and certain worship elements.”  From the article,

You say people are disillusioned with the church for many reasons. Which is the hardest for people to get over?

I think the personal reasons are definitely the hardest and most frequent. There are enough sinners in all of our churches, and we need to be willing to listen to people when they are genuinely hurt. But I think a lot of this “church is lame” stuff is really immaturity.

Hopefully people will look back and say, “We were kind of like petulant children getting tired of our parents and thinking that they didn’t know anything.” Then you get married and have your own kids and realize, “Maybe I didn’t always see everything as clearly as I thought I did.”

Unfortunately, we have so many choices of churches that we don’t have to work through those things (and the growth that God might want to give us through the painful process).

From This Rock, the problem with sola scriptura.  It isn’t defensible and is entirely read into the text when the Biblical text says otherwise.

No Jesus and Me Christianity.  Again, from This Rock.  On praying to the saints and why it’s totally Biblical.

Mrs. Beamish and the C of E (a fun video)

While Mrs. Beamish may be C of E (Church of England), her behavior is certainly true of many Catholics who call themselves “Traditionalists.”

(Just a little fun. )

Baptism, Assurance of Salvation, and Gnosticism

So I’ve been reading this book about the spiritual life by a non-Catholic Christian.  A Baptist to be precise.  His main focus of the book is being born again and supposedly all that relates to it.  However, he misses a lot, his arguments are weak or non-existent, and he misinterprets passages so badly as to be twisted to mean something they do not.  He also seems to deny some fundamental beliefs (maybe he just didn’t feel them important enough to include them in this book?) that are pretty important even to a Baptist even if they are in direct defiance of Catholic belief.  One of those beliefs he seems to reject out of hand is baptism.  I am preparing a separate post on Baptism because I am including not only the Catholic belief but also mainline (at least what’s considered mainline) Protestant beliefs as well (Lutheran, Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian).  But more importantly, he falls into the heresy I’ve mentioned in my previous posts: Gnosticism.  The idea that human consciousness or awareness can be put above and beyond all else and that with this knowledge and knowing someone can be saved.

The book is Finally Alive by John Piper.  In it, he attempts to argue that we must be born again and what that means to us.  However, he dismisses some important beliefs along with including specific denominational beliefs.

This post will be dealing with three of the top most common problems found: rejection of baptism as a means of salvation (1 Peter 3:21), assurance of salvation, and Gnosticism.

He argues for the new birth (he switches between new birth, born again, new life, and other similar terms that actually have different meanings even if they are slightly different meanings).  He starts with the Gospel of John Chapter 3: 1-10 (I include to verse 15 from the NAB).

“1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?”

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this? 11 Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. 12 If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Now the problem is John 3:5 is referring not just to being born again but baptism.  While, Jesus only mentions it once in this passage (Piper argues that with the only one mention Jesus never really referred to baptism and that baptism is not required for the new birth) the argument that it is only mentioned once does not mean it is unimportant.  Nicodemus has a hard time understanding what being born from above means (I think the phrase “born from above” is clearer than “born again” thought they both refer to the same event) and how could an old man like him be born again.  Jesus explains but doesn’t say baptism isn’t required.  It’s an argument from silence that since Jesus only mentions baptism once in this passage that it’s just a passing reference that has no importance.  If so, why do Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Episcopalian, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians consider baptism a sacrament and a means of grace if Jesus thinks baptism is unimportant? And if a sacrament, why would they wait till someone was an adult when a baby could benefit from the immediate graces gained from Baptism and help the child as they grow in faith and love of Christ?  God isn’t constrained by the world or us.  He is bigger than all that and can use anything as a means of grace.  1 Peter 3:21 even says that Baptism saves:

^“21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (NKJV) (emphasis mine)

Or the NIV:

“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Verse 20 (the preceding verse) talks about how Noah and the others that were saved was a prefiguring of the baptism that now saves.

“who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, ²¹and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (NIV).

Baptism saves by baptizing us into Christ’s death and resurrection.

Piper is a Baptist.  While they see baptism as a sign/symbol only, (as a signal that one has converted and asked Jesus into their heart) they still place baptism as an event of significance even if they only think it is symbolic.  So why ignore it in regards to being born again?  There are very few (though increasingly more) that believe baptism has no significance in a believer’s life.  Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign of the new relationship we have with God.  With baptism or circumcision, we are made full members of God’s family and partake in the covenant he created with us.  Baptism is not only the initiation into God’s family as His children it is also a means of grace.  We are baptized into Christ’s death and rise again in new life in him (Roman 6:3 “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?).

Our baptism effects an ontological change in us.  It not only wipes away original sin but also any sins we may have committed while initiating us into God’s family leaving an indelible mark on our souls while uniting us with Jesus in his death and resurrection while providing us graces to live holy lives.

Who knew Baptism was so full of amazing stuff?  Powerful stuff.  And yet Piper places knowledge of God and Jesus, knowing about Jesus over personally knowing Jesus, as more important in having faith.

Piper also argues that even when we sin we aren’t cut off from God and that we are still saved.  Oh boy.  First, he doesn’t understand, at least fully, that sin cuts us off from God.  When we sin, we deliberately cut ourselves off from God.  We choose our own will over Him and His Will.  Plus, not all sin is deadly, which he kinds of hint at but poorly. Actually, he uses the same Scripture reference to mortal sin and venial sin that Catholics use but misinterprets it to mean that if one is saved, then they cannot be cut off from God even in sin. (1 John 5:16) (NKJV):

“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” (emphasis mine)

Here we see that some sin will not kill our relationship with Christ (venial sins) but there are sins that will kill (mortal sins; involves three elements: grave matter, you have to know that it is grave matter, and still choose to do it).  Piper, and many others, argue that once one is saved, sin will not cut us off from Jesus.  According to Piper, sin isn’t a relationship destroyer between us and God but rather an inconvenience.  (I hope that isn’t what he means.  I wonder however.)  Doesn’t that say Jesus and God ignore what you did all because you have a special pass and that if you don’t have a special pass you aren’t saved?  God sees everything.  He knows when we sin.  Just confessing it privately to Him isn’t going to fix it.  What if you aren’t really sorry?  What if you never confess it at all?  You think Jesus is going to forget it just because you believe you are saved because you said a prayer and invited Jesus into your life but didn’t change your life?  I still cannot comprehend how people can believe they can sin, not repent or go to Confession, not change their life and their habits and still expect to be saved?  Isn’t that ignoring what Jesus commands of us?  Or say they have repented but haven’t changed their lifestyle or habits to prevent them from committing that particular sin again.  (I know there are those out there that expect that once one makes a decision for Christ that they change their life and do their best to live good lives and don’t believe in once save always saves but in you can lose your salvation (which is consistent with Catholic teaching).  Though with the increase of easy believism and decline in morals with the addition of the false doctrine of “once saved, always saved” it is hard to see this aspect when the easy way out is presented more often.)

Metanoia, the Greek work for “conversion” also means “repentance.”  One cannot convert or choose to follow Jesus without repentance and lifelong repentance at that.  We are all sinners.  Even if we were never to sin again after being baptized, we are still capable of sin and must repent of it, must avoid occasions of it, must not put ourselves near it.  The impression I get from reading Piper’s book is that once one has accepted Jesus (and you already predetermined chose by Him so your cooperation is unnecessary) (basically, Piper and many others don’t believe or don’t put forth the need for people to cooperate with Jesus and the graces He gives us because nothing we do matters and so we play no real part in accepting salvation or damnation.  Add to that Calvinism teaches that God has preselected/predetermined (predestination) those who will be saved and those who will be damned well before any one was born and that only the elect (the pre-saved) will be allowed into Heaven.  God creates people just to send them to Hell?  Doesn’t sound like the God of love, that God is love that He is mentioned to be in the Bible.  Sounds like a vicious God that conditionally loves only a select group of people rather than the whole world, again mentioned in the Bible.  We choose to cooperate with grace or we don’t.  While it is grace that saves us, we must cooperate with that grace otherwise what’s the point?  God won’t force Himself on us if we don’t choose Him or to love Him.  He isn’t that mean or vicious.)  Even our acceptance of Christ does not mean we are saved.  Matt 7:21 (NKJV) “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”

Assurance of salvation isn’t possible.  We can have confidence but we don’t know for certain if we are saved.  I link you to a This Rock magazine article that lays it out better than I can: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0903btb.asp.

But back to Gnosticism.  It’s an early heresy that got its first grapple on Christianity pretty soon after the death of the Apostles, if not during the time of St. Paul and the writing of his letters to various communities.  It unfortunately keeps coming back over and over again, like a bad (well, I’ll come up with an appropriate analogy some day).  From New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm):

“The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis “knowledge”, gnostikos, “good at knowing”), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were “people who knew”, and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be:

A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour” (emphasis mine).

The article goes on further to cover the historical development of the heresy with its roots not in Christianity but in pagan religions and beliefs prior to Christianity.  Of note:

“Although the origins of Gnosticism are still largely enveloped in obscurity, so much light has been shed on the problem by the combined labours of many scholars that it is possible to give the following tentative solution: Although Gnosticism may at first sight appear a mere thoughtless syncretism of well nigh all religious systems in antiquity, it has in reality one deep root-principle, which assimilated in every soil what is needed for its life and growth; this principle is philosophical and religious pessimism.

The Gnostics, it is true, borrowed their terminology almost entirely from existing religions, but they only used it to illustrate their great idea of the essential evil of this present existence and the duty to escape it by the help of magic spells and a superhuman Saviour. Whatever they borrowed, this pessimism they did not borrow — not from Greek thought, which was a joyous acknowledgment of and homage to the beautiful and noble in this world, with a studied disregard of the element of sorrow; not from Egyptian thought, which did not allow its elaborate speculations on retribution and judgment in the netherworld to cast a gloom on this present existence, but considered the universe created or evolved under the presiding wisdom of Thoth; not from Iranian thought, which held to the absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazda and only allowed Ahriman a subordinate share in the creation, or rather counter-creation, of the world; not from Indian Brahminic thought, which was Pantheism pure and simple, or God dwelling in, nay identified with, the universe, rather than the Universe existing as the contradictory of God; not, lastly, from Semitic thought, for Semitic religions were strangely reticent as to the fate of the soul after death, and saw all practical wisdom in the worship of Baal, or Marduk, or Assur, or Hadad, that they might live long on this earth.

This utter pessimism, bemoaning the existence of the whole universe as a corruption and a calamity, with a feverish craving to be freed from the body of this death and a mad hope that, if we only knew, we could by some mystic words undo the cursed spell of this existence — this is the foundation of all Gnostic thought. It has the same parent-soil as Buddhism; but Buddhism is ethical, it endeavours to obtain its end by the extinction of all desire; Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively to magical knowledge. Moreover, Gnosticism, placed in other historical surroundings, developed from the first on other lines than Buddhism.”

Further: “These magic formulae, which caused laughter and disgust to outsiders, are not a later and accidental corruption, but an essential part of Gnosticism, for they are found in all forms of Christian Gnosticism and likewise in Mandaeism. No Gnosis was essentially complete without the knowledge of the formulae, which, once pronounced, were the undoing of the higher hostile powers. Magic is the original sin of Gnosticism, nor is it difficult to guess whence it is inherited.”

Sounds familiar?  Mormons use special formulas in their temple ceremonies and have secret words that have to be said when Jesus comes again otherwise they are not saved.  But while Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Gnosticism regurgitated, I am not dealing with these two false religions with a veneer of Christian language.  I am talking about Gnosticism in general and it periodic reappearance in Protestant theology.  This salvation by knowledge is dangerous and has been repackaged in bright colorful packaging with new brand names and pretty new spokespeople.  This dangerous heresy has come back and infiltrated not only Protestant Christianity (already full of heresy) but presents itself as the solution to the problem of Protestant Christianity and even more so, to Catholicism.

In regards to soteriology (the study of salvation): “In Marcionism, the most dualistic phase of Gnosticism, salvation consisted in the possession of the knowledge of the Good God and the rejection of the Demiurge. The Good God revealed himself in Jesus and appeared as man in Judea; to know him, and to become entirely free from the yoke of the World-Creator or God of the Old Testament, is the end of all salvation.

The Gnostic Saviour, therefore, is entirely different from the Christian one. For the Gnostic Saviour does not save. Gnosticism lacks the idea of atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for, except ignorance be that sin. Nor does the Saviour in any sense benefit the human race by vicarious sufferings. Nor, finally, does he immediately and actively affect any individual human soul by the power of grace or draw it to God. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world the truth, which alone can save. As a flame sets naphtha on fire, so the Saviour’s light ignites predisposed souls moving down the stream of time. Of a real Saviour who with love human and Divine seeks out sinners to save them, Gnosticism knows nothing.”

Jesus did not die for our sins, as believed and espoused in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds.  In Gnosticism, and Marcionism in particular, Jesus was a teacher of this hidden knowledge that allows humanity to rise above their human selves, not the Son of God and born of the Virgin Mary who was crucified, died, buried, and rose again.  He is merely a teacher that teaches the knowledge that is necessary to restore the order of things.  We are beings of spirit not of flesh and that the secret knowledge is necessary to “break free: from the bonds of the flesh.  However, there is no resurrection of the body (remember the body is “bad” and spirit and knowledge is good, dualism and a major part of the heresy of Manichaeism though not prevalent in all the “schools” of Gnosticism though it did play a role).  There is little mention of heaven and hell largely because these eternal destinations require a physical body rather than an “enlightened” mind.

I recommend reading the New Advent article in full to truly appreciate the history and impact that the heresy of Gnosticism had on Christianity though it did not last long due to its nature and the fact that it was born out of dying religions.  However, Gnosticism has come around again.  In researching for this article, I found a website praising and supporting Gnosticism and preaching it as “real” faith.  Here is one example: http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm.  Gnosticism has once again regained a foot hold because the idea of possessing secret knowledge, adhering to something outside mainstream Christianity, the media, etc. have put forth the idea that possession of secret knowledge will make someone better, faster, stronger, help them to succeed.  It’s particularly appetizing to those that want to follow a set of beliefs but not a set of rules, especially ones that impact their life morally.  They want a “faith”  that allows them to have secret knowledge that few possess (exclusivity), secret rituals, special membership, and only the “special” or “anointed” can belong to and fully understand what it all really means.

With regards to Protestantism, Gnosticism rears its ugly head in the plethora of books about “how” to have a relationship with Jesus with the expectation that if one reads the book and does what it says then they will be saved.  And the more they read, (instead of prayer, sacraments, etc.) the more holy they become, and the more likely they will be saved.  It is the veneer of Christianity with Gnosticism at its root.  Jesus isn’t the center of these peoples’ universe; it is knowledge about Jesus rather than Jesus himself that becomes important to them.  They read blogs, books, websites, attend conferences, watch videos, etc. instead of reading the Bible (though Bible reading can be a part of Gnosticism especially if they look to it for all their information about the world and in making decisions), praying, worshiping God in Sundays, making use of the sacraments (if they posses any which they only posses Baptism and Matrimony).  They fill their brains and not their hearts.  They become passive receptacles rather than active vehicles.  They talk about Jesus but don’t talk to Jesus.  This is what I see on the Internet and hear from people.  Now, this isn’t a broad brush and not all Protestants or even Catholics are doing it.  However, the fact that there are even a few doing it is dangerous.  And many don’t know that they are doing it.  They think they are “learning” rather than “hiding” or looking for secret knowledge.  Unfortunately, it is too easy to fall into this trap, reading, watching, and searching for answers instead of looking to Jesus.

This heresy has gained a foothold largely in part due to the Internet and how easy it is to access “information.”  Many people believe what they read on the Internet to be “true.”  Or they belong to a group or have a belief or practice that limits what they can read to only group approved/belief approved materials.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do this by requiring their members to never read material that might present an alternative view or even the truth about their false religion.  They must only read Watchtower approved or Leadership approved materials.  Everything else is apostate.  They are not the only groups who do this, however, and this restriction isn’t just to religious materials but also news, medical, research materials as well.  If you can control what people read, you can control what they think and what they believe.  Even if one is not restricted in their reading materials they can be restricted in their theology or in their own choices.  If Person A chooses only material that supports his Calvinist beliefs, on salvation, on how no one else is saved, he isolates himself in his views.  If he looks to the Internet for all his information about his beliefs instead of reading books, talking a pastor, praying, he not only isolates but ignores the human factor.  If all Person A does is read websites and blogs and books about Jesus rather than praying and forming a relationship with Jesus, he has fallen into Gnosticism especially if he thinks all this knowledge will save him.

Do I have a solution, a means of fighting this heresy?  Learn the faith.  Learn why you believe what you believe and why.  Prayer.  Fasting.  Make use of the Sacraments (if you have them).  Be careful in your choice of reading material, especially anything  by authors outside your own faith and especially in a tradition that rejects intellectual pursuit.  Be careful in how you spend time and what you spend it on.  Be aware of what you use in your faith life.  They might be the old tried and true but they work.

Why I Won’t Be Watching the New Stargate

SyFy (really? can anyone say too much Tweeter or teenspeak?) canceled Stargate: Atlantis after only 5 seasons.  And for a while, I didn’t agree with the opinions out there that those two season were bad because Mallozzi and Mulli had taken over production and writing for the series.  Then I saw the Fifth season.  Okay, Rodney McKay may be a bit self-centered and bit egotistical but after four years on Atlantis and all he’s been through he would not have been the jerk he was written as in “Search and Rescue.”  Season Four did a half (blank) job on showing Rondey as human and caring for others.  And now he goes back to being like the jerk he was before he joined the Atlantis expedition?  NO.  It’s like the writers and producers forgot their audience actually paid attention to the show, to characters, and saw what was happening.  They tried to sell the viewers a bill of goods and it didn’t fly for many.  Even more so is the fact that they just swept difficult and morally challenged issues (Lucius Loven and his “drug” that was pretty much a date rape drug comes to mind) under the rug.

Science fiction, at least it used to be, dealt with the difficult moral and ethical questions.  Challenging what we held to be right and wrong but still agreeing that right and wrong were still very much black and white.  Stargate seems to have forgotten morality and chucked it out the window.  So has mch of society but I don’t think it’s the only factor involved.

Stargate: Universe premiers in October.  However, I will not be watching and not only because I don’t have a working TV nor do I have cable.  Once I found out that two of the main characters were going to be homosexual and blatanly so,  I refused to watch.  I won’t support or watch something I find morally offensive especially to my faith.  Why cater to a very small minority that already gets plenty of air time on major TV networks?  Not only that, but the plot is a rip off of Star Trek: Voyager  (lost, far from home and not sure they’re going to get back; sound familiar?) (guess they’ll ruin the ending of the show and how they get home like they did on Voyager because hey, they can just follow that plot) with lots of soap opera style elements thrown in.  When did science fiction become just about sex?  No, really?  When?

Last week, a character description got leaked and it causes an uproar.  Read Here. Why?  Because it was offensive in its description of a severely physically impaired person, calling the person “physically useless.”  I also find this horribly offensive to anyone who has any sort of impairment.  Who decided usefulness or worth based on physical ability?  Well, unfortunately, many in society do especially in American where physical agility and beauty is rewarded with million dollar contracts and endorsements with large media outlets forcing these rewardees in our faces.  While the producers apologized, it was all the talk on Gateworld and other sites.  Why?  Not just because of the offensive remarks made in the description but about comments from MGM’s spokesperson on how the lesbian of the show, Camilla Wray (played by Ming-Na) has the only “healthy relationship” on the show.  Apparently, there will be some body-swapping going (like one of the comments, hello? 2009 here; come up with something new for once) and the physcially impaired person will swap bodies with the lesbian and then have sex with another male character on the ship.  First, why and when did having sex imply or make someone a person whole?  (Actually, the comment in question states it better.)  But this is where it really gets interesting because many of the commenters are saying this is rape (I agree, just because you swap bodies doesn’t mean you possess or get to do anything you like with the body that isn’t yours) and there are others who are saying it’s not because swapping bodies means you get to do anything in that body.  Read the really bad opinion piece and comments here.

But one commenter brought up Christopher Reeves.  He was paralyzed from the neck down as a result of an accident.  The commenter stated that if Christopher had the opportunity to swap bodies and have sex with his wife, he’d do it in a heartbeat.  Hold on a minute.  One, this supposes that Christopher had no consideration for the person he was swapping bodies with.  Two, it supposes that Christopher can only love his wife and demonstrate his love for his wife through sex (apparently all those years of marriage didn’t mean a thing to this person).  Three, it supposes that it is morally acceptable for one person to take control of another person’s body, even through body-swapping, and use it for their own purposes.  Unfortunately, Mr. Reeves is dead so we can’t ask him but I don’t think he would be that callous to want to swap bodies with someone and then use that body in a way that the person wouldn’t use his/her own body for.  I would consider it wrong for someone who swapped bodies to just do anything with that body that isn’t theirs.  Anything you would do in that body would be causing harm (outside normal functions of eating, sleeping, and personal hygiene) and would even be considered assault, battery, and in some cases, rape.  You don’t have the authority or the ability to just do anything with a body that isn’t yours.  It really doesn’t surprise me that there are people out there who would see knothing wrong with using a body that isn’t theirs for their own purposes and without any regards to the consequences.  They see nothing wrong because they don’t consider it their body so they don’t have to take responsibility for it and what they do.  It’s the sad state of the world today.  Nobody wants to take responsibility anymore.