Regular updates to the countdown to the Day of the Lord by the sign of the Son of Man in
Heaven at :
Thanks for the thoughtful response! Yes, I agree that “Scripture” would have meant something different for both the Jews and the early first century Christians prior to the apostolic writings. You hit the nail on the head though in noting that first century Jews still wouldn’t have remotely conceived of it as “Scripture alone.”
Jacob Neusner points out in his Introduction to the Mishnah, (the codified oral tradition of the Jewish community), that the Oral Torah, â…bore the status of divine revelation right alongside the Pentateuch.â Rabbi Hayim Donin notes in his book entitled ‘To Be a Jew,’ âWe believe that Godâs will was also made manifest in the Oral Tradition or Oral Torah which also had its source at Sinai, revealed to Moses and then orally taught by him to the religious heads of Israel.”
Catholic understanding of both the necessity and authority of Tradition and Scripture flow seamlessly from the Jewish conception, and indeed from God’s unchanging revelation of Himself to humanity throughout all of history. Thanks again for the comment – I appreciate it!
]]>thank you for the help
]]>Yes, I can see how that could be confusing đ They are truths that answer seven common misconceptions or myths. For example, the misconception (or myth) for point one is that the term âInquisitionâ refers to an event, when it reality it refers to an institution. The others all follow suite. I probably should have titled the article Responses to 7 Myths About the Inquisition:-)
]]>D.K. – thanks for the comment. Not trying to play the Devil’s advocate at all, I’m merely attempting to acknowledge the both/and nature of the subject. It is both a Relationship and a Religion. This is the clear teaching of both the Scriptures and Christ. When you say that Jesus came to give us a relationship with, “No more mediators.” it completely ignores scads of New Testament passages which indicate otherwise. You need to reread the first paragraph under the subheading “Jesus – Good friend or God?” and look up the referenced Scriptural passages. Christ clearly establishes a religious hierarchy with actual authority – much like parents are the God-given authorities within a family and establish family rules, traditions and customs – so yes, I can imagine describing a typical family life in terms of a religious structure đ
But again, I feel that you may not have read far enough. Catholicism absolutely acknowledges the “personal relationship” aspect of our walk with Christ. My own relationship with Christ has become far more intimate since becoming a Catholic. As I stated in the article above – we are not just called to a “personal relationship” or “friendship” with Christ – we are actually called to enter into a marriage with Him! You might want to check out my article An Intimate Union where I examine the nuptial significance of receiving Christ bodily into our own bodies during communion.
Thanks again for your comment D.K. – I would encourage you to re-read the article a bit more carefully as I think you will find ample justification for the religious aspect of our relationship with Christ. I think you will also find that I am in no way advocating against a personal relationship with Christ, but rather encouraging people to go far beyond a mere “personal conversation” with Christ, and on to individual conversion and ultimately a marital union with Him! God Bless!
]]>For more on this topic: https://indd.adobe.com/view/8ec0ce64-50c3-47b5-a593-35643c61f13c
]]>Thanks Brian, glad you enjoyed it! Examining the Wesleyan Quadrilateral was one of the many steps on my journey to the Catholic Church.
]]>Christopher – thanks for the comment. I must confess that I am a little confused by your remarks. You state that the, “Truth is their were many Inquisitions throughout history. Spain was one of many.” but that is one of the very points I make in my article. Please refer to myths one and two above.
As to your second claim that, “The death toll was closer to the hundreds of thousands, if you combine all of the countries and time periods involved not including the many other atrocities of Christianity and Islam, namely the Crusades.” You seem to be conflating and combining two very different events, the Crusades (also not a single event, but rather wars which took place over centuries) and the Inquisition (an institution which still exists today.) You also seem to be conflating and combining two very different religions, namely Islam and Christianity?!
If interested, I would refer you to another article I wrote: 7 Myths About the Crusades
God bless.
]]>Howard – thanks for the kind words! Feel free to quote/reference any ideas you find useful! God bless your upcoming retreat, the Church desperately needs more qualified evangelists!
]]>Thanks Jean. May God bless you as well!
]]>Brian, thanks so much for the kind words. You may want to check out my post One in Christ as I touch on that very issue quite a bit in it. The division that we see within Christianity is certainly a great scandal to the rest of the world, and a reason for all of us to continually pray for, and work towards, a return to Christian unity!
]]>Thanks for your posts.
]]>I agree with you that all too often as Christians we tend to miss out on the deeply Jewish roots of our faith! Rosalind Moss (now Mother Miriam of the Lamb of God) herself a Jewish convert to the faith (and now a nun!), has remarked that, “The most Jewish thing a Jew can do is to become Catholic. This is true not just in a general sense, but in a most detailed sense as well. There is nothing Catholic that is not rooted in the Old Testament. Our Catholic faith did not spring up out of nowhere, but out of the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Anyways, thanks again for the comment and the recommendation!
]]>The author of the book is LDS (Mormon) and writes from that point of view, but as I remember it (it’s been a few years since I read it) I think any Christian can get a lot out of the book.
]]>Brian – I think that this really came home to me personally as I was going through RCIA classes prior to entering the Church. During that entire time of preparation, all of us who were catechumens or candidates had to abstain from receiving Christ in the Eucharist, in spite of our increased desire to do so. It was very similar to the engagement period which proceeds the consummation of marriage.
]]>Fernando – thanks for the compliment! I would very much enjoy contributing to any of the agencies you listed above, but as you can imagine it can be a bit of a challenge to get your work seen and picked up! When you read something you like please feel free to share it via social media as that can certainly help with exposure đ
In the meantime I feel very fortunate to be able to share with the audience that I have, and I pray that God is using me in some small way to touch others with His truth and love. God bless!
]]>Glad you enjoyed it Megan!
]]>Thanks Kim!
]]>Thanks Jean!! Glad you enjoyed đ
]]>Thanks again Paul!
]]>No problem. It’s hard to catch them all. At least you’re fixing it!–unlike a Christendom College professor who I won’t name but who basically lifted and re-published the whole article without attribution. :/ I was kind of…disappointed in him.
You can probably see my email from my registration–feel free to contact me by email if you would like to stay in touch.
And keep up the battle–these are things that need saying over and over again, it seems.
All the best!
]]>Paul – thanks for the catch, please accept my apologies. I believe that I located two spots in the article that needed citations added and provided footnotes citing your article for both – let me know if I’m missing anything else and I’ll fix it. I try and provide good footnotes and cite all appropriate sources, but I obviously dropped the ball here. I’m extremely sorry – thanks for bringing it to my attention!
]]>Jenny – great thoughts! The Scriptures seem abundantly clear that Christ came, “not for the righteous,” but instead, “to seek and save the lost.” – a truth that brings both hope and gives pause. Thanks for your comment!
]]>Thanks Jean – we are indeed!
]]>You sound vaguely like my wife Brian đ
]]>Amy – thanks so much for the kind words, I’m glad you enjoyed the article! If you haven’t had a chance to read Henri Nouwen’s book The Return of the Prodigal Son, I would highly recommend it. I think you would really enjoy it! There’s an Amazon link to it at the bottom of the post. Thanks again!
]]>After confession one Saturday evening my penance was to read this gospel story every day for the next week, such a great exercise. It is such a story with so much depth and at the same time proclaims the simple essence of the gospel.
Thanks for writing!
]]>Dreadrocksean – thanks for the critique. You were excited to have, “an honest discussion” about Ayn Rand without someone, “twisting her words or attacking her personality.” Unfortunately you felt that I went on to quote someone who did just that. Twisted her words and attacked her personally.
But I actually think Sizemore is right. He writes, “Randâs fiction sucks for the same reason so much Christian fiction sucks. It is endlessly didactic, so busy preaching it forgets to pay close attention to life. Her characters deliver lectures. You donât have to look closely to see they are puppets with Randâs own lips moving eerily under the mask, her angry eyes staring out through holes in the rubber face. The bad guys in her books are straw men called collectivism, and altruism and they speak only in bromides and Rand gleefully bats them down.â
This is a critique of her as a writer. It is not a critique of her as a philosopher or as a person. And, it’s actually a pretty valid critique regardless of whether or not you agree with her philosophy.
That aside, you did read the quotes from Ayn where she wildly misrepresents the doctrines of the Christian faith – right? You did read her notes in the margins of The Abolition of Man where she twists C.S. Lewis’ words and attacks him personally – right?
“Uhmmmm…Pot? Yeah, this is Kettle. You do know that you’re black…right? Right?!”
On to the main points. You write, “In any attempt to deny Reality, it must be acknowledged and used.” Agreed, and this kind of gets at my problem. Ayn writes that she can only recommend the, “three Aâsâ â Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.â but, she is the only one of these philosophers to deny a supernatural or transcendent reality. In radically departing from Aristotelean and Thomastic philosophy she is effectively redefining reality and existence in a way that is profoundly different from the other two philosophers whom she compares herself to.
To be clear – it is her redefinition of reality and existence as being merely material that becomes her faulty premise. And again, this is a radical departure from both Aristotle and Aquinas.
The point of this article wasn’t to “prove” a supernatural or transcendent reality, but rather to note the way that Objectivism’s deficient understanding of existence and reality leads to a deficient understanding of the Christian faith.
As to my own requirements for faith…in this article I linked to two other articles that I had written which address the subject of faith and reason in a far more comprehensive way:
1. Thoughts on the Intersection of Faith and Reason
2. Thoughts on Absolute Truth and Certainty in a Post-Modern Relativistic World.
Hope that helps to clarify a few points, thanks again for the comments!
]]>Couldnât wait! Finally someone having an honest discussion opposed to Ayn Rand without twisting her words or attacking her personality.
Then you deferred to someone elseâs quote that did just that and which had no substance rebuttal to the actual problem you had.
Yours seems to be a dogmatic belief simply out of faith â which is not only precisely her point but proves her point.
In any attempt to deny Reality, it must be acknowledged and used.
Sigh â another win to the Russian.
]]>NOOOOOOOO!
]]>The corollary being, if you’re not careful Hershey can lead you to hell…
]]>Great points George! I know that some will point to the fact that there are liberal/conservative “splits” within Catholicism as well, but I think it would be more nuanced and accurate to say that there are individuals within the Church with liberal or conservative views. The Church herself transcends ideologies of the day with teaching that are timeless, unchanging, and true in every age. Thanks be to God!
]]>One thing often overlooked about Protestantism is not just hugely contrary beliefs among them, but how fluid they are even within 1 denomination. Early Luther vs. later Luther is prototypical.
A good current example is marriage. Quite a number of Protestant communities are falling all over themselves to embrace “gay marriage” while not very long ago they held a 180-degree different view. It begs the question was their teaching on marriage patently wrong before? If so, what else were the patently wrong on and still teaching? OR are they wrong now? If so, …
Another overlooked aspect is their internal liberal / conservative splits. In the US, the Lutheran LCMS and the Lutheran ELCA are very different. This is by no means unique to Lutheranism.
]]>Jean – I’m sorry, I would have loved to have attended and met you! We had to take one of our sons had to the doctor – sore throat, sprained wrist, torn off toenail. He was a mess đ Glad it was good – would have loved to listen to Trent!
]]>I have found out on Sunday, 23 August 2015, that an ex-alumnus at the High School I attended in the Philippines, has been declared “Blessed” by the Holy Catholic Church!
What a joy and great emotion I have felt when I found out about this – a co-alumnus of mine, declared a Saint in the True Church! His name is Blessed Jose Maria Sanz-Orozco, a Franciscan Friar, and the son of the last Spanish Mayor of Manila, Eugenio Sanz-Orozco. He went to the Ateneo de Manila, a Jesuit School (when the Jesuits were still Catholic).
When he turned 16 years old, he travelled to Spain to further his studies. In Spain, he entered the Franciscan Order and was ordained a Catholic Priest. When he was about to return to the Philippines, as was his intention, to serve as a Priest in the Philippines (where he was also born – in Manila), he was caught up in the Spanish Civil War, which broke out in the 1930s.
The Ateneo de Manila is the same Jesuit School I went to, although in Cebu City, Philippines (Sacred Heart School, run by the same Jesuit Priests from Manila). Blessed Jose Maria de Manila, as he is known, was martyred during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.
His last words before his execution, were “Viva Cristo Rey”!
Blessed Jose Maria Sanz-Orozco, pray for us!
(You may reply to me, on “[email protected]”.)
God Bless.
Jaime A Sotelo
]]>LOL – I am admittedly not so great at “quick.”
]]>Glad you didn’t delete it and ended up enjoying it! You’re right – it is a blessing to find areas of unity with our brothers and sisters within the Protestant movement!
]]>Not having come from a Lutheran background myself, I hadn’t realized just how “Catholic” some of his beliefs were! When I started studying Luther, and what he believed and taught, I was shocked at how many non-Lutheran Protestants would claim him as a sort of “spiritual father” without realizing how profoundly “Catholic” he was in much of his teaching! Which is to say that he often held to the historic and unanimous teachings and traditions of the Church đ Thanks for the comment Jean!
]]>