Priestly Celibacy

I've often wondered why priests weren't allowed to get married. I mean wouldn’t they have a much better idea of what we parents have to go through with our spouses and kids? But after a little research I've found that I was quite mistaken. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't forbid anyone from marrying. The Church simply chooses those who have already made a vow of chastity.

You see, everyone is free to decide whether or not to take a vow of celibacy. The Catholic Church of the Roman Rite, this congregation is member of this rite, chooses whom to lay hands on for priestly ordination. This practice is a tradition that could change since this practice is not a divinely ordained practice. It is simply a small‘t’ tradition that began from very early on in Christian history.

Personally, it would surprise me greatly if the Church did change its practice of only ordaining men who have previously made a vow of celibacy. It would surprise me because both Paul and Jesus encouraged the celibate life for those who were called to it. Jesus said:" For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’ (Matt 19:12)

Paul himself recommends celibacy for those who can live this kind of life since their priorities will be divided. Isn’t it better to have a priest that is able to pick up and go wherever, and whenever, he may be needed, including foxholes, without the worry of being absent from their wives and kids? Paul put it this way in his letter to the Corinthians: “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.”

Here’s a somewhat lengthy excerpt from catholic.com on the goodness of celibacy in the priesthood.

Most Catholics marry, and all Catholics are taught to venerate marriage as a holy institution—a sacrament, an action of God upon our souls; one of the holiest things we encounter in this life.

In fact, it is precisely the holiness of marriage that makes celibacy precious; for only what is good and holy in itself can be given up for God as a sacrifice. Just as fasting presupposes the goodness of food, celibacy presupposes the goodness of marriage. To despise celibacy, therefore, is to undermine marriage itself—as the early Fathers pointed out.

Celibacy is also a life-affirming institution. In the Old Testament, where celibacy was almost unknown, the childless were often despised by others and themselves; only through children, it was felt, did one acquire value. By renouncing marriage, the celibate affirms the intrinsic value of each human life in itself, regardless of offspring.

Finally, celibacy is an eschatological sign to the Church, a living-out in the present of the universal celibacy of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30).

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

God Bless
Nathan

Smoke of Satan Has Entered the Church

Back in 2006 I had heard this, but researching I could find no sources in English which confirmed this - so I continued my research and I found the statement on the Vatican website!  Yes, it is true, Bl. Pope Paul VI clearly states this in a letter (which to my knowledge officially still only exists in Italian) on June 29, 1972 that "through some small fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church."  Here is the link to my 2006 posting:  http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2006/06/did-pope-say-smoke-of-satan-has.html 

Here is the link to the official letter on the Vatican website:   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html  (again, that document is in Italian).

What is this "smoke of Satan" which Bl. Pope Paul VI spoke of?  I added a comment to my earlier posting, but feel free to comment further here.

Science Has Discovered God!

Science has discovered God?  Is this true?  Can it be true?  Is Atheism debunked by the science they embraced for so long?   Before you just dismiss the notion, I urge you to watch the following and then comment:

Then there's this one...  it's quite a bit longer, and I suspect similar in nature to "The Principle" which was produced by Dr. Robert Sungenis (and is seeing limited release in theaters around the country).  I have not seen "The Principle" yet, so this is pure speculation on my part at this time, but check this one out:

And here's another one, not as long as the one above -

Part 2 of the previous:

Authority - The Fundamental Issue

​

We can banter about, back and forth, all we want - but NONE of these arguments are going to come to a true and final outcome when we operate from wholly variant premises.  If we boil it down, we're left with AUTHORITY.

SOLA ECCLESIAM:

The Catholic position could be summed up to that Latin phrase - which can be translated to "The Church Alone."  Catholics believe that Jesus Christ not only promised to build His Church (Matthew 16:18), but actually DID it - starting at John 21:15-17 (just before He ascended into Heaven).  THAT Church has existed from THAT DAY forward to the present.  Sola ecclesiam does not supplant Scripture - it includes Scripture! 

SOLA SCRIPTURA:

Much of Protestantism clings to this 16th century innovation (never heard of before that time).  This is Latin for "Scripture Alone."  A fairly accepted definition of sola scriptura is:  "Scripture alone is the sole infallible source of instruction for the Church."  Some take this to the extreme and proclaim, "If it's not in the Bible, don't believe it."  Slightly lesser on the extremist side would be "If it's not in the Bible, you don't have to believe it."  A problem here is that Scripture itself NO WHERE teaches sola scriptura!  So, if it's not in Scripture, the sola scriptura adherent is either a) bound NOT to believe it or b) OK with rejecting it, but then it is reduce to relative insignificance and certainly not a foundational belief.

Another problem with sola scriptura is that it's never truly "alone."  Fundamentally speaking, every Protestant is left to decide for him/herself what Scripture is really saying.  This leaves us more with the third position...

SOLUS IPSE:  (or SOLIPSISM)

This would be Latin for "Self Alone" where the ego ultimately makes all the decisions.  In reality, though most Protestants would claim sola scriptura - they are really in a position of solus ipse.  They alone decide either a) what Scripture means or b) whose interpretation of Scripture they will adhere to.  Some will say that Catholics adhere to clause b) here - however what I am referring to here is that Protestants will pick and choose which "confession" they will embrace, or which preacher they will listen to - and if they disagree, they move on to the next confession or preacher.  Catholicism, on the other hand, their version of solus ipse is more fundamental as they yield to one core creed.  While Catholics may move from one parish to another, the fundamental credo does not change.  Solus ispe leaves us with dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands (depending on how one denominates) of variant and opposing truths - which is not logically possible.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

This matter of authority is where ALL our debates truly begin and end.  Once authority is established - the rest of who you are and profess to be falls in place.  Before you engage one of the above "sola" statements - do you agree with this "bottom line" statement?  Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No."

How Should We Read the Bible?

Is the Bible to be read literally or figuratively? 

Before we answer that question, we have to ask another:  Who was the Bible written by?
 
The Bible, both the Torah of the Jews and the Testament of the Christian Church, was written by Jews.  So, how do Jews read the Bible, literally or figuratively? 

I have enrolled in a class at our local college in Jewish Studies.  We met for the first time last Monday evening.  One of the things which stood out the most for me, thus far, is for the Jews there is no single dogmatic way of looking at just about anything.  So, to answer whether Jews read the Bible, literally or figuratively - the answer is "both/and."  There is no one way to read or interpret Scripture - and to try to force Scripture into a literal only viewpoint extremely limits what Scripture REALLY has to say to EACH of us in EVERY generation.

For example, to insist the Infancy Narratives of Jesus have to be taken literally, every jot and tiddle, limits how we can use the story of Jesus' birth in our life in the twentyfirst century.  A deeper way of looking at the story would be to also incorporate St. John's Gospel, "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."  Jesus was born into a world of sin and corruption to be the Deliverer, the Savior, the Redeemer.  His story is told several times throughout the Jewish Torah.  The stories of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and even that of Judah Maccabee (Y'hudhah HaMakabi) are stories of deliverers of the Chosen People of I Am.  In the Christian Testament, God Himself becomes flesh - and dwells among us.  He takes upon Himself the sin of the world.  So, whereas in the Torah we have the story of Adam's sin condemning mankind, in the Christian Scriptures we have the Christ who redeems the World.

So, was Jesus born on December 25th of 1 BC or 1 AD (there is no "zero" year)?  Almost assuredly NOT!   There are several theories as to how the Christian Church came to that date - but nowhere does the Church insist that it was THAT date.  Was He born on or prior to 4 BC (the death of King Herod I), or was His birth during the reign of King Herod Archelaus (when the census was taken) in the year 6 AD (or prior, as Archelaus was exiled in 6 AD)?  If we don't get all caught up in attempting to force Scriptures to be absolutely literal, then we're not so worried about precision of the date.

The point is - if we read the Bible understanding the Jewish mindset, we DON'T get caught up in insisting on absolute precision of dates.  Are the Infancy Narrative figurative or literal?  In Jewish thought the answer is "Both/and."

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Baptism of the Lord

What is baptism? What does the Bible say? Let’s start with Ezekiel 36:25-27 which states:

I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. …I will put my spirit within you .

“I will sprinkle clean water” and He “will put [His] spirit within you” – And so with this outward sign using water we see that God gives us His spirit and that through this sprinkling we will be cleansed of all our impurities. Is this prophecy truly made alive in the New Testament through the sacrament of Baptism? Let’s compare what God said through Ezekiel to what God said through Peter at Pentecost.

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38).

Ezekiel said: “I will sprinkle clean water”

Peter said: “be baptized”

Ezekiel said: “[I will] cleanse you from all your impurities”

Peter said: “for the forgiveness of your sins”

Ezekiel said: “I will put my spirit within you”

Peter said: “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”

It seems quite undeniable that Ezekiel’s prophecy is perfectly fulfilled in the sacrament of Baptism. Because of His promise from Ezekiel we now know that the Grace of God comes during the sacrament of Baptism but what else does baptism do?

We know through Scripture that baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ. “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)

Baptism brings us in communion with each other by becoming members of the One Body of Christ.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27)

We are brought into the Body of Christ, the Church.

And he is the head of the body, the church (Col 1:18)

Since we are baptized into the one body of Christ and we now know that Christ’s Body is the Church means that baptism brings us into the Church. And this is why there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation outside of Christ.

And so we see that baptism brings Graces from God (Acts 2:38), washes away sins (Acts 2:38), we become Christians through baptism (1 Cor 12:13) by becoming members of the Church as through a door (Eph 4:4). And baptism is instituted by Jesus Christ when He sent out the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mat 28:19)

God Bless

Nathan

Do Matthew and Luke Contradict on the Infancy Narrative?

Recently I've been involved in some discussions on "Beliefnet" in the "Discuss Catholicism" forum.  I was invited to answer claims of an anti-Catholic who is under moderation in the Catholic Debate Forum - (his belief is that I could not stand up for myself in a forum I do not run - he is wrong, as usual).  Below is an excerpt from one of the discussions going on there.  As for the forum itself, thus far I cannot recommend it.  It seems to be dominated by those who do not wish to "discuss Catholicism" - rather, they want to "bash Catholicism" - I've even questioned the naming of the forum there on the forum.

"AristolesChild" (aka: LittleLes) wrote:

Perhaps you should review the nativity narratives in Matthew and Luke. (Paul, Mark, and John don't have any).

Matthew claims Jesus was born during the reign of KIng Herod who died about 4 B.C.

Luke, on the other hand reports Jesus was born in 6 AD, when Judea came under direct Roman control, and Quirinius, the new Roman governor, conducted a census of Judea to determine the tax base and Archelaus' holdings  (Herod's son and inheritor) who was exiled by the Romans in 6 A.D.. (This event also recorded in Josephus' History of the Jews).

So there are two contradicatory reports having Jesus born 10 years apart. Luke having Jesus born in 6 AD obviously does not have anything about the Slaughter of the Innocents or any trip to Egypt since Herod had been dead for ten years.

But Luke makes a mistake too. Joseph and Mary were residents of Nazareth in Galilee, not Judea. Herod gave Galilee to another son, Antipas, who remained the ruler until 37 AD collecting taxes, etc. Galileans were not counted in Quirinius's census of Judea.

I challenged him to document his claims, as the above was pure assertion with no substance, he provided the following (one of the few times he's actually answered the challenge to document himself, even if his conclusion is a bit off-base).

Sure. I guess I shouldn't assume that you've read the New Testament or studied the history of that period.

1. Matthew 2:1 "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod...."

2. Luke 2:2-5  "This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.3So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.4And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,^a5to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

3. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263465/Herod-Antipas

Herod Antipas,  (born 21 bc—died ad 39), son of Herod I the Great who became tetrarch of Galilee and ruled throughout Jesus of Nazareth’s ministry.

4. http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Jesus_and_the_Gospels/JosephusAndLukeOnTheCensus.pdf

Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-344, 355

"In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding
his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, brought charges against him before Caesar the moment
they learned that Archelaus had disobeyed his instructions to show moderation in dealing
with them. Accordingly, when Caesar heard the charges, he became angry, and summoning
the man who looked after Archelaus’ affairs at Rome. . ., he said to him, “Go, sail at once and
bring him here to us without delay.” . . . And when Archelaus arrived, Caesar gave a hearing
to some of his accusers, and also let him speak, and then sent him into exile. . .

Now the territory subject to Archelaus was added to (the province of) Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of property in Syria and to sell the estate of Archelaus."

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_governors_of_Syria

1 BC – 4 AD	Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5	Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 12	***Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
12 – 17	Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus

Notes:   (no notes found here, I assume this was part of a copy/paste operation)

Thus:
            Archelaus ruled Judea from the death of Herod in 4 BC until 6 AD when he was exiled by Rome and Judea placed under direct Roman control.

           Antipas ruled Galilee from the death of Herod in 4 BC until about 37 A.D.

           Following the exile of Archelaus in 6 A.D., Judea (but not Galilee) came under direct Romon rule and Quirinius, on becoming governor of Syria, conducted a census (of Judea, now part of Syria). Galilee remained under Antipas and was not involved.

I responded with the following:

The Rule of the Herods

Geographical Areas and Administrative Districts of Palestine Ruled by the Herods
Southern Samaria, Judea, and Idumea	Northern Galilee and Perea	Northeastern Iturea, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea
Herod the Great 37 - 4 BC
Archaeleus 4 BC - AD 6	Antipas 4 BC - AD 39	Philip 4 BC - AD 34
Roman Governors AD 6 - 41
		Roman Governors 34 - 37
	Agrippa I 39 - 44	Agrippa I 37 - 44
Agrippa I 41 - 44
Roman Governors 44 - 66	Roman Governors 44 - 53	Roman Governors 44 - 56
	Agrippa II 53 - 66	Agrippa II 53 - 66	Governors 56 - 66
Jewish Rebellion Against Rome 66 - 70
Colonia Aelia Capitolinia (Jerusalem) 70 - 135
Province of Syria Palaestina (included the Roman Province of Syria) after 135

(Note, they are ALL "Herods")

Palestine Under the Herods - New Testament Era

The territory we know as Palestine was divided into different administrative districts at different times under Roman rule and governed by various levels of the Roman political bureaucracy.  Political leadership was granted as a reward for being in favor with Caesar and could be withdrawn just as quickly.  As a result, various parts of Palestine passed back and forth between supervised monarchial rule and total control directly from Rome under Roman procurators or governors. 

Herod the Great died about 4 BC by our calendar, even though Matthew 2:19 tells us that Herod died after the birth of Jesus. Our modern calendar was not developed until the Middle Ages.  Most historians agree that because of different calendars in use before that time that they simply miscalculated the date of Jesus' birth.  After Herod's death Caesar divided the territory he ruled, which included almost all of Palestine, among his three sons Archelaus, Philip, and Antipas. Archelaus quickly gained a reputation for harsh treatment of the people.  It was Archaeleus that precipitated the Holy Family's return to Galilee (Matt. 2:22).  Because of continuing complaints, he was soon removed by Caesar and banished.  His territory was administered by governors.  Philip ruled the far northern area of Palestine and did not play much role in the New Testament events.  Antipas was self-indulgent and ambitious, and eventually fell out of favor with Rome and was also banished.  His territory was briefly under the control of governors until Herod Agrippa I was allowed to rule as king over those areas.  In the New Testament, all of these rulers are generally referred to as Herod, although the one most mentioned in the Gospels was Herod Antipas since he controlled Galilee and Perea during most of the lifetime of Jesus.

Herod Agrippa I was the grandson of Herod the Great who assumed control of the territory of Philip in 37.  After Antipas was banished, he was given control of his territory as well.  In 41 he was given the rest of Palestine and governed almost as much territory as Herod the Great had ruled.  It was Agrippa I who was responsible for the persecution of early Christians (Acts 12:1-3).  At his death in 44, his son was considered too young to rule.  However, after a few years, in 53 Agrippa II was allowed to rule parts of the former territory of Philip, and in 56 was also given most of the territory of Galilee and Perea. This is the Herod before whom Paul presented his defense (Acts 25:13-26-32)

www.cresourcei.org/herodrule.html

The Herods
Dates	Names	Scriptures
37 - 4 BC	Herod the Great	Matt 2:1
4 BC -  AD 39	Herod Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea	Luke 3:1, Mark 6:17-29, 8:15, etc.
4 BC - AD 6	Herod Archelaus Ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea	Matt 2:22
4 BC - AD 39	Herod Philip Tertrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis	Luke 3:1
AD 37 - 44	Herod Agrippa I (see above*)	Acts 12:1-3, 21-23
53 - 93	Herod Agrippa II Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis; c.  AD 56 also parts of Galilee and Perea	Acts 25:13-26:32

www.cresourcei.org/romanrul.html

More sources:

Roman Empire Rulers over Judea in New Testament Times
www.biblestudy.org/roman-empire/roman-em...

Herodian Dynasty (47 BC–AD 100)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hasmonean_...

Timeline of Rulers in Jerusalem before and after Jesus, the Christ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Jerusa...

Roman Governors of Judea
The procurators may be divided into two series: those preceding and those following the reign of Agrippa I. Those of the first series (6-41 C.E.) ruled over Judea alone, possessing, together with the legate, the power of supervision over the Temple, and the right to appoint and depose the high priest. Those of the second series (44-70) administered Samaria and Galilee, besides Judea. Tacitus' statement ("Annales," xii. 54) that Cumanus was procurator of Galilee only, is not confirmed by Josephus, who was better informed. In this period the supervision over the Temple and the high priests was exercised by Jewish princes of the Herodian dynasty.
The first series of procurators includes the following:
    Coponius (6 or 7-9 C.E.). During his administration the revolt of Judas the Galilean occurred (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 1; idem, "B. J." li. 8, § 1).
    Marcus Ambibulus (9-12). Ἀμβίβουλος is the correct reading in "Ant." xviii. 2, § 2, according to ed. Niese; the older editions have Ἀμβίβουχος, which was usually read "Ambivius."
    Annius Rufus (c. 12-15). During his term of office Augustus died (Aug. 19, 14); and this is the only basis on which to compute the tenure of office of the first three procurators, of whose administration Josephus ("Ant." l.c.) reports almost nothing.
    Valerius Gratus (15-26). He was the first procurator who arbitrarily appointed and deposed the high priests (ib.).
    Pontius Pilate 26-36). As Josephus expressly states (ib. 4, § 2), he was deposed before the first appearance of Vitellius in Jerusalem, namely, in the spring of 36 (comp. ib. 4, § 3 with 5, § 3).
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6840...

So AC, your alleged contradiction here has vanished.

AMDG,

CathApol<<<

CatholicDebateForum

The Twelfth Day of Christmas!

Well, today ends the Christmas Season - sort of.  Today was the Twelfth Day of Christmas and tomorrow starts the Season of Epiphany.  I say "sort of" because as we've mentioned earlier, in some traditions the Christmas Season lasts all the way to February 2nd, Candlemas.  In the traditional readings for Candlemas we have the last mentioning of Christmas for this liturgical year.  So, if you really want to keep your decorations up a bit longer - you can!  Some of your friends might think you're a little crazy (maybe you are!) but you can also use this as an ice-breaker to discuss your faith with them and while the liturgical season switches to Epiphany, Epiphany is still a celebration of the Christ child - so one really could celebrate Christmas all the way until Lent begins!

So....

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Monster Drinks Satanic?

Those who see Satanic overtones here are saying the "M" on the can is really "666" in Hebrew.  They show us charts like this one:

However, if you notice - in the "Vahv" (Hebrew "6") the left side swings upward - not straight across.  Subtle changes in any alpha-numeric system can change the whole meaning.  Here's another comparison:

As you can see, a closer look makes the two symbols only slightly similar.  Those who want to see a "6" here are stretching it a bit.

According to a representative at Monster, as reported by Vincent Funaro of the Christian Post, no - nothing satanic intended or implied.

Then there's the "cross" in the name "Monster" -

Now again, with the "cross" highlighted: 

Is it a "cross?"  Well, yes it is, and it's a little troubling to mix a Christian symbol with the word "monster."

OK, so we've got a stretch at 666, a cross how about reference to "the Beast?"  Well, yes, we have that too...

So, is this a reference to "the Beast" from the Book of Revelation?  Or is this "monster" just a "beast?"

In one of their ads, after drinking a can - the person's eyes take on a rather evil, or at least scary, look:

The flurry started from a Youtube video, which has gone viral:

The person in this video, Christine Weick, also brings up that on the can it has three letters, "BFC" and says the "F" is for the "F" word.  She also claims it is written on the side of the can too, so she knows it is the "F" word (I need to see this for myself).  She also brings up that on the box it claims "MILFs dig it, so will you."  Well, again, I need to see this - but assuming she's telling the truth (the Youtube picture is not close enough or clear enough to read it), then we're talking some pretty disgusting things on the box.  The representative from Monster, mentioned earlier, says the "BFC" stands for "Big Fat Can," - well, maybe - but that doesn't get us around the MILF comment.  

I also found another video.  The one going viral of Ms. Weick has nearly 8 million hits, as of the time I'm publishing this article - and that video has been online for about a month.  Another one I found is about 3 years old, with much of the same information, though not all, from Ms. Weick's presentation:

Personally, I shy away from all those "energy drinks" as they are full of sugar and/or caffeine and other ingredients not recommended for those watching their blood pressure and/or weight.  Does this give us even more reason to avoid such drinks and especially "Monster?"  I think too much hype is being made about this, and for a few reasons:

1) Our secular society LIKES things which are evil or scary!  With all the zombie and other horror movies, some of which are blatantly evil and/or demonic - is it any wonder a commercial product would tap into this "monster" mania?
2) People selling product know what they're doing - and there are no "mistakes" in what we've been discussing.
3) The more Christians hype this sort of thing, the more attention is being brought to the products.  The makers of Monster are crying (or laughing) all the way to the bank.  (And I've just added some more "free" advertising for them here too now!) 

The bottom line is, these drinks are NOT good for you!  They should be avoided!  If the counter-Christian message helps you stay away from them, GOOD!

Feel free to add your own comments...

The Eleventh Day of Christmas

January 4th - The 11th Day of Christmas

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was the first person born in what would later be the United States, to be named a Saint in the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Seton

=====================================================================

Merry Christmas!

On The Eighth Day of Christmas

Today is the "Octave Day" of Christmas.  It is on this day the Church traditionally celebrates the Circumcision of Our Lord.  Under the new lectionary it is now the Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God.  Either way, today is a holy day of obligation - so don't miss Mass today!  The modern readings for today still include the circumcision of Jesus.

Reading 1:  Num 6:22-27

The LORD said to Moses: “Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them: This is how you shall bless the Israelites. Say to them: The LORD bless you and keep you! The LORD let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you! The LORD look upon you kindly and give you peace! So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites, and I will bless them.” (NAB)

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Say to Aaron and his sons: Thus shall you bless the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee, and keep thee. The Lord show his face to thee, and have mercy on thee. The Lord turn his countenance to thee, and give thee peace. And they shall invoke my name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them. (DRB)

Personally, I like the wording of the DRB better, but maybe folks today do not understand what "countenance" is.  We, the Catholic Church, are the "children of Israel" for the New Testament era - Judaism is not the Church of the followers of Jesus Christ.  We are the children of God, as we see in Reading 2.

Reading 2:  Gal 4:4-7
Brothers and sisters:
When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law,
to ransom those under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons.
As proof that you are sons,
God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying out, “Abba, Father!”
So you are no longer a slave but a son,
and if a son then also an heir, through God.

We, the Catholic Church, are not slaves of the Law, but sons and heirs with and through Jesus Christ.

Gospel:  Luke 2:16-21
The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,
and the infant lying in the manger.
When they saw this,
they made known the message
that had been told them about this child.
All who heard it were amazed
by what had been told them by the shepherds.
And Mary kept all these things,
reflecting on them in her heart.
Then the shepherds returned,
glorifying and praising God
for all they had heard and seen,
just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,
he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.

And this, the Eighth Day of Christmas, is the day Jesus is formally named "Jesus!"  This the day of His circumcision.

Merry ChristMass to everyone!  Peace on Earth to men of goodwill!