Quinquagesima Sunday

OK, that was LAST Sunday, and the last Sunday before Lent begins (which began three days ago, on Ash Wednesday), but I wanted to bring out something which was in the readings of the Traditional Latin Mass (the extra-ordinary rite).

The Epistle. 1 Corinthians xiii. 1.

THOUGH I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I thought this rather appropriate after reading through TurretinFan's "Rome Colored Glasses" article.  We ALL see as through a glass, darkly - for now - but one day we will see Him face to face.  The main point of this Epistle is charity.  Those who post to their blogs and have not charity are just sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.   Let us not forget to convey the love of Christ in our blogging.

More reading here: http://www.catholicteaching.net/readings-quinquagesima-sunday.html

A Response to Steve Finnell

Steve Finnell left us an invitation to follow his blog, and he did this in a post under San Gennaro.  I have deleted Steve's comment there (as well as the responses to it) and instead will post one of his blog entries here and respond to it (and it is linked back to his original article).  A repeating theme on Steve's blog is "forgiveness" and "the Word of God," so I've picked one of those for my initial response to him.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN

There are more than few who present the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican as an example to support the "Sinner's Prayer" as a means to forgiveness from sins. (Luke 18:9-14)

THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE PUBLICAN IN THIS PARABLE EVEN BELIEVED IN  JESUS.

Jesus used this parable to illustrate the futility of a  self-righteous attitude. Jesus was not saying non-Christians can say a form of the "Sinner's Prayer" as the means to being justified before God.

The Scriptures teach that sins are forgiven because of God's grace (Ephesians 2:8), faith in Jesus as Savior (John 3:16), confessing Jesus as Lord, believing in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 10:9-10), repentance (the intellectual commitment to turn from sin and turn to God.--Luke 24:46-47) and water baptism, (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, Galatians 3:27, 1Peter3:20-21).

Jesus nor any apostle ever stated that non-Christians should say a  Sinner's Prayer, in order to receive forgiveness from sins.

ONLY CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE BEEN WASHED BY THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST CAN RECEIVE FORGIVENESS FROM THEIR SINS, BY PRAYER!

John 20:23 tells us:  "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."  Now, this is Jesus speaking directly and only to His Apostles, our first bishops.  The forgiveness of sins is an authority given by Jesus to His bishops!   To this day it is the bishop who holds jurisdiction over the Sacrament of Reconciliation and only those priests whom the bishop with jurisdiction has given faculties to forgive sins can do so.  So, if Mr. Finnell wishes to rely on Scripture - he must submit himself to one who has been granted this authority!  This authority, as pointed out, is traced all the way back to Jesus Christ Himself in His Word at John 20:23, and there's really no getting around this.  

Yes, it is those Christians who have been washed by the shed blood of Jesus Christ who can receive forgiveness - but it is also only those who have been thusly empowered to forgive sins who can do so!

We can also agree with Mr. Finnell that the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee relates to the futility of a self-righteous attitude.  However, he calls into question whether or not the Publican is even a Christian.  Well, the Publican is NOT a Christian!  Christianity had not been born yet!  Christ had not yet built His Church, as He promised He would do (Matthew 16:18-19). 

Back to the point... Mr. Finnell does a good job of laying out what it takes for forgiveness EXCEPT the KEY POINT of WHO CAN FORGIVE SINS!  Yes, He will claim that forgiveness is by the Blood of Christ, but it is Christ Himself who tells us WHO can forgive sins - and sins THEY do not forgive are NOT FORGIVEN.  

May God guide Mr. Finnell, and all who are reading along, the Spirit of Wisdom and Grace to seek out what God's Word REALLY tells us about forgiveness. 

A blessed Ash Wednesday to you too and may you have a good Lent.

 

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Eucharistic Miracle of Herentals

Eucharistic Miracle of Herentals - Belgium 1412

In 1412, a certain Jan van Langerstede who obtain their living by stealing sacred objects from the churches who then resold around Europe, went to the nearby village of Poederlee, entered the church and stole the chalice and ciborium containing five consecrated hosts. While returning to Herentals, where he was staying at a hotel in the area known as the 'De Hegge "the hedge", felt restrained by a mysterious force that kept him from continuing the journey, then hid in a field in the Hosts a large rabbit hole and then returned quietly to Herentals. Jan was sentenced to hang by Judge Gilbert De Pape, as the police searching his luggage found the stolen goods, but before his death the prisoner pointed to where he had hidden the consecrated Hosts, then the court suspended the sentence and ordered to Jan return to the crime scene to verify the authenticity of the confession. A multitude of crowd followed them and wonder just came in, saw the radiant Hosts all arranged so as to form a cross. The Hosts miraculously remained intact, despite the weather (it had been raining). Were immediately reported in procession, partly in Herentals, and partly Poederlee, where they remained until the sixteenth century. On January 2, 1442, the miracle was declared authentic by the magistrate of Herentals and place of discovery of Hosts was built a small chapel.

This text and more like it:
http://digilander.libero.it/rexur/miracoli/inglese/ostia.htm

San Gennaro

In the spirit of the Eucharistic Miracles series, I present the story of San Gennaro - Saint Januarius, Bishop and Patron Saint of Naples.  This miracle is not one of the Eucharist, but is worth looking into.


Miracle of San Gennaro's blood - which liquefies from solid clots to blood up to two times per year.  In 305ad San Gennaro was decapitated by the Romans.  Some of his blood was preserved in a glass vile which is kept in the Naples Cathedral, Duomo di San Gennaro.  This miracle happens nearly every September 19th, on his feast day.  On years when it does not happen, Naples is said to be without the protection of their patron saint.  In 1980 the blood did not liquefy and there was an earthquake which killed 2000 people.


To read more, check here:
http://www.huliq.com/1/68815/miracle-san-gennaro-repeats-september-19



It is said, before he was beheaded that Diocletian had him thrown into the stadium with wild bears which had not been fed in days - yet the bears paid no attention to San Gennaro.  Diocletian then had him cast into a fiery furnace - and he came out of it unscathed.  Being frustrated by these two attempts, he finally had the Bishop of Naples beheaded.

Kudos to Audra Kane!

I just found this page about my niece, Audra Kane, and I wanted to share...

http://web.me.com/b16jp2/Audra_Kane/Audra_Kanes_other_world.html

and this one too:

http://web.me.com/b16jp2/Audra_Kane_Ashley_HomeStore/Audra_Kane.html

Hugs Audie!

Love,

Uncle Scott<<<

Audra works with Ashley Furniture and CarpetOne in Western New York, here's a video of Audra doing a commercial for the store!

http://www.a2z.org/audra

Rome-Colored Glasses?

Another blogger who uses a pseudonym of "TurretinFan" posted an article of little more than invented scenarios which were seeming to impugn the Catholic teaching on the papacy.  Some responses have gone back and forth in the combox on his blog, but my current response is read better as its own article than a combox so I am posting it here (I'm also posting it there in parts, but again it's easier to read it here).  To see what I'm responding to, please visit TurretinFan's blog here:  

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/03/challenging-your-rome-colored-glasses.html

TF responds:
> a) There's nothing in the original article that
> suggests that Roman apologists use these
> quotations.

The inference is there when you said, “many of my readers of the Roman communion would draw a similar inference that Athanasius is affirming Roman primacy.”  You have clarified that you did not have any Catholic apologists in mind, I have thanked you for this clarification - and I thank you again.

> I was hoping the problem was that you
> didn't read the article carefully. If you did
> read it carefully, I'm not sure what to
> attribute your question to.

Again, I had no “problem” with the article, per se, other than the invented “what if” scenario seemed deliberately misleading.  Again, you have clarified your position.  I have thanked you, and I thank you again.

> b) You are welcome to disagree, but most
> of the quotations at the links you provided
> don't even come close to being as strong
> statements in favor of Rome or Rome's
> bishop as the statements in favor of
> Alexandria's bishop, or Caesarea's bishop,
> or Carthage's bishop, or Antioch.
>
> Let me take the first quotation from your
> first list:
>> "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul],
>> having founded and built up the church
>> [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of
>> the episcopate to Linus"
>> (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
>
> Look at it! Even if we leave aside the
> fact that the hacked up quotation has to
> use brackets to put in the most important
> words, and even if we ignore the fact that
> Irenaeus is absolutely guaranteed to be
> wrong (Scripture proves that Paul didn't
> found the church in Rome), still what
> does he say except that Linus was
> made a bishop there by them?  Nothing
> about universal jurisdiction, primacy, or
> succession of investiture of replacement
> of Peter by Linus after Peter's death
> (what are we supposed to believe that
> there were two popes for a while?).

Let us take your objections here in order:
1) The “hacked up quotation” which makes use of brackets does so to insert the CONTEXT of St. Irenaeus’ work!  Just look at 3:2:

by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. (emphasis mine)

Yes, the context speaks volumes - and I would encourage any objective readers here to look at the context:  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
2) I am not here to argue your disagreement with St. Irenaeus.
3) Saying St. Linus was made a bishop by them, alone, does not prove succession - but it does, when combined with OTHER ECF testimonies, provide further evidence for succession.
4) THEN when we look at the paragraph just prior to the one cited in the list, which you refer to, we DO see things in a much more “Catholic” light.
5) Two popes?  I’m not asking you to believe that - while I would not oppose the concept of a dual governing by Sts. Peter and Paul - St. Peter still has a primacy of office which St. Paul does not have.

> It's lame. It doesn't come close to
> establishing a papacy in the early church.

Well, again, when we look at the context, which again I hope you and both your and my readers do, such an establishment is not hard to see at all.

> It takes oodles of wishful thinking and
> Rome-colored glasses to anachronistically
> impose the papacy on that quotation.

Again, there is no anachronism here.  I feel the need to use a quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” (Inigo Montoya)

> The first of my quotations says Athanasius
> had the "charge of the whole world" which
> is a lot closer in its sound to a statement of
> universal jurisdiction than Linus simply
> being made a bishop.

Well again, read a bit more context from St. Ireneaus, but be that as it may - the words of praise for St. Athanasius came near the end of his life.  You may recall, it was St. Athanasius, almost alone, who stood firm on behalf of the entire Church in the face of Arianism.  I whole-heartedly uphold the praises lofted upon him in his waining years.

> Yes, I'm free to have a contrary opinion to
> yours, and there's a good reason I do.

Well, while I have empathy for your opinions, I once thought much as you do - I cannot agree that your reasons are good - and I’m certain that where you are now you do not believe my stance is “good” either.

Godspeed to you, TF.

Scott<<<

Addendum:

Turretinfan said...   Friday, March 04, 2011 2:10:00 PM 

Scott:      

a) As far as your response to my analysis of the quotation goes, you abandon the quotation itself for a questionable translation of another item in the context;    

b) But even with that, you are forced to admit "Saying St. Linus was made a bishop by them, alone, does not prove succession";    

c) So you make a vague general appeal to all the ECFs writings and claim "THEN when we look at the paragraph just prior to the one cited in the list, which you refer to, we DO see things in a much more “Catholic” light."    

But of course the problem is that the same methodology is applied to all the quotations. None of them prove the papacy, and it is only by selecting those quotations and viewing them anachronistically that we can conclude that they have anything to do with the papacy (a doctrine unknown in that time).    

-TurretinFan 

I respond:
a) From what I can see, the verbage is identical to what you quoted - so now it's a "questionable translation?"

b) Again, the word "alone" there should be "ALONE" to make the point that this statement ALONE does not PROVE succession - however taken in light of other quotes it ADDS to the evidence of succession as numerous ECFs list St. Linus in the succession of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.

c) No one is asking you to "view them anachronistically."  LOOK at what is said IN CONTEXT and IN TIME - the words are ALL THERE, but again - only for one who has eyes to see.

Scott<<<

Eucharistic Miracle St Mary of Egypt

This Eucharistic miracle
is related in the life of
St. Mary of Egypt who lived
in the desert for 47 years.
The account of her life was
written by the Bishop
Sofronio of Jerusalem in the
6th century. St. Mary is said
to have walked on the Jordan
River to reach the opposite
bank and receive Communion
from the Monk Zosimus.

We are told that when St. Mary was 12 years of age she left her parents and went to Alexandria. There she led a very dissolute life for 16 years. One day she came upon a ship about to set sail with different groups of passengers.  She inquired who they might be and where they were going. She was told they were pilgrims sailing toward Jerusalem for the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. She decided to join them. When on the feast day she tried to enter the church, she was seized by a mysterious force.  Fearfully she raised her eyes to an image of the Holy Virgin and was overcome with a deep sorrow for the sinful life she had led until that day.  Only then was she able to make her way into the church and worship the True Cross.

She did not remain in Jerusalem. “If you go across the Jordan you will find peace” was the message of the Madonna. The following day after her confession and Communion she made her way across the Jordan to the desert of Arabia.  There she lived for 47 years in solitude encountering neither men nor beasts. Her skin shriveled, her hair was long and white, but the promise of the Virgin proved true, she found her peace of soul.

One day she met up with the Monk Zosimus and asked him to bring her Communion each year. One year Zosimus arrived with the Eucharist, but Mary did not show. In great sorrow Zosimus prayed: “Lord, my God, King and Creator of all, do not deprive me of my desire, but grant that I may see this holy woman.” Then he thought, “Now what will I do if she appears, there is no boat around to get me across? I will not achieve my wish.” While he gave into these thoughts, Mary appeared on the opposite shore and Zosimus was consoled. Then he saw her make the sign of the Cross over the water and walk out on it as though it were dry land. 

When 12 months had passed Zosimus returned but was unable to find the remains of the saintly penitent. A lion had dug her grave and buried the body.

(Original text from: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Maryegypt.pdf)