Blessed are the Poor in Spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
This is the first beatitude given by Jesus in the Sermon on the mount. The question is, why did He teach this one first?
First of all, Poor in spirit means "being" "Humble and lowly". This means having complete dependence on God in ALL THINGS. Are you beginning to understand why this one has to be first? If not, keep reading. Next, by adding the words “in Spirit” to “poor”, Jesus causes this teaching to apply to all people, not just the less fortunate. We are all called to be in solidarity with one another (solidarity is the idea that we are one human family) as we recognize together that we are all one family dependent on God.
This MUST be in place before anything else can be done. It is the foundation on which all the other beatitudes rest. For us to be an instrument of God and strive to be a disciple of Jesus, we must first be COMPLETELY dependent on God. This means knowing and accepting the fact that we cannot get through life without God!!! To do this we must put away our human pride and our human egos that tell us we can do anything we want all on our own.
Once we are competely dependent on God, He can begin to change us so that our lives come into conformity with the next three beatitudes. However, if we are not completely dependent on God, we can never fully experience the remaining seven beatitudes taught by Christ.
Ok, now go look at the second one and see if you can figure out why it is number 2. I will blog on it next week.
Until then...
Be Proud to Be Catholic!
Pete
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Beatitudes 2
The beatitudes are found in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 5. They are the very first set of teachings given by Jesus that are recorded in the Gospels. Last week I issued a challenge to read them and try to figure out why Christ taught them in the order He did. Several of you accepted the challenge so now I will begin blogging about them. There will be nine blogs total. This is the first.
In case you have had a hard time figuring out why they were taught in this particular order, I am going to give you a hint.
If you notice, the first four beatitudes are states of "being". They are ways that we "are". We cannot necessarily "do" the first four things. For example, we cannot wake up and go out and "do" the first teaching. I can't say to my wife, "Honey, today I am going to do things that are poor in spirit" but I can "be poor in spirit". I can also be mournful. I can be meek and I can be thirsty and hungry for righteousness.
The second four are states of "doing" as opposed to "being". I can show mercy in my words and actions. I can also be clean of heart in my actions (I will explain this more later when I blog on this beatitude). I can do things to be a peacemaker and I can physically do things that cause me to be persecuted for the sake of righteousness. The second four are the action beatitudes while the first four are the "passive" be attitudes.
However, we can't "do" the second four without first "being" the first four. So, if you have had a hard time figuring out why they were taught in this particular order, your hint is that you need to figure out how a person (you) could "be" a certain way without "doing" something.
Good luck.
My next blog will be about the first beatitude. I will write it later this week or early next week.
until then...
Be Proud to Be Catholic
In case you have had a hard time figuring out why they were taught in this particular order, I am going to give you a hint.
If you notice, the first four beatitudes are states of "being". They are ways that we "are". We cannot necessarily "do" the first four things. For example, we cannot wake up and go out and "do" the first teaching. I can't say to my wife, "Honey, today I am going to do things that are poor in spirit" but I can "be poor in spirit". I can also be mournful. I can be meek and I can be thirsty and hungry for righteousness.
The second four are states of "doing" as opposed to "being". I can show mercy in my words and actions. I can also be clean of heart in my actions (I will explain this more later when I blog on this beatitude). I can do things to be a peacemaker and I can physically do things that cause me to be persecuted for the sake of righteousness. The second four are the action beatitudes while the first four are the "passive" be attitudes.
However, we can't "do" the second four without first "being" the first four. So, if you have had a hard time figuring out why they were taught in this particular order, your hint is that you need to figure out how a person (you) could "be" a certain way without "doing" something.
Good luck.
My next blog will be about the first beatitude. I will write it later this week or early next week.
until then...
Be Proud to Be Catholic
The Beatitudes Part 1
Many years ago I was introduced to an amazing Benedictine Priest named Fr. Symeon. After some time he became my spiritual advisor and he remained my spiritual advisor and close friend for several years until he died. He taught me many great things, some of which I'm still trying to put into practice. I'll never forget the last time we met before he died. We were sitting outside his front door in October. The leaves were changing colors and the sun was shining. It was a beautiful fall day. I think we both had a feeling that we didn't have too much time left together. He had struggled with health issues for quite some time and recently the doctors had told him to "get his affairs in order". He looked at me and asked how I felt about the fact that he wasn't going to be around much longer. I told him that I wasn't very happy about it but "that's life". Next he asked me if I had learned anything in our time together. I thought for a few moments and finally said "You know Father, I thought I had learned alot from you but really, when it is all said and done, what I have learned is that Jesus loves me and everything else will work out." He looked directly into my eyes and said "in all my years as a priest, I have learned the exact same thing". We both had tears come to our eyes and he gave me a hug. As I was leaving that day he stopped me and said "Pete, you may be losing a friend on earth when I die, but you will be gaining and intercessor in Heaven." That was the last time I saw Fr. Symeon alive.
Our last "spiritual advising" session was quite a bit different than our first one. Several years earlier on a different fall day, I met with Fr. Symeon for my first session of "spiritual advising". I don't know what I expected but it certainly wasn't what happened. We talked for a few minutes and he asked me why I wanted a spiritual advisor and I told him "so I could grow in my faith and understanding of God". He kind of chuckled at this and said "very well, I have an assignment for you, will you do it?" I said sure. He then told me that he wanted me to go home and read the sermon on the mount from Matthew Chapter 5. He told me that after I read it he wanted me to figure out what each one of the beatitudes means and why Jesus chose to teach them in that particular order. Then he told me that he didn't want to meet with me again until I had it figured out.
Man was I pissed. The last thing I wanted was homework but I decided to do it. I spent several weeks reading and meditating on the beatitudes and when I finally realized what Fr. Symeon was getting at I was amazed at how cool and profound the beatitudes really are. I wrote a short paper about the beatitudes and returned to see Fr. Symeon again. I read him the paper I had written. He sat there for a minute and finally smiled and said "you got it, now we can get started."
I have used that paper I wrote several times over the years in youth ministry. I have used it for retreats, youth group lessons and even to teach RCIA classes. I would like to share what I discovered with all of you, but first, an assignment.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to open your bibles to Matthew Chapter 5 and read the sermon on the mount. Then, try and figure out what each one of the Beattitudes means and why Jesus taught them in that particular order. Leave me a comment on this blog if you are going to do it. I will start with the first beatitude when I get back from our service camp on June 21st so you have a couple weeks to do this.
Until then,
Be proud to be Catholic
Pete
Our last "spiritual advising" session was quite a bit different than our first one. Several years earlier on a different fall day, I met with Fr. Symeon for my first session of "spiritual advising". I don't know what I expected but it certainly wasn't what happened. We talked for a few minutes and he asked me why I wanted a spiritual advisor and I told him "so I could grow in my faith and understanding of God". He kind of chuckled at this and said "very well, I have an assignment for you, will you do it?" I said sure. He then told me that he wanted me to go home and read the sermon on the mount from Matthew Chapter 5. He told me that after I read it he wanted me to figure out what each one of the beatitudes means and why Jesus chose to teach them in that particular order. Then he told me that he didn't want to meet with me again until I had it figured out.
Man was I pissed. The last thing I wanted was homework but I decided to do it. I spent several weeks reading and meditating on the beatitudes and when I finally realized what Fr. Symeon was getting at I was amazed at how cool and profound the beatitudes really are. I wrote a short paper about the beatitudes and returned to see Fr. Symeon again. I read him the paper I had written. He sat there for a minute and finally smiled and said "you got it, now we can get started."
I have used that paper I wrote several times over the years in youth ministry. I have used it for retreats, youth group lessons and even to teach RCIA classes. I would like to share what I discovered with all of you, but first, an assignment.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to open your bibles to Matthew Chapter 5 and read the sermon on the mount. Then, try and figure out what each one of the Beattitudes means and why Jesus taught them in that particular order. Leave me a comment on this blog if you are going to do it. I will start with the first beatitude when I get back from our service camp on June 21st so you have a couple weeks to do this.
Until then,
Be proud to be Catholic
Pete
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
SABBATH OR SUNDAY
Sabbath or Sunday
Question from a teen:
So one day in 6th period, i'm in the physics room before i go home because it's her planning time and i was talking to her about state science olympiad competition that weekend. She said that she couldn't go because it was on Saturday and she is 7th day adventist (her daughter went and she's adventist, too. go figure). I'm cool with that and everything, whatever. However, there is another student in the room and she asks why they worship on saturday. and my teacher says this: "because saturday has always been the sabbath, the sabbath wasn't changed to sunday until some pope came around and changed it. WE follow the 10 commandments and NOT the 9." something along those lines.
that really ticked me off, but i let it go. I cracked some jokes to try to lighten things up, i think i said "well, it's all in how you define it... you can say that your week starts on wednesday and you can base your activities off of that..." I'm just messing around you know. she YELLS at me, "NO IT'S NOT" so I just leave because I didn't want to mess with it.
uhh, What am I supposed to say to that? what is all this business about a pope changing the sabbath? 9 commandments instead of 10?
please clarify pete. I'm extra confused on this one.
Answer:
Clarification in this case is easy. You ready? Here it goes...
YOUR TEACHER IS A MORON!
There, hope that clears some things up. You see, what your teacher is doing is saying the same old stuff that I hear from Adventists all the time. You would think that after 150 years they would be able to come up with something new. The ridiculous claims they make about this and many other issues have been shot down so many times that honestly, I'm beginning to feel a bit embarrassed for them. No, wait, that feeling has passed. I really don't want to spend a whole bunch of time on this but I will give you a few things and then I will give you some links at the end of the blog if you would like to do some more reading.
First of all, if a "pope" changed the sabbath then it was St. Peter. Within one to five years after Christ's death and resurrection, Christians were worshipping on Sunday. By about 80 AD Christians had been completely thrown out of the synagogues and forbidden to be there at all. This further solidified Sunday worship for 1st Century Christians.
Sunday is the Day we worship on because it is the day that Jesus rose from the dead. (of course there are some Adventists who will actually try to say that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday instead of Friday and therefore He rose from the dead on Saturday, the sabbath). Anyway, if you encounter someone who believes in the Wednesday Crucifixion, just encourage them to take their medicine and do whatever the voices in their head tell them to.
Back to Sunday.
This day (sunday) has been called different names by Christians since the time of Christ such as "The Lord's Day", "The first of all days" or "the 8th day". It is sometimes called the 8th day because this is the day God finally finished the work that began with the creation of the world and ended when he redeemed mankind by dying on the cross and rising from the dead. Anyway, within one to five years after the crucifiction, Christians were worshipping on Sunday. This means that the APOSTLES THEMSELVES were worshipping on Sunday, as were those that they were instructing. ANYONE who has ever read ANYTHING from ANY of the early church writings KNOWS THIS!!! And yet the Adventists haven't been able to figure this one out.
As far as the statement that other Christians only observe "9 of the 10" commandments, this is false also. Christians obey the commandment to keep the Sabbath Holy, we just recognize that Jesus Christ is the FULLFILLMENT of the Sabbath. The OT sabbath was merely a "shadow of things to come" and we recognize that the "substance is fulfilled in Christ" (Col 2:16-17). The sabbath commandment is the only one of the nine that is ceremonial, while the other nine are all "moral" commands. Jesus taught all the commandments but the one about the sabbath. He didn't need to teach that one because He fulfilled it. When we recognize that Jesus Christ is our new "Sabbath Rest" and we worship Him, then we are fulfilling the commandment to keep holy the sabbath.
When talking with an Adventist, you also need to be able to show that the early Christians (including the Apostles and those they were teaching) were worshipping on Sunday based on the historical writings that we have. Otherwise they will say stupid stuff to you like "some pope changed it". Also be prepared to hear them tell you that the Emperor Constantine changed the sabbath in 311AD or that the Pope is the Antichrist and Sunday worship is the mark of the beast written about in Revelation.
So, here we go with History. Below are just a few of the many writings we have from Christians during the first few centuries of Christianity.
The Didache (teachings of the Apostles) 70 A.D.
"But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 ).
The Letter of Barnabas 74 A.D.
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 ).
Ignatius of Antioch (Ignatius was instructed by St. John) 110 A.D.
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 ).
Justin Martyr (St. Justin is often referred to as the first apologist) 155 A.D.
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 ).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 ).
Of Course after you show them these they will say that they don't accept them because they aren't in the Bible. Adventists are very quick to quote their Bible when it comes to the Old Testament writings about the Sabbath and dietary laws but are slow to recognize what the New Testament says about these same things. Perhaps it is because they secretly realize that Catholics WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT or maybe not. Either way, you will need to make your case from the Bible so here are some verses.
Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2- both give references to Christians worshipping on the first day of the week.
Revelation 1:10-refers to "The Lord's Day"
Colossians 2: 16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food or drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
NOTE: Many Adventists when presented with this passage will respond by saying something like, "well the jews had lots of sabbaths and this verse is about other sabbaths, not "the" sabbath". Sorry but that argument doesn't work because if you look at 1 Chronicles 23:30-31 (below) and 2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:12-13;31:3 you see that the same order for Sabbaths is given in order to encompass all the Sabbaths that the Jews were obligated to observe.
And they shall stand every morning, thanking and praising the Lord, and likewise at evening, and whenever burnt offerings are offered to the Lord on sabbaths, new moons, and feast days, according to the number required of them, continually before the Lord.
Romans 14:5-6 For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day observes it to the Lord".
Hebrews 4:4-7, 8-9 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this place he said, "They shall never enter my rest." Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day "today". . . . For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God.
There are more but these are a good start.
Finally, you should be aware of a few challenges you might have when talking with Adventists. Not all Adventists are like this, in fact, my in laws are Adventist, but I have talked with many who have these following things in common.
A. Most Adventists have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. Or worse, THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD LIES about the History of Christianity. I'm not kidding when I say that I have talked to Adventists who think that Constantine was a Pope who changed the sabbath.
B. Most Adventists have a deep seated prejudice and/or hatred for Roman Catholics. Their doctrine teaches that the Pope is the Anti Christ, that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast and other troubling things. Their prophetess and co-founder, Ellen G. White, wrote a book that is about as anti Catholic as you can get. It is called The Great Controversy. Ellen G. White is to Adventists what Joseph Smith is to mormons. On the Adventist website it recognizes White as a true prophet of God and recognizes her revelations as truly coming from God. They (at least the "old school" Adventists) hold her writings to be seperate but as important as scripture. Which is funny because they usually will disregard any extra biblical sources that I try and use (such as the quotes I gave ealier from 1st and 2nd century Christians).
C. Adventists believe that they are the "remnant church". In other words, they believe that since the time of Jesus, there have been a few "true" believers living on the earth while most Christians were lost or under the control of the evil Catholic Church. Of course that isn't how they say it in their doctrine but that is basically what their doctrine says. However, us Catholics can rest assured that we have Christ on our side. We belong to His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that He Himself founded nearly 2000 years ago. Meanwhile, adventists have to face the reality that they belong to a church that was founded by members of a group called the Millerites led by William Miller. Miller predicted that Jesus would return between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. When Jesus failed to show up, they briefly threw in with a group that believed Jesus was coming instead on October 22nd of 1844. Once again, Jesus failed to show up. Some of Millers followers (including Ellen G. White) went on to form the Seventh day Adventist Church in 1860. Funny how the names change but the heresies remain the same.
Anyway, hope that helps
Be Proud to Be Catholic
Pete
For further reading check out the following articles
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605btb.asp
Crucified on Weds.?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903chap.asp
Question from a teen:
So one day in 6th period, i'm in the physics room before i go home because it's her planning time and i was talking to her about state science olympiad competition that weekend. She said that she couldn't go because it was on Saturday and she is 7th day adventist (her daughter went and she's adventist, too. go figure). I'm cool with that and everything, whatever. However, there is another student in the room and she asks why they worship on saturday. and my teacher says this: "because saturday has always been the sabbath, the sabbath wasn't changed to sunday until some pope came around and changed it. WE follow the 10 commandments and NOT the 9." something along those lines.
that really ticked me off, but i let it go. I cracked some jokes to try to lighten things up, i think i said "well, it's all in how you define it... you can say that your week starts on wednesday and you can base your activities off of that..." I'm just messing around you know. she YELLS at me, "NO IT'S NOT" so I just leave because I didn't want to mess with it.
uhh, What am I supposed to say to that? what is all this business about a pope changing the sabbath? 9 commandments instead of 10?
please clarify pete. I'm extra confused on this one.
Answer:
Clarification in this case is easy. You ready? Here it goes...
YOUR TEACHER IS A MORON!
There, hope that clears some things up. You see, what your teacher is doing is saying the same old stuff that I hear from Adventists all the time. You would think that after 150 years they would be able to come up with something new. The ridiculous claims they make about this and many other issues have been shot down so many times that honestly, I'm beginning to feel a bit embarrassed for them. No, wait, that feeling has passed. I really don't want to spend a whole bunch of time on this but I will give you a few things and then I will give you some links at the end of the blog if you would like to do some more reading.
First of all, if a "pope" changed the sabbath then it was St. Peter. Within one to five years after Christ's death and resurrection, Christians were worshipping on Sunday. By about 80 AD Christians had been completely thrown out of the synagogues and forbidden to be there at all. This further solidified Sunday worship for 1st Century Christians.
Sunday is the Day we worship on because it is the day that Jesus rose from the dead. (of course there are some Adventists who will actually try to say that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday instead of Friday and therefore He rose from the dead on Saturday, the sabbath). Anyway, if you encounter someone who believes in the Wednesday Crucifixion, just encourage them to take their medicine and do whatever the voices in their head tell them to.
Back to Sunday.
This day (sunday) has been called different names by Christians since the time of Christ such as "The Lord's Day", "The first of all days" or "the 8th day". It is sometimes called the 8th day because this is the day God finally finished the work that began with the creation of the world and ended when he redeemed mankind by dying on the cross and rising from the dead. Anyway, within one to five years after the crucifiction, Christians were worshipping on Sunday. This means that the APOSTLES THEMSELVES were worshipping on Sunday, as were those that they were instructing. ANYONE who has ever read ANYTHING from ANY of the early church writings KNOWS THIS!!! And yet the Adventists haven't been able to figure this one out.
As far as the statement that other Christians only observe "9 of the 10" commandments, this is false also. Christians obey the commandment to keep the Sabbath Holy, we just recognize that Jesus Christ is the FULLFILLMENT of the Sabbath. The OT sabbath was merely a "shadow of things to come" and we recognize that the "substance is fulfilled in Christ" (Col 2:16-17). The sabbath commandment is the only one of the nine that is ceremonial, while the other nine are all "moral" commands. Jesus taught all the commandments but the one about the sabbath. He didn't need to teach that one because He fulfilled it. When we recognize that Jesus Christ is our new "Sabbath Rest" and we worship Him, then we are fulfilling the commandment to keep holy the sabbath.
When talking with an Adventist, you also need to be able to show that the early Christians (including the Apostles and those they were teaching) were worshipping on Sunday based on the historical writings that we have. Otherwise they will say stupid stuff to you like "some pope changed it". Also be prepared to hear them tell you that the Emperor Constantine changed the sabbath in 311AD or that the Pope is the Antichrist and Sunday worship is the mark of the beast written about in Revelation.
So, here we go with History. Below are just a few of the many writings we have from Christians during the first few centuries of Christianity.
The Didache (teachings of the Apostles) 70 A.D.
"But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 ).
The Letter of Barnabas 74 A.D.
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 ).
Ignatius of Antioch (Ignatius was instructed by St. John) 110 A.D.
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 ).
Justin Martyr (St. Justin is often referred to as the first apologist) 155 A.D.
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 ).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 ).
Of Course after you show them these they will say that they don't accept them because they aren't in the Bible. Adventists are very quick to quote their Bible when it comes to the Old Testament writings about the Sabbath and dietary laws but are slow to recognize what the New Testament says about these same things. Perhaps it is because they secretly realize that Catholics WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT or maybe not. Either way, you will need to make your case from the Bible so here are some verses.
Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2- both give references to Christians worshipping on the first day of the week.
Revelation 1:10-refers to "The Lord's Day"
Colossians 2: 16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food or drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
NOTE: Many Adventists when presented with this passage will respond by saying something like, "well the jews had lots of sabbaths and this verse is about other sabbaths, not "the" sabbath". Sorry but that argument doesn't work because if you look at 1 Chronicles 23:30-31 (below) and 2 Chronicles 2:4, 8:12-13;31:3 you see that the same order for Sabbaths is given in order to encompass all the Sabbaths that the Jews were obligated to observe.
And they shall stand every morning, thanking and praising the Lord, and likewise at evening, and whenever burnt offerings are offered to the Lord on sabbaths, new moons, and feast days, according to the number required of them, continually before the Lord.
Romans 14:5-6 For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day observes it to the Lord".
Hebrews 4:4-7, 8-9 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this place he said, "They shall never enter my rest." Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day "today". . . . For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God.
There are more but these are a good start.
Finally, you should be aware of a few challenges you might have when talking with Adventists. Not all Adventists are like this, in fact, my in laws are Adventist, but I have talked with many who have these following things in common.
A. Most Adventists have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. Or worse, THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD LIES about the History of Christianity. I'm not kidding when I say that I have talked to Adventists who think that Constantine was a Pope who changed the sabbath.
B. Most Adventists have a deep seated prejudice and/or hatred for Roman Catholics. Their doctrine teaches that the Pope is the Anti Christ, that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast and other troubling things. Their prophetess and co-founder, Ellen G. White, wrote a book that is about as anti Catholic as you can get. It is called The Great Controversy. Ellen G. White is to Adventists what Joseph Smith is to mormons. On the Adventist website it recognizes White as a true prophet of God and recognizes her revelations as truly coming from God. They (at least the "old school" Adventists) hold her writings to be seperate but as important as scripture. Which is funny because they usually will disregard any extra biblical sources that I try and use (such as the quotes I gave ealier from 1st and 2nd century Christians).
C. Adventists believe that they are the "remnant church". In other words, they believe that since the time of Jesus, there have been a few "true" believers living on the earth while most Christians were lost or under the control of the evil Catholic Church. Of course that isn't how they say it in their doctrine but that is basically what their doctrine says. However, us Catholics can rest assured that we have Christ on our side. We belong to His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that He Himself founded nearly 2000 years ago. Meanwhile, adventists have to face the reality that they belong to a church that was founded by members of a group called the Millerites led by William Miller. Miller predicted that Jesus would return between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. When Jesus failed to show up, they briefly threw in with a group that believed Jesus was coming instead on October 22nd of 1844. Once again, Jesus failed to show up. Some of Millers followers (including Ellen G. White) went on to form the Seventh day Adventist Church in 1860. Funny how the names change but the heresies remain the same.
Anyway, hope that helps
Be Proud to Be Catholic
Pete
For further reading check out the following articles
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0605btb.asp
Crucified on Weds.?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903chap.asp
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CATHOLIC CHURCH, BIRTH CONTROL AND GETTING YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
So I just got home from speaking at a pro life rally on the MTSU campus. It was called "Light for Life" and was sponsored by a couple different groups on campus including the Catholic student center.
My wife sang at the event and I spoke. I gave my usual speech and covered all life issues including abortion, war, capital punishment, poverty and even health care. After I finished speaking it was brought to my attention that a few "pro choice" women had cornered the vice president of the right to life club and were bombarding her with allegations such as " did you know the Catholic Church allowed birth control until Pope Pius" and other such nonsense. I went over to join the conversation. As I approached I heard one of the girls say something about "make sure you know your history and get your facts straight". Great advice I thought. I stepped up to the group and asked a simple question, "What history?" The girl looked at me, sneered and said "Nice bandanna." I replied by saying thank you and again asked "What history". At this point all three girls walked away and left the area.
After they had left the vp of right to life informed me of what they had been saying. I wish they would have stayed to talk because they would have found out that they were the ones who needed to "get their facts straight".
So here I am writing this blog in the hopes that it might help all of you if you are ever confronted with such an accusation.
The following is an example of how to handle this and other situations.
Angry Protester person: Did you know that the Catholic Church allowed Birth Control until Pope Pius?
Me: No. I didn't. Which pope Pius are you talking about? There were several. In fact I think there were 12 Popes named Pius.
Angry Protester Person: I don't know.
Me: Oh, ok. Well we can set that aside for a second. Do you know the date that this allegedly happened?
Angry Protester Person: Yes. 1930
Me: That would be Pope Pius the XI. Which Papal Encyclical are you getting your information from?
Angry Protester Person: I don't know but it was the one about Birth Control.
Me: Oh. Well the only comments he wrote about birth control were the ones he made about 4 months after the Episcopalian Church decided to change their position and allow birth control. In fact, prior to this time, all Christain Churches, both Catholic and Protestent opposed the use of birth control.
Anyway, you get the idea.
What probably happened in this case was the angry protester lady most likely went to some anti catholic website that took some of what Pope Pius XI said and read it out of context. In 1930 Pope Pius XI did condemn the use of birth control but this was not the first time the Catholic church taught this doctrine. In fact, if you read his statement in its entirety this is very obvious. Below is an excerpt from his letter. Notice how the first lines makes reference to the "uninterrrupted Christian Tradition". In other words, what the church has always taught since the beginning.
Here is an excerpt from his letter:
"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin" (par. 56).
Getting one's "facts straight" is always a good idea. I have made an ass of myself on more than one occasion when I didn't have my facts straight. I highly recommend to all of you to get your facts straight before entering into any kind of debate, friendly or otherwise.
If you would like to read more about different churches and their historical position on birth control and how the Catholic Church has stood firm on this issue despite the pressure of society and the failure of other churches to do so, check out the following link.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp
Meanwhile,
Be Proud to Be Catholic
Pete
My wife sang at the event and I spoke. I gave my usual speech and covered all life issues including abortion, war, capital punishment, poverty and even health care. After I finished speaking it was brought to my attention that a few "pro choice" women had cornered the vice president of the right to life club and were bombarding her with allegations such as " did you know the Catholic Church allowed birth control until Pope Pius" and other such nonsense. I went over to join the conversation. As I approached I heard one of the girls say something about "make sure you know your history and get your facts straight". Great advice I thought. I stepped up to the group and asked a simple question, "What history?" The girl looked at me, sneered and said "Nice bandanna." I replied by saying thank you and again asked "What history". At this point all three girls walked away and left the area.
After they had left the vp of right to life informed me of what they had been saying. I wish they would have stayed to talk because they would have found out that they were the ones who needed to "get their facts straight".
So here I am writing this blog in the hopes that it might help all of you if you are ever confronted with such an accusation.
The following is an example of how to handle this and other situations.
Angry Protester person: Did you know that the Catholic Church allowed Birth Control until Pope Pius?
Me: No. I didn't. Which pope Pius are you talking about? There were several. In fact I think there were 12 Popes named Pius.
Angry Protester Person: I don't know.
Me: Oh, ok. Well we can set that aside for a second. Do you know the date that this allegedly happened?
Angry Protester Person: Yes. 1930
Me: That would be Pope Pius the XI. Which Papal Encyclical are you getting your information from?
Angry Protester Person: I don't know but it was the one about Birth Control.
Me: Oh. Well the only comments he wrote about birth control were the ones he made about 4 months after the Episcopalian Church decided to change their position and allow birth control. In fact, prior to this time, all Christain Churches, both Catholic and Protestent opposed the use of birth control.
Anyway, you get the idea.
What probably happened in this case was the angry protester lady most likely went to some anti catholic website that took some of what Pope Pius XI said and read it out of context. In 1930 Pope Pius XI did condemn the use of birth control but this was not the first time the Catholic church taught this doctrine. In fact, if you read his statement in its entirety this is very obvious. Below is an excerpt from his letter. Notice how the first lines makes reference to the "uninterrrupted Christian Tradition". In other words, what the church has always taught since the beginning.
Here is an excerpt from his letter:
"Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin" (par. 56).
Getting one's "facts straight" is always a good idea. I have made an ass of myself on more than one occasion when I didn't have my facts straight. I highly recommend to all of you to get your facts straight before entering into any kind of debate, friendly or otherwise.
If you would like to read more about different churches and their historical position on birth control and how the Catholic Church has stood firm on this issue despite the pressure of society and the failure of other churches to do so, check out the following link.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea1.asp
Meanwhile,
Be Proud to Be Catholic
Pete
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
REINCARNATION
Question:
Someone once told me that, somewhere in the Bible, there is a passage stating in the reality of reincarnation. I’ve never personally found it, but, then again, there are a lot of passages I can’t find. What is the Catholic viewpoint on reincarnation?
Answer:
One of the biggest problems that crops up in discussing religious things, especially the Bible, is that with over 30,000 verses in the Bible, you could prove almost anything if you take the verses out of context. However, when you take a verse out of context you are engaging in scriptural eisogesis (this is when you have a preconceived idea and you try to find one or two lines in scripture that you can "read your meaning into"). Exogesis is when you read scripture in the context of which it is written as well as in the correct cultural and historical context.
I have heard people tell me all kinds of crap about "what the bible says". Including such nonsense as "the Bible endorses abortions and gives instructions on how to abort a baby" and "the Bible teaches there are many Gods" and "the Bible teaches Jesus wasn’t God" and even "Jesus advocated the smoking of pot"etc. The list could go on forever. One common thing you will find among cults, such as the Mormons or the Jehovah’s witnesses, is that they will take one or two verses out of context and absolutize them in order to support their heretical theology.
Anyway, moving on.
I have read the Bible many times and have never come across a verse that teaches reincarnation. I would have to say that most if not all Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, do not believe in reincarnation. As St. Paul said, "It is given to each man to die and then the judgement".
Views like reincarnation have no place among Christians.
Hope that helps.
Be Proud to Be Catholic
Pete
Someone once told me that, somewhere in the Bible, there is a passage stating in the reality of reincarnation. I’ve never personally found it, but, then again, there are a lot of passages I can’t find. What is the Catholic viewpoint on reincarnation?
Answer:
One of the biggest problems that crops up in discussing religious things, especially the Bible, is that with over 30,000 verses in the Bible, you could prove almost anything if you take the verses out of context. However, when you take a verse out of context you are engaging in scriptural eisogesis (this is when you have a preconceived idea and you try to find one or two lines in scripture that you can "read your meaning into"). Exogesis is when you read scripture in the context of which it is written as well as in the correct cultural and historical context.
I have heard people tell me all kinds of crap about "what the bible says". Including such nonsense as "the Bible endorses abortions and gives instructions on how to abort a baby" and "the Bible teaches there are many Gods" and "the Bible teaches Jesus wasn’t God" and even "Jesus advocated the smoking of pot"etc. The list could go on forever. One common thing you will find among cults, such as the Mormons or the Jehovah’s witnesses, is that they will take one or two verses out of context and absolutize them in order to support their heretical theology.
Anyway, moving on.
I have read the Bible many times and have never come across a verse that teaches reincarnation. I would have to say that most if not all Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, do not believe in reincarnation. As St. Paul said, "It is given to each man to die and then the judgement".
Views like reincarnation have no place among Christians.
Hope that helps.
Be Proud to Be Catholic
Pete
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Martin Luther
I received a rather lengthy email from a friend about some of the statements I have made about Martin Luther. Instead of trying to address all of her questions (which would take a LONG time) I will just make some general statements in regards to Luther. I plan on going into more depth with this person in a one on one setting.
Take them for what they are worth. They are based upon my research and any mistakes in them are mine.
To begin to understand Luther and the Reformation you have to study both the church and the politics of the time. You also have to do your best to try and understand Luther’s mind, which was a mess as most of his writings clearly show.
There are a couple good books I would recomend that I have found very enlightening. I list them at the bottom. However, I will say that Luther’s starting point for his actions was not to become a "holier" person. In other words, he, in my opinion, was not motivated by a deeper call to Holiness. I recognize that this is not what most protestants are taught but that is because they only read one side of the story. Luther’s own writings prove my case. Had Luther been motivated by a deeper call to holiness, there may be some credibility to some of the claims that people make about him. However, his actions led him away from holiness. He threw away his vows that he made to God, and in the process gave in to admitted vices. Once he voiced opposition to Rome, he was very quickly taken under the wings of several political leaders who wanted to break union with Rome for purposes of material wealth and/or political gain.
Next, as guilty as the Catholics have been at different times over the years for abuses and violence, during the time of the reformation and in the following years, protestants were responsible for the deaths of many Catholics. Furthermore, Luther’s actions did not lead Christians to a deeper spiritual unity, but opened the door to heretical theology, division, contention and hatred. I admit that there were abuses going on at the time. These abuses were all corrected at the Council of Trent. Every single one of them.
To me, I don’t see quitting as an option when God is concerned and the welfare of souls is at stake but obviously Luther did. The most damaging thing about his quitting is that not only did he quit, but he invented an easier, "feel good" way. A way that lacks accountability. A way that ignores responsibility. I tend to believe as the Jesuits do that when we want change or are unhappy with the status quo, that we always must begin by "reforming ourselves first".
All that being said,it may surprise you to know that Luther was not the major player in the Reformation. What took place in England was much more devastating to the union of Christians than anything Luther ever did or said. Had England remained Catholic (the people wanted to, it was the wealthy that caused the break with Rome, once again for material gain) then Europe would still be a Catholic continent today with only small pockets of Protestantism.
A couple good books I would recommend are:
1. Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adam
2. How the Reformation Happened by Hilaire Belloc
3. Characters of the Reformation by Hilaire Belloc
There are others but these are a good start.
Hope that Helps
Pete
Take them for what they are worth. They are based upon my research and any mistakes in them are mine.
To begin to understand Luther and the Reformation you have to study both the church and the politics of the time. You also have to do your best to try and understand Luther’s mind, which was a mess as most of his writings clearly show.
There are a couple good books I would recomend that I have found very enlightening. I list them at the bottom. However, I will say that Luther’s starting point for his actions was not to become a "holier" person. In other words, he, in my opinion, was not motivated by a deeper call to Holiness. I recognize that this is not what most protestants are taught but that is because they only read one side of the story. Luther’s own writings prove my case. Had Luther been motivated by a deeper call to holiness, there may be some credibility to some of the claims that people make about him. However, his actions led him away from holiness. He threw away his vows that he made to God, and in the process gave in to admitted vices. Once he voiced opposition to Rome, he was very quickly taken under the wings of several political leaders who wanted to break union with Rome for purposes of material wealth and/or political gain.
Next, as guilty as the Catholics have been at different times over the years for abuses and violence, during the time of the reformation and in the following years, protestants were responsible for the deaths of many Catholics. Furthermore, Luther’s actions did not lead Christians to a deeper spiritual unity, but opened the door to heretical theology, division, contention and hatred. I admit that there were abuses going on at the time. These abuses were all corrected at the Council of Trent. Every single one of them.
To me, I don’t see quitting as an option when God is concerned and the welfare of souls is at stake but obviously Luther did. The most damaging thing about his quitting is that not only did he quit, but he invented an easier, "feel good" way. A way that lacks accountability. A way that ignores responsibility. I tend to believe as the Jesuits do that when we want change or are unhappy with the status quo, that we always must begin by "reforming ourselves first".
All that being said,it may surprise you to know that Luther was not the major player in the Reformation. What took place in England was much more devastating to the union of Christians than anything Luther ever did or said. Had England remained Catholic (the people wanted to, it was the wealthy that caused the break with Rome, once again for material gain) then Europe would still be a Catholic continent today with only small pockets of Protestantism.
A couple good books I would recommend are:
1. Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adam
2. How the Reformation Happened by Hilaire Belloc
3. Characters of the Reformation by Hilaire Belloc
There are others but these are a good start.
Hope that Helps
Pete
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
