I Now Pronounce You God and Church

At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse." (CCC 507)

Wow. That's some deep imagery and symbolism.

The Cathechism also points out that by being born of a virgin, there can be no doubt that Jesus is the Son of God. While God could have brought Jesus into this world through the ordinary means of procreation (namely, an earthly mother AND father), the method he chose provides us with a new Adam. While the old Adam was born of the earth, the new Adam is born of Heaven.

We can further see in Jesus' virgin birth how we too can be "born" into God's family through the Sacrament of Baptism whereby we are given new life "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (CCC 505). As the Catechism goes on to say:

The acceptance of this [new] life [in Christ] is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.

Again I say, "Wow."

Building Up God's House

This is what the LORD then said to Moses: "Tell the Israelites to take up a collection for me. From every man you shall accept the contribution that his heart prompts him to give me. These are the contributions you shall accept from them: gold, silver and bronze; violet, purple and scarlet yarn; fine linen and goat hair; rams' skins dyed red, and tahash skins; acacia wood; oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; onyx stones and other gems for mounting on the ephod and the breastpiece. They shall make a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell in their midst." (Exodus 25:1-8)

I have sometimes heard others wonder aloud why we give our money to build big, fancy churches rather than putting that money to better use such as a charity for orphaned children or AIDS victims. Wouldn't Jesus want us to take care of His children instead of building huge cathedrals?

Certainly we are called to take care of those less fortunate then ourselves, and we should give a portion of our wealth (be it money, time or talent) to those in need. But as Catholics, we also should give a portion of our wealth to building the house of God much as God commanded Moses to do in Exodus 25.

In this chapter we read about God giving specific instructions on how the Jewish people are to construct the ark which will hold the rod, manna, and commandments as well as how to construct what would become the holy of holies where God would reside among His people.

As Catholics, we believe that Christ is present in a unique way when we celebrate the Eucharist. At the moment of the consecration, Jesus is present in body, blood, soul and divinity and remains so as long as the consecrated host and wine turned blood are in our midst. The tabernacle in a Catholic church becomes for us a holy of holies since God is truly residing with us.

For those who are not Catholic (or do not truly believe that Christ is uniquely present in the Eucharist) I can understand why there might be doubt about putting large sums of money into a building. After all, is a gymnasium or a classroom not sufficient for a service which amounts to a bible study given by a wise pastor or minister? In such scenarios I would be inclined to agree that extravagant buildings with rich tapestries, colorful murals and precious metallic accoutrement are simply means of showing off one's wealth.

But if in fact God is truly present in that place, then shouldn't we offer Him the very best that we can? A Catholic Church IS the House of God, and to do anything less than to give him our first fruits would be to disrespect His sovereignty and power.

In Matthew 26:6-11 we see Jesus affirming the actions of a woman who pours costly perfumed oil on Him. His disciples argued that the oil could have been sold to provide for the poor, but Jesus rebukes them stating that the poor will always be there, but He will not always be there. Should we assume then that Jesus covets the oil or claims to be more important than the lowly poor? Surely not. Instead our Lord is affirming the command the Father gave to the Israelites by confirming that they should offer their best for their Messiah.

We as Catholic Christians are called to do nothing less.

God, L-O-V-E, God

"God's love for Israel is compared to a father's love for his son. His love for His people is stronger than a mother's love for her children. God loves His people more than a bridegroom his beloved; His love will be victorious over even the worst infidelities and will extend to His most precious gift: 'God so loved the world that He gave His only Son'." (CCC 219)

Most hardcore Christians agree that the birth of the entire human race goes back to Adam and Eve who were created by God with an eternal soul. Further, we rarely argue that man (and by this we mean all men and women) are created in God's image and likeness. For whatever reason however, there seems to be some invisible wall that keeps some from arriving from those agreed on truths to the point that we are all God's children and that He loves each of us as a father loves his son.

Confusion seems to stem from the fact that God apparently has chosen an elect group (Mark 13:20, 2 Timothy 2:10, Colossians 3:12) as His own (leaving the others to a damnable ending). The argument revolves around Roman 9:21, "or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?" But God does not look upon His children as a potter looks on a lump of clay. His love for His people is stronger than a mother's love for her children.

Right, but who are "His children" they counter. Who are the elected, and what is the point of using the term "elected" if there was never intended to be an "unelected"?

I know it sounds like the answer is taken from some complicated sci-fi notion of the space time continuum, but the truth is that God is omnipresent; He knows which of us will ultimately choose Him and therefore be members of "the elect" and who will choose a different path which leads to damnation. The important thing to remember then is that we choose whether or not we belong to the elect. The gift is freely given to ALL -- it is our personal choice (does free will ring a bell?) as to whether or not we want to open that gift.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) As this most well known verse in Scripture suggests, God loved the entire world. Note that there is no mention of the elect. Furthermore free will is implicitly stated in the words "whoever believes" which implies that one must choose to believe. If God chooses for us, then he cannot love us each equally since a parent would never choose unequally for his children. It is only by the child's own choices that his life leads to ultimate success or failure. Likewise God wants success for each and every one of His children but through our free will we choose whether our life ends in success (heaven) or failure (hell). God, who knows all and sees all may know our results now, but that does not imply that He chose them for us.

This issue opens the debate between predestination and free will. After all both concepts cannot exist side by side since to say that a person is predestined to eternal damnation suggests he does not have the free will to change that outcome. To say then that some are predestined for eternal death because they are not part of God's elect suggests that God cannot love each human being, as His creation in the image and likeness of Himself, as a mother loves her child. After all, can any mother honestly say that she would not love her child unconditionally despite any poor choice the child makes in his or her lifetime?

But did God not choose Israel for His own and thereby leave other nations to their peril? Yes, but for what purpose did God choose them? God chose Israel to be his priestly nation which is to say that they were chosen to evangelize and lead other nations to God. In this sense, it is correct to say that God has plans for each and every one of us; a vocation chosen just for us. We still have to choose to accept that vocation (as did the Jewish people). There were times the Jews went astray and did not follow that calling. They were still "chosen" in the sense that it was still their responsibility to lead others to God. In much the same way we are elected to lead others to Christ. Should they that have ears listen and obey, they will become members of the so called elect by their own free will and also reach out to yet others.

Do you now see how no one issue can be discussed in a bubble? The bottom line is that God is Love. If we review 1 Corinthians 13, we must accept that Love would never intend for evil to befall the recipient of that love. Likewise, God wants the best for each of His children. To step back and allow us to make our own choices and live with their effects shows us just how much He loves us. Oh that I might allow my children whom I love dearly to suffer and learn from their mistakes rather than protect them from all of life's evils.

The Truth Is Out There

"The sum of Your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures forever." Psalms 119:160 (CCC 215)

Notice the words "sum" and "every one" in the verse above? We must remember that God equals Truth. The corollary is that Truth cannot contradict Truth.

I mention this because I frequently encounter debates about "my faith" versus "your faith" in which both sides argue using Scripture as their defense. One side argues for "saved by faith alone" (Ephesians 2:8-10) while the other argues that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20). The first claims that the death penalty should be enforced thanks to "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21:23-27) while the second disagrees by way of "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39).

It is important to understand that the Truth is much like the Highlander -- there can be only one! Truth cannot contradict truth which is to say that we cannot have two truths which disagree with each other. As Christians, we generally agree that the Bible contains the fullness of Truth. If so, then we can not argue one point if it appears to be opposed to another verse from the same tome of wisdom. Both verses must be understood in such a way that harmony exists between them.

Ephesians and James must agree with one another if they are to be understood correctly. The fact is that we are saved by faith alone, but that if we truly have faith, works are a natural byproduct. If the works are not present, the faith is not really there. In this instance, I often find that non-Catholics are argumentative about a misconception they have about our faith. In fact, we likely are not in disagreement with this belief, but merely with the way we each word it.

Exodus and Matthew, although from two different eras, must also be in accord by virtue of both containing Truth. In context, the law in Moses' time was applied because the common practice previously was to slaughter an entire family if one bull was taken from the other family's flock. The law was meant as a means to soften the penalty to be more in accord with God's love. Note that at this time also, divorce was admitted, a fact the Pharisees tried to use against Jesus many years later. Jesus' answer was that this law was a human one, and that His response was correct. In this case, Love (capitalized because by "love" we mean "God") outweighs "love" (lowercase L). At worst, man should exact a revenge no worse than the crime, but to be truly Christ-like, we should refrain from rebuke entirely.

It is for this reason that I am glad I have the Magisterium of the Church and 2,000 years of Tradition to aid in my understanding of the interpretation of Scripture. While we are encouraged to immerse ourselves in Scripture, we are meant to do so in such a way that we do not assume that our personal interpretation is the penultimate truth. Among other prerequisites (CCC 109-119), we are called to "read the Scripture within 'the living Tradition of the whole Church'" (CCC 113).

Some wonder why they as a individual should submit to the Catholic Church's interpretation. After all, they reason, "won't the Holy Spirit reveal to me God's correct meaning of His Word if I profess belief in Him?" Perhaps, but God made it clear that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church born at the rock of Peter. Does Scripture make any such claim for protection at the birth of your personal faith? Let us not forget that the devil tempted Adam and Eve not with an outright lie, but rather a twisting of the truth. Satan again tried this tactic with Jesus when He was tempted in the desert. Pray that Satan does not allow you to be deceived by a twisted Truth, and that God grants you the grace to find an establishment here on Earth that He has personally guaranteed would be free of lies and deceit.

I Am (Your Father)

"Many religions invoke God as 'Father.' The deity is often considered the 'father of gods and of men.' In Israel, God is called 'Father' inasmuch as He is Creator of the world. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, 'His first-born son.' God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially He is the 'Father of the poor,' of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under His loving protection." CCC 238



Admit it. Christianity is a patriarchal faith. Yes, God did create man and woman in His image, but as equals in a complimentary sense rather than as interchangeable. One can simply look to the state of society since children have been robbed of a father figure to recognize that mom, however great she is, was never created to be the sole head of the household (or nation, or Creator of the universe IMHO).

Why then, do some people who recognize the sign of the cross to be "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" be so politically correct when reciting prayers during Mass by removing the male pronouns from prayers and replacing them with asexual references? Can they not accept that while the Church recognizes God as a sexless deity, He remains the Father?

Thanks to the politically correct feminist agenda of making man and woman absolute equals (and often I think they REALLY want to promote the role of womanhood even higher) the Church is now being subjected to the desire to play down God's male image as Father and Protector. Just like the advent of birth control, the push to demote manhood from society will lead to the ultimate downfall of our existence.

Take Me to Your Leader

"When Christ instituted the Twelve, 'he constituted them in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which He placed Peter, chosen from among them.'" CCC 880

I don't understand the dilemma many have with the hierarchy of the Church. Non-believers often think we as Catholics somehow worship the Pope or claim him as our absolute head (in place of Jesus). Perhaps my Catholic upbringing as a child allows me to oversimplify this aspect, but is it so hard to accept that just as God appointed leaders in the Old Testament to speak on His behalf to His chosen people, so might He have a hand in appointing a man to guide His followers in the New?

Ultimately we, like all good Christians, recognize God (Jesus) as the head of our Church. I'm certain that any good Jew in the B.C. would have claimed the same for themselves. But like all communities -- faith, business, or otherwise -- the human person has always placed one among them as their head, if for no other reason than to act as moderator for disputes among otherwise equals.

Every faith group has some form of a leader, whether it be the local pastor, an archbishop, or a founding member of a house church. I believe that those who refuse to recognize the requirement of obedience to an authority figure appointed by God have a bigger problem then accepting the leadership of another person. Perhaps pride or envy is getting in the way of permitting another of God's chosen to guide you along your spiritual path. Refer back to 'A Church of One' if you think that you and God can handle your relationship without the help of another.

A Church of One?

"Faith is a personal act -- the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals Himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone just as no one can live alone. You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbor impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith." CCC 166

I've heard people say they don't believe in organized religion. They prefer instead to have their own personal faith. While faith is certainly a personal choice, one can not (and should not) believe alone. God made woman for man so that man should not live alone (Gen 2:18). From our earliest ancestors it was realized that man could not exist alone. Why should we think that we can have faith alone?

When Christ began His public ministry, He chose twelve men to assist Him. Why did He do this? As God, could He not have performed His ministry without the help of others? Of course. But perhaps He was showing us that we were each formed to be part of a community -- a body of believers -- who were dependent on each other for their spiritual growth. Note how when the disciples went out to preach repentance, drive out demons, and anoint the sick they did so in pairs (Mark 6:7). See how after Jesus' death the believers gathered together for the breaking of the bread (Acts 20:7). Examples abound in Scripture supporting a model of a community of believers working together for a common good.

My hope is that those who believe they can make it on their own hear the voice of God calling them back to communion with Himself in the format He gave us as an example: the Church as a community of believers, breaking bread together and being the body of Christ here on Earth.

To Know and Love GOD

"GOD, infinitely perfect and blessed in Himself, in a plan of sheer goodness, freely created man to make him share in His own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek Him, to know Him, to love Him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of His family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent His Son as Redeemer and Savior. In His Son and through Him, He invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, His adopted children and thus heirs of His blessed life." CCC 1

And thus we begin on a journey towards God via the teachings of His Church. It seems fitting that we begin this journal with the first paragraph of the Catechism on the eve of the birth of our Lord whom God sent as His Redeemer and Savior. Let us not forget that through this miraculous event, God called together ALL men into the unity of His family. To hear His voice and respond are the only prerequisites for adoption into His family. This blog is my response to His voice. I pray I never dishonor Him in my ramblings. God bless each and every person who stumbles across this humble blog!