John Erik’s Corner…

Article by Barry Michaels

December 20, 2006

On All Saints’ Day, I attended Mass at a local Catholic high school.  The celebrant, the pastor of a nearby parish, started the Mass by saying to the student body of about 800 kids: "Is everyone here sorry for all the sins they’ve committed? Good. Did you know coming to Mass means your sins are forgiven? So everyone here should come up for Communion today."

In those few sentences, that priest was wrong on at least three levels. Can you name them?  Answers in a moment.

Two weeks later, on November 14, the Catholic bishops of the United States, gathered at their annual meeting in Baltimore, released a document called "Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper: On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist."   (The entire document can be accessed online at www.usccb.org/dpp/Eucharist.pdf.)

For today’s American Catholics, many of whom lack the most basic understanding of the Eucharist, this short document provides simple and understandable explanations about the beauty and glory and importance of it all.  It emphasizes one particular topic: when we should and should not receive Communion at Mass, and why.

The document explains what used to be understood by every Catholic elementary school kid:  "In order to receive holy Communion we must be in communion with God and with the Church. If we are no longer in a state of grace because of mortal sin, we are seriously obliged to refrain from receiving holy Communion until we are reconciled with God and the Church."

As examples of such sin, the document mentions "committing murder, including abortion and euthanasia," harboring hatred of others, and abusing others sexually, physically, or psychologically. It then points out other "serious violations of the law of love of God and of neighbor," including swearing a false oath, skipping Mass on Sundays, serious disobedience of proper authority, sex outside of marriage, stealing, slander, or using pornography.

Strong Words

Take a look next time you’re at Mass, at how many people sit out Communion. If you’re at a typical US parish, almost no one will.  Now, we Catholics are fine folks, but let’s be realistic.

The Bible has very strong words for those who receive Communion in a state of sin: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27).

In other words, this is not the teaching of some fuddy-duddy old bishops. It’s God, teaching us the reverence we must have for the Holy Eucharist. With this new document, the American bishops are being faithful to their role to teach the faith, whether or not it’s what people want to hear.

That priest at the school Mass I attended, the one who called the whole world up to Communion, was wrong for at least three reasons:

1. He was presuming everyone was sorry for their sins. Just because you ask a crowd of 800 people if they’re sorry doesn’t mean every one of them is.

2. The teaching that going to Mass forgives yours sins applies only to venial sins (less serious ones), not mortal sins like those mentioned above: skipping Mass, sexual sins, sins of hate. (Of course, no high school kid would ever commit any sins like that, right?) For mortal sins, we need to go to confession.

3. The teaching about going to Communion in a state of grace applies only to Catholics. Because the Eucharist is an expression of a unity that we sadly do not have with all Christians, only Catholics should receive Communion at Mass.

More to the point, I was offended by his invitation, not just because he misled 800 students, but because in a single statement, he belittled and cast aside the serious efforts that many folks, trying to be good Catholics, make to observe these obligations toward the Eucharist.

When Compassion Is in Error

Early in our marriage, my wife and I went through a period of refraining from receiving Communion for five years.  As a result of some difficult circumstances and poor decisions we had made earlier in our lives, our marriage was not a sacramental one during that time.  With the help of diocesan officials, we went to great length to fix our situation, and eventually we were able to do that.  Throughout those five years, though, our pastor, aware of our circumstances, was encouraging us to receive Communion at Sunday Mass.  He, like the guy at the school Mass, was wrong.

They both think they’re being nice guys, compassionate and all, but they’re not. They’re teaching people that sin is not significant, which I’m sure Jesus would like to have heard before He died on the Cross because of it.

They think they’re making life easy for people, but they’re denying people the chance to know the joy of God’s mercy. Only people who are aware of their own sinfulness can ever truly know His merciful love.

I’ll never forget the day I went to Communion after five years without it. I felt like a guy dying of thirst who found an oasis in the desert. I knew in a tangible way that I was fully reconciled to God whom I had earlier disappointed in a serious way. It was a very joyful day.

Following our bishops’ lead in this new document will offer all of us opportunities to encounter God‘s merciful, eucharistic love more deeply. 

The Mass: An Encounter with Heaven

Forty years have gone by since the Second Vatican Council concluded its work. The 16 conciliar documents have brought about many changes in the Catholic Church. One of the most visible of these changes is the way the Catholic Mass in the Latin rite is celebrated.

Unity or Warring Camps?

Unfortunately, shortly after the close of Vatican II, the liturgical reforms that the council set in motion have been upset by ignorance, misinterpretation, and even infidelity. The Catholic liturgy in America has become an ongoing battleground for three groups. On the one hand there is a large group of Catholics who reject the missal of Pope Paul VI. On the other hand, there is another large group of Catholics who have misconstrued the liturgical norms of the Paul VI missal and continue to spread errors and abuses that have nothing to do with Catholic liturgy. Finally, there is another group of Catholics in this country who are attempting to show the importance and the beauty of the liturgical changes brought about by the Second Vatican Council through a delicate fidelity to all of the liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. Much has been written on the subject by Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, and Josef Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected Pope Benedict XVI.

Those who reject the liturgical changes of the Second Vatican Council and maintain a rigid adherence to the Tridentine missal of Pope Pius V, need to understand that the missal of Pope Paul VI is not a divergence from Catholic liturgical tradition. The General Instruction on the Roman Missal clearly states:
In setting forth its instructions for the revision of the Order of Mass, the Second Vatican Council, using the same words as did St. Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by which the Missal of Trent was promulgated in 1570, also ordered, among other things, that some rites be restored "to the original norm of the holy Fathers." From the fact that the same words are used it can be seen how both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected upon, it also becomes clear how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to fulfillment in the new, (General Instruction on the Roman Missal, #6)

In recent times, the Church has repeatedly stated that those who have a special devotion to the Tridentine Mass must be treated with respect and fraternal charity. They are not to be treated as if they were part of a leper colony. Nevertheless, these Catholics are to adhere to the true teachings of the Church; they are to embrace the teachings of the Second Vatican Council; and they must cease their continual criticisms of the proper celebration of the Mass according to the Pope Paul VI missal.

For their part, the other rather large group that believes that the Catholic Mass is subject to continual personal innovations and experimentation, need to understand that no one has the right subjectively to make changes or deviations from the prescribed norms of the liturgical texts. As a priest friend of mine says to other priests: “Say what is in black, and do what is in red.” Or as Sacrosanctum Concilium puts it: “Therefore no other persons whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on their own authority” (#22.3).

Since the arrival of the Pope Paul VI missal, much damage has been done to the fabric of the unity of the Catholic Church by irresponsible innovators who have confused and even scandalized the Catholic lay faithful. This is why the Vatican issued a recent document in an attempt to halt the many dangerous and insidious errors that have crept into the Catholic Mass.

Whenever an abuse is committed in the celebration of the sacred Liturgy, it is to be seen as a real falsification of Catholic Liturgy. St. Thomas wrote, "[T]he vice of falsehood is perpetrated by anyone who offers worship to God on behalf of the Church in a manner contrary to that which is established by the Church with divine authority, and to which the Church is accustomed.” (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum, #169)

How to Study the Mass

For those of you who are interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the Catholic Mass, I suggest that you begin by reading each day, little by little, the Book of Exodus. It is essential that you especially understand the first Jewish Passover which is found in chapter 12.
After reading Exodus, the next step is to read the Gospel narratives on the Last Supper. These narratives are found in Matthew 26: 17–29; Mark 14: 12–25; Luke 22: 1–20; and John 13–17.
Through a careful study of these sections of the Scriptures we can understand the Church’s definition of the Catholic Mass. Briefly stated:
The Mass is the sacrifice of the New Law in which Christ, through the ministry of the priest, offers himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine. The principal priest in every Mass is Jesus Christ, who offers to his heavenly Father, through the ministry of his ordained priest, his body and blood which were sacrificed on the cross. The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ. The manner in which the sacrifice is offered is different. On the cross Christ physically shed his blood and was physically slain, while in the Mass there is no physical shedding of blood nor physical death, because Christ can die no more; on the cross Christ gained merit and satisfied for us, while in the Mass he applies to us the merits and satisfaction of his death on the cross.” (Baltimore Catechism)

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, gives a complete description of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I encourage everyone to read and study numbers 1322–1405, but the passages below will suffice to underscore the great seriousness with which we must evaluate our participation in this rite.

Divine Sacrifice

The Catechism makes very clear our need for the Mass. This is no mere human construction that is some optional “nice ritual touch” to add to our Christian life, rather it obtains for us the benefits of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross and is hence necessary for our salvation:
Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood." In the Eucharist, Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit….

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.” (CCC 1365–1367, italics in the original)

Reflecting on these realities will encourage Catholic priests to celebrate the Eucharist with reverence and fidelity to all of the liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. I also urge the lay faithful to come to a deeper understanding of the liturgy so that they may participate in it with greater awareness of the awesome mystery that we celebrate, truly the feast of heaven and earth:

In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, until he, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with him in glory. (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, #8)

© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange

Article by Rev. Fr. James Farfaglia

Father James Farfaglia is Pastor of St. Helena of the True Cross of Jesus Catholic Church in Corpus Christi, Texas. Originally from Ridgefield, CT, Father has founded and developed apostolates for the Catholic Church in Spain, Italy, Mexico, Canada and throughout the United States. He may be reached by email at Icthus@GoCcN.org.

 

The Bishops Speak

Title: The
Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?

Author: Bishop
Victor Galeone - Diocese
of  St. Augustine

Date: Friday,
May 5, 2006

The movie version of Dan
Brown’s bestseller The Da Vinci Code is

due to be released on May 19. I
want to cover some features of the

novel.

Suppose that an author writes an historical novel set during the

period of our
nation’s Revolutionary War. And then suppose that the

author has George
Washington cavorting with a mistress, a camp

follower by the name of Betsy
Ross, by whom he fathers a daughter.

After the war, the author has Washington attempting to
set up a

dynasty whereby his daughter is to rule our country, only to be

thwarted by Thomas Jefferson and the Continental Congress. How

many books do
you think this piece of fantasy would sell,

notwithstanding its exciting plot?

Therein lies the mystery of the success of Brown’s novel, which has

surpassed even
Gone With the Wind as the best adult fiction book

of all time — more
than 40 million copies sold to date!

Dan Brown admits that his book is fiction. However, in the

introduction he
asserts: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture,

documents, and secret
rituals in this novel are accurate.” Are they?

Let’s compare some of Brown’s
myths with the facts.

———-

Myth: The Gnostic heretics are the real truth tellers. Fearing its

power-base threatened, the Church suppressed their writings and

replaced them
with the four gospels, written much later.

Fact: The gospels were all completed before the year 100, while

the
first Gnostic writings did not appear before the end of the

second century.

———-

Myth: Mary Magdalene is the victim of a Catholic smear campaign.

Jesus
intended her to be the leader of his followers, only to have

Peter thwart his
desire after Jesus had died.

Fact: Mary Magdalene is a Catholic saint, with many churches

named in
her honor — a strange position for someone being smeared.

And who figures most
prominently the morning of Christ’s

resurrection? Is it the male disciples,
terror-stricken cowards behind

locked doors? Or Mary Magdalene, the first one
to see the risen

Lord? A smear campaign?

———-

Myth: Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene who bore him a child.

She is
pictured to the right of Jesus in Leonardo da Vinci’s painting

of the Last
Supper.

Fact: There’s not a hint in any of the gospels, epistles, or early

Church fathers about this supposed marriage. Jesus does have a

bride, however,
mentioned in the Book of Revelation: “Come and I

will show you the Bride of the
Lamb.” The angel then points out to

John the New Jerusalem — the Church.
“Husbands love your wives

just as Christ loved the Church, and gave his life
for her” (Eph.

5:25). And as for the person in Leonardo da Vinci’s painting on

Jesus’ right, it’s John, the youngest of the apostles. In those days

youthful
men were depicted beardless. Besides, since there are only

twelve figures with
Jesus — one for each apostle — Mary Magdalene

is not there.

———-

Myth:

Constantine suppressed other religions, chose the books of the New

Testament, and forced
the bishops to accept the divinity of Jesus at

the Council of Nicaea in 325
A.D.

Fact: In 313 Constantine put Christianity on a par with paganism,

but he
suppressed no other religions. He did assemble the bishops at

Nicaea — true! But it was the bishops alone
who declared explicitly

what is implicit in the New Testament, that Jesus is
the eternal Son

of God in the flesh. The major corpus of the New Testament was

collected by the year 200, and finalized at a Church Council in 393

A.D.

———-

Myth: Opus Dei is a sinister, secretive organization of the church,

one
of whose members Brown makes his killer, calling him a “monk”

36 times.

Fact: John Allen, the Vatican correspondent for the progressive

National
Catholic Reporter, just published the book Opus Dei, the

result of
meticulous research. He concludes that Opus Dei is neither

sinister nor secretive.
The core idea behind the movement is to

sanctify ordinary work, “meaning that
one can find God through the

practice of law or engineering… by picking up
garbage or by

delivering the mail.” And there are no monks in its ranks.

———-

“Hey, it’s only a fun book/movie! Why take it so serious?”

It’s always cause for concern when someone with an anti-Catholic

bias produces
a docudrama or writes historical fiction about the

church. Recall what The
Deputy and Hitler’s Pope — both of them

libelous — did to the
reputation of Pius XII!

As shooting began on The Da Vinci Code film in August 2005, the

co-producer, John Calley candidly admitted that this would be an

“anti-Catholic
movie.”

What would happen if the producer of a film about the Seven Day

War were to
confess that his work was “anti-Semitic?” Or if the

producer of another film
about the Ayatollah were to admit that it

was “anti-Islamic?” Would Jews
support the former, or Muslims

flock to the latter?

I’m mystified, then, why Christians and especially Catholics would

want to see The
Da Vinci Code. It’s bad enough when somebody

wants to lynch you. But why
help them pay for the rope to do it?

Gratefully yours in Our Lord,

Bishop of St. Augustine 

 

 

 

"A
relative who left the Catholic Church and joined some Messianic-Jewish
sect made the comment that Easter was originally a pagan holiday named
after some German goddess, Eoster. We had a pretty good argument about
that. Where would he get such a notion?"

                   

I
think your relative is confused to say the least. In accord with the
Gospels, Easter is unequivocally the solemn feast celebrating Christ’s
Resurrection. In the Church’s Western tradition Easter has been
celebrated on the first Sunday following the new full moon, which
occurs on or immediately after the vernal or spring equinox. This
dating was established by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. As such,
Easter may range from March 22 to April 25. (The Orthodox Churches
follow a different dating system and will thereby celebrate Easter one,
four, or five weeks later.)

Your brother’s confusion lies in the etymology of the word itself. In the original language of the Gospels, the Greek word pascha is used for the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word pesach,
which means Passover. During the first three centuries of the Church,
Pasch referred specifically to the celebration of Christ’s Passion and
death; by the end of the fourth century, it also included the Easter
Vigil; and by the end of the fifth century, it referred to Easter
itself. In all, the term signified Christ as the new Passover Lamb.
Together, the mystery of the Last Supper, the sacrifice of Good Friday,
and the resurrection of Easter form the new Passover — the new Pasch.

Latin used the Greek-Hebrew root for its word Pascha and other
derivatives to signify Easter or the Easter mysteries: for instance,
the Easter Vigil in Latin is Sabbato Sancto de Vigilia Paschali and in the First Preface of Easter, the priest prays, "Cum Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus"
("When Christ our Pasch was sacrificed"). The Romance languages later
used the Hebrew-Greek-Latin root for their words denoting Easter:
Italian, Pasqua; Spanish, Pascua; and French, Pâques. Even some
non-Romance languages employ the Hebrew-Greek-Latin root: Scotch, Pask;
Dutch, Paschen; Swedish, Pask; and the German dialect along the lower
Rhine, Paisken.

However, according to St. Bede (d. 735), the great historian of the
Middle Ages, the title Easter seems to have originated in English
around the eighth century A.D. The word Easter is derived from the word
Eoster, the name of the Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and
spring and the annual sacrifices associated with her. If this is the
origin of our word Easter, then the Church "baptized" the name, using
it to denote that first Easter Sunday morning when Christ, our Light,
rose from the grave and when the women found the tomb empty just as
dawn was breaking.

Another possibility which arises from more recent research suggests the early Church referred to Easter week as hebdomada alba
("white week"), from the white garments worn by the newly baptized.
Some mistranslated the word to mean "the shining light of day" or "the
shining dawn," and therefore used the Teutonic root eostarun,
the Old German plural for dawn, as the basis for the German Ostern and
for the English equivalent Easter. In early English translations of the
Bible made by Tyndale and Coverdale, the word Easter was substituted
for the word Passover, in some verses.

Even though the etymological root of Easter may be linked to the name
of a pagan goddess or pagan ceremonies, the feast which the word
describes is Christian without question. Exactly why the English
language did not utilize the Hebrew-Greek-Latin root is a mystery.
Unlike Christmas which was set on December 25 and "baptized" the former
Roman pagan feast of the sun, Easter is a unique celebration. Any
confusion, therefore, rests with etymology, not theology.

Article authored by: Fr. Wlliam Saunders

Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls
and a professor of catechetics and theology at Notre Dame Graduate
School in Alexandria. If you enjoy reading Fr. Saunders’s work, his new
book entitled Straight Answers (400 pages) is available at the Pauline Book and Media Center of Arlington, Virginia (703/549-3806).

(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
                  

               

ROME, APRIL 5, 2006 (Zenit.org).-
The National Geographic Society has announced its intentions to publish an
English translation of an ancient text called "The Gospel of Judas"
later this month.

The 31-page manuscript,
written in Coptic, purportedly surfaced in Geneva in 1983 and has only been translated
now.

ZENIT asked Legionary Father
Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina
Apostolorum university in Rome, to comment on the relevance
of the discovery.

 

Q: What is the
"Gospel of Judas"? 

Father Thomas: Though the manuscript still must be
authenticated, it likely represents a fourth- or fifth-century text, and is a
copy of an earlier document produced by a Gnostic sect called the Cainites.

The document paints Judas
Iscariot in a positive light, and describes him as obeying a divine ordinance
in handing over Jesus to the authorities for the salvation of the world.

It may well be a copy of the
"Gospel of Judas" referred to by St. Irenaeus of Lyonin his work "Against the
Heresies," written around A.D. 180.

Q: If authentic,
what challenge would this document pose to traditional Christian belief? Will
it "shake Christianity to its foundations" as some press releases
have suggested? 

Father Tomas: Certainly not. The Gnostic gospels,
of which there are many besides this one, are not Christian documents per se,
since they proceed from a syncretistic sect that incorporated elements from
different religions, including Christianity.

From the moment of their
appearance, the Christian community rejected these documents because of their
incompatibility with the Christian faith.

The "Gospel of
Judas" would be a document of this sort, which could have great historical
value, since it contributes to our knowledge of the Gnostic movement, but it
poses no direct challenge to Christianity.

Q: Is it true that
the Church has tried to cover up this text and other apocryphal texts? 

Father Thomas: These are myths circulated by Dan
Brown and other conspiracy theorists.

You can go to any Catholic
bookstore and pick up a copy of the Gnostic gospels. Christians may not believe
them to be true, but there is no attempt to hide them.

Q: But doesn´t an
early document of this sort rival orthodox Christian sources, such as the four
canonical Gospels? 

Father Thomas: Remember that Gnosticism arose in
the middle of the second century, and the "Gospel of Judas," if
authentic, probably dates back to the mid- to late second century.

To put a historical
perspective on things, that would be like you or me writing a text now on the
American Civil War and having that text later used as a primary historical
source on the war. The text could not have been written by eyewitnesses, the
way at least two of the canonical Gospels were.

Q: Why would the
leaders of the Gnostic movement have been interested in Judas? 

Father Thomas: One of the major differences between
Gnostic belief and that of Christianity concerns the origins of evil in the
universe.

Christians believe that a
good God created a good world, and that through the abuse of free will, sin and
corruption entered the world and produced disorder and suffering.

The Gnostics blamed God for
the evil in the world and claimed that he created the world in a disordered and
flawed way. Thus they champion the rehabilitation of Old Testament figures such
as Cain, who killed his brother Abel, and Esau, the elder brother of Jacob, who
sold his birthright for a plate of pottage.

Judas fits perfectly into
the Gnostic agenda of showing that God intends evil for the world.

Q: But wasn´t Judas´
betrayal a necessary part of God´s plan, as this text suggests? 

Father Thomas: Being omniscient, God knows full
well what choices we will make and weaves even our bad decisions into his
providential plan for the world.

In his last published book,
Pope John Paul II eloquently reflected on how God continues to bring good out
of even the worst evil that man can produce.

That doesn´t mean, however,
that God intends for us to do evil, or that he intended for Judas to betray
Jesus. If it wasn´t Judas, it would have been someone else. The authorities had
already decided to put Jesus to death, and it was just a matter of time.

Q: What is the
Church´s position regarding Judas? Is it possible to "rehabilitate"
him? 

Father Thomas: Though the Catholic Church has a
canonization process by which it declares certain persons to be in heaven, as
saints, it has no such process for declaring people to be condemned.

Historically, many have
thought that Judas is probably in hell, because of Jesus´ severe indictment of
Judas: "It would be better for that man if he had never been born,"
as he says in Matthew 26:24. But even these words do not offer conclusive
evidence regarding his fate.

In his 1994 book,
"Crossing the Threshold of Hope," Pope John Paul II wrote that Jesus´
words "do not allude for certain to eternal damnation."

Q: But if anyone
deserves hell, wouldn´t it be Judas? 

Father Thomas: Surely many people deserve hell, but
we must remember that the mercy of God is infinitely greater than our
wickedness.

Peter and Judas committed
very similar faults: Peter denied Jesus three times, and Judas handed him over.
And yet now Peter is remembered as a saint and Judas simply as the traitor.

The main difference between
the two is not the nature or gravity of their sin, but rather their willingness
to accept God´s mercy. Peter wept for his sins, came back to Jesus, and was
pardoned. The Gospel describes Judas as hanging himself in despair.

Q: Why is the
"Gospel of Judas" arousing so much interest? 

Father Thomas: Such theories regarding Judas are
certainly not new.

It´s enough to remember the
1973 play "Jesus Christ Superstar," where Judas sings, "I have
no thought at all about my own reward. I really didn´t come here of my own
accord," or Taylor Caldwell´s 1977 novel "I, Judas."

The enormous economic
success of "The Da Vinci Code" has undoubtedly stirred up the pot,
and provided financial incentive for theories of this sort.

Michael Baigent, author of
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail," now has a book out called "The Jesus
Papers," which recycles the old story that Jesus survived the crucifixion.

And a newly released
"scientific" study asserts that meteorological conditions could have
been such that Jesus really walked on ice, when the Gospels say he walked on
water.

Basically, for those who
reject outright the possibility of miracles, any theory, outlandish as it may
be, trumps Christian claims.

 

Source: http://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/articulos/articulo.phtml?lc=id-14820_se-91_ca-264_te-193

 

Article made by: Mary Kochan

"Have
you ever thought about becoming a writer? I am often asked for tips
about how to become a writer. These are not tips on how to be
published, but some ideas about how to get started on writing if it is
not something you regularly do."

                    Reading Broadly and Deeply
                   
To be a good writer one must be a good thinker and to be a good
thinker, one must be a good reader reading good writing. To find good
writing, you should read both broadly and deeply.

To read broadly, means to read in a wide range of subjects. The purpose
of this reading is to make your mind alive to the world of ideas and to
give you examples of many different kinds of writing in many different
areas of knowledge. This may be compared to the physical activity of
stretching to increase flexibility.

Even if you are hoping to become a writer in your own narrow specialty,
you still need to read broadly. Your own specialty, no matter how
narrow, fits into a wider context and ultimately that context is the
entire human world and the entire physical universe.

To read deeply means to read difficult material that explores subjects
in detail. The purpose of this reading is to train your mind to deal
with complex thought and to furnish your mind with new ideas — new to
you, not necessarily new to humanity.

If you understand everything you read, you are not reading deeply
enough. This is comparable to strength training for your mind.

                  

                    The Great Western Canon
                   
Depth reading should put you deep into history with reading in what
used to be unashamedly called the “Western canon” or the “Great Books.”

It includes reading the greatest scientific minds of the past: Euclid’s Geometry, Darwin’s Origin of the Species, Newton’s Optics.
You must not miss the great epic storytellers: Homer, Virgil, Moses,
Dante, Milton, and in more modern times, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Asimov,
Herbert. The most quoted foundational moral literature should be read:
Aristotle, Plato, the Gospels, St. Paul, Augustine, Aquinas,
Shakespeare, Luther, Calvin, Kant, Kierkegaard, Doulgass, Dostoevsky,
Solzhenitsyn, Frankl, Bonhoeffer, Ghandi, King. And you should grapple
with the political and economic thought of (again), Aristotle, Plato,
Augustine and Aquinas, as well as Grotius, Adam Smith, the Federalist
papers, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek.
There are others of course but these should keep you busy for awhile.

Depth reading should also have you reading current in-depth articles
outside of your specialty. Some periodicals that will keep you on your
mental toes include Smithsonian,
The Wilson Quarterly, The Nation, Psychology Today, Wired, First
Things, Scientific American, American Prospect, The Atlantic Monthly,
Christianity Today, The Economist, Human Events, and The Utne Reader.

A look at the (admittedly partial) list above reveals that it includes
Christians and non-Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics,
conservatives and radicals, believers and atheists. If you choose to
read only those with whom you agree, you will weaken your ability to
defend what you believe — even, for that matter, to know what you
believe.

Of course, if your goal is to become specifically a Catholic writer,
then a solid education in your faith is needed and so is living your
faith. The point of being a Catholic writer is not necessarily to write
things that are identifiably Catholic, but to bring our sacramental
understanding of the world to your writing, to do all things for the
glory of God, and to be grounded in your commitment to the truth about
things.

Before I became Catholic — while I was still quite anti-Catholic
actually — I made a peculiar observation. It seemed that almost every
time I read something and found intelligence just shining from the
page, I would find out that it was written by a Catholic. This even
bugged me a little because it flew in the face of my prejudices about
the Catholic faith. Just doing a thing well can be a witness in itself.

                  

                    Reading with Writing in View
                   
Read thoughtfully and as you absorb material consider how it fits in
with what you already have in your mind. Actively use your mind to link
ideas together and create a mental filing system. The organization of
your mind occurs, not when you go to retrieve information, but when you
first put it into your mind.

Here is an example of what I mean: the Declaration of Independence says
that we have certain rights that are inalienable. Does this mean that
the government grants them to us? No, it can’t mean that because
whatever the government grants, the government can take away. Certain
rights are inalienable because they belong to us as human beings.
According to Jefferson, they come from our Creator. (You might want to
consider if that is what the Church teaches also.) So then, if you hear
a politician or a commentator talking about government granting a
right, what do you have to ask? You must ask whether this thing under
discussion is an inalienable human right, because if it is, government
cannot grant it; government can only protect it from encroachment. Not
all of our so-called rights are inalienable human rights — some, like
driving a car, are better termed “privileges” or “permissions” — but
those that are inalienable human rights can never merely be “permitted”
by the government. If someone insists that the government does grant
them to us, then that person has a fundamentally different view of what
the human person is, and what government is for, than the view
expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Simply to engage in a discussion or read a book about the above topic
requires that you be able to categorize the following: a human being as
created and as the bearer of rights for that reason; certain rights as
inalienable; certain claims about rights as true or false; certain
functions as proper to government, and others as improper. The
categories you put things in constitute your mental filing system for
ideas. Without that it is impossible to see how ideas are logically
connected.

You also need to read attentively. Remember that every word on a page
represents a human choice. A person chose to use that word as opposed
to another. Try to understand the reason for the choice. Ask yourself
how the writer’s choices make the work coherent, that is, help it hang
together internally. Or how the word choices make it memorable. Pay
attention to literary allusions and try to identify their sources and
their application to what you are reading. (Unless you are deeply read
in the Western Canon you will not even recognize them). Watch for
similes and metaphors and identify them as you read. Ask yourself
whether the descriptions you are reading work. What makes them clear
and what is confusing? Good writing (and bad writing) can be found in
many places — online, in journals, in books. Whenever you run across
good writing, slow down and pay extra attention to the techniques the
author uses.

Finally, to make use of what you have been putting into your mind,
respond in writing to what you read. Do this by reading critically and
writing your criticism. “Criticism” in this context is not merely
negative — it is a way of entering the mind of the author.

If you are reading fiction, try to outline the plot and characters on
paper. Ask yourself: If I were making a movie of this story, who would
I get to play the characters? If I were making a play of it, what
dialog would I include in the play? How could I condense the action to
fit on stage and still reveal the characters to an audience? Which
events described in the book would I present through dialogue in a
play? You might want to write an alternative ending for the story, or a
sequel. Discuss the story with others. Read what critics have to say
about it, both positive and negative, and then write your own review.
Be brave: put your review on Amazon.com so other people can read it and
respond to it.

If you are reading non-fiction, try to outline the article or book you
are reading. If you find this daunting, begin with outlining a chapter
of a book, or a subheading — perhaps even just a paragraph — of an
article. Present the author’s arguments to a friend, making the very
best case for them, even if you disagree with them. If you disagree,
write down your disagreements. Make sure you are fairly representing
the author’s position; don’t be a mental wimp — engage the best and
most compelling points the author makes. If you agree, write a defense
(apologetic) for the author’s opinion. In either case, consider how
someone with an opposing view might dissect your argument.

For practice, respond in writing to what you see and hear, feel and
even taste: art and music, natural scenery, the antics of your
children, a fine dinner, your own feelings, your questions. Keep a
journal or set up a blog.

To be a writer you have to think and read, but thinking and reading
will not make you a writer. To be a writer, you have to write.

© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange

Mary Kochan, Senior Editor of Catholic Exchange, writes from Douglasville, Georgia. Her tapes are available from Saint Joseph Communications.                  

 

"Believing Is Seeing"

Repeat post of my bulletin board(post)Sunday, April 23, 2006

The story of St. Thomas the Apostle or Doubting
Thomas is not unfamiliar to us. When Jesus appears
to the Apostles a week after the Resurrection, our
Lord challenges Thomas in his unbelief and brings
him to humble adoration. Thomas is moved to say,
“My Lord and my God.”

Just a week earlier, Thomas had said that he would
not believe unless He had seen the risen Lord
physically. When our Lord appears to the Apostles
on the Sunday after Easter, he turns Thomas’s idea
on its head. Our Lord states that “Blessed are
those who have not seen and have believed,”
meaning that those who have not seen the Lord
physically but believe in Him are blessed.

It is clear that our faith in Jesus is based on
the testimony of eyewitnesses. This has been the
story of the Church from her inception. The
Catholic faith is built upon the testimony of St.
Peter and the Apostles, with Jesus Christ at its
center. Our faith is not an abstract set of ideas
or propositions. It is not a philosophy, as some
would suggest. Rather, the Catholic faith is
incarnational, rooted in revelation. The
transmission of this faith relies on the testimony
of those who walked with the Lord during His brief
life here on earth. The Gospels themselves are
testimonies of faith, written by those who either
personally knew the Lord or used eyewitnesses as
their primary source.

For Thomas, seeing was believing. For us, however,
the opposite is true: believing is seeing. Barring
those saints who have been gifted with
ecclesiastically-approved apparitions, none of us
have seen Jesus in a physically recognizable form.
Therefore, our response to Christ is made in
faith. It is our eyes of faith that allow us to
see Jesus in ways beyond the limitations of
physical sight. This is especially true when we
come into the presence of the Eucharist. Christ’s
presence remains hidden under the veil of
sacramental elements, but it is our belief that
allows us to truly see Him and acknowledge His
Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity really and
substantially present. Our physical sight fails
us, but our sight by faith allows us to penetrate
the hidden mysteries contained in this most
sublime sacrament.

This dynamic is also at work in the sacrament of
penance. The absolution given by the priest
invites us to believe that our sins have been
forgiven, even though physical sight cannot detect
the cleansing of sins. Again, it is faith that
allows us to see beyond what mere physical sight
can perceive.

St. Anselm of Canterbury once wrote, Credo ut
intelligam, which means “I believe so that I may
understand.” This must be the disposition of any
authentic disciple of the Lord Jesus. The first
move is God infusing the virtue of faith into our
souls at baptism. The second move is our response
in faith, actualizing the potency of this virtue.
The third move is allowing our eyes of faith to
penetrate the mysteries of God more profoundly
through the intellect and free will that He gave
us in the first place. Like St. Anselm, may we
better understand that believing means truly
seeing with the eyes of faith.

Article authored by: Fr. Jerome Magat

Fr. Magat is parochial vicar at St. Elizabeth of
Hungary Church in Colonial Beach, Virginia, and
St. Anthony of Padua Mission in King George, Virginia.

(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic
Herald.)

Repeat post of my Sunday, April 23, 2006 bulletin board(post).

The Witch Next Door…

“Your son and daughter might be the next Hansel
and Gretel,” should have been the warning label on
the Guide to Paganism supplied to British prison
governors by the Pagan Federation. Michael Spurr,
director of operations of the Prison Service,
approved the new norms, which allow pagan British
inmates possession of incenses and an amulet, the
services of pagan “chaplains,” and the practice of
rites and chants in their cells, London’s Times
reported on October 17th of last year.

Pretence of Antiquity

Witchcraft and paganism have been growing
worldwide, especially the practice of Wicca, for
which courses one can now get a tax write-off in
the Netherlands, according to the Associated
Press. Although Wiccans profess no hard-and-fast
doctrine and practices vary, the main beliefs, as
stated in Catherine Edwards Sanders’s Wicca’s
Charm, are as follows: all things are equal and
humans have no special place in the world; humans
possess divine powers unlimited by any deity, and
they are gods or goddesses who can and should
change their consciousness by rites, including
spells and herbal magic; Mother Earth is a
“goddess” called Gaia. Somehow for Wiccans the
inner contradictions in all this don’t matter or
don’t register.

Isn’t paganism a historical relic? Not quite. The
group “Covenant of the Goddess” claims to count
800,000 Wiccans in America alone, whereas Ontario
Consultants on Religious Tolerance estimates their
numbers in the United States to range from 2,000
to 5 million. The Los Angeles Times stated that a
survey funded by the Lilly Endowment in 2002-2003
found that almost one-third of one percent of
teenagers admitted being in an “alternative” religion.

Neither is Wicca a historical expression of
paganism. It was started by Aleister Crowley and
Gerald Gardner sometime after 1900 and given the
name Wicca from the Old English word “wicċa” for
“witch,” probably to lend it some authenticity and
roots.

Some Wiccans claim that their religion is a return
to the religious origins of man. That’s not true.
Even though the US Supreme Court accepted Wicca as
an official religion in 1986, its main “theistic”
elements are a far cry from the genesis of man’s
religious experience. The god of Wicca is a
“hungry, easy-going, ghost-god who cares for [a
Wiccan´s] family,” according to Andrew Long’s The
Making of Religion; such a deity is more likely to
be a degenerate of the demanding, transcendent,
omnipotent God that every primitive people
believed in than vice versa. Common sense.

Empty Rites

Part of its popularity is its adaptability: with
no dogmatic demands or stone-carved commandments,
it fits almost any cultural situation. Gene
Chambers, owner of an “alternative spirituality”
store, stated in an interview with the Boston
Globe, "People are seeking less formal
spirituality without the tenets and without the
dogmas of organized religion…. The uniqueness of
being a pagan is the ability to incorporate other
ideologies in your belief system." The witch who
works in a beauty salon can use her herbal spells
to improve the shine of her clients’ hair, while
the warlock who sells his self-made computers on
the Web can perform his rites as he waits for his
programs to download. It works just as well for
the chainsaw-murderer as for the philanthropist.

More than two-thirds of Wiccans are women, and the
movement is dominated by strong feminist
tendencies (paradoxically, Wicca was founded by
two men, one of whom was a misogynist). It
presents an escape for many women who feel their
Christian churches have nothing to offer them in
the way of active participation. This particular
outlook stems from a misunderstanding of religion,
which cannot be reduced to attendance at Sunday
Mass or worship. The loss of observance leaves
many wanting more ceremonies and ritual in their
lives, something which kids easily pick up from
their parents. Perhaps as well there has been a
loss of fervor in the ministers who preside at
their religious community’s functions or they
sense no real, internal participation by the
community itself.

Catholics Have a Real Priesthood

What does the Catholic Church have to say about
it? Simply that a Catholic can’t supplement his or
her Catholic faith with Wicca, or any other magic
or spirit cult: It has no real belief in God, and
it neglects the reality of the human soul and man
as made in God’s image. Man indeed has a special
place in the world, which was given to him to be
its steward. Moreover, a personal relationship
with God is not only possible, but necessary.

The Catholic Church even goes one better on the
issue of women’s participation in religion. The
Second Vatican Council stressed the point of the
universal priesthood in which all Catholics share:
it is active participation in the life of the
Church, not by taking the place of the ordained
priest, but by bringing the Church into one’s
daily life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
states: “The entire community of believers is, as
such, priestly. The faithful exercise their
baptismal priesthood through their participation,
each one according to his own vocation, in the
mission of Christ, Priest, Prophet, and King” (no.
1546). If that is not involvement, what is?

Nevertheless, Wicca remains enchanting to
adolescents. The occult, the secret, the darker
elements that Wiccans claim exist, and the
out-of-the-closet things like Ouija boards
intrigue the teenage mind. Without a firm
religiosity America’s adolescents are easy prey,
contemporary Hansels and Gretels seduced by the
subtle lies of the occult.

© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange

Article authored by: Br. Paul Stein, LC

Br. Paul Stein, LC is a brother with the
Legionaries of Christ.

Note:
This is a repeat post in my Wednesday, April 12, 2006 bulletin board for better view/recall.

"Reasons for Confession"

Lent is an especially good season for Confession.
It is also a good time to review the reasons why
Catholics go to Confession.

The Divine Mercy

On the evening of Easter, Jesus appeared to His
Apostles and said, “‘Peace be with you. As the
Father has sent Me, even so I send you.’ And
when He had said this, He breathed on them, and
said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the
sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23). In
this moment Jesus conferred upon the Apostles
His own ability to forgive sins. The Apostles now
shared Jesus’ ability to apply divine mercy to souls
like doctors applying medicine to patients’ bodies.

The ability to forgive sins passes down through
history from the Apostles to their successors —
the bishops. From the bishops it passes to today’s
priests through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. By
giving His Apostles the ability to forgive sins,
Jesus established the Sacrament of Penance (also
called Confession or Reconciliation). But why did
Jesus give us this sacrament? It seems He could
have told us all just to go into our rooms, shut the
door, ask God for forgiveness, and be done with it.
Why did He not set things up that way? It would
have been less personally revealing and less
embarrassing. Why make it so that I have to go to
a priest? Why can’t I go directly to Jesus?

Jesus said “I am the vine, you are the branches”
(Jn 15:5). Jesus fashioned all the sacraments so
that by them we might receive a share in His life —
like a branch living off of a vine. In baptism, we
receive the life of Christ for the first time. This life of
Christ is a life in the Spirit, a life of intimacy with
the Trinity, and a life of sharing in the Church.
Jesus knew, however, that through sin people
would damage or even forfeit the life they had
received in baptism. The main point of the
Sacrament of Confession is to receive the divine
mercy. Divine mercy strengthens the life of Christ
damaged by (venial) sin and gives back the life lost
by (mortal) sin.

The Chosen Instrument

To see the wisdom of Jesus in establishing the
sacrament, it helps to think of Jesus like a doctor.
Just as doctors use instruments to perform their
healing work, so too Jesus uses instruments to
perform His healing work. Just as doctors choose
to use some kinds of instruments and avoid
others, so too it helps to think of Jesus as wanting
to use one kind of instrument in particular for the
work of applying divine mercy to us. He wants to
use a sacrament as His instrument.

By a sacrament I mean a sign that signifies what it
causes and causes what it signifies. For example,
the words “I love you” signify love — that is their
meaning. But they also cause in the listening
person the love that they signify. The listener
receives the love signified by receiving the sign that
signifies the love. Jesus intended to make the
reception of divine mercy the same way.

In the Sacrament of Penance, the priest
represents or signifies Jesus. The words “I absolve
you” signify the word of mercy that Jesus utters.
When the priest says “I absolve you,” the priest’s
action of saying those words is a sign signifying
Jesus speaking His word of mercy at that moment.
Like the action of saying “I love you,” the priest’s
action both signifies Jesus’ own forgiving and also
causes what it signifies. The priest’s action
causes Jesus’ own forgiveness and Jesus’ own
soul-healing in the recipient. In this way, Jesus
uses the priest and his words as an instrument by
which to breathe upon us the Holy Spirit, to
strengthen His life within us if it was weakened,
and to revive His life in us if it was lost. Thinking of
it this way, it is easy to see the main reason why
Jesus chose to use a sacrament as His
instrument of mercy.

The main reason is that a sacrament of mercy
provides a concrete and physical way for us to
meet Jesus Himself — as friend to friend and as
patient to physician. If we think of the Sacrament
of Penance without the faith of the Church (as
Protestants do), then we do not think of the
sacrament as Jesus coming to touch us with His
instrument of mercy. We instead think of ourselves
merely as our going to a man — the priest. But if a
doctor touches us with a stethoscope, truly it is
the doctor who touches us and not merely the
stethoscope. Likewise, if we remember from our
Catholic faith that Jesus uses the priests and their
words as His instruments of mercy, we realize that
in the sacrament it is Jesus who touches us with
His soul-healing love. It is Jesus who floods us
with His spirit and life. Unless we think in terms of
the Church’s faith that the sacrament is Christ’s
instrument, we do not realize that in this wonderful
sacrament we have a concrete and physical way of
turning to Jesus Himself, being touched by Jesus
Himself, and hence encountering Jesus for
ourselves. Now there are several reasons why
Jesus wants us to meet Him in the concrete and
physical way that we do in the Sacrament of
Penance.

Meeting Christ

First, a sacrament makes intangible things to be
tangible. Our customary way of knowing things is
through our senses. Unless something is
conveyed to our senses, we have a hard time
accepting its reality. Sacraments use tangible
things to signify intangible realities. In Confession,
for example, the tangible priest and tangible words
signify the presence of intangible divine mercy. By
bestowing His mercy upon us in a sacrament,
Jesus makes His mercy real to us — real to our
senses.

Second, a sacrament provides a way for one to be
reconciled with the whole community of the faithful.
Personal sin wounds the Church. It causes all
Christians to look bad, it makes it hard for others
to find Christ in us, it weakens our confidence in
our mission, weakens our response to our
vocation, and tempts other people into sin. We
owe the whole community of the faithful an apology
for our sins. A personal encounter between priests
and penitents in the sacrament provides the way
for the apology to happen.

Third, a sacrament provides a way for sinners to
acknowledge their sins in front of another person in
the flesh, to name their sins to another, and to
renounce their sins before another. Doing each of
these things powerfully contributes to conversion
and strengthens our resolve to change our way of
living.

Fourth, a sacrament of mercy provides a great way
for one to become humble. Jesus foresaw that
requiring the confession of secret sins would
cause us some embarrassment. But He saw too
that the embarrassment does us no real harm and
may actually be helpful. It damages nothing but
one’s over-inflated ego. It may be helpful because
the short-term embarrassment of confession
cultivates the long-term virtue of humility. For the
embarrassment tends to diminish the arrogance to
which we all are prone.

Finally, a sacrament of mercy has many wonderful
side effects (depending on how it is ministered —
practices vary throughout history). It provides a
forum for counsel about sensitive moral matters,
encouragement in the quest for holiness, and
therapeutic conversation about one’s flaws. Each
of these beneficial side effects is possible only
because Jesus decided to use other human beings
as His instruments for conferring His mercy upon
sinners after their baptism.

The main reason Jesus established the Sacrament
of Penance was to provide a concrete and physical
way for us to meet Him for ourselves to obtain
divine mercy. He wanted the way to be a concrete
and physical because of the five reasons just
given. Now each of these five reasons is a good
thing. They make us happy in the long run — even
though they may sting a little for a moment. But
these things would all be missing if the way to
obtain divine mercy were simply going to one’s
room, shutting the door, and asking God for
forgiveness in private. In order to make His mercy
overflow with all these good things, Jesus chose to
use a certain instrument for applying His mercy to
us. Only one particular instrument brings with it all
the good things spelled out above. And that
instrument is the Sacrament of Penance. That is
why Jesus wants us to meet Him in the
confessional.

© Copyright 2006 Catholic Exchange

Article made by Br. James Brent, O.P.

Br. James Brent, O.P. is a Dominican Friar living
at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington,
D.C. He is a student brother in formation for the
Priesthood and is a member of the Province of St.
Joseph (Eastern Province). Please visit the
Dominican Student Brothers website at
www.dominicanstudents.org.