Latin Lesson for 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

Back at the dawn of the Internet Age Bill Gates was purported to have prophesied that the Internet’s greatest contribution would be the empowerment of the individual. Twenty years later, the fulfillment of the prophecy is so ubiquitous and integrated into daily life that few even consider this tool as an “empowerment”. But just let the “net” go down for a couple minutes and its like oxygen being cut.

I suppose that’s an odd paragraph to introduce another installment of my ongoing personal reflections on what the Church actually says (Latin) and what the English translators have made it say. But prior to the Internet, the average individual (me, in this case) would not have had access to such handy tools as the official Latin texts and an online Latin-English dictionary.

Well, to the lesson for today, Sunday, September 03, 2006, Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time, Cycle B. At issue is the Psalm Verse.
The Latin says: Dominus, qui habitabit in tabernaculo tuo?
The English says: “The one who does justice will live in the presence of the Lord.”

Before we do any translation we can easily note that the Latin ends with a question mark and the English with a period. Hmmm. The Latin is a question, the English is a statement. What’s up?

Let’s take a look at the Latin, word for word:

Dominus = Lord
Qui = who
Habitabit = to live in, or dwell, inhabit
Tabernaculo = tabernacle
Tuo = your, thy

Translation: “Lord, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle?” Now how hard is that?

The English not only does not translate this as a question it goes on to insert an answer. It’s not just a bad translation (my opinion), it’s not even A translation. It’s a completely different set of words. In addition (more of my opinion) the English destroys the effect of the verses that follow.

First let’s look at the very next verse in English:

“Whoever walks blamelessly and does justice; who thinks the truth in his heart
and slanders not with his tongue.”

There’s the answer to the question. The original Q&A setting of the Psalm hammers home the point. The question “Who shall dwell…” is asked 3 times and 3 times an answer is given. (By the way, again with the 3 times that we have so often discussed before). Look at the effect of this:

WHO SHALL DWELL IN THY TABERNACLE?
Whoever walks blamelessly and does
justice; who thinks the truth in his heart and slanders not with his tongue.

WHO SHALL DWELL IN THY TABERNACLE?
Who (ever) harms not his fellow
man, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor;
By whom the reprobate is
despised, while he honors those who fear the Lord.

WHO SHALL DWELL IN THY TABERNACLE?
Who (ever) lends not his money at usury and accepts no bribe
against the innocent.
Who (ever) does these things shall never be disturbed.

The psalm verse is supposed to be THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. The translators have purposely eviscerated the effect: eliminating the question and substituting something else altogether. But for what purpose?

The word “justice” is the clue (my opinion). “Justice” was the rallying cry of the age in which the English translation was born (1960’s and 70’s). “Social Justice” jumped out of Vatican II like a hungry tiger looking to satisfy a centuries-long appetite. This isn’t the main topic of this entry so I don’t want to spend much time on it here. But basically what materialized under the banner of Social Justice was more Social (-ism) than Justice, probably most poignantly epitomized by Catholic university students lining up to assuage their middle-class guilt in Tortilla Marathons and token stints at soup kitchens.

Okay, not all of you. Relax! But let’s face it. The emphasis, energy, and resources dedicated to helping “poor Mexicans” (a metaphor for the larger picture – and I’m Mexican, by the way) was suspiciously disproportionate. Consider this: have you seen the same “emphasis, energy, and resources dedicated to helping people live chaste lives? Okay, you get the point. It’s not there. And the list could go on of course.

By the way Social Justice was not unique to Vatican II and the new “enlightened Catholic”. It used to be called “Charity”, and people used to practice it quite on their own. I can recall seeing my mom feeding burritos to homeless guys on our back porch. I can recall going with my dad to fix a toilet at the home of an elderly person. I have lots of memories like that. I can recall something called the St. Vincent de Paul Society that cared for the poor quite without the help of government grants which didn’t exist then anyway. Perhaps the saddest effect of the Social Justice mentality has been a move away from personal charity and a reliance on institutionalized charity, which is more welfare than charity.

I have very good personal friends who are very involved with Social Justice issues and I don’t wish to offend them. I am not attacking any individual involved with the true care of those in need. I am, though, singling out “justice” in the context of the over-eager Social Justice agena that here even invades Scripture and rewrites it.

Well, that was quite a digression. Let’s go back to the Latin lesson because there’s something else that our translators are denying us in this short verse: the word “tabernacle”.

What a sad replacement is the word “presence” (“…will live in the presence of the Lord”) for the word “tabernacle”. “Tabernacle” is of course a word with great biblical significance. God’s “presence” is everywhere, but He always was (and still is) especially present in His Tabernacle. The Tabernacle, in the days of Moses, as it is now, was and is: “God with us”.

And there’s another dimension of the word “tabernacle” that is not spoken of much, which is odd because it is the very meaning of the word. Most of the time it gets translated as “tent” or “dwelling”. But it’s more than that. It’s not just a place to come in to; it’s a place to get fed. It’s where we get the word “tavern”, literally a public house for travelers – a place where one could come in out of the weather, find safety, warmth, and nourishment.

And of course that would line up with what the “Tabernacle” was and is. The Tabernacle of Moses housed the Ark of the Covenant which itself held the manna. The Tabernacle that was Mary kept the Jesus in her womb safe, warm, and nourished. The Tabernacle in our churches holds the Bread of Life Himself.

It’s not surprising that the modern translators did away with “tabernacle” from the psalm verse. It’s the same folks (and those of like mind) who have done their best to do away with the actual tabernacles in our churches. And no surprise that while they were at it, tried to get rid of images of that most special tabernacle, Mary, the Mother of God.

This brings me back to my major contention that the Catholic Church, at least in America, has been sickened from within by the translations the ICEL has foisted upon us. No amount of parish programs, workshops, youth groups, etc. will stop the bleeding because the bleeding is internal.

To Teach as Jesus Did

When I was first recruited to teach religion in a Catholic high school, I was told to read a document entitled "To Teach as Jesus Did". It was put out by the USCCB and is still available from their website. The description reads:

"The bishops outline the themes of message, community, and service in this timeless statement. Discusses educational ministry to people of all ages and encourages planning and collaboration in developing educational programs."

Like so many other documents of the type, the well chosen words, the neat paragraphs, and the appropriate references give the reader a sense of grounded and noble direction. There's a sort of "well here's what the Bishops say" feeling one gets upon reading this kind of authoritative missive. But it's a feeling that disappears quickly upon opening the classroom door...nay, upon even thinking about opening the classroom door.

The chasm between the sober, well-scrubbed, air-conditioned offices that produce these noble directives and the challenging chaos of the everyday life of the average classroom is vast. The Bishops’ words quickly become a dim echo amid the din and drone of classroom life and the once inspired teacher is reduced to figuring out a creative way to make it to Friday...if not just hanging on til the day's final bell.

I was one of those teachers. I marched into my classroom armed with the clear and authoritative directives of no less a body than the U.S Council of Catholic Bishops and promptly fell into survival mode. A few minutes into my first day and I wasn't even thinking about Friday, or even the final bell. I was just thinking about making it to the NEXT bell. If the terminology reminds you of a boxing match, you could easily be forgiven for drawing the analogy. The goals and objectives outlined so clearly in the course syllabus were forgotten as the goal and objective quickly deteriorated into a sole focus of just staying on one's feet from bell to bell.

I stray here, I suppose, into some bad memories, but I would wager that my experience is not unlike many teachers, especially those who hope to impart the truths of the Faith in the context of a "religion class". And the sort of “searching” look I see on the face of teachers who prowl my Catholic bookstore looking for some sort of magic activity book that will keep their students busy for the rest of the year attests to validity of my suspicion.

A few years ago I heard a motivational speaker refer to the early self-help staple THINK AND GROW RICH. He pointed out that the whole deal was in the title: THINK…and grow rich. The obvious implication was that most of us don’t think, we just do…which is why most folks are broke.

The answer to our catechetical quandary is similar: the whole deal is in the title: TO TEACH AS JESUS DID. As a teacher, I didn’t need more academic discussion and reverencing of high-flown themes. I needed a process, a working model, something I could use, that I could immediately implement, and I needed it TODAY, as in RIGHT NOW!

Well, in fact, the answer was in the title and is still in the title. So how DID Jesus teach… at least insofar as religion class is concerned. Ever watch Mother Angelica on EWTN? She does it. She sits there with her Bible, reads a little from it, and then teaches from what she read. It’s not a Bible study she’s doing, it’s Catechism class. She teaches the Catholic Faith from the Bible. But she first uses the story, the Bible story.

That’s how Jesus taught. He told stories, employed metaphor and analogy, even riddle. And then, he drew out the lesson, the principle, and the application.

By happy accident I came across a book entitled A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE, first published in Germany in 1923. The book isn’t really a commentary, it’s a catechism built on Scripture. Here’s a note from the preface:

“Bible History may be made to render most valuable service in religious instruction. The illustrative light it throws on doctrinal truths makes them more easily intelligible. They become invested with a concrete form, are clothed with flesh and blood, breathe the breath of life, and move like living truths before our eyes. In the Catechism, they appear as cold abstracts and mere outlines. Thus Bible History becomes an object-lesson in faith, a veritable pictorial Catechism”. (Example: “The Catechism tells us, indeed , how and why Christ suffered, but Bible History gives a full and detailed account of His suffering, and so enables us better to realize the infinite love of God and the enormity of sin.”)

“A veritable pictorial Catechism” are the key words. Humans think in pictures, not in words. It’s why Jesus used pictures (stories), and it’s why we gravitate towards that which is illustrated, be it pictures, theater, television, or the big screen.

But the answer is not more coloring books about Jesus. The answer is more stories about Jesus, and the stories Jesus told, and all the stories in the Bible, for they all point to Jesus.

What impresses me is that children - and the book is written to be used in the instruction of children - must have been a lot smarter back in 1923. A brief reading of the first few pages of this book will verify that impression.

Rather than launch into a lengthy dissertation on that tangent, let me encourage you to get A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE and re-catechize yourself. You'll find it a lot easier then to "teach as Jesus did".

First Mass Last Mass - Which is it?

We had a question come up last week in one of our parish workshops:

“Jesus was very simple and humble in his preaching…in his attire…why do our
priests don themselves in glamorous attire during the Mass…when did this begin
and why?”

It’s an irksome question that belies a deeper antagonistic attitude towards the perceived wealth of the Church if not the Church itself. But it’s irksome also because at first blush the antagonist seems to have a point, if not the higher ground: certainly Jesus was in fact simple, humble, wore no special vestments or fancy hats, and, in great contrast to the grand affair the celebration of the Mass eventually became, conducted the first Mass with a small group, reclining at table, with probably the simplest of vessels.

I’ve never heard the challenge satisfactorily answered. There are the usual references to giving honor, glory, respect, etc., but the accusation seems to stick and most are left wondering if somehow the Catholic Church got on the wrong track with this.

Certainly there are many who thought that to be the case which is why for the last 40 years or so we’ve done everything possible to simplify our liturgical celebrations, to bring it down to earth, to make it more relatable to the common man. Vestments were made more plain, architecture dulled, and sacred vessels downsized and downgraded to earthenware (in many cases).

The Mass itself was stripped of all “non-essentials”, simplified, translated into the vernacular, and made to hearken back to the supposed “Mass of the early Christians”. The people followed suit…or should I say…got rid of the suit. No more dressing up like before, no need for all the pomp and fuss. Jeans, t-shirts, and sandals became Sunday attire. After all, Jesus didn’t wear a suit and tie.

Music…? Well no need for any of these fancy choirs. Things are “simple” now, back to basics. Away with chant, polyphony, the organ and the likes of Palestrina! Now all one needs is a guitar and a heart for Jesus. After all, Jesus doesn’t care what we sing or how we sound. Jesus loves me, yes he does…

In addition ecclesial communities and movements continue to sprout up clamoring for a return to the ways of the “early Church”, some even forsaking the Mass of the whole community for small intimate affairs in private “cata-homes”. It’s hard to argue with these folks for they point to the example of the early Church and indeed to the First Mass itself.

I do not need to go through the litany of things that have been done in the name of “getting back to basics”, but obviously we have witnessed radical change with all things liturgical over the last four decades.

Well, I’m here to tell you that it’s all wrong! Actually, I’m here to tell you that the Catholic Church itself says that it’s all wrong. It’s in the Catechism. But before I tell you where, let’s take a look at this from a “phenomenological” perspective.

Since this is my blog and not an article that I have to keep to a certain length I’d like to ramble just a bit. First, we need, for the sake of those of us who are new to this word, define “phenomenological”

I’ve been fascinated with the word ever since I learned that John Paul II was a phenomenologist. His revolutionary Theology of the Body is not only an exercise in phenomenology but the very reason why said Theology is revolutionary...and a "phenomenon".

Phenomenology, at least how John Paul II uses it is “an approach to philosophy that begins with an exploration of phenomena (what presents itself to us in conscious experience) as a means to finally grasp the absolute, logical, ontological and metaphysical Spirit that is behind phenomena.“ (Wikipedia definition)

In other words it’s an approach to understanding the essence of something by beginning with what it looks like, smells like, sounds like, feels like... That's the attraction of JP's Thelology of the Body. It basically says: “Look, here’s what a man looks like naked and here’s what a woman looks like naked. Now, putting everything else aside, let’s try to understand, just from what these two creatures look like, their reason for being made that way.” It cuts to the quick. There’s no arguing with it. It’s like your mouth. “Look it opens, has teeth, a tongue, saliva glands. Huh! Wonder what it’s for?”

Now phenomenonologically speaking, the one thing we can say about the externals of divine worship, the vestments, the vessels, the places of worship, the music, and all that stuff is that there has been a consistent trend towards the more ornate, the more beautiful, the more expansive, the more massive ever since the Church came out of the catacombs.

There was the occasional revamping, refining, & renewing of liturgical worship and all that surrounded it over the course of almost 20 centuries, but in general things always progressed toward the “more is better” and away from sandals and pottery.

Now why is that? That’s the phenomenological question. Did the Church lose its marbles right from the beginning? Why didn’t it keep the model of the Last Supper, the simple table, the small group, the “sandals and pottery”? Why did the Church, as soon as it was able, build bigger and bigger churches? Why the massive Cathedrals instead of some sort of recreation of the "Upper Room" (with brown shag carpet)”? Why the ornate vestments and vessels and polyphonic grandeur instead of sandals, pottery, and "If I Had a Hammer"? Is all this just more evidence that man is fallen and will always try to re-erect the tower of Babylon?

This question is more than just a curious inquiry. It’s at the root of all that has gone afoul in the liturgical life of the Church in the last 4 decades and the cause of immeasurable damage to the faith life of many. The stripping of the altars was but a metaphor for the stripping that occurred at all levels in the Church. Seemingly, “not one stone was left upon another”. The Faith of many Catholics, simple, humble, and molded to follow the directions of “Father” or “Sister” was severely damaged when the Church of their fathers was ripped from them in the name of “a return to the early Church” and the ubiquitous lie of “in the Spirit of Vatican II”.

Before we go on we must once again examine the phenomenological fact that for the better part of two millennia, the Church, for the most part, saw nothing wrong with building Her places of worship ever larger, ever more ornate, ever more massive, and adorning both it and its ministers with that which was ever more precious and beautiful.

To say that this was wrong and a departure from a simplicity that Christ supposedly intended is to tread on the likes of everyone from Augustine to Aquinas and every Pope to ever wear the “sequined shoes of the fisherman”. I mean, here’s the deal, they had 2000 years to figure out that something was wrong and revert back to “sandals and pottery”…but they didn’t

So here’s the easy answer: the model for our liturgy is not the First Mass, it's the Last Mass - the heavenly liturgy found in the Book of Revelations, not some "birkenstock" replay of the events of the upper room, but a participation in the “wedding feast of the Lamb”.

1090 “In the earthly liturgy we share 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, Minister of the
sanctuary and of the true tabernacle. With all the warriors of the heavenly army
we sing a hymn of glory to the Lord; 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.”-Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoted from Sacrosanctum
Concilium)

“Foretaste” is the word! A foretaste of the "wedding feast of the Lamb, not an “aftertaste” of the Last Supper: Paragraphs 1136-1139 go on to explain more fully how it is that the earthly celebration of the sacraments is in fact a participation in the eternal liturgy found in Revelations. (Of course the Church is not negating anything about the Last Supper, She is telling us that the First Mass and the Last Mass are the same...a participation in the heavenly liturgy.)

This is a fascinating discovery for me personally because I can’t even begin to explain the “decimation” (that’s the only word I can find for it) I have felt for as long as I can remember (and still feel) whenever I encounter liturgical worship that seems aimed at me.

Remember, it was John who was taken up to heaven (“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”) not Jesus who was brought down to earth. And what did John do upon arrival? He “fell at His (Jesus) feet as though dead”. Most of us don’t even bother to genuflect anymore. Perhaps one of these days God will remind us of where we really are (in His Presence) and we will be made to fall at his feet, but NOT as though dead, but dead - just a small reminder. Has happened before!

Scott Hahn’s book The Lamb’s Supper develops this truth further and offers a list of scripture references from Revelations where we find the elements of the Catholic Mass. I’ve listed them for you here with the scripture quotes from the Douay Rheims version.

Sunday worship
1:10
10I was in the spirit on the Lord's day…

(Note: We know this is Sunday because the early Christians met on the first day of the week to break bread – Acts 20:7)

A High Priest
1:13
13And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps (chest) with a golden girdle.

An Altar
8:3-4
3And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. 4And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.
11:1
1And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and it was said to me: Arise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that adore therein.
14:18
18And another angel came out from the altar, who had power over fire; and he cried with a loud voice to him that had the sharp sickle, saying: Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vineyard of the earth; because the grapes thereof are ripe.

Priests (presbyteroi)
4:4
4And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats, four and twenty ancients sitting, clothed in white garments, and on their heads were crowns of gold
11:16
16And the four and twenty ancients, who sit on their seats in the sight of God, fell on their faces and adored God, saying:
19:4
4And the four and twenty ancients, and the four living creatures fell down and adored God that sitteth upon the throne, saying: Amen; Alleluia.

(Note: The word “ancients” is used interchangeably with “elder”, the Greek word being “presbyteroi”.)

Vestments
1:13
13And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
4:4
4And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats, four and twenty ancients sitting, clothed in white garments, and on their heads were crowns of gold.
6:11
11And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.
7:9
9After this I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands:
15:6
6And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed with clean and white linen, and girt about the breasts with golden girdles.
19:13-14
13And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. 14And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

Consecrated Celibacy
14:4
4These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:

Lamp Stands, or Menorah
1:12
12And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks:
2:5
5Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

Penitence
Chapters 2 and 3
(Here’s one excerpt from 2:5)
5Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

Incense
5:8
8And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:
8:3-5
3And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. 4And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. 5And the angel took the censer, and filled it with the fire of the altar, and cast it on the earth, and there were thunders and voices and lightnings, and a great earthquake.

The Book or Scroll
5:1
1And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals.

The Eucharistic Host
2:17
17He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him that overcometh, I will give the hidden manna, and will give him a white counter (stone), and in the counter, a new name written, which no man knoweth, but he that receiveth it.

(Note: The white counter or stone is a reference to the custom of showing a little stone, with some appropriate mark on it, to gain entrance to a feast or banquet. The name inscribed on the stone referred to here shows that the Christian has a right to partake of the good things which the Lord reserves for those who win the victory. – Navarre Bible Commentary)

Chalices
15:7
7And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden vials, full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
16 (several references, here’s one)
1And I heard a great voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels: Go, and pour out the seven vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
21:9
9And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.

Sign of the Cross
7:3
3Saying: Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads.
14:1
1And I beheld, and lo a lamb stood upon mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads.
22:44
And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads.

The Gloria
15:3-4
3And singing the canticle of Moses, the servant of God, and the canticle of the Lamb, saying: Great and wonderful are thy works, O Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, O King of ages. 4Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and magnify thy name? For thou only art holy: for all nations shall come, and shall adore in thy sight, because thy judgments are manifest.

The Alleluia
19:1,3,4,6
1After these things I heard as it were the voice of much people in heaven, saying: Alleluia. Salvation, and glory, and power is to our God.
3And again they said: Alleluia. And her smoke ascendeth for ever and ever.
4And the four and twenty ancients, and the four living creatures fell down and adored God that sitteth upon the throne, saying: Amen; Alleluia.
6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of great thunders, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord our God the Almighty hath reigned.

Sursum Corda (Lift up your hearts)
11:12
12And they heard a great voice from heaven, saying to them: Come up hither. And they went up to heaven in a cloud: and their enemies saw them.

The Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy)
4:8
8And the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.

The Amen
19:4
4And the four and twenty ancients, and the four living creatures fell down and adored God that sitteth upon the throne, saying: Amen; Alleluia.
22:21
21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

The Agnus Dei (Lamb of God)
5:6 and throughout
6And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth.

The Prominence of the Virgin Mary
12:1-6, 13-17
1And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne. 6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.

13And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child: 14And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. 15And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river. 16And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Intercession of Angels and Saints
5:8
8And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:
6:9-10
9And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. 10And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
8:3-4
3And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. 4And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

Devotion to St. Michael
12:7
7And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:

Antiphonal Chant
4:8-11
8And the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come. 9And when those living creatures gave glory, and honour, and benediction to him that sitteth on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever; 10The four and twenty ancients fell down before him that sitteth on the throne, and adored him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honour, and power: because thou hast created all things; and for thy will they were, and have been created.
5:9-14
9And they sung a new canticle, saying: Thou art worthy, O Lord, to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; because thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation. 10And hast made us to our God a kingdom and priests, and we shall reign on the earth. 11And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the ancients; and the number of them was thousands of thousands, 12Saying with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and benediction. 13And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. 14And the four living creatures said: Amen. And the four and twenty ancients fell down on their faces, and adored him that liveth for ever and ever.
7:10-12
10And they cried with a loud voice, saying: Salvation to our God, who sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb. 11And all the angels stood round about the throne, and the ancients, and the four living creatures; and they fell down before the throne upon their faces, and adored God, 12Saying: Amen. Benediction, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, honour, and power, and strength to our God for ever and ever. Amen.
18:1-8
1And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. 4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. 6Render to her as she also hath rendered to you; and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. 7As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see. 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be burnt with the fire; because God is strong, who shall judge her.

Readings from Scripture
Ch. 2, 3, & 5
8:2-11

Priesthood of the Faithful
1:6
6And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen.
20:6
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ; and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Catholicity or Universality
7:9
9After this I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands:

Silent Contemplation
8:1
1And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven, as it were for half an hour.

Marriage Supper of the Lamb
19:9
9And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith to me: These words of God are true.
17 (whole Chapter)

Novus Novus Ordo

8/19/2006

The current activities surrounding the Vatican directive to bring our current English translation of the Mass more into line with the Latin, and thus what the text actually says, continue to fascinate me.

Not ever having seen the Latin of the Novus Ordo, the Mass that most of us know, I never gave the English translation a thought, other than I thought it incredibly dry. But I just chalked that up as my own spiritual problem.

However, now that I have this beautiful Daily Roman Missal published by Midwest Theological Forum which has the Latin text alongside the English, I can’t help but be fascinated by the contrast between what the text actually says and what the English translators made it say.

The Novus Ordo, or the New Order of the Mass (as opposed to the traditional Latin Rite), was promulgated by Paul VI in 1969. The English translation soon followed with what I will call the Novus Novus Ordo, simply because there are so many liberties and deviations from the original Latin Text as to almost be a new order of the Mass in and of itself.

Of course the translation in question is completely valid and licit and I will never take issue with what has been approved by the appropriate ecclesial authorities. But since the Bishops have been ordered to redo the thing, it is fair to say what I have always thought…that there is something definitely wrong or at least incomplete with the current text.

One of those is the famous “mea culpa”. I was surprised to see that “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” is still part of the Novus Ordo. I thought that all that apologizing was done away with in the “spirit of Vatican II” and the new liturgy. But there it is…on the left side of my missal.. The English, as you know, flatly reads “through my own fault” as opposed to the literal “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”. Again, this is not the Latin of the Tridentine Rite. This is the Latin of the Novus Ordo. It’s what we are supposed to be saying.

The threefold apology reminds me of the famous 70’s dictum “the medium is the message”. Huh? Let me illustrate. In many languages there is no recourse to the comparative and superlative senses of a word. And even where the language affords such recourse, the cultural application may supersede. Here’s an example. I was a teacher on an English speaking Caribbean island for several years. It was common when one wanted to emphasize something to repeat it three times (e.g. “The wave was big, big, big!”). The description was usually accompanied by both the appropriate physical and facial gestures and ended with the colloquial “missun” as in “big, big, big, missun!” (You had to be there.) Somehow, saying the wave was “very big” or even “very, very big”, just didn’t get the point across.

Same reason why we say “Holy, Holy, Holy” instead of “very, very Holy”, or why we say the Lamb of God or the Lord Have Mercy, three times. There is also the scriptural echo of Peter’s threefold denial and the later threefold “Do you love me?” There are scriptural and linguistic reasons for repeating something three times. The creators of the Novus Ordo, despite seeming to have no problem with massive revisions on other parts of the Mass didn’t mess with the threefold mea culpa. That in itself should say something. However, enter the English translation and it's gone!

Now, one more, and this one really get me. I hope the Bishops will vote to change this one. It’s in the Gloria, 2nd line where it says “and peace to his people on earth”. It’s just amazing to me at how the English not only does this not come anywhere close to the Latin, but completely negates what the original text actually says.

The Latin says “et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis”, literally translated it says “and on earth peace to men of good will”. It’s “peace to men of GOOD WILL”, not “peace to his people”. And I’m not even arguing the inclusive language thing. They could have translated it “peace to people of good will” for all I care, but the main deal is they left out “good will” altogether. No need to be good. Peace is for everyone. That’s not what the Latin says and that’s not what the Church says.

History Quiz

Every Friday I receive an email newsletter from CT at the Movies. CT stands for Christianity Today and I enjoy their movie reviews as well as appreciate their fair and open treatment of all Christian religions.

However, every once in awhile I am amused by a very obvious, albeit probably unconscious, anti-Catholic slip. I say “amused” because, the slip bespeaks an anti-Catholic understanding of history that is so inbred in most protestant Americans that they haven’t even the foggiest clue that their comments have all the grace and tact of the proverbial bull in the china closet; assuming of course that the Catholic reader actually knows something of history other than what he got from the Discovery Channel or the Da Vinci Code

Sadly, or perhaps, mercifully, most Catholics, since they’ve been spared the task of learning any real history for the last two generations, will never know the attack that was just leveled against their Faith, and will go on their merry way whistling “all is well, all is well”.

The “slip” in question is the following statement taken from the CT at the Movies email newsletter of 8/18/06:

World Trade Center illustrates how people can respond when under attack— when
their fellow human beings, under the veil of terrorism disguised as religious ideology, turn into mass murderers.

Variations on this theme have certainly happened before, many times in the course of human history—the Crusades, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide being just a few examples.

The context of course is a review of the recent release of the movie “World Trade Center”. Now, Catholics, here’s your history test. Can you spot the problem, the error, the gross error, the hostile anti-Catholic bigotry, the… Okay, I’ll stop. It’s actually not that bad simply because it was unintended (or at least I think so). But it’s still an error, an error which first bespeaks the aforementioned inbred anti-Catholic understanding of history in this country, but second, an error that has the potential to undermine the faith of unaware, but otherwise sincere Catholics.

The more I looked at “it”, the more “bothered” I became and decided to get the attention of the writers by sending a nice message with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. However, the last paragraph mentioned the name Steven D. Greydanus. Steven is an Catholic movie critic and publishes his excellent reviews on Decent Films and in the National Catholic Register. His name was mentioned because CT was welcoming him as a new contributor.

In the spirit of God sparing Sodom at the insistence of Abraham (which of course He eventually didn’t do), I mercifully chose to spare CT the “unsubscribe” notice on account of their addition of Greydanus. However, I wasn’t about to overlook CT’s grievous transgression but decided to complain via Greydanus as per my following email which will also provide the answer to the above history quiz…which by now you should have answered.

Hi Steven,
I almost unsubscribed to CT at the Movies just now, but then saw your name in the last paragraph of the email...so I decided to stay on and voice my concern to you. Though I normally like everything they write I took strong exception to their throwing the Crusades into the same category as the Holocaust and Rwanda. (typical protestant mistake). There were bad men and bad things associated with the Crusades, but the original cause was noble, or at least thought to be. It was the Pope who called for the crusades. To allow for the conection that CT is trying to make is to equate the Pope with Hitler. Just my opinion. Hopefully you'll be able to help these guys.
Thanks for all you do.
Tim Rohr

I have very up close and personal experience with certain persons’ Catholic Faith shaken and sometimes shattered by this type of anti-Catholic historical revisionism. The three favorite topics in this genre are the Avignon Papacy, the Crusades, and of course the Inquisition.

By the way, I do not blame those whose faith was “shaken” or “shattered”. I will not just write them off with a casual “Well their faith was weak”. Where would a Catholic learn of these things, and even more important, learn the truth about these events in order to combat the constant harangue of both the secular media and anti-Catholic propagandists?

Alas, we shall leave that discussion for another day. Meanwhile, may I recommend “Triumph – The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church” by Harry Crocker III. This is an excellent and very readable history, a history we should know.

Christ and the Bomb - August 6

August 6, 2006

Today is August 6. It’s one of those dates that will bounce around inside your head until you remember why you should remember it. Oh that’s right: Hiroshima, the Atom bomb, World War II. Most of us give it a brief thought and don’t think about it again until the next time the same date pops up and the little remembering ritual is repeated.

Usually any connection to Christianity with this event centers on the moral question. But there are some interesting analogies between Christ and the Bomb:

History-Centering
Both Christ and The Bomb split history in two. There is B.C. (Before Christ) and there is A.D. (Anno Domino – "In the year of Our Lord" or since the coming of Christ) As per The Bomb, there was the world "before The Bomb" and the world "after The Bomb", a world forever altered by an unimaginable power to split atoms and literally undo Creation.

Heavenly Origins and Something Else
Both Christ and The Bomb came from above. And both came as a child: Jesus coming as a baby boy; The Bomb coming as “Little Boy” (as it was so named).

Signs in the Heavens
Both events were marked by a sign in the heavens that could be seen from a great distance: For Jesus there was an unusually bright star which many scientists claim was a supernova, a phenomenon caused by an unimaginably powerful stellar thermonuclear explosion, a description that would aptly describe 8:15am, August 6, 1945, 1,900 feet above Hiroshima.

And One More
But there is one analogy, a metaphor even, which is especially appropriate for today. The Bomb emitted a light brighter than the anything the world had ever seen. Of course, one could not even “look upon it” (sound familiar?) lest their eyes be burnt. The world has only known one other instance of similar “eye-burning” brilliance.

It happened on Mt. Tabor, circa 32-33 A.D. and was witnessed by three guys named Peter, James, & John. The Gospels describe the brightness as “shining”, “exceeding white as snow”, “glistening”, “intensely white”, “brilliantly white”. In this moment, Eternity intersects Time, Heaven fuses with Earth, , Creation is undone, Christ is transfigured, and Peter is left babbling something about going camping (well, he mentions pitching tents).

“Transfigured” is a word that could well be used to describe Hiroshima’s “atomic moment”. In one blinding flash 70,000 people were instantly "transfigured" into little piles of ash and Creation was once again undone.

Those who planned the morning visit of “Little Boy” were probably not aware that the chosen day was the Feast of the Transfiguration.

Superman Returns and the New Translation

7/29/06

“The father becomes the son. And the son becomes the father”, whispers Superman to his sleeping son, echoing the words he himself heard from his own father in the first Superman movie.

For anyone who has seen any of the Superman movies, especially the first one and more so this one (Superman Returns), the allegorical allusions to the Christological story, though not necessarily intended, are profound and fun to follow: a father sends his only son to earth to save its people and to light their world; he comes as a child and grows into manhood and awareness of his super powers; his father dies before he begins his “ministry”, the list goes on.

In the current movie, we even have a sort of “passion, death, and resurrection”, all very “allegorical” of course. There is even the subtle allusion to Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb (the empty hospital room). I could write much about it but it’s already been written. I would refer you to http://www.decentfilms.com/ for “the rest of the story”.

I was particularly intrigued, though, (as my opening paragraph suggests) with those words: “the father becomes the son – the son becomes the father”. I thought of how at 50 (and I was watching the movie on my 50th birthday) of how much I have become my father in so many ways. I was also watching the movie with my son, Michael Martin, who not only shares my birthday, but bears my father’s name as his middle name.

But personal reverie aside it put me in mind of the current response of the American Bishops to the instruction of the Vatican to revise the English text of the Mass to more faithfully reflect the Latin of the Roman Missal.

I have no idea of how things are going with the project as a whole, but I am aware of one particular item that the Bishops have chosen NOT to re-translate due to what they call “pastoral concern”.

The phrase in question is “one in Being with the Father”, from the Nicene Creed. The Latin is “consubstantialem Patri” which translates literally (and quite obviously I think) as “consubstantial with the Father” or “of the same substance of the Father”. The New Catholic Dictionary defines it thus:

A translation of the Greek, homousios, chosen at the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325) as the only correct word to express the nature of the Son of God. He is not inferior to the Father, nor posterior, nor merely like unto Him, but identical in substance and in essence with Him. He is truly God, God of very God, consubstantial with the Father, as the Nicene Creed has it, having, or rather, being, the Godhead no less than the Father

I want to emphasize the part of the above definition where it states:

“the only correct word to express the nature of the Son of God”.

We must understand that the words of the ancient Creeds, especially the Nicene Creed, were not written on a whim, but hammered out, and sometimes even literally battled out, over the course of many years.

The words were chosen in an extremely exacting way, especially in this instance where the Church Fathers were attempting to describe the very nature of the Godhead, upon which all other points of the faith must rest.

The “pastoral concern” of the Bishops (or at least the majority in this case) is that the word “consubstantial” would be too difficult or archaic for us to understand and that “one in Being with the Father” is easier for us.

Uh, no disrespect dear Bishops, but not only are we, the unwashed masses, capable of learning new words (or old words in this case), I personally believe that the meaning of “consubstantial” is a lot easier to grasp than the completely abstract “one in Being”.

“Of the same substance” is concrete, like from the same board, or from the same stone. We can picture it. “one in Being” is…well, it’s….it’s out there. And what’s more, it’s NOT what the Roman Missal says.

I’m no Greek scholar but it’s quite easy to look things up on the Internet these days. The Greek word, which was the original language of the creed in question, is “Homoousios”, which is a combination of two words: “homo” which means “same”; and “ousios” which is the Greek word for essence or substance. Thus “consubstantial” or the Latin “consubstantialem” is an exact translation of the Greek and faithful to the intent of the Fathers.

But even if the Bishops want to stay with the “Being” translation, Scholars point out that in order for the phrase to at least be dogmatically coherent with “Homoousios, the phrase should be translated "…Of One Being with the Father", whereas "One in Being" is “open to speculative misinterpretation”.

In looking at the liturgical, theological, and doctrinal confusion that today pervades, corrupts, and cripples the Church (though I gladly acknowledge all the signs of renewal), and the tremendous amount of time, energy, and money spent on defining, redefining, and clarifying that which was already clear in the sacred language of the Church (not to mention the printing and reprinting of the Liturgical books), the majority of the fault must be laid at the feet of the jump to the vernacular.

Bear in mind that the headlong dive into the vernacular was another attempt to be “pastoral”. Perhaps its time for our Bishops to stop worrying about what is pastoral and start worrying about what is true (which in fact would be the pastoral thing to do).

I’ve pointed out in the past that Latin remains the language of Science and Medicine precisely because of the specificity demanded by those disciplines. It remains so for our Church for precisely the same reason. Trouble is most of us do not speak the language of our Mother. Any wonder why there is dissension in the family!


Okay, so there’s no serious tie-in with Superman Returns, in case you were still waiting for one. So go see the movie and start learning some Latin.

Why Not Believing that Mary is the Mother of God Is Hazardous to Your Marriage

Virtually all Christian religions other than the Catholic Church allow for divorce and remarriage. Their reasons may differ and they may preach vehemently against it, but ultimately they allow it.

Most Catholic apologists will point to the protestant misinterpretation of Matthew 19:9 where Jesus seems to allow divorce for reasons of “fornication” or “adultery” depending on which version you are reading. Whereas Protestants take this passage as permission to divorce and remarry, the Catholic Church, while allowing for the physical separation of the spouses for a variety of good reasons, still does not allow for remarriage.

(Some scholars point out that the original Greek word used in this passage – and still used by some translations- is “pornea”, and that “pornea” does not refer to adultery but to illicit union such as a marriage between two close relatives.)

Dr. Robert Morgan, in his recent visit to Guam, pointed out that the further away one gets from Catholic truth, the further one gets from the true understanding of the person of Christ. As evidence of this he pointed out that most Protestants will not refer to Mary as the “Mother of God”. To not accept Mary as the Mother of God and address her as such is to deny the fundamental truth of the Trinity: that there are three persons in one God, that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Blessed Trinity, and that Mary is His Mother.

So what does this have to do with divorce? The Catholic Church teaches that though a full understanding of the Trinity is not possible in this life, there are some things we do know:

• That God is a community of persons: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit
• That it is the Father eternally loving the Son that begets the Spirit
• That we are made in the image of the Trinity (Gen 1:26-27)
  

There is only one other reference in Scripture to a community of persons comprising a single being and that would be Marriage: “…and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This union physically manifests itself in the birth of a third person and thus images the Trinity in an earthly way.

Because the Trinity is indissoluble, Marriage is indissoluble. The Godhead cannot be broken and reassembled. Neither can Marriage. Jesus reminds us that this in fact is God’s design when, commenting on the leniency of Moses to allow divorce, He says “from the beginning it was not so”. (Mat 19:8) Emphasis is on the word “beginning” which is the word “genesis”.

It follows then that if one does not accept the Trinity as an indissoluble community of persons, then one can easily allow for the dissolubility of that other community of persons. In fact, this is exactly what happens. The willingness to allow for divorce and remarriage evinces a fundamental denial of the nature of the Trinity.

Protestants will argue otherwise but the litmus test remains whether or not they can address Mary as “Mother of God”. “Mother of God” is more than just another affectionate title, it is our guarantee that Jesus is in fact: “God with us”, God Himself. To deny that Mary is the “Mother of God” is to deny that Jesus is God. To deny that Jesus is God is to deny the Trinity. To deny the Trinity is to deny all that God has revealed to us about Himself…including His Son.

Divorce then is both symptom and cause: symptom in the sense that divorce evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the Trinity and God’s design for Marriage; and cause in the sense that divorce, because it negates the indissoluble community of persons signified by the words “one flesh” inevitably and logically leads to a negation of the ultimate community of persons upon which Marriage is modeled.

This fundamental error also inevitably leads to the ultimate manifestation of the denial of the Trinity by also admitting contraception which completes the denial of the Trinity by negating a “third person”. Is it any wonder that the same religions that allow divorce also allow artificial contraception? Having denied Mary her rightful title as “Mother of God” they have inevitably denied the Trinity, rendered the marriage vow void, and the nuptial act sterile.

This is why our Church CANNOT change its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage or the sacred openness to life in the nuptial act. She would first have to deny the Trinitarian God.

The One Thing You Can Say

Few things stir the warrior juices in any red-blooded human more than an attack on one’s mother. The relatively meek person who may be willing to endure many wounds to his or her personal pride can become Attila the Hun when the same injuries or even much lesser ones are directed at his mother.

At least this is how I’ve been able to explain to myself the overwhelming hostility I feel towards the detractors of my Catholic Faith. The Church is my Mother. And when you mess with my Church you mess with my Mom, and “me and you have a problem!”

For us Catholics the injury is usually multiplied by the fact that not only are they picking on “Holy Mother Church”, the assault often comes as a slight against our Blessed Mother Mary. Now we REALLY have a problem!! Assaults against the Blessed Mother just send me through the roof!

But dangling by your neck from a hole in the roof is not the best place to defend your faith…or your Mother. So let’s see what we can do to keep our feet on the ground, save money on roof repairs, and maybe even bring our wayward brother “home to Rome” and to the Mother he or she has just (most of the time unknowingly) insulted.

My friend and noted Catholic Apologist, Dr. Robert Morgan, used to tell us at our Catholic Evidence Guild training sessions that there was “no slam dunk”, meaning that there isn’t just one scripture that we can lift out of the Bible that proves the truth of the Catholic Church and use to beat our detractors over the head with. Obviously, if there was, then someone much smarter than you or me surely would have used it in the 500 years since Luther nailed his 95 gripes to the door of a German church.

But there IS one thing that we Catholics can ask that (in my experience) will stop any detractor cold in his tracks. Now, remember from our last article, that the idea is not to just win the debate, but win the person, i.e. to 1) make a friend, and 2) make a Catholic. And to do that we have to buy time and prepare. So I offer this suggestion in that context.

All of us should practice the following question over and over so that we have it ready when needed. With this question you will be able to buy time AND cause the other person to question his own presuppositions which is a prelude to opening him up to hearing the truth about the Catholic Faith.

Here’s the question: “Did Jesus write anything?” Now here’s the context. Usually assaults upon the faith come from “Bible wavers”: “you Catholics... (fill in the blank) and that’s not in the Bible”, or “the Bible says… (fill in the blank) and you Catholics (fill in the blank).

“Wait a minute. Can I ask you a question?” (What?) “Did Jesus write anything? Did Jesus ever tell anybody to write anything? Don't you think that if Jesus intended us to base our faith on the Bible alone He would have left us one? From what I read, Jesus didn't leave us a Bible but He did leave us a Church and a teaching authority for that Church! What does your Bible say?”

Well space does not permit further development of the conversation, but you get the idea. Now of course, we believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but the only way we know that is because our Catholic Church says so. Jesus gave us the Church. The Church gave us the Bible.

The problem with our non-Catholic challengers is their own rigid adherence to “sola scriptura” (everything has to be in the Bible). This view proves too much. If everything has to be in the Bible then there is no Bible because the Bible is not in the Bible. As Catholics we can appreciate the Holy Scriptures even more because we do not divorce the Sacred Writings from the Church that gave us them, nor from Him who gave us the Church.

For further reading on this topic see “Where We Got the Bible- Our Debt to the Catholic Church” by Henry Graham (a protestant minister who became Catholic and ultimately a priest and a bishop). It’s due in our store sometime this week.

SURVIVING QUESTIONS ABOUT PURGATORY

Purgatory is a favorite topic of those who oppose and challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church. Their favorite line is “show me the word ‘Purgatory’ in the Bible”. Not withstanding the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it say that everything we believe has to be in the Bible; and notwithstanding the fact that Jesus didn’t give us a book but a Church; and notwithstanding the fact that there are plenty of other words or concepts (such as “Trinity” and “Incarnation”) or even their own doctrines of “sola fide” and “sola scriptura” that challengers to the Catholic faith cannot show explicitly in the Bible. And not…okay, enough with the “notwithstanding’s” (there are more)! The deal is that it is actually quite simple to show Purgatory in the Bible, as we shall see in a moment.

First, we must be reminded that a bible-only challenger will in fact accept only that: a bible-only answer. So don’t waste your time with explanations from the Catechism or “I believe…etc.” Second, we must remember that the person challenging you is usually not interested in an answer at all, even if it IS from the Bible. So what are we to do? Well, the answer in a minute. And by the way, never mind 2 Maccabees where it mentions prayers for the dead. They don’t have that book in their Bible.

First, a short course in Purgatory: 1) The Bible tells us plainly “nothing unclean shall enter heaven” (Rev 21:27); 2) Rarely (probably only a martyr) does anyone ever die completely clean. 3) Where do our souls go if “nothing unclean shall enter heaven” and (assuming) we are not condemned to hell by un-repented mortal sin? Catholic answer: Purgatory-a state of purgation or purification before we are allowed to enter into His presence.

Now, back to our challenger! The most common scripture used to “prove” purgatory is 1 Cor 3:14 where St. Paul tells us that some of us, despite our impurities, can be saved “but only as through fire”. This is a very sound verse, but is often easily dismissed by our challengers because of its metaphorical context. So here’s what I suggest (by the way I only own a bookstore, I’m not a certified anything).

First, prove from the Bible the existence of a “third” place. Non-Catholics swear that the Bible proves only heaven and hell and that there is NO third place. However, the Bible DOES prove the existence of a third place. (Note: Don’t worry about the word “purgatory” for now, or what happens there, or how long you’re there. Just get them to question there own presupposition that there is no third place. You can move on from there later.)

Here’s how you do it: Revelations 20:14 states very clearly that at the end of time “death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire” The question is then what is “Hades”? “Hades” cannot be Hell in the sense of that place of eternal damnation because the “lake of fire” is obviously that place. So how can hell be thrown into hell? No, Hades is a third place.

Now be prepared for the argument that “Hades” WAS a place for the dead who died before Jesus opened the gates of heaven. On that you can both agree. The problem is that “Hades” is still hanging around at the “end of time”. And what’s more, there ARE folks in it! (“…and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them” - Rev 20:13) So what are people doing in a place called Hades that is neither heaven nor hell at the end of the world? There’s only one answer: There’s a third place, we just happen to give it name.

But the key here is NOT to give the answer but to lead your challenger to it. Force yourself to ask questions, not give answers. Let’s say you are confronted with “where is “purgatory” in the Bible? Here’s an idea of how it can go:

“Well, John, what’s your understanding of Rev. 20:14? What is “Hades”? It can’t be “hell” can it, hell is obviously the “lake of fire”, so what do you think “Hades” is? And why is it still around at the end of the world if there was no need for it after Jesus saved us? And who are these people who are in it and why are they there?"

(By the way, it would be good to familiarize yourself with these scriptures before you use them. Get your bibles out and mark them up!)

Narnia for Catholics

Many of us, if we reflect, can count at least 2 or 3 turning points or significant moments in our lives, where, in hindsight, we realize that we are different because of them.

One of those moments came for me on a busy street across from Disneyland in 1979. I was with a campus ministry group from Loyola Marymount University and had just finished having dinner together with the famed Bob (“Be Not Afraid”) Dufford, S.J., and Dan (“Here, I Am Lord”) Schutte, members of the then fabled Saint Louis Jesuits. Our little group from campus ministry had been recruited to be the local backup choir for their performance at the Los Angeles Archdiocesan CCD Congress at the Anaheim Convention Center.

All of that has nothing to do with the actual point of this article save to illustrate how vivid that moment is still after more than a quarter of a century. Inspired by the fantastical evening glow of Disneyland just across the street, I commented to Bob Dufford how much I loved Disneyland and fantasy as only Disney could present it.

He remarked that, speaking of fantasy, I should read the “Chronicles of Narnia” by C.S. Lewis. I confessed to never hearing of them, but the mere mention of the title seemed to “tug” at me the way Peter, Edmund, Susan, & Lucy were “tugged” into Narnia right off the bench of a train station (you’ll have to read the books). I found the set of seven books the next day at a vendor’s stand at the conference. I’ve never been the same.

Though always deeply Catholic, I have to say that my “conscious” spiritual journey and growth in the faith began the minute I opened the first page to the first novel in the series, “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe”. I couldn’t get enough.

The Chronicles of Narnia is a complete retelling, an epic parable, of God’s saving plan from the fall, through the crucifixion and resurrection, and all the way to “The Final Battle” (which is the title of the last book). Written during World War II for his nieces and nephews, the Chronicles vie with Lord of the Rings (Lewis and Tolkien were personal friends) as perhaps the greatest allegories ever written.

Over the years there have been several attempts to bring the Chronicles to the screen, but the story, characters, and setting are so fantastic that nothing could ever come close until movie-making technology could catch up with the imagination of C.S. Lewis. It never quite will. But the upcoming Disney release of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe will get close.

What’s so exciting and delightful is to see how, Hollywood, despite its post-Chrisitan self and its own brand of “Turkish Delight”, cannot help but be tugged through the wardrobe and into Narnia. Hollywood and Disney find themselves face to face with the irresistible Christian story. Jesus still teaches us and reaches us through parables.

Perhaps the spirit of Walt Disney, and all the wonderfully good things he did for children these many decades, still does live. It’s no secret that the Disney machine has acutely strayed from its wholesome roots in recent years. But “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” will be the biggest, most profitable, most popular movie ever to come out of the Disney studio. And it’s only the first of seven books. Wow, have they got a franchise here! There’s no way they are going to turn away from the success that the movies made from these stories will bring so I expect that all seven stories will be brought to the screen and will replace Star Wars as the greatest stories ever told on the silver screen.

Meanwhile, there is a terribly great opportunity for us at hand. Reading the Chronicles of Narnia prepared me to read the Bible and for the full import of the teachings of my Faith. Read the books. Read them with and to your children. Use all the great study guides and commentaries that are now available about them. “To teach as Jesus did”, this is what C.S. Lewis is doing here, teaching the truth through story.

I’ll never know for sure, but I do believe that I am the Catholic that I am today because someone once told me to read the Chronicles of Narnia.

On the Question of Women Priests

(In response to a debate between Fr. Francis Walsh of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and Professor James Giles of the University of Guam)

Unlike Fr. Walsh or Mr. Giles I have no letters before or after my name and probably have no business wandering into their crossfire. But though I am neither priest nor professor, I am hoping that our local newspaper, in which the debate has been ensuing between these two esteemed intellects, might allow a simple voice from the pew to weigh in on the matter minus any theological or philosophical references. Also, as a married layman I have a certain related interest in the matter since I cannot attain to ordination in the Catholic Church either.

That said, I understand that as a Catholic I have no inherent right to a “satisfactory” explanation on the matter. I emphasize “satisfactory” because in fact there is an explanation, but the Church has no obligation to assuage my personal need for one that I would deem “satisfactory”.

I signed up for the Catholic Church. They said, “Great. If you want to be on the team here’s the rules”. I am a Catholic out of no compulsion other than an inner one that tells me this is true. I choose to follow the rules because I want to be on the team. Lots of other places you can go, you know.

Now, I have no idea if this is theologically correct or not, but besides the fact that my Church owes me no explanation, the fact that Jesus chose twelve guys and no gals is enough for me. Let me tell you why.

The common argument to this is that women would not have been respected or listened to in Jesus’ day. I realize that this is like TOO simple, but you know, Jesus was God, and like, if had wanted women on the first string, he could have and would have done it.

I mean the guy wasn’t afraid to be counter-cultural and politically incorrect. They killed him for that, you know. And being male didn’t seem to help the apostles out much either in the respect and credibility categories. They killed them too. (Okay, one killed himself and another was left to die on an island.)

So, bottom line is, Jesus chose guys only and then those guys chose other guys and then those guys… So, yah. It’s a guy thing, okay. People start new churches every day when they disagree with something in the church they are in.

Also, why pick on the Catholic Church alone. Do an internet search and check out all the other churches that do not allow the ordination of women.

Okay, one last thing. Fr. Walsh tried to make the point of what a priest actually is. The title “priest” designates a very specific function in a very limited sphere. There is nothing that keeps any woman (or married man for that matter) from being a teacher or a leader in our Church. In fact, three of the greatest and most beloved Doctors of the Church, a title of the highest honor that has only been given to 33 people in the 2000 year history of the Church, are St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Theresa of Lisieux. In Catherine of Siena (1347-1380) we have an example of a woman (in the Avignon episode) actually telling a Pope what to do (go back to Rome). He beat it back to Rome and never left.

I can already here critics on both sides: “Guys like this are what’s wrong with the world.” “Another ignorant-whatever-the-Pope-says Catholic!”, etc. Well, guilty as charged. I make no defense. For those who oppose my opinion within my Church, well that’s family business and we’ll take care of it. But for those outside our Church, when would be a good time for me to come over and tell you how to arrange your living room furniture?

Meanwhile, to my Catholic family members; shall we remember that the real deal is not be a this or a that, but to ultimately be with Him. For as Chesterton says: “The only real tragedy is not to be a saint.”

Tim Rohr
Husband & Father