Moving to Georgia

I just found out officially that I will soon be leaving for an internship in Georgia. I don't know exactly when but probably very soon. This opportunity is such a blessing for myself and Amy - it's one step closer to stability. The other great thing about it is that I will be less than an hour away from my sister Jacquie who lives in Georgia! I can't wait to be able to see her family on a regular basis.

Of course this opportunity also present new challenges for myself and Amy and so I am asking for your prayers as I step out into the unknown. The added distance means that Amy and I won't be able to see each other as often as we do, which wasn't very often to begin with. But like all such occasions, this too is an opportunity to grow in faith - to really trust the Lord.

As for the continuation of this blog, well that is yet to be decided by circumstances outside my control. The fact of the matter is that I just don't know enough about being down there to say one way or another whether I'll be able to continue posting. I hope I can and I'll try my best, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks for the prayers and God bless!

In Adoration

And Adoration-inspired poem:

There's a reality here before me
in this most Blessed Sacrament
The Host is not just bread alone
but God's own Holy Flesh
Why can my eyes not see His face
no matter how I stare?
Is it with mind, or heart, or soul
that I should see Him there?
We say He hides within the bread
but I don't think it's true
It's not that He is hidden well
it's just our point of view.
For does He not want all of us
to look upon His face?
He calls to us and reaches out
to draw us to this place
But it is us who will not come
nor kneel upon the ground
And so we search the world for love
yet He remains unfound
If we knew or even thought
that God was really there
I think we'd go to any length
to find out when and where.

Pope Benedict's October Prayer Intentions

We often pray for the Pope's intentions but rarely know exactly what they are.

VATICAN CITY, 30 SEP 2009 (VIS) - Pope Benedict's general prayer intention for October is: "That Sunday may be lived as the day on which Christians gather to celebrate the risen Lord, participating in the Eucharist".

His mission intention is: "That the entire People of God, to whom Christ entrusted the mandate to go and preach the Gospel to every creature, may eagerly assume their own missionary responsibility and consider it the highest service they can offer humanity".

A little more on Medj

Catholic Culture has a good summary article about Bishop Ratko Peric's reiteration of how the "messages" and "apparitions" at Medj are to be treated. The summary also contains two links for further information.

It is interesting to note that Bishop Peric "has emphasized that the alleged apparitions and messages of Medjugorje are not to be treated as 'worthy of faith' and that he "has imposed a series of restrictions on activities in Medjugorje, clearly designed to discourage interest in the supposed apparitions."

Purgatory

Last weekend I had the immense joy of being able to go to Ohio to see my girlfriend for a few days. For the ride there and back and I took a bunch of Catholic CDs - Scott Hahn, Christopher West, John Martignoni, and one I was unfamiliar with about the Pope and the Papacy. I was really excited about the Pope and Papacy one and so I saved it for the ride home. Much to my dismay, not only was it NOT a Catholic CD, it was very much an ANTI-Catholic CD. I don't know who the speaker was but he began the CD by blasting the "heretical" Catholic Church for everything she does wrong - and I might add that everything he said was unfounded, uneducated, and almost laughable. Among other things, he was railing against the Church's invention of Purgatory.

The speaker believed that purgatory is the only thing that makes Catholicism work because without it "it's a hard sell." The fact that, as far as our faith goes, Catholics are never assured of their salvation was too much for him and he believes that only the idea that we might not go straight to hell keeps people from leaving the Church. For beginners, the idea of "maybe not going to hell right away" isn't what keeps me in the Church. I'm Catholic because of the chance that I might go to Heaven! That is enough for me.

Outside of scriptural references to a post-death / pre-Heaven state, Purgatory just makes sense. First off, if we assume we our saved, or are assured that we are saved once and for all, why should we continue to be good people, let alone good Christians? In what world would it make sense that we could go on sinning without fear of punishment because we "knew" we were saved? In all of history there was only one person who was assured his salvation - the good thief. Did Jesus not say him: "Amen, I say to you, this day you shall be with me in Paradise." But just as we are not assured of salvation, neither are we "assured" of damnation. If Hitler, in his final moments, had truly repented of his sins and asked forgiveness, would God not have been overjoyed at the return of the prodigal son? Yet I believe Hitler would have not been ready for eternal joy in Heaven.

And so we get to Purgatory.

Purgatory is where we are purified and perfected. If we believe our God is a just God, does this not seem fitting? I see Purgatory as an extension of His Divine Mercy and Justice. No one but God can know the state of someone's soul and so who are we to judge others based on their actions or what we think we know of them. GOD IS MERCIFUL! I remember always thinking that those who committed suicide went to hell, and maybe that is the case, but only God knows what went through their minds at the last second. Only God knows their struggles and miseries and do you not think that He would take that into account?

As for Catholicism being a "hard sell" without Purgatory, well, to be honest, it's a hard sell with it! Our faith is not easy and no one ever said it would or should be. Catholicism is not for the faint of heart - it requires self-sacrifice, suffering, humility, and service to others. It is a difficult, life-long quest for holiness and perfection in and through Jesus Christ. If this quest is not finished on earth then it will be finished in Purgatory. And if we persist, what is our reward? To behold the very face of God and to be counted among his saints in Heaven!

Now this is helpful. No, really.

One of the biggest contributors to the loss of Catholic identity is the media's coverage of "devout" Catholics who are anything but. The term devout is thrown around too much and more often than not confuses the heck out of Catholics and even non-Catholics. The problem is that by calling someone a "devout" anything, you label them as a sort of poster child. This wouldn't be a bad thing if the people the media tend to call devout were in fact just that. Alas, that is not the case and so we have the media labeling all sorts of people as "devout Catholics" when in truth they simply are not. Here is a good article from getreligion.org about journalism's use of the term devout. Below is a section of that article where the author listed feedback from "religion-beat veterans and observers".

There is no question that the term “devout” is used far too often and in a sloppy manner, said Richard Ostling, a religion-beat veteran best known for his work with Time and the Associated Press. This fact could be a comment on how little exposure many mainstream journalists have to religious life and practice.

“Perhaps, to someone with only secularist experiences and friends, any level of religious interest of any type might seem ‘devout,’ ” he said. But, in the end, “reporters can only observe outward behavior, not the inner soul. … There’s usually a connection between observance and personal faith, so generally it makes sense to assess personal belief by externals.”

Many of these common labels used to describe believers — terms such as “serious,” “practicing,” “committed” and, yes, “devout” — are completely subjective, agreed Debra Mason, director of the Religion Newswriters Association at the University of Missouri.

Different people define these words in different ways. With the “devout” label, there is even the implication that these believers may be fanatics.

When in doubt, reporters should simply drop the vague labels and use plain information, she said, echoing advice offered by Ostling and others.

“Since journalists do not have a direct line into the soul to discern a person’s faith, it is far better to use precise descriptions of a person’s religious practice and observance,” said Mason. For example, a reporter could note that, “Joe Smith attended Mass every day” or that “Jane Smith attended worship every week, even when ill.”

The goal is to use clear facts instead of foggy labels, an approach that Mason admitted may require journalists to add a line or two of context or background information. Non-Catholics, for example, may not understand the importance of a Catholic choosing to attend Mass every day.

However, she stressed, this extra work is “a small price to pay for more accurate and precise reporting.”

Now isn't that helpful?

Catholic Evangelicals? I don't think so

A little while ago I had the great opportunity to go to a discussion at Wheaton college between a Catholic, Francis Beckwith and and an Evangelical Baptist, Timothy George. The topic of the talk was basically what it means to be evangelical and whether or not it is possible for someone to be an "Evangelical Catholic." The reason this was the topic is because Francis Beckwith, who converted to Catholicism about three years ago, had been president of the Evangelical Theological Society. After converting Mr. Beckwith saw no need to drop the term "evangelical" and so considers himself an Evangelical Catholic - that is, a Catholic who is also evangelical.

The point of this post however isn't to summarize the talk but to elaborate on my reflections of it. To me the most interesting part of the talk was when Timothy George referred to himself as an Evangelical Catholic. His reasoning for this is that he believes the path he is on (i.e. being an Evangelical Baptist) enables him to be Catholic in the sense (as he perceives it) that the apostles were Catholic. This blew me away. What he was saying is that he doesn't have a problem with Catholicism, he has a problem with the Catholic Church. He believes in the faith of the apostles and he believes that faith is the true, pure Catholic faith and so he also believes that the established Church has distorted and complicated "original" Catholicism and become something separate.

As Mr. George himself said, the key then is the Primacy of Peter and Apostolic Succession. The barrier (or at least the main barrier) between him and the Catholic Church is that he does not believe that Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the Church and therefore as the first pope. My thoughts are a little scrambled here so I will do my best to write what I'm thinking. The connection I can't make is how he accepts the apostles' faith but refuses to acknowledge apostolic succession. Why does he apparently accept everything else but that? Something doesn't fit. Now I don't know specifically what Timothy George's arguments against Apostolic Succession and the primacy of Peter actually are, so I can't say much more. I'm sure he is familiar with the scriptural references which we Catholics believe clearly point to these two points and he, being an intelligent man, presumably has intelligent reasons for not accepting them.

Below is a passage from the Gospel of Matthew chapter 16 which clearly (to me at least) indicates the primacy of Peter. The writing in blue are notes from ScriptureCatholic.com

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." [Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ] 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father] 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority], and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Another part of the talk that threw me for a loop was during the Question and Answer section afterward. Someone asked him about sola scriptura and how he believes in it when it isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible. His answer was what to me had always been a refutation of precisely what he was defending! He said there are plenty of things not mentioned in the bible which we believe, such as the Trinity. Until now that had always been a reason against sola scriptura, not a reason for it! However, he did elaborate and give good reasoning. He said that when sola scriptura was "coined" it wasn't intended as just that, scripture alone. To the reformers of the time it really meant the primacy of scripture and the meaning has become somewhat lost through the ages. I accept that. Granted though, there are those who believe literally in sola scriptura. To them you should ask, well you believe in the Trinity don't you? And when they respond yes (as all Christians must) ask them to show you a reference to it in the bible.