Idolatry and Catholics

I just love when Red Neck Woman goes on a tirade like this. It's fun to read, and I love when I get to read along and nod my head vigorously in agreement.

If you aren't sure what kind of tirade I mean, check this out:

Here's a hint to all of you Protestants who want to see me leave the Roman Catholic Church. You would be so much more effective if you worked at changing my mind about something that we AGREE that I am doing, rather than wasting your time convincing me that I am doing something that I am not and telling me to stop doing that thing I am not doing to begin with. (If you have a glass of wine that last sentence will make sense.) If you want to get me to leave the Roman Catholic Church stop picking at the edges of what I believe in and YANK THE RUG out from under me and you can start by focusing on the things that I freely admit doing.

I worship Jesus in the Eucharist.

And as hideously offensive as sites likethisare, at least they get it! Let's take the trivial stuff off of the table. I believe that in the Eucharist there is no longer bread and wine but Jesus present Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. I WORSHIP Jesus in the Eucharist. When I am alone in the Adoration chapel, I remove my shoes (holy ground), I cover myself, and I prostrate myself on the ground and worship my Lord. If I am guilty of idolatry it is THERE and not over some picture. I know that if the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about the Real Presence I am guilty of the worst idolatry and anything I have done in relationship to a statue or a picture will pale in comparision. If I am going to hell for idolatry it will be because I believe Jesus, my Lord, my Sin Sacrifice, my Shepherd is truly present in the Eucharist and worship Him there and the Roman Catholic Church was wrong about that.

Yeah!

I strongly recommend reading her entire post, which is excellent apologetics. As always.

Rant on, RNW!





Please browse my eBay items. Thank you.

Post Script Grill, Chapter Fifteen

In which Red Neck Woman tackles the topic of priestly celibacy, and we learn that priests and other religious who take vows of celibacy are bringing about God's Kingdom here on earth.

(Can you tell I read Pooh recently?)

I think my favorite part of this post was the list RNW found at Scripture Catholic. Here's a sampling, but for the full list, as well as RNW's insights on the subject and a link to a New Advent article on the same topic, go here.

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.
Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.
Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.
1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.
1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

In all, there are fourteen Scripture verses cited and summarized. I've added the links for you on the above, so you'll need to pull out your Bible for the others.

"Too Perfect a Tool for the Devil to Use to Lead Us Astray"

Jen, who writes at et tu?, never ceases to amaze me with her clear understanding - and, even better, clear explanations - of the Catholic faith. I have learned more about the Faith I grew up in by reading her blog than I have from most of my time in the pew. Really.

Today, she once again touches on a part of her conversion. She discusses how her decision to become a Christian might have affected her friendship with people who live a homosexual lifestyle. (Some day, I think her blog posts will make a really wonderful book.)

Here is a bit of the beginning of her post on the topic:

Back in what I suppose you could call "Phase I" of my conversion, when I had been looking into Christianity for a while and, to my great surprise, found it more and more compelling, there was one concern that weighed heavily on my mind: what would this mean for my relationships with my gay friends?

Three of my husband and my very dearest friends and many of our acquaintances are gay, and live gay lifestyles. And though I didn't know many of the details, I knew enough about Christianity to be pretty sure that if I were to become a Christian I would be part of a belief system that said that there was something wrong with the homosexual lifestyle. It gave me pause. On the one hand, so much seemed true about this religion's teachings. It seemed on so many different levels that I was on the right path here. But I just didn't see how I was ever going to make sense of the teaching that homosexuality is wrong. The gay couples I knew didn't seem to be doing anything all that different than the straight couples I knew. It didn't feel right to say that Julie and Tom's relationship was somehow superior to David and Mark's when the sole difference between them was that Julie and Tom are of opposite genders and had a piece of paper from the state saying they were "married". Who cares?

Something about the whole thing felt wrong. It seemed that what I would essentially need to say to my gay friends based on my newfound belief system (as I understood it) was, "As a person who is attracted to the opposite sex, I get a sort of 'get out of sin free' card as soon as I commit to sexual monogamy through marriage. Sex is a gift God gave us for pleasure...but only heterosexuals can indulge in that pleasure." Based on that view, it made heterosexuals sound like some kind of chosen people. If God's law is such that sexual acts between two people of the same gender are always wrong, even if those same acts might be committed by a heterosexual couple with no problem, it kind of makes it feel like God has something against people who are attracted to the same gender.

All of this nagged at me for months, and was a real sticking point for me in moving forward with Christianity

The road to her understanding of how Christians see this (and especially Catholics) was not a straight one, but reading about how she came to this understanding is eye-opening.

(And, Jen, thanks for the links you put in there, too.)

Christine

Kaddish, Pagans, Catholics, and Cavemen

I logged on yesterday - very briefly, because we were doing some necessary work - to see if my uncle had sent an update out on my aunt. (He did, and I'll post it later today.) Imagine my surprise to find the following comment attached to my last update:

When anyone prays to the Creator of all things, they are praying to God. So, yes. These prayers are valid in the sense that God hears them and knows they are really talking to Him, even if they cannot see it.

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. So you do adhere to pagan prayers. I thought so. Obviously, you seem to forget a little something called the 1st Commandment. I also couldn't help but notice that there wasn't a snide remark from you when I pointed out to you how absurd your notion was concerning Jesus praying the Kaddish. Why would God pray to God for the salvation of souls? You didn't bring that up with over at Tickle-Fight, did you? Nor did you bring up anything else that I had corrected you on, did you?

I can just see the stunned look on your face as you try to reconcile that with your unbelievably weak Catholicism. But you just keep taking your ques from that Episcopalin-Lite buffoon Toni. You know, if you wanted to disagree with me, fine. But you had to make snotty comments towards me personally on someone elses blog? Not that this really bothers me... I'm just suprized. I've even linked you to my blog. If you disagreed with me, I always thought that you would leave it at that.... we'd disagree, period.

Never did I think that you would jump on the "I Hate The Caveman" bandwagon. Are you that weak-minded or have that weak a character? BTW, in case you missed it, I never went to Toni's blog initially and started to toss around the insults... he came to mine. I never initially came to your blog and started tossing around the insults, you saw fit to go to someone elses and do such towards me. But like I said, you aren't the first one, and you certainly won't be the last. At least now I know the caliber person you are. One bit of advice... don't let Toni do your thinking for you. Have a nice day.

And so I will take this opportunity to answer the Catholic Caveman. The biggest reason I do so is because I want Kevin (the Caveman in question) to understand that I am not shirking from this. At the same time, though, comments on this post will close after a day or two. After that, the topic is closed. Period. I will not have this blog hijacked and descend into some angry exchange back and forth over nitpicky things. Up until yesterday, I had never had a problem with rudeness in the com boxes.

First, of all, I did not make a final decision on whether or not to post my comment (in bold) above. Of course, if you were there at Tony's blog (Catholic Pillow Fight), it seems to me that you could have commented there. I actually hadn't read your blog in a very long time, but decided to read the post that Tony pointed out. Lest anyone wonder if I was merely gossipping about you at Tony's blog, they can go and see that I left very specific comments, was quite polite and civil about it, at your blog, as well, and hadn't shrunk from discussing it with you at all. I appreciated that you put up my opposing comments. After the third comment, I had that one phrase pop into my head, but didn't want to merely post that at your blog without further thought on the other things you said. Plus, you can add to this that it was the weekend and I was busy with the usual weekend duties (to which you can add "staining a 1000 sq. ft. deck"). So I didn't craft a response. I'm not one who flies off the handle easily, and I prefer to think out my answers and be sure I'm not saying something I will regret later. Hence, I did not answer you immediately on Friday, the last time I commented. (You can see the comments at the link to the post on Tony's blog for the time I last commented.)

Secondly, to go from "I recognize that God hears the prayers of those who seek Him, even if they don't know His name" to "I pray pagan prayers" is quite the leap, don't you think? You've gone from "I linked to your blog" to "You aren't a real Catholic" in one fell swoop without giving my comment much thought at all.

Do you honestly believe that God checks someone's church membership before He listens to a prayer to the Creator of the Universe? Is He not the Creator? If someone specifically addresses Him, even though the do not realize exactly Whom they address, do you think that God will say, "Nope, not praying through Jesus. Not a Christian. Not a Catholic. Not listening. lalalalalalala." (This is the mental image I get here, mind you.) So in your mind, because I believe what the Church teaches - that there are portions of the Truth to be found in other religions, though incomplete and "defective" (the pope's word) they might be - I am not "Catholic enough" for your liking. Because you don't like that part of what the Church teaches. Much of the world rejects Jesus in part because we do not present Him in a way they can understand. Not everyone has been blessed to be raised Catholic, or even Christian, and the search for God is a tough one if you aren't. The search for the Truth that the Catholic Church holds is difficult, at best, and that, my friend, includes the search that those of us who are Catholic must make. But when someone prays to the Creator of all things, even if they do not pray through Jesus, they are still praying to God. Because that is Who God is. Creator of all things. Understanding that God isn't plugging His ears (metaphor, here, God the Father is not a physical Being) when someone doesn't use the name of Jesus doesn't make me a pagan, or even less Catholic. (Here, the story of the Samaritan woman at the well springs to mind. Jesus did not shun her or dismiss her because she was a Samaritan, but told her that she worshipped that which she did not understand. I see our separated brethren, as well as Jews, in much the same light. They do not have the full revelation of the Truth as contained within the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean that they cannot access God at all, or that they prayers are not heard.)

Now, believing that God listens to people who call on Him - pagan, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, whatever - and adhering to pagan prayers are two very different things. This is quite an accusation you make. Not one I particularly care for, either. I absolutely do NOT adhere to pagan prayers. This is, to be frank, an insult. And a big one, too.

Now, for the part about bringing up whatever else you "corrected" me on: I know that anyone who wants to see what you said has the ability to go and look. Tony did. As a matter of fact, if you read the first few comments at his blog, I actually asked him what he thought of the comments box. Since you banned him there, he can only comment at his own blog. Which he did. Honestly, he's got a right to defend what he said; he's only doing it in the one place he can do so: his own blog. If you want him to fight the battle where your readers can see (since you don't always provide a link to his blog in your posts on him), then un-ban him from the com boxes. Preventing him from commenting there only exacerbates the situation. You have the control to make it easier. But it's a decision you have to make: are you brave enough to debate him on your own turf, or is this all bluster on your part?

Backing up a bit...you asked why God would pray to God for the salvation of souls. Here is the full text of the Kaddish:

"May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified/in the world that He created as He willed./May He give reign to His kingship in your lifetimes and in your days,/and in the lifetimes of the entire Family of Israel,/swiftly and soon. Now say:/(Amen. May His great Name be blessed forever and ever.)/Blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, extolled,/mighty, upraised, and lauded be the Name of the Holy One/Blessed is He./beyond any blessing and song,/praise and consolation that are uttered in the world. Now say:/Amen/May there be abundant peace from Heaven/and life upon us and upon all Israel. Now say:/Amen/He Who makes peace in His heights, may He make peace,/upon us and upon all Israel. Now say:/Amen."

Actually, this prayer asks God for peace, blessings on Israel (remember that Christians are the new Israel, not necessarily just the Jews, to use a general term; in reality, only the tribe of Judah are Jews), and for the reign of His kingship to be soon. This third request is one that we echo in the Lord's Prayer. The rest of the prayer concentrates on glorifying God and praising His holy name. So, yes, I think that there is a good possibility that Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Apostles, etc. all prayed a Kaddish. The Kaddish might very well have been slightly different in those ancient of days (many prayers do change very slightly), but the basics would still be there. (I make this assumption based on the information that my very good friend and her family gave me. When she got married in a synagogue - bride and groom are both Jewish - I asked how different this ceremony was from one done, say, 2000 or so years ago. Everyone assured me that it was basically the same, with very few changes. This was a wonderful way for my daughter - then 4 - to "see" how Mary and Saint Joseph were married. The whole experience was wonderfully instructive for both of us, and much of what I learned that day has made its way in some fashion into our religious education since then.)

Back to Jesus' prayers. He prayed all the time. To God the Father. The Bible talks frequently about Jesus being in prayer. So we know He prayed. We also know that he prayed in the Temple, that He was an observant Jew (coming from an observant family, you see). Mary, even though she was without sin, even made the offering after Christ's birth. The family participated in the Passover. They made their sacrifices as proscribed by the Law. (The one Jesus did not come to abolish.) They followed the customs, etc. of Judaism. One of the customs is to pray a Kaddish. Could be that it's from Maccabees. Honestly, that's something we could easily look on an apologetics site for.

Here, you leave off any arguments in favor of your opinions at your blog. I'll deal with the personal attacks you've decided to make.

I can just see the stunned look on your face as you try to reconcile that with your unbelievably weak Catholicism. But you just keep taking your ques from that Episcopalin-Lite buffoon Toni. You know, if you wanted to disagree with me, fine. But you had to make snotty comments towards me personally on someone elses blog? Not that this really bothers me... I'm just suprized. I've even linked you to my blog. If you disagreed with me, I always thought that you would leave it at that.... we'd disagree, period.

No stunned look. Well, okay, maybe. But only because I am stunned that you continue to harp on this point. The cardinal requested this prayer. (One of your fellow cavemen said so.) If he himself did this, what position are you in to say it is wrong? He outranks you, to use a crude term. I happen to think that the cardinals (all of them) know better than we do. And this cardinal asked that this prayer be said for him after his death. I think he knew what he was asking, and I would question the judgement of someone who says that the cardinal adheres to pagan prayers because of it.

I will, though, apologize for the "head exploding" part. It was made in jest, but apparently, you did not take it as such. However, I actually had the intention of answering (with that comment) at your blog. You could have discussed the matter right there, and since you weren't commenting at Tony's blog, I made the assumption that you weren't reading all the comments posted there. It was probably an unwise assumption on my part.

In regards to agreeing to disagree, I actually had left it at that. I actually had removed you from my blogroll. I didn't mention why, or mention you specifically, but I was basically removing a lot of blogs that, when I read them, wound up filling me with anger. I don't want to be an angry person. I don't want to be an angry Catholic. I don't want to lose the JOY I have in being a part of the Body of Christ and the Church He founded. But reading some blogs was doing that. Again, until this moment, I did not mention your blog by name in regards to this. But the anger in your posts was running over into mine, and it was stealing the joy I have for the Faith.

Now, if this didn't bother you, then why did you see fit to make the above comment at this post? (If you haven't already done it - and I pray that you didn't before you left that diatribe there - go and read it. Also follow the links. And look for the update that I'll be posting later today.) Seriously, on this point, I would really like an apology. I've been forwarding the links to my aunt and uncle so that they might read any well-wishes people have for them. Imagine if they read the above when they were looking for something to lift their spirits during this difficult time! I've decided to forgive you, by the way, no matter what your reaction. Not because I'm better than you or anyone, but because I know that carrying around anger in my heart like that just eats away at a person. Even over little stuff.

Never did I think that you would jump on the "I Hate The Caveman" bandwagon. Are you that weak-minded or have that weak a character? BTW, in case you missed it, I never went to Toni's blog initially and started to toss around the insults... he came to mine. I never initially came to your blog and started tossing around the insults, you saw fit to go to someone elses and do such towards me. But like I said, you aren't the first one, and you certainly won't be the last. At least now I know the caliber person you are. One bit of advice... don't let Toni do your thinking for you. Have a nice day.

You know what? I wasn't on any bandwagon. I don't hate you. One single post that I commented on (in the two places it was being discussed) where I disagree - and make one stupid comment - and you tear into me like this? I notice you didn't go to Tony's blog initially, but you have the freedom to go and comment there like anyone else. And as far as this sentence:

I never initially came to your blog and started tossing around the insults, you saw fit to go to someone elses and do such towards me.

I made a single comment at Tony's blog; I commented consistently at your blog, as well, and made no secret of my identity or my comments. I wasn't discussing the point here. YOU are the one who brought it here. It wasn't something I felt I had much to contribute to, but one that I was discussing where others commented. But you did come here to toss insults. Here, where I wasn't discussing the topic at all. I did not insult you at all, though I joked about what I thought your reaction might be if I made a particular comment. And though I don't have a justification for my decision to delay responding at your blog at that moment, I must say that your reaction to that one, single comment is more than a bit overblown.

When you judge the caliber of someone, it surprises me that you only want to take into account so little. You said in the beginning of your comment that you linked to me. I can only guess that you read things I'd posted occasionally. And yet when you wish to judge my character, you will take into account only one unguarded comment: not the hundreds of posts I've made here, or the more than 1,000 posts at my other blog. I think that your actions will speak for themselves.

And let's get to that penultimate comment of yours. No one does my thinking for me. I just happened to agree with Tony's point of view on the situation.

And I will certainly try to have a nice day. It took a while after the stress of finding that comment, though. You might want to think about the kinds of things you decide to post on the Lord's Day.

*****************************

NOTE TO POTENTIAL COMMENTERS:

Any comments here need to remain civil. Period. I don't care who you agree with more.



Christine

When is Sabbath?

Mark Shea helps tackle something that most Christians trust Tradition on: Sunday worship versus Saturday worship.



My favorite part was this paragraph:

The reason for the Sabbath change is straightforward. The Sabbath was a sign of the Old Covenant. But Jesus has brought a New Covenant and a New Priesthood. So the Church began observing the Sabbath on the day of his resurrection, which established that covenant. You can already see it reflected in Revelation, when John says, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day" (meaning "I was at Mass. It was Sunday").

But please, go read the rest and get the full explanation, as well as a nifty link to even more information on the New Covenant's Sabbath.



Christine

"What Percent of the Rosary is Gospel?" and Other Questions

Red Neck Woman. Such a name makes you want to sing. Today, she tackles the Rosary, and explains why, even though we have ten Hail Mary's for each Our Father, it's not Mary-worship.

Super-duper post! Thumbs up! Gold star! Move to the head of the class! Stickers all around!

(See how public school teaching warped my brain?)

Here's a sampling:

... The origins of the practice are traced to the early days of the church when very devout religious (monks, priests, nuns) made it a practice to recite all 150 Psalms daily. Many laypeople wanted to imitate that practice but memorizing all 150 Psalms without being able to afford a copy of them, much less find the time to say them daily was simply beyond reach. What evolved was the practice of saying simple prayers 150 times instead…usually the “Our Father” or a “Hail Mary”. In order to keep track, rocks or stones were placed in one pocket and moved to the other throughout the day as the prayers were said. Eventually, this lead to the knotting of cords, or stringing of beads and of course, some figured out that one needn’t have all 150 on a cord just say 10 (a decade) 15 times etc. Things from other sources also converged to make the Rosary what it is today as well. Many theologians, particularly in the Middle Ages believed that each of the 150 Psalms was reflective of particular events in the life of Jesus and his mother. So underlying the discipline of saying all 150 Psalms daily was the idea that it was a meditation on the life of Jesus and the path to Salvation. Now tie in St. Dominic, who was a primary figure in fighting some of the heresies that were particularly troublesome in the late 12th century and early 13th century. He had a vision that one of the ways to strengthen the church against these heresies was to teach people to meditate on the life of Jesus and his mother so what was once just an underlying idea became the principal idea. ...

Now go read the rest.

Our Lady of Fatima

Okay, I lied. I wanted to put up this one post because Sunday, May 13, is the anniversary of the first appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, Portugal.

Enjoy!

Justification

There's been a lot of discussion (to put it in the best light possible) about the conversion of Dr. Francis Beckwith, and I haven't really got a lot to say about it. I'm happy that another person has come home to the Church that was founded by Christ, but everything else is really his (and his family's) business. I'm sorry that he was "outed" by someone who is none-too-pleased with his decision to return to his Catholic faith, and I have mixed feelings about all the attention he received before I saw anything from him on the topic.

Anyway, I read part of an interview with him today at Ignatius Scoop, and I really loved this quote from him. If I had a quote journal like some bloggers I know, I'd add this to it. :)

The Catholic Church frames the Christian life as one in which you must exercise virtue—not because virtue saves you, but because that's the way God's grace gets manifested. As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so. Now there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something. It's important to allow the grace of God to be exercised through your actions. The evangelical emphasis on the moral life forms my Catholic practice with an added incentive. That was liberating to me.

Yeah...what he said!

Blogroll Highlight: Questions on Sola Scriptura & Other Musings

Red Neck Woman's blog is AMAZING. And I came across this post today that is worth reading and following all the links. Here's a sampling:

...If Jesus meant for the church to be sola scriptura, why did He not explicitly say so? Why did He not write a book? Why did He say He was going to found a Church on Peter instead of a book? Why is there not explicit instruction from Jesus with regard to the place of Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith? Sacred Scripture itself says scripture is beneficial for teaching, reproof etc but it never says that ONLY scripture is appropriate for those things.

If Jesus meant for Sacred Scripture to be the sole rule of faith, why did He not instruct the Apostles to immediately begin recording the gospels and establishing a canon? If if He did instruct them that way, why did they not do it? Why weren't the gospels written right away to provide that rule of faith for the earliest Christian? If sola scriptura was meant to be the sole rule of faith how did the early Christians do it with neither a complete copy of Sacred Scriptures or an undisputed canon? Sola Scriptura was simply NOT POSSIBLE until at least the 4th century. ...

Be sure to go read it all. Then poke around the rest of her site and enjoy!

Mass Explanation

I will freely admit that I haven't read this yet. I'm saving it (here is convenient, no?) to read later. It's a doozy, mind you. Very long. But I know that Hubby and I have been praying for Catholics we know who have fallen away, and the Mass seems to be an obstacle. Somehow, some people seem to think that the Catholic Mass isn't Biblical or something. I don't know. Someone questioned if we even use the Bible. Um...if you think that Catholics don't use Scripture at Mass, you have either never been to Mass or you didn't pay attention while you were there. We might not each carry a Bible with us, but the Mass is FULL of Scripture!

This post at the blog "Postscripts from the Catholic Spitfire Grill" (a new favorite of mine!) goes into detail in explaining the Biblical roots of the Mass, giving lengthy Scriptural references for the entire thing. I'll give a bit of a sampling of the beginning of the post (really, the introduction to it), but you should just head over there and read the whole thing. And then poke around the site, because the apologetics there are top-notch.

Jesus in the Catholic Mass...

This is an expanded version of this post here (http://www.sonlight-forums.com/showpost.php?p=187669&postcount=245) at the request of MomtoEli who asked me to fill in where I had “lightened up” and as long as this is (be careful what you ask for), I assure you there is still more, much more, that could be said. As I worked on this, I was constantly…continuously ….overwhelmed at the task of conveying into finite words the infinite that is only glimpsed in the Mass. The more I said, the more I knew could be said and the more I realized that as far as I have come in understanding these Mysteries, I have done nothing more than skim along the surface of impossibly deep richness. I would like to also state categorically that I am not worthy to do this. I am not trained in theology in any way; therefore, any errors in expression or theology should be blamed on me alone and not held against either the Roman Catholic Church that I love, nor my brothers and sisters in the Catholic faith. I hope that my brothers and sisters would not hesitate to correct me in the places where I have said things poorly or even incorrectly and I welcome them to add their own personal observations as well. In this version, I have tried to integrate the scripture references of the Mass taken from Scripture in the Mass and any other place I could get them with my extended remarks on what God says to me in the Mass and what I in return, offer up to Him. On a technical note, I found myself flummoxed with the use of pronouns. The Unity expressed in the Liturgy of the Mass is sometimes difficult to break away from; however, I recognize that not everyone in the congregation is as devout as I suspect Our Lord would like them to be. I tried to use the first person plural where my personal reflections do not substantially reflect some well-known traditional practice and in places where although I join the action of the community, I am particularly involved as an individual such as during the penitential rite. Some of this is rather strongly stated. I understand that may cause distress in my brothers and sisters who do not share my view of the Truth; however, in order to adequately convey what I have found in the worship of the Roman Catholic Church, I cannot shy away from those aspects of it that are less palatable to those who prefer a more symbolic approach to unity, authority, and sacrament.

And from a little later on in the post, there's this:

Unfortunately, it is a sad fact of the divisions in the Our Lord’s Church that sometimes we must use words other than simply “Christian” to define what we believe. I assure you that my “identity as a Roman Catholic” IS my faith in Jesus Christ. Period. I have said something about a “fullness of faith” in the Roman Catholic Church that is not present in any Protestant denomination that I have been a part of. I want to state for the record that I did not leave my Evangelical Roots because I was unhappy there. In fact, I left my Evangelical roots loudly protesting to the Lord that I was very happy where I was thank you very much and did He really think this was necessary. In fact, there was a time in my life when I would have said to me, exactly the same things you have said. I also said that I was pretty sure that you couldn’t be Catholic and be saved. Catholics didn’t know Sacred Scripture. They didn’t respect Sacred Scripture. They believed in Saints and Mary not Jesus. Some of them even worshipped Mary. In fact, I have heard very little said about Catholics here on this forum that I did not say myself at one time. What I found in the Roman Catholic Church instead was a deep love and respect for Sacred Scripture. In fact, in the context of the Liturgy which is simultaneously drawn from and serves to explain scripture, I found a fullness of Sacred Scripture that I never had before. I found that far from elevating Sacred Scripture, the doctrine of sola scriptura had the effect of subordinating it to the intellect of the individual. In spite of the fact that I am no longer sola scriptura, the scriptures mean more to me now than ever before and I have the sense of believing it all instead of turning away from the uncomfortable parts. It is ironic to me that I gave the Lord my idols of my intellect and the scriptures and He gave them back to me breathed full of a new life. When I submitted to the authority that He deemed best for His Church and for me his daughter, I found a freedom I never had before. Just as I when I submit to the other authority structures created by God, in my family as a daughter and in my marriage as a wife…life just works better.

And I found Jesus everywhere I looked. Every nook and cranny. In the very air I breathed. The Mass that I had heard was empty of Jesus and nothing more than meaningless words and purposeless gestures from beginning to end, was suffused with Jesus.

I would like to tell you about The Mass because I want to show you in my own paltry pathetic words how I can say that my faith is dependent on Jesus Christ. Period. And how my RC faith supports that and does not detract from it.

Really, I cannot wait to delve deeper into this post. Like I said, half of why I'm posting this is so I can find the post later on and share it with Hubby. You, dear readers, are the other reason. The more Scripture I read, the more I am grateful that I am Catholic!

(Sidenote: If you are looking to get a very good understanding of the Bible, and would like to work your way through things in approximately a year, check out the podcasts for Understanding the Scriptures. Hubby is taking this class at a local parish, and I'm using the podcasts to keep up with him and learn more about the Bible.)

What is the Immmaculate Conception?

Well, contrary to what you might think, it has nothing to do with Jesus' birth. We celebrate His conception on March 25 when we celebrate the Annuciation. (I think it might have even been called the Feast of the Incarnation at one point. Side note on this date: it is one of the very few actual calendar dates that Tolkien mentions in The Lord of the Rings, and it is the date that the One Ring was destroyed.)

Anyway, back to today.

In nine months, Catholics will celebrate the Nativity (or birthday) of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And so this means that today we celebrate her conception. The Immaculate Conception. This is the name she gave to Saint Bernadette when asked repeatedly what her name was.

What is the Immaculate Conception? What do Catholics believe about the Blessed Virgin?

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us, in part, this:

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

Well, that's nice. What on God's green earth does that mean?

Thankfully, there is a nice detailed explanation.

"The Blessed Virgin Mary..."

The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.

"...in the first instance of her conception..."

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

"...was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin..."

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

"...by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race."

The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was
the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."

Wow. Okay, then. Um...why do Catholics believe this? What in Scripture points to it?

I won't post all of the Catholic Encyclopedia's answer here, but you are welcome to click on over to finish reading it. Seriously. If you think Catholics are crazy to think such things, if you won't believe it unless it's in the Bible, then please click over. Because there you will find a section that discusses the Scriptural support for this dogma.

For a slightly more reader-friendly answer to the Immaculate Conception (with the Assumption thrown in for good measure), we can turn to Catholic Answers. This site has been really important in my own catechesis in recent years. I remember stumbling upon them when I had been visited multiple times by Jehovah's Witnesses, and I wanted to be better able to defend my Faith. What's really good about Catholic Answers' page is that it look specifically at various objections sola Scriptura Christians have and explains the beliefs in a way that helps answer each objection. Many people who work for Catholic Answers used to be Protestants, so they know very well the objections.

Here's a bit of Catholic Answers' discussion on the Immaculate Conception:

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception
and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned"
(Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior"
(Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine
a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the
very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She
too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply
taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the
first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years
to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her
conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired
in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed
actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t
sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to
sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks
of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb.
4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam
(Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be
made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal
to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin,
but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to
issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a
controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the
Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11)
thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. [emphasis mine -ed.]

For today's readings and some ideas on how to celebrate this important day with your family, you can go here. If you go to this site, there are even some recipes to try along with the activities (and more explanation of the Solemnity).

And, don't forget that today is a Holy Day of Obligation. That means you need to get thee to Mass!

[icon source]

Question for the Smarty-Pants Types

Suppose you go to Mass, and you feel queasy. Later, after receiving Communion, you wind up getting sick.

What happens if you throw up before you have completely digested the Eucharist?

This isn't something I'd thought about before, but it has come up (if you'll pardon the expression) this evening.

Just curious...leave answers in the com boxes if you have them. Thanks in advance.

Here Comes the DVD

But Insight Scoop has a lot of information to help you set the record straight. Lots of people who have been waiting will be seeing The DaVinci Code soon. Head over here to get the goods on the Truth!