The 1260 day prophecy, as advanced by some, particularly members of the Seventh Day Adventist community, seems to be built upon the premise that the Jewish year is 360 days long.
The theory (in a nutshell) is that the 'time and times and the dividing of time' of Dan 7:25 is 1260 days (three and a half years, assuming a 12 month 30 day per month year) correspond to the exact 1260 year period (also assuming a 'year for a day' principle) between the papacy assuming direct political control over some of the collapsing Roman Empire, 538AD and the Losing of that political control when Napolean arrested the Pope 1798AD.
In looking into the Jewish calendar, it appears that the Jewish year, according to the observational principles laid out in scripture, or based on calculations related in the mishnah, is NEVER 360 days long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar
Since the Hebrew Calendar is primarily based on the lunar calendar (the length of months is directly linked to the phases of the moon), months are an average of 29.5 days long. Most being either 29 or 30, with the possibility of some exceptions outside that range, but when that is so, other months are adjusted to compensate back to the phases of the moon. Under the calculated method it is always 29 or 30
Thus the length of the regular Hebrew year is 12 x 29.5 = 354 days, not the 360 assumed above.
Further, it appears that, under the Jewish calendar, almost invariably, at least one out of every three years has an additional month. This is done to ensure that Passover is always in the spring. Under the calculated method this month is always 30 days.
So 'time, times and half time would be either
354 x 3.5 = 1239
or
354 x 3.5 + 30 1269
or possibly, if one is going simply by scripture and not using the calculated method
354 x 3.5 + 29 = 1268
And if there were 2 'leap' years in a three and a half year period, those numbers would be bigger again, but still not 1260.
Even were we to assume (as the proponents of this theory do) that every month be counted as 30 days (even though roughly half are 29) the 'time, times, and half a time' spoken of in Daniel 7 would count to (at least) 43 months, and therefore 1290 days, not the 1260 proposed by advocates of this theory.
Dan 12:11 ... a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
The people who push this theory, (and I've been in conversation with quite a few recently) put it forth as proof positive that the Catholic Church is the Anti-Christ (some variations say the Papacy and/or the Beast)
Seems like quite a stretch to me, if they have to fudge the numbers that much to make it fit the history.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
Pattern Recognition, Paganism, and the Catholic Church
Just a short while ago, my mother posted the following on facebook ...
"AOCDRNICG TO RSCHEEARCH AT CMABRIGDE UINERVTISY, IT DSENO'T MTAETR WAHT OERDR THE LTTERES IN A WROD ARE, THE OLNY IPROAMTNT TIHNG IS TAHT THE FRSIT AND LSAT LTEETR BE IN THE RGHIT PCLAE. TIHS IS BCUSEAE THE HUAMN MNID DEOS NOT RAED ERVEY LTETER BY ISTLEF, BUT THE WROD AS A WLOHE."
Can you make sense out of it? I can. As human beings we generally have a great capacity to recognise patterns, sometimes (like the above) where those patterns aren't even there.
What do I mean? Ask yourself, 'what is the first word in the quotation above'?
If you answered 'According', you'd be wrong!
If you answered 'Aocdrnicg', you'd also be wrong!
The correct answer is 'To'.
Am I being a little pedantic in making that point? Yes. Unfortunately one must to make the point I'm trying to make.
Our brains have the ability to recognise 'Aocdrnicg' as 'According', even though IT ISN'T!
A very similar thing often happens when people attack the Catholic Church, or traditional Christianity in general with charges that "Easter is a Pagan celebration", Christians worship on Sundays, and a great deal of other things.
What they do, is point out the similarity between, for example, the pagan practice of worshipping on Sunday, and the Christian practice of worshipping on Sunday, and then ASSUME that because they can recognise the similarity, that they are indeed the same thing, when in point of fact, they are not.
"AOCDRNICG TO RSCHEEARCH AT CMABRIGDE UINERVTISY, IT DSENO'T MTAETR WAHT OERDR THE LTTERES IN A WROD ARE, THE OLNY IPROAMTNT TIHNG IS TAHT THE FRSIT AND LSAT LTEETR BE IN THE RGHIT PCLAE. TIHS IS BCUSEAE THE HUAMN MNID DEOS NOT RAED ERVEY LTETER BY ISTLEF, BUT THE WROD AS A WLOHE."
Can you make sense out of it? I can. As human beings we generally have a great capacity to recognise patterns, sometimes (like the above) where those patterns aren't even there.
What do I mean? Ask yourself, 'what is the first word in the quotation above'?
If you answered 'According', you'd be wrong!
If you answered 'Aocdrnicg', you'd also be wrong!
The correct answer is 'To'.
Am I being a little pedantic in making that point? Yes. Unfortunately one must to make the point I'm trying to make.
Our brains have the ability to recognise 'Aocdrnicg' as 'According', even though IT ISN'T!
A very similar thing often happens when people attack the Catholic Church, or traditional Christianity in general with charges that "Easter is a Pagan celebration", Christians worship on Sundays, and a great deal of other things.
What they do, is point out the similarity between, for example, the pagan practice of worshipping on Sunday, and the Christian practice of worshipping on Sunday, and then ASSUME that because they can recognise the similarity, that they are indeed the same thing, when in point of fact, they are not.
Sabbath, Six days, and the International Date Line
Several of my friends advocate that the 'Sabbath' can only be observed on the traditional hebrew seventh day. They claim this day as, what on modern calendars would be sundown on Friday, to sundown on Saturday.
A short while ago, one of these stated quite firmly "Sundown tonight at 8:16 pm begins Sabbath"
What piqued my interest, was that, since the author of the statement lives in California, U.S.A, and I am in Victoria, Australia, at the time she stated it, it was already around 10AM on Saturday. For her it was still Friday afternoon, but for me, '8:16 tonight' was a two hours and twenty six minutes after sunset on Saturday night.
This got me thinking about time zones, and the International Date Line (IDL)
The IDL is an artificial line based upon where different countries choose to set their time zones an calendars. By convention it is around 180 degrees longitude (directly opposite the prime meridian which runs through the royal observatory in Greenwich England), though it wanders and weaves around individual countries and groups of islands from about +170 degrees to around -150 degrees.
If their argument is right, and the sabbath MUST be observed on THE seventh day, then, if the IDL is not in the right spot, if God's 'date line' is in a different location than that determined as a legacy of the British Empire. Then even they are celebrating the 'seventh day' on the wrong day since a country, in deciding what side of they line they are on, are deciding what day of the week it is.
If we assume that the Jews still hold the correct day, and that God's 'date line' doesn't lie between Iraq (the traditionally held location of the Garden of Eden) and Israel, even still over half the planet could be celebrating the 'Day of the Lord' on the wrong day.
So what does the bible say about the location of God's 'date line'? Absolutely nothing! If we're forced to rely on the bible, we're left floundering with no way of determining whether we (who don't live between Israel and Iraq) were observing the sabbath on the correct day or not.
But what of those who, in our modern day, travel across the IDL? The commandment, as written in the book of Exodus reads as follows ...
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I see nothing in there that says 'if thou shalt cross the IDL in one direction then thou shalt work only five days and rest on the sixth which is the day CALLED seventh by others, and if thou shalt cross in the other direction then thou shalt work seven days and rest on the eighth, which is the day CALLED seventh by others, unless of course thou shalt cross the IDL from the west in the hour before sunset of the sixth day from either the Line islands or from Tonga, for then thou shalt work twelve days and rest on the thirteenth, which is the day CALLED seventh by others.
As a Catholic, I'm often accused by misinformed people of 'leaving out' commandments or parts of commandments', so I find your dismissal of what the commandment actually says in favor of the appearance of keeping the commandment quite ironic.
Crossing the IDL or not, six days is still six days, and the seventh is the day that comes after six days, not after five, or seven, or twelve.
If their interpretation of the commandment can't be defended by scripture, then either their interpretation of the commandment is wrong, or the principle of Sola Scripura on which their interpretation is based is wrong, or (I think) both.
A short while ago, one of these stated quite firmly "Sundown tonight at 8:16 pm begins Sabbath"
What piqued my interest, was that, since the author of the statement lives in California, U.S.A, and I am in Victoria, Australia, at the time she stated it, it was already around 10AM on Saturday. For her it was still Friday afternoon, but for me, '8:16 tonight' was a two hours and twenty six minutes after sunset on Saturday night.
This got me thinking about time zones, and the International Date Line (IDL)
The IDL is an artificial line based upon where different countries choose to set their time zones an calendars. By convention it is around 180 degrees longitude (directly opposite the prime meridian which runs through the royal observatory in Greenwich England), though it wanders and weaves around individual countries and groups of islands from about +170 degrees to around -150 degrees.
If their argument is right, and the sabbath MUST be observed on THE seventh day, then, if the IDL is not in the right spot, if God's 'date line' is in a different location than that determined as a legacy of the British Empire. Then even they are celebrating the 'seventh day' on the wrong day since a country, in deciding what side of they line they are on, are deciding what day of the week it is.
If we assume that the Jews still hold the correct day, and that God's 'date line' doesn't lie between Iraq (the traditionally held location of the Garden of Eden) and Israel, even still over half the planet could be celebrating the 'Day of the Lord' on the wrong day.
So what does the bible say about the location of God's 'date line'? Absolutely nothing! If we're forced to rely on the bible, we're left floundering with no way of determining whether we (who don't live between Israel and Iraq) were observing the sabbath on the correct day or not.
But what of those who, in our modern day, travel across the IDL? The commandment, as written in the book of Exodus reads as follows ...
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I see nothing in there that says 'if thou shalt cross the IDL in one direction then thou shalt work only five days and rest on the sixth which is the day CALLED seventh by others, and if thou shalt cross in the other direction then thou shalt work seven days and rest on the eighth, which is the day CALLED seventh by others, unless of course thou shalt cross the IDL from the west in the hour before sunset of the sixth day from either the Line islands or from Tonga, for then thou shalt work twelve days and rest on the thirteenth, which is the day CALLED seventh by others.
As a Catholic, I'm often accused by misinformed people of 'leaving out' commandments or parts of commandments', so I find your dismissal of what the commandment actually says in favor of the appearance of keeping the commandment quite ironic.
Crossing the IDL or not, six days is still six days, and the seventh is the day that comes after six days, not after five, or seven, or twelve.
If their interpretation of the commandment can't be defended by scripture, then either their interpretation of the commandment is wrong, or the principle of Sola Scripura on which their interpretation is based is wrong, or (I think) both.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Mass, Sacrifice, and the Space-Time Continuum
Let me take you on a little journey...
Imagine you're sifting through your 'junk' mail one day, catalogues, brochures, flyers, the vast majority of which will either find there way into the bin, or come in handy for lighting the fire on cold nights, when you come across a flyer of a very different sort.
A monastery, way up in the hills is offering a retreat experience that the flyer claims is like no other. The flyer makes some bold claims "You will have an experience of Christ's crucifixion like no other!" "It will be like you're really there" "So real, you could reach out and touch Mary's tears"
At this stage you're probably wondering if these monks have had a little too much of the altar wine, but something in it draws you in, you make some equiries and eventally sign up for a week long retreat.
On the first morning, you wake up in the cell you were assigned to, find breakfast waiting for you, eat, dress, and upon opening the door of your cell one of the monks silently leads you to another door. He instructs you to enter, and, once on the other side, to take careful note of which door you entered from, so that you might pass through that same door before sunset. During this time you are to observe only, you must interact as little as possible with anyone you meet, and it is vital that you don't say a word.
Still contemplating the possibility that these monks are too fond of altar wine, you pass through the door, and find yourself in what appears to be a faithful recreation of a typical street in Jerusalem, as it was during the time of Christ, seeing doors up and down the street, you turn, and make note of the specific markings on the door you just passed through, recognising that getting lost in this re-creation will make you late for dinner.
At this point you become aware of a commotion down the street, and following the crowd, while taking careful notes so that you can retrace your steps later, you find yourself in a large courtyard where some kind of Roman official is addressing the crowd, beside him, bound in chains, is a figure that you assume to be an actor playing the part of Jesus, though while there is a general resemblance between him and the common artistic portrayals you are familiar with, he seems somehow more earthy, as if he had indeed grown up learing the carpenters trade and working long hours with only hand tools, and his complexion, rather than the pasty white often seen on crucifixes, is more swarthy, like one who had spent the last three years travelling the countryside, living at the mercy of the elements.
As the day progresses, and you follow this 'Jesus' around as he is scourged, mocked, condemned and crucified, you grow more and more uneasy, wondering whether to be amazed or horrified at how lifelike the 'special effects' are, especially when they 'break' the legs of the two theives, and when they pierce this 'Jesus'. Likewise the quality of the acting leaves you dumbfounded, the heartwrenching cries of 'Mary' as her 'son' breathes his last. If you didn't know better you'd swear that it wasn't just an act, perhaps, you wonder, maybe for her it's more of a mystical experience than an acting job.
Finally, exhausted, drained, and more than a little confused, you retrace your steps to 'your' door. The same monk is inside waiting for you, and he silently leads you back to your cell where you find a steaming hot meal. Naturally you 'dig in' as in all the drama you completely forgot about having lunch, and you find yourself able to recognise how good the food is, while drawing little in the way of enjoyment from it. After you finish, you crawl into bed and fall asleep almost immediately.
The second day follows the same pattern, but this time the monk leads you to a different door. Sure enough it leads out to the same street in 'Jerusalem', but there are different markings on the door, so before joining the crowd as you did the day before, you have a quick look to see if you can locate the door you used yesterday, partly out of simple curiosity, but also partly to help you get your bearings, reasoning that you found your way back to that door yesterday, knowing where it is will help you find your way back to this door.
Finding 'yesterdays' door you notice that someone has just exited and is making his way toward the crowd, much as you did yesterday. Naturally you suspect that this person is attending the retreat like yourself, but there is something about him that is eerily familiar. So you decide to follow him to observe his reactions as the day unfolds.
Increasingly the presence of this other individual makes you uncomfortable for some reason, but it's not until you're witnessing 'Jesus' being whipped that you realise exactly what it is about him bothers you. As that first lash strikes he cringes and turns his face away from the sight, just as you did, and in doing so he turns straight towards you. With his eyes closed tight he doesn't see you, but with a start you recognise his face. The same face that you shave every morning... its your face... its you.
After the shock starts to wear off, the implications start to sink in, if that's somehow you, then, by some miracle, you're re-living the same day! And if that's possible, then there's no good reason to assume that these others around you are actors, after all if its somehow possible to travel back in time to re-experience yesterday, then it would seem to be just as possible to travel back to the day of the crucifixion and re-experience that day, which, after all, is pretty much what the brochure promised.
At this point you're startled out of you reverie as a droplet of moisture strikes your face, but no, its not raining, a drop of blood, flicked off the tip of the whip, not fake blood like you had assumed yesterday, from that person who you're now starting to realise might very well be Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is now trickling down your cheek. For the rest of the day you follow much as you did yesterday, and yet, your experience is nothing at all like yesterday's. Now, to you, it is no longer a work of dramatic art, now its real, every footstep, every fall, every cry. Each and every drop of blood reminds you of that first you have left to dry on your cheek. Everything's different.
As you stumble back toward 'todays' door you once again take notice of the other 'you' and see that he is looking rather run down, but you know its nothing compared to what he'll feel this time tomorrow.
The next three days follow the same pattern, each day a new door, each day you become aware of another 'you' joining in the crowd, each day brings a different perspective on the same event.
Saturday rolls around and today is different, there's no door to pass through, this time the monk brings you to a nice contemplative garden.
"You've had an interesting week" he starts, "now its time for your test."
You look up surprised. "I wasn't aware there was going to be a test."
Unperturbed the monk gazes at you serenely and asks "How many times did Jesus die this week?" then quietly rises, and leaves you to ponder.
'This week?' you muse to yourself. 'This week I've seen him die five times, yet each time I saw it, it was the same time. So is the answer 5 or 1?'
Later as you wander around the garden it occurs to you that Christ was put to death some two thousand years ago, so in terms of 'this week' the answer must be 0.
The Monk returns to take you to a communal lunch (your first for the week) and you share your musings that the answer to his question must be 5, 1 or 0, but you can't be sure which without further clarifying the question.
"The question stands," he says, "and you're on the right track." He pauses as if unsure whether to let you off the hook or not, then continues "The answer, of course, is 'all of the above.'"
The next day is Sunday and you attend Mass where, by some miracle, Christ is made present upon the altar under the forms of bread and wine. After Mass, as you're preparing to leave, you say to the Monk "Make that 6, 1 and 0."
He smiles, "Now you're getting it."
Imagine you're sifting through your 'junk' mail one day, catalogues, brochures, flyers, the vast majority of which will either find there way into the bin, or come in handy for lighting the fire on cold nights, when you come across a flyer of a very different sort.
A monastery, way up in the hills is offering a retreat experience that the flyer claims is like no other. The flyer makes some bold claims "You will have an experience of Christ's crucifixion like no other!" "It will be like you're really there" "So real, you could reach out and touch Mary's tears"
At this stage you're probably wondering if these monks have had a little too much of the altar wine, but something in it draws you in, you make some equiries and eventally sign up for a week long retreat.
On the first morning, you wake up in the cell you were assigned to, find breakfast waiting for you, eat, dress, and upon opening the door of your cell one of the monks silently leads you to another door. He instructs you to enter, and, once on the other side, to take careful note of which door you entered from, so that you might pass through that same door before sunset. During this time you are to observe only, you must interact as little as possible with anyone you meet, and it is vital that you don't say a word.
Still contemplating the possibility that these monks are too fond of altar wine, you pass through the door, and find yourself in what appears to be a faithful recreation of a typical street in Jerusalem, as it was during the time of Christ, seeing doors up and down the street, you turn, and make note of the specific markings on the door you just passed through, recognising that getting lost in this re-creation will make you late for dinner.
At this point you become aware of a commotion down the street, and following the crowd, while taking careful notes so that you can retrace your steps later, you find yourself in a large courtyard where some kind of Roman official is addressing the crowd, beside him, bound in chains, is a figure that you assume to be an actor playing the part of Jesus, though while there is a general resemblance between him and the common artistic portrayals you are familiar with, he seems somehow more earthy, as if he had indeed grown up learing the carpenters trade and working long hours with only hand tools, and his complexion, rather than the pasty white often seen on crucifixes, is more swarthy, like one who had spent the last three years travelling the countryside, living at the mercy of the elements.
As the day progresses, and you follow this 'Jesus' around as he is scourged, mocked, condemned and crucified, you grow more and more uneasy, wondering whether to be amazed or horrified at how lifelike the 'special effects' are, especially when they 'break' the legs of the two theives, and when they pierce this 'Jesus'. Likewise the quality of the acting leaves you dumbfounded, the heartwrenching cries of 'Mary' as her 'son' breathes his last. If you didn't know better you'd swear that it wasn't just an act, perhaps, you wonder, maybe for her it's more of a mystical experience than an acting job.
Finally, exhausted, drained, and more than a little confused, you retrace your steps to 'your' door. The same monk is inside waiting for you, and he silently leads you back to your cell where you find a steaming hot meal. Naturally you 'dig in' as in all the drama you completely forgot about having lunch, and you find yourself able to recognise how good the food is, while drawing little in the way of enjoyment from it. After you finish, you crawl into bed and fall asleep almost immediately.
The second day follows the same pattern, but this time the monk leads you to a different door. Sure enough it leads out to the same street in 'Jerusalem', but there are different markings on the door, so before joining the crowd as you did the day before, you have a quick look to see if you can locate the door you used yesterday, partly out of simple curiosity, but also partly to help you get your bearings, reasoning that you found your way back to that door yesterday, knowing where it is will help you find your way back to this door.
Finding 'yesterdays' door you notice that someone has just exited and is making his way toward the crowd, much as you did yesterday. Naturally you suspect that this person is attending the retreat like yourself, but there is something about him that is eerily familiar. So you decide to follow him to observe his reactions as the day unfolds.
Increasingly the presence of this other individual makes you uncomfortable for some reason, but it's not until you're witnessing 'Jesus' being whipped that you realise exactly what it is about him bothers you. As that first lash strikes he cringes and turns his face away from the sight, just as you did, and in doing so he turns straight towards you. With his eyes closed tight he doesn't see you, but with a start you recognise his face. The same face that you shave every morning... its your face... its you.
After the shock starts to wear off, the implications start to sink in, if that's somehow you, then, by some miracle, you're re-living the same day! And if that's possible, then there's no good reason to assume that these others around you are actors, after all if its somehow possible to travel back in time to re-experience yesterday, then it would seem to be just as possible to travel back to the day of the crucifixion and re-experience that day, which, after all, is pretty much what the brochure promised.
At this point you're startled out of you reverie as a droplet of moisture strikes your face, but no, its not raining, a drop of blood, flicked off the tip of the whip, not fake blood like you had assumed yesterday, from that person who you're now starting to realise might very well be Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is now trickling down your cheek. For the rest of the day you follow much as you did yesterday, and yet, your experience is nothing at all like yesterday's. Now, to you, it is no longer a work of dramatic art, now its real, every footstep, every fall, every cry. Each and every drop of blood reminds you of that first you have left to dry on your cheek. Everything's different.
As you stumble back toward 'todays' door you once again take notice of the other 'you' and see that he is looking rather run down, but you know its nothing compared to what he'll feel this time tomorrow.
The next three days follow the same pattern, each day a new door, each day you become aware of another 'you' joining in the crowd, each day brings a different perspective on the same event.
Saturday rolls around and today is different, there's no door to pass through, this time the monk brings you to a nice contemplative garden.
"You've had an interesting week" he starts, "now its time for your test."
You look up surprised. "I wasn't aware there was going to be a test."
Unperturbed the monk gazes at you serenely and asks "How many times did Jesus die this week?" then quietly rises, and leaves you to ponder.
'This week?' you muse to yourself. 'This week I've seen him die five times, yet each time I saw it, it was the same time. So is the answer 5 or 1?'
Later as you wander around the garden it occurs to you that Christ was put to death some two thousand years ago, so in terms of 'this week' the answer must be 0.
The Monk returns to take you to a communal lunch (your first for the week) and you share your musings that the answer to his question must be 5, 1 or 0, but you can't be sure which without further clarifying the question.
"The question stands," he says, "and you're on the right track." He pauses as if unsure whether to let you off the hook or not, then continues "The answer, of course, is 'all of the above.'"
The next day is Sunday and you attend Mass where, by some miracle, Christ is made present upon the altar under the forms of bread and wine. After Mass, as you're preparing to leave, you say to the Monk "Make that 6, 1 and 0."
He smiles, "Now you're getting it."
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Christ, Ignatius, and the Great Apostacy
I just came across something I posted on the CHNI website back in early 2007 and thought I'd share ...
Ignatius of Antioch - "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
If I remember correctly Ignatius learnt his faith at the feet of St. John (The Evangelist and Apostle), and it seems to me that when people say that the Catholic church 'broke away' from early christianity (or some other version of the 'Great Apostacy' theory) they are actually saying that my Lord Jesus Christ deliberatly chose 12 men who were such incompetents that the truth of the faith didn't even survive one generation. What a Guy!!??!!:?
As a couple of friends noted, this view (in light of Ignatius' statement also seems to make Christ an outright liar when he said regarding his Church 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'Matt 16:18KJV
Ignatius of Antioch - "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
If I remember correctly Ignatius learnt his faith at the feet of St. John (The Evangelist and Apostle), and it seems to me that when people say that the Catholic church 'broke away' from early christianity (or some other version of the 'Great Apostacy' theory) they are actually saying that my Lord Jesus Christ deliberatly chose 12 men who were such incompetents that the truth of the faith didn't even survive one generation. What a Guy!!??!!:?
As a couple of friends noted, this view (in light of Ignatius' statement also seems to make Christ an outright liar when he said regarding his Church 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'Matt 16:18KJV
Monday, May 17, 2010
Homosexuality, Catholic education and "Rights"
CNN recently ran an article centered around what it described as "the decision of a Roman Catholic school in Massachusetts to rescind the admission of an 8-year-old student because his parents are lesbians."
Since the article cited does not give the reasons for schools actions, only the reasons assumed by activist groups, it's difficult to comment on the case cited, but let me offer a few general thoughts.
Firstly, this issue is complicated by the myriad of laws surrounding state/religious school funding in each different locality. Accordingly some of these principles may not be able to be applied in a given locality.
In general, Catholic schools should give a priority to providing a Catholic education to the children of local practicing Catholic families. Next in priority, should places be available, would be children of non-practicing familes, children of practicing families from outside the local school district, other Christians, and finally everyone else.
Since it is impossible to be openly homosexual caregivers for a child while being practicing Catholics in good standing with the Church, it's possible that the whole story is simply a beat up because the school is implementing this policy. This is not discriminating against the child because the parents are in a homosexual relationship, but because the parents are not practicing Catholics in good standing. the same criteria might be applied to couples that are divorced and remarried without gaining a decree of nullity, parents who openly campaign for abortion rights etc.
A second principle that might be applied in this kind of case is that the school has a duty of care to those children already enrolled to provide an environment where the Catholic ethos may be nurtured. The school has a responsibility to reject children who will cause undue disruption. No one questions shools refusing to enrol children with a history of violent behaviour toward their fellow students of teachers, children who are not violent, but are constantly disruptive to the school environment are similarly dealt with through suspension, expulsion or simply not being allowed to re-enrol.
Some children can be disruptive through no fault of their own, but rather due to their associations. Childen of celebrities, known criminals, activists, and people whose lifestyles are markedly atypical of their fellows. Naturally the church has no desire to discriminate against chilren for actions and choices that are not their own, but sometimes, particularly where the associates are deliberately acting in direct contravention of church teaching, it needs to make tough choices.
Since the article cited does not give the reasons for schools actions, only the reasons assumed by activist groups, it's difficult to comment on the case cited, but let me offer a few general thoughts.
Firstly, this issue is complicated by the myriad of laws surrounding state/religious school funding in each different locality. Accordingly some of these principles may not be able to be applied in a given locality.
In general, Catholic schools should give a priority to providing a Catholic education to the children of local practicing Catholic families. Next in priority, should places be available, would be children of non-practicing familes, children of practicing families from outside the local school district, other Christians, and finally everyone else.
Since it is impossible to be openly homosexual caregivers for a child while being practicing Catholics in good standing with the Church, it's possible that the whole story is simply a beat up because the school is implementing this policy. This is not discriminating against the child because the parents are in a homosexual relationship, but because the parents are not practicing Catholics in good standing. the same criteria might be applied to couples that are divorced and remarried without gaining a decree of nullity, parents who openly campaign for abortion rights etc.
A second principle that might be applied in this kind of case is that the school has a duty of care to those children already enrolled to provide an environment where the Catholic ethos may be nurtured. The school has a responsibility to reject children who will cause undue disruption. No one questions shools refusing to enrol children with a history of violent behaviour toward their fellow students of teachers, children who are not violent, but are constantly disruptive to the school environment are similarly dealt with through suspension, expulsion or simply not being allowed to re-enrol.
Some children can be disruptive through no fault of their own, but rather due to their associations. Childen of celebrities, known criminals, activists, and people whose lifestyles are markedly atypical of their fellows. Naturally the church has no desire to discriminate against chilren for actions and choices that are not their own, but sometimes, particularly where the associates are deliberately acting in direct contravention of church teaching, it needs to make tough choices.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Genocide, Death and Favours
A poster on the CHNI Forums asked about 'atrocities' commited either 'on God's behalf' or 'at God's request' citing 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Judges 11:39, Joshua 6:21, and Joshua 10:40-41 as examples. Essentially the question boils down to how do we understandstand the God of these passages as good and just when he appears to be 'some bloodthirsty, vengeful, monster'
Here's my response...
Death is one of the few certainties of life. (The other being taxes ) Though their may be a few exceptions to the rule, Elijah, Enoch, Mary (?), and those 'who are left' cf. 1 Thess 4:17 at the end of the world.
Given that we shall all leave this existence for the next (one way or another) one might wonder what is the best way to go?
The prevailing secular preference seems to be 'passing away gently in one's sleep' and I can see the appeal there. Indeed the whole euthanasia movement is geared toward giving people the option to do just that. (Either for the benefit of the dying person or for the benefit of those who have to live through it and watch, I'm not sure).
For the Catholic/Christian, in view of the resurrection, their are other perspectives. For myself, if I could choose, I think my top two choices would be …
1. Dying slowly of a wasting disease, with enough time to make peace with my maker, settle my family affairs, offer my suffering for others, and die with my family and priest around me, immediately after having received the ‘last rites’ (Confession, Anointing, Viaticum).
2. Going down in an airplane crash, again with enough time, in view of my impending destruction to ‘make peace’ with my maker.
Why do I say this? And what does it have to do with genocide?
I know that I am a sinner, I know that I tend toward sin even when I would rather not, I know that prayer can help keep me from sin, and even still I sometimes, in light of that, choose not to pray. The point being, while I have ‘absolute assurance’ that God will keep his promises and save me if I am faithful, I know myself enough that I don’t have absolute assurance that I will remain faithful. So if I were given the opportunity to choreograph my demise, I would choose one more likely to keep that choice to remain faithful in the forefront of my mind right to the very end.
God knows our ‘internal disposition’, he knows the state of our souls as they are now, and he knows how they would be in that hypothetical plane crash above. He knows what our disposition would be if our biological father were about to set fire to us and offer us as a burnt offering to his God, and he knows what it would be if a horde of Hebrews, whipped up into a religious frenzy, bent on our complete annihilation were about to descend upon our little town.
To my mind, it seems that God may have been guiding the Hebrews toward their destiny as played out in the New Testament, while simultaneously He was deliberately doing a favor to those ‘victims of atrocities’ in the old testament. That ‘religious nut of a father’ and that ‘horde of Hebrews’ that may have been just the incentive that some of them needed to ‘repent and be saved’.
And at the end, isn’t that what we’re all after?
Here's my response...
Death is one of the few certainties of life. (The other being taxes ) Though their may be a few exceptions to the rule, Elijah, Enoch, Mary (?), and those 'who are left' cf. 1 Thess 4:17 at the end of the world.
Given that we shall all leave this existence for the next (one way or another) one might wonder what is the best way to go?
The prevailing secular preference seems to be 'passing away gently in one's sleep' and I can see the appeal there. Indeed the whole euthanasia movement is geared toward giving people the option to do just that. (Either for the benefit of the dying person or for the benefit of those who have to live through it and watch, I'm not sure).
For the Catholic/Christian, in view of the resurrection, their are other perspectives. For myself, if I could choose, I think my top two choices would be …
1. Dying slowly of a wasting disease, with enough time to make peace with my maker, settle my family affairs, offer my suffering for others, and die with my family and priest around me, immediately after having received the ‘last rites’ (Confession, Anointing, Viaticum).
2. Going down in an airplane crash, again with enough time, in view of my impending destruction to ‘make peace’ with my maker.
Why do I say this? And what does it have to do with genocide?
I know that I am a sinner, I know that I tend toward sin even when I would rather not, I know that prayer can help keep me from sin, and even still I sometimes, in light of that, choose not to pray. The point being, while I have ‘absolute assurance’ that God will keep his promises and save me if I am faithful, I know myself enough that I don’t have absolute assurance that I will remain faithful. So if I were given the opportunity to choreograph my demise, I would choose one more likely to keep that choice to remain faithful in the forefront of my mind right to the very end.
God knows our ‘internal disposition’, he knows the state of our souls as they are now, and he knows how they would be in that hypothetical plane crash above. He knows what our disposition would be if our biological father were about to set fire to us and offer us as a burnt offering to his God, and he knows what it would be if a horde of Hebrews, whipped up into a religious frenzy, bent on our complete annihilation were about to descend upon our little town.
To my mind, it seems that God may have been guiding the Hebrews toward their destiny as played out in the New Testament, while simultaneously He was deliberately doing a favor to those ‘victims of atrocities’ in the old testament. That ‘religious nut of a father’ and that ‘horde of Hebrews’ that may have been just the incentive that some of them needed to ‘repent and be saved’.
And at the end, isn’t that what we’re all after?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)