I have recently been engaged in a study of the book of Hebrews, which has coincided with a class I recently taught on the usage of the Old Testament by Christ and the writers of the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, of course, uses the Old Testament copiously throughout his letter. What I found interesting is that his use of the Old Testament goes against everything you learn in a Biblical Studies class at almost any Catholic theology school in this country.

For example, in Chapter 1 of Hebrews, the author (I really wish we know his name, so I could stop writing “the author”) is defending the divinity of Christ, and in verse 8 he refers to Christ as “God” – one of only three times in the New Testament that Christ is explicitly called “God” (cf. John 1:1 and 20:28). He uses Psalm 45:7-8 to do so, writing,

[to] the Son [God says]: “Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You loved justice and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions”

Now any first-year theology student can tell you that Psalm 45 isn’t God talking to “the Son”, but is instead an unknown Psalmist speaking to a king and using the term “god” hyperbolically. Yet it is clear from the context that Hebrews is using it to defend the divinity of Christ.

Later, the author of Hebrews does it again, when in Chapter 2 he reinterprets Psalm 8 to prove that Christ is superior to the angels. He writes,

Instead, someone has testified somewhere: “What is man that you are mindful of him, or the son of man that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor, subjecting all things under his feet.” In “subjecting” all things (to him), he left nothing not “subject to him.” Yet at present we do not see “all things subject to him,” but we do see Jesus “crowned with glory and honor” because he suffered death, he who “for a little while” was made “lower than the angels,” that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Not only doesn’t he know the exact reference (“someone has testified somewhere”? – try that phrase in Biblical Studies 101 sometime), he changes the clear literal meaning of the Psalm to fit his argument (I think they call that “eisegesis”). Instead of seeing “son of man” as a reference to mankind in general, he takes it to refer directly to Christ, thus showing how the incarnation only made him temporarily lower than the angels. Even the part that he translates “for a little while” isn’t the meaning of the original Psalm; instead it really means “to a small extent”. Boy, I can’t see this guy even making it through the first semester at most theology schools.

Why do I write this? Am I questioning Holy Scripture? No, the opposite: I am questioning the presuppositions at most theology schools, especially when it comes to biblical studies. The Church has always taught that the literal sense of a passage is the foundation for its spiritual meaning. However, for too long biblical scholars have studied the literal sense completely divorced from any spiritual meaning. They have treated the Bible like a cadaver to be dissected rather than as a living word which has multiple meanings.

The first Christians and the Fathers of the Church understood this and they reveled in reinterpreting Old Testament passages in the light of Christ. The original Psalmist might have used the term “God” to refer to an earthly king, but the Holy Spirit inspired him to make that choice – a choice the same Holy Spirit would exploit in Hebrews to proclaim the divinity of Christ. The author of Psalm 8 might have meant all of humanity when he used the phrase “son of man”, but the Holy Spirit led him to use that specific phrase and could then use it to refer to Christ in Hebrews. These are legitimate interpretations of Scripture in the light of Christian Revelation.

Does this mean that the first Christians and Fathers of the Church ignored the literal sense of those passages? Not at all; instead they saw that the literal sense was only one level of meaning – and often not even the most important meaning. Like the author of Hebrews, they understood that all passages of the Scriptures ultimately point to Christ and all must be read in the light of his saving mysteries.

We too should read the Bible like the author of the Hebrews did, finding Jesus throughout the pages of God’s Word.

This looks like an interesting project:

I am very excited about the prospects of this new college (and frankly, any college that proclaims it is pursuing Truth is a major step ahead of most institutions of higher learning today); however, I do think it will be hard to pull off in an ecumenical setting. They will need to be sure to get faculty who are truly ecumenically minded while still being faithful to their respective confessions. Touchstone magazine has shown that this is possible in the media, but who is to say it will work in a college setting?

There are many traditions surrounding what the apostles did after the ascension of Christ – where they evangelized, who they converted, and how they died. However, many of these traditions were not written down until centuries later and after they had accrued many mythical – and even contradictory – details.

However, we have a very strong and reliable tradition when it comes to the activities of St. Thomas. Every account has him traveling to India to evangelize and our best proof of the veracity of that tradition is the fact that there has been an uninterrupted community of Christians in that predominantly Hindu land which has always considered itself founded by St. Thomas. Unfortunately, they have not been able to avoid the divisions of the larger Church and today there are Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches which come from that original Thomistic foundation.

Happily, it has just been announced that these churches have come to an agreement which will unite them more closely:

The bishops of Kerala– the home of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church– have reached an agreement with Syrian Jacobite and Syrian Orthodox leaders to share churches outside Kerala for Sunday Mass and to consider sharing cemeteries and the use of priests at funerals. All four churches trace their origin to the evangelization of St. Thomas the Apostle.

Underscoring the agreement’s ramifications beyond India, the Catholic delegation was led by Bishop Brian Farrell, LC, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity since 2002.

Although the sacred liturgy in both the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is celebrated in Malayalam, the former uses the Chaldean rite, while the latter uses the Antiochan rite. The Syrian Jacobite Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church are not among the Eastern Orthodox churches that ceased communion with the Holy See in 1054; rather, they are among the Oriental Orthodox churches that ceased communion with the Holy See following the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Pray for these Christians that they might be an example to us all of how we can live in a more united Church.

I decided to take my own advice this morning and read the Scriptures aloud. So what is today’s Gospel? The geneaology of Jesus.

My tongue is still tied up on Amminadab…

Today is December 17th, which means that we are in the final seven days of Advent – a time with deep liturgical significance. The readings at Mass are no longer from the 3rd or 4th week of Advent, but are specific to the date. Likewise, the prayers of the Liturgy of the Hours are also specific to the date. And, of course, today we begin one of my favorite traditions, the O Antiphons:

The seven antiphons to the Magnificat in the ferial Office of the seven days preceeding the vigil of Christmas; so called because all begin with the interjection “O”. Their opening words are:
(1) “O Sapientia”,
(2) “O Adonai”,
(3) “O Radix Jesse”,
(4) “O Clavis David”,
(5) “O Oriens”,
(6) “O Rex Gentium”,
(7) “O Emmanuel”.
Addressed to Christ under one or other of His Scriptural titles, they conclude with a distinct petition to the coming Lord (e.g.: “O Wisdom … come and teach us the way of prudence”; “O Adonai … come and redeem us by thy outstretched arm”; “O Key of David … come and lead from prison the captive sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death” etc.). Couched in a poetic and Scriptural phraseology they constitute a notable feature of the Advent Offices.

These antiphons are properly said during Vespers, but many families [including mine] simply recite them in the evening independent of the full Vespers prayers. I have always been attracted to contemplating the titles given to Christ (so much that I even wrote a book about it!), and this devotion is a wonderful way to prepare for Christ’s coming at Christmas.

I encourage everyone to say these prayers the next seven days. Here is one version in full (source):

O Sapientia: “O Wisdom, O holy Word of God, you govern all creation with your strong yet tender care. Come and show your people the way to salvation.” Isaiah had prophesied, “The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, a spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord, and his delight shall be the fear of the Lord.” (11:2-3), and “Wonderful is His counsel and great is His wisdom.” (28:29).

O Adonai: “O sacred Lord of ancient Israel, who showed yourself to Moses in the burning bush, who gave him the holy law on Sinai mountain: come, stretch out your mighty hand to set us free.” Isaiah had prophesied, “But He shall judge the poor with justice, and decide aright for the land’s afflicted. He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Justice shall be the band around his waist, and faithfulness a belt upon his hips.” (11:4-5); and “Indeed the Lord will be there with us, majestic; yes the Lord our judge, the Lord our lawgiver, the Lord our king, he it is who will save us.” (33:22).

O Radix Jesse: “O Flower of Jesse’s stem, you have been raised up as a sign for all peoples; kings stand silent in your presence; the nations bow down in worship before you. Come, let nothing keep you from coming to our aid.” Isaiah had prophesied, “But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom.” (11:1), and A On that day, the root of Jesse, set up as a signal for the nations, the Gentiles shall seek out, for his dwelling shall be glorious.” (11:10). Remember also that Jesse was the father of King David, and Micah had prophesied that the Messiah would be of the house and lineage of David and be born in David’s city, Bethlehem (Micah 5:1).

O Clavis David: “O Key of David, O royal Power of Israel controlling at your will the gate of Heaven: Come, break down the prison walls of death for those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death; and lead your captive people into freedom.” Isaiah had prophesied, AI will place the Key of the House of David on His shoulder; when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open.” (22:22), and “His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, from David’s throne, and over His kingdom, which he confirms and sustains by judgment and justice, both now and forever.” (9:6).

O Oriens: “O Radiant Dawn, splendor of eternal light, sun of justice: come, shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death.” Isaiah had prophesied, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shown.” (9:1).

O Rex Gentium: “O King of all the nations, the only joy of every human heart; O Keystone of the mighty arch of man, come and save the creature you fashioned from the dust.” Isaiah had prophesied, “For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” (9:5), and “He shall judge between the nations, and impose terms on many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; one nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.” (2:4) .

O Emmanuel: “O Emmanuel, king and lawgiver, desire of the nations, Savior of all people, come and set us free, Lord our God.” Isaiah had prophesied, “The Lord himself will give you this sign: the Virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel.”

O come our Savior!

I came across a wonderful post over at Preachers Institute called “AAA: Reading the Bible the Orthodox Way“, which I would rename simply “AAA: Reading the Bible the Christian Way”, as the suggestions in it should apply to all Christians. Fr. Peck breaks down the reading of Scripture into three basic steps, easily remembered by “AAA”:

ALOUD – Read it aloud;

APPLY it to yourself;

ACT on it immediately.

I think most people will trip up on that first one: “Read it aloud”? Why? Fr. Peck notes,

Read it aloud. The Scriptures are literature, and literature, believe it or not, is written to be read aloud. Try reading Shakespeare or Milton aloud and you’ll discover things which you missed before. Likewise, the Scriptures were written to be read aloud, to inspire faith in the listener, not the reader.

I can vouch for this statement. When I first went to read Milton’s Paradise Lost I had a hard time getting through it. But then I read somewhere that reading it aloud would make my reading more fruitful, so I tried it. Surprisingly (at least to me), I was able to follow the text much more closely by reading it aloud. Reading aloud is very foreign to our modern culture, but it was standard practice in Biblical times and even beyond. In the fourth century, St. Augustine marveled that St. Ambrose was able to read without moving his lips! This was practically unheard of in Augustine’s time. Try reading the Bible sometime aloud – I think you’ll be surprised at the difference.

Fr. Peck’s other suggestions are more familiar, but no less vital. We need to apply the words of Scripture to our own lives. As the Letter to the Hebrews states, “the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Reading the Bible should change your life.

Also, we need to act on the words of Scripture immediately. The death of the spiritual life is procrastination. After reading a passage of Scripture, you should make an immediate resolution as to how you will apply it to your life and then do it. Waiting until later means ignoring it.

The video is a joke, but sadly, the “Conservative Bible” is not:

H/t: The American Catholic

You know a topic is complex when a “very basic introduction” to it runs over 8,000 words. But when the topic is the filioque, it is difficult to reduce the subject to sound bites.

For those who are unaware, the filioque is Latin for “and the Son” (contrary to my post title) and it refers to the part of the Nicene Creed (which is actually the Creed of the Council of Constantinople) in which Catholics state, “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son” . In the original text, the phrase “and the Son” was not included (technically, the truly original text of the Creed, this whole line wasn’t even included). Many centuries later it was added in the West in response to heretical tendencies which wanted to subordinate the Son to the Father. This addition caused all sorts of problems between the East and the West and became one of the key points of division between the two.

Dr. Peter Gilbert, an Orthodox professor of Church History, gave the above-linked introduction to the filioque recently and I recommend it to anyone interested in East-West relations. Dr. Gilbert mostly focuses on the history of how the filioque came to be inserted into the Creed, noting both why the West came to accept it as theologically valid and why they felt it was legitimate to add it to the Creed.

My only complaint with Dr. Gilbert’s introduction is that it is too short! I think Dr. Gilbert would do a great service to the Church if he were to expand on this introduction and make it a complete book on the subject.

Update: I am currently reading “I Believe In The Holy Spirit” by Yves Congar, and he has an in-depth analysis of the entire filioque issue. I think this passage sums it up nicely:

What we have to aim at and what can, in fact, be reached is a recognition both of the unity of faith on both sides of Catholicity and of the legitimate difference between the two dogmatic expressions of that mystery. Each expression is consistent in itself, and each is impossible in the categories and vocabulary of the other side. In the course of ten centuries of discussion, neither side has succeeded in convincing the other or in persuading it to accept its point of view. There is no chance that this goal will be reached in the future. In fact, we may say quite unambiguously that this is not a goal to be pursued.

Both Eastern and Western Christians are baptized in a common faith. For both, ‘the Spirit is confessed as the third Person-hypostasis of the one divine nature-essence and consubstantial with the Father and the Son’. Both confess the Father as the Principle without principle or beginning of the whole divinity. Both profess the Son as not unrelated to the Father in the production of the Holy Spirit.

The expressions of this faith, however, are different, especially in the matter of the third of these points…

I would conclude…with a statement by Mgr. Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, who is the Director of the Orthodox Centre at Chambesy… ‘It is both possible and necessary to explain, on the one hand, the formulations of the Greek Fathers and, on the other, those of the Latin Fathers, including the Filioque, and while respecting the originality of each, to draw attention to the ways in which they are in agreement. From the fourth century onwards, the Filioque came to form part of the Western tradition, but it was never regarded as an obstacle to union until that union was ended for other reasons.’
I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Volume 3, Yves Congar, pp. 201-202

The “must-have” gadget this Christmas season is clearly the e-reader. The Amazon Kindle appears to be flying off the shelves, and the Barnes and Noble Nook is back-ordered due to high demand. As a self-professed bibliophile, I have followed the development of e-books with great interest, and even with some concern. At first, my Luddite tendencies prevailed and I thought e-readers were a silly fad, but then for a while my geek side won out and I embraced the concept wholeheartedly. But then I began to question some of the outlandish statements made on their behalf, especially the belief that they will completely replace paper-bound books in the near future. This is not going to happen.

The reason I don’t think e-readers will replace paper-bound books isn’t simply nostalgia; it is an opinion based on technology. And simply put, the paper-bound book is a vastly superior technology compared to the current e-readers. The e-reader is better at some specific tasks, but in most ways, the paper-bound book still offers the best way to read books.

Here are a few ways in which the paper-bound book is superior to the e-reader:

1) A common, lasting format. Currently, the e-reader market is in the classic “Beta vs. VHS” stage. Getting a book on a Kindle doesn’t mean that you could read it on a Nook. There is no clear-cut winner yet in the format wars, so the reader you get now may not be able to read any e-books in five or ten years. Even if the manufacturers of e-readers would agree on a common format, you still must possess an e-reader of some kind to read an e-book. Anyone can read a paper-bound book, however.

2) Easier to share. The Nook has a unique feature that allows you to “lend” your e-books to another e-reader for 14 days (and then, for some inexplicable reason, you can’t re-loan it to them). This is considered advanced in the e-reader field, but it is clearly far inferior to the paper-bound book world, where you can lend your books to anyone you want (they don’t need a compatible e-reader or any device, for that matter) and for as long as you want.

3) More resistance to damage. Ever thought about reading a book in the bath? Good luck if you have an e-reader. Also, if you run over a Kindle with your car, you have to purchase a whole new Kindle and re-download all your books. Running over a book with your car usually just puts a tire-mark on it, especially if it is a hard-back.

4) Longer-lasting. A paper-bound book can outlast the lifespan of a human being. The typical lifespan of a high-tech device is about 2-5 years. Once you are on the e-book track, you will need to constantly keep upgrading over the course of your life to maintain that lifestyle.

5) True ownership. If you buy a book, you own it. Forever. When you buy an e-book, you are just licensing the text from Amazon or the publisher or whoever truly owns the book. If they want, they can take away your e-book for any reason or no reason (which has already happened once with the Kindle).

6) Superior reading experience. This is not as subjective as it sounds. When you read a paper-bound book, you are using more than your sense of sight. You are also using your sense of touch. You know just by holding the book how far along you are – there is no need to check the page indicator at the bottom of a screen. Furthermore, if you need to go back a few pages to remember who a character is or review an important point made by the author, flipping back a few pages while skimming the text is quite easy – at least in comparison to doing the same on an e-reader. Studies have shown that paper allows people to process text better than text on a screen.

7) More focused reading. When you are reading a paper-bound book, there is nothing else you can do with that book. Your entire attention is focused on the text and on nothing else. With an e-reader, you can quickly change to another book or even on some readers decide to browse the web. (Some have noticed that this lack of focus with screen reading is changing how we think). The single-mindedness of the paper-bound book has been called a disadvantage by some, but it is clearly an advantage if you really want to engage the text of the book. Both this point and #6 above leads to a “deeper” reading experience: you can engage the text more closely and in a more focused manner than you can in an e-reader.

This is not to say that the e-reader is worthless; on the contrary, it has many positive features that make it useful for certain types of reading. For example, I often will print out long PDF’s I find online so that I can read them away from my computer. This has lead to piles of paper crammed throughout my office. I can see the benefit of just loading these on an e-reader. The same thing could be said for magazines – do we really need a bunch of paper magazines sitting around the house? Also, I can see much benefit to an e-reader for college students. Instead of lugging around 50 lbs of books that cost north of $500 – books that will probably never been read again by that student – just putting it all on an e-reader can be quite helpful.

But these are specific cases and don’t encompass the whole reading experience. At least for a while, the most “high-tech” way to read a book is the old-fashioned way: paper-bound books.

I am very excited by this announcement in my parish bulletin:

Altar Boys need for Mass in the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Form – Saturday, December 19th at 11:00am in the Church there will be an introduction to, and a practice for, serving the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (the “Tridentine” Mass). Out of respect for this form, this is only open to boys, from age ten to young adult. This is a very difficult Mass to server. It involves memorization of Latin responses and a great attention to very detailed actions. There is no firm schedule for offering Mass in this form. Fr. LaHood wants to have altar boys ready when it seems appropriate to offer Mass in this form in the parish.

As soon as I found out that my pastor was interested in offering the Mass in the Extraordinary Form in our parish, I have encouraged him to do so as soon as possible. I have also been helping him with recruitment of altar boys and people for the schola and I can’t wait until it is available at our parish. Until then, I’ll get ready by watching this video, narrated by then-Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen:

Praise God! A former abortionist in South Korea has made it his goal to eliminate abortions in that country:

South Korea has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world, even though abortion is technically illegal there except in a few rare circumstances. According to official government figures, there are 340,000 abortions each year, although one parliamentarian has estimated that there may be as many as 1.5 million. At the same time, Korea’s birth rate is the second-lowest in the world – 1.19 births per woman — and some Koreans fear that their very survival as a nation is in doubt.

That is the background for a courageous decision by a 50-year-old Seoul obstetrician and gynaecologist, Dr Sang-duk Shim, to stop doing abortions and to lobby the government for a dramatic reduction. He has even received death threats for his stand.

Could you explain the goal of your activist group of doctors? What is its name? How many members do you have?

Dr Shim: This movement is the Korean Gynecological Physicians’ Association, or “Gynob”, and is an organization consisting of obstetricians and gynaecologists. Currently we have about 680 listed members. Of course, Gynob is not an organization designed only to resolve the problem of abortion, but is intended to improve the distorted medical enviroment in which OB/GYNs work. It does not mean that all of the members of Gynob actively participate in Gynob activities. Our movement is led by a group of about 30 activists.

The goal of our movement is a Korea without abortions. To be more specific, our immediate goal is to reduce the number of abortions to 100,000 cases within ten years — one-third of what it is today — and to eliminate all forms of abortion except when necessary to save the life of an expectant mother.

How long did you do abortions? How many did you do?

Dr Shim: It has been about 20 years since I obtained my qualification as an obstetrician. I have been involved in abortion for almost 20 years until I discontinued it in October, as part of my commitment to the anti-abortion movement. I do not have any written record of the abortions I did. However, I had about 20 cases a month, which means a total of 4,000 cases over the period of 20 years.

Why did you stop? Has it been a big sacrifice for you?

Dr Shim: Practicing abortion violates fundamental ethical values for medical doctors and I have suffered pangs of conscience for a long while. Over time, I have noticed that society as a whole and the medical services sector in particular did not try hard to reduce the number of abortions. Rather abortion was encouraged and the basic issues have been left untreated. Simply because of financial pressures on obstetricians, it became clear that abortion has been encouraged and generally accepted.

Read the whole interview here and be sure to pray for Dr. Shim. He is not a believer, but he might very well follow the path of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who went from abortionist to atheist pro-lifer to Catholic.

About a week ago I wrote a post titled “In Defense of the Novus Ordo“, which was really more an explanation that the things most criticized about the Novus Ordo are optional. Someone in the combox noticed I didn’t really defend the Novus Ordo itself, to which I foolishly responded that I would at some point write a true defense.

Why do I say foolishly? Because I realize that any defense, no matter how well-researched or well-defended, will bring out vicious attacks, including questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo, accusations of heresy in Vatican II and conspiracy theories about Masons, Protestants and Paul VI. Nothing denigrates faster than a Catholic blog discussion on the Mass. It has in many ways become the “third rail” of the Catholic blogosphere.

Why is this? Why is it that any discussion of the liturgy so quickly turns into conflict, and all-too-often a quagmire of attacks, uncharitable accusations, and downright un-Christian behavior? I can think of a few reasons.

The Liturgy is important. In academia, they say that arguments are so heated because the stakes are so small. I would argue that the opposite is true about the liturgy: the arguments are so heated because the stakes are so high. The Mass is the most important thing that we as humans do. We are all created for eternal life in heaven, and what will we be doing in heaven? Well, if you read the book of Revelation, you see that heaven is one big Mass. So it is quite understandable that people take it quite seriously.

How we celebrate the Liturgy is important. How we celebrate the liturgy matters as well. The Old Testament condemns worship to false gods, but it also condemns false worship to the true God. For example, in Leviticus 10:1-2, the sons of Aaron presented “unlawful fire” to the Lord and as a result, they were consumed by that fire. Furthermore, the excruciating detail in which the Old Testament explains how proper liturgy is to be performed shows that it is not only vital that we worship God, but that we do it properly. So liturgical debates are important.

The Liturgy is a human-divine activity. The Mass was instituted by Christ and it’s development has been guided by the Holy Spirit. In it, we worship God in the way He has asked to be worshiped. However, the liturgy is also a human activity which is shaped by human elements, including culture, taste, and ability. While maintaining the core structure of the Mass, we have a great range of details we can adjust. Just look at the difference between the Mass of the Latin Rite and the Divine Liturgies of the Eastern Churches: they are the same underlying liturgy, but are quite different in their execution. Because it is so influenced by human factors, however, there can be strong disagreements about what is appropriate and helpful to proper worship and what is not. It is often difficult to separate in our minds between what is contrary to true worship and what is just not our taste.

The Liturgy is our most common activity. And by “common” I mean both “frequent” and “related to the whole”. All practicing Catholics participate in the Mass at least once a week – we are never more than seven days separated from it. Furthermore, the Mass is what unites the Church universal: whereas there might be diverse spiritual practices from Europe to Africa to Latin America, we all celebrate the same Mass. Because of this, we are constantly reminded if a Mass is celebrated poorly and we know what a great impact this can have on the Church Universal.

Therefore, I am very empathetic with those who lament the direction (both figuratively and literally) liturgical worship has gone in the past 40 years. I have been fortunate to have been a member of three separate parishes (in three separate dioceses) that all celebrated the Mass without any egregious abuses or flippancy that you can see in some American parishes. But I can understand how someone who week-in and week-out experiences such Masses would become discouraged and even angry over such a state of affairs. I think Pope Benedict has made it clear that he too shares these concerns and is working to restore a more reverent atmosphere to the celebration of the Mass.

But (and you knew there would be a “but”, didn’t you?) even if we are angry, this does not justify sinful responses. St. Paul tells us, “In your anger do not sin…do not give the devil a foothold” (Eph. 4:26-27). Note the second part: by letting our anger lead to sin we are giving the devil a foothold to our soul. It doesn’t matter if that anger was justified or not, either way the devil wins. When we lash out at liturgical abuses or even Church-mandated changes which we think are unwise, we lose twice: first, the devil wins a victory over us and second, it is highly unlikely we will convince anyone of our position. Nothing is more self-defeating than someone who argues in anger.

It is unlikely that Satan is going to be able to convince a practicing Catholic to abandon going to Mass. So he won’t try. Instead he will tempt us to make Mass a near occasion of sin. But we don’t have to let that happen. Even if everything around us is loopy, that doesn’t mean that we have to respond in anger. Instead, it is a wonderful opportunity to pray and offer sacrifices (like the sacrifice of enduring the loopiness) for those who are abusing or denigrating the liturgy. We can turn the devil’s temptations into opportunities for grace. And who knows? Maybe our prayers and sacrifices will lead others to a deeper appreciation of the solemnity of the Mass.

Oh, and I haven’t written that defense of the Novus Ordo yet; I’m waiting until the full-body armor I ordered arrives.

I have blogged previously that I think a reunion between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church right now would be unwise, because most Orthodox believers (and many Catholics ones as well) would reject the reunion, throw out the bishops responsible, and the division would just become more entrenched.

However, I now see there is another reason we should fear a Catholic-Russian Orthodox reunion: it will lead to the rise of the Beast of Revelation! That’s right, if Christians are united, that sets the stage for the end-times, at least according to a Mr. Bob Thiel, the “Church History & End Prophecy Examiner” at examiner.com. A few choice excerpts:

The Bible clearly warns of a dictator rising up in Europe (Daniel 9:26-27; 11:27-39; Revelation 13), but contrary to the implication of the Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion, this dictator will feign some type of religious background (Daniel 11:36-38). Both Catholic and Orthodox prophecies tell of a time when an ecumenical dictator (sometimes referred to as “the Great Monarch”) will rise up–we are getting closer to that time.

The Bible warns of a coming European Beast power ridden by an ecumenical church (Revelation 17:1-3). Events are lining up on a regular basis for these and other prophecies to be fulfilled.

Russian and other Orthodox should not try to unite with the Vatican and Catholics should not try to unite with the Orthodox as the Bible warns against this upcoming ecumenical religious power.

Furthermore, private prophecies from both Orthodox and Catholic mystics suggest dire consequences as well.

Christian Unity: the devil’s playground. Really, I couldn’t make this stuff up even if I wanted to.

Heard from my son the other day: “Dad, the Old Testament is like a HUGE Advent!”

I recently gave a two-part class at my parish entitled “Encountering Christ in the Scriptures: Reading the Bible Spiritually”.

The purpose of this class is to help Catholics read the Bible fruitfully. Too often the main focus of Scripture studies over the past few decades has been historical and scholarly details – who wrote this book, when did he write it, why did he write it? Those are important questions, but they are not questions which help the typical Catholic to draw closer to Christ and live a more fulfilling life.

These questions also neglect the intentions of the other author of the Scriptures – the Holy Spirit. My class is thus directed towards a “spiritual study” of the Bible, and the key to this study is encountering Christ in the pages of Scripture. I discuss how Old Testament figures such as Adam and Moses allow us to understand Christ better and deepen our knowledge of him. We see how all the Scriptures are directed towards Christ (see Luke 24:27). And all of this is done within the Church and as part of a sacramental life.

Here is a short (3 1/2 minute) sample from the class, where I talk about how the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 helps us to encounter Christ on the Cross:

You can listen to both classes in their entirety here and here. The first class is more theoretical – what does it mean to do a spiritual study, how do we do it? The second class includes practical applications of the theory. Each class is about 1 1/2 hours in length.

“[Christianity] is not a new philosophy or a new form of morality. We are only Christians if we encounter Christ…We can…encounter Christ in reading Holy Scripture, in prayer, and in the liturgical life of the Church – touch Christ’s heart and feel that Christ touches ours. And it is only in this personal relationship with Christ, in this meeting with the Risen One, that we are truly Christian.” – Pope Benedict XVI