Top 5 Things I Learned Blogging in 2011

You may not know it, but I started this blog 9 months ago. Am I showing yet? Okay, I couldn't resist. Thinking back over this last nine months, I wanted to share with you what I learned about blogging and the blog-world. Without any further ado:

#5- Blogging is...well...hard work 

Guys like Brandon Vogt, Dr. Taylor Marshall and Devin Rose have been blogging for a LONG TIME. They are blogging beasts. People like Pat V. and myself are relatively new to the blogosphere. Yet somehow Pat and I require bi-monthly blogging sabbaticals. If we can't find our debit cards, we take a break. What is going on with us (sorry Pat)?

I will admit that I started this blog posting every half an hour. =Overkill. I guess that is why me joints hurt so much.

#4- People Act Weird On-line

With me, what you see is what you get. Any joke you see me write here, I would tell anyone in person--to their face. Boo-yah! In fact, I have. I like to laugh and make people laugh. I like to have serious conversation sprinkled with satire. I like to respect other people's opinions.

Enter "on-line world".

I've run into some interesting humanoids to put it mildly. They will tell you things like "you don't love your children", "you are sowing division", or "that post was junk". My personal favorite is the person who "rooms a round the internet correctinging everyone's blogging post" (DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THAT LAST PHRASE--IT WAS DONE ON PURPOSE FOR YOUR DISCOMFORT--TURN YOUR COMPUTER OFF AND GO UNWIND).  Last but definitely not least, I LOVE Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous. The greatest thing since bread that cannot slice. Particularly the stand-up-and-show-em "Anonymous". It is just so darn...courageous...to be "anonymous" and all. Real bullet-takers, they are.

#3- You Can Meet Great People and Do Great Things

Besides meeting dozens of charitable, inspiring and faithful people, I have the great honor of gathering together a group of 20-30 somethings who will tell their Catholic story to a generation in dire need of it. I'm passionate about this project (Undoing Babel). One thing I know: this project would not be possible without blogging, social media, etc. Moreover, its success will depend on it. 

Thank you, internet. Thank you.

#2- You Can Write Some Good Stuff

My most popular post this year was Anti-Catholicism Exposed: Three Types of Hate. I will tell you, though, that I much preferred the follow up to that post: Anti-Catholicism Antidote: Of Gods and Men and Us. When I wrote that post, I felt like I was doing something genuinely good, promoting real, genuine charity, and fostering the right kinds of attitudes. Sometimes I can come across as a little snarky (sardonic, yes--and where the two words are co-extensive, I agree). I honestly do not mean to be, and I think that had I been a cradle Catholic, the term would stick. However, this blog is about "Why I'm Catholic and other things about that...". Period. The "why" is historical not just rhetorical. There are websites out there for you to learn "100 generic reasons the Catholic Church is ________". This blog is about understanding those reasons within my personal history. Within that context, there will be room for laughing and the occasional no-holds-bar conflict.

Why? 

Because that is my story. It is who I am. It is how I roll and how it went. You cannot confront inculcated ways of living, a religion antithetical to Catholicism, and sentiments that disavow the most basic Catholic notions without an occasional sledge hammer. Like I said, I'm the kind of guy who likes to laugh while I am working. (for all of those afraid of clowns, close your browser now!)

Me, if I were a clown

#1- I Still Prefer Old Media Like...

Oxygen. It is a great medium for conversation. It allows for (1) eye contact, (2) a hand-shake, (3) body-language, and (4) the chance of following up the conversation with a choice beverage. 

Telephones. I can hear your voice, you can hear mine. We talk in full sentences. I can tell if I hurt your feelings. I may even get to know you. 

Nevertheless, new media is cool. Tru dat. Happy New Year!

What have you learned this year blogging or reading blogs?

Guest Post: Pastor Roger U. Reedy

Pastor RU Reedy at the New-Year Episcopal
Preach Off Competition--2nd place 

Today, I've allowed a guest blogger to write at Almost Not Catholic. He is an old friend of sorts. We met in college and needless to say, we went our separate ways. Pastor R.U. Reedy leads a flock at Volt Church, a ministry of Engage Outreach International, a subsidiary of PowerHouse, Inc: wholly owned and operated by OnFire.usa. I think you will find him...interesting. He has a knack for story-telling and the homiletical spin. For us lay people that means he can get his "preach on".


Ladies and gentlemen, I feel honored to be with you here on this world-wide-web of wondrous connectivity. I am amazed every time I step foot onto the internet just how good God is. This is a divine appointment! I know what you are thinking. How do you know Brent? Well, Brent is an old friend, and someone who I prayed for when I found out he was going to become a Catholic. I tarried, I tell you, I tarried for his soul.

You win some. You lose some.

So what does he do? I'll tell you. He lets me on his "Catholic blog" thingy to write about Jesus. Come on somebody. Didn't he know what he was getting himself into? Our weapons of warfare are mighty through God for the pulling down of papist apologetical, international strongholds. Did you know the Vatican is a sovereign state? Ooh yeah, baby. Somebody say, amen!

I'm on the loose, and ready to bust a Holy Ghost party up in here.

[the band starts up but Pastor Reedy calms them down]

Dust off your Bibles and open up a can of solo scriptura (and you didn't think I knew theology) devil-thrashing. Repeat after me,

"This is my paraphrase. I am what it says I am, I own what it says I own, I eat what it says I eat, I sleep when it says I sleep, I smoke what it says I smoke. This is my Sword, and by George I will kill myself with it if I have to."

The verse for today's message is John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world..."

Did you hear that? God loves YOU! Look at your neighbor and say, "He's talking about ME!" You are the awesomeness of awesome. Put down your Sword and listen up. You put the awesome in awesomeness. You probably are going to want to write that down in the margins of John 3:16 so you will remember it next time you are reading the Bible.

REAL Christians do this to their Bibles

Go on now. Am I preaching to myself?

Some people say that God is demanding of you. Let me ask you something, does God need anything? No. So, if he doesn't need anything, and he isn't a limerick, then he doesn't own a pizza shop. Exactly. If you don't own a pizza shop, you don't need workers. No workers. No demands. Every morning, God is loving you with his heart, soul, mind and strength. I know religion tells you that God demands this of you, but we just covered that. Case closed. Can I get an amen up in here?

To end this show, I want to testify to how good God is.

[enter keyboard music]

God Wants YOU
to be rich!

When I was 7 years old, I saved my little brother from a burning fire. At 14, I broke a guy's nose who was trying to be fresh with a young lady. On my way out to college, I nearly hit a dog in the road, but I didn't. During college, I got up early every morning to pray, sometimes as early as 8:00am. After college, I met a homely girl and married her. A few years ago, I gave $200 to a woman who needed to pay her rent. She was evicted (apparently her rent was $500), but I exercised my faith--she apparently thought the money was not for rent; maybe it was the neighborhood. And last week...last week I delivered over 2,000 books to my television listeners. Free of charge (less shipping and handling).

Isn't God good?

This guest post was inspired by numerous TV preachers who pedal Christianity and receive a better income than most Americans.

Why the "Holy Family"?

When I was a Protestant, we did not have the concept of the "Holy Family". The idea was just glaringly absent. Why? I suppose that it was because, on the Protestant view I was inculcated, they were not holy. No one but Jesus, that is. Jesus was holy. Mary and Joseph, not so much.

What about "father" Abraham?

Holy

What about Joseph in the Old Testament?

Holy

What about Moses?

Holy

What about...

Moses: A Much More
Seemingly Fantastic Story

You get the picture. There were the heroes of the faith, or what we might call those "set apart" (the greek meaning of the word "holy"). They were the great "cloud of witnesses", whom we held in high esteem, respected for their faith, virtue and courage. In some weird kind of western, post-"enlightened" vantage, we imagined that press-time in the Bible equaled importance for God and so we re-arranged our priorities. Moses got about 10 out of the 22 weeks of Sunday school, Mary 1/4 of a day. Then again, the cult of the Bible was bound to lead to such conclusions. Why would God give so little page space to Mary but so much to Moses? Is not Moses more important than Mary?

This kind of quantitative reductionism, besides being less than erudite, is spiritually blind and inept. It fails to consider that the Scripture is a telling of salvation history--not a catechism--written in almost strictly narrative form, and that the climax of any story should always get more attention than the rest. It is the point of a story, right? The climax.

The climax of salvation history begins with the Holy Family. It is the complete undoing of the sin of the garden. If in creation we learn one thing, we learn that God desired a family--and so we exist. Subsequently, he granted us a share in the divine life and allowed us to "make man in our image in likeness"--so to speak (I got 4 of them so far!). Yet from the beginning, even without children, we were making complete fools out of ourselves. Conspiracy, murder, devilry, you name it, the first family was a picture of disfunction. This disfunction unfolds in our own history, and replays, sometimes getting worse, while at other times acquiescing to that which is still noble in us. Yet, the story is still the same: failure, sin and grabs for inordinate power that lead to ordinary powerlessness.

The New First Family

So enters the Holy Family. On this feast, as a Catholic, I am reminded that the garden is not to be my fixed point of reference. No. The Second Adam came to re-fix my gaze. He not only heals the blind eyes, He gives them a new picture of life! Where shall we find this life? None other than in the Holy Family! A father--nobel, courageous, quiet and strong, a mother--spotless, listening, praying, full of nurture, and a Son--who draws heaven and earth together in the ineffable mystery of the unicity of His nature. It is a great tragedy to miss this family--especially for those who love the Savior. It is likened unto one who is healed by Him, only to fix one's eyes back on the first garden. For we will always have but one of two choices: the garden or Nazareth.

We like the garden because it reminds us so much of ourselves.

Yet in the stable, fleeing to Egypt, and at the temple, we see the Holy Family. The entire story climaxes in this famille petite. We want something big, something epic, and so we fix our eyes on Moses, Elijah, or someone else. Do not get me wrong, they are important, but if you do not understand how in The Story this small family huddled around a babe in swaddling clothes is the raison d'etre, you have yet to fix your eyes beyond the garden--which is ultimately to say that you have not stopped gazing at your own navel. Even more, while your gaze was there--at the garden, you did not hear the Lord say:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."-Genesis 3:15

The entire story between this moment and the moment the Holy Family appears can be summed in this verse. It was merely a lying in wait. Wait and see for what?

I think you know the answer.

It all started with a family set a part for the climax of His-tory. 

Holy Family, pray for us!

The Ecumenical One-Way Road, Apologetics and St. Stephen

Ecumenism takes as it starting point that Christ founded just one Church, not many churches; hence the Roman Catholic Church has as its ultimate hope and objective - that through prayer, study, and dialogue, the historically separated bodies may come again to be reunited with it. (source: wikipedia)

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of reason. (source: wikipedia)

"The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. (Unitatis Redintegratio)

Catholic ecumenism should not be confused with some kind of general Christian or intra-Protestant ecumenism. Catholic ecumenism is a one-way road.

CATHOLIC ECUMENISM: A ONE-WAY ROAD

By one-way-road, I do not mean a one-way communication channel whereby the Catholics do all the talking. However, Catholic + anyone dialog has a particular end as its goal. We should not pretend that dialog with the Catholic Church is just lip-flapping nor should we think that Christian unity is defined by those who merely "love Christ". That makes for common "fans" or face-bookish friends, not communion. One goal is a human one, the other divine. It is not merely that we would stand around a camp fire and hum "Amazing Grace". We desire all those who love Christ and find themselves separated from His Church--the visible Catholic Church--to be reunited to her. Our starting premise is dogmatic, nonetheless our tone can be irenic.

However, false irenicism blurs the line between dogma and friendliness. In conversations where dogma gets put aside so that we can be "charitable", the relationship will likely atrophy, not grow, because the relationship is built upon being shallow and trite with what is most important to us: truth. Don't get me wrong. We can feed the hungry together in the name of Christian love without blurring the line of dogma. However, we cannot talk about what it truly means to worship, to be saved, or to minister by not setting dogma as the centerpiece of the discussion. Further, if your constitution cannot handle the ensuing conversation, then I recommend you commit such activity to prayer not participation...

...because ecumenism and apologetics are not arch nemeses. In a world where "proving" and "debating" in the sphere of anything but the natural sciences is tantamount to being "judgmental" or not "nice", religion comes across like grandma's bake-goods. No wonder our children give it up like Santa Claus--it's because we treat it like Santa Claus. Thus, intra-faith dialog can take on--in this spirit of grandma's bake-goods--an Oprah-esque character. At the end of the show, everyone is crying, hugging and nobody knows what-the-heck just happened. We all still disagree, and nobody goes home with anybody else, but gosh-darnit it feels so darn warm and fuzzy.

Then how can we as Catholics be ecumenical?

"Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.

For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should, so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and the growth of God's kingdom is delayed. All Catholics must therefore aim at Christian perfection and, each according to his station, play his part that the Church may daily be more purified and renewed. For the Church must bear in her own body the humility and dying of Jesus, against the day when Christ will present her to Himself in all her glory without spot or wrinkle." -

Unitatis Redintegratio

Be concerned. Pray. Renew our Catholic identity. Be holy. Know the faith.

In a pharse:

BE CATHOLIC!

Maybe our problem is we do
not see this enough

Our separated brothers and sisters already know how awesome they are. The problem is that they think we bite. And you know what? A lot of the time we do: in our moral lives, in our liturgical shenanigans, in our less than clear presentation of the faith, in our failure to teach our children, and in our timidity to proclaim the Catholic faith in all its dogmatic beauty.

Why did you write this today, Brent? It's second day of Christmas, for good-ness sake. Yes, it is. And in the Catholic religion, the one instituted by the Savior whose birth we celebrated yesterday, today is the Feast of St. Stephen, the first martyr. St. Stephen died for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith. As it was from the beginning and ever will be, evangelism begins with martyrdom:

We must die to our desire to be liked. 

We must die to our desire to be popular. 

We must be willing to lose everything for the sake of the Gospel. 

St. Stephen, pray for us

Merry Christ*mas*

Keep "Mass" in Christ-mas

Merry Christmas!

Co-Mediatrix!!! What Gives?

When I was Protestant and studying the Catholic faith, I happened upon the word "co-mediatrix" in Scott Hahn's book Hail Holy Queen. Despite what you may think about my long-term papist leanings, this word sent me into a Zwinglian down-ward spiral. I was Martin Luther for at least four days after reading that book. With all the reformation furor I could muster, I marched around my house saying (to myself):

"Co-mediatrix! Mediatrix! Meeediiiaaatrix! Who do these Catholics think they are? There is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus. I stand with Luther!"

Bible Abuse #259292:
"All Things To All People"

Setting aside the kill-joy of that closing remark, I was dogged in my opposition to Roman Catholic additions to Christian theology (what were in my mind) --as I would have put it (notice how I added "Roman": it is a Protestant way of making anything Catholic sound bad because the word "Roman" is so abused in their world. Don't tell them a book of the Bible is named "Roman(s)".) During one of my evenings of reformation solidarity, I went to my ecclesial community to lead people in song on my electric guitar (accompanied by band). The song was a Third Day version of a hymn which was kind of a Protestant war-cry for me. I would not stand for "co-mediatrix" for even a minute, and so I belted out the chorus imagining I was bringing down the Catholic religion with the reverberation of every power chord. Sound waves are powerful, you know.

If Luther could not do it, maybe I could on an Ibanez, S-series.

Q: How did I get over this theological pot hole?

A: I stopped and asked myself what "co" meant.

That was my real objection. Right? What does "co" mean, doesn't it mean "equal"? For starters, it is a latin pre-fix for "together". Unfortunately, the modern ear (which has been bastardized by abuses of the English language) hears "equal". However, you cannot get from "together" to "equal" without some serious bastardization. As examples, let us consider common words where we use the pre-fix "co":

Cooperation

Coordinate

In both of these examples, "co" simply implies that something is "together" with the root word. If someone is cooperating with me, I would not think they are being "equal" with me. In fact, their cooperation might imply just the opposite. The only time we think of the pre-fix "co" in terms of equality is when we say someone is "co-equal" or the "co-winner". In these cases, the root word does all the work, but somehow "co" gets the credit. Thus, in the case of an action, it is not necessary to imply equality nor is it natural to do so.

Why co-meeediiiatrix!!!! (emphasis is mine to demonstrate just how scary this word is to a Protestant ear--it was to mine) Il est très simple.

As an example (not proof-text), in 2 Corinthians 6:1, we are described as "co-laborers", "co-workers" or those "helping" him (not to mention the entire theme of "In Christ" throughout all of St. Paul's writings). What are we helping him do? Or rather, what is He doing that we are helping accomplish? Does Jesus need help washing His car? Building widgets? Walking little old ladies across the road? ("yes" to the last one) Of course not (almost). What is Jesus doing?

"For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -1 Timothy 2:5

"My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just" -1 John 2:1

Jesus is the One Mediator--tru dat. How does this work? Would not our participation in His mediation take away from His mediation? Not if our work as co-mediators is grounded in our union with Him. That is exactly what St. Paul goes on to talk about in 2 Corinthians--he revels before those in Corinth in the panoply of ways he has shared in the ministry of Christ (poverty, suffering, affliction, joy, etc.). What does this have to do with Mary as Co-Mediatrix?

"Don't worry. We have these in the youth hall."

For starters, Mary is the greatest of creatures. Why? Because she was Mother of the Word Incarnate, duh. When you spend your entire life ignoring the Mother of the Word Incarnate in a failed attempt of "giving Jesus all your attention" while sharing that attention with NASCAR, TLC, and Wii, then it makes sense that you would have no problem dismissing her importance in between games of NASCAR kart racing. The point is that if non-Catholic Christians can teach their children that "Father Abraham had many sons" and "Zaccheus was a wee little man, and a whee little man was he" while dragging Mary begrudgingly out at Christmas only to have her hit the curb as fast as an evangelical Christmas tree on December 27th, than there is going to be a Marian disconnect on a visceral level. Are you Protestant? Do you have no affections for Mary? That makes sense.

Having affections for Mary and her being co-Mediatrix are two different things. I get that. But, the minor objection(s) many times fuel the major objection, and in this case the minor objection is pure emotion--or rather the lack there of. Setting aside any callousness to Mary, we can see from the Biblical witness understood through the Tradition of the Church that Mary is truly the "New Eve". As such--qua creature--she is the greatest. She receives every possible reward we can receive first and in the greatest degree. Thus, she is--like us--a co-laborer with Christ. Her union with Christ allows her to participate in the ministry of mediation that you and I also enjoy in a much more diminished capacity. We give cups of cold water from our vantage. She does her work from hers.

This post is not a full-blown apologia for the title "co-mediatrix". You can read some great stuff to that effect here here, or here. You can also read Scott Hahn's book Hail Holy Queen, if and only if you can set aside your Marian callousness that has accumulated through years of NASCAR kart racing. My point was merely to peel back a few layers of what can appear, at first blush, a very scary onion. What I hope you see now, at the least, is that the title has both a Biblical and historical precedent, and can make much more sense in a world where the Blessed Virgin Mary is displayed like this all year:

Instead of like this (once a year):

WANT MORE ALMOST NOT CATHOLIC? JOIN THE JOURNEY...

Reply...Again...Conversion: The Way of the Cross

"Anonymous" replied to my recent post, again using blogger, so for her benefit, yours and mine, I am responding to her recent question on the blog. She said:

"Thank you for answering my question, but it leads to another. What if a husband or wife wishes to convert to Catholicism, but the spouse is unwilling, uninterested or maybe even adamently against it?Particularly, as in the second comment above, what if the wife wishes to convert, but the husband does not. What is she to do in the eyes of the Church? Submit to her husband or go against his wishes, since Christ said we must follow him no matter what or who stands in our way? Can one spouse convert and the other, not? What if (not that it would have been) that had been your situation? Would you have still converted without your wife's joining you? It seems it would be a sticky situation. You are very blessed that she happily joined you, but not everyone has it so easy, especially when the roles are reversed and it is the wife who is considering converting, to her utter personal shock and surprise, I might add. Like you, she too, never imagined (and still hasn't admitted to herself that she is) she would ever consider Catholicism."

First, let me say that I completely understand the sentiment in your last comment. I, too, never dreamed of becoming Catholic. All roads were not conspicuously leading to Rome. I am going to give you two takes on the matter. I asked my wife this question, and here is what she said:

"My gut reaction is convert no matter what....I don't know what I would actually say if I was the one having to respond to this email. It seems to me, though, that converting to Catholicism is as tantamount as becoming a Christian. I would never tell someone to reject becoming a Christian because of marital reasons. Isn't that what the Catholic Church is? Christianity, our Salvation, the way Christ has given us himself on this earth?...."

I love my wife. Her feminine sagacity comes in short thoughts like this that get right to the heart of the matter. For prudential purposes, I would add the following:

• Conversion, even when both are not on the same page, is easier if the existing marriage is solid. Any communication problem you may have will be accentuated by this particular conflict, if you let it.

• Go slow. There is no reason to rush. When you are a catechumen (learning about Catholicism in RCIA), Mother Church calls you Her own. I recommend finding a local parish and starting RCIA. Maybe your husband would go with you? Maybe he would be willing to have a conversation about what you learn? Most importantly, pray about this every day. Ask God for help: in your heart, marriage, mind, in the work He has called you to do as a mother...everything. Pray, pray. and pray again.

• Allow your journey to Catholicism to be a chance to grow closer to God. To be closer to His Church is to be closer to Him. To be closer to Him is to be more like him. Your husband and everyone else will notice. 

• Ask the saints to pray for you, especially Blessed Mary. I know this one probably sounds weird to you at this point. It did to me too. I recommend praying this little prayer I prayed:

Our Mother

"Dear God, if the saints are not in heaven, make them to not hear my prayers. I'm not sure if this is the right thing, but I'm starting to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church you founded. You said that if I ask for bread, you would not give me a scorpion. Well, this is one of those situations. If this is not of You, throw me off this path. I see where it is heading, and I don't want to go there but I'm afraid I will have to unless you throw me off this path. I love you, God."

St. ____________, pray for me.

Amen.

You are in my family's prayers. 

Want more Almost Not Catholic? Join the journey...

From the Combox...On the Eucharist

I recently received two comments via blogger on my most recent post and because they were not done in Disqus, they did not show up on the post. Nevertheless, I wanted to respond to both of them. The first question was:

"I was wondering how its been for your wife and if your families have been accepting and supportive."

A: In the beginning it was mixed--to put it mildly. Now, things are better. In fact, I would dare say that some people are on a journey (as we all are). I had one family member buy the Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn. My wife, of course, joined me on the journey and is a happy Catholic. The thing is, people that know me understand my conversion to Catholicism as a continuity of what has always been a lifelong pursuit of Jesus Christ. I am Catholic because he founded the Catholic Church. No other reason.

The other question was:

"I'm a professed Pentecostal in a state of... Reform? Not really sure about very many things right now except that i feel lost and like I've built my house on sand. My husband was a minister. Certain circumstances have brought us to a point of questioning. I had a thought out of seemingly nowhere the other day: why would a Pentecostal ever convert to Catholicism?! So i googled and came across your conversion story. Wow. You addressed some questions I've raised within myself. And other subjects I had never questioned. Well frankly, I'm at the point of questioning most everything I've ever known regarding religion. I love the experience of the infilling of the Holy Ghost! Yet…I must admit something is missing. There is a void that has not been filled. I never dreamed that I would one day consider Catholicism. I am intrigued by your testimony. Your journey. I have babies. I cannot afford to be in limbo any longer! My husband won't hear of it... Yet, at this point he wants nothing to do with any church and is the most cynical towards the Catholic Church. Please pray for us in our journey! Questions: what about immersion baptism in Jesus' name? The infilling of the Holy Ghost? How do you stand on these subjects now? What has this conversion been like for your wife? I cut my hair months ago. Relief!!! No more struggling with damaged hair and not a single headache since! I'd had regular migraines for years!!! I have prayed and studied about it and feel completely at peace with cutting my hair. I believe we interpret so many things wrong! Anyhow, my two struggles? 1. Am I hindering my husband? He says no, but I still feel concerned about how my actions affect him. 2. People. Judgmental, condemning people. Maybe I'm too prideful and just don't want people upset with me but why ever it is; they get to me! I'll tell you this because it is an example of how i feel about most of the things I am struggling with. Hope i haven't been too mouthy! Just feel a need to ask you those things. Thank you!"

First, you and everyone else considering Catholicism are in my prayers every day. I understand there are so many hurdles to get over when considering Catholicism. As my friend says, "Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men"; and a hard one to rid at that. For readers that may not understand where the commenter is coming from, it appears she may be a part of a Pentecostal Holiness Church of some sort. Sadly, they may practice "Jesus-only" baptism. I"m not sure.

To her question regarding baptism, I was a Pentecostal who believed in Trinitarian baptism. The mode (or method) of baptism is quite another question, and one that we can tackle a different way. I did a series of posts on baptism you can find here, here, here, here, here and here (read them in that order). You should also read a great post at Catholic Answers entitled "Infant Baptism".

Regarding the gift of the Holy Spirit, as Catholics we believe this gift is given at the Sacrament of Holy Confirmation. It is the official "laying on of hands" that continues in Mother Church to this day. It is one of the 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church. The Pentecostal or Charismatic baptism of the Holy Spirit is a unique experience and one the Catholic Church affirms as a genuine work of God. I recommend this article by the current papal preacher, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM.

However and to add, I would say that the greatest gift God has for us is found in the Holy Eucharist. It is the Most Blessed Sacrament, the fulfillment of all the Old Testament feasts, the way our Lord gives himself fully and freely to His bride until He comes again, and is the great mystery of the faith (the internet does not have enough words to describe our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament).

Our Blessed Lord said as much in John 6:48-68:

"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them,

"Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

_____________________________________________________

To whom shall we go?

Peace to you on your journey...

7 Theological Quick Takes Friday (vol. 5)

-1-

"God, come to my assistance

Lord, make haste to help me"

In the prayer tradition of the Catholic Church, prayers like this are called "ejaculatory prayers". When teaching my small children ejaculatory prayers we renamed them "dart" prayers; since these prayers were meant to act as small weapons in your battle against sin and the devil. "Jesus, I trust in you" is another great one.

I think ejaculatory prayers are a wonderful way to integrate prayer into your ordinary life. Do you have a "dart" prayer that you pray that you would like to share with others?

-2-

In the Terce prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours, there is a small passage in Sacred Scripture that is employed that I love:

"Be patient in suffering, be constant in prayer" -from Romans 12:12

I don't know about you, but that pretty much sums up my desire for my spiritual life. I struggle with accepting suffering and am constantly fighting spiritual apathy with regards to prayer. You may know how it goes. You sit down to pray, and five minutes later you are thinking about meatloaf and humming "I will do anything for love" or "objects in the rear-view mirror, may appear closer than they are". When you come to from this slumber, you are watching television or scanning the internet for another distraction.

FAIL

St. Augustine describes desire as our inmost prayer. At least I've got desire going for me.

-3-

If you are wondering why the Mass is so important to Catholicism, try out two of my posts here and here. The bottom line is that the Mass comes to us from Christ, is directed by Christ, to God for God, and we are invited to participate in something wholly above us. The liturgy is, as Pope Benedict XVI describes, God's descent upon us. On that note, I will be talking about participation and the oh-so-scary-word "co-mediatrix" in the coming weeks...

-4-

What do I think about this? 

I think sincere people, who love Christ, get together and do this. I think I did it for 20 years. I think it is fun. I think God, in his inestimable mercy, allows people to experience His love there.

I think (most of the time) it is man's attempt of going up to God--which can be explained by its genesis, and when he ascends that mountain, he only meets himself. I think it is a by-product of our culture's fascination with itself, particularly evangelical Protestantism's fascination with the culture and affirming every last little bit of it.

As you may know, I'm a former guitarist for a mega-church. However, I've played guitar in every possible scenario and on two sides of the pond. I get it that not all "productions" are "showy" or entertainment driven. Cool dog. I would respond to this, though, by asking the person or musician to think deeply upon those experiences and compare them to other musical experiences. I've learned that the same "God-high" you get at a Matt Redman concert (I love Matt Redman--but how can you get back to the heart of worship without the Eucharist?) can be achieved at a John Mayer concert. Also, ask yourself:

"Is this God's way of experiencing Him or my way"?

There is nothing wrong, per se, with reaching out to God using instruments that we find around us. I do it all the time. However, what we must be careful of is assuming that our way is God's way--and the inverse assumption that God has not provided a way. In the liturgy--God's way, God descends upon us. What you get out of Mass is both precisely what you put into it and precisely beyond what you can put into it. That is the beauty of the Mass. In the picture above, the more passive you are, the more you get out of the "production", yet it is precisely what you put into it--through artfulness and craft--is what you get out of it. If you don't believe me, ask the most out-of-tune person to sing, the worst musician to play, and see "what you get". Not to mention all the spiritual dis-inclined folks who leave such services with their hands in the pocket wondering if they are atheists or something.

Conversely, find a priest who cannot sing or play an instrument and ask them to officiate Mass. No one leaves empty.

The end is the difference.

-5-

In some unabashed family promotion, here is a video from the band Fireflight. Why am I showing you this? Because the band is 2/5 my family (brother and sister in law) and 2/5 friends (lead singer and lead guitarist are friends from high-school). They just got a new drummer, but I was friends with the old one. Anyways, before they were Fireflight, a version of the band existed called Cheer-Up-Charlie. I played with that band for a few months as a replacement for my friend Jon Schneck from Reliant K--who played for AudioAdrenaline in-between.

-6-

Jesus Christ, Just Judge of all men, have mercy on Christopher Hitchens. (April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011)

-7-

How do I feel about the Catholic Church?

For the zeal of thy house hath eaten me up: and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.- Psalm 69:9

Thanks Jen for hosting!

Reason #679038 Why I'm Catholic

BEER

I know this is a superficial, shallow, and Protestants-do-it-too reason. 

Who cares.

[I was never a part of one of those denominations, therefore, I can still vaunt the benefits of sober-minded drink without being obligated to enter into one of those communions. Thus, this reason is not a reason I am Catholic and not ____________________ Protestant. It is merely a reason I enjoy being Catholic. Post continue...]

What is the bad news?

Prohibition and its tradition that continues in Bible-alone evangelical circles makes drinking a beer in public--especially down here in the "Bible-belt"--dubious. I knew a football coach who had to drive an hour outside of his city to have a beer in public for fear of ridicule (he actually crossed a state line!).

Ridiculous! Don't the Bible-alone belters know:

“Give beer to those who are perishing, 

wine to those who are in anguish; 

let them drink and forget their poverty 

and remember their misery no more.” Proverbs 31:6

According to the beatitudes, real Christians will have their fair share of anguish, poverty and misery. But, be of good cheer, Jesus gave us beer! (or something like that)

Anyways, as a Catholic we are not prohibited from drink. We are prohibited from drunkenness. I recently spent some time with a priest. We had a few beers, discussed prayer, theology and liturgy. Good stuff. When I left that encounter--with a very holy priest I will have you, I thought to myself jokingly how that would have been impossible in my old life. A holy man of God would not let drink enter his lips--much less mix theology with Shock Top. 

I remember thinking this myself about 10 years ago, and then I went to Norway. I had some beer while I was there visiting some friends, and after realizing that beer tastes good and is a great activity to engage in with friends because of its intended conviviating effects, I concluded that:

Drinking ≠ Immediately losing your morals

Drinking ≠ Sleeping with one thousand people and contracting a disease

Drinking ≠ Brawls, bras, and bros

Drinking ≠ you name it

Now, this might all seem silly to you cradle Catholics. But, and Father Longenecker can attest being a graduate of fundy-U, "Bible-belters" are taught that beer = all of those things (unless you are watching your favorite football team on Sunday in the privacy of your own home). Propagating this idea is the way you keep people away from it--which will inevitably lead to Catholicism (joke). I have actually had a conversation with someone who was afraid of "what they would do" if they had one drink. Looking at his girth, it was pretty obvious to me this person was not afraid of "what they would do" if they had more than one cupcake. I digress.

To end this un-end-able post, let me just say that it is good to be Catholic.

Peace to you on your journey

Logos Bible Software: 4-Reviews-In-One

Recently, I received a review copy of the Catholic Scholar's version of Logos Bible Software. After doing a little dance and screaming like a 5 year old, I committed to writing this review. Acquiring the Catholic Scholar's version of Logos in conjunction with my recent purchase of François Véron's book should lead to far superior arguments for the Catholic religion (to my combox interlocutors' delight). However, you may not be like I--a modern controversialist. That is okay. For this review, I want to consider four different people who may benefit from the Logos software and talk about it in relationship to their needs. I will do this looking through the eyes of four distinct individuals: lay person, priest, student/professor and catechist.

Review 1: Lay person

Another great option
for the lay Catholic

"But what is the answer to these charges? 'I am not,' you will say, 'one of the monks, but I have both a wife and children, and the care of a household.'  This is what has ruined everything, your thinking that the reading of scripture is for monks only, when you need it more than they do.  Those who are placed in the world, and who receive wounds every day have the most need of medicine.  So, far worse even than not reading the scriptures is the idea that they are superfluous. Such things were invented by the devil.”
-St. John Chysostom's Second Homily on Matthew

We all should want to study Scripture. As a lay Catholic, the task can seem daunting for a number of reasons. For starters, we always want to read the Bible in and with the Church, or we could end up like this guy. But how do you read "in and with" a 2,000 year old Church without literally filling your house with books? Have you not started studying Scripture because of fear of suffocation via books?

I've got good news for you. The Logos software fits right inside your computer! Thousands upon thousands of official Church documents, writings of the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church all searchable in relationship to the passage of Scripture you are reading. No more heretic Mondays or schismatic Tuesdays!

Just kidding, well, sort of. The point is that as a lay Catholic, the Logos software is a short-cut to mining the inestimable riches of the Holy Spirit working in and through His Church to lead Her into "all truth". Without the software, you are stuck going between 20 or so websites with 10 or 20 browser windows open (not to mention a dozen books strewn all over your desk). In the next 10 years, you will probably buy the equivalent worth of book. In other words, you are going to spend the money. An investment in Logos software means having something that you will actually be able to use with relative ease. No more standing in front of a book shelf with a blank stare, only to go back to Jeopardy.

Then again, "I'll take Bible Answers for $500, Alex."

Logos = win at Jeapordy (side benefit)

Nice.

Review 2: Priest

I am not a priest and I do not play one on TV. However, I can preach and have preached. In preparing for a sermon, a lot goes into it. Well, it should.

This Sunday, the responsorial Psalm read:

"Lord, make us turn to you; let us see your face and we shall be saved."

The theme of seeing the "face" of God is littered throughout the Old Testament. This would be a beautiful opportunity to weave this response into the homily. How do you do it? Without the Logos software, I imagine hours of tedious study. I then imagine being interrupted by a sick visit to a hospital, 3 calls from distraught parishioners, an extra-Mass after the retired priest got sick, and not to mention your father is ill and needs you to visit him in a town an hour away.

Did I mention fitting in the liturgy of the hours in all of this?

I just typed in "face of God" in the Logos search engine. 55K results. I added a "ranking" function, switched over to my "Magisterial Documents" collection, and in moments I've got the relevant Vatican II document. In seconds of searching within the St. Thomas Collection, I have found 8 passages talking about the "face of God". Imagine a homily that ties together St. Thomas, Vatican II and the responsorial Psalm. You have practically in one homiletical moment brought the entire Church back together again.

= Logos Bible Software

Review 3: Theology Student or Professor

This hits close to home. Having been a student (undergraduate and graduate) and guest lecturer in Philosophy of Religion for a semester, I understand the challenges of meeting deadlines as an academic. Unless you are working as the Chair of Philosophy at the University of Paris, you probably have limited resources: time, money, and attention. You are being asked to read books that you may not want to read, while simultaneously wanting to read a panoply of books that only distract you from the various projects you have at hand. However, in reality you would much rather be working on projects relative to your personal interests. But, again, you are not employed by the Sorbonne.

What do you do?

If you are a theology student, you buy this software. If you are a philosophy student and your emphasis is philosophy of religion, you buy this software. Period. It makes no sense to live your life without it. Half the time you are given assignments with far less time than you need to produce top-tier work given the less than top-tier library (sans Sorbonne). Now you have no excuses. Considering the exegetical and hermeneutical tools at your disposal, the software could help you become the academic ninja you always wanted to be.

Interlinear Scripture Study: Wowzer

The software will not do the thinking for you, but it will come pretty darn close (not to mention it will make a citation for you). Without going into more detail than I am able to discuss at this time so as to appear more erudite than I am and defy all the rules of academia, the reverse inter-linear mining function is incredible. Imagine you are reading a text in English with the Greek or Latin right underneath it. Then, when you want to search a word and see how it is used in other works of that time, you don't search the English word, you search the word in its original language.

Context.  Precision.  Genius.

= Logos (discounts available to students)

Review 4: Catechist

I think the three other reviews pretty much tell you why you may want this software. If they don't, I recommend a nice cantor position or maybe serving punch in the fellowship hall. In all seriousness, the catechist has an incredibly important job. They do what cannot be done in the Mass but must be done. The first catechist, of course, is the parent. They are required by God to raise their children in the faith. No CCD can do what they must do--no catechist can stand in loco parentis . I will stand before God and give an account as to how I raised my children in the faith. I cannot say, "Well the catechist at St. Benedictus was lazy and had them do coloring pages."

Connect the real dots between your vocational responsibility and your time and talents. Logos does that for you. With Logos, you have the answer at the click of a mouse and one less excuse for leading men and women (and children) into all confusion.

[Disclaimer: Logos Bible Software is a very powerful and advanced software that takes time to learn. It also takes a couple of hours to download all of your content. There are so many online resources to help you get started: wikis, how-to-guides, and videos. Like a jet ski, at first you might fall off, but after a day or two you will be having the time of your life.]

Usury Free Option

The cost. I know, it can be prohibitive. Here's the deal. You have two options. Option one: fork up all the dough up front. It is an investment, not a purchase. You are buying resources that will give you spiritual purchase for the rest of your life. You will not regret it if you use it.

Option two: the payment plan. There is a $5 fee per payment. When you consider the fees associated with using a credit card, the time it takes to process a fee and the cost of an employee processing it (paying them a just wage), and the exceedingly depreciating value of capital, this is truly a "usury free option" (sorry, no charts or graphs). As a Catholic, I can stand behind this option. So, if you have not finished your Christmas buying list, or if you just want to start the new year with a powerful tool to change your Scripture study life, consider Logos.

That's my 4 cents.

7 Theological Quick Takes Friday (vol. 4)

-1-

I've decided that if I want to do a quick takes, they will be theological.

Got it?

Good.

If you have not already, please go read this post that exhaustively compares Vatican II and Star Wars. It is long but worth the read. It will give you a chuckle and a head scratch. (HT: Father Z).

-2-

At Called to Communion, "Nick" recently commented on a new article about an ex cathedra Evangelical response to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He wrote:

"The most important question the Evangelical side has to answer is: Did Jesus take Mary’s nature? If She was conceived in Total Depravity, and thus had a “sin nature,” then Jesus must have a “sin nature” as well (though no Evangelical would say that). But if Jesus took on a non-sin-nature, then how did Mary give this to Him?"

Someone was a little concerned with this argument and said:

"I am and have always been a little worried about this line of argument. Regress concerns loom. I don’t think it’s impossible for God to cause the conception of a person immediately, and not subject to original sin, if He so wishes; and I don’t think a pre-requisite to His doing this is that He ensures that the woman in which this person is conceived is likewise not subject to original sin. Don’t get me wrong — I’m with you on the dogma; but (and maybe I’ve just misunderstood you) I’m not sure this is the best way to argue for that dogma."

And I replied:

"I don’t see the regress problem in Nick’s argument (if I understand his argument and your objection correctly), if we think about the IC in terms of an act of God. I think when we conceive of it as a condition of the possibility, then we have problems. But, of course, God could do anything so there is no condition of the possibility for an act of God (with some qualifications). Nonetheless, potuit decuit ergo fecit. The IC simultaneously tells us about Mary’s nature in lieu of God’s saving power, and ultimately what God was saving Mary from (original sin inherited from her parents). So, I see no reason why St. Anne would have to be conceived immaculately for Mary to be conceived immaculately. The proportional difference between Mary and Jesus make St. Anne’s immaculate conception non decuit. Additionally, the regress “problem” is further mitigated by the IC’s Biblical grounding in the Ark of the Covenant."

-3-

I love the Divine Office app for my new iphone. For those that may be unfamiliar with the Divine Office, it is the official prayer of the Catholic Church. Surprise: Catholics officially pray the Bible. Myth busted!

-4-

I will be publishing a review of the Logos Bible software this weekend. Come back and get my 4 cents worth. (really, it will be four cents)

-5-

"Chris Hora" in my combox on the post The Problem with "Easy Believism", left this comment:

"It just goes back to one of my quotes from G. K. Chesterton. “I don’t need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I already know I’m wrong. I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right.”

Bravo!

In Protestantism, this quote might read:

"I don't need a Church to tell me I'm right where I already know I'm right, I need a Church to tell me I'm right where I think I'm wrong that way I'm always right."

You can read more about what I mean by this inverted Chesterton quote at When Church Shopping Makes Sense.

-6-

Did you know that the Marian dogmas were the first Catholic doctrines I affirmed? I think it represents my epistemological shift that ultimately challenged the ground for the doctrine of sola scriptura. In the combox at Called to Communion, I wrote about it:

"Not to beat a dead horse, but I think impediment one is the smoking gun (which has been talked about a lot here).

“The first is the notion that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or follows by logical entailment from what is taught explicitly in Scripture, is necessary for Christians to believe.“

Where is this taught in Scripture? I think the lack of real answer for this question demonstrates why, in my observation, Protestantism naturally devolves into relativism. If you have no principled way for determining your first principle, then your method is irrational. Of course, the objection would be that the above principe is rational; and I would agree that it appears so. However, I’m not questioning the rationality of the principle, but the method for obtaining the principle–the cause. For example, a person might believe that every child should be kept safe, but the method for obtaining that conclusion could be pure sentimentality. Thus, when sentiment changes, children may be more or less valuable.

This same problem manifests in Protestantism (and can manifest amongst Catholics as well). It manifests in questions like “What does that Scripture mean to you“, or in short and shallow statements of faith, or in essentialism. What all three point to is a method: namely subjectivism (primacy of the individual conscience). This only makes sense, when from Scripture itself, one cannot adduce “the notion that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or follows by logical entailment from what is taught explicitly in Scripture, is necessary for Christians to believe”. Because that principle–in theology–is a novelty of the subject. So, we should not be surprised when in Protestantism novel doctrines are created ad infinitum from the principle of the primacy of the individual conscience lurking just beneath the surface of their alleged “first principle”."

-7-

Last but not least, I want to remind you that we are new Catholics. Our family's have no Catholic traditions, thus we inherited none. Would you mind sharing some Advent traditions that you inherited from your family that might benefit mine?

Thanks Jen for hosting!

I Am A REAL American

Male: 1800. Notice the
sweeping cloth. A sign of
imperialist elitism. Also,
he is sitting. A real pig.

Male: 1760. Simple.
Regal. Holding his
gentile breast.

In 1787, what we know today as the "Constitution" was adopted. On that fateful day, what was a grass-roots movement of freedom was codified into a rigid, semi-monarchialist, imperialist system of oppression. Before, men lived only ruled by the plain meaning of their common charter. In 1787, that common spirit alive with possibility was politically sabotaged by a collusion of power, greed, and class elitism.

Why do I say this? I am writing because I am a REAL American. Not like these fakes today. I am a pre-1787 American. Some call us "colonialists". Others say "tea baggers". I think the tea party is for wimps. It celebrates, not vilifies, 1787. It gets it all wrong.

1865, we tried to start over. We also tried in 1963. 1963 - 1865 = 98. 1865 - 1787 = 78. Those two numbers are really close. Need more proof? In 1998, the United States Embassy was bombed. In 1978, the Sydney Hotel was bombed. Sydney is a symbol of British imperial greatness. I can think of one other country like that. Hint: it started in 1787. Coincidence? I think not.

____________________________________________________

[End satire]

Does this story sound familiar?

There was the real church. They died or barely survived in a small percentage of primitivists who held on to the "pure word" of God. (Side note: the Bible was found by the first Christians in a glacier, frozen solid, apparently placed there by an angel) Then on some date, the Church colluded with the empire--an empire that is no longer in existence--and now you get Roman (da-da-da) Catholicism. Shriek! Somehow Roman Catholicism stills exists today--despite Darth Vader not being a real person, and the "real church", where are they? Not sure. I think they might be cryogenically frozen.

Is this Hans Solo or the first Christians?
Mysteries unsolved.