Repentance and Mercy

In this week’s readings we find the themes of repentance and mercy.  In his letter to Timothy, Paul tells us that he was once a blasphemer, persecutor and arrogant but because he acted out of ignorance the grace of the Lord was abundant, along with faith and love that is in Jesus Christ.

I challenge you all to bring joy in heaven by repenting of your sins and praying for others to repent as well.  In today’s Gospel reading we find out that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.  So repent and bring joy in heaven.

We also know that the prayers of the righteous man avails much (James 5:16) therefore once you’ve repented of your sins please pray for others to do the same.  We have a beautiful example of this intercession in today’s first reading.

While Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai God became displeased even angry at the multitudes at the base of the mountain.  You see, they had made a golden calf and were worshipping it but Moses interceded for them.  He asked God to have mercy on them and our Lord “relented in the punishment he had threatened to inflict on his people.” 

But are there sins just too heinous, or awful, that God simply cannot forgive no matter how repentant we may be?  No, there aren’t any.  We can know this with certainty by looking at the parable of the lost son.  We see that the worst possible sin one can make is to reject God and we see in this parable (Luke 15:11-31) that God is not only prepared to forgive the wayward son but that he is also waiting for his return.  We know this because we read in the parable that “while he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion.” 

And so bring joy in heaven by repenting of your sins and praying for others to repent as well to bring even more joy in heaven.

God  Bless
Nathan

False Citation?

It came to my attention when someone in the Catholic Debate Forum by the name of "Ned" quoted a passage from Pope Innocent III that not only was this quite a butchering of the original quote, but was also falsely cited by many anti-Catholic sites.  I will list several of them at the end of this article.  It will be interesting to see if any of them have the integrity to correct this errant citation.  Here is the quote which "Ned" presented (he refused to cite his source, however it was not hard to locate) :

Pope Innocent III stated in 1199: ... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

OK, here is what Pope Innocent III really said, with proper citation to the actual document.

Cum ex injuncto (1199) [in part] Truly our venerable brother the Bishop of Metz has signified to us in his letter that both in the diocese and in the city of Metz the multitude of laymen and women, drawn in no small way by desire, have had the Scriptures, Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Psalter, the commentaries on Job and many other books translated for their own use into the French language, exerting themselves towards this kind of translation so willingly, but not so prudently, that in secret meetings the laymen and women dare to discuss such matters between themselves, and to preach to each other: they also reject their community, do not intermingle with similar people, and consider themselves separate from them, and do not align their ears and minds with them; when any of the parish priests wished to censure them concerning these matters, they stood firm before them, trying to argue from the Scriptures that they should not be prohibited in any way from doing these things. Some of them also scorned the simplicity of their priests; and when the Word of Salvation is shown to them by those priests, they grumble in secret that they understand the Word better in their little books and that they can explain it more prudently. But although the desire to understand the divine Scriptures, and, according to the Scriptures themselves, the zeal to spread them, is not forbidden, but is rather commendable, nevertheless the arguments against it appear well-deserved, because those who do not adhere to such arguments celebrate their assemblies in secret, usurp for themselves the duty of preaching, mock the simplicity of the priests and reject their community. For God, the true light, which illuminates all men coming into this world, hates such works of darkness so much that when he was about to send his apostles out into the world to preach the Gospel to all creation, he ordered them clearly, saying: "That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops"; announcing openly in this way that the preaching of the Gospel must not be carried out in hidden communities, as heretics do, but in churches in the Catholic manner. For according to the testimony of Truth, "every one that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest: because they are done in God." Because of this, when the high priest "asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine, Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing." Furthermore, if anyone objects that according to the Lord's command "give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine", since Christ himself also said "unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables", he should understand that dogs and pigs are not things which happily bring holiness and willingly accept pearls, but things which tear apart holiness and scorn pearls, just like those who do not venerate the words of the Gospel and the ecclesiastical sacraments as Catholics, but rather detest them as heretics, who are always chattering and blaspheming, whom the apostle Paul teaches should be avoided "after the first and second admonition." The mysteries of the sacraments of faith should not be explained everywhere to everyone, since they cannot be understood everywhere by everyone, but only to those who can conceive of them by their faithful intellect. Because of this the Apostle said to the simpler people: "As unto little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not meat." For "strong meat is for the perfect", as he said to others: "we speak wisdom among the perfect;" "for I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified." Such is the profundity of divine Scripture, that not only simple and illiterate men, but even prudent and learned men do not fully suffice to investigate its wisdom. Because of this Scripture says: "They have failed in their search." From this it was rightly once established in divine law that the beast which touches the mountain should be stoned; that is, so that no simple and unlearned man presumes to concern himself with the sublimity of sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cum_ex_injuncto_(1199) (Emphasis added to show the snippets which were combined to create something the original text did NOT say!)

Now, this document cum ex injuncto, is not even contained within the pages of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum!  In fact, the reference to 770-771 refers to a part of the "List of Errors of Martin Luther, which was compiled about 300-400 years AFTER Pope Innocent III was alive!  The sections of Denzinger which contain quotes from Pope Innocent III are from reference 404-427, and again, cum ex injuncto is not found among those quotes!  

So, which sites erroneously site this as being from Denzinger's collection?

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm

http://www.hwy246.net/users/bethania/0805.htm

http://www.lettherebetruth.org/articles/the_genesis_code/chapter_4_the_third_church_era.html

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2463328/replies?c=183

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/9938-catholocism-versus-the-bible/page-3

http://capitolcommentary.com/2010/08/08/banning-revolutionary-voices-a-multicultural-queer-youth-anthology/

http://unsettledchristianity.com/tag/ron-hamman/

http://christreich.christogenea.org/revelation10

http://www.gospel-kingdom.com/pb/wp_919a2698/wp_919a2698.html

Doesn't cite Denzinger, but quotes exactly as erroneous quote above:

http://www.godglorified.com/English%20Bible.htm

http://www.thelostbooks.com/bookapocintro4.htm

Well, there are PLENTY more, especially if you include all the forums/discussion groups which also reference this misquote.  

Marriage Fecundity?

Recently we've discussed the supposed "Freedom to Marry" arguments.  In a separate discussion, my family took this a bit further and one posited "Why stop at homosexuals?  Why not include polysexuals (and more)?  Where does one draw the line and who gets to use the red crayon?  Here's essentially that same argument posed by Fr. Scalia:

“Marriage Equality”? August 5, 2013 by encourageandteach By: Fr. Paul Scalia In the public debate about same-sex marriage, we often hear the phrase “Marriage Equality.” Like the “Love is love” mantra, this one is brilliant propaganda. A powerful one-two punch, it contains the perfect ingredients to silence the opposition: the traditional institution of marriage and the quintessential American ideal of equality. Hey, who does not like marriage? And what American would ever disagree with equality? Put them together and you have a potent slogan. Indeed, this phrase suffers only one weakness: People do not really mean it. equality-question-draft2We know that people do not really mean “Marriage Equality,” or its companion “Freedom to Marry,” because they intend them only for a select group – namely, homosexuals. If people really did mean equality and freedom, then they would clamor for an end to any and all restrictions on marriage. After all, if these are so important, why limit them to one group, or even two? And yet…no one is rushing to free adolescents from the draconian, iniquitous laws banning them from wedded bliss. No one is clamoring to permit incestuous marriage (well, not yet). No one is rallying and protesting in favor of legalizing polygamy (okay, almost no one). So, as much as people parrot these pat phrases, they do not take them to their logical conclusion. Of course, “Marriage Equality Except for Polygamists” is not as catchy. And “Freedom (sort of) to Marry” makes a bad bumper sticker. The reason people cannot take such freedom and equality to their logical conclusion is because marriage is inherently exclusive. The whole concept of marriage involves entering a binding relationship with some particular someone who is not some other particular someone. Further, laws tend to do things like distinguish, define, and – yes – even discriminate. If we have any marriage laws at all, they will say something like, “This is a marriage and that is not.” (Which is why the more honest participants in the debate call for an end to marriage altogether.) The purpose of laws is to draw lines and limits for public order and the common good. In the end, everyone draws the line somewhere – perhaps at same-sex marriage, perhaps at polygamy, perhaps at incest. People simply resent the Catholic Church for drawing the line earlier than they want it. So what phrase would serve as a good rejoinder? “Marriage Complementarity” would be a good response, bringing out what the current debate overlooks. Problem is, it only gets at a part of the truth. “Marriage Permanence” would be interesting because it would move the debate to a neglected issue of our culture’s decay. “Marriage Exclusivity” again only summarizes one aspect. “Marriage Fecundity” would perhaps be the most fun – pushing the argument back to a prior and fundamental issue. But none of these works for the simple reason that you cannot reason with sloganeering of any kind. There is no neat response once people have emptied “marriage” of its intrinsic meaning. Moreover, the entire truth about anything cannot fit on a bumper sticker or be captured in a sound byte. In the end, “Marriage Equality” is intended for a very select group of people. Far from an egalitarian push to extend the beauty of marriage to all, it is just a tool for a very particular kind of social engineering. http://encourageandteach.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/marriage-equality/

Thank you Father.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Catholic Apps

The editor of "Catholic Apps Blog" wrote the following article recently:

http://catholicapps.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/we-knew-this-was-coming-using-phone-in-church-looks-scandalous/

My husband and I received a gentle but firm reprimand from a dear fellow parishioner. It came in the form of a note in the mail. We KNEW this probably was on people’s minds. We are glad this person was bold enough to offer charitable advice. How would you respond? Should you use your Missal app at Mass? In our view, each generation brings new technological advances to make participation in the sacraments easier (electric lights, contact lenses, hearing aids, air conditioning, loud speakers, microphones et. al.). To us, these little programs which put the text of the Mass in the palm of our hands are part of the evolution. We wrote a kind response explaining what we are reading on our phones –the iMissal app. We gave a brief description of some of the great Missal apps out there which help us to participate in the Liturgy with greater ease (especially for our aging eyes)! We apologized for the distraction, nevertheless. We have encouraged our pastor to talk openly about the use of Missal apps during Mass. It’s time. Thumbs up or thumbs down. But let everyone know what’s going on. Your thoughts?

Do we need to be mindful of what other people are thinking at Mass?   Do we just need to educate more people that there ARE "Catholic Apps" and some of them are actually useful in engaging the Mass and the readings for the day?  How do we know if someone is following the readings - or following a football game? Should we care?

Prayer and Fasting for Peace in Syria

Today Pope Francis has asked us to fast and pray for peace in Syria.  Let us all honor this request.

FASTING:  
Only one full meal today - two smaller meals/snacks which if combined do not equal a full meal.

Hate your Mother and Father

I don’t know about you but when I first read next Sunday's reading (Luke 14:25-33) and came to the part where if we do not hate our father and mother and even our wife and kids we cannot be His disciple I was somewhat confused.  How is ‘hating’ my wife and kids following His command to love one another?  I just didn’t get it.  Then I did some research.

I found out that what Jesus was saying here is for one to be His disciple he must be prepared to leave behind anyone who prevents him from serving Jesus.  You see, to ‘hate’ you father and mother is an idiomatic expression of that time and culture.  It simply meant ‘to love less’. 

For example, let’s have a look at the Book of Malachi, Chapter 1 verses 2 and 3.  God says: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland…” (NIV)  If we look at the Amplified translation we see this text as “But [in comparison with the degree of love I have for Jacob] I have hated Esau and have laid waste his mountains…” (AMP)

It’s like saying in our time that someone has ‘kicked the bucket’ doesn’t really mean that one literally kicked a bucket but that he has died.  Or the expression that it’s raining cats and dogs doesn’t mean that cats and dogs are literally falling from the sky but that there’s a downpour outside.  The same kind of thing applies here.  Jesus wasn’t telling those who wanted to follow Him that they had to literally hate their spouses and even children.  He was simply saying that even the sacredness of family loyalty shouldn’t outweigh our commitment to Christ since we must be willing to abandon even close relationships to follow Him.

This way of reading this particular passage also explains what Jesus meant by bringing a sword and not peace in Mat 10 where He says: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

To follow Jesus, that is to be His disciple, one must be willing to abandon even close relationships because many who are close to you will be unable to understand your path and reject you because of it, hence the turning away of the father and daughter and so on.

Just because they turn away from you or that your love toward Jesus Christ is greater than your love for your family doesn’t mean you leave or ignore them either.  We are to love one another and that means to be there to explain the hope that is in you with respect and gentleness (1 Pet 3:15), and of course to pray for their entrance into the faith.

God Bless
Nathan

Exaltation of the Holy Cross

The Exaltation of the Holy Cross
September 14

During the excavation of the site for the Basillica of the Holy Sepulcher, which was built over the traditionally recognized site of Jesus' tomb, three crosses were found.  They determined which one was Our Lord's cross when a dying woman touched one of the crosses and she was healed.  

The Holy Cross has been an object of veneration ever since its discovery in the early 4th century.  The feast day is celebrated on the anniversary of the dedication of the Basillica of the Holy Sepulcher.

Capture of the Holy Cross by the Persians
In 614 AD the Persians had captured the Holy Cross and taken it back to Persia. In 627 Emperor Heraclius won a decisive victory over the Persians and recovered the True Cross.  As the story goes, when the True Cross was returned to Jerusalem the Emperor wanted to carry it in himself, but could make no forward progress.  The Bishop of Jerusalem said to him that he was not as an emperor and not as a humble servant.  Heraclius then put on common clothes, picked up the True Cross and carried it into Jerusalem where it was placed at the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher.

ECF Quote:
"How splendid the cross of Christ! It brings life, not death; light, not darkness; Paradise, not its loss. It is the wood on which the Lord, like a great warrior, was wounded in hands and feet and side, but healed thereby our wounds. A tree has destroyed us, a tree now brought us life" (Theodore of Studios).

Exaltation of the Holy Cross Novena
If you begin this novena on September 6th, it will conclude on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross.

Jesus, Who because of Your burning love for us willed to be crucified and to shed Your Most Precious Blood for the redemption and salvation of our souls, look down upon us and grant the petition we ask for ...( mention here)

We trust completely in Your Mercy. Cleanse us from sin by Your Grace, sanctify our work, give us and all those who are dear to us our daily bread, lighten the burden of our sufferings, bless our families, and grant to the nations, so sorely afflicted, Your Peace, which is the only true peace, so that by obeying Your Commandments we may come at last to the glory of Heaven. 

On the "Ordinary" Soapbox again:
Through several other articles (see list) you may have seen that this is one of my "missions" and that is to raise awareness of how EXTRA-ordinary the season is after Pentecost.  According to the modern lectionary this season is "Ordinary Time," yet we have many very EXTRA-ordinary celebrations during this season!  Traditionally the season was called "Ordinal Time" which means "Counting Time" - when we count the weeks after Pentecost.  The modern lectionary also combines this ordinal season with the season after Epiphany, further diminishing the deeper meanings of both seasons - which are anything BUT "ordinary."  I hope you'll join me in encouraging the bishops to go back to calling this "Ordinal Time" and separating the weeks after Epiphany from the weeks after Pentecost.