The First and the Last

After some contemplation of last Sundays Mass Readings I felt the Holy Spirit guiding me to talk about the Divinity of Jesus.  This feeling came to me when I read the Scripture readings and fell on the passage of John describing the voice that said to him: “Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning ant the end.”

One sentence later we find out that Jesus is the one speaking here but I’ve already heard from those who do not believe Jesus to be God that the one speaking was God the Father and that Jesus began speaking later.  Context is pretty plain that it is indeed Jesus speaking about being the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last but since this verse isn’t convincing for some, I thought I’d bring out some other verses that are a little clearer on this.

First, we know with certainty that the Lord God is the first and the last because the Old Testament explains this explicitly.  Isaiah 44, verse 6 tells us: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.”

God also describes Himself as the Alpha and Omega in the first chapter of Revelation when He says: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)  So, it’s established that God is the Alpha and the Omega.  And earlier in Isaiah we see that God describes Himself as the first and the last.  The New Testament being written in Greek, the idea of ‘the first and the last’ is expressed using the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and omega.

So, does Jesus call himself the first and the last to describe himself as God?  In fact, He does.  In the Book of Revelation the Apostle John writes: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

Do you see it?  God is the First and the Last and here the one calling Himself the ‘First and the Last’ also says in the same breath that he once was dead but now is alive for ever and ever.  The only one that can claim this title is God, and yet Jesus is also the only one who can say that he once was dead but is alive once again.  Therefore since Jesus describes Himself by a title that only God can have tells us that Jesus, right here in Scripture, declares Himself to be God.

God Bless
Nathan

What Catholics Believe - The Sign of the Cross

Why Do Catholics Make the Sign of the Cross?

First off, when we make the Sign of the Cross we also say, outloud or silently, "In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."  It is a statement of our Faith, our creed, our belief in the One God in Blessed Trinity.  Note, we don't say "In the names ..." but "In the Name of...", why?  Because it is a small testimony of the Doctrine of the Trinity, while Three Divine Person - there is only One God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (hereafter "CCC") tells us:

232 Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"⁵³ Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: "I do." "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."⁵⁴
233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,⁵⁵ for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

Footnotes:
53 Mt 28:19.
54 St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 9, Exp. symb.:CCL 103,47.
55 Cf. Profession of faith of Pope Vigilius I (552):DS 415.

The Sign of the Cross is a Sacramental

So, what is a sacramental?  Again, going back to the CCC:

1667 "Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals. These are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy."¹⁷³
The characteristics of sacramentals
1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).
1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless.¹⁷⁴ Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).¹⁷⁵
1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God."¹⁷⁶

Footnotes:
173 SC 60; Cf. CIC, can. 1166; CCEO, can. 867.
174 Cf. Gen 12:2; Lk 6:28; Rom 12:14; 1 Pet 3:9.
175 Cf. SC 79; CIC, can. 1168; De Ben 16,18.
176 SC 61.
177 Eph 1:3.
178 Cf. Mk 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7, 13; 16:17.

So, sacramentals are things we do which enrich our Faith, which bring us closer to Jesus Christ and serve as reminders of our Creed and the Sacraments.  This is precisely where the Sign of the Cross fits in - it is a testimony to the Trinity and it brings remembrance of our Lord's suffering on the Cross which is also reflected in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  The Sign of the Cross often is made to "bless one's self" but it is also used to bless others - such as when the priest does so at the end of the Mass - all those in attendance, even non-Catholics, receive a blessing - a small amount of grace.  Anyone who is doing what the Church intends can perform the sacramental of the Sign of the Cross.  While the almost automatic, Sign of the Cross is quite simple, it has meaning which is quite profound.

How do we make the Sign of the Cross?

Start by holding your fingers of your right hand like this:

 
In the Latin Rite:

The Eastern Rites are virtually the same, except that they go to the right shoulder first, then the left:

 

 

Lucifer and the Existence of God

In response to a post I made earlier on "Lucifer" someone who goes by "JD" posted a comment.  Since it's been over two weeks, the original article is in automatic moderation for posting comment,  I decided to post a new article for that reason and the fact that I believe we need to get more fundamental with JD.  JD's original response is there, my response is here:

JD: Firstly, I stumbled upon this site by accident while trying to find out when season two of Lucifer will begin.
Then I read this little article and began to laugh my ### off at its absurdity.

SW: You are entitled to your opinion and I have even permitted it to be expressed here.  I would encourage you to continue this discussion - my only request is that you keep it civil and respectful.

JD: First and foremost satan/the devil/Lucifer doesn't exist. Neither does the place you krisjans call hell.

SW: And JD, what do you base these unsupported assertions upon?  Are we supposed to just accept the word of some passer-by who popped in and makes such an authoritative assertion without backing it up?  Let me take it back a bit for you and for anyone else reading along by asking you "Does God exist?"  If not, why not?  What do you base this statement in?  So, before we continue to discuss another of what we believe to be another of God's creations (Lucifer), let us discuss the existence of God first.  Fair enough?

SW:  Also, this is where I would also ask you to be a bit more respectful.  We are Christians, we believe in our Lord and Savior, Jesus - the Christ (the Annointed One).  You do not need to be disrespectful with words like "krisjans," unless you're just illiterate and do not realize the root of the word is "Christ" whom we follow and it is a proper noun, which should be capitalized.  I am perceiving that you are not an illiterate, so I respectfully request you refer to us as Christians.

JD continues:  What this show does is show you who's really responsible for everything. YOU! You are responsible for everything that happens in your life not your invisible friend in the sky or his invisible enemy that's who knows where. You should watch the show for its entertainment value. It's hilarious. Just remember here folks your faith is less that 2,000 years old.

SW:  Actually, our "faith" is prehistoric.  The first recordings of our faith dates back to Moses, about 4000 years ago and he takes that which was previously an oral tradition and records it, which takes us back at least another 2000 years.   The Catholic Faith did not just begin with Jesus, the Christ, but in reality is THE continuation of the Jewish Faith, which takes us back to the dawn of mankind.  About one third of our Faith is pre-historic, again, and Moses as guided by God wrote down the pre-history.  Then, from Moses forward, as they say, "the rest IS history."  If you're going to make assertions, please be accurate.

DOES GOD EXIST?

Taking us back to our catechism days, one of the first things we learned from the Baltimore Catechism (still my favorite) is the fundamental questions are: "Who made you?"  We answer:  "God made me" (Question 1, Book 1).  It is also asked, "Why did God make you?"  We answer, "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next" (Question 150, Book 3).  Okay, so far I'm just begging the question.  So far I've provided a "faith based" answer, so allow me to quote from The Existence of God website to present four classic arguments for the existence of God.

The Ontological Argument The first purported proof of the existence of God is the ontological argument. The ontological argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the laws of logic alone. It dates back to St Anselm, an eleventh century philosopher-theologian and archbishop of Canterbury, but was also used by the French philosopher René Descartes. It argues that once we mentally grasp the concept of God we can see that God’s non-existence is impossible. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a perfect being that could not possibly fail to exist. The First Cause Argument The second purported proof of the existence of God is the first cause argument, also called “the cosmological argument”. The first cause argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists. The universe came into existence at a point in the distant past. Nothing can come into existence, though, unless there is something to bring it into existence; nothing comes from nothing. There must therefore be some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to exist. This argument, if it is successful, demonstrates the existence of a Creator that transcends time, that has neither beginning nor end. The Argument from Design The third purported proof of the existence of God is the argument from design, also called “the teleological argument”. The argument from design seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that the universe is ordered. The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang. The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, if it is successful, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator that takes an interest in humanity. The Moral Argument The fourth purported proof of the existence of God is the moral argument. The moral argument seeks to prove the existence of God from the fact that there are moral laws. Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally? To answer this, we only need to look at the authoritative nature of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as is the one that commands them; a command of a ruler carries more authority than a command of a citizen. Moral commands, though, have ultimate authority; they are to be obeyed under all circumstances. Their authority transcends all human authority, and they must therefore have been commanded by a being whose authority transcends all human authority. The existence of moral laws, the argument concludes, thus demonstrates the existence of a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation. Summary Together, then, these arguments claim to prove the existence of a perfect, necessary, transcendent being that created the universe, has authority over it, and takes an interest in humanity. This, if it could be accomplished, would be more than enough to show that the Christian conception of God, and those conceptions of God related to it, are close to the truth.

St. Thomas Aquinas presents Five Ways to prove the existence of God:

The First Way: Argument from Motion Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. Nothing exists prior to itself. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect). Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes). Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest). The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The Fifth Way: Argument from Design We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge.   But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Each of these adds a certain amount of logic to the debate and there is more to each argument if you're interested in following the links.  The challenge, therefore, is do we have enough of an argument to prove the existence of God and/or at least have enough to support a faith based in the belief of the existence of God.  If not, then I challenge JD (or any other takers) to present support for his assertions that God (our "invisible friend in the sky") does not exist.  What do you say, JD?  Or, were you just another "drive-by" commentator?

Infallibility Challenge - Part 3

On BeggarsAll (BA) PBJ and Ken responded again, here are their arguments and my counter arguments:  (quoted words in purple).

PeaceByJesus (PBJ) said...

 SW: Scripture, quoting God Himself, states that "whatever" they bind "is bound" in Heaven. That is infallibility - at least to the objective reader.

   PBJ: Which is the "no true objective Scotman" fallacy,

SW:  It's not exactly the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, though I can see how you might believe it is.  I also understand why you bring it up.  You could challenge my objectivity and/or the objectivity of my statement, which you go on to attempt (without success).   We could make this a debate about which kind of fallacy the other is using, but then we're just diverting the actual argument (known as the "red herring" fallacy, which you have been caught participating in).

PBJ continues: for objectively examined and shown, the power of binding and loosing was not a novel provision, but nowhere did it translate into ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office.

SW:  Wait, binding and loosing was not a novel provision?  Please document or retract where said binding and loosing, by men, is previously recorded in Scripture - especially such which is bound or loosed in Heaven.
SW:  Again, I am not debating the existence of an "office" at this time - I am only arguing for "the other pen" - which Ken has already conceded when he agreed that nothing fallible is bound (or loosed) in Heaven.  Surely you, PBJ, are not arguing that error could be bound in Heaven, are you?

PBJ continues:  As said, God broadly bound/binds souls to obey both civil and religious judicial magisterial judgments ("according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do" - Dt. 17:11) but as with "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," (John 14:14) accordance with God's word and will is the condition to see this fulfilled. Only God is autocratic, not man.

SW:  More diversions.  I am not saying God cannot bind or loose.  You then assert that "God is autocratic, not man" in direct defiance of Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - where GOD HIMSELF has stated certain men DO have this autocratic authority to bind or loose "whatever" they choose.

PBJ continues the red herring:  And nowhere is there any example or promise that an office will posses ensured infallibility when speaking according to a scope and subject-based formula, nor is this a requirement for authority or preservation of Truth and faith.

SW:  And again I repeat, let's not be diverted into a discussion of the existence of the office(s).  Of course I accept the existence of these, but THAT is not THE POINT of MY argument.  Stick to whether or not "the other pen" exists - then we can discuss/debate whether or not these "offices" existed and/or whether or not they were to continue.

PBJ still continuing the red herring:  Moreover, unlike Rome's uninspired "infallible" decrees, the writings of Scripture, as with men of God, essentially came to be held as being of God due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation, and not based upon the premise that an office of scribes was promised ensured formulaic infallibility.

SW:  And again, let us not be diverted into a discussion debate of Rome's infallibility or inspiration.  Until we conclude "the other pen" discussion - it is meaningless to proceed without a common premise.

PBJ concludes:  Furthermore, while Swan's argument was "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture," yet even speaking an infallible Truth does not make it equal to the wholly inspired word of God, and Scripture is the only body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, which thus possesses a unique power. (Heb. 4:12)
    5:18 PM, April 23, 2016 

SW:  Again refocusing the argument, I am not arguing against what James Swan represents as what Protestants argue, I focused on his bringing up of James White's fallacious argument of non-existent "other pen."  MY whole point is to show that Scripture itself points to "the other pen."

Then Ken said...  As "Peace by Jesus" related John 14:14 - "whatever" is qualified by the rest of Scripture, "whatever" in Matthew 16:19 is also qualified by the the context and rest of Scripture, so the "pen" is not infallible like the Word of God/ Scripture is. 

SW:  Ken, that you admit to the existence of "the pen" you concede the argument.  Either "the pen" is infallible, because no error can be bound in Heaven, or "the pen" does not exist - for the OTHER PEN which I am arguing for is that which MEN can bind or loose on Earth and IS BOUND (or HAS BEEN BOUND if you prefer) in Heaven MUST be infallible, because - and as you've already conceded, "Of course not, no error is bound in heaven." (your words on April 16, 2016 at 8:44am).  You're not going back on your word now, are you?

Ken concludes:  Local church authority is a secondary authority, a fallible authority and should be submitted to the Word of God. Your church drifted from the Scriptures and left its first love. (Revelation 2:4-5)
    11:50 PM, April 24, 2016  

SW:  Whether or not local authority is a secondary authority is not the point.  If a man or men binds something which IS or HAS BEEN bound in Heaven, then it is infallible, period.  You see, my first love is God.  I love His Word too and have never left either of them.  I embrace His Word, especially where it is clearly stated that whatever he/they bind/loose on Earth, is or has been bound in Heaven.  That's beautiful.  Don't run from the Truth.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

Friendly Exchange with Fallen-Away Catholic on Salvation by Faith Alone

Fallen away Catholic:

It was most refreshing [talking with you]--I didn't do a complete look at faith versus works (according to what we discussed); however, I would like for you to consider Ephesians Chapter 2 starting at verses 4 through 10 with special emphasis on verse 8.  I am sending this not in the spirit of argument but for your consideration.

Again it was enjoyable talking to you.  Best regard

I replied:
Hi [name]

I so appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with a fellow brother in Christ.  I really enjoyed talking with you as well and anticipate some good exchanges in these emails.

I have a pretty thick skin.  I will take whatever is said here on your part as someone who loves Christ and wants to share what he has found to me.  And so, don't worry about hurting my feelings or fear of insulting me or something.  Ok?

You recommended that I read Ephesians 2, verses 4 through 10 with an emphasis on verse 8.  Well, let's have a quick look at those verses shall we.  Here are those exact verses from the NIV (its a little easier to read then the KJV) I hope you don't mind.

Eph 2

⁴ But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, ⁵ made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. ⁶ And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, ⁷ in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. ⁸ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – ⁹ not by works, so that no one can boast. ¹⁰ For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

And so we see that we are saved through faith, not by works.  Now, if you look closely Paul couldn't be talking about the uselessness of good works, ie works of God since he goes on in the very next verse on the idea the God Wills that we do certain works (verse 10).  Paul then, is referencing the works of the law (sacrificial law, circumcision and so on...) when he says that one is saved through faith and not by works of the law.

Look at verse 10, it says: "For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do."

Now, God has prepared in advance some good works that we are to do.  It is His Will that we do them.  What happens if we do not do the Will of God?  Answer: "‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."  (Mat 7:21)

Faith alone isn't enough, we must also do the will of God and if we knowingly refuse to do God's Will means that we will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The verse that I believe best explains the role of faith and works is in Gal 5:6

"the only thing that counts is faith working through love."

God Bless
Nathan

Fontana di Trevi Dyed Red

Scott and Katie Windsor at Fontana di Trevi in 2010

The famous Fountain of Trevi, according to an article referred to by Steve Ray, will be dyed red to commemorate Christian martyrs throughout history and even today.  This event will take place on April 29, 2016.

This has happened before, back in 2007, when an "artist" used the fountain to make a statement, so the above is a sneak peak at what it will look like on the 29th.

Addendum 4/30/2016
I did not check on the 29th, but here on the 30th I am having difficulty finding any article reporting the changing of the color of the Fountain of Trevi in Rome.  I did find several more articles reporting it WOULD happen in the days prior to the 29th, but not finding anything since that time.  Now I did find a "live webcam" of Trevi, and looking at it today - if there was a color change yesterday, it's back to normal today.  Here's that link:
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/italia/lazio/roma/fontana-di-trevi.html

Addendum 5/4/2016
OK, they DID turn the Fontana di Trevi red on April 29th!  They did not use red dye, like the "artist" in 2007 did (shown above), rather they used red lighting.  I happened to check the live webcam again and they had a link to a time-lapse from 4/29 - and while all day long there was no change, after sunset, the red lights came on.  It also appeared they projected something on the building behind the fountain, but I could not make that out.  Here's a snip I captured from the time-lapse:

And here's another picture I found in Google:

And here is a video from the AFP (you have to click on the video to load it in YouTube due to copyright protection):

Poland Eucharistic Miracle

Eucharistic miracle in Poland is approved for veneration...

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/check-out-this-eucharistic-miracle-in-poland-96162/

On Christmas Day 2013, a consecrated Host fell to the floor, the bishop said. It was picked up and placed in a container with water. Soon after, red stains appeared on the host.
Then-Bishop of Legnica, Stefan Cichy, created a commission to monitor the host. In February 2014, a small fragment was placed on a corporal and underwent testing by various research institutes.

The final medical statement by the Department of Forensic Medicine found: “In the histopathological image, the fragments were found containing the fragmented parts of the cross striated muscle. It is most similar to the heart muscle.” Tests also determined the tissue to be of human origin, and found that it bore signs of distress.

See link above for more.

Bleeding Host in Salt Lake City, UT is under investigation...
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/eucharistic-miracle-under-investigation-after-host-begins-to-bleed-on-the-t