Friday, November 16, 2007

Peter Wasn’t All That Special….Was He?

I’ve been told lots of times that Peter wasn’t all that special. Well he was special because he was chosen by Jesus to be an apostle but he certainly wasn’t the leader of the new Church. I’ve even heard it posed (but never by anyone who actually thought there ever was a Pope) that if anyone was the first Pope, it was Paul.

So what is it that the writers of Sacred Scripture were trying to communicate? Even today there are vicious contract negotiations among Hollywood “stars” for who gets first billing….so who gets first billing in Sacred Scripture?

Next to Jesus, Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in Scripture (152 times).

He stood up and spoke on behalf of the apostles (Mt 19:27, Acts 1:15, 2:14)

He stood up at the birth of the Church at the Pentecost to lead them. (Acts 2:14)

The disciples were referred to as Peter and the Apostles. (Acts 2:37, 5:29)

Peter was given the authority to forgive sins before the rest of the apostles. (Mat 16:18)

He was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) — sometimes it was only “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32);

John ran ahead of Peter to the tomb but upon arriving he stopped and did not go in. He waited and let Peter go in. (Jn 20:4)

Peter stepped out of the boat in the middle of the storm, even though they were all afraid they would die in the storm. (Mat 14:29)

Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren. (Luke 22:32)

Jesus told Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep… feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17) The difference between a sheep and a lamb might be significant. A lamb is a baby, a sheep is an adult. Perhaps Jesus was asking Peter to take care of both the general people (the lambs), and the apostles (sheep).

Led apostles in preaching on Pentecost.

Received first converts and performed first Christian baptisms. (Acts 2: 41)

Performed first miracle after Pentecost. (Acts 3:6-7)

Inflicted first punishment on Annias and Saphira. (Acts 5:1-11)

Excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus. (Acts 8:21)

Received revelation to admit Gentiles into the church. (Acts 10:44-46)

Led first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:17)

Pronounced first dogmatic decision. (Acts 15:19)

Posted by Red Neck Woman in 05:10:20 | Permalink | No Comments »

Sunday, June 3, 2007

Zechariah and Mary

As a Protestant there were many parts of the Bible that troubled me. Mostly it was a nagging feeling of unease because it just didn’t make sense. The angelic visitations to Zechariah and Mary was one of those things that troubled me. I didn’t spend a lot of time meditating on it because I figured that if it was a big problem, there would be other people talking about it and nobody in my Protestant world seemed to think it was worth discussing. I thought Zechariah got a raw deal! He has an angel visit him (Luke 1:5-25), tell him that his elderly barren wife was going to have a baby, he says “No way!” and in punishment he gets to be struck speechless until the baby, John the Baptist, is named. Mary has a visit from an angel (Luke 1:26-38), gets told she is going to have a baby and says “No way!” and gets let off without so much as a handslap. What’s the deal? This was just one of the many places in the Bible that I didn’t understand, had no explanation for, and was forced to look away.

As a Catholic, I understand those passages much differently.

Zechariah’s answer to the angelic messenger “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.” expressed disbelief for which he was punished.

If Mary’s answer, “How shall this be since I do not know man?” had expressed disbelief, she would have been punished as well. If she had been planning to have sex with Joseph after their marriage, she wouldn’t have had a question. So what’s she asking? Where babies come from? That’s not likely. Catholics believe that Mary’s question to the angel reflects a vow of perpetual virginity taken by Mary. Mary was curious about how conception was to take place given her vow.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

When the canon was set by the Catholic Church there was never any idea that it was to be the “sole rule of faith” why would there have been a need to include a document such as the Protoevangelium? The Church was the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and the canon itself was part of that deposit…why accept that men who were so full of the Holy Spirit they could accurately discern what was and was not Sacred Scripture then reject what they believed was revealed by Sacred Scripture and supported by the earliest commentaries and documents of the Church?

And for the record, the same word used to describe Jesus “brothers” was also used to describe Abraham’s relationship to Lot and there were most decidedly not brothers. There’s more to that explanation for another day. 

Catholic Answers: Mary Ever Virgin

Scripture Catholic: Blessed Virgin Mary

Posted by Red Neck Woman in 05:10:00 | Permalink | Comments (7)

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Apologist’s Prayers

Grant, O Lord,
that none may love you less this day because of me;
that never a word or act of mine may turn one soul from thee;
and, ever daring, yet one more grace I would implore:
That many souls this day, because of me, may love thee more.
Amen.

**************************************

Lord Jesus,
I give you my hands to do your work.
I give you my feet to go your way.
I give you my eyes to see as you see.
I give you my tongue to speak your words.
I give you my mind to think as you think.
I give you my spirit so that you may pray in me.
I give you myself so that you may grow in me.
So that it is you, Lord, who lives, and works, and prays in me.
Amen.

From A Pocket Guide to Catholic Apologetics by Patrick Madrid

Posted by Red Neck Woman in 05:10:18 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Counter-List

I just loved this post by Mark Shea I’ve been on both sides of the Tiber long enough to know of the vitriolic anti-Catholic “lists” out there. To my shame, I can also remember thinking that those anti-Catholic “lists” made a lot of sense and wondered how COULD those Catholics not crumble in the face of such overwhelming evidence? I know now why that is.

The first step in changing someone’s mind is to respectfully and fairly present the truth of the other person’s beliefs so that you may then diagnose the errors. It is from that position of mutual respect that you can decide who is right and who is wrong. I can’t tell you the number of times that I tell Protestants who are trying to save me from the “Whore of Babylon” (To Catholics reading this who don’t know that there is a subset of Protestants who call the Roman Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon” I assure you that I did not make that up.) that I do not worship Mary or the Saints, only to have them slightly rephrase the accusation and re-state their case. How much sense does it make to convince me not to do something that I say I am not doing? Why not try to convince me of something that I admit doing that we disagree on…..like the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? I openly state to many of the people who disagree with me that I DO worship Jesus in the Eucharist and if that’s not Jesus; then, I am guilty of the worst possible idolatry. And in the same conversation or the next day or the next week, I’ll get told by the same person (again) how I am worshipping Mary, etc. Hello? I just ADMITTED worshipping Jesus in the Eucharist, should we not be talking about the Mass?

Now I am not a big name Catholic apologist like Mark Shea (actually I am not even a little name Catholic apologist…I proudly wear my Amateur Catholic Blogger Badge), so I don’t usually get the anti-Catholic “lists” thrown at me on a regular basis, but I’ve seen them and have experienced the frustration of trying to correct the ‘list-hurler’ with correct Catholic doctrine/history. I don’t expect that these people will suddenly throw up their hands and come runing to RCIA but why isn’t there room to even adjust the “lists” with real information? Does it occur to anyone besides me that the “lists” are primarily to keep the list-hurlers in line? Is it like some religious version of the Berlin Wall? You tell one set of people (set A) on one side of the wall lies about what conditions are like on the other and tell them that they need to convince those poor people (set B) to move the the A side. So they send the A people go to the B people and tell them who awful it is where they live and how unfair their laws are. The B people get confused and say, “Look here is our law book….do you see that you are wrong? Look at our houses. We are thriving over here. Sure we have our problems but they are not what you think. Look here is a problem that we are working…..” The B person is then interrupted so the the A person can repeat the assertion that was made at the beginning or perhaps a slight variation of it or perhaps the B person is presented with a “list” and told to simply think for themselves. The B person says, “You are mistaken A person…” but by the time he answers, A has gone home or gone to find another B person…. Are the lists then to prevent the “Chesterton Effect”? 

The convert commonly passes through three stages or states of mind. The first is when he imagines himself to be entirely detached . . . that of the young philosopher who feels that he ought to be fair to the Church of Rome. He wishes to do it justice; but chiefly because he sees that it suffers injustice . . . I had no more idea of becoming a Catholic than of becoming a cannibal. I imagined that I was merely pointing out that justice should be done even to cannibals . . .

The second stage is that in which the convert begins to be conscious not only of the falsehood but the truth . . . It consists in discovering what a very large number of lively and interesting ideas there are in the Catholic philosophy . . . This process, which may be called discovering the Catholic Church, is perhaps the most pleasant and straightforward part of the business . . . It is like discovering a new continent full of strange flowers and fantastic animals, which is at once wild and hospitable . . . It is these numberless glimpses of great ideas, that have been hidden from the convert by the prejudices of his provincial culture, that constitute the adventurous and varied second stage of the conversion. It is, broadly speaking, the stage in which the man is unconsciously trying to be converted . . .

The third stage is perhaps . . . the most terrible. It is that in which the man is trying not to be converted . . . He is filled with a sort of fear . . . He discovers a strange and alarming fact . . . a truth that Newman and every other convert has probably found in one form or another. It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it . . .

All steps except the last step he has taken eagerly on his own account, out of interest in the truth . . . I for one was never less troubled by doubts than in the last phase, when I was troubled by fears. Before that final delay I had been detached and ready to regard all sorts of doctrines with an open mind . . . I had no doubts or difficulties just before. I had only fears; fears of something that had the finality and simplicity of suicide . . . It may be that I shall never again have such absolute assurance that the thing is true as I had when I made my last effort to deny it . . .

At the last moment of all, the convert often feels as if . . . he is look through a little crack or crooked hole that seems to grow smaller as he stares at it; but it is an opening that looks towards the Altar. Only, when he has entered the Church, he finds that the Church is much larger inside than it is outside . . .

There is generally an interval of intense nervousness . . . To a certain extent it is a fear which attaches to all sharp and irrevocable decisions; it is suggested in all the old jokes about the shakiness of the bridegroom at the wedding . . . He wonders whether the whole business is an extraordinarily intelligent and ingenious confidence trick . . . There is in the last second of time or hair’s breadth of space, before the iron leaps to the magnet, an abyss full of all the unfathomable forces of the universe . . . That anything described as so bad should turn out to be so good is itself a rather arresting process having a savour of something sensational and strange . . .

(The Catholic Church and Conversion, New York: Macmillan, 1926, 57-66)

Are the lists then not primarily to help with the conversion of Catholics? (Although I will say that unfortunately an improperly catechized Catholic is all too vulnerable them.) Are they to somehow innoculate those who rely on them with a certain level of unfairness, to prevent them from becoming a cannibal…I mean Catholic?

All of this bring me back to Mark Shea and the counter-list I saw in the post I reference WAY back at the beginning. Is this being equally unfair to our separated brothers and sisters, or is it illustrating absurdity by being absurd? (I’m hoping the latter cause it really cracked me up!!) Enjoy!

Catholics are, of course, not without a sense of humor about all this. A friend of mine once concocted a playful “Protestant Inventions List” in response to the umpteenth email of The List he’d gotten. It runs, in part:

90 AD: Sunday worship taught by Didache
180 AD: God first declared as a “Trinity” of three persons by Theophilus
381 AD: Prayer to the Holy Spirit authorized by Council of Constantinople
397 AD: Book of Revelation, till now dubious, proclaimed to be “Scripture”
400 AD: Augustine invents “original sin”
418 AD: Salvation apart from Jesus declared heretical by Pope Zosimus
431 AD: Ephesus declares Mary’s human Son to be God Himself
525 AD: Calendar for Easter Sunday instituted
950 AD: Invention of Bible in English
1215 AD: Declaration that God created the world “out of nothing”
1455 AD: Scheme for printing the Bible invented by Gutenberg
1760 AD: Singing of “Amazing Grace” instituted by John Newton
1776 AD: Protestant Founders of America downgrade Blessed Trinity to “Nature’s God”.
1825 AD: Altar calls instituted by Charles Finney
1863 AD: US Government enforces Thanksgiving to God as official state holiday
1864 AD: Mammon worship first authorized by United States Government. “In God We Trust” stamped on US money.
1900 AD: Light bulbs used in worship services
1929 AD: Wednesday night Bible study invented
1951 AD: Preachers begin to dress in polyester suits
1959 AD: Televangelism instituted by Pat Robertson
1965 AD: “Four Spiritual Laws” promulgated by Bill Bright
1969 AD: Unbiblical phrase “Accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior” popularized
1970 AD: Overhead projectors used in worship service
1978 AD: Abortion declared to be a grave sin by Evangelicals
1991 AD: “Promise Keepers” founded on pattern of neo-pagan “Men’s groups”
1998 AD: Sale and commercialization of WWJD bracelets
2001 AD: “Faith-based” Government founded by George W. Bush

His list is, of course, a deliberately silly concoction of inconsequential items, legitimate developments of doctrine, sinister-sounding-but-harmless adaptations of the Christian life to different cultural circumstances, and laughable twistings of the facts. But it’s still an instructive rejoinder that points out an important truth: We do indeed have to think for ourselves—particularly about what “everybody knows” concerning the “pagan origins” of Catholic teaching. For this peculiar pattern of endlessly circulating and re-circulating absurd and sinister-sounding “facts” about the Catholic Faith is, not to put too fine a point on it, endemic in Evangelicalism when it comes to Catholic beliefs about Marian devotion and doctrine.

Posted by Red Neck Woman in 05:10:00 | Permalink | Comments (4)