Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Striving for holiness..
I want to go to heaven so badly. I love the Lord with all of my heart. I want to lead others to Christ and to minister to the poor and lonely. I want to strive to be holy. Do you?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Don't Hold Back
Everyone wants to leave a positive legacy behind before they leave this earth. Sometimes it is in a ego gratifying way, sometimes it is in a way marred with love, sometimes in a way given though suffering and sacrifice. One could argue love is behind all of these, even the self gratifying legacy. We are all selfish, but how can we harness that ego and do good to our brothers and sisters with it? God's love and mercy is vast, much more vast than we could ever imagine and while i am in full support of Mother Church and all her teachings, i think sometimes we as Catholics, myself included get caught up in debate all too often. As if we need to hang ourselves on the cross all the time, as if Jesus did not accomplish enough through His suffering? If we want to lead people to Christ we must do THAT first before we pound out every detail and rule and pit ourselves against one another because we have disagreements about interpretations about our Faith. Mind you, making exceptions to every rule to make life easier for you is not the way of the Lord, but to try and follow every rule and sacrifice love for one another in the process is NOT the way of the Lord. Any theologian should agree to that. Pope John Paul II challenged us to evangilize, within our Faith and beyond, but LOVE for one another cannot be compromised in this process. In my journey to full understanding of the full truth i have swayed back and forth and learned much about my shortcomings, talents and insecurities. Where I find myself now is feeling more confident than ever. I am on fire with a uncompromised Love of the Lord and ready and willing to serve my brothers and sisters in that Love. With that said, i am going to try to sellout for Christ everytime i strap on my guitar and take on my everyday duty. I am not going to hold back any longer. I am NOT going to worry about whether someone "thinks" i am performing when i provide musical accompaniment for a Liturgy or Praise event. I want to lead others to Christ. In an attempt to dedicate my life to doing so I am going to play and sing my heart out and leave everything to chance. I need to trust that God will guide me as long as I continue to serve Him, love others and get out of the way. I encourage everyone to pick up their cross, carry it willingly, accept doubt and persecution, and love all the while. It is very hard, but we must do it. We must live our Faith out loud.
P.s.
Have a positive attitude, that is something i know my great grandmother Catherine Zender used to tell our family. I did not get to know her like i wished I could have. However, Thanks to her, I have the gift of my Catholic faith, as well as many wonderful faithful family members that have been inspirations of how to lead a Faith driven life on this earth. Thanks for planting the seed Great Grandma! Save a place in Heaven for me and the rest of us!
Pax
Dennis
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
If your Bad, are you Bad?
I just want to thank everyone who shared and contributed to the conversation last week about guitars in Mass. I have had alot of time to pray on this and it seemed i gained more opportunity to play the guitar in mass last week than any other week prior to that, so maybe thats a sign that it is OK for me to proceed :). All kidding aside, i respect all sides of the issue as long as they are respectable to the musician and/or minister at Mass. With that aside, i have a new peice for discussion:
If you are not very good at playing, singing, reading or serving as a minister in the Liturgy, should you be able to participate?
When does it become a distraction to the congregation?
When does the "being all inclusive" approach expire?
Is it our place to judge the talent brought before the Lord?
Can we question what is gift and what is not?
If you are not very good at playing, singing, reading or serving as a minister in the Liturgy, should you be able to participate?
When does it become a distraction to the congregation?
When does the "being all inclusive" approach expire?
Is it our place to judge the talent brought before the Lord?
Can we question what is gift and what is not?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Walking the line: Catholic Praise Music
It is very profound. Catholic praise music. Pope John Paul II once said " if the Church holds back from culture, the Gospel itself will fall silent." I am not a Catholic aritist who anymore tries to push the boundries on the music supporting the Holy Mass. The music needs to be sacred and liturgically support the mass. My definition of this is that if it supports the Gospel and it is easy for people to sing along to, then it is appropriate. If anyone has been to a liturgy i have contributed music to in the past 8 years, they have seen a more contemporary flavor, but in recent times i have felt that the mass needs to be reverent. Our traditions, the sacraments and the Holy Eucharist is second to none and cannot be compromised in the process of musical praise no matter where you are praising. We cannot water down or compromise our faith just to fit in, but always be warm and welcoming in this effort. That is my opinion as a Catholic songwriter. On the other hand, It is also important to encourage energy and emotion at key times, even during the mass or as well as at the usual youth rally. I suppose this will always be a fine line to walk, but i'd rather lean towards being more reverent than energetic. Maybe just for the Processional and Ressesional slots (entering and leaving) It is a fine line to walk i must say. We have to respect that not everyone loves the full band rocking at a mass, even if they are jazzing up traditional sacred music. Some folks do not like the guitar being used in the liturgy. I guess it is a good thing that there are different services that reflect a different energy that folks can choose from at our parishes. However, the lesson learned should be that It is like anthing else, we all have different opinions and ways we worship. We have to respect that. I just wanted to say something really quick about all of this since it has been on my mind. Please feel free to comment and share your feelings and opinions on this subject as I will find it very helpful!
God Bless
Dennis
God Bless
Dennis
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Are We Giving God our best time?
Are we though? It seems if we are not settled down and caring for children and a home, we are watching TV or playing around on the internet on Facebook, Myspace, here, or some other social media website. I can see how the time could be virturous and elightening, but do we set aside our best time everyday for prayer? Not just the time that fits into our schedules? I struggle with this everyday, sometimes i will find myself just reading and listening to virtuous material, but not finding time to pray. This is still not good. I need to continue to work on this!
Our world we live in. It's about making more money. It's about worshiping sports and the players that play them. Following how much money they make. Taking joy from their struggles and obsessing over them on online forums and blogs. Following the celebrities in music and movies. Taking the same approach with these poeple until you want what they have so much that you disregard how lucky you are to have the Lord has given you, since it is all you need! Enter in the social media wave. Facebook. Twitter. Myspace. This is the chance we all have to be important. Have followers. Have fans and more friends than the other. Its like we are all back in high school all over again. I do think they have a positive purpose. Staying connected to loved ones and spreading the Good News, but it has all the draw backs as well. As a marketer by day job, i attend conferences and lunches where companies present analytics on this stuff that will blow your mind. These companies make millions of dollars analyzing the people who are online all the time posting about themselves..something doesnt make sense here!! Starving and sick poeple in this world and some can make millions studying other's bad habits! The whole world is on the internet at home and mobile with their fancy iPhone or Blackberry. Constantly posting updates oh what they are doing like everyone wants to know..maybe they do, but that's besides the point! This culture is all about ME! Not about serving others and the Lord. It just pushing farther away from the full truth and it is sad. We need to make time, find time from all this distraction. Remember this is all my opinion, maybe no one cares, but i do not want to hurt anyone with a post like this, so just remember i am trying to refrain from judgement here.
Our world is surrounded by the phrase and belief "Truth is realitive". Well if that were case in science, that would mean a scientist could alter the formula until he "beleived it was true to him" and it should still produce the same result right? No! That would mean as a contractor he could really cheap material to build a house because he "surely beleives" it was what he should use, but then the house falls apart and he gets sued down the road! Or in Mathematics, if a professor beleives in a new way to solve the equation 2 + 2 where it will equal 5 and not 4. No, that is not the truth. That is the problem with society today, the only time they can use the law of realitism is with faith and how to interpret that which supports it. Just something to think about. How does anyone else make time to pray everyday? Please share, cause im looking for new ideas and i'm sure others would like to know!
God Bless!
Dennis
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Just more reasons why the one true church is the Catholic Church
The following is excerpts and reaction on Catholicism by Austin Cline and Bobby Jindal, GOP candidate for governor in Louisiana. The italitized text is the excerpts from Bobby's article. This blog is a good read, an especially good one if you are Catholic and tired of having the Church and her teachings attacked and prodded. The blog is called Austin's Atheism Blog by Austin Cline, a guide atheism since 1998..wow, just makes you scratch your head. Ha!
Republicans have been complaining loudly about Democratic criticisms of Bobby Jindal, GOP candidate for governor in Louisiana. Democrats have been pointing out some claims which Jindal has made on behalf of his Roman Catholicism, specifically the idea that it is the only truly genuine form of Christianity while all other denominations are inferior. Republicans are trying, and failing, to argue that Jindal's words don't mean what they plainly state.
What's especially curious about this is the fact that Jindal's arguments are completely consistent with traditional, orthodox Catholic theology. Bobby Jindal didn't write anything that could be construed as existing on the outer fringes of Catholicism. Indeed, his sentiments were recently expressed in a very straightforward manner by Pope Benedict XVI himself. The problem is thus not that Jindal said anything wrong, but rather than what he said is a bit inconvenient to publicize very widely.
Just as C.S. Lewis removed any room for comfortable opposition to Jesus by identifying Him as either "Lord, liar, or lunatic," so the Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition to her doctrines. Without inflating the issues that separate Catholics from Protestants, for we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins, I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other. The Reformers who left the Catholic Church rejected, to varying degrees, five beliefs which continue to be upheld by the Catholic Church. The Church claims that these points are found in Scripture, and they have been consistently and clearly taught throughout the Church's history. I will support the Church's claims here. Source: Free Republic
The title of this piece was "The Catholic Church isn't just another 'denomination,'" and the point of writing it is made clear in the first paragraph above: a genuine Christian cannot easily oppose the Catholic Church's doctrines. What this means is that if a person who wants to call themselves Christian will have trouble doing so if they don't also call themselves Catholic. It's not that other Christian groups aren't Christian at all, but they are inevitably inferior to Catholicism. Once again, this is standard Catholic theology as are the reasons he offers.
The Bible does not contain either the claim that it is comprehensive or a listing of its contents, but does describe how it should be used. Scripture and Tradition, not the Bible alone, transmit God's revelation. Tradition is reflected in the Church's authority to interpret Scripture. The meaning of Scripture is not self-evident. One cannot discern its intended meaning through prayerful reading alone, for Scripture is "hard to understand" and individual misinterpretation can lead "to our own destruction" ...It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings. Sincerely motivated Christians studying the same texts have disagreed on the fundamentals of the faith, thereby dividing not only Protestants from Catholics, but also particular Protestant denominations from each other. ...The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy. All churches follow their own traditions, but the Catholic Church claims a continuous link to the oral tradition which preceded and formed the canon of Scripture, the same apostolic (Acts 2:42) Tradition St. Paul commanded us to abide by (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2).
This is a direct, unambiguous denunciation of the very basis of the Protestant Reformation. Christians, according to Bobby Jindal and the Catholic Church, cannot abandon the traditions of the Church in order to found a full, genuine Christian community on nothing but the individual's private understanding and interpretation of scriptures. The Christian scriptures are a creation of the Christian community and its traditions, not the other way around. So which has primacy? The community and its traditions, of course.
Contrary to Protestant churches, Jindal here states unequivocally that "scripture is not self-sufficient." Why would anything think it should be? Jesus as depicted in the Bible didn't create scripture himself, he transmitted his teachings orally in a predominantly oral culture. The importance of oral tradition is repeated throughout the New Testament as well. The original disciples are also depicted as transmitting their teachings orally. It was quite a while before anything was written down, and by that point the Christian church and communities were already well developed.
Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded. ...The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century. ... John and other apostles, as well as Timothy, were still alive and would have objected to any illegitimate exercise of authority. However, no protest was made, since Clement was acting within his rights as Peter's successor. In A.D. 110, Ignatius of Antioch praised the church in Rome for being "first in love, being true to Christ's law and stamped with the Father's name." During the second century, Ignatius of Leon defined the Roman position as the orthodox position. Bishop Irenaeus claimed "every church must be in harmony with [Rome] because of its outstanding pre-eminence"; he even listed and cited the succession of the bishops of Rome as a "most complete proof of the unity and identity of the life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth." In A.D. 250, Bishop Cyprian wrote, "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" Pope Stephen cited Matthew 16:18 as early as the third century to justify Petrine authority. St. Augustine taught that whatever was condemned by the Bishop of Rome was condemned by all. The historical references from apostolic times are plentiful; what is missing is any objection to the Pope's claim as successor to St. Peter with authority over the bishops.
Here Bobby Jindal is simply repeating standard Catholic arguments about why the Catholic Church is the only full manifestation of Christianity today. First, the current Catholic Church can trace its authority right back to the earliest disciples and therefore to Jesus himself. Second, the earliest Christian leaders all recognized the primacy of the bishop in Rome. Without one or the other, the Catholic Church based in Rome would not be able to claim any unique status or authority over Christians.
Of course traditional, orthodox Catholics believe this. They couldn't be Catholic if they didn't believe it. Jindal isn't expressing anything new, radical or even remotely unusual here. This has been a standard Catholic position taught to all the Catholic faithful for centuries. It would be remarkable if he didn't believe it, so why shouldn't he express it publicly? Do you really think that most Catholic politicians, and especially conservative Catholic politicians, don't believe this as well?
It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach. I am not asking non-Catholics to investigate the claims of my neighborhood minister, but rather am presenting a 2,000-year-old tradition, encompassing giants like Aquinas and Newman, with almost a billion living members, including modern prophets like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.
Kos comments by saying, in part, that "It looks impressive if you are easily impressed by cites and the such, but ultimately, it paints a picture of disdain for competing religious denominations. As an amateur theologist, this might fly. But as a candidate for governor in Louisiana?" I can't agree — this isn't amateur theology, but simply an expression of standard, traditional, orthodox theology. Bobby Jindal isn't breaking any new ground here and isn't presenting anything original. I doubt that any Catholic priest, bishop, or theologian would find much to complain about in the entire essay.
If Bobby Jindal released this as part of his campaign for governor, it would be incredibly bizarre. Because he released it several years ago, there's no connection. What we have, though, is more insight into the personal religious beliefs of Bobby Jindal than we do of most politicians, Catholic or Protestant. Usually politicians simply try to express empty platitudes about the importance of faith, religion, and occasionally Jesus. Jindal, though, is explaining some of his basic theological principles and ideas. He isn't just saying that his Catholic faith is important, he's explaining how and why. That's far more candor than we usually see and I, for one, respect that.
Of course, such candor comes with a price: by clearing stating what he really believes, Jindal has opened himself up to criticism. Clearly he believes, as a good Catholic should, that other Christian churches are deficient and do not share fully in the Christianity that the Catholic Church possesses. This will naturally not be greeted with much enthusiasm by non-Catholics, just as they were unhappy when Pope Benedict XVI reminded people of all this not long ago. If people are going to take religion into account when they vote, they will in this case be able to consider genuine, substantive, and serious religious ideas — not just empty platitudes.
As I mentioned above, Republicans are upset about Jindal being criticized, but that's the price you pay for bringing religion in to the political arena. If Republicans want to keep using religion as a basis for public policy and to attack Democrats for being insufficiently religious, then they cannot complain when their own specific religious beliefs come under critical scrutiny. If they think it's inappropriate to criticize a candidate's religious views during a political campaign, it's only because religion never should have been brought into the campaign to begin with. They have to choose between leaving religion at home and in the church were it belongs, or taking their lumps when their religious beliefs are brought out into the harsh light of day.
Obviously we need to continue to pray for Mr. Cline and our other brothers and sisters in Christ that have fallen away from the church in this modern age of realitism. The proof is in the pudding so to speak..so please share this article with others, start the debate. We need to work harder in spreading the truth and bringing others back or to full communion with the Church.
Through Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ
Dennis Zender
Republicans have been complaining loudly about Democratic criticisms of Bobby Jindal, GOP candidate for governor in Louisiana. Democrats have been pointing out some claims which Jindal has made on behalf of his Roman Catholicism, specifically the idea that it is the only truly genuine form of Christianity while all other denominations are inferior. Republicans are trying, and failing, to argue that Jindal's words don't mean what they plainly state.
What's especially curious about this is the fact that Jindal's arguments are completely consistent with traditional, orthodox Catholic theology. Bobby Jindal didn't write anything that could be construed as existing on the outer fringes of Catholicism. Indeed, his sentiments were recently expressed in a very straightforward manner by Pope Benedict XVI himself. The problem is thus not that Jindal said anything wrong, but rather than what he said is a bit inconvenient to publicize very widely.
Just as C.S. Lewis removed any room for comfortable opposition to Jesus by identifying Him as either "Lord, liar, or lunatic," so the Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition to her doctrines. Without inflating the issues that separate Catholics from Protestants, for we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins, I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other. The Reformers who left the Catholic Church rejected, to varying degrees, five beliefs which continue to be upheld by the Catholic Church. The Church claims that these points are found in Scripture, and they have been consistently and clearly taught throughout the Church's history. I will support the Church's claims here. Source: Free Republic
The title of this piece was "The Catholic Church isn't just another 'denomination,'" and the point of writing it is made clear in the first paragraph above: a genuine Christian cannot easily oppose the Catholic Church's doctrines. What this means is that if a person who wants to call themselves Christian will have trouble doing so if they don't also call themselves Catholic. It's not that other Christian groups aren't Christian at all, but they are inevitably inferior to Catholicism. Once again, this is standard Catholic theology as are the reasons he offers.
The Bible does not contain either the claim that it is comprehensive or a listing of its contents, but does describe how it should be used. Scripture and Tradition, not the Bible alone, transmit God's revelation. Tradition is reflected in the Church's authority to interpret Scripture. The meaning of Scripture is not self-evident. One cannot discern its intended meaning through prayerful reading alone, for Scripture is "hard to understand" and individual misinterpretation can lead "to our own destruction" ...It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings. Sincerely motivated Christians studying the same texts have disagreed on the fundamentals of the faith, thereby dividing not only Protestants from Catholics, but also particular Protestant denominations from each other. ...The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy. All churches follow their own traditions, but the Catholic Church claims a continuous link to the oral tradition which preceded and formed the canon of Scripture, the same apostolic (Acts 2:42) Tradition St. Paul commanded us to abide by (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2).
This is a direct, unambiguous denunciation of the very basis of the Protestant Reformation. Christians, according to Bobby Jindal and the Catholic Church, cannot abandon the traditions of the Church in order to found a full, genuine Christian community on nothing but the individual's private understanding and interpretation of scriptures. The Christian scriptures are a creation of the Christian community and its traditions, not the other way around. So which has primacy? The community and its traditions, of course.
Contrary to Protestant churches, Jindal here states unequivocally that "scripture is not self-sufficient." Why would anything think it should be? Jesus as depicted in the Bible didn't create scripture himself, he transmitted his teachings orally in a predominantly oral culture. The importance of oral tradition is repeated throughout the New Testament as well. The original disciples are also depicted as transmitting their teachings orally. It was quite a while before anything was written down, and by that point the Christian church and communities were already well developed.
Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded. ...The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century. ... John and other apostles, as well as Timothy, were still alive and would have objected to any illegitimate exercise of authority. However, no protest was made, since Clement was acting within his rights as Peter's successor. In A.D. 110, Ignatius of Antioch praised the church in Rome for being "first in love, being true to Christ's law and stamped with the Father's name." During the second century, Ignatius of Leon defined the Roman position as the orthodox position. Bishop Irenaeus claimed "every church must be in harmony with [Rome] because of its outstanding pre-eminence"; he even listed and cited the succession of the bishops of Rome as a "most complete proof of the unity and identity of the life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth." In A.D. 250, Bishop Cyprian wrote, "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" Pope Stephen cited Matthew 16:18 as early as the third century to justify Petrine authority. St. Augustine taught that whatever was condemned by the Bishop of Rome was condemned by all. The historical references from apostolic times are plentiful; what is missing is any objection to the Pope's claim as successor to St. Peter with authority over the bishops.
Here Bobby Jindal is simply repeating standard Catholic arguments about why the Catholic Church is the only full manifestation of Christianity today. First, the current Catholic Church can trace its authority right back to the earliest disciples and therefore to Jesus himself. Second, the earliest Christian leaders all recognized the primacy of the bishop in Rome. Without one or the other, the Catholic Church based in Rome would not be able to claim any unique status or authority over Christians.
Of course traditional, orthodox Catholics believe this. They couldn't be Catholic if they didn't believe it. Jindal isn't expressing anything new, radical or even remotely unusual here. This has been a standard Catholic position taught to all the Catholic faithful for centuries. It would be remarkable if he didn't believe it, so why shouldn't he express it publicly? Do you really think that most Catholic politicians, and especially conservative Catholic politicians, don't believe this as well?
It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach. I am not asking non-Catholics to investigate the claims of my neighborhood minister, but rather am presenting a 2,000-year-old tradition, encompassing giants like Aquinas and Newman, with almost a billion living members, including modern prophets like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.
Kos comments by saying, in part, that "It looks impressive if you are easily impressed by cites and the such, but ultimately, it paints a picture of disdain for competing religious denominations. As an amateur theologist, this might fly. But as a candidate for governor in Louisiana?" I can't agree — this isn't amateur theology, but simply an expression of standard, traditional, orthodox theology. Bobby Jindal isn't breaking any new ground here and isn't presenting anything original. I doubt that any Catholic priest, bishop, or theologian would find much to complain about in the entire essay.
If Bobby Jindal released this as part of his campaign for governor, it would be incredibly bizarre. Because he released it several years ago, there's no connection. What we have, though, is more insight into the personal religious beliefs of Bobby Jindal than we do of most politicians, Catholic or Protestant. Usually politicians simply try to express empty platitudes about the importance of faith, religion, and occasionally Jesus. Jindal, though, is explaining some of his basic theological principles and ideas. He isn't just saying that his Catholic faith is important, he's explaining how and why. That's far more candor than we usually see and I, for one, respect that.
Of course, such candor comes with a price: by clearing stating what he really believes, Jindal has opened himself up to criticism. Clearly he believes, as a good Catholic should, that other Christian churches are deficient and do not share fully in the Christianity that the Catholic Church possesses. This will naturally not be greeted with much enthusiasm by non-Catholics, just as they were unhappy when Pope Benedict XVI reminded people of all this not long ago. If people are going to take religion into account when they vote, they will in this case be able to consider genuine, substantive, and serious religious ideas — not just empty platitudes.
As I mentioned above, Republicans are upset about Jindal being criticized, but that's the price you pay for bringing religion in to the political arena. If Republicans want to keep using religion as a basis for public policy and to attack Democrats for being insufficiently religious, then they cannot complain when their own specific religious beliefs come under critical scrutiny. If they think it's inappropriate to criticize a candidate's religious views during a political campaign, it's only because religion never should have been brought into the campaign to begin with. They have to choose between leaving religion at home and in the church were it belongs, or taking their lumps when their religious beliefs are brought out into the harsh light of day.
Obviously we need to continue to pray for Mr. Cline and our other brothers and sisters in Christ that have fallen away from the church in this modern age of realitism. The proof is in the pudding so to speak..so please share this article with others, start the debate. We need to work harder in spreading the truth and bringing others back or to full communion with the Church.
Through Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ
Dennis Zender
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Martyr's of our church
How amazing is a sacrafice of one's life for their faith in the Risen Lord? I cannot believe the sacrafice and stand in awe and prayer for our catholic forefathers who laid the foundation for the church today, with their own blood. Let us pray a rosary today for our blessed and beloved Catholic Martyrs.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Why we shouldn't judge others
Sin can be subjective AND objective. When someone else sins, we know what they did, we do not know why they did it or their intent behind the sin. Did they know it was wrong before they did it? Have they justified it beforehand? Was it an implusive action? Whether someone is actually culpable of the sin shouldn't be in debate. Remember that culpability is a measure of the degree to which an agent, such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for their act. I mean, we cannot read minds folks. Just think of the possibilities..if we could only read women's minds...i try all the time but am always so wrong!! We have inferior capabilities in reading minds and hearts, it's a fact.
How can we ever really know why someone acts the way they act? We cannot since we do not know whether their conscience is developed, undeveloped, or numb because of ignorance. All of this can get very confusing, and is why God does not want us to get involved in it. God wants us to accept, forgive and love one another no matter how painful. Imagine how much pain we cause the Lord when we turn our backs and sin against ourselves and Him even when we know better. He forgives us, so we are called to do the same. We shouldn't be judging others because we never know the heart of that person. Remember that God will judge us if we judge others. It's a trade. In accepting, forgiving and loving others without seeing a return of that love, acceptance and forgiveness we move closer to holiness, closer to Jesus. If He can demostrate all of that while hanging on a cross, bleeding and dying, we can do it too.
Judging others is very easy to do, we all do it, and sometimes do it without even thinking. Some judgement is born out of anger, envy, and principle. Some judgment is born out of resentment. All of it leads to more sin and a longing of worldly possession and that is not good. There is an anger some feel justified in having and is very dangerous if not displayed correctly.
Righteous anger.
It is not a justifiable reason to judge another. Case and point Father Jenkins from Notre Dame. In having Obama address the graduates with a commencement address and receive a honorary degree, many feel he has betrayed the primacy of truth and disgraced Church teachings. It may very well look that way, but can we really judge another even with righteous cause? How do we know what is in Father Jenkins heart? We do not. Only our Lord knows this. He needs us to pray for Father and be a voice of truth. Not to tear him down and judge him for his actions. You can apply this endlessly. Its like "the devil gets a two for one special", in the great words of Fr. Mictch Pacwa. Someone has already been tempted and now others will fall to sin in judgement of that person or persons. Righteous anger is healthy to have, but needs to be diciplined. This carries me to my next concept. Catholics can sometimes be righteous to a fault. It drives people away from the Church.
I support EWTN, and I have no guilt in saying so. No, it is not a alternative magisterium, it is merely a supplement to her teachings. I have gained strides in my faith life from the EWTN programming and find it spiritually uplifting and supportive. I have yet to hear anyone that speaks locally or nationally on that station that harbors opposition against church teachings. They syndicate Vatican radio for crying out loud! Oh, but there has been books, multiple forums dedicated to the thrashing of Mother Angelica and EWTN. This is heartbreaking. While Mother and anyone who speaks on the station are human, and not perfect, and have their opinions, none of them are influenced by the evil one like some say. I lose respect for theologins that say things like this, since they do not know the heart of these people. The intent of the programming is very clear. To bring people closer to Christ and to support Catholic issues and the magisterium. How can we evangelize the full truth and invite people to full communion with the Church and it's sacraments when we are fighting amongst oursleves. Scrutinizing others is not the pathway to holiness and sainthood folks. This is silly and needs to stop. I'm not judging those who do it, but i pray for them that they might find a way to cease their judgement. That folks is the eventual and consistent answer. Prayer.
Prayer. It is mightier than anything and compliments everything we could say or do. Through prayer we repent for our judgment of others and can hear the Lord's will for us and when enacted can bring about much joy and love in all that we encounter and all we do. Remember in prayer, to give the Lord a chance to answer back. Don't rush or dominate the conversation. Be patient and listen, He has something to say too!
God Bless
Dennis
How can we ever really know why someone acts the way they act? We cannot since we do not know whether their conscience is developed, undeveloped, or numb because of ignorance. All of this can get very confusing, and is why God does not want us to get involved in it. God wants us to accept, forgive and love one another no matter how painful. Imagine how much pain we cause the Lord when we turn our backs and sin against ourselves and Him even when we know better. He forgives us, so we are called to do the same. We shouldn't be judging others because we never know the heart of that person. Remember that God will judge us if we judge others. It's a trade. In accepting, forgiving and loving others without seeing a return of that love, acceptance and forgiveness we move closer to holiness, closer to Jesus. If He can demostrate all of that while hanging on a cross, bleeding and dying, we can do it too.
Judging others is very easy to do, we all do it, and sometimes do it without even thinking. Some judgement is born out of anger, envy, and principle. Some judgment is born out of resentment. All of it leads to more sin and a longing of worldly possession and that is not good. There is an anger some feel justified in having and is very dangerous if not displayed correctly.
Righteous anger.
It is not a justifiable reason to judge another. Case and point Father Jenkins from Notre Dame. In having Obama address the graduates with a commencement address and receive a honorary degree, many feel he has betrayed the primacy of truth and disgraced Church teachings. It may very well look that way, but can we really judge another even with righteous cause? How do we know what is in Father Jenkins heart? We do not. Only our Lord knows this. He needs us to pray for Father and be a voice of truth. Not to tear him down and judge him for his actions. You can apply this endlessly. Its like "the devil gets a two for one special", in the great words of Fr. Mictch Pacwa. Someone has already been tempted and now others will fall to sin in judgement of that person or persons. Righteous anger is healthy to have, but needs to be diciplined. This carries me to my next concept. Catholics can sometimes be righteous to a fault. It drives people away from the Church.
I support EWTN, and I have no guilt in saying so. No, it is not a alternative magisterium, it is merely a supplement to her teachings. I have gained strides in my faith life from the EWTN programming and find it spiritually uplifting and supportive. I have yet to hear anyone that speaks locally or nationally on that station that harbors opposition against church teachings. They syndicate Vatican radio for crying out loud! Oh, but there has been books, multiple forums dedicated to the thrashing of Mother Angelica and EWTN. This is heartbreaking. While Mother and anyone who speaks on the station are human, and not perfect, and have their opinions, none of them are influenced by the evil one like some say. I lose respect for theologins that say things like this, since they do not know the heart of these people. The intent of the programming is very clear. To bring people closer to Christ and to support Catholic issues and the magisterium. How can we evangelize the full truth and invite people to full communion with the Church and it's sacraments when we are fighting amongst oursleves. Scrutinizing others is not the pathway to holiness and sainthood folks. This is silly and needs to stop. I'm not judging those who do it, but i pray for them that they might find a way to cease their judgement. That folks is the eventual and consistent answer. Prayer.
Prayer. It is mightier than anything and compliments everything we could say or do. Through prayer we repent for our judgment of others and can hear the Lord's will for us and when enacted can bring about much joy and love in all that we encounter and all we do. Remember in prayer, to give the Lord a chance to answer back. Don't rush or dominate the conversation. Be patient and listen, He has something to say too!
God Bless
Dennis
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Why are we all fighting? Can't we forgive?
I just have to ask that question more than I'd like to.. It seems that we are always fighting, taking sides, hedging grudges, never forgiving each other, whether it be political, global economics, sports and amongst ourselves over relationships we have. It just seems like we cannot get along at all and cannot break down our pride walls to forgive one another.
The sanctity of life is a very serious subject, not only to the Catholic Church but to many people worldwide that share differing opinions about the subject. I feel like society today is always looking for a mulligan in life, the easy path. A do over. This pains me. Yes, I am talking Abortion and all of its ramifications. You do not have to be a Catholic to oppose this travesty, but it seems like the love affair with Obama (while other than his stance on Pro-Choice he seems to be a great man) is sheilding everyone from the campaigning that is occuring (Dont get me started on Catholics like Pelusi and Biden) to give people a choice in the matter. Everyone is looking for a do over. Yes, i understand certain circumstances are horrific nature such as pregrancy through rape and force is nothing to joke about, nor do i know or pretend to know what that could possibly be like for a woman to have to go through something such as that. There are people and places you can go to. So many.
It seems to me that alot of society is wanting a do over and thinking about advancing themselves in any way they can, whether it is something simple like lying to get a raise, saying negative things about another , judging others by what they look like or what they wear or what they drive or where they live, how much money they make, cutting someone off on the highway or street or simply carrying a pompous attitude towards others in order to keep them notched down. Here is the catch:
We have a do over in flesh form. His name is Jesus.
Our God forgives and forgets when we come to him in repentence. He knows our hearts. No one else does, only He does. He has this power and obtaining everlasting life for us when He dies on that cross. He knew all of this would happen, this is why it was so ugly and painful. Aren't we so ugly and painful to watch at times. However, we can be so beautiful and caring too. This is called Hope. A hope that we can change and see what really is important.
Our Souls.
Not how many cars we have, how big the house is and how much money we can make or hide from others, our souls brothers and sisters. That is only currency that carries merit in this bankrupt world we live in. Remember Jesus said while he was nailed to a cross, to the people who spat on Him, ridiculed Him, crucified him, gave up on Him, "Forgiver them Father, they know not what they do" He said this dripping with blood, dying, in front of all the people who opposed Him and continued to mock Him. What a loaded sentence that was. Why are we always fighting with each other? If Jesus is able to forgive us for something that horrible while dying on a cross, can't we just get along and forgive each other as well?
We want a do over? His name is Jesus.
The sanctity of life is a very serious subject, not only to the Catholic Church but to many people worldwide that share differing opinions about the subject. I feel like society today is always looking for a mulligan in life, the easy path. A do over. This pains me. Yes, I am talking Abortion and all of its ramifications. You do not have to be a Catholic to oppose this travesty, but it seems like the love affair with Obama (while other than his stance on Pro-Choice he seems to be a great man) is sheilding everyone from the campaigning that is occuring (Dont get me started on Catholics like Pelusi and Biden) to give people a choice in the matter. Everyone is looking for a do over. Yes, i understand certain circumstances are horrific nature such as pregrancy through rape and force is nothing to joke about, nor do i know or pretend to know what that could possibly be like for a woman to have to go through something such as that. There are people and places you can go to. So many.
It seems to me that alot of society is wanting a do over and thinking about advancing themselves in any way they can, whether it is something simple like lying to get a raise, saying negative things about another , judging others by what they look like or what they wear or what they drive or where they live, how much money they make, cutting someone off on the highway or street or simply carrying a pompous attitude towards others in order to keep them notched down. Here is the catch:
We have a do over in flesh form. His name is Jesus.
Our God forgives and forgets when we come to him in repentence. He knows our hearts. No one else does, only He does. He has this power and obtaining everlasting life for us when He dies on that cross. He knew all of this would happen, this is why it was so ugly and painful. Aren't we so ugly and painful to watch at times. However, we can be so beautiful and caring too. This is called Hope. A hope that we can change and see what really is important.
Our Souls.
Not how many cars we have, how big the house is and how much money we can make or hide from others, our souls brothers and sisters. That is only currency that carries merit in this bankrupt world we live in. Remember Jesus said while he was nailed to a cross, to the people who spat on Him, ridiculed Him, crucified him, gave up on Him, "Forgiver them Father, they know not what they do" He said this dripping with blood, dying, in front of all the people who opposed Him and continued to mock Him. What a loaded sentence that was. Why are we always fighting with each other? If Jesus is able to forgive us for something that horrible while dying on a cross, can't we just get along and forgive each other as well?
We want a do over? His name is Jesus.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)