Pages

11.07.2009

My Post-Christian World Thought Experiment

I’m reading a two-volume book set that has all of the recent (from the 1960’s to today) Catholic church documents regarding the liturgy (the Mass). Yes – I know . . . exciting :)

I’m reading it because I coordinate the weekly Friday Mass celebrations at my school (along with other special Masses throughout the year), and it never hurts to brush up on the very large skill-set it takes to make sure our celebrations are in conformity with the (literally!) thousands of pages of text that make up the Church’s guidelines / rules / procedures for Mass.

In the midst of this textual assault, a line I read sparked a random, non-liturgical thought: What would Christianity (specifically Catholicism, though I imagine parts of this would apply to other brands of Christianity as well) look like if our churches were taken away and/or the practice of Christianity became illegal all over the world? Say, by a one-world government ruled over by the avatar of Lucifer who forced us to implant microchips into our hands that were traceable by government agencies and contained every scrap of digital information imaginable while telling us what we could and could not think about . . . but I digress :)

Another digression: I’m thinking, as I write this (shocking, I know!), that the Emergent church movement, as well as base Christian communities and countless very small Church groups may already be living this right now, but again, this is more of a thought experiment for Catholicism specifically, not Christianity in general. So enough with my rambling . . . on to the meandering :)

1. Less Rules :)

I imagine that, without a centralized bureaucracy/hierarchy, we would have fewer rules to worry about . . . since we’d be worried about slightly weightier things like . . . oh, I don’t know . . .  torture, imprisonment, death, etc. :) Suddenly the color of the altar linen, or the linen, or even the altar become less of a focus and the actual celebration of the Eucharist becomes more important, along with the resultant community that is there to literally give life or death support as needed.

We would no longer be worried about altar boys/altar girls, as the altar would most likely be any table or plank of wood or metal we could find to gather around – there’s really no need for a server anymore as in time we’d revert to improvised prayers instead of a sacramentary and remembered gospel stories instead of a lectionary. The materials used to make the Eucharistic bread would not be a matter of concern either – any bread we could smuggle in would gladly and reverently be used to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Arguments about where to place the tabernacle, whether to have a separate chapel for Adoration, whether to use one type of architectural model or another, and a whole myriad of church construction issues would be moot, as we would no longer be able to build churches. We would worship in any secret/safe place we could gather in, whether that be a graveyard, a dining room table, a cramped attic or a cold meat locker. We would focus less on who should be around the altar and more on who might or might not be around the altar because they had been taken away for their faith.

I remember the quote attributed to Tertullian: “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” I’ve read about some of the persecution that the Body of Christ is enduring in our own time in Africa, China, the Middle East, etc. I’ve also read that in areas where Christianity is persecuted the nascent church is alive with faith: people are willing - just like in the early formation of our body – to give their lives for the faith they believe in. And I wonder if maybe persecution wouldn’t be such a bad thing for our lukewarm body right now.

I’m not exactly sure where else I’ll go with this, but I’ll think about it some more and post again later on this week.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

10.30.2009

Saint Activity

Step 1: Choose a saint you would like to learn more about. You can choose from saints based on date, patronage, or name from the following websites:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patron02.htm

http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php

http://www.rosaryshop.com/saints.php

http://www.magnificat.ca/cal/engl/liste-sts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saints

Step 2: Print a one page summary of your saints that includes:
a) a picture
b) a short paragraph on the life of the saint
c) a short paragraph on what that saint is famous for and/or what the saint is a patron of
d) a short paragraph on why you choose that particular saint
e) a prayer written by that saint or about the saint

Due Today, so don't take too much time looking around! :)

Blessings & Peace,
Mr. D :)

10.04.2009

Bookmarks Part I – Glasses & Pens

I wanted to highlight two website I’ve purchased items from to kick off this multipart series (which may take a while to finish – reader be warned!). The first page is a practical one: Zenni Optical. I’ve been wearing glasses since I was right (almost 30 years now!), and I’ve bought my fair share of glasses from several brick and mortar stores. But a few months ago my wife and I both took the plunge into online glass shopping. (online glasses shopping? I’m not sure how to word that!)

We checked our vision at an independent doctor of optometry for about $25 each, and walked out with our prescriptions. We used this site to help us figure our what type of glasses went with our facial features. Then we each spent about an hour browsing all of the different styles of glasses that Zenni offers (the amount of choices they offer is truly staggering).

I went with a rimless full-swing hinge memory titanium model similar to this:

My wife went with a more fashionable approach (she choose a burgundy color instead of this white one):

The glasses come with anti-scratch coating, UV coating, and polished/beveled edges for free. I made mine a bit thinner, and my wife added photochromatic lenses to hers, which bumped our price up by $40. Even with those additions, we only paid about $120 for both pairs (including shipping and handling), including some clip on sunglasses for my glasses. We received the glasses two weeks after we placed our order, and we were able to track our order online.

I am very pleased with our purchase – the only thing I would change about my glasses is that I would pay the extra for the upgrade to their thinnest lens configuration – I had forgotten how thick my glasses could get :) With their prices, my wife and I will definitely buy from them again.

 

The other site I’ve purchased from is I Sell Pens which sells (drum roll please!) . . . pens. :) I’ve always had a weakness for nice writing instruments (pens and mechanical pencils), and the last few years have seen my buying several fountain pens. I found this website after a long google search for an inexpensive online retailer – I am rather pleased with my purchase from them.

I’ve only bought one pen from them so far – a Kaigelu #335 - Mosaic Shell:

I love the weight of the pen, and smoothness of the writing, and the way it looks and sounds as I use it throughout the day. I remember reading once that pens are a form of functional jewelry – while I really don’t like to wear watches, rings or necklaces, I enjoy this piece of jewelry immensely :)

I dropped the pen, and the glass convertor cartridge (the one inside the pen that holds the ink) broke near the top; I couldn’t remove it to add the spare cartridge that came with the pen. When I emailed the website owner and explained my dilemma, he instructed me to send him the pen and he replaced it for the cost of my postage. It was great, prompt customer service, and I know I’ll be buying a few more pens from them in the near future (my son has asked for one as well). :)

I hope you’ve enjoyed these first two website recommendations. Next time – organization! :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

10.02.2009

Next Series – Bookmark strolling

I subscribe to several magazines, email lists, twitter feeds, etc., and have amassed a nice-sized collection of bookmarks. I’ll take a few weeks to post some of my favorites – you may find something you like.

Tomorrow – some links from my “household” section :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.26.2009

Hiatus

I won’t be posting again ‘till August 7th - got a nice vacation coming up :) See y’all soon!

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.21.2009

A Series of Posts – Bringing it Home – Mary as Mediatrix

http://www.unhub.com/hugodlr (for my Facebook fans!) :)

The titles of “Mediatrix” and “Co-Redemptrix” are not officially defined dogmas of the Catholic Church regarding Mary (I defined the dogmas at the beginning of this document). They may be used of her in an unofficial capacity, but again, like the actual Marian dogmas of the Church, they are Christological in nature; that is, they aim to define more clearly who and what Jesus is instead of trying to define who and what Mary is. The titles refer to her freely given consent to be the Mother of Jesus, the Redeemer and Savior of all humanity and of all the cosmos. If she would have said “no,” we would not have had Jesus. That is a historical fact. Since she said yes, she is part of salvation history. She cannot save us, she does not save us – she is not the Savior, plain and simple. But by merit of her yes, she plays a role in salvation history. That is all those words connote.

In all of the passages above, every reference to Mary ultimately is a reference to Jesus. “To Jesus through Mary” is a popular Catholic saying that teaches that Mary will always point us in the direction of her Son, and will always lead us, with motherly care, to worship and adore her Son. The Catholic view of Co-Redemptrix does not imply that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ her son. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process. (Quoted from Wikipedia)

One final note: In a document that spans 2,865 sections [talking about the Catechism here], less then 1% of them are related to Mary – yes, she is important to the Christian Church, but we always keep the Blessed Trinity (and Jesus’ Paschal Mystery) central to the mystery of our salvation.

The original document ended here, so I’ll leave it here as well. Next post – some short stories (because I feel like doing fiction instead of non-fiction). :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.16.2009

A Series of Posts – Worship of Mary & the Saints

I post on my blog using Windows Live Writer, and then that blog post gets pulled into my Facebook page using Simplaris Blogcast. But it doesn’t seem to provide a link (only the first paragraph), so I’ll see if the links I posted above go through. :) And now, on to your regularly scheduled blog . . .

Translating from one language to another is difficult. Translating from one time period to another is difficult as well. If we try to read the English of Shakespeare's time, we stumble and fall over unfamiliar words and outdated colloquialisms. If we try to read something translated from a different language we invariably run into phrases that cannot be translated literally because they have no corresponding words in the new language.

For those who accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary we run into the same problem. All of the official writings of the Church are done in Latin. It has been the official language of the Church for hundreds of years. So in Latin we are told the following:

We latira God alone.
We dulia the saints who surround God’s throne and who surround us as a great cloud of witnesses.
We hyperdulia Mary as the Mother of God.

There is an exact translation of latira into English: worship. The Catechism and the church are clear – we worship God alone, and no one else. There is no equivalent translation for dulia and hyperdulia into English. In older English translations they are translated as “worship.” However, the definition for worship is more nuanced then most people know.

Here's the definition from answers.com for worship:

Worship (noun)
1a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
Ardent devotion; adoration.

Worship (verb)
1a.To honor and love as a deity.
1b. To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See synonyms at revere(1)
2a. To participate in religious rites of worship.
2b. To perform an act of worship.

I think in Christianity the term is more specific and applied only to God (Father, Son & Spirit), but in general usage it can be properly applied to the way Catholics interact with the saints, with Mary in particular, with pictures/icons, etc. - it's a "reverent love and devotion." It should not detract from our worship of God - it's supposed to enhance our worship of God, lead us ever-closer to the source and summit of our strength - Jesus Christ, God with us.

We honor Mary and the saints in the same way that Protestants may honor Billy Graham, Luther, Moody, Tyndale, King or any other celebrated preacher. We honor them with love and devotion the same way a husband honors and loves his wife. But we do not and never have worshipped them.

Another point to consider is that we are never dead in Christ. We are either alive here on earth or we are (hopefully) with God – there is no middle ground. If we can ask one another for prayers here in this world, how much more can we ask those already around God’s throne for prayers as well? That great cloud of witnesses that surrounds us is the same as the saints that are arranged around God’s throne continually praising him. If I can ask you for prayers, how much more can I ask someone who is right next to God for prayers? All of our prayer goes directly to God; we can choose to ask others to pray with us or for us, both here on earth and already in God's presence, but the prayer is always directed towards God.

Jesus Christ is truly the only mediator between God and humanity, but he is not the only intercessor. Otherwise, why would we ever ask anyone else to pray for us again?

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.13.2009

A Series of Posts – A Scripture Passage

I’ve already written about the passages where it talks about Jesus’ siblings, but one Scripture passage also deals with family – where he talks directly to Mary, his mother. The relevant text is: And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (King James Version). ALSO: As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" (Revised Standard Version)

In the time of Jesus, family was important. More important then strangers, more important then neighbors – you would give everything for your family, and they would give everything for you. Jesus is here teaching that following him means letting go of the genetic family bonds and holding close to your new spiritual family bonds – your new family in Christ. In other areas of the Gospels he does the same thing: he heals a Canaanite woman’s daughter even though they worshipped false gods. He heals a Roman centurion's daughter even though they worshipped false gods. His stories put Samaritans as “good guys” even though they had mixed their Jewish faith with that of their pagan neighbors. He touches lepers, forgives women caught in adultery, and welcomes killers, tax-collectors and doubters as his closest followers.

In all of these instances Jesus is trying to break his disciples free of their narrow, sectarian, close-minded view of family and form their thoughts to see every single human being as their new family. They were called to love everyone without judgment, showing mercy as God showered mercy on them. It is not an indictment of his mother, but an indictment of Jewish ways of thinking about family life.

It now becomes an indictment for all Christians down through the ages – anytime we start to make lines (we’re over here, they’re over there) Jesus reminds us that we are called to love and serve everyone, especially the poorest and voiceless among us, and especially those that are the hardest for us to love.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

A Series of Posts – The Marian Dogmas Part II

Assumption

The dogma states that "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." Some distinctions: We don't know if she died first and then was assumed, or if she was assumed on the verge of death, or if she was assumed before dying. Also, we distinguish her assumption from the ascension of Jesus: Jesus ascended to heaven under his own power and on his own authority; Mary was assumed into heaven by the grace and power of God. It is symbolic of God's hope that all of us will one day be in heaven - that we will make the journey to our true home and bask in God's presence.

Regarding her bodily assumption, we believe that at the end of her life, due to her special place as the mother of Jesus, God lifted her (assumed her) directly into heaven (body, mind, soul & spirit). As the "first fruits" of Christ's redemptive sacrifice, she was able to forego the corruption of the physical body here on earth and proceed directly to the glory of the resurrection.

Perpetual Virginity

The earliest extant manuscript which talks about Mary's perpetual virginity (no sexual intercourse, no further children) is the Protogospel of James from around 150 AD. We see further discussion and development and finally acceptance of this teaching around the middle of the 4th century. Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome & Augustine all defended the doctrine, which was solemnly taught in 553 at the 5th Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople. Like the doctrine of divine motherhood, Mary's perpetual virginity points to the singular nature of her son, Jesus - it is not a detraction from the normal way of life for spouses, it is not a condemnation of married sexual love, and it is not an exaltation of celibacy over sexuality: it is another Marian teaching subsumed under Christology because it helps focus on the unique nature of the incarnation of Jesus.

I’m aware of the texts in the Gospels that talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The word that's usually translated as "brothers" (or “brothers and sisters”) in the NT can also refer to cousins, young uncles, close family friends, etc. - more of a close-knit tribe/family than just biological siblings. Since the word can go either way, and since the Church has defined the perpetual virginity of Mary (going along with the teaching of the early church) we take it to mean that Mary was indeed ever virgin.

Having said all that, we do not worship Mary, nor pray to her statues, nor offer offerings to her in lieu of God . . . all of the honor given to Mary as the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of God flows exactly from her special, singular and unique relationship to her son: one part of the Holy & Blessed Trinity.

Queen of Heaven (Not a dogma, but it fits well in this section)

Regarding Mary as Queen of Heaven, in ancient Israel it was the king's mother who reigned as queen, not his wife. Most kings had harems full of wives and concubines - none of them were ever called "queen" - it was always the mother of the king (and there was only ever one mother!) who was given that title in relation to her son. In 1 & 2 Kings the name of the Queen Mother is mentioned many times along that of her royal son. In Jeremiah 13:18 the Queen Mother is shown as wearing a crown just like her son the King. The Queen Mother was expected to help her son in his work, and she often served as an advocate for the people, hearing their petitions and taking them to the king. In 1 Kings 2 we have an account of Bathsheba coming in to see her son, the king - she is treated royally, with the king bowing to her and seating her in a place of honor - he listens to her and faithfully follows her wishes.

This is the historical and scriptural background which underscores the Catholic and Orthodox veneration of Mary as Queen of Heaven and Earth. For the ancient Jews who saw Jesus as a new Davidic king, Mary would naturally inherit the role of Queen Mother. When Elizabeth greeted Mary she used courtly language: “how is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me." In the courtly language of the time "my Lord" was another way of saying "my king" - from the beginning of the gospel accounts we are given hints as to how Mary was regarded by those around her.

Continued in two days :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.10.2009

A Series of Posts – The Marian Dogmas Part I

Still posting from a short essay I wrote – enjoy :)

We have three Marian dogmas (teachings) in the Catholic Church

a) Her divine motherhood (Theotokos, defined @ the Council of Ephesus in 431)
b) her Immaculate Conception (formally defined in 1854)
c) her bodily assumption into heaven (formally defined in 1950)

Plus one dogma that is not formally defined but still kept:
d) her perpetual virginity (baptismal formulation since the 3rd century)

Now some history & theology :-)

Divine Motherhood

Mary was declared theotokos (from the Greek; literally "to give birth to God"; usually transliterated as Mother of God) in direct contradistinction to the heresy that denied that Jesus was really God, or that he was fully human and fully divine. It is embedded in the church's Christological teaching because it helps describe and delineate the nature and person of Christ Jesus - it is not a separate teaching on it's own.

Regarding "Mother of God", this is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos:

Theotokos is a compound of two Greek words, θεος "God" and τοκος "parturition, childbirth." Literally, this translates as "God-bearer" or "One who gave birth to God." However, since many English-speaking Orthodox find this literal translation is awkward, in liturgical use, "Theotokos" is often retained in Greek or translated as "Mother of God." This last is not precisely synonymous, as it does not have the same connotations of physical childbearing. Furthermore, "Mother of God" (Greek Μητηρ Θεου) has an established usage of its own in certain hymns, but especially on icons of the Theotokos, in which case it is usually abbreviated as ΜΡ ΘΥ (see illustration below).

I would add that the term officially first entered the Church's vocabulary in 431 @ the Council of Ephesus, and it entered in as a Christological term, not a Mariological term (that is, the term was meant to affirm something about Jesus, not Mary). Nestorius was preaching that Mary was only Mother to the human side of Jesus and that Jesus had two distinct natures - that he was almost a split being. "Nestorius conceived of the divine Logos and the human Jesus as two separate persons who were joined together in some sort of moral or sympathetic union. According to Nestorius, the Son of God had joined Himself to the child or man named Jesus because of Jesus' own moral excellence. And so Jesus was born, grew to manhood, hungered and thirsted, suffered pain, and was crucified, dead, and buried. The Son of God, on the other hand, endured none of these things. He was with Jesus — so much so that Nestorius taught that the man Jesus ought to be worshipped — but He was a different person altogether, one incapable of experiencing anything human. (From the council)

Immaculate Conception

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states "that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin." Again, the dogma doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is also tied into the Christological teaching of the Church. Because of the singular nature of Jesus' birth, because of her anticipated "yes" to God's call, because of the necessity of preparing a vessel of honor for the Son of God to inhabit and enter into our world, we believe that Mary was kept free of original sin (what might be translated as "sin-nature" by some strains of Christianity somewhat captures what Catholics believe about original sin) - that is, she was not radically broken or disconnected from God, not because of her special place, but because she was to be the mother of the savior - again, it sheds light and helps define a Christological function: that Jesus was and is the Son of the living God.

Next week – the rest of the Marian dogmas :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.08.2009

A Series of Posts

One of the people I work with received a multi-page document arguing that the Catholic Church is erroneous in our teachings about Mary and the saints. I wrote a reply. The next several posts will be taken from that reply. Enjoy :)

I. Catholic Approach to Scripture

My response starts with the way Catholics view Biblical Inspiration. We are not literalists who believe that every word and punctuation mark was dictated by God to a responsive person who wrote it down like a dutiful secretary. God would never destroy our free will by making us automatons who only wrote what he told us to write.

However, we do not view Scripture as a purely man-made endeavor. We see Scripture being inspired by God, but the human authors working with God - using their God given free will - to craft sections of the Bible according to their intelligence, culture, and time. Hence any Catholic approach to Scripture will take into account different questions: who wrote it? why? for whom was it written? when? where? what references (cultural, religious, etc.) could the author take for granted and believe that his audience would also take for granted? We strive to put each book of Scripture into its historical context so as not to read our own limited view of history into the Biblical account.

Coupled with this is the fact that our Bible is not written by one person but by many human authors writing in different ways. Just like a newspaper has different sections, our Bible (which is not one book, but a collection of books, poetry, and letters) has different literary genres. We can see history (many portions of the Old Testament, the Acts of the Apostles), poetry (Psalms, the Song of Songs), fiction (short stories like Job and Jonah), Gospel (a distinct literary style found in, of course, the gospels!), apocalyptic writing (Revelation, portions of the Old Testament), and many others.

We look to the fact that the early Church only had available to them the Hebrew Scriptures – they were all still culturally and religiously Jewish, so references to Scripture in New Testament gospels and letters is always reference to the Old Testament. We have Paul writing his letters starting around 45 AD with the gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation written around 65 – 90 AD.

We have the canon of Scripture (the list of books that are considered the Bible) in nascent form around the year 200. The earliest list we have that matches our current New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. In 382 the Council of Rome set the process to define a definitive list of New Testament books. In 393 the Council of Hippo continues the discussion. In 397 the Council of Carthage compiles a definite list and send it to Pope Innocent to be ratified. In 787 the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea adopted the canon set forth in Carthage (which matches the one used by Catholics today). In 1442 the Council of Florence affirmed and recognized the 27 books that made up the canon of the New Testament for the entire worldwide Church. In 1536 Martin Luther publishes his translation of the Bible, removing four books (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) and placing them at the end of the Bible with a note that they are “less then canonical.” In 1546 the Catholic Church once again affirms the list of 27 books at the Council of Trent, placing the list of books as a dogma of the church.

So the Church affirms that even before there was a New Testament (the earliest that all of the books and letters would have been available to the early Church would have been around 100 AD) there was a Church centered on the verbal teachings (traditions) passed down from the Apostles.

For this reason, the Church never places the Bible at the center of our faith – we place Jesus (the Word of God) at the center of our faith, with Scripture and Tradition as coming from the same font of revealed truth.

Blessings & Peace.
Hugo

7.03.2009

Unhub.com

I found a website that consolidates info for those of us that have digital profiles all over the internet. :) The site is called unhub.com, and it let’s you place a bar over your websites with links to all of your other sites. The easiest way to see what I mean is to see it in action – you can find most of my digital hiding places by clicking here: Me :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

7.01.2009

Energy Savings for Texans

There's a program for Texas residents (please excuse me if you're a non-Texas resident!) where a repair company will come into your home and do an energy assessment. If they find issues, they'll fix some of them for free :)

They're in my home @ this very moment, and so far they've checked my attic's insulation, checked under sinks, checked windows, checked air vents, checked doors, caulked/sealed several areas around windows/doors, under sinks, and inside cabinets, and re-weather-stripped all of my doors, as well as giving me info on other ways I can help reduce energy consumption.

You can read about it here: http://rlenergytechnology.com/default.aspx or call to set up an appointment @ 866-697-1582. The program is on a first come first served basis (when the funds run out the program is finished), so call soon if you’d like to try and get some services for your home.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

6.29.2009

Call No Man Your Father

Matthew 23:9 says, "Call no your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in Heaven." Also, John 8:41 says that "we have one Father, even God."

This tells me that I should call no human being on the face of the earth, Father. But all good Roman Catholics do.


I assume that at some point you (and every other person on the face of this earth) called their male parent "father" or something similar. If we are to take the sentence literally, we may never refer to our male parent as "father", or even "dad", "daddy", etc. (these are all ways we have of referring to our biological male parent).

A closer look at the context of Matthew 23:9 reveals something else, though. The passage reads (from the RSV): But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.

If we are to take this literally, we may never call a person "teacher". Extending this, we may never call a person "doctor," because it comes from the Latin word for "teacher." We may never use the honorifics "Mister," "Miss," or "Missus" (I'm assuming that's how you spell it - I've never actually spelled the word out before!) because they are colloquialized forms of the honorific "master." If we are to take this passage literally, there are many good protestants who are just as guilty as good Catholics. :-)

I think that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole - he was exaggerating to prove a point. The passage you cite is in the context of Jesus telling his disciples not to act as the Pharisees do - hoarding honor, demanding respect and reverence, putting down all others because they think they're better then everyone else because they are the "pure" ones, the ones who know how to act and how to pray and who have the inside track to God.

In this context there's many, many people, Catholic or not, Christian or not, who are spiritual Pharisees . . . but to pull that one verse and say Catholics shouldn't call priests "Father" . . . well . . . seems a bit much (unless we drop all of the other titles as well - master & teacher).

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

6.26.2009

Conscience & Authority

If I assess your answer correctly I hear you saying the final word regarding our faith and practice comes from:
1. A rightly informed conscience
2. The church (I assume you mean Roman Catholic)
3. The bishops
4. The Pope
Again if I am interpreting your meaning correctly a conscience would not be rightly informed unless it conforms to the opinions of the remaining three.


I'll quote myself (if you'll excuse the hubris):
Each person has the responsibility and the blessing to follow what they think is good, right, moral, ethical, etc. However, the Church doesn’t leave it there. It should be a properly informed conscience that directs each person's actions. "Properly informed" then becomes a catch-phrase that includes the following (not necessarily in order of importance): reading Scripture, listening to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and/or a collective body of Bishops), praying for guidance from the Spirit on particular matters, listening to the stories told of our saints, discussing matters with trusted clergy/family/friends, and looking for guidance from secular authorities as needed (doctors, lawyers, psychologists, etc.).

So I would say that in my view of Catholicism one's conscience is the ultimate arbiter of authority. In most cases (99% of the time), that conscience will agree with the teaching authority of the Church and our Scriptures. But there will be times when a person's conscience will come in conflict with authority (the Spirit blows where it will) - in this case, our church affirms that in following your conscience you are following the still, small voice of the Spirit of God.

My belief, to state it briefly, is that the Bible, which I believe is God's inspired word, is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. My question was not intended to be misleading nor tricky. My point in the question is this, it is next to impossible to reach any consensus of belief unless we are both using the same standard to determine what we believe. The scriptures are the final word for me because I believe they are God's word, the complete revelation of himself to us.

The Catholic position is that Scripture is indeed divinely inspired - but that doesn't mean that every single word and punctuation mark is set down by God. Here in America we even argue over which translation to use. Not to mention that the bible's we use are transliterations from 2,000 - 4,000 year old Greek & Hebrew . . . that's why, for Catholics, Scripture and Tradition form the cornerstones of faith, not Scripture alone. Also, maybe a semantic note, we look to Jesus as the complete revelation of God - the Bible, as with any literature, is full of different modes of writing (biography, song, poetry, history, myth, gospel,
etc.), and we need to distinguish between the different literary forms to try and interpret it correctly.

Trying to proof-text a particular belief straight from Scripture is not always productive - I've previously referenced Matthew 25 where Jesus specifically states that it is our actions which determine heaven or hell - whatsoever you do the least of my people, that you do unto me. Jesus also warns that at the judgment there will be those who shout out "Lord, Lord" and are told: I know you not. Also, it would seem that since the Protestant community is so fractured, it’s impossible to say that there is one standard to determine belief – otherwise, all Bible-based Christians would believe the same thing – it still comes down to a matter of interpretation, except instead of a Pope and Magisterium leading the discussion you have countless individuals all trying to (ahistorically in some cases) figure out what particular passages mean.

Having said that, I do believe that an intimate relationship with Jesus is needed - we gain everything in establishing this relationship with our brother and savior. But I also believe that for the majority of believers, that relationship is lived out and nourished within the context of a community - Acts specifically states that salvation was found through Jesus, but that Jesus was found only in and through the early Christian community. In contemporary Catholic theological terms, we talk of the Church being a sacrament of Christ, meaning that the Church is the tangible, visible presence of Jesus in the world, as Jesus was the sacrament of God when he walked the earth, being the tangible, visible presence of God on earth.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

6.24.2009

PETA

I subscribe to the This is True mailing list. The last issue had a story about PETA, which I followed to the website. You can view the pages here and here after reading the story below.

The following story is from This is True dated 17 July 2005. It is Copyright 2005 Randy Cassingham, all rights reserved, and reprinted here with permission:

"Ethical" Defined

After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster, including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed. Police say PETA has been picking up the animals -- alive -- from North Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. Cook and Hinkle have been charged with 62 felony counts of animal cruelty. In response to the arrests PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said it's against the group's policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but "that for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than euthanasia." (Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) ...Oops, my mistake: that's "Playing God" Defined.

In his author's notes section, Cassingham had more to say about this story:

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of them. The story of them killing animals isn't even unusual. According to PETA's own filings, in 2004 PETA killed 86.3 percent of the animals entrusted to its care -- a number that's rising, not falling. Meanwhile, the SPCA in PETA's home town (Norfolk, Va.) was able to find loving homes for 73 percent of the animals put in its care. A shortage of funds? Nope: last year PETA took in $29 million in tax-exempt donations. It simply has other priorities for the funds, like funding terrorism (yes, really). But don't take my word for it: I got my figures from http://www.PETAkillsAnimals.com -- and they have copies of PETA's state and federal filings to back it up. The bottom line: if you donate money to PETA because you think they care for and about animals, you need to think some more. PETA literally yells and screams about how others "kill animals" but this is how they operate? Pathetic.

And you know what I wonder? PETA's official count of animals they kill is 86.3 percent. But if they're going around picking up animals, killing them while they drive around and not even giving them a chance to be adopted, and then destroying the evidence by dumping the bodies in the trash, are those deaths being reported? My guess: no. While 86.3 percent is awful, the actual number is probably much, much higher. How dare they lecture anyone about the "ethical" treatment of animals!

(This is True is a weekly column featuring weird-but-true news stories from around the world, and has been published since 1994. Click the link for info about free subscriptions.)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

6.22.2009

My World Famous Potato Salad ® (tm)

I enjoy cooking, and one of the things I love to make (that people love to eat!) is my potato salad. It’s my own recipe, and several people have asked for it, so here you go - my World Famous Potato Salad ® (tm) – enjoy :)

Ingredient / Supply List:

(Please note that these instructions will be vague in some places) :)

1. In a large pot bring water to boil (I think I use a 2 Quart pot filled about 1/2 way with water; just make sure the pot is large enough to accomodate all the potatoes and still have room for the water to boil). Add a generous amount of Herbes de Provence to the water (or any herb blend – I like to infuse some flavor into the potatoes as they boil), as well as some Sea Salt to taste (or any kind of salt – potatoes are good at soaking up salt – but I prefer Sea Salt for the milder flavor and trace minerals that refined salt loses; if you need some iodine in your diet, they also sell Iodized Sea Salt, but I prefer the one you have to grind).

2. In a smaller pot, add 12 eggs and cover the eggs with about an inch of water. Bring them to a boil as well.

3. As both of these pots are starting to boil, wash and cube your potatoes. Make the cubes about bite-size, not too small or too large. I don’t skin the potatoes (gold potatoes tend to have a thin skin), but you can if you’d prefer. Add the potatoes to the pot as you continue to cube them.

4. Once the eggs have started boiling move the temperature down to simmer and keep them there for 10 minutes. When the time is finished, drain the boiling water down the sink and flush the eggs with cool water for about 5 minutes. (I tend to just leave the pot with the water running into in). (By the way, cooling your eggs like this before you peel them makes it easier to peel them) :)

5. Check on your potatoes – boil them until they are soft (but not falling apart – about 10-15 minutes should do it, depending on how large the cubes are).

6. Drain your potatoes and move them to a large container. Make sure it’s large enough to accommodate all of the potatoes, as well as the eggs, and still give you room to mix them once you add the mayonnaise.

7. Take your eggs and hit them on a hard surface three times – once on top, once on the bottom, and once on the side. Peel your way from the pointiest end to the roundest end carefully. They should peel well :)

8. Slice or cube your eggs (I use an egg slicer, but a sharp knife works, too) and put them on top of the potatoes. (If you’re worried about cholesterol use less eggs, or take out half the yokes before you slice them)

9. Add about a cup of mayonnaise (more or less depending on how creamy you want them) and then gently stir with a mixing spatula. Once it looks well stirred add in generous amounts of Vegetable Supreme seasoning and keep stirring. Also, add in more salt to taste.

10. I’ve added in shredded cheese and bacon to them before, both of which add a nice touch (and make them taste like loaded baked potatoes). You can add in any other things you like as well (pickles, celery, black olives, onion, mustard, etc.), but for a basic potato salad this works every time.

And that’s it – delicious potato salad for any time. Let me know if any of you try it! :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

6.18.2009

Authority Again

Continuing my post from a few weeks back :)

Catholic teaching has been, from our earilest time as a community of followers of the Way, to listen to the voice of our pastors, wether that's the earliest Apostles, the men appointed by them, or their eventual succesors. Scripture (in terms of the New Testament) did not enter the picture until after Paul started writing it. Then the other epistles came in, then the Gospels & Acts. It may come down to Scriptural interpretation - we had a community of believers (the Church) before we had a written document (Scriptures) of our belief. Even then, the canon of Scripture was chosen by the body of believers and ratified by the chosen few who were deacons, preists, pastors, bishops, etc.

I do not wish for the following to be taken as a judgment but rather an honest assessment based upon the personal relationship I know and am experiencing with Christ within myself. I do not see how an acceptable compromise on this issue can be reached between what is in your heart and where your church stands if a new birth as scripture discusses has occurred in your life. I would see your struggle being identical with that of Martin Luther who concluded that if Romans 1:17 "The Just shall live by faith," was true then how could he continue to practice the demands of his church, and chose to remove himself from it. I welcome continued discussion on the subject.

Martin Luther rallied against a form of Catholicism that never officially existed - selling indulgences/entrance into heaven, preaching that it was *only* through works that one could be saved, etc. We had many over zealous pastors, preachers, bishops and cardinals who saw a great way to make a quick buck and went for it. Some were passionate and honest in their preaching, but they still distorted what they thought to be Church teaching. Since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's much of official Catholic doctrine has validated some of the concerns Martin Luther so famously posted on that Church door.

Be that as it may, the demands the Church makes are baseline demands - attend Mass on Sundays, celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation at least once a year, make some time during the year to fast and abstain, pray, etc. The Church demands these things in an effort to remind us of our call to holiness - to remind us that as followers of Christ we should act as Christ would - praying often, fasting, striving to lead a life that is without blemish, loving in thought, word and deed, etc. It's an institution, so it finds institutional ways to call us to be more like Christ.

I'm reminded of retreats - on a retreat we make time and space to step away from our day-to-day lives and have peak experiences - transfiguration moments - which can't last forever. The Church, through it's long existence, has found certain elements to be important to the life of a believer (prayer, Scripture, almsgiving, fasting, community celebrations, periods of purgation, etc.) - so she calls her children to follow these. Some don't, some chaff under the assault on their "individuality" and "freedom," some hesitantly accept, some perform them only outwardly . . . but some respond to them, and are called to a deeper relationship with Jesus.

It's for that reason alone that the Church continues to call forth to the community of believers to respond in certain ways - to develop and nurture a deep and abiding love of God.

So yeah, I will rail against the Church and assert the primacy of my individual conscience . . . and the Church officially agrees with me. The Church will continuously remind me, however, that the things I am called to are good . . and they have been around for millenia . . . and in my individual freedom of choice, I should at least attempt the disciplines that the greatest of our Christian saints & martyrs have used time and time again to nourish themselves and ascend to the heights of holiness.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

5.30.2009

No more teacher, no more books :)

School is out for my family for the summer (wife and I both teach, son is still in middle school), and I am so looking forward to a summer break. :)

I plan on bringing my backyard back to life, throwing out 50 things, and exercising a little bit (but not too much). I also plan to wantonly waste time either alone or with my family (which would include more blogging and reading time).

See you online more often!

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

5.06.2009

Saturn

Our school shut down for a few days (Monday - Wednesday), so I thought I'd use some of that time to take our Saturn Vue in for some maintenance. Monday morning I left our home and headed out, secure in the knowledge that my vehicle would be repaired, washed and vacuumed by noon or so, and I could drive back home happy.

As I exited Expressway 83 and made my way to the Saturn dealership, I noticed that it looked surprisingly empty. There were still many new vehicles parked and ready for new owners, but the metal bars that block access to the grounds were closed. The lights were off in all of the buildings, and there were no people anywhere in view.

I thought, hoping against hope, that maybe in some weird cosmic confluence of events swine flu had hit Saturn and they were temporarily closed. So I called their number - no answer. I called my wife and had her check their website - no more website. I could feel my hope draining. I asked my wife to go to the main Saturn website and look for a contact number; she found a Customer Support number which I promptly called (gotta love cell phones). (Though I have to say, arguing with an automated voice system to try to get a live person on the phone ranks up there as one of the few things that really irritate me in this life!)

The polite gentleman on the other end of the line informed me that indeed my beloved Saturn dealership was closed; the closest one was in San Antonio and would I like their number? I laughed and informed him that I had no wish to drive for almost three hours to get my vehicle serviced (my wife, upon hearing of that particular part of the conversation: "Doesn't it take about 3 1/2 hours to get there?" and then remembering that I tend to view Speed Limits as guidelines instead of absolutes).

So I was put on hold while he searched for a local dealership that would be able to honor my still functioning warranty. A few minutes later (while I contemplated quarterly trips to San Antonio under the guise of "but honey, the car needs to get that oil change") the polite service representative came back and informed me that there was a local Chevrolet dealership that would be servicing all Saturn vehicles in the area. I took their number and called them.

I was taken aback as I had to make an appointment to take my car in. I was used to royal VIP treatment at Saturn where I could freely waltz in at any time that suited me to have my precious Vue mended. I also missed the open construction of the Saturn building - no walls, only lots of open space and even a vehicle or two to admire as I waited. Instead of very comfortable couches (if I wanted to watch TV or read) or small round tables (if I wanted to work) I had to be content with a small, cramped waiting area. Instead of a nice selection of donuts and pan dulce to satiate my appetite I had to make do with some water. And instead of the people I had come to know at Saturn I had to walk into a new place, talk to people I didn't know.

It hit me, as I was talking to my wife, that I was in mourning. Which was an interesting feeling for me. That particular Saturn dealership was a fixture in my life for about seven years. The man who sold us our first Saturn (Ben) passed away about 2 years ago, and it was a loss we felt (I still remember him telling us to go home and think about our first purchase for a few days - he was a gentle man who did not have a pushy bone in his body). A former students' dad was the general manager there for a while, prompting a passing, causal remark ("tell your did I want a new car!") to turn into "honey, so and so's dad talked to me this morning when I took the car in for service - you want to go pick out a new one?"

So I pray for the people that worked at the Saturn dealership, I pray for Saturn, and I pray for my attachment to that place that sold us our first new vehicle and that sold us three more after that.

Eternal rest grant unto them O Lord.
And let perpetual light shine upon them.
May their souls, and the souls of all the faithful departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen.
RIP Saturn of McAllen - you will be missed.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

4.12.2009

The Road to Heaven

Happy Feast of the Resurrection of the Body (Happy Easter) :)

This is a synopsis of a conversation I had a few years ago about the steps in salvation - I ordered it thus:

  1. Redemption: because, well . . . none of this discussion would be happening (in a Christian context) if it wasn't for the redemptive work of Jesus
  2. Conversion: because once we encounter the living God we are convicted of our sinfulness and moved to change our lives and hearts
  3. Forgiveness: because once we experience the loving embrace of our Creator we are seduced into giving and receiving forgiveness
  4. Salvation: once we give and accept forgiveness we start on the road to salvation
  5. Perfection: once we live in the new heaven and new earth we will live in the paradise conceived in the mind of God before the creation of the world; we will live in a perfected place as perfected people (saints)
Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

4.01.2009

Sanctuary

Please Note: I'm working on a paper at the moment, so my Wednesday blog will be brief and has nothing whatsoever to do with theology :)

My son and I have been playing World of Warcraft for almost two years now. For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a Massively-Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, which means that when you log into the game (need to have an internet connection to play!) you're playing with hundreds of other people from all over the world. You can interact with them, chat with them, help them, or fight with them. There are over 11 million people playing, so it's a popular pastime :)

In the game you can group with different people to form a guild, a group of people who are pretty much available to you every time you log in. They can be helpful and provide a great way to learn the game and advance in the game (if it's a good guild), or they can take advantage of you and make your online time pretty miserable (if it's a not-so-good guild).

Our guild is named Sanctuary, and I think of it as a casual/social guild. We don't do hardcore end game raiding (playing the most difficult parts of the game over and over again for better equipment and bragging rights), we don't immerse ourselves into the story of the game by roleplaying (pretending you are your character and talking "in character" most of the time), and we don't focus on PvP (Player vs. Player combat - trying to defeat other players in different ways). We focus on helping new members learn the game, holding in-game events for our members (some just for fun, some to try the harder content without requiring attendance or a certain level of gear), and giving our members time to play as they'd like.

If any of you would like to try the game out, you can message me online (the toon I'm on the most is named Anarius) - and if you like it, you can join us on our adventures in Azeroth!

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

3.30.2009

Authority

Question: I would be interested to hear your convictions regarding what is to be the authority for the foundation of, and what or who has the final word in the matter of the practice of our faith.

I'm assuming (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that the reply you may be anticipating is that, for Catholics, the Pope has the final say in all matters regarding our religion. And you'd be sort of correct. But first, to the non-correct part. :-)

For Catholics, in all matters of faith and morals, the ultimate authority is each person's own conscience. Answers.com defines conscience thus:
  1. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong.
  2. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement.
  3. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct.
Each person has the responsibility and the blessing to follow what they think is good, right, moral, ethical, etc. However, the Church doesn’t leave it there. It should be a properly informed conscience that directs each person's actions. "Properly informed" then becomes a catch-phrase that includes the following (not necessarily in order of importance): reading Scripture, listening to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope and/or a collective body of Bishops), praying for guidance from the Spirit on particular matters, listening to the stories told of our saints, discussing matters with trusted clergy/family/friends, and looking for guidance from secular authorities as needed (doctors, lawyers, psychologists, etc.).

Once all avenues have been exhausted in trying to come to a decision over a particular matter/issue/decision, a persons' conscience becomes the ultimate court for deciding a certain course of action. The Church affirmed, in one of the documents from the Second Vatican Council, that we would be judged according to our properly informed conscience.

This leads some to say that anything is OK as long as you think it's OK. And some would say the Church irresponsibly advocates this position by teaching about conscience. But I think that if people are looking for excuses to commit sin, well . . . they'll find the excuses anywhere. The Church stresses a properly informed conscience because, come on! - once we've gone through that list of Six Things To Do Before Making A Decision, chances are really, really good that you'll make a God-delighting decision. :-)

However, if you're asking about the teaching authority of the Church (as the Catholic church sees it), then this is where the Pope and bishops come in. It's Catholic teaching that the Pope, in conjunction with the worldwide body of bishops, has ultimate authority to proscribe and define the moral/ethical and faith-related doctrine that the Church stands for.

In other words, if the Pope definitively gives a moral/ethical stance, then it is the moral/ethical stance of the Church, and by definition requires every Catholic to seriously study the meaning and implications of that message. A "properly informed conscience" requires that we give serious thought and prayer to the moral imperative handed down by our church's temporal leader. In practice, the Pope and the bishops (collectively called the Magisterium) don't often hand out definitive statements on faith and morals. Similarly, our church doesn't have many Scripture passages that have been definitively interpreted in one way or another - as Catholics we do have latitude in our interpretation of Scripture (St. Jerome used to talk about the many hidden levels of meaning in each word of Scripture, let alone each passage / section!) and in our practice of our faith. But if there ever is a debate on something, and a definitive answer has to be given on an issue of faith or morals, as Catholics we would look to our Pope and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (the Magisterium).

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

3.27.2009

Adam & Eve

My brother asked me a question about this, so I'm endeavoring to answer. This may take a while :) The gist of the question: were Adam and Eve real, historical figures?

My short answer: no.

My longer answer starts with the way Catholics view Biblical Inspiration. We are not literalists who believe that every word and punctuation mark was dictated by God to a responsive person who wrote it down like a dutiful secretary. God would never destroy our free will by making us automatons who only wrote what he told us to write.

We also do not view Scripture as a purely man-made endeavor. We see Scripture being inspired by God, but the human authors working with God - using their God given free will - to craft sections of the Bible according to their intelligence, culture, and time. Hence any Catholic approach to Scripture will take into account different questions: who wrote it? why? for whom was it written? when? where? what references (cultural, religious, etc.) could the author take for granted and believe that his audience would also take for granted? We strive to put each book of Scripture into it's historical context so as not to read our own limited view of history into the Biblical account.

Coupled with this is the fact that our Bible is not written by one person but by many human authors writing in different ways. Just like a newspaper has different sections, our Bible (which is not one book, but a collection of books, poetry, and letters) has different literary genres. We can see history (many portions of the Old Testament, the Acts of the Apostles), poetry (Psalms, the Song of Songs), fiction (short stories like Job and Jonah), Gospel (a distinct literary style found in, of course, the gospels!), apocalyptic writing (Revelation, portions of the Old Testament), and many others.

One of the distinct literary styles is that of religious myth. Myth, in this Scriptural / theological context is not the same as fairy tale or lie. It is a fictional / ahistorical (or prehistorical) story that is the vehicle for religious truth. The first 11 chapter of Genesis fall into this primordial genre of myth - they are stories that cannot be traced historically, and that in fact are not intended to be read as historical documents.

Myths then are stories that pre-scientific peoples created to try and understand things that may now be better described by different branches of science. However, we view our Scripture as divinely inspired, so we believe that - fictional as it is - the creation stories in Genesis are there to teach us.

And what do they teach? They teach us that God is the ultimate force that sets the universe in motion. They teach us that God created everything out of nothing, and that if not for God's abiding presence everything would collapse back into nothingness. They teach us that God has ordered the universe in specific ways, and that we can discern these laws in the order of the universe. They teach us that we are lovingly handcrafted by God, and that God's own spirit/breath animates us and gives us life. They teach us that God loves us as individuals and as a human race. They teach us that at some point we as humans learned how to sin, and that this knowledge created a rift between us and God. They teach us that even as that rift began God already had a plan for sealing the rift in the future.

Just because the stories are not historically accurate does not mean that they are not religiously true. And that is why Adam and Eve do not have to be historical creatures for us to appreciate the revelation God has given us through them and the stories of creation.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

3.25.2009

Salvation Continued

Same disclaimer as my previous two posts :)

Is there a basic assumption being made with your response? As I agree that the question in and of itself is to me very modern in it's approach and assumptions. What then allows one to make the choice to cross the threshold of Heaven? Is it JUST how we lived our life?

Hmmm . . . I think at that point it's less of a choice then my initial response would lead one to believe. I think that, once we've charted our course here on earth, at the moment of death and resurrection we are almost compelled to finish our course. If we lived lives of unrepentance, unforgiveness and hardness of heart, no matter how much the Light tries to shine in we'll find ways to block it out. So once we enter eternity, we no longer have that much of a choice - our lives have already prepared us either for an air-conditioned afterlife, or one that's decidedly . . . warmer. :-)

As a Catholic how does one get to heaven? What role does Jesus, Mary, and the Church play in all this?

Going with more traditional language, participating in the sacraments (which includes having an active prayer life) and leading a moral life (which includes acts of service to others) are the two main pillars that lead to salvation. Each sacramental celebration finds us basking in the presence of the Crucified and Risen Lord; hence, each sacrament is a moment of grace - we are touched by the life of God and immersed in his holy and sanctifying presence. The Church becomes a sacrament herself, being a sacrament of Jesus - the visible, tangible reality that points to the invisible, intangible presence of Christ in the world.

Mary, apart from some very strong devotional trends, is actually not as theologically central as many people paint her to be. We venerate and honor her as the Mother of God (theotokos) and the Mother of Jesus, and we believe in her perpetual virginity and assorted doctrines, but it's not necessary for salvation per se. Our salvation comes from the paschal mystery of Jesus - the incarnation, life, passion, death and resurrection that restored the cosmos to it's glory.

I see that God has thrown open the gates of Heaven and unworthy men have seized Heaven by God's Grace. I see when we see our self, our true self, we then deem if we are worthy of entering in the Goodness of God...(Heaven) or if we remain separated from God. I see without Christ... God's Judgement is ON us. I think this is why some Christians will not enter into Heaven.. as they have not forgiven.... though they have been forgiven with this realization they then make a choice of Whose righteousness they will depend on. I think this is why Jesus says to some I never knew you....

Yeah, that's the rub - Catholic theology affirms that we can never be sure of our salvation - because there's always that chance that Jesus will say "I do not know you." It's called presumption in Catholic theology - daring to say, with 100% assurance, "I will make it into heaven - no doubt about it!" We can not be sure - we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, to paraphrase Paul.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

3.23.2009

Getting Into Heaven

Another cannibalized post from my email rantings :) I've touched on it before in previous posts, here are some more thoughts.

Question: I am curious: would you be so kind to give me your answer to this question? If you were to stand before God today at the gate of heaven and He was to say to you, "Hugo, tell me why I should let you into my heaven." What would be your answer?

Hmmm . . . I'm going to reframe the question and give some context as to my reframing of the question. I think that at the moment of death we go through a purgation - we start to let go (in a psychological / spiritual sense) of our attachments to our lives here on earth and start to turn our eyes towards our future life in timelessness (in heaven). Once we are free of our attachments we stand naked before God, neither deceiving ourselves or able to be deceived any longer (we will see things clearly for the very first time in our lives, no longer seeing darkly). We will know the truth of our lives, becoming intimately re-familiar with the course our life on earth took. We will be offered God's forgiveness, mercy, love, compassion and justice. And we - not God - will decide if we are worthy of entering into heaven.

I believe that God has already made the ultimate decision - everyone gets in - everyone. As children of God, as sons and daughters of the Most High, as creatures created in the image and likeness of God, we are invited and welcomed to the ultimate banqueting table . . . and the choice then becomes ours.

My Catholic theology helps me affirm that the lives we lived here on earth will help chart the course that our lives will take in the hereafter. If we practiced giving and accepting forgiveness while alive here, we will be able to accept God's justice and mercy when we stand in judgment. If, however, we lived an obstinate life, never shedding our hearts of stone, never giving and accepting forgiveness . . . well, there's no telling if we'll be able to do it from one moment to eternity - if we never practiced here on earth, we'll fail in the real test.

So I don't conceive of God asking me why I should get it . . . I conceive of God throwing the doors wide open and inviting me in. Them, in an eternal moment, as I weigh my actions, my thoughts, my desires, my attachments, my cravings, my very heart and soul, I will decide to either accept or deny God's invitation.

I will either exist in the timelessness of heaven basking in the Presence of my Creator, or I will linger on, knowing that I have turned my back on the One who could love me . . . still loves me . . . but cannot have his love reciprocated because of my hardness of heart.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

3.21.2009

The Eucharist (or "What is Transubstantiation?")

I belong to an email discussion list where I'm the only Catholic (which had made for some fun discussions!). I have 100's of saved emails - I'm culling through them for some blogger material. So for the next few weeks - enjoy :) Also, I copied and pasted quotes from several websites - most of the time I made it explicit that I was giving info from another source, but a few times I don't think I did - please excuse the inadvertent plagarism. :)

Question: Where and how did the doctrine of Transubstantiation originate? Where do Catholics get the idea that there is a literal transformation of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ? It seems to me that the words of Christ have to be figurative when He refers to the bread and wine saying "This is my body..."

The actual term "transubstantiation" is not found in official Catholic theology until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and there the term is used to denote the belief that that bread and wine used in the Eucharistic meal become the body and blood of Christ while remaining bread and wine.

However, prior to that scholastic definition and clarification, the notion of the bread and wine only symbolically representing the body and blood of Christ was not common. Here's a brief selection of texts: 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29John 6:32–71 (I won't write these in - we can all look them up as needed) :-)

Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood ("Early Christian Doctrines" pg. 440, J.N.D. Kelly).

Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord’s real humanity (Kelly, pgs. 197-198).

Hippolytus speaks of ‘the body and the blood’ through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as ‘the Lord’s body.’ The converted pagan, he remarks, ‘feeds on the richness of the Lord’s body, that is, on the Eucharist.’ The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist ‘the flesh feeds upon Christ’s body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.’ Clearly his assumption is that the Savior’s body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian’s attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, ‘do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.’ Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally (Kelly, pgs. 211-212)."

If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood? (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 4:33–32. approx. 189 AD).

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him? (ibid., 5:2).

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ (Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures" 19:7, approx. 350 AD).

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul (ibid., 22:6, 9).

What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction (Augustine, "Sermons 227", approx. 411 AD).

So more quotes than I thought I'd put in at first - sorry! :-)

The question of whether or not the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ is not brought into serious question until the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation. By that time, however, Martin Luther and his fellow reformers were rebelling against a corrupted, superstitious form of the Real Presence, for example, that if the consecrated host were scratched it would bleed.

The more theological explanation has to do with Greek philosophy, where a distinction was made between the accidents and the substance of an object. The substance of an object was what it really was (it's essence, it's core, the heart of the matter, etc.). The accidents were those parts of an object that were not it's essence. So in regards to the bread and wine, the act of consecration changes the substance, but leaves the accidents intact. In other words, the bread still tastes, looks, smells and feels like bread - it's accidents remain unchanged. But it's substance (the heart and soul of the object) are now transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus. Same with the wine - the accidents (alcoholic properties, color, flavor, etc.) remain unchanged, but the essence (the substance of the wine) is now the real presence of Jesus Christ.

For a more homey example, think of us as people. In a crude example, our bodies are our substance and our clothes are our accidents. No mater how we dress ourselves up (shorts and a t-shirt, tuxedo, swimwear, pajamas) our substance stays the same. In the Eucharist it is reversed, with the interior (the substance) changing, but the exterior (the accidents) staying the same.

One last distinction, though. We believe, as we have for millenia, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus. That is the doctrine. The word "transubstantiation" and it's related theology is our attempt to explain how it happens. We happen to use Greek philosophical language to try and explain it, but even should our language fail the Church still holds fast to the sacramental mystery of Christ with us.

Also, as a quick aside, since the advent of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, we have affirmed that the real presence of Jesus Christ is present in various ways during our celebration of the Divine Liturgy - Christ is present in the person of the priest, in the gathered assembly, in the proclamation of the Scriptures, and in the Consecrated bread and wine - we literally bring, share and partake of communion throughout the whole Eucharistic liturgy . . . a far cry from the times when many Catholics only dared approach the Eucharist once or twice a year.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

2.14.2009

What Did I Do?

I was out of work yesterday (Friday) due to gastrointestinal irregularities (for some wierd reason I really like the way that sounds!). Last night my wife started developing a migraine and went to bed early, so my son and I were up a bit later then usual. He started complainig about a sore throat, so I gave him some medication and sent him to bed. About an hour later he came back to the living room and complained about his stomach, so we gave him some Pepto . . . .which he promptly threw up :(

This morning, then, my stomach is still not quite correct, my wife is lying in bed with a bad migraine, and my son is lying on the sofa with a cold/flu/stomach bug kinda thing.

Happy Valentine's Day :)

My son expressed it quite well last night "What did I do to deserve this?"

It was a quick conversation about how God doesn't punish us for sins in such a literal manner. (Though I think in this case his own body may be punishing him a bit - by his own admission he ate quite a lot of chocolate yesterday!)

It's hard sometimes to work this train of thinking in with my students, and even with adults - there's a very firm belief that God reward and punishes here on earth either with health or wealth. It's a good reminder to us that Jesus was not wealthy and that he ultimately suffered and died. The current edition of US Catholic (which is @ work right now, so I can't look up the exact quote) has a wonderful quote that says something like "God never promises to take away all of our suffering. But he does promise to lovingly enter into our suffering, suffer with us, and give us the strength, courage and determination to make it through the suffering."

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

2.09.2009

Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

To start myself back on the blogging bandwagon, I thought I'd use a non-divisive topic like abortion. :)

But instead of posting what I think about it first, I have a few links that might be of interest on the Freedom of Choice Act which may or may not pass into law under our new president.

Check out:
Fight Foca.com - has an online petition you can sign against FOCA

USCCB - some links to pdf's and publications from the US Bishops

Americans United for Life - history and legal impact of FOCA

Pro-Life Atheists and Agnostics - some interesting articles about abortion in general

Feminists for Life - reflections from a feminist perspective

My own reflections will follow in a few days :)

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo

Back I Am

So I'm not sure if anyone has kept looking @ this now defunct blog, but seeing as I linked this to my Facebook page I figure I'll start posting once again :)

My fertile mind has a few blog posts already in the works, so look for at least 3 blog postings per week as I once again embed my thoughts onto this digital canvas.

Blessings & Peace,
Hugo