With the Advent season upon us I had a few things that had been swirling about in my mind. Why are we so focused on everthing else BUT God and why is it a social "no-no" to talk about it out loud?
Facebook or social media in general is an amazing tool to evangelize through, but I feel like most of us (myself included) are missing the opportunity to really forward the Gospel and introduce people to Jesus. Instead, we are sharing and forwarding insignifigant things and celebrating other's struggles. We worship each other and then become umcomfortable about it and can't wait to see these people we worshipped fall flat on their face.
When you think about what topics get people buzzing it usually surrounds something dramatic. Someone's fall from grace, freak accident or homicide. At this point everyone has a concern and/or an opinion. It's a hot news item. But mention Jesus outside a set number of people you know believe in Him and love Him, and your post get's no love. None.
Why is that? What is not dramatic about the Son of God dying gruesomely on a cross for the forgiveness of our sins? Why do people look at you funny when you say that out loud?
Why are we celebrating the suffering of others?
Why are we so attracted to terrible things?
We have way more people than we need on all meduims (TV, Print, Radio, Internet) that are paid for their opinions on pretty much everything, and I mean everything. Pop culture is all about the "reality" of life. However, Jesus is obviously not "reality" enough. In the sports world for instance, they cover and report something until there is nothing left and in some cases a life is destroyed, then when it's done, they move onto another story, obsess over it and try to uncover every nasty detail for the same conclusion. What sometimes trumps a negative story is a story about someone who is trying to rebuild after experiencing such a pounding from the media. We all seem to eat this up over and over again. Sponsors pay for advertising since we all tune in to hear it. It's like we love to build others up and then all at once punch them in the face, kick em a bit while they are down, then offer to help them back up. Common response. Stop tuning in. Well, have you been able to do that? I think we need to do more than stop tuning in.
In the end I just wish it wasn't so awkward or unporfessional to speak of God's love in the workplace or in mainstream media. His love and mercy is so great, how can we not look past so many distractions, unplug and see His light. Feel His presense.
As always please feel free to share your thoughts or opinions. Do you agree with me? Or do you think I am off base?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
What do we do with our suffering and our pain?
Do you ever wonder what why there is so much suffering and pain in this world? Why innocent people die and young children are stricken with disease? Why loved ones leave us so soon? These are such difficult things to talk about and even more difficult to understand God's plan in it all. This brings me to the word peace.
Fast and Pray.
I believe that understanding peace of heart and mind is understanding God's love and plan in all of this for us all. Just think about this, when we fast (deny ourselves something we desire for a short amount of time or a period of time) and pray regularly we start to establish a sense of peace or withdraw from the world around us and it's problems. We are able to construct within us a fortress of trust and love in God. Once we have a glimpse of this peace we yearn for more. Don't get me wrong, at times we will get caught up in some trouble, worry or even a vice or two that combats this peace, but by returning to prayer and fasting we are able to re-establish some of this peace, however little we get a taste again, like a little mini mental vacation that can be taken from anywhere. It is in this practice that we gain a thing called discipline, a wondrous virtue that can evolve the soul and mind of even the most ardent sinner. With discipline comes peace, which continues to construct this fortress of trust and love in God within ourselves.
Praying & Fasting = Discipline..this equals peace. Humility takes us home.
So the goal is to be one with God right? God is all love and peace. He is discipline. To be one with God's requires us to be of peace, love and discipline. Oh, but what about humility? Well, prayer is a sign of humility towards God. Humility is the exact opposite of pride and selfishness, which only enhances our sacrifice in fasting. Now here is how I would suggest fasting and praying can assist in our day to day suffering. Let me take you into a analogy to help better explain my reasoning.
I spoke of constructing a fortress of trust and love in God within ourselves, which establishes peace from within. Think about it this way, if you were a nation what is one thing you need to ensure peace of mind? Protection from a threat. So, in peace time, and sometimes during war time you are constructing a fortress of protection to ensure the enemy does not get to the capital of your nation, where decisions are made and ideas have their greatest strength. Keeping in mind it is much easier to build and reinforce the fortress during peace time than during a war with so many distractions. Once you have fortified your fortress, you have some peace of mind, but are never fully comfortable resting on your laurels so you continue to maintenance and reinforce what you already have, no matter how strong you think it is. Well, think of your nation as your soul and your capitol as your heart. Think of your fortress as protection for your heart and soul and prayer and fasting as the granite blocks that will defend your heart and soul. The enemy is evil, the devil, whatever you call it depending on where you are. Either way, building these fortresses requires perseverance in prayer and fasting. It requires discipline. Nothing great ever comes without discipline. Exercising prayer and fasting ever day will continue to strengthen your defense against evil (even corruption from within i.e pride, lust, selfishness) so when we suffer in ways we can never imagine one day (get attacked by five nations at once from all sides), our fort will hold, our love and trust in God will not waiver, and our peace will not be destroyed. Most importantly, our heart and soul will not perish and will remain with God.
Fast and Pray.
I believe that understanding peace of heart and mind is understanding God's love and plan in all of this for us all. Just think about this, when we fast (deny ourselves something we desire for a short amount of time or a period of time) and pray regularly we start to establish a sense of peace or withdraw from the world around us and it's problems. We are able to construct within us a fortress of trust and love in God. Once we have a glimpse of this peace we yearn for more. Don't get me wrong, at times we will get caught up in some trouble, worry or even a vice or two that combats this peace, but by returning to prayer and fasting we are able to re-establish some of this peace, however little we get a taste again, like a little mini mental vacation that can be taken from anywhere. It is in this practice that we gain a thing called discipline, a wondrous virtue that can evolve the soul and mind of even the most ardent sinner. With discipline comes peace, which continues to construct this fortress of trust and love in God within ourselves.
Praying & Fasting = Discipline..this equals peace. Humility takes us home.
So the goal is to be one with God right? God is all love and peace. He is discipline. To be one with God's requires us to be of peace, love and discipline. Oh, but what about humility? Well, prayer is a sign of humility towards God. Humility is the exact opposite of pride and selfishness, which only enhances our sacrifice in fasting. Now here is how I would suggest fasting and praying can assist in our day to day suffering. Let me take you into a analogy to help better explain my reasoning.
I spoke of constructing a fortress of trust and love in God within ourselves, which establishes peace from within. Think about it this way, if you were a nation what is one thing you need to ensure peace of mind? Protection from a threat. So, in peace time, and sometimes during war time you are constructing a fortress of protection to ensure the enemy does not get to the capital of your nation, where decisions are made and ideas have their greatest strength. Keeping in mind it is much easier to build and reinforce the fortress during peace time than during a war with so many distractions. Once you have fortified your fortress, you have some peace of mind, but are never fully comfortable resting on your laurels so you continue to maintenance and reinforce what you already have, no matter how strong you think it is. Well, think of your nation as your soul and your capitol as your heart. Think of your fortress as protection for your heart and soul and prayer and fasting as the granite blocks that will defend your heart and soul. The enemy is evil, the devil, whatever you call it depending on where you are. Either way, building these fortresses requires perseverance in prayer and fasting. It requires discipline. Nothing great ever comes without discipline. Exercising prayer and fasting ever day will continue to strengthen your defense against evil (even corruption from within i.e pride, lust, selfishness) so when we suffer in ways we can never imagine one day (get attacked by five nations at once from all sides), our fort will hold, our love and trust in God will not waiver, and our peace will not be destroyed. Most importantly, our heart and soul will not perish and will remain with God.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
God Does Exist
Great Story:
"God Exists!"
A man went to a barber shop to have his hair and his beard cut
as always. He began to have a good conversation with the barber
who attended him. They talked about so many things and various
subjects.
Suddenly, they touched on the subject of God. The barber said:
"Look man, I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.
Well, it's so easy, you just have to go out in the street to realize
that God does not exist. Oh, tell me, if God exists, would there
be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children?
If God exists, there would be no suffering nor pain. I can't think of
loving a God who permits all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but he didn't respond
because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished
his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barber
shop, he saw a man in the street with long hair and a beard that
was very long as well, one could tell that it had been a long time
since he had his hair cut. He also looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer entered the barber shop again and he said to the
barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the surprised barber."
I am here and I am a barber. Why I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist, because if
they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like
that man who is outside."
"Ah, barbers do exist, what happens is that people sometimes do
not come to them."
"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God does
exist. What happens is people don't go to Him and do not look
for Him. That's why there is so much suffering and hardship in
this world today."
A man went to a barber shop to have his hair and his beard cut
as always. He began to have a good conversation with the barber
who attended him. They talked about so many things and various
subjects.
Suddenly, they touched on the subject of God. The barber said:
"Look man, I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.
Well, it's so easy, you just have to go out in the street to realize
that God does not exist. Oh, tell me, if God exists, would there
be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children?
If God exists, there would be no suffering nor pain. I can't think of
loving a God who permits all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but he didn't respond
because he did not want to start an argument. The barber finished
his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barber
shop, he saw a man in the street with long hair and a beard that
was very long as well, one could tell that it had been a long time
since he had his hair cut. He also looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer entered the barber shop again and he said to the
barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the surprised barber."
I am here and I am a barber. Why I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist, because if
they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like
that man who is outside."
"Ah, barbers do exist, what happens is that people sometimes do
not come to them."
"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God does
exist. What happens is people don't go to Him and do not look
for Him. That's why there is so much suffering and hardship in
this world today."
Friday, June 18, 2010
Hope. Faith. Love
What is your personal relationship to Jesus look like? Yes, what does it look like? What do you support? What do you tolerate? How does that relationship translate into your life? Do you live a life of hope, faith and love? Do we really have faith in the Gospel as so much to live it fruitfully? Are we hopeful when times are tough, when no substantial answer is in sight? Alot of questions for one paragraph!
I know it has been awhile since my last post, but I feel the need to say something about having faith and hope in our lives and truely living a life of these. In my struggles I find myself having to dig deep, find hope and have faith that by cooperating with God's graces and taking advantage of the Sacraments i can be delivered from sin. The devil feasts on our lack of will, lack of hope and faith in Our Lord. If we remain strong here, we can forge a solid relationship with Christ through sufferring. Man, it seems hard alot of the time, like starting over after a good confession feels so amazing, but the direct contrast of feeling empty and low right before. Both are extreme feelings that inspire hope and faith. But how can we install hope and faith to perservere throught the challenges in life? How can allow those two values to culivate a spirit of love within ourselves in the darkest moments?
I know it has been awhile since my last post, but I feel the need to say something about having faith and hope in our lives and truely living a life of these. In my struggles I find myself having to dig deep, find hope and have faith that by cooperating with God's graces and taking advantage of the Sacraments i can be delivered from sin. The devil feasts on our lack of will, lack of hope and faith in Our Lord. If we remain strong here, we can forge a solid relationship with Christ through sufferring. Man, it seems hard alot of the time, like starting over after a good confession feels so amazing, but the direct contrast of feeling empty and low right before. Both are extreme feelings that inspire hope and faith. But how can we install hope and faith to perservere throught the challenges in life? How can allow those two values to culivate a spirit of love within ourselves in the darkest moments?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)