Saturday | May 31, 2008

Authority and Church Hierarchy

I'm not really even sure how to introduce this. The following exchange took place on a completely different forum than the one I normally hang out on, but I had heard that there was some discussion going on about the "revival" phenomenon in Lakeland, Florida being led by Todd Bentley. (If you are curious just go to YouTube and do a search on those key words.) Anyway I started poking around this forum and found a whole 'nother kettle of fish and I have SUCH a hard time keeping my mouth shut. I spent much of the afternoon typing up what follows so it will just have to suffice for a blog entry today.

Someone on www.revivalschool.com wrote:
Great response. Your opening comments are right-on. Even the part about Communion being a factor that unites the Church.

Nevertheless, I still don't see a solid case for Catholicism being the "one true church" as your posts seem to promote.

We'll start with the scriptures you cited about Communion (or Eucharist). The first scripture (1Cor 10:12,13) says that when we partake of the bread and cup, we are participating in Christ's body and blood. Paul says in verse 17, "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." Could it then be said that those who rightly participate in Holy Communion are parts of Christ's Body?

Now, who--other than the Catholic Church--says that this only counts in a Catholic gathering?


Well Eastern Orthodox Christians for starters.
Quote:
When a protestant participates in the Body and Blood of our Lord through Communion, are they not also communing with Him?


No. They are not. They don't even pretend that they are in communing with Jesus in the same way and most Protestants I know go out of their way to say that the communion is only symbolic. In Catholic theology the Sacrament of Holy Communion is intimately connected with the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. It is not at all hyperbole to draw the parallel between the intimate communion enabled by the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion and the act of marital intimacy. Many of the Church's teaching regarding marriage, including the RCC's rather unpopular and persistent notion that marital intimacy must be a total self-giving, life-giving embrace....ie....no artificial contraception. It's also why Catholics are prohibited from receiving communion outside of the Catholic Church and why we do not knowingly allow those who are not IN communion with the Catholic Church to receive Holy Communion. Spiritual adultery anyone? Yes. It's that serious.

We believe in the Real Presence not just because of John 6 or because He said "This is My Body."....but because of the Old Testament support for it as well.

Communion as a symbol of Christ's presence is a faint shadow of the Real Presence. As Protestants, you are not communing with Christ in Holy Communion in the same intimate way. That is not to say that you enjoy no communion with Jesus whatsoever. But it is NOT the same. The difference is kind of like the difference between getting a drink from standing in a mist and inhaling or drinking from a fire hose.
Quote:
My point is not Protestant "vs." Catholic, but rather "AND." Are we not all participating in the same loaf? Are we not all being unified with the same Head? Are we not all pursuing the same Christ?


OK. Seriously. After reading quite a bit on this board (www.revivalschool.com) you SERIOUSLY want to argue that you are unified with Catholics? That we are unified with the same Head? Merciful heaven! I am probably already on y'alls prayer lists for getting me "saved." You don't get it both ways. Either the Catholic Church is right in which case you are definitely not in communion and you need to be checking out your local RCIA classes (classes for those converting to the RCC) or you think that Catholics are apostates on the "road to hell" as I have read multiple times on these forums.

I understand this truly I do. If the Catholic Church is wrong about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.....I am guilty of horrendous idolatry. By the same token, if the Catholic Church is correct, then you (general non-specific you meant to apply to those who have rejected the Catholic faith) are guilty of rejecting intimate communion with Him.
Quote:
The second passage (1 Cor 11:18 & 29) admonishes that the food at their gatherings should not be gluttonously devoured by a few while the rest go hungry. The "disorder" you mentioned was not that the food was being shared by an unauthorized group of believers or that it was being administered by an unauthorized leader; the "disorder" was that they were not being considerate of each other and some were being excluded from partaking.

Sorry. But you are mixing up your early church problems here. 1 Corinthians 11:18-29 is speaking of the Eucharistic meal and those partaking unworthily and NOT of the other meal offered after worship.
Quote:
While it is true that those who partake without recognizing the body of our Lord eat judgment on themselves, it is also true that Jesus did not exclude anyone from participating in Communion--even Judas.

How is it possible that you believe that partaking of a symbol unworthily makes you guilty of the Body of Our Lord? If I tear up your picture, I might be guilty of disrespect but certainly NOT guilty of your body. As for Judas, it isn't just a Catholic interpretation of the gospels that our Lord instituted the Eucharist AFTER Judas left the room.
Quote:
Next was Acts 14:23, which says that they appointed elders in every church. I will simply raise a question on this point and leave it at that: Before the elders were appointed in those churches, were they churches?


Yes. They were churches under the authority of the bishop. Elders (presbyters) were appointed to assist the bishop in governing ONE church that happened to meet in different places.
Quote:
When it comes to structure and authority, I have stated that I support these things. This may be a semantics game, but the word "Bishop" was used in the King James Version due to the bias of the Church of England. The word is better translated "overseers" and is regularly found to mean "an overseer of a small gathering of believers." Regardless of the word's meaning, it does indeed imply that the church should have structure.


Agreed. And yes, I think you are playing a semantics game.
Quote:
My concern, however, is that Scripture is full of warnings about false leaders and the fact that we should beware of them. The scripture you cited in Acts (20:30) says that "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth..." And Jesus said to "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing." That means the most dangerous people will be those who rise up within the church and are not dealt with.

For this reason, we


WE?....excuse me but just WHERE does it say that individual believers are to execute judgment on on Our Lord's Church? If you examine the writings of the early church fathers and the history of the early church, you can see the context of the warnings of those "wolves in sheep's clothing"...it is those who teach without the authority of the Church. Or those who continued to preach heresy after they were disciplined by their local bishops. The mere presence of the writings of the ECF's is stark testimony to the fact that the early church was indeed highly organized and the bishops held the teaching authority. They [the early bishops] wrote letters to churches in far flung places as if they expected that they had authority over these congregations and guess what? They DID! It is for the bishops to determine who are the wolves in sheep's clothing and NOT for the lay people. In fact, it was the bishops who continually had to remind the faithful that they were to remain faithful to the teachings of the bishops and NOT make their own judgments about the many heretics running around.
Quote:
must continue to rely on discernment from the Holy Spirit and the Bible


which of course begs for the question.....What did they do BEFORE the Bible was written? And who was it that decided what was and was not Sacred Scripture? And how is it that so many people who accept without question the judgment of the men who were so full of the Holy Spirit that they were able to discern what was and was not supposed to be in canon...then reject what those men believed it to be say. They men who set the canon of Sacred Scripture were NOT sola scriptura. They were not sola fide. They believed in purgatory. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Back to my question? The canon of the NT was set at the councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393 and 397. (And before you say that everyone agreed on the canon anyway....no they didn't. They reason for calling those councils was precisely because there was disagreement.) How on EARTH did those poor Christians most of whom didn't have a copy of a single book of the NT and even if they did couldn't read it....live a Christian life? How do illiterate Christians....and that would be that majority of Christians throughout history.....use the Holy Spirit and the Bible? And if they were supposed to use the Bible and not the living authority of the Jesus founded by Jesus Christ....why is it, that writing the Bible and then setting a canon wasn't an early Church priority.
Quote:
to know whether or not a leader is distorting the truth or presenting it untainted. If the truth is being misrepresented, then we must point it out like Paul admonished Timothy (4:1-6): "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth....If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed."


Another really good verse in Timothy is this one.....

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

You will notice that the Church of the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. We have the canon of Sacred Scripture set by the authority of that church....not vice versa. Jesus didn't write a book, he established a church using those flawed men called Apostles.
Quote:
You said not all of the men who succeeded Peter were good. Some were sinners. We cannot rightly judge the present condition of the church on its past condition, so don't think I'm going there. My point is that those "bad" leaders still managed to stay in power--controlling Christ's church during their "reign"--because there is a fundamental flaw in a rigid hierarchical structure: that being the difficulty for correction to come from people of lesser importance. I certainly don't condone everything Martin Luther did, but look at how much trouble he went through to bring some much-needed correction to a corrupt hierarchy (which didn't listen to even a part of what he said until only a few decades ago).


Just because something is hard to do, doesn't mean it is impossible. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church....and the Eastern Orthodox Church....was established in Sacred Scripture and by the testimony of the lives of the Apostles and their successors. Martin Luther was not the only voice in the Catholic Church at that time, or before him, or after him for that matter, that quietly, persistently and fruitfully worked for reform. And reform when it does come from within the structure of the church bears much positive fruit. The Reformation was a blood bath and there were gross sinners on all sides. As many as 100,000 peasants were killed in Germany. By contrast the Spanish Inquisition  which killed perhaps as many as 10,000 in 350 years was a walk in the park! Not that I am condoning either btw!
Quote:
The Church Jesus instituted had clear structure and God-given leaders with authority, but by no means was it meant to be domineered and controlled by that leadership. No one was better than anyone else, and they were all mutually submitted to one another

In some respects they were submitted to each other. Servants of each other, but I am sorry there was a whole lot of "domineering" going on in the early church and some of it is even recorded in Sacred Scripture. The entire book of Galatians for example....talk about your dressing down!
Quote:
In Acts 19:30, Paul wanted to appear before a crowd, but the disciples (regular Christians) wouldn't let him. I wonder how many times a group of regular Christians have kept a Pope from speaking to a crowd?

For that matter, you spoke of an anointing that is passed down from one Pope/Bishop to the next, and you said that only the Catholics and Orthodox can claim this. I have yet another question: If one of these leaders in the succession was evil--which history has proven has happened a few times--does that affect any "anointing" that might be passed down from that leader? Does God continue to approve of such a person and place His approval on them as "Patriarch of the Church"? Or does He remove their anointing (which is biblical)?


Well I would say that if anointing came from man then it wouldn't count would it? And this whole apostolic succession thing would go up in smoke. But the anointing is something that comes from God working though us his servants. Just like Saul was anointed king and STAYED anointed king even when God anointed David as his successor. David understood that he was not the one to execute judgment on God's anointed and that was for God himself to so. God might have used Samuel to bring the message that judgment was coming but Saul never ceased to be God's anointed king until he DIED.

One of the earliest controversies in the church was what to do if someone was baptized by a person who later recanted the faith either through heresy or under persecution. The early church studies the matter and rightly discerned that it is God working through the Sacrament and that praise God....He honors His Word and works through flawed vessels. **I think that this has the added benefit of removing us from potentially sinful judgment of our brothers and sisters. I think it is a dangerous thing indeed to be deciding just who is and is not holy enough. Public sin is certainly scandalous but hidden sin is no less damaging to the body of Christ....should we be the ones to decide that God has removed His anointing from those who give scandal? What if they repent? How on earth would we deal with those with hidden sins? Frankly, I think it best that we keep our eyes peeled for our own sins and as much as possible leave the looking into hearts to God.

**I would have added the part about judging if Revival School allowed posters to edit their posts. Oh well.
Quote:
By the way, who passed the anointing on to Paul? He wasn't one of the 12, and he didn't really get along with Peter. Paul himself said that Christ appointed him. Could it be possible that Christ might appoint others to be apostles who are not a part of the established structure?


Just because he didn't get along with Peter doesn't mean that Peter didn't anoint him. In fact, God worked through Peter to inflict the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1-11); excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:21); received the revelation (Acts 10:44-46) allowing gentiles into the Church without circumcision and imposed that over the vociferous objections (Acts 15:19) of many (thus the entire book of Galatians)...yeah, he had a hypocrisy problem which led to Paul giving him a stern talking to but that doesn't put Paul in charge.

Anyway, it is very clear that despite having seen the Risen Christ in a vision. Paul did not consider that mandate to apostleship in and of itself. He retired to the desert and met with Peter (for ordination?) before beginning his ministry. Galatians 1:11-24 In fact, I find it more than a little significant that in this epistle so clearly written to fight a heresy that Paul distinguishes his authority from other by his meeting with Cephas (Peter) in Jerusalem.
Quote:
It wouldn't be the first time that God anointed someone unexpected when the presiding ruler was living in sin. The anointing of Christ comes from Christ; not from Peter.


Yes. Through Peter. At times, God may raise up others with special charisms to correct and to chasten those in the chair of Peter....such as St. Catherine of Siena....but God gave to Peter and his successors a special gift. I believe that God can work through sinful men who appear unworthy.....and I am grateful. It gives me hope after all.
Quote:
So in short, I don't wish to create divisions in the church, but I am perfectly comfortable pointing out error where it exists.


By what authority?

I think this line of thinking is SO seductive. After all, what could be more simple that the Holy Spirit guiding me to Truth? What about those who are young in the faith? They have the same Holy Spirit. Right? Should they have the same authority to point out error? What if two good Christian people disagree? The same Holy Spirit is in both? How is it possible that they should then disagree? How is it possible that there are divisions in the Church? Well of course, the answer to that is sin! Right?

So....if I am right (because the Holy Spirit led me there) and you are wrong (and you say the Holy Spirit led you there) then one of us must not be hearing the Holy Spirit correctly. Right?

So this leads us to a very subtle sin of judging our brothers and sisters. Perhaps not even consciously. If I am right, it's because I hear the Holy Spirit better than you do because I sin less.

I'm just thinking that line of reasoning isn't at all in keeping with the teachings of Our Lord.

OR....does holiness and rightness go to the person with the best argument? Then is our faith a matter of intellectual prowess?
Quote:
To use one of the passages you alluded to, Paul said when speaking of division in the Church, "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval" (1 Cor 11:19). I would take someone whose life is clearly approved by God through "fruit that lasts" over someone who has worked their way up a hierarchy to take a position of verbal teaching. As Paul said, "The Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power" (1 Cor 4:20). I have yet to see a Pope who works miracles like Jesus and demonstrates the power of God; and yet I know little old ladies and even children who work profound miracles in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 14:3--So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.


Studied papal history have you? You might be surprised at the number of miracles attributed to Popes throughout history. You could start here.  Beyond that if you are looking for miracles, look at the lives of the Catholic Saints! I know many miracles that happen in Catholic churches....even my little parish. By the priests, and the old ladies, and the children. Even so the absence of flashy miracles or reports of such is hardly a matter of disqualification for the papacy. God gives the charism for healing and miracles to those He wills and it's pretty clear that not every one of us has it. It's one of the reasons we need each other.

And speaking of miracles, where is the miraculous confirmation of Protestant doctrines such as symbolic Holy Communion?  Take a look at Eucharistic miracles here. 
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 18:49:15 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Friday | May 30, 2008

An Exhortation from the Holy Father

I attended a prayer service last night with our bishop, Cardinal DiNardo. Funny and witty as always, he managed to do a little name-dropping and said that when he was having lunch with the Holy Father and his brother cardinals on the occasion of the papal visit to the United States and then, he quickly interjected that the Holy Father did not spend much time speaking to him (the new guy from Texas as he put it) but to the "important cardinals." Err....Your Eminence?....you were IN the room. Anyway according to Cardinal DiNardo at this lunch, the Holy Father repeatedly said that he wanted Catholics to be joyful because they had met the risen Christ.

And so I am passing that along to all of you....

Be joyful! You have met the risen Christ.

Enjoy your weekend!
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 11:59:57 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Thursday | May 29, 2008

I Made A Mistake....More Than One Actually

I made a mistaken assumption in a post that I made in March and I wanted to call attention to the correction I made regarding my errors.

The amended post is here on this blog.

And here on my new one.

Both have different comments that bring to light my different errors so I am putting them both up. My sincere apologies to all that I have wronged.
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 16:51:28 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Catholic Carnival 174

Catholic Carnival 174 is up at A Catholic Mom Climbing the Pillars. Thanks for hosting Ebeth!
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 12:07:15 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Ignatius Critical Editions....this is COOL!

I am home again and mostly recovered from a couple of weeks of very hard work; therefore, I'm back at the computer. Unfortunately, I am back at the computer working on making up next year's lesson plans for our homeschool and that means that I am unlikely to encounter the sort of inspiration that will generate inspiration for anything other than ordinary blog posts. I'll do my best though....

However, I was truly excited to discover that Ignatius Press is releasing critical editions of King Lear, Frankenstein, and Wuthering Heights. From the editorial description:

The Ignatius Critical Editions represent a tradition-oriented alternative to popular textbook series such as the Norton Critical Editions or Oxford World Classics, and are designed to concentrate on traditional readings of the Classics of world literature. Whereas many modern critical editions have succumbed to the fads of modernism and post-modernism, this series will concentrate on tradition-oriented criticism of these great works. Edited by acclaimed literary biographer, Joseph Pearce, the Ignatius Critical Editions will ensure that traditional moral readings of the works are given prominence, instead of the feminist, or deconstructionist readings that often proliferate in other series of 'critical editions'. As such, they represent a genuine extension of consumer-choice, enabling educators, students and lovers of good literature to buy editions of classic literary works without having to 'buy into' the ideologies of secular fundamentalism. The series is particularly aimed at tradition-minded literature professors offering them an alternative for their students. The initial list will have about 15 - 20 titles. The goal is to release three books a season, or six in a year. The first three titles to release in April 2008 are King Lear, Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights.

tI hope this excites other readers out there as much as it excited me! Back to making lesson plans.....and as long as I am making recommendations I highly recommend Edu-Track for this onerous task.

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 11:08:59 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Wednesday | May 21, 2008

Catholic Carnival 173: Rosary for Mother Mary

This week's Catholic Carnival is up and running at Just Another Day of Catholic Pondering. Sarah has done a magnificent job organizing this week's contributions under the categories of the rosary mysteries. Well done Sarah!

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 08:43:00 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Sunday | May 18, 2008

What Gets Paint Off of Grout?

Yes, I know I have extolled the virtues of my Ladybug steam cleaner before, but you may not have been listening. And since I have spent the last two days at the home of a friend cleaning the home that she is about to move into, I need to do it again. Really. This thing is da bomb! In the last two days I have cleaned approximately 100 square miles of grout...or maybe 1,000 square miles of grout. The house was already pretty clean but the grout in the kitchen and traffic areas looked like grout does after 10-15 years.
Now it looks new again. All of it. Even the incredibly difficult areas by the sink and the stove and all without the use of chemicals.



A Ladybug XL2300 TANCS

Yes. It's expensive. The last time I told you who this thing took permanent marker off of grout! This time it took old paint off of tile and grout and newer paint (probably about a month old) off of hardwood floors without damaging the wood floor AT ALL.

If you have children, if you have pets, if you have 1,000 square miles of grout in your house, or maybe just a tiled bathroom or two, if you have windows, or nooks and crannies that nothing will reach into, if you have someone in the house sensitive to chemicals, or is allergic to dust mites you NEED a Ladybug.

My neighbor's husband was unconvinced....until the borrowed Ladybug restored a bathroom with grout that was totally polluted by a couple of young boys with less than careful aim. They will not need to borrow my Ladybug next time, because they will have one of their own. I had told my friend, the one with a billion square miles of grout....or was it only 1,000...that she needed one. I told her all of the the things it could do. She smiled politely and said she'd think about it but secretly thought I was out of my mind to spend that much money on cleaning.....but one 20 second demonstration of the Ladybug's power and she's a believer too.  I can't come to all of your houses and make a clean spot to convince you that this is NOT a gadget like the ones on the infomercials but a real tool for serious cleaning. Cleaning that just isn't possible any other way.

And no, Ladybug is NOT paying me to say this. Although I should probably get them to do that shouldn't I?

And yes, that why I have not been blogging.
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 21:12:16 | Permanent Link | Comments (2) |

Wednesday | May 14, 2008

Catholic Carnival 172: Pentecost and Mother's Days Reflections, amongst others...

Organi-ic Chemist has got this week's Catholic Carnival up and running. She confesses to rear-view-mirror-rosary-hanging (it's ok everyone! rosary-free rear view mirrors are just a personal preference) and assigns a jeepney window research project. Go read, comment, and support Catholic blogging on the internet!

Oh....and blogging is likely to be very thin over the next couple of weeks. I am going to be travelling to help a friend move.
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 08:57:02 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Sunday | May 11, 2008

He Breathed On Them.....What!?

John 20:19-23 was one of those passage of scripture that used to puzzle me as a Protestant. So get your Bibles, I'll wait. Or you can read it here. In the end, I figured since nobody ever bothered to talk about the "breathing on them part" it wasn't that important. I figured it was probably some obscure cultural reference that I would hear about some day.

And of course, despite the superficial support of those Catholics and their completely WRONG practice of confession, it really didn't mean that. It was really more about the Holy Spirit don't you know and the rest of that passage was just details that weren't important. Certainly, they were never fleshed out in any sermon that I heard...except of course to assure me that the apparently plain support for Catholics and confession was completely off the mark.

But wouldn't you know that some Christians....cough....think that those unimportant details might just be important. This is one of those passsages like the one in Matthew that when I heard it preached on in the Protestant church was ALWAYS a sermon that included why it DIDN'T say what it looked like on the surface. But just like the casual reference to Jonah in that passage in Matthew on Peter and the Keys, there's a little bit more lurking below that tranquily looking surface. This is another passage where Jesus repeats and reinforces His hard-to-swallow-message...in this case the idea that He is giving authority to the Apostles (and those they designate) to act in HIS PLACE!

Listen....

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."

Peace be with you. This calls to mind an angelic choir that sang on Bethlehem when He was born. "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests!" The ability to grant peace with God in the Highest is a matter of reconiling a sinful humanity by the pending sacrifice by God's divine Son. While we certainly attempt to mirror Our Lord in bringing peace on earth, only He can truly give us peace and that is by His Blood poured out for us in a worthy sacrifice paid for our redemption.

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 

Our Lord not only shows them that it really is Him, but His wounds are the basis for his ability to truly with them peace. They recognize and pay homage to Him....and Thomas will reinforce the Apostles' collective opinion of Jesus divinity at the next meeting which is recorded right after this passage.

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."

 Again Jesus, reiterates, PEACE which He has restored by His Sacrifice. You can sense His desire to tell the Apostles His Father's good wishes! Now if what has gone before could just be a greeting and not carry any theological significance at all, He goes on to make an incredibly bold statement. "As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Now just back. up. What was the mission that the Father sent Jesus on? To reconcile a sinful humanity to God in the Highest. To restore the spiritual life lost in Eden. Jesus came to bring us life and that we might have it abundantly? Sound familiar? Sure if you are a Christian, that's all relatively easy to believe but look what He is saying in this passage. He's not just saying that He has done it "Peace be with you." and showing His Wounds....HE'S PASSING ON THAT MISSION!! He's telling the disciples that it's now their mission to reconcile sinful humanity and restore lost spiritual life now that He has paid the price.

Sure. You're saying, "I don't believe that." I don't blame you. That's a pretty staggering concept. So just in case you didn't get it the first time and just in case you think that you were hearing things, Jesus repeats and confirms what He has just said by expanding on it adding to it.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

 He breathed on them? What a bizarre thing to do. But wait, get out your Bibles and read Genesis 2:7 "the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." God breathed on Adam, and He lived....he had LIFE! So Jesus, breathes on the Apostles tells them to receive the Holy Spirit....even though they are going to receive it in fullness later at Pentecost....and tells them that they are to pass on spiritual life by forgiving sins. Just like He said right before this....As the Father has sent me, so I send you....

No wonder I didn't like to think too much about that passage of scripture.....

Posted by Red Neck Woman at 21:49:13 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Thursday | May 08, 2008

I Could Care Less About LSU and "Entertainment" That Involves Chasing Spheroid Objects

But I am a very big fan of backbone and guts and this is a story of both. This feat belongs on the list with that Japanese guy in the Olympics who dismounted from the rings onto a leg he knew was broken and only winced. This is Mary Lou Retton sticking a landing on an injured ankle. Now I am certain that there are readers out there who are already mentally adding to my list about countless men and women who have heroically giving of themselves in dire circumstances. I must disagree. This is about heroically virtue exhibited in circumstances that were....well....not life and death. Don't get me wrong. I am impressed. Beyond impressed. But there is a part of me that won't shut up that keeps pointing out, "To watch a game?! You've GOT to be kidding!"

Soldier of Unknowns Stands at Attention 

Thanks Opinionated Catholic
 
Posted by Red Neck Woman at 11:48:29 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |
1 2