The title of this post refers to my planned New Year's Resolution. I intend to spend next year trying to truly live my Catholic faith. This could be a bigger undertaking than any I have thus far tried.
The idea sort of germinated for me from a few places. One of them being Matthew Kelly's wonderful book Rediscover Catholicism. In it Kelly declares that one of the major reasons for so much of life's problems being a largely listless, Godless world. A world seeking, but not knowing what to truly seek.
Another germination point for me was the realization that I want my kids to grow up as more than Cafeteria Catholics I want them to understand the Why's and How's of our faith.
After a recent difficult patch at work, I really turned to the Lord and the Saints. I knew I needed help to break past the things that were holding me back. I wasn't meeting my weekly production standards and didn't know where else to turn. I started a novena to the Sacred Heart, and to St. Joseph, and I started just praying to Therese of Lisieux. It worked I suddenly started exceeding my standard and doing much better at work.
I never do manage to pray nine nights in a row on my novenas, the weekends come and I am always too tired or distracted to say my prayers. That's a bad thing it is one of the things I want to fix.
So I have been developing a five point plan: Rosary, Fasting and Abstinence, Mass, Confession and Scripture.
I plan to start saying the Rosary, at least once a week for starters, with an intention to increase the number of days I say it. I picked the Rosary because I know it is a devastating weapon in the Holy war those of us in the Church Militant are engaged in. I didn't want to just commit to a certain amount of time in daily prayer I wanted a meaningful prayer life.
I am going to return to the proper tradition of fasting and abstinence on Fridays, in honor of the Lord's Passion. I might just be an "early adopter" here as there is wind that Cardinal Dolan as head of the USCCB might just return all US Catholics to the proper Friday rules. Bully for him I hope he does.
As for Mass I don't think my work schedule will allow me to make daily Mass too often, but I need to desperately improve my overall attendance. I also am going to (for the first time ever) make it to Mass for all of the Holy Days. After all why shouldn't I pay proper reverence to my creator. Besides frequent reception of Communion will help strengthen me for the rest of my plan right.
Confession is good for the soul they say right. Well I know mine always feels better after a visit to the "Sin Bin". Confession can be a very nerve racking experience. But it is so nice to walk out afterwards, perform your penance and know that the Lord loves you and forgives your misdeeds.
And the final point in my plan, I'm going to knuckle down and read the Bible. The whole thing. I made good headway a couple years ago but this time I'm going to do it. I will also try and push through the Catechism too.
I figure if I can do all of that, not only will I be a better Catholic, I will probably be a better husband and father, too. Which isn't a bad thing since baby number three is on the way. I should probably brush up on my husbanding and fathering.
If I can find a few spare minutes each week I intend to sort of post a weekly report card as I go... Gives me a year's worth of weekly blog posts right.
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Jesus and the Church Pt. 2
In yesterday's post we explored whether or not Jesus founded a church. The overwhelming Scriptural evidence would seem to show He did in fact do so. He did so seemingly to prevent said church from falling victim to error. Today let's investigate which church this is. We will also look at some of those longstanding myths regarding the founding of the Catholic church.
Of all the Christian churches only the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church say that they were founded by Jesus Christ. Both churches lay solid claim to their apostolic succession. However, as we saw yesterday Jesus said He would found his church on Peter. Since the Orthodox churches deny that simple aspect they must not be the True Church.
As an interesting aside having never attended Protestant worship services I have only secondhand testimony, but they either change the words of the Creed (We believe in One, Holy, Catholic...) to small c Catholic or Christian. Interesting dance to have to do, with words that are 1500-plus years old.
So does Jesus desire that his flock should all be one in the church He founded?
Well the most obvious answer to this question in my mind comes from John's Gospel, in Jesus's high priestly prayer. In John 17: 11, 20, Jesus asks God to grant the apostles the unity that He and the Father share. In verse 20 we see Jesus acknowledging that He isn't merely praying for the Eleven (Judas was already lost at this point). He is praying for all of the people who would believe in Him because of their testimony.
Christ desires one flock. As the Good Shepherd He reminds us in John 10:14 that He knows His flock and His flock know him.
Now Peter had been set apart; he is always listed as the first of the Apostles; mentioned more times by name than all the other Apostles combined; and given the command by Christ to tend His sheep (John 21:15-17). Since Christ is the Good Shepherd and Peter is His Prime Minister, Christ sought an Earthly shepherd to guide His flock, knowing He would return to the Father soon.
The early church recognized the Primacy of Peter and those who succeeded him. The church at Corinth sent a letter to Clement seeking his help in regard to some bishops that had been deposed. Now St. John was still alive and was right down the road in Ephesus, but the Corinthians sought the help of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter.
Many of the Early Church Father's put down lists of the successor's of Peter, often in an attempt to show that the current pope's decrees where valid and holy since he currently occupied the Cathedra.
St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies written in 180 AD described not just apostolic succession but the line of bishops succeeding from Peter in Rome. Now Irenaeus was a bishop himself, but he didn't try and show his line to be the most important he bowed to Rome.
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
We also see St. Paul telling Timothy to appoint faithful men to follow after him (2 Tim. 2:2). So we see apostolic succession in history and Scripture.
Now mind you someone has probably trotted out some whopper like Constantine and a bunch of money grubbing power hungry people founded the Catholic Church as a way to consolidate power/money, etc.
After you finish laughing send them here, or here.
Now the answer to our two part question: Did Jesus found a Church? Yes, The Roman Catholic Church. Does He desire His flock shall all be visibly in that church? Yes again. (Jn. 17, Mt. 10:40, Lk. 10:16).
So whose flock are you in?
Of all the Christian churches only the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church say that they were founded by Jesus Christ. Both churches lay solid claim to their apostolic succession. However, as we saw yesterday Jesus said He would found his church on Peter. Since the Orthodox churches deny that simple aspect they must not be the True Church.
As an interesting aside having never attended Protestant worship services I have only secondhand testimony, but they either change the words of the Creed (We believe in One, Holy, Catholic...) to small c Catholic or Christian. Interesting dance to have to do, with words that are 1500-plus years old.
So does Jesus desire that his flock should all be one in the church He founded?
Well the most obvious answer to this question in my mind comes from John's Gospel, in Jesus's high priestly prayer. In John 17: 11, 20, Jesus asks God to grant the apostles the unity that He and the Father share. In verse 20 we see Jesus acknowledging that He isn't merely praying for the Eleven (Judas was already lost at this point). He is praying for all of the people who would believe in Him because of their testimony.
Christ desires one flock. As the Good Shepherd He reminds us in John 10:14 that He knows His flock and His flock know him.
Now Peter had been set apart; he is always listed as the first of the Apostles; mentioned more times by name than all the other Apostles combined; and given the command by Christ to tend His sheep (John 21:15-17). Since Christ is the Good Shepherd and Peter is His Prime Minister, Christ sought an Earthly shepherd to guide His flock, knowing He would return to the Father soon.
The early church recognized the Primacy of Peter and those who succeeded him. The church at Corinth sent a letter to Clement seeking his help in regard to some bishops that had been deposed. Now St. John was still alive and was right down the road in Ephesus, but the Corinthians sought the help of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter.
Many of the Early Church Father's put down lists of the successor's of Peter, often in an attempt to show that the current pope's decrees where valid and holy since he currently occupied the Cathedra.
St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies written in 180 AD described not just apostolic succession but the line of bishops succeeding from Peter in Rome. Now Irenaeus was a bishop himself, but he didn't try and show his line to be the most important he bowed to Rome.
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric....
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
But where do we see Scriptural evidence for this succession. In many places, It starts just after Christ's Ascension. Acts 1:20 shows St. Peter declaring that another person should take Judas's bishopric. In the following verses we see the Apostles pray and the lot falls to Matthias, "Who was counted with the eleven."
Now mind you someone has probably trotted out some whopper like Constantine and a bunch of money grubbing power hungry people founded the Catholic Church as a way to consolidate power/money, etc.
After you finish laughing send them here, or here.
So there you have it. Christ founded a church on Earth one that we can follow from its current Earthly leader, Pope Benedict XVI, to its founder Jesus Christ in circa AD 33. Jesus seeks for us all to be one as He and the Father are one (Jn. 17:11).
So whose flock are you in?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Jesus and the Church
A recent discussion in the comment box at Shameless Popery, plus a recent Facebook discussion led me to what I want to talk about today. To catch everyone up on my train of thought, essentially Joe asked a commenter the following: did Jesus found the Catholic Church, and is it His Will for His flock to be in that Church, visibly?
What a great question right? So without further ado, let's dive into it. I will break the question up into two distinct parts.
I. Did Jesus found the Catholic Church?
Of course He did. Next... Ok so obviously as a Catholic I believe he did, but let's investigate some of the Scriptural and historical evidence.
First off there are many references in the Old Testament to God giving His people a shepherd (The Pope) so they didn't wander off. Take a look at Numbers 27: 15-17, which tells us God doesn't want His people to be like sheep without a shepherd (h/t Joe). Jeremiah 3:15 tells us that God will send us shepherds (pastors in the DR translation) who are after His own heart to feed us with knowledge and doctrine.
So from just these two references alone we see that God desires His people have some sort of leadership to follow. Continuing in Numbers 27: 18-20 we see Moses anointing Joshua as the successor in authority over the Israelites. This is the succession of authority Christ references in Matt. 23:2. So we have in the Old Testament numerous examples of an authority to lead being handed down from one generation to the next. Through laying on of hands and anointing.
All of which brings me to Matt. 16:13-20. The great threefold blessing of Simon soon to be forever after known as Peter. Christ brought the Apostles to Caesarea Phillipi. As Deacon George pointed out at Mass last month when this was our Gospel reading this wasn't the most hospitable place.
What an odd place for Jesus to reflect on what the crowd thinks of this "carpenter's son." The Twelve venture as to what the consensus of the crowd is. Jesus is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist. Hebrew tradition maintained that Elijah would return to Earth as the Herald of the Lord. We know Jesus isn't the Baptist (John 1:29) for the two are seen together on more than one occasion.
Jesus presses again "But who do you say I am?" None of the Twelve responds for a moment. Finally Simon blurts it out. "You are the Christ." Indeed Simon. Now Jesus does a couple of things.
What a great question right? So without further ado, let's dive into it. I will break the question up into two distinct parts.
I. Did Jesus found the Catholic Church?
Of course He did. Next... Ok so obviously as a Catholic I believe he did, but let's investigate some of the Scriptural and historical evidence.
First off there are many references in the Old Testament to God giving His people a shepherd (The Pope) so they didn't wander off. Take a look at Numbers 27: 15-17, which tells us God doesn't want His people to be like sheep without a shepherd (h/t Joe). Jeremiah 3:15 tells us that God will send us shepherds (pastors in the DR translation) who are after His own heart to feed us with knowledge and doctrine.
So from just these two references alone we see that God desires His people have some sort of leadership to follow. Continuing in Numbers 27: 18-20 we see Moses anointing Joshua as the successor in authority over the Israelites. This is the succession of authority Christ references in Matt. 23:2. So we have in the Old Testament numerous examples of an authority to lead being handed down from one generation to the next. Through laying on of hands and anointing.
All of which brings me to Matt. 16:13-20. The great threefold blessing of Simon soon to be forever after known as Peter. Christ brought the Apostles to Caesarea Phillipi. As Deacon George pointed out at Mass last month when this was our Gospel reading this wasn't the most hospitable place.
"They are in Caesarea Philippi, a pagan area about 25 miles distant from Jewish territory, with at least 14 pagan temples representing Syrian, Canaanite, Greek and Roman deities. But, in the same location is a mountain; from a cave in it the Jordan River begins, making this location also holy to the Jews."
What an odd place for Jesus to reflect on what the crowd thinks of this "carpenter's son." The Twelve venture as to what the consensus of the crowd is. Jesus is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist. Hebrew tradition maintained that Elijah would return to Earth as the Herald of the Lord. We know Jesus isn't the Baptist (John 1:29) for the two are seen together on more than one occasion.
Jesus presses again "But who do you say I am?" None of the Twelve responds for a moment. Finally Simon blurts it out. "You are the Christ." Indeed Simon. Now Jesus does a couple of things.
- Gives Simon a new more meaningful name. Kephas. Rock.
- Tells the Twelve that upon this wonderful Rock He would build His church. One of only two recorded times Jesus uses the word church.(Matt. 18:17 being the other)
- Gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom (which we know from Isaiah 22:20-23 means that Peter is now a sort of Prime Minister with the full authority of the King) and tells him whatever he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.
"The comparisons to non-Catholic Christianity should be obvious. Protestantism typically follows (i), and splits into innumerable factions as a result. On even fundamental issues, they can't form a unified response: some say regenerative infant Baptism, others symbolic infant Baptism; still others symbolic adult Baptism. Orthodoxy tends to follow (ii), and like the other Eleven, largely stays quiet in the face of modern controversies. Without a unified head, it's hard to unify and mobilize the Body, so it too often lies dormant. Certain other groups, like Mormonism, fall into category (iii). They have a single head, but because he's not protected by the Holy Spirit, he can't get the answers consistently right.
So Christ has just shown us why Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism won't work. And He's shown us the necessity of a Divinely-protected papacy, in order to keep Christianity (i) unified, (ii) mobilized, and (iii) orthodox. But then He does something even more remarkable: He establishes His own Church."
So Christ has just shown us why Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism won't work. And He's shown us the necessity of a Divinely-protected papacy, in order to keep Christianity (i) unified, (ii) mobilized, and (iii) orthodox. But then He does something even more remarkable: He establishes His own Church."
So Christ has now told the Twelve He will establish a Church. Now we are getting somewhere.
Psalm 127:1 tells us that unless the Lord built the house it is a house built in vain. Jesus just told us He was building a church, so it is precisely because the Lord built the house that it will in fact never see the gates of hell overtake it (Mt. 16:18).
Which all brings us back to our opening question, did Christ build an Earthly church? He says He did, so I take Him at His word. And since no Protestant church claims founding by Christ; Catholicism comes out looking like it might be the clubhouse leader for the church founded by Christ.
Tomorrow I will look at the second part of the question? Does Jesus desire for His flock to be visibly in the church He founded. Also we will debunk some of the popular myths surrounding other founders of the Catholic Church.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Liberalism and Catholicism Don't Mix
I am continually struck by the number of people in this country who continue to try and be liberal and Catholic. It just flies in the face of any sort of common sense. You can not be both. The liberal agenda in this country is so far away from the values one should hold as a Catholic.
Yet liberals love to try and co-opt Jesus, love to try and cite him as the patron saint of liberalism. Yeah, not so much. Perhaps they need to go back to their Bibles and reread the Gospels. I have to give credit for today's post to Rush (Limbaugh, not the rock band) listening to him on Monday really brought home the idea.
Liberals love to mock Jesus and Christians, except when they think they can use Him to push their agenda. As Limbaugh pointed out, Christiane Amanpour opened her Sunday news show with the popular question, What Would Jesus Do? But she had bastardized the question so badly it becomes almost mockery even as she tries to use it seriously:
"As Christians around the world celebrate Easter, we ask some of America's most influential pastors. In these turbulent times, has America lost its way? Taxes and budget cuts. What would Jesus do? Amanpour, This Week aired 4-24-11"
Clearly she is using the question to distort Jesus' social welfare message. Which the left always abuses into the idea that we need to somehow use the government to create a dependent class.
Rush answered her quite well:
"You talk about what would Jesus do? Would Jesus approve of politicians spending money we don't have on programs we don't need? Jesus warned against sloth and self-bondage. Would he approve of the Democrats creating an entire underclass dependent on government? They think so. That's how they define compassion. Would Jesus approve of people wasting their lives sitting around blaming all their problems on everybody but themselves?"
Jesus was all for helping the poor and the downtrodden, to be sure, but he wanted the help to come from fellow men not from a monolithic, confiscatory government structure. Hence the whole discourse on doing to the least in Matthew 25:35-46.
I know that there are some out there saying but what about (Matt. 22:21, Mk. 12:17, Lk. 20:25). Look I am not saying we shouldn't pay our tax burdens, of course we should. Just that our tax burdens shouldn't be used to create dependence on government in order to live.
Even the chief architect of the American Welfare state Franklin Roosevelt knew that dependence on government was a terrible evil. Little consolation considering the damage that has been done by his New Deal policies but still...let's look back at a quote from his 1935 State of the Union address:
"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.
To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.
The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."
Well here we are 76 years on and the Federal Government has only done more to grow "this business of relief." And people wonder why this country is on the wrong track. We were warned at the start, by the man to blame, that this would happen.
Instead the government continues to ensure more and more future generations will be reliant on the government to keep their lights on, and food in the fridge, and pay their bills. Sure, that sounds like "When I was naked, did you clothe me; hungry did you feed me?" In reality, I don't think it's quite what the Lord meant.
This is just a look at the social justice/welfare differences between Jesus and liberals, I plan to look in depth at the other areas where they differ as well. Consider this part one of a multi-part series
Yet liberals love to try and co-opt Jesus, love to try and cite him as the patron saint of liberalism. Yeah, not so much. Perhaps they need to go back to their Bibles and reread the Gospels. I have to give credit for today's post to Rush (Limbaugh, not the rock band) listening to him on Monday really brought home the idea.
Liberals love to mock Jesus and Christians, except when they think they can use Him to push their agenda. As Limbaugh pointed out, Christiane Amanpour opened her Sunday news show with the popular question, What Would Jesus Do? But she had bastardized the question so badly it becomes almost mockery even as she tries to use it seriously:
"As Christians around the world celebrate Easter, we ask some of America's most influential pastors. In these turbulent times, has America lost its way? Taxes and budget cuts. What would Jesus do? Amanpour, This Week aired 4-24-11"
Clearly she is using the question to distort Jesus' social welfare message. Which the left always abuses into the idea that we need to somehow use the government to create a dependent class.
Rush answered her quite well:
"You talk about what would Jesus do? Would Jesus approve of politicians spending money we don't have on programs we don't need? Jesus warned against sloth and self-bondage. Would he approve of the Democrats creating an entire underclass dependent on government? They think so. That's how they define compassion. Would Jesus approve of people wasting their lives sitting around blaming all their problems on everybody but themselves?"
Jesus was all for helping the poor and the downtrodden, to be sure, but he wanted the help to come from fellow men not from a monolithic, confiscatory government structure. Hence the whole discourse on doing to the least in Matthew 25:35-46.
I know that there are some out there saying but what about (Matt. 22:21, Mk. 12:17, Lk. 20:25). Look I am not saying we shouldn't pay our tax burdens, of course we should. Just that our tax burdens shouldn't be used to create dependence on government in order to live.
Even the chief architect of the American Welfare state Franklin Roosevelt knew that dependence on government was a terrible evil. Little consolation considering the damage that has been done by his New Deal policies but still...let's look back at a quote from his 1935 State of the Union address:
"A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.
To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.
The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief."
Well here we are 76 years on and the Federal Government has only done more to grow "this business of relief." And people wonder why this country is on the wrong track. We were warned at the start, by the man to blame, that this would happen.
Instead the government continues to ensure more and more future generations will be reliant on the government to keep their lights on, and food in the fridge, and pay their bills. Sure, that sounds like "When I was naked, did you clothe me; hungry did you feed me?" In reality, I don't think it's quite what the Lord meant.
This is just a look at the social justice/welfare differences between Jesus and liberals, I plan to look in depth at the other areas where they differ as well. Consider this part one of a multi-part series
Monday, March 28, 2011
Jesus and the Samaritan Woman
This past weekend was an interesting one in the church's year. It started Friday with the Feast of the Annunciation. Because of Canon law the feast falling on a Friday dispensed the traditional abstinence from meat rules for Lent. The readings for this, the third Sunday of Lent, hit their highpoint with St. John's account of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:4-43).
We are told Jesus had to pass through Samaria. Usually the Jewish people would have avoided Samaria and gone from Judea to Galilee through Jordan. However John 4:4 says Jesus had to pass through the area. In this we see the workings of the Divine Plan as well as Jesus himself reaching out to the Gentiles.
Everything about the story breaks some convention or rule. In the first place a Jew likely wouldn't even talk to a Samaritan, especially male to female. Yet Jesus asks her for water, risking touching the same utensils as her, thus making himself ritually unclean. Besides the fact that the woman is at the well around noon, which shows her to be an outcast. Since the only people who went to the well in the heat of the day were usually travelers (Jesus), prostitutes (not her), or outcasts (bingo!)
The woman has had five husbands and is currently living in an unmarried state with a sixth man. Jesus limits rebuking her and merely asks for a drink. The two discuss the "Living Water" that Jesus will give. By now the poor woman is all sorts of confused looking for some kind of garden hose that Jesus must be hiding.
Then they get to the heart of the matter, as the woman, probably uncomfortable for being called out by a stranger switches topics. She asks Jesus about right worship noting that her people have long worshiped on that very mountain, yet the Jews say Jerusalem is the place of worship.
Jesus replies to her in John 4:21-24. In essence the Lord tells her that it will shortly be a moot point whether to worship on that mountain (Garizim) or in the Temple at Jerusalem. Because God is Spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. Jesus is foretelling the rise of his new church, as well as accepting and saving the first Gentile convert.
Even in the context of announcing a change of worship Jesus tells the woman, that "Salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22).
Of course this is in fact correct as all of Salvation History is played out between God and his Chosen People. From Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David to the New Covenant made through Christ's suffering, death and Resurrection.
I am sure that this particular passage holds even more than I have dealt with here as it is one of the meatiest parts of the Bible.
We are told Jesus had to pass through Samaria. Usually the Jewish people would have avoided Samaria and gone from Judea to Galilee through Jordan. However John 4:4 says Jesus had to pass through the area. In this we see the workings of the Divine Plan as well as Jesus himself reaching out to the Gentiles.
Everything about the story breaks some convention or rule. In the first place a Jew likely wouldn't even talk to a Samaritan, especially male to female. Yet Jesus asks her for water, risking touching the same utensils as her, thus making himself ritually unclean. Besides the fact that the woman is at the well around noon, which shows her to be an outcast. Since the only people who went to the well in the heat of the day were usually travelers (Jesus), prostitutes (not her), or outcasts (bingo!)
The woman has had five husbands and is currently living in an unmarried state with a sixth man. Jesus limits rebuking her and merely asks for a drink. The two discuss the "Living Water" that Jesus will give. By now the poor woman is all sorts of confused looking for some kind of garden hose that Jesus must be hiding.
Then they get to the heart of the matter, as the woman, probably uncomfortable for being called out by a stranger switches topics. She asks Jesus about right worship noting that her people have long worshiped on that very mountain, yet the Jews say Jerusalem is the place of worship.
Jesus replies to her in John 4:21-24. In essence the Lord tells her that it will shortly be a moot point whether to worship on that mountain (Garizim) or in the Temple at Jerusalem. Because God is Spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. Jesus is foretelling the rise of his new church, as well as accepting and saving the first Gentile convert.
Even in the context of announcing a change of worship Jesus tells the woman, that "Salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22).
Of course this is in fact correct as all of Salvation History is played out between God and his Chosen People. From Covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David to the New Covenant made through Christ's suffering, death and Resurrection.
I am sure that this particular passage holds even more than I have dealt with here as it is one of the meatiest parts of the Bible.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Jesus...Miracles...and...Tommy
I've been thinking a lot lately about miracles and how they pertain to Tommy. Recently the Lord has opened my eyes to a particular passage, one I had heard countless times and never applied to Tommy's situation. John 9: 2-5 tells the story of the man born blind. Jesus' disciples ask him whose sin caused his blindness, the man's or his parents. Jesus, of course, tells them it happened so that people might see the glory of God.
As I said I have heard this scripture many times before but never attempted to view it concerning Tommy.
While in the fog of trying to accept and adjust to the reality of Tommy, I sometimes felt as if my in-laws thought Tommy wasn't acceptable or good enough without a miraculous healing. I know they didn't feel that way, but almost immediately they started praying for and talking about how he was going to have a miracle. I'm all for miracles and as a card-carrying Catholic, fully believe in many from the Dancing Sun at Fatima; to the waters of Lourdes; to Padre Pio's many miraculous doings. Not to mention the one I most often referenced to assure people I believed in miracles, transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
But in that fog I couldn't quite voice my feeling that perhaps God had a greater purpose in Tommy's having been born the way he was. I felt like my in-laws and I were talking past each other and my tongue kept betraying my argument in its inability to voice accurately what I felt in my head and heart.
I realize that in the very story I mentioned Jesus cures the blind man via a miracle, so perhaps it doesn't best describe how I felt then, but I think it does. I also heard that I was limiting God, which aggravated me because God created everything "Seen and unseen," so how was me saying maybe he doesn't want to heal Tommy limiting him. He called a universe into being merely by thinking it. He has no limits, again it was as if my tongue couldn't articulate the argument I had, which I felt and still feel was theologically sound. Which is to say my argument was at the time, if God chooses to heal him I am just fine and dandy with that, but if he doesn't I am ok with that too.
In the last several months as I get Tommy ready for bed it has become part of our ritual to say a handful of prayers: the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be start us off. We follow those with prayers to St. Michael, Tommy's guardian angels, and our big finish is a prayer to Our Lady of Lourdes and one to St. Rita.
If you don't know St. Rita, she is the patroness of the impossible. Tommy and I ask her to pray for Tommy's miracle as fervently as she can. Sometimes I even include a prayer to John Paul the Great, since I figure he probably understood a lot of what Tommy goes through, being trapped inside your own body.
In Hebrews 11:1 we are told that "Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen." I believe Tommy has that faith. I know I do. I believe God can heal Tommy, I just wonder if it is to His purposes to do so. In my own prayers at night I routinely ask God to see Tommy even if just once, even if it's only a dream, through His perfect eyes.
During a trip to our local healing room, one of the guys had a bit of a vision or prophecy for me. He told me that he saw Tommy as my ministry in a way that he could see me talking to a room full of folks and saying you think your kids are hard cases let me tell you about mine. I often wonder if that was God's way of saying "be ready when I do my work so you can carry the message." Or is it the other way, insofar as Tommy's story is a story of survival all it's own with or without miraculous trappings.
Knowing the odds Tommy has already overcome and that he continues to overcome, make me so proud of him. Sometimes I see Matty moving and doing things so effortlessly that his big brother still struggles with after three and a half years and I almost get mad at him. Sometimes I look at Tommy and wonder what I ever did to deserve him, because I am unworthy. I know that God has entrusted Traci and I with one of the best pieces of his work and I have yet to understand why. I just pray for the strength to be what he needs me to be. And I pray for the understanding of what God needs me to be, for my family.
Over the winter we prayed at Mass for a local nun to be healed. There was a note from her convent in the bulletin this weekend, saying she didn't get the miracle healing. The nuns noted sometimes when we pray we don't get the miracle we want, but we always get the miracle we need.
That's the thing we don't always understand, God but he knows better than we do. Hard knowledge to swallow sometimes. Almost as hard, if not harder, is that just because we get told "No" doesn't mean God didn't answer our prayer.
As I said I have heard this scripture many times before but never attempted to view it concerning Tommy.
While in the fog of trying to accept and adjust to the reality of Tommy, I sometimes felt as if my in-laws thought Tommy wasn't acceptable or good enough without a miraculous healing. I know they didn't feel that way, but almost immediately they started praying for and talking about how he was going to have a miracle. I'm all for miracles and as a card-carrying Catholic, fully believe in many from the Dancing Sun at Fatima; to the waters of Lourdes; to Padre Pio's many miraculous doings. Not to mention the one I most often referenced to assure people I believed in miracles, transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
But in that fog I couldn't quite voice my feeling that perhaps God had a greater purpose in Tommy's having been born the way he was. I felt like my in-laws and I were talking past each other and my tongue kept betraying my argument in its inability to voice accurately what I felt in my head and heart.
I realize that in the very story I mentioned Jesus cures the blind man via a miracle, so perhaps it doesn't best describe how I felt then, but I think it does. I also heard that I was limiting God, which aggravated me because God created everything "Seen and unseen," so how was me saying maybe he doesn't want to heal Tommy limiting him. He called a universe into being merely by thinking it. He has no limits, again it was as if my tongue couldn't articulate the argument I had, which I felt and still feel was theologically sound. Which is to say my argument was at the time, if God chooses to heal him I am just fine and dandy with that, but if he doesn't I am ok with that too.
In the last several months as I get Tommy ready for bed it has become part of our ritual to say a handful of prayers: the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be start us off. We follow those with prayers to St. Michael, Tommy's guardian angels, and our big finish is a prayer to Our Lady of Lourdes and one to St. Rita.
If you don't know St. Rita, she is the patroness of the impossible. Tommy and I ask her to pray for Tommy's miracle as fervently as she can. Sometimes I even include a prayer to John Paul the Great, since I figure he probably understood a lot of what Tommy goes through, being trapped inside your own body.
In Hebrews 11:1 we are told that "Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen." I believe Tommy has that faith. I know I do. I believe God can heal Tommy, I just wonder if it is to His purposes to do so. In my own prayers at night I routinely ask God to see Tommy even if just once, even if it's only a dream, through His perfect eyes.
During a trip to our local healing room, one of the guys had a bit of a vision or prophecy for me. He told me that he saw Tommy as my ministry in a way that he could see me talking to a room full of folks and saying you think your kids are hard cases let me tell you about mine. I often wonder if that was God's way of saying "be ready when I do my work so you can carry the message." Or is it the other way, insofar as Tommy's story is a story of survival all it's own with or without miraculous trappings.
Knowing the odds Tommy has already overcome and that he continues to overcome, make me so proud of him. Sometimes I see Matty moving and doing things so effortlessly that his big brother still struggles with after three and a half years and I almost get mad at him. Sometimes I look at Tommy and wonder what I ever did to deserve him, because I am unworthy. I know that God has entrusted Traci and I with one of the best pieces of his work and I have yet to understand why. I just pray for the strength to be what he needs me to be. And I pray for the understanding of what God needs me to be, for my family.
Over the winter we prayed at Mass for a local nun to be healed. There was a note from her convent in the bulletin this weekend, saying she didn't get the miracle healing. The nuns noted sometimes when we pray we don't get the miracle we want, but we always get the miracle we need.
That's the thing we don't always understand, God but he knows better than we do. Hard knowledge to swallow sometimes. Almost as hard, if not harder, is that just because we get told "No" doesn't mean God didn't answer our prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)