At age 16, I thought that aspiring to holiness was out of the question. If you really wanted to be holy, I thought, you had to be a priest, nun, or brother. And you had to spend your days doing “religious stuff” like praying, preaching, teaching catechism, or serving the poor. But I had developed an interest in the opposite sex and was headed toward a career in music. So I was disqualified. The best I could hope for was to avoid breaking the 10 commandments, get to confession when I failed, not miss Mass on Sunday and toss a few bucks in the collection each week. That way, I could at least make it to heaven after a stay in Purgatory. But true sanctity, that was out of my reach.
If holiness were about marital status or what you did for a living, I would have been right But the Second Vatican Council made very clear that my assumptions were wrong. Holiness is not about what you do but with how much love you do it. Holiness is really the perfection of faith, hope, and sharing in God’s very nature, which is love (I John 4:8). We are talking about a special kind of love here, the love that gives freely of itself to another, that even lays down its own priorities, interests, and very life, for another.
So is holiness difficult to attain? No. It is impossible. At least on our own steam. But that’s the thrill of it all. God invites us into an intimate relationship with Him through Jesus. He takes up residence within us and makes it possible to love with His love. Grace is the love of God that comes into our hearts as a free, undeserved gift and enables us to be like God.
So that means spending all our time in chapel? No it means doing daily, ordinary things with extraordinary love. The Virgin Mary, our greatest example of holiness, was a housewife and a mother. Jesus and his foster father, St. Joseph, apparently spend most of their lives doing manual labor. But when Mary did the wash, she did it for love When Joseph made a table, he did it for love. When hardship and danger threatened, they met it with faith, hope, and love.
So holiness is for every baptized person, regardless of personality type, career, age, race, or marital status. In baptism, we are all reborn with the spiritual muscles necessary to get us across the finish line. Yet these muscles must be nourished and exercised if they are ever to develop and carry us the full distance. God provides the necessary nourishment in the Word of God and the Eucharist. And he sends us ample opportunities to exercise.
But there’s the rub–many of us don’t want to exert ourselves. It can be uncomfortable. We stretch a bit to finish school, to excel at sports, to win the heart of the love of our lives. But when it comes to the things of the Spirit, we often settle with being couch potatoes.
Leon Bloy, a French Catholic writer, once said “the only tragedy in life is not to become a saint.” Holiness is about realizing our deepest, greatest potential, becoming who we were truly destined to be. What a shame it would be to miss it.
jueves 29 de octubre de 2009
Real meaning of Halloween
We’ve all heard the allegations. Halloween is a pagan rite dating back to some pre-Christian festival among the Celtic Druids that escaped Church suppression. Even today modern pagans and witches continue to celebrate this ancient festival. If you let your kids go trick-or-treating, they will be worshiping the devil and pagan gods.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of Halloween are, in fact, very Christian and rather American. Halloween falls on October 31 because of a pope, and its observances are the result of medieval Catholic piety.
It’s true that the ancient Celts of Ireland and Britain celebrated a minor festival on Oct. 31 — as they did on the last day of most other months of the year. However, Halloween falls on the last day of October because the Feast of All Saints or "All Hallows" falls on Nov. 1. The feast in honor of all the saints in heaven used to be celebrated on May 13, but Pope Gregory III (d. 741) moved it to Nov. 1, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter’s at Rome. Later, in the 840s, Pope Gregory IV commanded that All Saints be observed everywhere. And so the holy day spread to Ireland. The day before was the feast’s evening vigil, "All Hallows Even" or "Hallowe’en." In those days, Halloween didn’t have any special significance for Christians or for long-dead Celtic pagans.
In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in Southern France, added a celebration on Nov. 2. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. This feast, called All Souls Day, spread from France to the rest of Europe.
So now the Church had feasts for all those in heaven and all those in purgatory? What about those in the other place? It seems Irish Catholic peasants wondered about the unfortunate souls in hell. After all, if the souls in hell are left out when we celebrate those in heaven and purgatory, they might be unhappy enough to cause trouble. So it became customary to bang pots and pans on All Hallows Even to let the damned know they were not forgotten. Thus, in Ireland, at least, all the dead came to be remembered — even if the clergy were not terribly sympathetic to Halloween and never allowed All Damned Day into the Church calendar.
But that still isn’t our celebration of Halloween. Our traditions on this holiday centers around dressing up in fanciful costumes, which isn’t Irish at all. Rather, this custom arose in France during the 14th and 15th centuries. Late medieval Europe was hit by repeated outbreaks of the bubonic plague — the Black Death — and she lost about half her population. It is not surprising that Catholics became more concerned about the afterlife. More Masses were said on All Souls’ Day, and artistic representations were devised to remind everyone of their own mortality.
We know these representations as the "Dance Macabre" or "Dance of Death," which was commonly painted on the walls of cemeteries and shows the devil leading a daisy chain of people — popes, kings, ladies, knights, monks, peasants, lepers, etc. — into the tomb. Sometimes the dance was presented on All Souls’ Day itself as a living tableau with people dressed up in the garb of various states of life. But the French dressed up on All Souls, not Halloween; and the Irish, who had Halloween, did not dress up. How the two became mingled probably happened first in the British colonies of North America during the 1700s when Irish and French Catholics began to intermarry. The Irish focus on hell gave the French masquerades and even more macabre twist.
But, as every young ghoul knows, dressing up isn’t the point; the point is getting as many goodies as possible. Where on earth did "trick or treat" come in?
"Trick or treat" is perhaps the oddest and most American addition to Halloween, and is the unwilling contribution of English Catholics.
During the penal period of the 1500s to the 1700s in England, Catholics had no legal rights. They could not hold office and were subject to fines, jail and heavy taxes. It was a capital offense to say Mass, and hundreds of priests were martyred.
Occasionally, English Catholics resisted, sometimes foolishly. One of the most foolish acts of resistance was a plot to blow up the Protestant King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. This was supposed to trigger a Catholic uprising against their oppressors. The ill-conceived Gunpowder Plot was foiled on Nov. 5, 1605, when the man guarding the gunpowder, a reckless convert named Guy Fawkes, was captured and arrested. He was hanged; the plot fizzled.
Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes’ Day, became a great celebration in England, and so it remains. During the penal periods, bands of revelers would put on masks and visit local Catholics in the dead of night, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration: trick or treat!
Guy Fawkes’ Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. But, buy the time of the American Revolution, old King James and Guy Fawkes had pretty much been forgotten. Trick or treat, though, was too much fun to give up, so eventually it moved to Oct. 31, the day of the Irish-French masquerade. And in America, trick or treat wasn’t limited to Catholics.
The mixture of various immigrant traditions we know as Halloween had become a fixture in the Unites States by the early 1800s. To this day, it remains unknown in Europe, even in the countries from which some of the customs originated.
But what about witches? Well, they are one of the last additions. The greeting card industry added them in the late 1800s. Halloween was already "ghoulish," so why not give witches a place on greeting cards? The Halloween card failed (although it has seen a recent resurgence in popularity), but the witches stayed. So, too, in the late 1800s, ill-informed folklorists introduced the jack-o’-lantern. They thought that Halloween was druidic and pagan in origin. Lamps made from turnips (not pumpkins) had been part of ancient Celtic harvest festivals, so they were translated to the American Halloween celebration.
The next time someone claims that Halloween is a cruel trick to lure your children into devil worship, I suggest you tell them the real origin of All Hallows Even and invite them to discover its Christian significance, along with the two greater and more important Catholic festivals that follow it.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of Halloween are, in fact, very Christian and rather American. Halloween falls on October 31 because of a pope, and its observances are the result of medieval Catholic piety.
It’s true that the ancient Celts of Ireland and Britain celebrated a minor festival on Oct. 31 — as they did on the last day of most other months of the year. However, Halloween falls on the last day of October because the Feast of All Saints or "All Hallows" falls on Nov. 1. The feast in honor of all the saints in heaven used to be celebrated on May 13, but Pope Gregory III (d. 741) moved it to Nov. 1, the dedication day of All Saints Chapel in St. Peter’s at Rome. Later, in the 840s, Pope Gregory IV commanded that All Saints be observed everywhere. And so the holy day spread to Ireland. The day before was the feast’s evening vigil, "All Hallows Even" or "Hallowe’en." In those days, Halloween didn’t have any special significance for Christians or for long-dead Celtic pagans.
In 998, St. Odilo, the abbot of the powerful monastery of Cluny in Southern France, added a celebration on Nov. 2. This was a day of prayer for the souls of all the faithful departed. This feast, called All Souls Day, spread from France to the rest of Europe.
So now the Church had feasts for all those in heaven and all those in purgatory? What about those in the other place? It seems Irish Catholic peasants wondered about the unfortunate souls in hell. After all, if the souls in hell are left out when we celebrate those in heaven and purgatory, they might be unhappy enough to cause trouble. So it became customary to bang pots and pans on All Hallows Even to let the damned know they were not forgotten. Thus, in Ireland, at least, all the dead came to be remembered — even if the clergy were not terribly sympathetic to Halloween and never allowed All Damned Day into the Church calendar.
But that still isn’t our celebration of Halloween. Our traditions on this holiday centers around dressing up in fanciful costumes, which isn’t Irish at all. Rather, this custom arose in France during the 14th and 15th centuries. Late medieval Europe was hit by repeated outbreaks of the bubonic plague — the Black Death — and she lost about half her population. It is not surprising that Catholics became more concerned about the afterlife. More Masses were said on All Souls’ Day, and artistic representations were devised to remind everyone of their own mortality.
We know these representations as the "Dance Macabre" or "Dance of Death," which was commonly painted on the walls of cemeteries and shows the devil leading a daisy chain of people — popes, kings, ladies, knights, monks, peasants, lepers, etc. — into the tomb. Sometimes the dance was presented on All Souls’ Day itself as a living tableau with people dressed up in the garb of various states of life. But the French dressed up on All Souls, not Halloween; and the Irish, who had Halloween, did not dress up. How the two became mingled probably happened first in the British colonies of North America during the 1700s when Irish and French Catholics began to intermarry. The Irish focus on hell gave the French masquerades and even more macabre twist.
But, as every young ghoul knows, dressing up isn’t the point; the point is getting as many goodies as possible. Where on earth did "trick or treat" come in?
"Trick or treat" is perhaps the oddest and most American addition to Halloween, and is the unwilling contribution of English Catholics.
During the penal period of the 1500s to the 1700s in England, Catholics had no legal rights. They could not hold office and were subject to fines, jail and heavy taxes. It was a capital offense to say Mass, and hundreds of priests were martyred.
Occasionally, English Catholics resisted, sometimes foolishly. One of the most foolish acts of resistance was a plot to blow up the Protestant King James I and his Parliament with gunpowder. This was supposed to trigger a Catholic uprising against their oppressors. The ill-conceived Gunpowder Plot was foiled on Nov. 5, 1605, when the man guarding the gunpowder, a reckless convert named Guy Fawkes, was captured and arrested. He was hanged; the plot fizzled.
Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes’ Day, became a great celebration in England, and so it remains. During the penal periods, bands of revelers would put on masks and visit local Catholics in the dead of night, demanding beer and cakes for their celebration: trick or treat!
Guy Fawkes’ Day arrived in the American colonies with the first English settlers. But, buy the time of the American Revolution, old King James and Guy Fawkes had pretty much been forgotten. Trick or treat, though, was too much fun to give up, so eventually it moved to Oct. 31, the day of the Irish-French masquerade. And in America, trick or treat wasn’t limited to Catholics.
The mixture of various immigrant traditions we know as Halloween had become a fixture in the Unites States by the early 1800s. To this day, it remains unknown in Europe, even in the countries from which some of the customs originated.
But what about witches? Well, they are one of the last additions. The greeting card industry added them in the late 1800s. Halloween was already "ghoulish," so why not give witches a place on greeting cards? The Halloween card failed (although it has seen a recent resurgence in popularity), but the witches stayed. So, too, in the late 1800s, ill-informed folklorists introduced the jack-o’-lantern. They thought that Halloween was druidic and pagan in origin. Lamps made from turnips (not pumpkins) had been part of ancient Celtic harvest festivals, so they were translated to the American Halloween celebration.
The next time someone claims that Halloween is a cruel trick to lure your children into devil worship, I suggest you tell them the real origin of All Hallows Even and invite them to discover its Christian significance, along with the two greater and more important Catholic festivals that follow it.
about anticatholicism by Archbishop Dolan
FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!
Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.
It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”
If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
•On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”
Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.
•On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.
•Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.
•Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.
True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.
I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?
The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.
I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.
Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-God
Archbishop Dolan, great commentary. but what is even worse is the fact that there is also a lot of anti-God sentiment as well. now atheists are running subway ads, saying that people are better off without God. we live in a secular world with absolutely no religion or faith in anything. but we can fight back. for example i saw an ad in amny with a great quote by Padre Pio: "you don't believe in God, don't worry. God believes in you." what a nice charitable way of responding to those who don't believe in God!
Posted By: Oscar Ortiz
2009-10-29 11:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Times
I just e-mailed the NY Times' public editor this blog posting, suggesting that it's something he might want to take a look at.(For anyone who doesn't know, the Times' public editor is kind of an independent ombudsman who, among other things, keeps an eye on the paper's reporting practices).
Posted By: Irene Baldwin
2009-10-29 10:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Catholicism Article
Well, Congratulations, Archbishop Dolan! Of course the Times would not print it. It rings of too much truth and in their selective "blindness" they do not see or even seek the truth. Thank you for always proclaiming truth in such an intelligent and sensitive way. I pray you will have many years ahead to lead us all to that truth.
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!
Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.
It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”
If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
•On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”
Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.
•On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.
•Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.
•Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.
True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.
I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?
The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.
I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.
Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-God
Archbishop Dolan, great commentary. but what is even worse is the fact that there is also a lot of anti-God sentiment as well. now atheists are running subway ads, saying that people are better off without God. we live in a secular world with absolutely no religion or faith in anything. but we can fight back. for example i saw an ad in amny with a great quote by Padre Pio: "you don't believe in God, don't worry. God believes in you." what a nice charitable way of responding to those who don't believe in God!
Posted By: Oscar Ortiz
2009-10-29 11:11 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Times
I just e-mailed the NY Times' public editor this blog posting, suggesting that it's something he might want to take a look at.(For anyone who doesn't know, the Times' public editor is kind of an independent ombudsman who, among other things, keeps an eye on the paper's reporting practices).
Posted By: Irene Baldwin
2009-10-29 10:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Catholicism Article
Well, Congratulations, Archbishop Dolan! Of course the Times would not print it. It rings of too much truth and in their selective "blindness" they do not see or even seek the truth. Thank you for always proclaiming truth in such an intelligent and sensitive way. I pray you will have many years ahead to lead us all to that truth.
about celibacy
Question:
There are many Protestants who tell us that the Bible forbids priests to remain celibate. They tell me that the Bible teaches that they must be married, if not married and have no family then it is possible that they guide us, and so have problems. How could I answer them with the Bible about it?
Answer:
There are Protestants and confused Catholics who say that they know not the Bible. That idea is the result of ignorance of the Bible for many Catholics, Protestants and ignorant as "Cristina" and his show. If in fact the study seriously, would know some things that I share below:
1) The Bible says not to marry, but "they were married" once.
When the separated brethren claim that the Bible says that priests should be married is totally false. If we read the biblical passages that speak of this, we note that says not to marry, but something else:
"The candidate must be irreproachable, married 'once'...» Ti 1.6
"It is necessary that the bishop must be irreproachable, married" only once "sober, sensible ... 1 Timothy 3:2
"Deacons, whether married" only once "and educate their children well ..." 1 Tim 3.12
As you yourself have noticed in the three biblical quotations are repeated the words 'once'. We should ask why they said that only once, assuming that all Christians can only marry once. Do the bishops were married once and who were not could have several wives? Of course not.
The reason that's what it says in those days when Jesus Christ became many people had previously had several women and children. By accepting the gospel could not continue in that situation. They had to have one wife and take care of their children.
That's why when the Bible says marriage is "one time" is to "Highlight" if they wanted to be deacons, priests or bishops could not be if Christians before they had had several wives and children with them.
However, being married 'once' would not have the issue of care and attention rather than his wife and children. That is not said to be married, but before they have been married Christians 'once'.
Something similar happens today when a married Protestant minister converts to Catholicism. In this case is allowed to become a priest and still married, because that was before his conversion and ordination. Ministers Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans and some have already married or want to covert to Catholicism and become Catholic priests do receive permission to enter the sacred order mimisterio because their marriages occurred before his ordination as Catholic clergy.
"Apparently many sects understand the Bible in their own way, without carefully reading the Word of God."
2 .- St. Paul did not marry for love of the Kingdom.
An example showing that the Bible does not prohibit or single stay celibate for the love of God gives us Paul. In effect, it was one of the great evangelists and of whom we keep several letters in the Bible! Not married! And had no problem with sexuality as some today are saying what about those who remain celibate.
What a incredible is that many separated brethren do not mention this! As is clear in all Bibles. Let's see:
"My wish is that all men were like me, but each has its special grace of God: some in one way, some another. But I say to the unmarried and widows: Well I will stay as is. (1 Cor 7,7-9). "
Priests, bishops, religious precisely follow the example of St. Paul that love for Jesus Christ remain unmarried. A common misconception among Protestants is that they read chapter four of the letter to Timothy saying: "You see. The marriage ban is devilish doctrine. This is false, because that is what celibacy is not talking.
There is talk of doctrines that existed at that time in which certain groups, such Manichaean thought that everything about the body was bad. So for them it was wrong to marry. It is a condemnation to those groups and their doctrine. Instead, Paul speaks of "not marry" not because it is a bad thing, but because it is a choice of Love of God.
Furthermore, why are not sectarian people who remain unmarried for the love of God if it is something very clear in the Bible?
3 .- Corinthians and chapter on celibacy.
Not only St. Paul remained unmarried, but in one of his letters, first to the Corinthians, is expressed widely and beautifully about it and recommend it as a form of greater devotion to our Lord Jesus Christ.
On one occasion a priest was traveling by boat and at one point approached a pastor and told him that if he was a Catholic priest, wanted to say that he should marry, it was wrong if he did and in what part of the Bible is not talking about marriage.
The priest just simply say, "read chapter seven of the first letter to the Corinthians and then talked. He noted that continued the journey and the pastor never returned.
Some of the verses are:
10 In relation to the married I command, not I but the Lord, that women did not leave her husband,
11 But in the case of separation, not remarry, or to reconcile with her husband and the husband not to lay off his wife.
About 25 have mandated virginity of the Lord. I, however, a council, and who, by the mercies of God, is credible.
26 Therefore, I think is a good thing, because of the need this, keep the man.
27 Are you bound to a woman? Do not seek separation. Not bound to a wife? Do not look.
32 He that is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.
33 By contrast, the married man is concerned with worldly things, how to please his wife
38 Therefore, he who marries his fiancee does well. And who is not married, the better.
"No wonder the Protestant pastor and never came back to ask again about the issue of celibacy."
4 .- The "Cristina Show" is simply a bad show for 'rating'
Commenting on the ignorance of Cristina's because simply confirm what many people know. One thing to be a television host, researcher and another to be different is to be a more knowledgeable about their Christian faith. In this case the program in question has for months a trash anyone who says being a Christian is considered as an anti-Christian, where the 'sex' pornography, moral degradation, homosexuality and prostitution are seen as normal and ensalsados .
This is to win the 'rating' or public competition. So if anyone really wants to know the truth is better that you read the Bible and stopped seeing junk programs. In fact a few weeks ago I spoke by phone a person in the production of the 'show' of cristina and invited me to participate in the program where you talk about the issue of celibacy thinking I was a Protestant who disagreed with that. I told him that no, that celibacy is a Biblical basis and is one of the great blessings that Jesus Christ left and Paul lived.
Then the person told me that in that case was not interested in that I go to that show because I was looking for someone against, but anyone who was against it was the controversial substance. iQue incredible! Then he spoke again and gave her the name of an expert in Bible and theology with 3 masters degrees and a doctorate. His immediate response was that he was not interested, looking for someone "against". So if anyone has a source of information these 'shows' I advise you not to say that a Christian since that glorious name deserves respect and our life must be consistent with what we see and believe.
5 .- Celibacy is optional. Mt 19:12
There are some pretty ignorant to say that because the Catholic Church forced to be celibate. Fake. If someone does not want to be one goal for the priesthood, marry, period. Anyone who knows a little about the Church knows that is so optional that for years and years are prepared in a seminar and have too much time to think and decide. In fact I myself was a few years in the seminary and seeing that it was not my vocation came out, I got married and continued full-time missionary and happy life.
If some priests are being left, married, and say that's what good are scoundrels who were unable to sustain its own word. Someone might object that this makes it mandatory since changed his mind and now wants to marry. I answer to those who think that a married so does the same. If you are married and you made a commitment to stay with your wife for life you still want to fulfill this promise and no one forces but your same promise you made to God just like as in celibacy.
So my dear brother, do not be confuindir by tales of drivers and some other Biblical fallacies.
6 .- In the Catholic Church in the East there are "married" unmarried ".
This is something you need to know. In the Catholic Church from the beginning there were single and married ministers.
At the same time, from the beginning was highly valued the person who remained unmarried or celibate for the sake of the Kingdom.
Over the centuries, the Catholic Church of Latin rite: Spain, Italy, France, America ... it was leaving the ecclesiastical celibacy as a standard for all candidates.
In contrast, in the Catholic Church in the east (Russia, Greece, Constantinople ...) followed both single and married, but the common rule was that the bishops had to remain celibate.
This is because the "priestly celibacy" is not a "law" binding the whole Church, but rather is a "church discipline" that arises to meet the advice of the Apostle Paul and especially of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7 .- Celibacy is an evangelical counsel that Jesus Christ lived and left. The priests decide to live freely.
No doubt there are many religious sects brothers who are not reading the Scriptures with attention, as the Word of God in Jesus Christ himself are talking about the value and importance of remaining celibate.
One day I was talking about Jesus and his disciples about divorce and marriage. I said that divorce was not allowed, and that Moses had allowed for the hardness of heart.
Then the disciples say, "better not to marry. This is the moment when Jesus will one of the great treasures of spiritual and pastoral life of the Church. Les says:
Not everybody understands this, but those who have been concedido.Porque there are eunuchs who were born so from birth, and there are others who do not marry for love of the Kingdom of Heaven. Who understands you can. "Matthew 19:11-12
It is a "gift" to be received and must be understood. Apparently, sects, nor received, nor understand. Blessed be God in the Catholic Church there are those who "received" the gift and the 'know'. Thanks to their spiritual life, their preparation and their experience of treating hundreds of families, they can guide us in our family life. Oh and what the story that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is a good joke for the day of the innocent based on "novels". We prefer a thousand times better BIBLE.
P.D. When St. Paul speaks of some prohibit marriage and that is the doctrine of hell is referring to the Manichaean sect that was a time those who saw marriage as something bad. We say instead that it is a blessing. If someone wants to confirm this need only read any history book or encyclopedia.
There are many Protestants who tell us that the Bible forbids priests to remain celibate. They tell me that the Bible teaches that they must be married, if not married and have no family then it is possible that they guide us, and so have problems. How could I answer them with the Bible about it?
Answer:
There are Protestants and confused Catholics who say that they know not the Bible. That idea is the result of ignorance of the Bible for many Catholics, Protestants and ignorant as "Cristina" and his show. If in fact the study seriously, would know some things that I share below:
1) The Bible says not to marry, but "they were married" once.
When the separated brethren claim that the Bible says that priests should be married is totally false. If we read the biblical passages that speak of this, we note that says not to marry, but something else:
"The candidate must be irreproachable, married 'once'...» Ti 1.6
"It is necessary that the bishop must be irreproachable, married" only once "sober, sensible ... 1 Timothy 3:2
"Deacons, whether married" only once "and educate their children well ..." 1 Tim 3.12
As you yourself have noticed in the three biblical quotations are repeated the words 'once'. We should ask why they said that only once, assuming that all Christians can only marry once. Do the bishops were married once and who were not could have several wives? Of course not.
The reason that's what it says in those days when Jesus Christ became many people had previously had several women and children. By accepting the gospel could not continue in that situation. They had to have one wife and take care of their children.
That's why when the Bible says marriage is "one time" is to "Highlight" if they wanted to be deacons, priests or bishops could not be if Christians before they had had several wives and children with them.
However, being married 'once' would not have the issue of care and attention rather than his wife and children. That is not said to be married, but before they have been married Christians 'once'.
Something similar happens today when a married Protestant minister converts to Catholicism. In this case is allowed to become a priest and still married, because that was before his conversion and ordination. Ministers Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans and some have already married or want to covert to Catholicism and become Catholic priests do receive permission to enter the sacred order mimisterio because their marriages occurred before his ordination as Catholic clergy.
"Apparently many sects understand the Bible in their own way, without carefully reading the Word of God."
2 .- St. Paul did not marry for love of the Kingdom.
An example showing that the Bible does not prohibit or single stay celibate for the love of God gives us Paul. In effect, it was one of the great evangelists and of whom we keep several letters in the Bible! Not married! And had no problem with sexuality as some today are saying what about those who remain celibate.
What a incredible is that many separated brethren do not mention this! As is clear in all Bibles. Let's see:
"My wish is that all men were like me, but each has its special grace of God: some in one way, some another. But I say to the unmarried and widows: Well I will stay as is. (1 Cor 7,7-9). "
Priests, bishops, religious precisely follow the example of St. Paul that love for Jesus Christ remain unmarried. A common misconception among Protestants is that they read chapter four of the letter to Timothy saying: "You see. The marriage ban is devilish doctrine. This is false, because that is what celibacy is not talking.
There is talk of doctrines that existed at that time in which certain groups, such Manichaean thought that everything about the body was bad. So for them it was wrong to marry. It is a condemnation to those groups and their doctrine. Instead, Paul speaks of "not marry" not because it is a bad thing, but because it is a choice of Love of God.
Furthermore, why are not sectarian people who remain unmarried for the love of God if it is something very clear in the Bible?
3 .- Corinthians and chapter on celibacy.
Not only St. Paul remained unmarried, but in one of his letters, first to the Corinthians, is expressed widely and beautifully about it and recommend it as a form of greater devotion to our Lord Jesus Christ.
On one occasion a priest was traveling by boat and at one point approached a pastor and told him that if he was a Catholic priest, wanted to say that he should marry, it was wrong if he did and in what part of the Bible is not talking about marriage.
The priest just simply say, "read chapter seven of the first letter to the Corinthians and then talked. He noted that continued the journey and the pastor never returned.
Some of the verses are:
10 In relation to the married I command, not I but the Lord, that women did not leave her husband,
11 But in the case of separation, not remarry, or to reconcile with her husband and the husband not to lay off his wife.
About 25 have mandated virginity of the Lord. I, however, a council, and who, by the mercies of God, is credible.
26 Therefore, I think is a good thing, because of the need this, keep the man.
27 Are you bound to a woman? Do not seek separation. Not bound to a wife? Do not look.
32 He that is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.
33 By contrast, the married man is concerned with worldly things, how to please his wife
38 Therefore, he who marries his fiancee does well. And who is not married, the better.
"No wonder the Protestant pastor and never came back to ask again about the issue of celibacy."
4 .- The "Cristina Show" is simply a bad show for 'rating'
Commenting on the ignorance of Cristina's because simply confirm what many people know. One thing to be a television host, researcher and another to be different is to be a more knowledgeable about their Christian faith. In this case the program in question has for months a trash anyone who says being a Christian is considered as an anti-Christian, where the 'sex' pornography, moral degradation, homosexuality and prostitution are seen as normal and ensalsados .
This is to win the 'rating' or public competition. So if anyone really wants to know the truth is better that you read the Bible and stopped seeing junk programs. In fact a few weeks ago I spoke by phone a person in the production of the 'show' of cristina and invited me to participate in the program where you talk about the issue of celibacy thinking I was a Protestant who disagreed with that. I told him that no, that celibacy is a Biblical basis and is one of the great blessings that Jesus Christ left and Paul lived.
Then the person told me that in that case was not interested in that I go to that show because I was looking for someone against, but anyone who was against it was the controversial substance. iQue incredible! Then he spoke again and gave her the name of an expert in Bible and theology with 3 masters degrees and a doctorate. His immediate response was that he was not interested, looking for someone "against". So if anyone has a source of information these 'shows' I advise you not to say that a Christian since that glorious name deserves respect and our life must be consistent with what we see and believe.
5 .- Celibacy is optional. Mt 19:12
There are some pretty ignorant to say that because the Catholic Church forced to be celibate. Fake. If someone does not want to be one goal for the priesthood, marry, period. Anyone who knows a little about the Church knows that is so optional that for years and years are prepared in a seminar and have too much time to think and decide. In fact I myself was a few years in the seminary and seeing that it was not my vocation came out, I got married and continued full-time missionary and happy life.
If some priests are being left, married, and say that's what good are scoundrels who were unable to sustain its own word. Someone might object that this makes it mandatory since changed his mind and now wants to marry. I answer to those who think that a married so does the same. If you are married and you made a commitment to stay with your wife for life you still want to fulfill this promise and no one forces but your same promise you made to God just like as in celibacy.
So my dear brother, do not be confuindir by tales of drivers and some other Biblical fallacies.
6 .- In the Catholic Church in the East there are "married" unmarried ".
This is something you need to know. In the Catholic Church from the beginning there were single and married ministers.
At the same time, from the beginning was highly valued the person who remained unmarried or celibate for the sake of the Kingdom.
Over the centuries, the Catholic Church of Latin rite: Spain, Italy, France, America ... it was leaving the ecclesiastical celibacy as a standard for all candidates.
In contrast, in the Catholic Church in the east (Russia, Greece, Constantinople ...) followed both single and married, but the common rule was that the bishops had to remain celibate.
This is because the "priestly celibacy" is not a "law" binding the whole Church, but rather is a "church discipline" that arises to meet the advice of the Apostle Paul and especially of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7 .- Celibacy is an evangelical counsel that Jesus Christ lived and left. The priests decide to live freely.
No doubt there are many religious sects brothers who are not reading the Scriptures with attention, as the Word of God in Jesus Christ himself are talking about the value and importance of remaining celibate.
One day I was talking about Jesus and his disciples about divorce and marriage. I said that divorce was not allowed, and that Moses had allowed for the hardness of heart.
Then the disciples say, "better not to marry. This is the moment when Jesus will one of the great treasures of spiritual and pastoral life of the Church. Les says:
Not everybody understands this, but those who have been concedido.Porque there are eunuchs who were born so from birth, and there are others who do not marry for love of the Kingdom of Heaven. Who understands you can. "Matthew 19:11-12
It is a "gift" to be received and must be understood. Apparently, sects, nor received, nor understand. Blessed be God in the Catholic Church there are those who "received" the gift and the 'know'. Thanks to their spiritual life, their preparation and their experience of treating hundreds of families, they can guide us in our family life. Oh and what the story that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is a good joke for the day of the innocent based on "novels". We prefer a thousand times better BIBLE.
P.D. When St. Paul speaks of some prohibit marriage and that is the doctrine of hell is referring to the Manichaean sect that was a time those who saw marriage as something bad. We say instead that it is a blessing. If someone wants to confirm this need only read any history book or encyclopedia.
Divination and prophecy
Divination is the prediction of future events or hidden, without appealing to God. It is intended to reveal what only God can know.
God has revealed something about the future: Eg: There will be a trial and then heaven or hell, etc..
God also gives us natural means, such as intelligence, study, science and resources for us to prepare responsibly for the future, but at the same time we know that we can not control our future as it is in God's hands. We must trust Him as Father who is good. We trust in God and work with His grace to do the piece that touches us.
But the man, driven by arrogance, wants to have everything under their control without having to put their trust in God. That's why seeking knowledge illicit paths outside of Divine revelation and outside the natural means are lawful. It goes like this in search of divination.
Explicitly or implicitly "ADUVUNACION using the" demons "and those who practice it remains, to some extent, linked with the evil.
Still others are directly a pact with him.
"Methods used for divination"
The evocation of death, use of oracles, Consulting horoscopes, astrology, numerology, palmistry, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of vision, the use of "medium," tarot cards, Ouija board ( game of the cup), the "red book" and other practices such as visiting wing healing through gregorio hernandes, those who call on the holy death that is much in mexico and so on.
Who uses divination? - Not only in Santeria, witchcraft, spiritualism, and other groups.
As he loses faith is popularized divination even among people who belong to neither of these groups. Many turn to divination in time of crisis to find a solution to a serious problem. Others believe that only a joke, a curiosity or do it under pressure from a group. We must remember that in divination destroys our faithfulness to God, which should not be playing.
"One must distinguish between divination and prophecy"
In the prophecy men do not take the initiative, but it is God who calls them and gives a message to be communicated. The Church teaches that God can reveal the future to his prophets or saints. However, the Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it.
Divination in history. The soothsayers were very important in the Old Testament: In Egypt (Pharaoh's magicians), in Greece (the priests of Apollo), in Rome, depended on the auspices.
For example, a lightning falling from left to right (positive) from right to left (unfavorable); the auspices obtained from the sacred chickens, etc. ..
The people of Israel, many times, took to the practice of divination and consulting witches, thus going against God's commandments. (Ezekiel 13:18-19, 2 Chron 33:6, Jer 27:9 ...).
King Saul went to consult the witch (sorceress, diviner) of Endor, wondering what to do about the war (1 Samuel 28:7). In 1 Samuel 15:23, divination is a spirit of rebellion.
In the New Testament we see that the apostles confront the soothsayers. St. Paul commanded the evil spirit leave a slave girl who had the fortune of their owners. So Paul and Barnabas were arrested, jailed and flogged.
In the city of Philippi, St. Paul encountered obstacles because of a slave girl possessed by a spirit of Python which ordered out. "Tired Paul, turned and said to the spirit:" In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to leave it. "And at the same moment came (Acts 16:18).
Divination is the evil spirit, the enemy of God.
Today, men are offending God by these practices. Some come to sell their souls to receive the devil they seek. Not surprisingly, the demon of temporal power to customers in exchange for his soul.
Prohibition of the Church
Divination is a grave sin against the First Commandment. The Apostolic Constitutions specifically prohibit divination. The Councils of Vannes (461) of Agde (506) and Orleans (511) excommunicated the soothsayers. Besides, they were declared infamous, unable to be witnesses in the justice and deprived of all ecclesiastical dignity.
All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.
Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palmistry, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history and, finally, men, the Once a desire to gain the protection of occult powers. They contradict the honor and respect, and loving fear that we have only to God.
All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers to bring them to their service and have a supernatural power over others - even to seek health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. The practice is most reprehensible even when accompanied by an intention to harm another, whether or not to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices. Why the Church warns the faithful to be saved from it. The use of medicines called traditional non-self or the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.
Questions and answers.
Q: How do you explain that fortunetelling and seers perceive will develop this or that issue (though you do not know of anything). I know people with this gift, they have quite right with some details of my life and do not seem bad people or "sorcerers" or anything unusual and have never attempted to "hook up" financially. Is it true that some people have the gift of clairvoyance?
A: Many things in the future can be derived with the use of reason. A meteorologist can inform us of what will the weather tomorrow. It may be wrong but have no basis to give a good prediction. Now the devil is a fallen angel did not lose his intelligence, but who uses it for evil. His intelligence is far superior to ours .. The devil knows the future, but predicted by their knowledge with great intelligence. The devil also knows our attitudes and our affairs. No wonder you can then get good ideas for the future. The Holy Scriptures, as we saw in the article above, we are taught about the demonic activity that operates divination.
The devil is like the Mafia. Entangles and traps its prey with promises and then the cobra. The devil, as every liar, can tell some truth to catch us when you want. But a fool is he who trusts in him. Will be trapped in their lies.
We can not be a stereotype of the seer. Not have to look "bad people" or have an economic interest. There are other interests that may be at stake, as the boast of his powers to his friends.
God has revealed something about the future: Eg: There will be a trial and then heaven or hell, etc..
God also gives us natural means, such as intelligence, study, science and resources for us to prepare responsibly for the future, but at the same time we know that we can not control our future as it is in God's hands. We must trust Him as Father who is good. We trust in God and work with His grace to do the piece that touches us.
But the man, driven by arrogance, wants to have everything under their control without having to put their trust in God. That's why seeking knowledge illicit paths outside of Divine revelation and outside the natural means are lawful. It goes like this in search of divination.
Explicitly or implicitly "ADUVUNACION using the" demons "and those who practice it remains, to some extent, linked with the evil.
Still others are directly a pact with him.
"Methods used for divination"
The evocation of death, use of oracles, Consulting horoscopes, astrology, numerology, palmistry, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of vision, the use of "medium," tarot cards, Ouija board ( game of the cup), the "red book" and other practices such as visiting wing healing through gregorio hernandes, those who call on the holy death that is much in mexico and so on.
Who uses divination? - Not only in Santeria, witchcraft, spiritualism, and other groups.
As he loses faith is popularized divination even among people who belong to neither of these groups. Many turn to divination in time of crisis to find a solution to a serious problem. Others believe that only a joke, a curiosity or do it under pressure from a group. We must remember that in divination destroys our faithfulness to God, which should not be playing.
"One must distinguish between divination and prophecy"
In the prophecy men do not take the initiative, but it is God who calls them and gives a message to be communicated. The Church teaches that God can reveal the future to his prophets or saints. However, the Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it.
Divination in history. The soothsayers were very important in the Old Testament: In Egypt (Pharaoh's magicians), in Greece (the priests of Apollo), in Rome, depended on the auspices.
For example, a lightning falling from left to right (positive) from right to left (unfavorable); the auspices obtained from the sacred chickens, etc. ..
The people of Israel, many times, took to the practice of divination and consulting witches, thus going against God's commandments. (Ezekiel 13:18-19, 2 Chron 33:6, Jer 27:9 ...).
King Saul went to consult the witch (sorceress, diviner) of Endor, wondering what to do about the war (1 Samuel 28:7). In 1 Samuel 15:23, divination is a spirit of rebellion.
In the New Testament we see that the apostles confront the soothsayers. St. Paul commanded the evil spirit leave a slave girl who had the fortune of their owners. So Paul and Barnabas were arrested, jailed and flogged.
In the city of Philippi, St. Paul encountered obstacles because of a slave girl possessed by a spirit of Python which ordered out. "Tired Paul, turned and said to the spirit:" In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to leave it. "And at the same moment came (Acts 16:18).
Divination is the evil spirit, the enemy of God.
Today, men are offending God by these practices. Some come to sell their souls to receive the devil they seek. Not surprisingly, the demon of temporal power to customers in exchange for his soul.
Prohibition of the Church
Divination is a grave sin against the First Commandment. The Apostolic Constitutions specifically prohibit divination. The Councils of Vannes (461) of Agde (506) and Orleans (511) excommunicated the soothsayers. Besides, they were declared infamous, unable to be witnesses in the justice and deprived of all ecclesiastical dignity.
All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.
Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palmistry, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history and, finally, men, the Once a desire to gain the protection of occult powers. They contradict the honor and respect, and loving fear that we have only to God.
All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers to bring them to their service and have a supernatural power over others - even to seek health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. The practice is most reprehensible even when accompanied by an intention to harm another, whether or not to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices. Why the Church warns the faithful to be saved from it. The use of medicines called traditional non-self or the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.
Questions and answers.
Q: How do you explain that fortunetelling and seers perceive will develop this or that issue (though you do not know of anything). I know people with this gift, they have quite right with some details of my life and do not seem bad people or "sorcerers" or anything unusual and have never attempted to "hook up" financially. Is it true that some people have the gift of clairvoyance?
A: Many things in the future can be derived with the use of reason. A meteorologist can inform us of what will the weather tomorrow. It may be wrong but have no basis to give a good prediction. Now the devil is a fallen angel did not lose his intelligence, but who uses it for evil. His intelligence is far superior to ours .. The devil knows the future, but predicted by their knowledge with great intelligence. The devil also knows our attitudes and our affairs. No wonder you can then get good ideas for the future. The Holy Scriptures, as we saw in the article above, we are taught about the demonic activity that operates divination.
The devil is like the Mafia. Entangles and traps its prey with promises and then the cobra. The devil, as every liar, can tell some truth to catch us when you want. But a fool is he who trusts in him. Will be trapped in their lies.
We can not be a stereotype of the seer. Not have to look "bad people" or have an economic interest. There are other interests that may be at stake, as the boast of his powers to his friends.
testimony of a protestant converted to catholic
By David Armstrong
1 - I went to the front to be saved.
Not much in my life have indicated this surprising turn, but that was always inscrutable sign of mercy and providence of God. My first knowledge of Christianity came to the United Methodist Church, the denomination in which I was educated. The church that we attended, a working class district of the city of Detroit (Michigan, USA), it seemed to me, as any kid in the early 1960s, which was in decline, sociologically speaking, so much so that the average age of members was about fifty or more years. In my studies years later as an evangelical, I learned that the shrinking and aging congregations were one of the visible signs of deterioration of Protestantism.
My early religious education was not entirely free, however, that as I was gaining respect for God than I ever gave up was the realization of His love for mankind, and an appreciation for the sense of basic moral mandates sacred. Anyway, for whatever reason, I did not have a growing interest in Christianity at this time. In 1969, at the age of eleven, I came into contact first with the call to the altar of fundamentalist Christianity in a Baptist church we visited two or three times. I went to the front to be "saved" so absolutely sincere, but without the knowledge or willpower required (for more solicitous evangelical standards) to carry out this temporal resolution.
During this period, I was fascinated with the supernatural, but unfortunately, entered the grounds of a vague occult: telepathy, Ouija, astral projection, even witchcraft voodoo (with vicious gym teacher in mind!). I read about Houdini1y Uri Geller and others. Famous American magician of the early twentieth century. British-born Israeli who bent a spoon without touching it, only with the mind, directo.Todo live and this was part of the road in my conversion to Catholicism.
2 - From crisis to pass a spiritual renewal.
Meanwhile, my brother Gerry who is ten years older than I, became, in 1971 to Evangelicalism, a trend that was raging at that time. He suffered a truly remarkable transformation, leaving the cultural circle of the typical rock star drug addict and quarrelsome, and began preaching in a way jealous of our family. This was a new show for me. I had already influenced by the hippie counterculture, and as he had always been somewhat nonconformist, the "Jesus Movement" (Movimiento de Jesus) had a strange fascination for me, although I had no intention to join them.
I was proud of my "restraint" with regard to religious questions. Like most nominal Christians and unbelievers honest, I reacted to any deployment of serious and devout Christianity with a mixture of fear, derision and condescension, thinking that such behavior was "inappropriate", fanatical, and outside the mainstream of American culture. In the early 1970s I visited the Messiah Lutheran Church occasionally in Detroit where my brother attended, along with his friends hairy of "Jesus Freak" and I squirm in my seat with the conviction of the powerful sermons Pastor Dick Bieber, a character from the type of those of whom I had never heard.
I remember thinking that what he was preaching was indisputably the truth, and if it was the question of "being saved" there would be no place to land the media or for cowards. Therefore, I was reluctant to put it in some way, because I thought that was the end of fun and conviviality with friends. Because of my rebellion and pride, God had to use more drastic methods to midespertar.
In 1977 I experienced a severe depression for six months which atypical eratotalmente my temper before. The immediate causes were the pressures in late adolescence, but in retrospect it is clear that God was bringing home the ultimate meaninglessness of my life - - a vacuous and futile individualistic demand for happiness without the purpose or relationship with God .
I was brought, staggered to the end of myself. It was a terrifying existential crisis in which I had no other choice but to cry to God. He responded quickly. It happened that at Easter 1977, the extraordinary film Jesus of Nazareth by Franco Zeffirelli (still my favorite Christian movie) was on TV.
I had always enjoyed movies of the Bible as the Ten Commandments. They gave life to the biblical personalities, and the element of drama (as an art form) reported the vitality of Christianity in a unique way and "Jesus Freak", with forgiveness of the readers and even the person of Dave, another inventions so many Americans and British to convince the people on the sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ in our lives, but falling into a syncretism that verges on the pagan and vicious. The person of Jesus needs no such doctrines as entertainment and showbiz to be proclaimed. Therefore, this open letter to an evangelical is to share my experience of faith and the evangelical complaeto of Jesus Christ.
Jesus, as was portrayed in this film, left an extraordinary impression on me, and the time could not be better. He appeared as the ultimate non-conformist that I appealed. Without realizing that part of ara My conversion to Catholicism. I marveled at the way he treated people, and gave you the feeling of things you could never expect what he would say or do - - always something with a unique vision or impact. I began to understand, with the help of my brother, the reason the gospel for the first time what the Cross and Passion meant, and some of the basics of theology that I had never thought of before. I also learned that Jesus not only was the Son of God, but God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity something that, incredibly, I had not heard before, or simply not understand if I had heard.
I started to read seriously for the first time in my life, the Bible (the translation of the paraphrase BibliaViviente is more informal). It was the combination of my depression and new knowledge of Christianity which caused my decision to follow Jesus as my Lord and Savior in a much more serious, in July 1977 that I still regard as a "conversion to Christ," and what evangelical view that experience as "born again" or "saved."
3 - Attending to the Assemblies of God, Lutherans and others.
I keep seeing this as a valid spiritual and essential step. Despite my initial burst of heat, I settled for the warmth again for three years until August 1980 when I finally surrendered my whole being to God, and felt a "renewal" deep in my spiritual life. Throughout the eighties I attended Lutheran churches, the "Assembly Dedi", non-denominational sects and with strong connections to the "Jesus Movement", characterized by youth, spontaneity of worship, contemporary music, and fellowship hot. Many of my friends were former Catholics (apostates).
I knew little of Catholicism until the early 1980s. I considered him as a "name" exotic, austere, and unnecessarily ritualistic did not have much appeal for me. I was not naturally attracted to the liturgy, and did not believe at all in the sacraments, though I always had great reverence for the "Lord's Supper" and I thought she was taught in algoreal. On the other hand, I was never publicly anti-Catholic. Having taken an active part in anticultos apologetic work (specializing in deJehová russel or witnesses), I quickly realized that Catholicism was quite ritualistic.
He believed that the Catholic sects was different in that it had "core doctrines" right, like the Trinity and the bodily Resurrection of Christ and an admirable historical legitimacy, wholly Christian, although vastly inferior to evangelicalism. I was, you could say, a typical evangelical of the species that had some theological interest slightly higher than average. I became familiar with many of obrasde majors: CS Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell, AW Tozer, Billy Graham, Hal Lindsey, John Stott, Chuck Colson, Christianity Today, Keith Green Ministries "Last Days", the Jesus People in Chicago yrevista Cornerstone Christian brotherhood Inter. -Varsity (college organization) and the Christian music scene: the whole, quite beneficial influences as to be quite feel sorry at all. My strong interest in evangelism and apologetics brings me back, with the permission of my evangelical church as a missionary on the campuses of the university for four years.
I also got involved in the pro-life movement, and Operation Rescue. It quickly became clear to me that Catholic rescuers were so committed to Christ and godly like the evangelicals. In retrospect, there is no substitute for it largely closed observance of Catholic devotees. I had met with an endless number of evangelicals who exhibited what I thought was a serious way with Christ, but rarely with the intensity and life Catholics.
4 - got to know and to have Catholic friends.
I started to make friends with my fellow Catholics of rescues, and sometimes in prison, even priests and nuns. Although still skeptical theologically, my personal admiration for Orthodox and Catholics took off like a Tomahawk missile. In January 1990 I started an ecumenical discussion group that I moderate. Three Catholic friends who know the movement of the rescue, John McAlpine, Leno Poli and Don McSween, began attending. Their claims for the Church, especially regarding papal infallibility and reconcile me to dive into a massive project of research in this matter.
I thought I had found many errors and contradictions throughout history. Then I realized, however, that my many "samples" did not enter the category of claims infallible nor even, as defined by the Vatican Council of 1870. I was also a little dishonest because I would ignore historical facts which strongly confirmed the Catholic position, as early widespread acceptance of the Real Presence, knowing the authority of the bishop, and the communion of saints. Certainly it was not easy the way of my conversion to Catholicism or what is to him who seeks the truth with sincerity.
Meanwhile, I was reading books only Catholics (and all treaties short of Catholic Answers), with an open mind, and my respect and understanding of Catholicism grew from the top. I started (providentially) with The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam, a very special book to summarize adequately here. It is, I think, an almost perfect book on Catholicism as a world and lifestyle, especially because a person familiar with the basic Catholic theology. I read loslibros by Christopher Dawson, a great cultural historian, Joan Andrews (a heroine of the movement of rescue), and Thomas Merton, the famous Trappist monk, all of which impressed me most. My three friends of our discussion group continued to respond calmly to the hundreds of questions about mine.
I was amazed pordes account Catholicism seemed to have been "thoughtful" - was a wonderful and complex belief system consistent concualquier unmatched portion of the "evangelical Christians". At this point I got extremely worried by the Protestant acceptance (and my own) free and easy acceptance of contraception.
I came to believe, according to the church that once one considers the sexual pleasure as an end in itself, then the so-called right to "abortion" is not logically away. My friends evangelical pro-life could be easily exception, but the less spiritually prepared would not have done that, as has been fully confirmed by the sexual revolution in total growth since the widespread use of the Pill began around 1960. When a couple thinks that they can thwart the God's desire in the matter of a possible conception, then the notion of terminating a pregnancy sesigue for some diabolical logic devoid of the spiritual guide of the Church. In this as in other areas such as divorce, the Church is undeniably wise and genuinely progressive. GK Chesterton, Ronald Knox, the great apologists, and could see the graffiti on the wall around the thirties.
I was absolutely terrified by the fact that no Christian body had accepted contraception until the Anglicans in 1930 did, and the nations inevitable progression of contraception or abortion, as was irrefutably demonstrated by Father Paul Marx.Finalmente, a book entitled The Teaching of "Humanae Vitae" by John Ford, Germain Grisez, and others, convinced me of the moral distinction between contraception and Natural Family Planning and put me on the edge. I accepted belief now a not very "Protestant", but still may not even dreamed of becoming a Catholic (which is, of course, unthinkable for an evangelical).
5 - Upon investigation and further began to experience a peculiar, intense, and inexpressibly mystical feeling of reverence for the idea of a Church "One, Holy, Apostolic Católicay."
I was still falling prey to the principle of conversion. Meanwhile, my wife Judy who was raised Catholic and Protestant went before we knew we had also been convinced of the error regardless of contraception. She was returned to the Church the day that I was received. Que linda is unity! Then, in July 1990, I was convinced that Catholicism had the best moral theology than any other Christian body, and greatly respected his sense of community, devotion, and contemplation. Moral theology and mystical elements intangible began to dance the dance of the conversion for me, and is increasingly rooted deep within my soul, and beyond, but not opposed to the rational calculations of my mind.
My Catholic friend, John, tired of my constant on the errors can Catholics and additions through the centuries, suggested I read the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal Newman. This book completely demolished the whole scheme of church history that I had built. I thought, typically, that early Christianity was Protestant and that Catholicism was a corruption late (although I placed the collapse inthe late Middle Ages rather than the usual time of Constantine in the fourth century). Martin Luther, I recognized he had discovered in Sola Scriptura means to clean the Catholic aggregates accumulated in the clean and inmaculadanave originally Christian.
Tradition, for Newman was like a rudder and a steering wheel, and it was absolutely necessary for the guidance and direction. As a navigation chart. Newman showed the characteristics of the real developments brilliantly, as opposed to the corruptions within the Church visible and historically instituted by Christ. I found myself unable and unwilling derefutar his reasoning, and a crucial piece of the puzzle was put in place - - the Tradition was now apparent to me credible. Thus began what is somehow called a "paradigm shift." While reading the test I experienced a peculiar, intense, and inexpressibly mystical feeling of reverence for the idea of a Church "One, Holy, Apostolic Católicay." Catholicism was now thinkable and suddenly I fell into a severe crisis. I now believe in the visible Church. Once I accepted the Catholic ecclesiology, theology took its course as an issue, and I accepted without difficulty (including Marian doctrines).
My Catholic friends had been cultivating the rocky land of my will and my mind so stubborn for almost a year, while planting the "seeds Catholic" now quickly took root and grew, much to his surprise. I had fought as hard to read just before Newman, in a desperate effort to save my Protestantism, both as a drowning man just before he succumbs! My conversion to Catholicism was approaching without realizing it.
I continued reading, while actively trying to Catholicism now fully persuaded, from autobiography Porla Newman, Tom Howard's book "To be Evangelical is not enough", that helped me appreciate the genius of the liturgy for the first time, and two books Chesterton about Catholicism
6 .- I talked with a former pastor and that surprised me.
At about this time I had a conversation with an old friend who had also been my pastor for several years and whose theological opinions I was in very high regard. I admitted to him that I was tremendously in trouble with certain elements of Protestantism, and could, perhaps (but it was an improbable notion) be thinking about becoming a Catholic. To my amazement, he told me that he too, was going in the same direction, citing in particular the problem formulation and statement of the Canon of Scripture are for Protestants and their premise of "Bible Only". These guys rare events "confirmed" helped create a strong feeling that something strange was simply baffling followed during the period prior to my total conversion. He was in such a theological crisis (as was I), so he resigned his ministry two months after our conversation.
Also at this time I had the great privilege of meeting Father John Hardon, the eminent Jesuit catechist, and began attending classes on spirituality informal. This gave me the opportunity to learn personally from authoritative Catholic priest, who is also a delightful and humble man. After seven weeks of time to question my sanity in turn and reach new peaks of tremendous discovery, the final death blow came just in the way I had been suspected. I knew that if I should reject Protestantism, then I had to examine its historical roots: the so-called Protestant Reformation. I had previously read some materials about Martin Luther, and I considered him one of mishéroes larger. I accepted the standard myth of Luther as the fearless, virtuous rebel against the darkness of tyranny and superstition Catholic added to the "Early Christianity".
But when I studied a large portion of six-volume biographical book about Martin Luther, Luther, the German Jesuit Hartmann Grisar deLutero my opinion was placed upside down. Grisar convinced me that the fundamental principles of the Protestant Revolution was weak overall. I had always rejected Luther's notions of absolute predestination and total depravity of mankind. Now I understood that if the man had a free will, because he did not merely be declared righteous in a judicial sense, the abstract, but may actively participate in their redemption and really could become virtuous by the Grace of God. This, somehow, is the classic debate on Justification.
I learned many disturbing facts about Luther adversely, for example, its highly subjective existential methodology, their contempt for reason and historical precedent, and its dictatorial intolerance toward opposing views, including those from his fellow Protestants. These and other findings were stunned me and convinced me beyond any doubt that he really was not a "reformer" of the Church "pure" and pre-Nicene, but rather a revolutionary who created a new theology in many, but not all aspects. The myth was destroyed. Now I was "skeptical" with the common Protestant notion of the invisible church, "rediscovered." In the end, my innate love of history played a crucial part in my abandonment of Protestantism, which tends to pay little attention to history (not knowing the history makes it easy to be against Catholicism). He was a Christian but at this stage, became, in my opinion, a moral and intellectual duty on leave, as evangelical Protestantism. Yet it was not easy. Old habits and perceptions die hard, but I refused to let the feelings and prejudices to interfere with the wondrous process of illumination in which the prevailing grace of God to be more Christian.
7 .- I had to surrender to the Truth
I waited expectantly for the final impetus to surrender completely. The unpredictable course of conversion reached a climax on 6 December 1990, while I was reading Cardinal Newman's meditation on "Hope in God the Creator" and in a resolute moment I realized that I no longer had to resist any the Catholic Church. In the end, as in most of the experiences of converts, heladísimo fear takes its place, similar to those of earthquakes before the marriage. At one point, this barrier disappeared, and emotional peace and doctrine prevailed.
In the following three years since my conversion to Catholicism, there have been some amazing things in our circle of friends (I claim no credit for me in these cases, perhaps a small influence, but how wonderful that God moves the hearts of people). Four people have been returned to the church of her childhood and three, like me, we have become the Protestantism of the authentic life Christianity: Catholicism. These include my former pastor, Al and his wife, Sally, one of my good friends and frequent partner in the evangelical community and his wife Lori, the lifelong friend of Dan, Joe Polgar who had been virtually in paganism for a few years, another friend, Terri Navarra, and the daughter of a friend, Tom McGlynn, Jennifer.
Additionally, another couple we know had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy return to Catholicism and a second is thinking seriously about the same event, and a third partner may convert to Catholicism. Needless to say, that many of our Protestant friends watch these events with trepidation silenced. One of my former pastors, the encounter more heated than I had since my conversion, I called it "blasphemous" because I thought I had more in the Christian tradition than just what is contained in the Bible! Another good friend who is a Baptist minister said that although I had made a terrible mistake, I'm still safe because of their belief in eternal security! After all, thankfully to God, has been a fairly smooth experience among our friends evangelical Protestants.
Many ignore our Catholicism altogether. I believe that all Catholics can share these experiences that I experienced I have been describing, in the sense that each new discovery of some Catholic truth is equally challenging. As in all of us grow in our faith, rejoice in the abundant springs of delight, as well as instructional time of suffering that God gives us in his body, fully manifested in the Catholic Church. I feel very at home in it, much as might be expected on this side of heaven.
DEI AD maiorem GLORIAM
1 - I went to the front to be saved.
Not much in my life have indicated this surprising turn, but that was always inscrutable sign of mercy and providence of God. My first knowledge of Christianity came to the United Methodist Church, the denomination in which I was educated. The church that we attended, a working class district of the city of Detroit (Michigan, USA), it seemed to me, as any kid in the early 1960s, which was in decline, sociologically speaking, so much so that the average age of members was about fifty or more years. In my studies years later as an evangelical, I learned that the shrinking and aging congregations were one of the visible signs of deterioration of Protestantism.
My early religious education was not entirely free, however, that as I was gaining respect for God than I ever gave up was the realization of His love for mankind, and an appreciation for the sense of basic moral mandates sacred. Anyway, for whatever reason, I did not have a growing interest in Christianity at this time. In 1969, at the age of eleven, I came into contact first with the call to the altar of fundamentalist Christianity in a Baptist church we visited two or three times. I went to the front to be "saved" so absolutely sincere, but without the knowledge or willpower required (for more solicitous evangelical standards) to carry out this temporal resolution.
During this period, I was fascinated with the supernatural, but unfortunately, entered the grounds of a vague occult: telepathy, Ouija, astral projection, even witchcraft voodoo (with vicious gym teacher in mind!). I read about Houdini1y Uri Geller and others. Famous American magician of the early twentieth century. British-born Israeli who bent a spoon without touching it, only with the mind, directo.Todo live and this was part of the road in my conversion to Catholicism.
2 - From crisis to pass a spiritual renewal.
Meanwhile, my brother Gerry who is ten years older than I, became, in 1971 to Evangelicalism, a trend that was raging at that time. He suffered a truly remarkable transformation, leaving the cultural circle of the typical rock star drug addict and quarrelsome, and began preaching in a way jealous of our family. This was a new show for me. I had already influenced by the hippie counterculture, and as he had always been somewhat nonconformist, the "Jesus Movement" (Movimiento de Jesus) had a strange fascination for me, although I had no intention to join them.
I was proud of my "restraint" with regard to religious questions. Like most nominal Christians and unbelievers honest, I reacted to any deployment of serious and devout Christianity with a mixture of fear, derision and condescension, thinking that such behavior was "inappropriate", fanatical, and outside the mainstream of American culture. In the early 1970s I visited the Messiah Lutheran Church occasionally in Detroit where my brother attended, along with his friends hairy of "Jesus Freak" and I squirm in my seat with the conviction of the powerful sermons Pastor Dick Bieber, a character from the type of those of whom I had never heard.
I remember thinking that what he was preaching was indisputably the truth, and if it was the question of "being saved" there would be no place to land the media or for cowards. Therefore, I was reluctant to put it in some way, because I thought that was the end of fun and conviviality with friends. Because of my rebellion and pride, God had to use more drastic methods to midespertar.
In 1977 I experienced a severe depression for six months which atypical eratotalmente my temper before. The immediate causes were the pressures in late adolescence, but in retrospect it is clear that God was bringing home the ultimate meaninglessness of my life - - a vacuous and futile individualistic demand for happiness without the purpose or relationship with God .
I was brought, staggered to the end of myself. It was a terrifying existential crisis in which I had no other choice but to cry to God. He responded quickly. It happened that at Easter 1977, the extraordinary film Jesus of Nazareth by Franco Zeffirelli (still my favorite Christian movie) was on TV.
I had always enjoyed movies of the Bible as the Ten Commandments. They gave life to the biblical personalities, and the element of drama (as an art form) reported the vitality of Christianity in a unique way and "Jesus Freak", with forgiveness of the readers and even the person of Dave, another inventions so many Americans and British to convince the people on the sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ in our lives, but falling into a syncretism that verges on the pagan and vicious. The person of Jesus needs no such doctrines as entertainment and showbiz to be proclaimed. Therefore, this open letter to an evangelical is to share my experience of faith and the evangelical complaeto of Jesus Christ.
Jesus, as was portrayed in this film, left an extraordinary impression on me, and the time could not be better. He appeared as the ultimate non-conformist that I appealed. Without realizing that part of ara My conversion to Catholicism. I marveled at the way he treated people, and gave you the feeling of things you could never expect what he would say or do - - always something with a unique vision or impact. I began to understand, with the help of my brother, the reason the gospel for the first time what the Cross and Passion meant, and some of the basics of theology that I had never thought of before. I also learned that Jesus not only was the Son of God, but God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity something that, incredibly, I had not heard before, or simply not understand if I had heard.
I started to read seriously for the first time in my life, the Bible (the translation of the paraphrase BibliaViviente is more informal). It was the combination of my depression and new knowledge of Christianity which caused my decision to follow Jesus as my Lord and Savior in a much more serious, in July 1977 that I still regard as a "conversion to Christ," and what evangelical view that experience as "born again" or "saved."
3 - Attending to the Assemblies of God, Lutherans and others.
I keep seeing this as a valid spiritual and essential step. Despite my initial burst of heat, I settled for the warmth again for three years until August 1980 when I finally surrendered my whole being to God, and felt a "renewal" deep in my spiritual life. Throughout the eighties I attended Lutheran churches, the "Assembly Dedi", non-denominational sects and with strong connections to the "Jesus Movement", characterized by youth, spontaneity of worship, contemporary music, and fellowship hot. Many of my friends were former Catholics (apostates).
I knew little of Catholicism until the early 1980s. I considered him as a "name" exotic, austere, and unnecessarily ritualistic did not have much appeal for me. I was not naturally attracted to the liturgy, and did not believe at all in the sacraments, though I always had great reverence for the "Lord's Supper" and I thought she was taught in algoreal. On the other hand, I was never publicly anti-Catholic. Having taken an active part in anticultos apologetic work (specializing in deJehová russel or witnesses), I quickly realized that Catholicism was quite ritualistic.
He believed that the Catholic sects was different in that it had "core doctrines" right, like the Trinity and the bodily Resurrection of Christ and an admirable historical legitimacy, wholly Christian, although vastly inferior to evangelicalism. I was, you could say, a typical evangelical of the species that had some theological interest slightly higher than average. I became familiar with many of obrasde majors: CS Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Josh McDowell, AW Tozer, Billy Graham, Hal Lindsey, John Stott, Chuck Colson, Christianity Today, Keith Green Ministries "Last Days", the Jesus People in Chicago yrevista Cornerstone Christian brotherhood Inter. -Varsity (college organization) and the Christian music scene: the whole, quite beneficial influences as to be quite feel sorry at all. My strong interest in evangelism and apologetics brings me back, with the permission of my evangelical church as a missionary on the campuses of the university for four years.
I also got involved in the pro-life movement, and Operation Rescue. It quickly became clear to me that Catholic rescuers were so committed to Christ and godly like the evangelicals. In retrospect, there is no substitute for it largely closed observance of Catholic devotees. I had met with an endless number of evangelicals who exhibited what I thought was a serious way with Christ, but rarely with the intensity and life Catholics.
4 - got to know and to have Catholic friends.
I started to make friends with my fellow Catholics of rescues, and sometimes in prison, even priests and nuns. Although still skeptical theologically, my personal admiration for Orthodox and Catholics took off like a Tomahawk missile. In January 1990 I started an ecumenical discussion group that I moderate. Three Catholic friends who know the movement of the rescue, John McAlpine, Leno Poli and Don McSween, began attending. Their claims for the Church, especially regarding papal infallibility and reconcile me to dive into a massive project of research in this matter.
I thought I had found many errors and contradictions throughout history. Then I realized, however, that my many "samples" did not enter the category of claims infallible nor even, as defined by the Vatican Council of 1870. I was also a little dishonest because I would ignore historical facts which strongly confirmed the Catholic position, as early widespread acceptance of the Real Presence, knowing the authority of the bishop, and the communion of saints. Certainly it was not easy the way of my conversion to Catholicism or what is to him who seeks the truth with sincerity.
Meanwhile, I was reading books only Catholics (and all treaties short of Catholic Answers), with an open mind, and my respect and understanding of Catholicism grew from the top. I started (providentially) with The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam, a very special book to summarize adequately here. It is, I think, an almost perfect book on Catholicism as a world and lifestyle, especially because a person familiar with the basic Catholic theology. I read loslibros by Christopher Dawson, a great cultural historian, Joan Andrews (a heroine of the movement of rescue), and Thomas Merton, the famous Trappist monk, all of which impressed me most. My three friends of our discussion group continued to respond calmly to the hundreds of questions about mine.
I was amazed pordes account Catholicism seemed to have been "thoughtful" - was a wonderful and complex belief system consistent concualquier unmatched portion of the "evangelical Christians". At this point I got extremely worried by the Protestant acceptance (and my own) free and easy acceptance of contraception.
I came to believe, according to the church that once one considers the sexual pleasure as an end in itself, then the so-called right to "abortion" is not logically away. My friends evangelical pro-life could be easily exception, but the less spiritually prepared would not have done that, as has been fully confirmed by the sexual revolution in total growth since the widespread use of the Pill began around 1960. When a couple thinks that they can thwart the God's desire in the matter of a possible conception, then the notion of terminating a pregnancy sesigue for some diabolical logic devoid of the spiritual guide of the Church. In this as in other areas such as divorce, the Church is undeniably wise and genuinely progressive. GK Chesterton, Ronald Knox, the great apologists, and could see the graffiti on the wall around the thirties.
I was absolutely terrified by the fact that no Christian body had accepted contraception until the Anglicans in 1930 did, and the nations inevitable progression of contraception or abortion, as was irrefutably demonstrated by Father Paul Marx.Finalmente, a book entitled The Teaching of "Humanae Vitae" by John Ford, Germain Grisez, and others, convinced me of the moral distinction between contraception and Natural Family Planning and put me on the edge. I accepted belief now a not very "Protestant", but still may not even dreamed of becoming a Catholic (which is, of course, unthinkable for an evangelical).
5 - Upon investigation and further began to experience a peculiar, intense, and inexpressibly mystical feeling of reverence for the idea of a Church "One, Holy, Apostolic Católicay."
I was still falling prey to the principle of conversion. Meanwhile, my wife Judy who was raised Catholic and Protestant went before we knew we had also been convinced of the error regardless of contraception. She was returned to the Church the day that I was received. Que linda is unity! Then, in July 1990, I was convinced that Catholicism had the best moral theology than any other Christian body, and greatly respected his sense of community, devotion, and contemplation. Moral theology and mystical elements intangible began to dance the dance of the conversion for me, and is increasingly rooted deep within my soul, and beyond, but not opposed to the rational calculations of my mind.
My Catholic friend, John, tired of my constant on the errors can Catholics and additions through the centuries, suggested I read the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal Newman. This book completely demolished the whole scheme of church history that I had built. I thought, typically, that early Christianity was Protestant and that Catholicism was a corruption late (although I placed the collapse inthe late Middle Ages rather than the usual time of Constantine in the fourth century). Martin Luther, I recognized he had discovered in Sola Scriptura means to clean the Catholic aggregates accumulated in the clean and inmaculadanave originally Christian.
Tradition, for Newman was like a rudder and a steering wheel, and it was absolutely necessary for the guidance and direction. As a navigation chart. Newman showed the characteristics of the real developments brilliantly, as opposed to the corruptions within the Church visible and historically instituted by Christ. I found myself unable and unwilling derefutar his reasoning, and a crucial piece of the puzzle was put in place - - the Tradition was now apparent to me credible. Thus began what is somehow called a "paradigm shift." While reading the test I experienced a peculiar, intense, and inexpressibly mystical feeling of reverence for the idea of a Church "One, Holy, Apostolic Católicay." Catholicism was now thinkable and suddenly I fell into a severe crisis. I now believe in the visible Church. Once I accepted the Catholic ecclesiology, theology took its course as an issue, and I accepted without difficulty (including Marian doctrines).
My Catholic friends had been cultivating the rocky land of my will and my mind so stubborn for almost a year, while planting the "seeds Catholic" now quickly took root and grew, much to his surprise. I had fought as hard to read just before Newman, in a desperate effort to save my Protestantism, both as a drowning man just before he succumbs! My conversion to Catholicism was approaching without realizing it.
I continued reading, while actively trying to Catholicism now fully persuaded, from autobiography Porla Newman, Tom Howard's book "To be Evangelical is not enough", that helped me appreciate the genius of the liturgy for the first time, and two books Chesterton about Catholicism
6 .- I talked with a former pastor and that surprised me.
At about this time I had a conversation with an old friend who had also been my pastor for several years and whose theological opinions I was in very high regard. I admitted to him that I was tremendously in trouble with certain elements of Protestantism, and could, perhaps (but it was an improbable notion) be thinking about becoming a Catholic. To my amazement, he told me that he too, was going in the same direction, citing in particular the problem formulation and statement of the Canon of Scripture are for Protestants and their premise of "Bible Only". These guys rare events "confirmed" helped create a strong feeling that something strange was simply baffling followed during the period prior to my total conversion. He was in such a theological crisis (as was I), so he resigned his ministry two months after our conversation.
Also at this time I had the great privilege of meeting Father John Hardon, the eminent Jesuit catechist, and began attending classes on spirituality informal. This gave me the opportunity to learn personally from authoritative Catholic priest, who is also a delightful and humble man. After seven weeks of time to question my sanity in turn and reach new peaks of tremendous discovery, the final death blow came just in the way I had been suspected. I knew that if I should reject Protestantism, then I had to examine its historical roots: the so-called Protestant Reformation. I had previously read some materials about Martin Luther, and I considered him one of mishéroes larger. I accepted the standard myth of Luther as the fearless, virtuous rebel against the darkness of tyranny and superstition Catholic added to the "Early Christianity".
But when I studied a large portion of six-volume biographical book about Martin Luther, Luther, the German Jesuit Hartmann Grisar deLutero my opinion was placed upside down. Grisar convinced me that the fundamental principles of the Protestant Revolution was weak overall. I had always rejected Luther's notions of absolute predestination and total depravity of mankind. Now I understood that if the man had a free will, because he did not merely be declared righteous in a judicial sense, the abstract, but may actively participate in their redemption and really could become virtuous by the Grace of God. This, somehow, is the classic debate on Justification.
I learned many disturbing facts about Luther adversely, for example, its highly subjective existential methodology, their contempt for reason and historical precedent, and its dictatorial intolerance toward opposing views, including those from his fellow Protestants. These and other findings were stunned me and convinced me beyond any doubt that he really was not a "reformer" of the Church "pure" and pre-Nicene, but rather a revolutionary who created a new theology in many, but not all aspects. The myth was destroyed. Now I was "skeptical" with the common Protestant notion of the invisible church, "rediscovered." In the end, my innate love of history played a crucial part in my abandonment of Protestantism, which tends to pay little attention to history (not knowing the history makes it easy to be against Catholicism). He was a Christian but at this stage, became, in my opinion, a moral and intellectual duty on leave, as evangelical Protestantism. Yet it was not easy. Old habits and perceptions die hard, but I refused to let the feelings and prejudices to interfere with the wondrous process of illumination in which the prevailing grace of God to be more Christian.
7 .- I had to surrender to the Truth
I waited expectantly for the final impetus to surrender completely. The unpredictable course of conversion reached a climax on 6 December 1990, while I was reading Cardinal Newman's meditation on "Hope in God the Creator" and in a resolute moment I realized that I no longer had to resist any the Catholic Church. In the end, as in most of the experiences of converts, heladísimo fear takes its place, similar to those of earthquakes before the marriage. At one point, this barrier disappeared, and emotional peace and doctrine prevailed.
In the following three years since my conversion to Catholicism, there have been some amazing things in our circle of friends (I claim no credit for me in these cases, perhaps a small influence, but how wonderful that God moves the hearts of people). Four people have been returned to the church of her childhood and three, like me, we have become the Protestantism of the authentic life Christianity: Catholicism. These include my former pastor, Al and his wife, Sally, one of my good friends and frequent partner in the evangelical community and his wife Lori, the lifelong friend of Dan, Joe Polgar who had been virtually in paganism for a few years, another friend, Terri Navarra, and the daughter of a friend, Tom McGlynn, Jennifer.
Additionally, another couple we know had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy return to Catholicism and a second is thinking seriously about the same event, and a third partner may convert to Catholicism. Needless to say, that many of our Protestant friends watch these events with trepidation silenced. One of my former pastors, the encounter more heated than I had since my conversion, I called it "blasphemous" because I thought I had more in the Christian tradition than just what is contained in the Bible! Another good friend who is a Baptist minister said that although I had made a terrible mistake, I'm still safe because of their belief in eternal security! After all, thankfully to God, has been a fairly smooth experience among our friends evangelical Protestants.
Many ignore our Catholicism altogether. I believe that all Catholics can share these experiences that I experienced I have been describing, in the sense that each new discovery of some Catholic truth is equally challenging. As in all of us grow in our faith, rejoice in the abundant springs of delight, as well as instructional time of suffering that God gives us in his body, fully manifested in the Catholic Church. I feel very at home in it, much as might be expected on this side of heaven.
DEI AD maiorem GLORIAM
deaconate of cultural in a digital era
Deaconate of Culture in the Digital Continent
VATICAN CITY, 29 OCT 2009 (VIS) - The Pontifical Council for Social Communications "has, for some time now, been following the surprising and rapid evolution of the means of communication growing in the involvement of the magisterium of the Church". With these words, Benedict XVI received participants in the plenary assembly of that dicastery, presided over by Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, which is examining the role of new technologies in the media during these days.
The Holy Father cited Paul VI's pastoral instruction "Communio et Progressio" and John Paul II's "Aetatis Nova", "two important documents that have favoured and promoted greater awareness on the themes tied to communication in the Church".
He also recalled John Paul II's encyclical "Redemptoris Missio" that affirms: "Involvement in the mass media, however, is not meant merely to strengthen the preaching of the Gospel. There is a deeper reality involved here: since the very evangelization of modern culture depends to a great extent on the influence of the media, it is not enough to use the media simply to spread the Christian message and the Church's authentic teaching. It is also necessary to integrate that message into the 'new culture' created by modern communications".
"Effectively," Benedict XVI said, "modern culture is established, even before its content, in the very fact of the existence of new forms of communication that use new languages; they use new technologies and create new psychological attitudes. All of which supposes a challenge for the Church, which is called to announce the Gospel to persons in the third millennium, maintaining its content unaltered but making it understandable, thanks also to the instruments and methods in tune with today's mentality and culture".
At the same time, the Pope referred to his last message for the World Communications Day in which he encouraged "those responsible for communication in all areas, to promote a culture of respect for the dignity and worth of the human being, a dialogue rooted in the sincere search for truth and friendship (.) capable of developing the gifts and talents of each and of putting them at the service of the human community".
"In this way the Church exercises that which can be defined as a "deaconate of culture" in today's "digital continent", using its means to announce the Gospel, the only Word that can save the human being. The task of enriching the elements of the new culture of the media, beginning with their ethical aspects, falls to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications as well as serving as orientation and guide in helping the particular churches understand the importance of communication, which represents a key point that cannot be overlooked in any pastoral plan".
Concluding, the pontiff recalled the 50th anniversary of the Vatican Film Archive founded by Blessed John XXIII, which possesses a "rich cultural patrimony pertaining to all humanity" and he encouraged to continuing collection and cataloguing of images "that document the path of Christianity through the suggestive witness of the image".
VATICAN CITY, 29 OCT 2009 (VIS) - The Pontifical Council for Social Communications "has, for some time now, been following the surprising and rapid evolution of the means of communication growing in the involvement of the magisterium of the Church". With these words, Benedict XVI received participants in the plenary assembly of that dicastery, presided over by Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, which is examining the role of new technologies in the media during these days.
The Holy Father cited Paul VI's pastoral instruction "Communio et Progressio" and John Paul II's "Aetatis Nova", "two important documents that have favoured and promoted greater awareness on the themes tied to communication in the Church".
He also recalled John Paul II's encyclical "Redemptoris Missio" that affirms: "Involvement in the mass media, however, is not meant merely to strengthen the preaching of the Gospel. There is a deeper reality involved here: since the very evangelization of modern culture depends to a great extent on the influence of the media, it is not enough to use the media simply to spread the Christian message and the Church's authentic teaching. It is also necessary to integrate that message into the 'new culture' created by modern communications".
"Effectively," Benedict XVI said, "modern culture is established, even before its content, in the very fact of the existence of new forms of communication that use new languages; they use new technologies and create new psychological attitudes. All of which supposes a challenge for the Church, which is called to announce the Gospel to persons in the third millennium, maintaining its content unaltered but making it understandable, thanks also to the instruments and methods in tune with today's mentality and culture".
At the same time, the Pope referred to his last message for the World Communications Day in which he encouraged "those responsible for communication in all areas, to promote a culture of respect for the dignity and worth of the human being, a dialogue rooted in the sincere search for truth and friendship (.) capable of developing the gifts and talents of each and of putting them at the service of the human community".
"In this way the Church exercises that which can be defined as a "deaconate of culture" in today's "digital continent", using its means to announce the Gospel, the only Word that can save the human being. The task of enriching the elements of the new culture of the media, beginning with their ethical aspects, falls to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications as well as serving as orientation and guide in helping the particular churches understand the importance of communication, which represents a key point that cannot be overlooked in any pastoral plan".
Concluding, the pontiff recalled the 50th anniversary of the Vatican Film Archive founded by Blessed John XXIII, which possesses a "rich cultural patrimony pertaining to all humanity" and he encouraged to continuing collection and cataloguing of images "that document the path of Christianity through the suggestive witness of the image".
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
