"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

- " If I touch the holy water font, it'll melt. " - " I better not go to confession because, if I enter the church, it may burn down! "   - " I'm just too 'dirty' to go before God right now...I need to clean up first. "   Whether they are an excuse to not go to church, or a genuine notion that someone actually has to 'get right with God' BEFORE they receive the Sacraments, these comments (paraphrased, but you are likely familiar with many variations of them) are wrong minded, backwards, and completely miss the purpose of the Sacraments.   You may have read in any number places, in any number of ways, that " the church is not a museum for saints; rather it is a hospital for sinners ".  And this is the truth of the matter.   We need not be "clean" in order to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e., going to confession).  Reconciliation is given to us by Christ for exactly that purpose...to reconcile us to Hi...

Over the past few years I have lost count of how many times I've heard various prophesies, dreams and visions from Scripture get tossed around to 'prove' that " the world will end on [such-n-such date]", or " Rome is the great harlot ", or " the rapture will leave the sinners behind [in such-n-such fashion for such amount of time]".  Of course, it only takes a closer look at Scripture and history to see that these assertions are a gross misapplication of Scripture.  But there is one prophecy in particular that seems to get ignored.  While hunting through the various prophesies to 'prove' one thing or another, this one, for whatever reason, is simply overlooked by those folks who otherwise 'seem' like they are out to uncover the truth.  It is a prophecy tucked into the first chapter of the book of Malachi while the Israelites were being reprimanded by God. “ For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among...

I've heard it said before that Catholics don't hear as much of the Bible during our services, nor do we read the Bible as much as non-Catholics. I've even heard that the Church doesn't want Catholics to read the Bible. While I believe that ALL Christians can and should read their Bibles more often and learn the Scriptures, I will say these statements are false. I do have a feeling that if you asked the average Catholic if he/she reads the Bible regularly, you’d get a “no”. But, I think it’s likely that a non-Catholic would say the same thing, and I don’t think this speaks to the character of the Church, rather to the fallen nature of people who have not put God’s Word high up on their priority reading list. A set of polls [1] last year on Catholic Answers Forums showed that the Catholics there spend at least as much energy and time in learning the Scriptures as the non-Catholics. While these polls are limited in what they convey, reaching only a small audience,...

Not too rarely, depending on where you attend Mass on any given day, you may see Catholic women with their heads covered, or even fellow Catholics kneeling for Communion while receiving on the tongue rather than while standing and in the hand. Two questions: Why do they do that, and is this even allowed anymore? Let’s look at the second question first. The covering of a woman’s head while assisting at/participating in the Mass was once required in the Church. The 1917 Canon Law, 1262§2, stated that women "… shall have a covered head …". However, in 1983 the Church released a new Canon which abrogated that law. So, head coverings are no longer required, though some churches ask that women cover as a sign of reverence (such as when you visit the Vatican, or when you attend the ancient form, or Traditional Latin Mass). Some women also choose to cover their heads when they enter ANY church, which they are free to do. You certainly won’t see anything saying they should not d...

In Part 1 we discussed the literal vs. symbolic interpretation of John 6 in the Bread of Life Discourse. (Click "Part 1" to review if needed.) We left off explaining why a strictly symbolic intperpretation makes no sense. This brings us to the second question: WHY did the Jews understand Christ literally, and why should we also? The answer goes back to the beginning of the Pascal Lamb of the Passover and comes to full light as the Old Covenant is fulfilled in the New. There is a WONDERFUL book that goes into the details of this: Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist , by Brandt Pitre. I won’t pretend to be able to summarize 240 pages of his book here, so I recommend anyone who wants to delve into this topic to get a copy. I’ll just tap on some Scriptural background. Something often forgotten in the movie portrayals of the Passover events is a very critical fact: the lamb had to be EATEN. It was not sufficient to sacrifice the lamb and spread the blood on the door...

" ...and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. " (Jn 6:53-59, NRSV-CE). For those who prefer an older translation, compare that to the equally graphic text in the DR or KJV. To help give the picture of what the Jews heard, take a look at the ancient Greek translation of Christ’s words. The first 2 occurrences of “eat” here are translated to the root “phago”, which carries the same meaning as “eat” in English (verses 53 and 54). But thereafter, Christ uses a...

Some of the things on Boettner’s List deserve clarification because the misrepresented version of Catholic doctrine leads to erroneous “knowledge” of the Catholic Faith. They are outright falsehoods, whether intentionally presented or not, that need to be addressed. Others however, as we will look at today, don’t seem to be so important as far as identifying them as a Catholic “invention”. In reading some of the items he presents, I can’t help but wonder, “why would that be a bad thing, even if it were true?” Item #2, The Sign of the Cross : Boettner asserts it’s an “invention of Rome”. Well, even if it was, is marking ourselves with the symbol of Christ a bad thing? Let’s look at his claim here on the sign of the cross. He says it was invented near 300 AD . Wayne Ariss corrects this wrong date: “ Again we go back to Tertullian's The Crown of 211 AD: "In all the occupations of our daily lives, we furrow our foreheads with the Sign" [5]. This makes Boettner's date ...

[65] “After we have thus washed the one who has believed and has assented, we lead him to where those who are called brethren are gathered, offering prayers in common and heartily for ourselves and for the one who has been illuminated, and for all others everywhere, so that we may be accounted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, to be found keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an eternal salvation. Having concluded the prayers, we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of water and of watered wine; and taking them, he gives praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and he himself gives thanks at some length in order that these things may be deemed worthy. When the prayers and the thanksgiving are completed, all the people present call out their assent, saying: “Amen!” Amen in the Hebrew language signifies so be it . After the president ...