True Hollywood Story Presents: Martin Luther

That's what this latest story from The Guardian reads like. A bunch of Germans have gotten together and attempted to reconstruct Luther's life from things in his kitchen, his trashcan, and his commode. You read that right. Martin Luther's crapper is now the subject of intense scientific scrutiny.

Beer tankards, grains of corn, cooking pots, even his toilet are among the finds dug up during the five-year project in the three places in Germany he spent his life. The items include his wife's golden wedding band, a collection of 250 silver coins and the medicines used to treat his various ailments from angina to constipation.

It also turns out that some of the stories that have grown up around Luther, or that he constructed himself, might not be true. Shocking, but true.

New evidence has shown that already as a young man, his father owned land and a copper mill and lent money for interest. His mother was born into an upper middle-class family and it is unlikely, as Luther suggested, that she "carried all her wood on her back".

The discovery in his boyhood home in Mansfeld of a skittles set made out of cow bones and glass marbles also suggests the family was relatively well to do.

Of legit interest was the discovery of some evidence as to why Luther joined the Augustinians in the first place.

But the claim by historians which will arguably be most upsetting for followers is the recently uncovered written evidence that it was not, as thought, a lightning bolt which led to the then 21-year-old's spontaneous declaration he wanted to become a monk. Rather, it was his desperation to escape an impending arranged marriage.

Yet even with this, the article still seems to have an unhealthy interest in Luther's bathroom behaviors.

It debunks something of the Luther myth to know he wrote the 95 theses on a stone toilet, which was dug up in 2004.

Does the Bible envision anything like Faithful Citizenship?

That's the name of the pallid document produced by the US bishops to attempt to walk the tight-rope of defending the teaching of the Church without antagonizing the vast majority of Catholics who want to be good Americans and vote for their favorites without moral qualms. The current document succeeds minimally.

I've been thinking whether or not this is the proper approach. In the New Testament, there is no provision made for how one should act as a member of a democracy. There weren't any democracies then. No commandment is given "Ye shall vote!" Indeed, there isn't any real impetus for Christians to assimilate into their communities. We are not to be just like the Romans, or just like the Greeks, but a holy nation, a people set apart. That's what the texts say.

I recently gave a little talk on 1 Cor 4-6, and what struck me particularly was that Christians in Corinth were condemned by St. Paul for participating in the political realm, or at least for participating in the courts. They should have been dealing with their problems in the Church, not in the State.

I don't have time to work out all these thoughts, but here's the executive summary: The Church should not worry about influencing politics. It should not worry quibbling about what proportionate reasons could allow someone to vote for the Democrats. It should drop all that and simply proclaim the truth of the Faith. Witness to the dignity of the human person, in whom we are to see Christ always, and if the politicians take it as a condemnation, respond with a genial "If the shoe fits, wear it." But don't wiggle around and try to be all things to all parties.

Perhaps I will expand on this later.

Priests Need More Psychology

That seems to be the conclusion of a new Vatican report from the Congregation for Catholic Education, per Zenit. It's not that I really disagree with this. It's lines from the article that talk about how we need to put more emphasis on psychological profiles in the discernment process and how priests need psychological maturity, not just a sound spiritual life.

Is it weird to think that the latter will typically entail the former? I don't know too many people with a solid spiritual constitution who are also psychologically frail.

Here's my concern. If you ran psychological profiles on the Cure of Ars, Padre Pio, Catherine of Siena, St. Benedict, etc., I'm willing to bet none of them would have been admitted to the religious life. You can imagine the exchange:

Psychologist: "So, Mr. Vianney, tell me about your problems."

Cure of Ars: "Well, things would be great if Satan would stop beating the crap out of me at night."

Psychologist (hurriedly scribbling a commitment certificate for intense inpatient therapy in a maximum security facility): "Next!"

Yeah, something like that. Just look at how members of Opus Dei are treated. Corporal mortification? These people are disturbed. They must be a cult. There needs to be an investigation.

And so forth.

More Persecution in India

We had a few posts a while back on past and present persecutions in Asia. The envelope continues to be pushed.


Sr. Meena Raped by Hindus while Police Watched


The article is graphic and horrible overall. Just a reminder of what our religious face when they attempt to spread the Gospel.

Bad Day for Life

I have decided to post on the results from yesterday. With our president-elect, we have a guy who is for the Freedom of Choice Act (something that I've found even "dedicated supporters" of his didn't know until 2 weeks ago) and against emergency care for infants who survive abortions. We know this is not good, and everyone should go ahead and write a letter now to oppose the adoption of FOCA.

However, there were other items yesterday that also do not bode well. Washington passed Initiative 1000, which is an assisted-suicide law. Michigan adopted Proposition 2, which provides for a large expansion of embryonic stem-cell use. I know what some may be thinking. "It's Washington. What more do you expect from left coast whackjobs who thought that hiring Ty Willingham was a good idea?" Or perhaps, "It's Michigan. They hired Matt Millen as a GM. Isn't Kwame Kilpatrick from there?"

These are both true. That aside, the passage of these laws by a vote of the electorate, rather than by representative or judicial fiat are troubling for deeper reasons. I'm still putting my thoughts together about it. Full post forthcoming.

Speaking of Catholics Making Stuff Up

This heretic in Australia is really taking the cake right now. It's a one-way train to ShelbySpong-ville with non-stop service. We should really pray for these parishioners. Per The Australian:

On the line for parishioners of St Mary's and several other parishes in Queensland and NSW are fundamental church doctrines such as who can celebrate Mass, whether Jesus Christ was God, whether Mary had as many as six children, the bodily Resurrection, and the need for sacramental celebrations for same-sex marriages.

In a booklet being sold for $20, a NSW priest, Peter Dresser of Coonamble in the Diocese of Bathurst, insists Jesus was not God and did not think he was God.

In God is Big. Real Big! Father Dresser -- who prefers to be known as Peter -- says: "This whole matter regarding Jesus being God ... not only does violence to my own intelligence, but must be a sticking point for millions of people trying to make some kind of sense of the Christian religion ... No human being can ever be God, and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that."

Pete, if anything does violence to intelligence, it's the asinine title of that booklet. Good job with that stuff on God not being able to be human. Why hadn't anybody else thought of this? Oh wait. . . maybe I have heard something similar before.

Recently, the priests at St Mary's -- Peter Kennedy and Terry Fitzpatrick -- also canvassed the idea of Catholics celebrating the Eucharist in their homes, without a priest.

Of course, if you're view of the Eucharist is this:

"The community of believers would call forth one of its members to preside at this memorial service. This person could be either man or woman, married or single ... with no special designation except being chosen or called forth to leadership by the community."

Then why would you need a priest? Priests offer sacrifices. It's who they are. It's what they do. If there's no sacrifice, then of course any random shmoe could do it.

But none of this really touches on the biggest issue here. As was pointed out by a colleague on Steve Ray's board, this guy has apparently been doing invalid baptisms. Check this out. Recall that Rome has ruled that screwing up the baptismal formula invalidates the whole thing, meaning you have to do it all over again the right way.

Is this guy in Pell's jurisdiction? I'm assuming not or else he would have been excommed long ago. Somebody needs to stop him. It's time for Cardinal Levada to earn his paycheck.

Why are Catholics Like Humpty Dumpty?

Tim Rutten gives us a clue in the LA Times. The article is entitled "The End of the Catholic Vote."

Basically, it's about how Catholic voting patterns are shifting. The reasons that are apparently behind the shift are the interesting part:

What we're seeing in these three swing states is the end of the Catholic vote, as conventional political strategists traditionally have expected it to behave -- in part because it's now so large it pretty much looks like the rest of America; in part because of its own internal changes. National polls have shown for some time that, although Catholics are personally opposed to abortion, they believe it ought to be legal in nearly identical percentages to the rest of America. Moreover, as a survey by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate found earlier this year, only 18% of Catholics "strongly" agree with the statement: "In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the church teachings and statements by the pope and bishops to form my conscience."

This last bit reminded me of a quote from Through the Looking Glass. Humpty Dumpty drops this gem of wisdom:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

Basically, modern Catholics are saying the same thing as Humpty Dumpty when it comes to the word "Catholic." This word, like so many other things in our society, has lost any semblance of objective meaning for these people. Rather than describing an intellectual submission to the Truth of certain propositions, it instead means whatever the given individual declares it to mean. How can this many people be so intellectually dishonest?

Shame.

Somebody Actually Agrees With Us

Boniface over at Unam Sanctam has produced some great elaboration on the Instrumentum Laboris that was used for the Synod. If you have been wondering what I meant about "fluff" being the primary substance of the interventions, check out his posts here and here. Subjectivity covered in warm modernistic gooiness with no crunchy center is probably the best nutshell version. He does a great job of breaking down various points of the whole document.

I would especially suggest hitting the parts about the Old Testament and why they are "difficult." There's a reason why kids always seem to prefer OT stories to NT ones. They make a lot more sense. Really. You don't have to explain David and Goliath to a child. Parables need explaining. Epistles need elucidation. Acts gets a pass. Anyways, the point is that even the high-minded allegory guys like Origen weren't so blithe about dismissing the historicity of Scripture.

Just showing that Karl and I aren't crazy when we write this stuff.

Have a Little Help From My Friends

Happy All Saints Day!















Pray for Us!

Terrible As An Army Set In Array

As we come to the close of October, the Month of the Rosary, I must pay homage to the Blessed Mother.

When most people think of Our Lady, they generally conjure up images of a soft, quiet, and passive woman who speaks in lilting, breathy tones. Consider the subject of this post, though. This line comes from the Canticle of Canticles 6:3.

Thou art beautiful, O my love, sweet and comely as Jerusalem, terrible as an army set in array.

And again in verse 9.

Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?

These verses are often used, as most verses in the Canticle are, to describe the Church. However, since Mary is a type of the Church and since she is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, they could be applied to her in some ways as well. The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin certainly seems to think so, as it features these lines prominently.

The point I'm trying to make goes all the way back to Genesis.

I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Mary is not someone who just sits on the sidelines and occasionally pops in for an apparition every now and then. She is not just Queen of Heaven and Earth. She is a warrior. She is the adversary of The Adversary. God Himself set it up that way.

Whether it's the scourge of the Albigensians or the threat of Islamic conquest at Lepanto, the Blessed Mother, particularly through the devotion of the Rosary, has played a major role in the preservation of the Church and the destruction of Her enemies.

Universal and well-known are the evils we deplore: war made upon the sacred dogmas which the Church holds and transmits; derision cast upon the integrity of that Christian morality which she has in keeping; enmity declared, with the impudence of audacity and with criminal malice, against the very Christ, as though the Divine work of Redemption itself were to be destroyed from its foundation-that work which, indeed, no adverse power shall ever utterly abolish or destroy.

No new events are these in the career of the Church militant. Jesus foretold them to His disciples. That she may teach men the truth and may guide them to eternal salvation, she must enter upon a daily war; and throughout the course of ages she has fought, even to martyrdom, rejoicing and glorifying herself in nothing more than in the occasion of signing her cause with her Founder's blood, the sure and certain pledge of the victory whereof she holds the promise.

Thus under the favour of the powerful Virgin, the glorious vanquisher of all heresies, the forces of the wicked were destroyed and dispersed, and faith issued forth unharmed and more shining than before.

Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense

What I'm trying to say is that Our Mother doesn't get the respect she deserves for her role in the spiritual combat and the invisible conflict that constantly rages with the principalities and powers of darkness. Satan certainly recognizes it. I doubt that he appreciated the utter annihilation of his power being wrought by the fiat of a woman, especially considering his initial victory in the Garden over Mary's predecessor. Satan fears her; we should fly to her.

Our Lady of the Rosary, vanquisher of heresies, pray for us.

What's the Difference Between Abortion, Communism, and Racial Prejudice?

I would suggest that the difference is that abortion is worse than the other two. At the very least, I'd figure them to be equally bad.

Here's the weird part, though. Excommunicating communists is something the Church has a long habit of doing. Blessed John XXIII actually signed off on the automatic excoms of anyone who voted for communists or joined the communist party.

I'm from Louisiana. Most folks here know about the actions of Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans, who threatened the excommunication of segregationists. He wasn't the only guy who did this.

I haven't found anyone who thinks that the latter act was bad. I've found only a couple (literally) who have any reservations about the former. Yet many of these same people would widely denounce any such sanction against pro-abortion politicians. The reasons for this inconsistency are varied, but suffice to say, I find them rather dishonest. I'll go into detail if folks are interested enough in the topic.

If this is such a serious moral issue, which the Church teaches that it is, how can the penalties handed out for similar issues somehow prohibited?

Simon the Zealot

This is an easy post to make because we really don't know anything about this guy. He doesn't even have his own feast day, sharing this one with St. Jude. At least St. Jude has an epistle, a second name (Thaddeus), and a popular devotion (hopeless causes). What do we remember Simon for? Coming before Judas in the lists of the Apostles, being called "the Zealot," and not being Peter.

That's it.

Of all the other Apostles, he is probably the most mysterious and least known. It's almost unthinkable for me that a guy can be hand-picked by Christ Himself to spread His message and yet be almost invisible historically. Probably something to learn there. Similar to St. Therese's thinking, you don't have to light up the sky with miracles and/or profound thinking to be somebody. Grace is enough.

This is a pretty big deal in Simon's case. If he was a member of the Zealots, which is debated, he probably spent his spare time reading the Law and knifing random Romans in the back. In other words, he had probably murdered a few guys in his day. We must recall, though, that if Christ could call a tax collector, or an average shmoe fisherman, or a prostitute, why not a murderer as well? His coupling with Judas in the apostolic lists is also interesting given that many scholars do think that Judas was a Zealot or someone of a similar mindset. The allure of the temporally messianic Christ is what you'll see some folks point to as Judas's breaking point. If that's really the case, then the dichotomy between these two couldn't be be more obvious. Simon made his choice, and Judas took the opposite road.

I'll leave it at that, I think. I really just wanted St. Simon to get some well-deserved, yet little received, publicity on his (admittedly joint) feast day.

St. Simon the Zealot, pray for us that the zeal of our hearts for God's cause may ever increase.

The Most Popular Saint of Modern Times (maybe)

The answer to this question should always be the Blessed Mother. Always. However, due to contacts with other ecclesial communities, many Catholics seem to have developed some embarassment over devotion to Our Lady. This is a shame, but it's true.

St. Francis, though, is a guy I see more and more of everywhere I go. Even Protestants are putting him in their yards these days. Environmentalist hippie-types think he's awesome. I often wonder how awesome people (Catholics included) would think he was if they really examined his life.

The story of his beginning is well-known. Dad was rich. Francis was a party guy. More and more, though, he started to see the emptiness of his life. While in a church of San Damiano, he heard Christ speak to him from the cross, telling him to "rebuild his house." Francis initially thought this meant the building where he was praying. As we know today, Francis's efforts would be a huge part of restoring and reforming the entire universal Church.

This whole experience eventually led to his giving all of his stuff away and taking care of lepers. When his dad found out, he beat Francis up and demanded that he go get all the stuff back. Francis took off his clothes and left them their as his father's "payment." This is when the ball really got rolling.

Francis lived in abject poverty and preached repentance to anyone who would listen. If we know anything about Church history, it's that people who do this sort of thing immediately attract a bevy of followers. This was the birth of the Franciscan Order. The rest is history. The Order would become the major ecclesiastical force of the next three centuries, a visible reflection of the Gospel and the yearning for spiritual perfection.

My favorite St. Francis stories are the ones that nobody tells anymore because they strip away the image of the jolly beggar and remind us that sainthood isn't all burgers, fries, and cherry pies. For example, most people don't like the idea of Francis being tempted by lust to the point where he would roll around in the snow or jump naked into a thorn bush. It's simple. He didn't want to offend God. Mortification kept him from doing that. He picked the latter over the former.

Or how about ecumenism? Francis went all the way to Egypt to try and convert the sultan there. He didn't go for dialogue. He went to preach the Gospel and win souls for Christ. Granted, it didn't work all that well, the sultan didn't convert, but Francis had the attitude that true ecumenism should foster.

Of course, we also have the story of the stigmata. See if this description from the Catholic Encyclopedia is an image normally associated with Francis:

The saint's right side is described as bearing on open wound which looked as if made by a lance, while through his hands and feet were black nails of flesh, the points of which were bent backward. After the reception of the stigmata, Francis suffered increasing pains throughout his frail body, already broken by continual mortification.

Probably not.

Still, this isn't to say that Francis was a gloomy guy borne down by the weight of suffering. His joy amidst all this is a testament to the extraordinary power of grace.

I'll close this out with a favorite of mine and the hippie crowd, though I've noticed they often omit the last couple of verses, what with their being about death and all. I give you the Canticle of the Creatures:

Most High, all-powerful, good Lord, Yours are the praises, the glory, the honor, and all blessing. To You alone, Most High, do they belong, and no man is worthy to mention your name.

Praised be You, my lord, with all your creatures, especially Brother Sun, Who is the day and through whom You give us light. And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor; and bears a likeness of You, Most High One.

Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars, in heaven you formed them clear and precious and beautiful.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brother Wind, and through the air, cloudy and serene, and every kind of weather through which you give sustance to your creatures.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Water, which is very useful and humble and precious and chaste.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brother Fire, through whom you light the night and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.

Praised be you, my Lord, through our Sister Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces varied fruits with colored flowers and herbs. Praised be you, my Lord, through those who give pardon for your love and bear infirmity and tribulation.

Blessed are those who endure in peace for by You, Most High, they shall be crowned.
Praised be You, my Lord, through our Sister Bodily Death, from whom no living man can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin. Blessed are those whom death will find in Your most holy will, for the second death shall do them no harm. Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks
and serve Him with great humility.

St. Francis, pray for us.

Alexei II Had Something Good to Say

This is big news. Recently, Alexei has been too busy tying himself to Putin to do much else. Zenit reports that he's trying to be nice, though.

The Russian religious leader expressed his "joy at the growing perspective of the development of good relations and a positive cooperation between our two Churches."

"The solid base of this," he added, "is in our common roots and our converging positions regarding many of the questions that today afflict the world."

He'll also be visiting Austria to meet with Cardinal Schonborn in December. My colleague Karl, who has been nice enough to contribute some great work here, will be the first to tell you that as Russia goes, so goes Orthodoxy. That goes for returning to communion with Rome, as well.

The Synod is Over

And I have no idea what to think about it. The most interesting parts came from the non-Catholics. The interventions by the Catholics present came across as (mostly) fluff. I'd have posted about them otherwise. Sure, there were some good ideas (Scripture compendium, getting people to pray the rosary more, etc.), but for the most part, I'm left wondering why all the hullaballoo. The previous synod on the Eucharist seemed a lot more interesting, by comparision.

More to the point, I didn't see the inerrancy issue come up at all. This is not good for the reasons I mentioned previously and for the simple fact that it hits right at the defining characteristic of Scripture. God wrote it, so it has no errors. Nobody at the whole synod thought this was worth mentioning, especially when the gathering's working document contradicts this? I'm hoping very much that I just missed an intervention or two.

Here's what I really don't get. Folks are so committed to ecumenism that we see weird statements by Kaspar all the time and applause for synod speeches promoting broken ecclesiology. For some reason, though, we let people get away with flat-out heresy in denying the inerrancy of Scripture. The Orthodox are on-board with inerrancy. All evangelical Protestants are. Most Pentecostals would at least agree to it in principle as long as it doesn't contradict their "new revelation." Most classic Reformed churches would agree as well. The only people who seem to be pushing this particular heresy are the Protestant liberals (lots of Anglicans, eg). So basically, this whole heretical idea is an absolute millstone for any ecumenical efforts, save for those directed at avowed modernists who would shelve any dogma that doesn't fit their personal taste.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate our priorities in who we want to talk to. One of the few times ecumenism could actually help bolster the Faith, and we have leaders who are more worried about cozying up to modernists.

Bishop Martino Goes Network

You remember Bishop Martino, right? Thank you Rocco Palma for keeping us up to speed on the Shepherd of Scranton, PA.

Here's the deal. A church in his jurisdiction decided to have an "election forum" mostly to discuss abortion. Apparently, the discussion there was centered entirely around the USCCB's "Faithful Citizenship" document with nary a mention of the bishop's letter I mentioned in my earlier post. More than that, folks were using the USCCB document to justify their political positions that contradicted Martino's crystal clear elaboration of Church teaching on issues of abortion, euthanasia, and stem-cell research.

Hearing about all this, His Excellency decided to crash the party. He showed up uninvited and then let loose with what pretty much every bishop in the country needs to understand.

“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” said Martino. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.”“The only relevant document ... is my letter,” he said. “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”

If only someone could have set off fireworks or something when he dropped this on the folks present. This bastardized notion of collegiality whereby national episcopal conferences can dictate what a bishop does in his own diocese has got to go. On a side note, here's another wacky result of the post-conciliar efforts. Vatican II was supposed to be all about the role of bishops and collegiality and helping each to assert himself more. The end result has been domination by the national conferences.

Anyways, back to Bishop Martino. He then followed up with:

“No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people,” he said, nothing that he no longer supports the Democratic Party. “This is madness people.”




Awesome. What made it even better were the comments in the Wayne Independent (which, by the way, clearly doesn't concern itself with learning what Catholics actually believe- note the description of Communion). Here's what the moderator said:

“I think this meeting was torpedoed,” said Gene Tagle, the forum’s moderator. “He’s (Martino) known for three months that this has been in the works.”

No crap, Gene. Torpedoed, nuked, and cremated with the ashes shot to the freaking moon.

Pope Benedict's Complete Works to be Published

Zenit has the full story.

The Pope affirmed this in the preface to the first of 16 German-language volumes, which was presented Wednesday. The "Complete Works" will contain previously unpublished texts, and range from Joseph Ratzinger's university years up to his election as Pontiff.

This should be pretty interesting stuff, if it ever gets going in English. Keep in mind that we still have Doctors of the Church that you can't find stuff for. Ever see a copy of Bellarmine's dogmatic works in English? Peter Canisius's Catechism? Me neither.

Into Great Silence: Tonight on EWTN, 9 PM Eastern

Awesome movie that tracks the day-to-day life of Carthusian monks.

Watch it. You will be a better person for doing so.

More From Cardinal Kaspar at the Synod

According to Zenit, Cardinal Kaspar's latest shpiel is another exercise in ignoring reality.

Despite all the sad divisions in the history of the Church, the Word of God witnessed above all in holy Scripture has remained the common inheritance even today; nothing else unites the Christian churches and communities like the Bible does.

Really? Sometimes I have to wonder what Protestants Kaspar is talking to. I suppose we might be able to make this comment about the Orthodox, but I don't think that is who he's limiting this to since he says that the Scriptures are the "ecumenical bond par excellence."

This would seem to presume that we could even agree on what Scriptures are Scripture. Next time a Protestant asks me about purgatory, and I quote from 2 Maccabees, we'll see just how "common" our inheritance really is. Try pitching this line to a King James Only-ist and see how far it gets you.

We Knew This Was Coming

Group asks IRS to investigate Catholic bishop against Obama

Just a bit from USAToday on what happens to bishops that try to take their vocation responsibly. This time it's Bishop Seratelli from Patterson, NJ.

Serratelli wrote that Obama has pledged, if elected president, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion-rights legislation the Catholic Church vehemently opposes.

"If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood," Serratelli wrote.

And the secularists response?

In so many words, "So the hell what?"

The Rev. Barry Lynn, president of Americans United, said it is "impossible to interpret this passage as anything but a command to vote against 'the present Democratic candidate' because of his promise to sign a certain piece of legislation disfavored by the Catholic Church's hierarchy."

As mentioned in the article, this is an issue because "under federal tax law, nonprofit groups — including religious organizations — are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates."

Strange times, friends, when organizations are more concerned with reporting shenanigans to the IRS than the Gospel of Life.

Ground Like Wheat: St. Ignatius of Antioch

I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.

That was St. Ignatius in his letter to the Romans. Ignatius, also known as Theophorus, was actually a successor of Peter, just to the See of Antioch rather than Rome. Hs feast day was last Friday. Interesting thing about that nickname, Theophorus. It means "God-Bearer." I've seen some folks theorize that this is a corruption and that it should really be "God-Borne" because Ignatius was the kid that Christ took up and showed the Apostles when discussing having the faith of a child. I have no idea if that's true, but it makes for a good story.

On better authority, we have it that Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. Such a direct link to The Twelve makes his work invaluable. There are seven letters that we know are genuine. He wrote them after being captured by the Roman authorities and carted off for execution, as he mentions in the snippet I posted above.

Lots of Protestants are pretty amazed when they read his epistles. You see a lot of Catholic stuff in them. Yes, shocking I know.

For example, Ignatius is the first guy that we see calling the Church "catholic."

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans

Notice also that Ignatius has a very firm idea of an ecclesiastical hierarchy here. Unity with the bishop was a big deal for him, especially what with his being a bishop and all. Granted, he doesn't speak of communion with Rome or anything, but he is very blunt that the Church in Rome "presides" and "teaches" all the other churches.

Ignatius also had a real problem with a bunch of gnostics we know as the Docetists. The Docetists didn't believe in the reality of the Eucharist. They didn't reject the Real Presence because of the sorts of modern Protestant arguments that we typically hear. Basically, they didn't think that Christ had a physical body. Naturally, if He didn't have an actual body, the Eucharist couldn't be His body either. Ignatius was very frank about such people.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans

Lots of great goodies from Ignatius all over the place. Ultimately, I direct all readers back to the first bit, though, which illustrates the wonderful attitude of the martyr. Maybe some influential people in Rome could have saved him. He didn't want that. He wanted Christ. Accomplishing that meant giving to Christ the most valuable gift Ignatius had, namely, his own life. Not just for Christ, though, but also for all those others who may have feared martyrdom without such an example.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, Itself remaineth alone. But if it die it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it and he that hateth his life in this world keepeth it unto life eternal. If any man minister to me, let him follow me: and where I am, there also shall my minister be.

John 12:24-26

Where does following Christ lead? To suffering, and sometimes, even to death.

St. Ignatius, pray for us, that we be willing to follow where Christ led.

"Everything the Bible says really happened never happened."

That's the way the students used to characterize the religion classes at the highschool where I used to teach. That's the message that they got from the current way of teaching the bible. Perhaps this is evidence of a flawed approach.

My comrade Throwback has been covering the synod in Rome on the scriptures, and I commend him for his work examining the inerrancy of the Word of God. I think that's important to emphasize. It is The Word of God.

We tend to look for the minimum, the barest little bit that we have to accept. This occurs in the response of Catholics to the teaching of the Church as well as in our reading of Scripture. Is this teaching infallible? Do I really have to believe it? We take a similar approach to scripture: do I have to love my enemies? Do I have to give up lust? Did Jesus really mean that it's near impossible for the rich to get to heaven? We tend to minimize the bible down to small, easily digestible parts that don't conflict with our world view.

It's very convenient, but it is not at all the way that a believer reads a revealed text. The bible is believed to be, in its entirety, the inspired word of God. There isn't any error in it. There may be stories that are more story than history, but there isn't the slightest bit of error, by which I mean that the whole thing, down to the most repugnant descriptions of leprous scabs in Leviticus, is in the book because the Holy Spirit wanted it there.

The believer, confident in the inspiration of the text, then can find meaning in any passage. In a post on my other blog, I wrote about St. John Chrysostom, who takes as the topic for an hour-long, brilliant sermon the text of St. Paul "Take a little wine for your stomach's sake." He does it on purpose, to show just how the believer can see meaning in even the supposedly silly or inconsequential parts.

"I'm a John XXIII guy, I'm not a Pope John Paul guy."

The above quote is the latest in a series of asinine musings from Joe Biden regarding his (ahem) Catholicism. Yet somehow Palin is the one denounced as some sort of intellectual lightweight.

Joe, as usual, is trying to come up with ways to rationalize his support for the murder of the unborn. Thanks to Rocco Palma for these recent glimpses into the vacant mind of the Senator.

Catholics have this notion, it's almost a gradation.We have mortal sins, venial sins, well, up until Pius IX, there were times when we said, 'Look, there are circumstances in which it's wrong but it is not damnation. Along came Pius IX in the 1860s and declared in fine doctrine, this was the first time that it occurred that it was absolute human life and being at the moment of conception.

Can someone get Joe a Baltimore Catechism? Preferably one with the neat pictures in it. And maybe a history book that lets him know that abortion has always been a mortal sin. Come on, Joe. You've read Aquinas, or so you would have us believe. You should know this stuff. Unless, of course, you are a liar like your colleague Nancy.

One other thing, Senator. You don't know anything about John XXIII or John Paul II, so do us and yourself a favor and stop pretending that you have anything resembling a clue. Please. Try honesty instead. Admit your departure from the Church. You've been shacking up with heresy and schism for decades now. What harm is there in making it official?

What Bible Translation Do You Use?

We have several Bibles in the Throwback house, but the one we mostly use is a Douay-Rheims with Haydock commentary.

What say you?

NAB? NIV? KJV?

The Artist Known as St. Luke

No, I'm not losing my mind. I know this isn't a picture of St. Luke.

It was his feast day last weekend, though. Everybody knows Luke, right? Wrote the 3rd Gospel. Was a doctor in his day job. What lots of folks have never heard is that Luke is thought by many to have been the first iconographer.

What you see here is commonly known as the Black Madonna of Częstochowa. There is a long-running tradition that St. Luke painted this icon on the top of what amounted to the Holy Family's coffee table. Sure, that seems weird, but it reminds us of another oft-forgotten point.

We know that Luke didn't personally witness the events of Jesus's life. He says so in the introduction for his Gospel. Where did he get all his information then? Most folks are willing to say that the source for Luke's Gospel was the Blessed Mother herself. This explains why he has so much more info on Mary's role. Zechariah, Elizabeth, John the Baptist, the Nativity (shepherds and all), the Presentation, the Finding in the Temple, etc., are all Luke stuff. Who else would be giving him these sorts of details? Seems reasonable that it would be Mary.

Just wanted to throw that out there. Luke doesn't get as much play as the other three Gospel writers. John and Matthew were apostles. Mark worked with Peter and founded the church in Alexandria. He even has his own liturgy. Luke was a doctor. By comparison, this is like Charlie Brown getting the rock at Halloween. Considering that he was apparently close enough with the Theotokos to provide us with her account of salvation history, he should get a bit more exposure, I think.

St. Luke, pray for us.