On the Call to Holiness

I finished reading Pope Francis's ON THE CALL TO HOLINESS this morning. I have not liked much of what Francis has written, but this is excellent. Pam and I grew up in the Evangelical holiness movement, so we're glad to see this emphasis promulgated in Catholicism.  The link above is to a PDF of the exhortation. 

Basic Christianity Lectures - New Product Development

Dr. Stan Walters lecturing at Greenville College, 1968. The year book that
year was dedicated to him. He was the class of 1968 class sponsor.

Fifty years ago, in college, I took a course titled BASIC CHRISTIANITY. It was required of all graduating students at Greenville College (now Greenville University). G.C. was then and still is affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, an Evangelical denomination.  The course was taught by Princeton fellow,  Dr. Stanley D. Walters. At the time, our first names and initials were the only thing I had in common with this man. He was a scholar, graduated with honors from Princeton (I was lucky to get into college), he read Greek (I was struggling with English slang), he was smart, articulate, and confident (I was the campus AV geek with a ring of keys on my belt and an empty pocket protector.)

If, as an incoming freshman, you were deemed smart, Dr. Walter's class was assigned to you to take the very first semester you were at college. The slightly less than smart students took the class the second semester of their freshman year. The dumb students took the class their first semester of their sophomore year, and the dumbest (lucky-to-be-in-college) students took Walter's class their sophomore year, second semester. That's where I ended up. If I didn't pass this course I would be sent home and the school would keep my parent's money just for their trouble I gave them.

There were three text books for Walter's class, all very small paperbacks, but all written by Anglican scholars from Oxford (the one in England), not the township named Oxford in North Dakota. That the texts for a course in Basic Christianity at an Evangelical college came from Oxford scholars who were Anglican should have been a warning to Greenville's administration. It took them seven years to catch on that Walters was not your the die-hard "faith alone" Christian. In fact, Walter's perchance for Christianity required a great deal of faith and reason, and the Basic Christianity course he designed and taught provided reams of empirical evidence for the authenticity of the faith. This irritated some stalwart administrators and Board members at G.C. who believed that one needed to take Christianity on faith alone and not have to think about it.

But I wanted to think about it. I was a physics major. I liked empirical evidence.  If reason wasn't involved, if evidence wasn't involved, if it was "blind faith" then, it seemed to me, any religious belief system would have sufficed...you could make one up, put on the blinders and believe it. It wouldn't be true, but if "faith alone" was the criteria, who should care?

Thus, it was that Walter's course deeply appealed to me.  Although my liking the course and liking Walters wasn't good enough to earn me anything better than a "C." Remember, they didn't let me take the course until my 4th semester. But I was still captivated. I took voluminous notes, which I will have. I tried reading Lewis, Bruce and Stott, (the three Anglican texts) but I understood little. Yet I kept the notes.

Halfway through the next year a girl I knew from high school transferred to G.C. and we started dating. The first semester she was on campus they made her take Walter's Basic Christianity. She was one of the smart ones, although she transferred in as a sophomore. By now I was working part time at the college radio station and had a ring of keys to the audio books in the lecture halls. I got permission and started to record Walter's lectures. Put them on 4-track tapes at the slow speed. I tried to fit 8 lectures on each 7-inch reel-to-reel but screwed up and recorded over one or two, and for some reason missed a whole week of lectures. But in the end I had 40 lectures.  Last year I rebuilt the 4-track, digitized the lecture to my MacPro, and with the help of Temi.com we've completed the transcription. Now, we're turning them into a book—50 years later. Dr. Walters lives south of me 2-hours and is enjoying reading his lectures from way back when. His daughter, who has since become Catholic, and is the editor of a diocesan newspaper and website, will co-edit the book with me. We are both set on preserving her Dad's "voice" in the text. It's unique.

But that semester, in the Spring of 1968, would be Walter's last year at G.C. After 7 years the authorities finally figured out that he was turning us all into thinking Anglicans, and not devout faith alone Free Methodists. (Ironically, Walters as an ordained F.M. minister.) So, the lectures I captured were the last time he delivered the course. At the end of the semester, as sort of a lame apology for forcing him out, the powers to be let him deliver the last chapel talk of the year. I recorded that, too. It was classic Walters. You can listen to the mp3 and/or download it here. Or, here is a PDF of the printed version. It's formatted for the upcoming book, with wide outer margins. Enjoy.

Oh, and that girl that transferred to G.C. in time to take Dr. Walter's class?  She became my wife. Pam and I have been married 49 years as of August 2018.

BlueLetterBible.org and the Apocrypha-Deuterocanon

http://www.blueletterbible.org has a long post declaring authoritatively that the Deuterocanon should not be considered in the Canon of Scripture. You can find the full article here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm  
My answers are in red, indented. The black is the blueletterbible's post.Starts now:

The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of eleven or twelve books, depending upon how they are divided, that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Old Testament.

Let's correct this Protestant arrogance....the Roman Catholic Church did not ADD the Second Canon (aka Deuterocanon) to the O.T. It was the Protestant publishers in 1830's who REMOVED them. It was the Protestant Reformers that SEPARATED them from the other books in their publishing of some of their first Bibles, most notably the KJV. But the Deuterocanon was always and still is IN the canon of Scripture. And there was no council or authoritative body that removed them. It was the typical Protestant protest. -- "We don't believe the Bible was inerrant when it was first put together, so we changed it. And NOW it is inerrant...but only after 1500 years when we changed it (without any authority) is it now inerrant. We did it all by ourselves, and since we are always right, we are now right. Oh, and we have thought up a bunch of reasons to defend our unilateral acton."  

Right. And by what authority did you do this? Do you have something in Scripture that tells you this? Where is your "list" where it says, "It is written, these shall be the books." Your claim of Sola Scripture demands such, doesn't it?  You realize, of course, that such a list exists for the 46 books (not the 39) of the original Christian O.T. by an authoritative council?! Have you ever considered that list? Or do you just ignore it because you think your pronouncements are inerrant, and the early councils were in error. I wonder where the Holy Spirit was back then? 

The Protestants reject these books as Holy Scripture for the following reasons.

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture

False Premise. As is often the case with petulant protestants, you have assumed a false premise. If we accept your premise we might have to accept some of what you attempt to detail below. But your premise is false. You claim that The seven books of the Deuterocanon are "apocrypha" when they are not. 

• "Apocrypha" properly means not in the canon by reason of being false and not to be read or considered.  But the 7 books of the Deuterocanon have always been in the original collection of books of the Bible. Even those who did not want them in the canon (and who were overruled by councils) said the 7 books were profitable for reading by Christians. You have not shown that the Deuterocanon books are apocrypha. You just assume that as a premise.  

• Since the early councils the collection of books that have made up the accepted Bible (later authorized by Trent in 1563) included the Deuterocanon AS SCRIPTURE. So, you have assumed that the Deuterocanon is not Scripture, when most Christians in the world today, and all of Christian history (until the late Protestant Reformers who were excommunicated, by the way) accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Not sure why I would accept the words of people who remove books from the canon and are excommunicated.  Why do you?

• Have you considered the Holy Spirit? If the Bible is Holy Writ, inspired and inerrant by the Holy Spirit, removing the 7 Deuterocanon books (as Protestants did) claims that the Bible from 300 to 1500s/1800s or so, was in error, that the Holy Spirit got it wrong. Can you spell heretical?   

• So, let's not equivocate. Your premise has little basis outside your opinion. It is the opinion of the Church (led by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for over 2000 years) that the Deuterocanon IS Scripture.

There are doctrines and practices contained in the Apocrypha that are contrary to what the Scripture teaches. They include the following.

They Teach A Person Is Saved By Works

In the Apocrypha proof texts can be found to support the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification by human works and not faith alone.

You have clearly lied about what Catholic doctrine teaches.  

The Roman Catholic church has NEVER taught that justification is by human works, and these "proof" texts don't do that either...at least not any more than James 2:24 (NIV) where James says, "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone." This is the only place that "faith alone" appears in the Bible, and James clearly states that actions/works/what-is-done, counts, not just the mental ascent of faith.  

The reality of Catholic teaching is that faith and works are two sides of the same coin. Catholic doctrine teaches that we are justified by faith alone, as long as there are the actions and works that prove the faith is really there.  

The Apocrypha contains the following verses.

For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin. Those who give alms will enjoy a full life (Tobit 12:9).

In another place in Tobit it says.

So now, my children see what almsgiving accomplishes, and what injustice does it brings death! (Tobit 14:11).

In the Book of First Maccabees it says.

Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (First Maccabees 2:52).

The Bible, on the other hand, says that a person is saved by grace through faith. It is not based upon our good works.

Oh yeah!?  What about James 1:22, (which is where James references First Maccabees 2:52) "Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? That's in your NT, so are you going to be like Martin Luther and try to remove James from the NT. He wanted to do that, you know.

For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Ephesians 2:8,9 does not mention FAITH ALONE. Recall the Church teaches that Faith and Works are required. But don't take my word for it. Here's what Jesus says about the importance of works...and this is just a smattering...notice NO MENTION OF FAITH IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT...ONLY GOOD DEEDS (WORKS).

• Matthew 5:20: I tell you that unless your righteousness (works, not faith) surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.  

• Matthew 5:26: Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

• Matthew 5:27-28 The command not to commit adultery in your heart.

• Matthew 5:34 Do not swear at oath at all...

• Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who asks  you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

• Matt 6:14 Forgive others if you want your sins forgiven

• Matt 6:19 Do not store up treasurers on earth

• Matt 6:26 Do not worry

• Matt 7:1 Do not judge others

• Matt 7:7ff: Ask, Seek, Knock

• Matt 7:21 The only ones that get into heaven are the one who DOES the will of God

• Matt 7:24 Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them INTO PRACTICE is like a wise man.

The Non-biblical Doctrine Of Purgatory Is Taught In The Apocrypha

The doctrine of purgatory - a place of purging between heaven and hell - is taught in the Apocrypha. It says.

So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin (Second Maccabees 12:41-45).

Actually, the doctrine of purgatory does not come from Maccabees. It comes from Rev. 21:27, Hebrews 9:27, Matthew 25:31-32, Luke 12:2-5, Luke 12:59, Luke 10:7, 1 Cor. 9:13-14, 1 Peter 3:19...and only then does the Church reference 2 Macc. 12:43-45. You really should study Catholic doctrine and understand it from a competent source before you claim what you do. Here's a good link with plenty of quotes from the Catechism and Scripture. Catholic Answers is one of the premiere sites for explanting the Catholic faith without the errors induced by belligerent Protestants.

The Bible teaches that, upon death, one either goes to be with the Lord or is sent away from Him - there is no middle place. The writer to the Hebrews stated.

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27).

According To The Apocrypha God Hears The Prayers Of The Dead.

We find the Book of Baruch teaching that God hears the prayers of those who have died.

O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel, the children of those who sinned before you, who did not heed the voice of the Lord their God, so that calamities have clung to us (Baruch 3:4).

The dead do not pray for the living. Only the living upon the earth pray for the other living ones on the earth.

Your understanding of eternity is limited by temporal space and time. The dead indeed pray, not only before they die (in an earthly sense) but after they go on living in heaven (and perhaps hell). Jesus tells the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16). Now you may consider that story fictitious and a metaphor but it did come from the mouth of our Savior. But then there are the saints in heaven praying (Revelations 5:8).  

Then there's this: Consider that when you pray, your prayers enter a realm we might call eternity...and in eternity, there is no time. So, the prayers you pray, indeed reach God's ears before and after you die...for there is no time involved, no chronology. So, in that way we even pray for the dead...e.g. our prayers for a deceased person can either reach them (via a messenger from heaven) while they are praying before Christ's throne (they are not really dead, right...you do believe that), or our prayers reach into eternity and travel "back in time" to when the person was alive...and offers them support from the eternity of heavenly beings. Thus, today you can pray for an event in the past, because your prayers are NOT bounded by time...for God does not live inside of time.

2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture

Easy rebuttal:  "Why is this a criteria?" Where did this requirement come from? That's a good question to ask about this whole list. This list of yours is comprised of strawman and other fallacious reasons. They're "made up" I suspect because you don't want to concede that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. So you make up these reasons....which are not part of any council, they are the collected opinions of protestors from John 6:66. Have you read that passage lately. Yes, Protestants were in the New Testament.

Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Jesus or His apostles. While Jesus and Hs apostles often quoted from the Septuagint, they never quoted from the Apocrypha.

Allusions Are Not The Same As Scripture

While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.

No, but they indicate that the New Testament writers were using the Deuterocanon as Scripture, or at least worthwhile references. They clearly were not using the Deuterocanon as "apocrypha" or false teachings. New Testament sources clearly accepted the Deuterocanon. But you're spinning their acceptance to say more than they intended...to suit your end goal. 

No Statement Introduced By "It Is Written"

In addition, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.

If this is to be a requirement, then we must throw out most of Paul's Epistles, because he never says "It is Written." You make up this stuff to suite your argument, but it still fails.

Furthermore no book of the Apocrypha is mentioned by name in the New Testament.

So if a book is referenced in the New Testament but it is not mentioned by name, we should reject the statement from it?  That would include a great porition of the Old Testament.

3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture

The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. On the contrary, they denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that they were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.

I'm curious how you would then allow the inclusion of the New Testament into the canon of Scripture because Jews rejected all those books as Scripture. Right? 

You go on and on with your reasons, and they become increasing silly and irrelevant, and I'm tired...so, I'll jump to your conclusions.

Summary

The books of the Apocrypha should not be considered as Holy Scripture because they do not give any evidence as being authoritative. Except the authority of the early councils and Trent. Did you forget them? What authority removed the Deuterocanon from the O.T.? You haven't given any evidence of that authority for removal, while there is authority for their inclusions...the Council of Rome and Trent. Protestants deny the canonical status of these books on the basis of both internal and external evidence. This evidence includes the following.

First, the Apocrypha contains doctrines and practices that contradict what has been previously revealed in Scripture. Add to this the Apocrypha is never cited in the New Testament as Holy Scripture. This is in contrast to the canonical books - almost all of them are cited.

False. You have not done your research. Ex: Purgatory comes from many passages in the New Testament and not from Maccs. 

The Jews rejected the Apocrypha as being part of God's Word. For one reason, these books were written after God had ceased giving divine revelation. In these years God was not giving any authoritative word to His people.

Therefore you should also remove the New Testament from the Bible. Also, Gary Michuta in two books ("Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger" and "The Case for the Deuterocanon") details the various Jewish sects at the time—some accepted the Deuterocanon, others did not. There are more Jewish sects that you account for.

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the manuscripts of the Septuagint proves nothing - we do not know the content of the Septuagint in pre-Christian times. Furthermore there is no evidence of a wider Alexandrian canon of Scripture. The Jews, wherever they lived, used the same Hebrew canon that did not include the Apocrypha.

Some Jews, not all. And if you keep using that argument about the Jews, I expect you to immediately reject the New Testament. But it's funny, you have never mentioned why you reject the various decisions of the early councils that included the Deuterocanon as a whole or in part: e.g. Council of Sardica (ca. 342) - only a part, Laodicea (343/381) - only a part, Council of Rome (382) - the whole Deuterocanon used today. 

The Apocrypha was not on any early list of Christian books that were considered Scripture. While a few church fathers quoted them as authoritative, most did not. In addition, none of those fathers who cited the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture knew any Hebrew.

Whoa! Not true. But you say "a few church fathers quoted them as authoritative...." what about them? What?! They didn't know Hebrew? So what?  When the Holy Spirit inspires something, is the human who receives the inspiration required to know Hebrew? Where is that in your Sola Scriptura lexicon?  Is such a requirement ever mentioned anywhere, except by a protester trying to avoid Rome? 

Further, just because someone does not do something you can't claim the opposite is true. That's arguing from a negative. It's a major fallacy.  

But then, there is the Council of Rome (382) that listed all Deuterocanon as canonical. And that council included a lot of information about what the early church fathers would have considered canonical. The Council of Rome overrules you.  It had the authority? And you?

There is also the problem with the exact content of the Apocrypha. The books contained in the Apocrypha are not well defined - not everyone can agree on which books are authoritative.

Really? Seems the Council of Rome didn't have a problem with that, neither did Trent.

Augustine, while a great thinker, did not read Hebrew and knew very little Greek. Furthermore he accepted the fanciful account of the origin of the Septuagint. Jerome, a real Hebrew scholar rejected the books outright.

Well, based on this insight, let's reject just abut everything that Augustine wrote. I mean you say he did not read Hebrew and knew very little Greek. That makes him totally irrelevant, evidently. What kind of logic is this? It's called arrive at a false conclusion. But your Jerome comment is amazing. You're right, Jerome did not like the Deuterocanon books. But guess what Jerome did, anyway. Unlike you, Jerome obeyed the Church, translated the Deuterocanon books, and they all ended up in his Latin Vulgate. What do you say to that? You see, there's something at work here which you totally reject, and which Jerome accepted....the authority of the church under Christ who claimed that they would come to know ALL TRUTH and be infallible in their decisions about faith and morals. You want to claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Well, which Bible is that? Jerome's Bible?  If so, you're guilty of rejecting what the Holy Spirit inspired and included. Jerome obeyed the infallible decision of the Church, which authorized the infallible Bible and inerrant. On what do you stand? Your infallible reasons?

Many Roman Catholic scholars, to the time of the Protestant Reformation, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

So what? Many roman Catholic scholars were excommunicated. Are we talked about the same ones? One was Luther. You remember him.

While some Protestants make some use of the Apocrypha it has always been rejected as Scripture.

Let's define "always" shall we?  When does that start? Let's see when were the first Protestants?  Oh, yes, it was in John 6:66...yes that's 666—the sign of the beast. Do you know what that verse states? You ought to look it up. It's where disciples of Christ rejected his teaching the real presence of Himself in the Eucharist. (which is in all Protestant Bibles, by the way, not in the Deuterocanon.)  

But, if you want to use the more traditional term for Protestant, you have to start sometime after 1517 AD. So, if that's when Always began...you may be right. Protestants have always rejected a lot of Scripture, like Matt 28:18-20, Matt 18:18, John 16:13, James 2:24, John 6, —the list is huge. And then the Protestants come up with Scripture that doesn't even have a reference, like the verses about Sola Scriptura. I could never find those. Do you know where they are?

Another major problem for the Apocrypha is demonstrable historical errors in it. This is not consistent with God's Word being error-free. Furthermore there is no evidence in these books of divine authority - fulfilled prophecy is lacking. Add to this there is no claim within the books of God's authority.

Whoa again there. (1) there are many historical inaccuracies in the 39 books of the O.T. which is not literally consistent with God's Word being error-free....and if you start to take the poetic books literally we have a major problem. (2) the evidence that the Deuterocanon is authoritative rests in the same infallible authority that constructed the Bible in the first place (The Church and its Councils) which included the Deuterocanon. (3) If there's no claim in the Deuterocanon of God's authority, what other books might we have to delete from the Bible because they don't claim to be authoritative either. Do any of the Gospel claim "God's authority"...I mean the books as a book, not the occasional words of Christ? This is a false reason. The authority came from the Church which selected the books.

Finally we have the testimony of Jesus. He said the Scriptures were true and could not be broken. However the Apocrypha was not Scripture to Him. Since neither the Jews, Jesus, or His apostles considered these writings as part of the Old Testament neither should we.

There are many theologians that would disagree with you, since Jesus and the NT writers refer to those writings many times. Gary Michuta has exhaustively cited those and many other evidences in "The Case for the Deuterocanon," "15 Myths, Mistakes and Misrepresentations about the Deuterocanon," and "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger." All available at Amazon

We conclude that the present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament are the complete Scripture that God has given us. There are no other divinely authoritative books of Scripture that belong to the Old Testament.

And 2000 years of Church history, thousands of bishops and theologians over the centuries, and not just a few Church councils, know you are wrong. 

The Causes of Gun Violence in Schools

The logical causes of gun violence in schools... 

• Legalization of abortion.
• Removal of Judea-Christian moral instruction from schools (Prayer and Bible Study)
• Marginalization of Judea-Christian faith in homes 
• The unrestricted interpretation of the First Amendment that allows violence to be promoted by the entertainment industry to children. 
• Self-centered culture that celebrates victimhood and individual rights above the common good.

How legalizing abortion leads to school killings.

If we each out children that the lives of babies in the womb are unimportant then we teach our children that their lives and the lives of their peers are unimportant. To the national moral psyche, if killing a fetus is a moral right, then killing children must also be a moral right. 

How removing Judea-Christian moral instruction from homes and schools leads to school killings.

We teach children that civil law can be made and repealed at will by politicians. Therefore, civil laws are not universally truth.  But Judea-Christian moral laws are not subject to human interdiction and hold for all times and all places. Man has no control over God's judgement in this life or the next. Evil exists in the mind before it takes physical form, and it tries to persuade us that there are no such eternal and universal moral laws. So, killing becomes easy for there will be no judgement. But what is good and true teaches us there are eternal consequences to our thoughts and actions that are beyond civil laws.

Removing the Ten Commandments from schools and public places teaches children that there is no universal consequence to breaking the Ten Commandments. 

Removing prayer and Bible study from schools reminds us that there is no consequence beyond civil law and this life. 

Easter 2018 is April 1

In our twenties, Pam and I loved in an apartment in Nassau Bay, Texas, about 20 miles Southeast of Houston. 

I worked at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center for McDonnell Douglas as a Skylab checklist writer, systems engineer, and crew (astronauts) trainer. Halfway between our apartment and the gate to NASA was (and still is) Gloria Dei Lutheran Church (Mo Synod). Rev. Leo Symmank was the pastor then...and he still lives in the area, where he is mostly retired but occasionally fills pulpits around TX. The altar at the small Gloria Dei church was in the middle of six rows of chairs that encircled it, with the pulpit to one side. We liked Rev. Symmank and his ministry and although we were not Lutheran, we were involved with the church...we even taught Sunday School classes and unofficially were the Youth Group leaders which we called The Mustard Seed; the teens would come to our apartment for fun activities and Bible studies. 

Here's a letter I recently wrote to Rev. Symmank.

Dear Leo*,

Pam just told me that the Sunday you have longed to preach on is this EASTER. It’s April 1. 

I have told the story of you preaching on a Sunday at Gloria Dei in Nassau Bay, TX that was close to April 1 back in the 70s. It was Easter. Remember that?

You have to dig that sermon out and preach it again this year, record it and send it to us. Please. Please.  It was one of those sermons one never forgets.

As I recall it was the Easter Sunday of the Church picnic. You mounted the pulpit and began to preach. You said something like this.

Well, it’s a beautiful day outside. And today is the Church picnic. I can smell the casseroles sitting out in the hall way, plugged into the wall. So, I think we’ll just dispense with the sermon today and get out early and enjoy the picnic. You got down out of the pulpit….walked to the altar to pray over the Eucharistic elements…and then you suddenly stopped. Something was wrong. I still recall the look on your face. It was sheer delight and surprise. You raised your arms with a big smile on your face you yelled,  “APRIL FOOLS.”

You then DID preach a wonderful sermon about how when the women and apostles came to Christ’s tomb on Sunday the angel’s said to them, “April Fools. He’s not here. He is risen.” 

Preachers all over the world need to do that this Easter.

WOW! I’m going to pass the word and give you credit.

stan

Solanus Casey Beatification Metaphor

The Catholic Super Bowl at Detroit's Ford Field Stadium -  Est. 67,000.

Pam and I attended the Beatification Mass for Fr. Solanus Casey (November 18, 2017, 4PM-6PM) at Ford Field Stadium, Detroit. The miracle that prompted the gathering can be read about here: http://www.themichigancatholic.org/2017/11/50116/

We were invited by the Solanus Casey Center for whom we produced the children's documentary on Fr. Solanus. You can watch the documentary here: http://www.swcfilms.com/EXTRAORDINARY/index.html

It was an extraordinary event, to which we ferried in our van 11 older men and women from one of the parishes we attend. We eventually were allowed to drive up next to the ADA handicapped entrance to drop our passengers off (Gate G) and pick them up. The traffic required much patience, but we all got to our seats by 3 PM for the 4 PM Mass. It started right on time, with a glorious orchestra and choir. Being a critic of audio and visual presentations, and music I was impressed with the clarify of the sound and Jumbotron images. WithOUT my hearing aid I heard and saw everything clearly. (a minor miracle)

This morning I was moved to consider the visual metaphor we experienced. Inside the Ford Field stadium (a $500 million dollar project in 2002) there was order, security, warmth, worship, structure, beautiful music and light. That visual represents the Catholic Church bringing Jesus, hope, goodness, beauty and truth to the masses. Although the Free Press picture accompanying this post, shows only the field being illuminated, we could easily see everywhere, clear to the rafters. By my estimates 67,000 (97% full) filled the seats orderly, although it took a long time for everyone to get in their seats due to security and the cold rain...did I also mention that parking was a challenge. We sat with friends, John and Renee Mischel from Elk Rapids, MI...their daughter Grace was the host of our documentary EXTRAORDINARY. They were dropped off by relatives at Cobo Hall (miles away) where they took the Detroit People Mover to Grand Circus Park and then walked the 5 blocks to the stadium in the cold, wet rain. Miserable weather, and at 4 PM it was dark. So, what was outside the stadium (cold, rain, dark, near chaos of cars and people) represents the world in which the church is miraculously sustained and protected by the Holy Spirit.

Vatican Cardinal Amato incenses the altar and Fr. Solanus' image

The metaphoric contrast was striking on two levels. One level of dark, rainy chaos can be seen in the recent political climate (pun intended), but not because of politics, but because so many people hate the things God loves, and love the things God hates. Their persistent rebellion spits in the eye of Natural Law (God's Law) and bad stuff happens. Morally the church defends what is good, true and beautiful. But the recent political chaos has revealed that there are tens of thousands in our culture that defend what is bad, false and ugly--the cold, dark rain that greeted us as we left the security of the stadium and what the Catholic Church offers.

The second level is the confused chaos created by lack of Christian unity in the world. Jesus Christ prayed in John 17 for his followers to be one, SO THAT THE WORLD WOULD KNOW THAT GOD HAD SENT HIM. Implied in that phrase is the idea that if Christians weren't at each other's theological throats they might actually become salt and light to culture. Dang! What a concept. But because so many Christians have decided to self-interpret the Bible and ignore several critical passages (because it would shatter their invented theology), the generic Christian church is the laughing stock of the world. (e.g. Sola Scripture, faith alone, and the Eucharist (communion-as-symbol) are nowhere in the Bible, but the opposite teachings, in plain text, are.) THEREFORE, the salt is diluted and light is obscured, and we end up with a culture that celebrates racism, bigotry, killing babies, sexual freedom, pride, and twisting biological science. If the Protestors would put away their 20,000 variety of home made signs, battery powered megaphones, and stop beating the bottom of pails with sticks, claiming independent to interpret God's word to suit themselves, perhaps the world (at large) would recognize Jesus as the Light, Structure, Truth, Beauty, and Music of the world and peace might have a chance.

But until them...moral, physical and political chaos. Maranatha, Lord Jesus.

Sell the Church's Treasures and Give to the Poor?

The artistic treasurers of the church are formidable metaphors and similies of God and how much we value Him. They are visible and physical expression of God's grandeur and give visible representation of our worship to an invisible God. They illustrate the sacrifice that man is willing to go to for the sake of worshiping God.

The use of gold, jewels, and rich linens, and objet d'art all have a Biblical basis. Such ornateness was ordered by God to be created for His worship in the construction of the Israelite Temple. Through Moses, God asked for voluntary sacrifices of gold, silver, brass, blue, purple

scarlet and fine linen, onyx stones and jewels. All these materials were given to two artisans, Bezaleel and Aholiab, who the Bible says were given special gifts of God's spirit to create the physical and very rich beauty of the Sanctuary and Tabernacle. There are five long chapters dedicated to the detail of all they created for God's worship. (Exodus 35-39).

Aside from God's command to create and use expensive articles in his worship, there are practical reasons not to sell off and give the money to the poor.

1. The objects inspire us to think of God's grandeur, and the gifts he gives to men to create such beauty. Thus, the objects represent the divine nature that God has put in us, if we are willing to let that nature shine out in our lives and work.

2. To sell the objects, into private and secular collections would remove them from public view and destroy them. This would negate No. 1, but more seriously, be a sacrilege as the objects for the most part have been consecrated to God's worship. Recall the importance of consecration of objects of worship. When someone even touched the Ark of the Covenant unworthy, they were struck dead, instantly.

3. Giving the money to the poor would not cause the poor to be less poor in the long run. The poor are not poor simply because they have no money. Giving them money when they do not labor for it, does not change their ability not to be poor in the future. Money is finite and temporary.

4. People who come upon sudden influxes of cash, often fall into sin. Proverbs tells us that it is better to be poor and righteous than rich and fall away into evil. A text book example is the example of the people who win a lottery and fall into desperate times when the money is not conserved.

5. The creation of the art, it's maintenance, and the tourist attraction they create, provides employment for a great many people that would otherwise (without the work) be poor. This is not just true of the direct care of the objects but all the businesses and people they employed in the travel industry and the local economy.

A great example, although extreme, is the Gaudi Cathedral, otherwise known as Sagrada Familia, a basilica in Barcelona, Spain. The Cathedral's construction began in 1882, and is still being completed. The Catalan architect, Antoni Gaudi, designed a building that could not be completed until construction materials and technology were invented to build it.

The design and decor of the church defines imagination, especially in terms of practical need (on one hand), but is an elegant expression (although extreme baroque) of art on the other. 

The criticism heaped on this edifice is often this: "Rather than spend the millions of dollars on the edifice over the 130 years of its construction, think of the money that could have been given to the poor. What a vulgar waste." 

But this attitude ignores the fact that the action of building the structure kept and is keeping thousands of workers and their families out of poverty with wages. Further, the work gives to the whole community around it the dignity of work and creation regardless of the wages. 

Additionally, the presence of this structure today draws thousands of visitors on pilgrimages, which has created a huge influx of revenue into the area around it, and continues to employ many...giving them noble work and dignity. 

Also, the Church collects money in tithes for the poor and helps those that cannot work.

This structure and the works of art within it have lessened the poor, and not increased poverty in the region.

6. Finally, most of the Church's real treasurers are relics of undetermined wealth. These treasures have no value on the open market place. Yet, if sold, they would create a form of simony and avarice as the "faithful" scramble for the object's possession, like pagans fawning over idols. In the hands of the Church the relics become instead opportunities to worship and pray to God in the presence of a saint.

What is Reality

I've been in discussion with a friend on the essence of reality. Here's my contribution. 

There are many different concepts, embraced by astute men and women, of what “reality” is.

We might all agree that a granite rock is real, as are bananas and sharks. We may eat one while the latter may eat us, but they’re both real. We say they are real, and part of reality, because they are capable of being sensed by our five physical senses: sight, sound, taste, smell and touch. 

But there is another aspect of reality that we cannot see, hear, taste, smell or touch…and yet we sense it and we have a sense organ for this invisible thing. I speak of gravity, and we have a vestibular system in our inner ear that acts as a balance organ. It’s connected to your brain and works in conjunction with your eyes to sense which way is up and where things are located in space, which we also cannot see, hear, taste, smell or touch. We cannot see gravity, but we sense it, we cannot sense space, but we exist in it. So, both gravity and space are part also of reality.

There are other aspects of reality, however, that we encounter every day, too, that defy our five senses, and even our sixth sense of balance, but are very much part of human reality. One of those often mentioned is “love.” Another is “hate”. And there is “fear” and “hope.” We sense, in a physical way, the evidence of love and hate by the actions of others. A hand, per se, is not love or hate, but when the hand embraces or hits, we attribute the reality of love or hate to the hand and the person it’s attached to. In our mind, the anticipation of the embrace or hit is describe by “fear” and “hope.” And all of those emotions are part of our reality as humans. And because they are so hard at times to understand we may call them mystical, because they come from and go to places that cannot be, per se, physically identified.

Then there are concepts from our imagination that may or may not be part of what is physically real, but they are concepts that seem real to some people. Here we may speak of   things like “black holes” or “fairies.” Astronomers and astrophysicists believe black holes are part of our physical reality, while poets and storytellers may believe “fairies” are real, even though no one as seen either one outside of a person’s imagination or though the inference of scientific measurements. Whether they are physically real is one thing, although we can still make them part of our reality by drawing or animating them. 

John Lennon once said, “I believe in everything until it is disproved. So, I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it’s in your mind. Who’s to say that dreams and nightmares aren’t as real as the here and now?” Lennon makes a good case that “concepts” and “nonphysical” ideas are real and are part of reality, simply because they’re conceivable. 

As a counter argument to that, but it makes the same point, Albert Einstein, who may have believed in blackholes, said “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” Now, Einstein may have been trying to be funny and crack a joke. But what’s important is that persistence is much a part of our reality as is our imagination, insight, and those moments of epiphany that explain the interaction and juxtaposition of all these things that fill up what is real to us. 

And one last example. We may ask is a number “real?” Well, when we write it on a piece of paper, and we can see it, and manipulate it with other numbers we might say it is. But even in our mind as a concept, the number is still part of us, and it may motivate us to take one physical action or another. Mathematicians classify numbers as real, rational, integers, whole, natural and irrational numbers. To them, all of these rational, real, and irrational numbers are very real. And their existence has allowed us to explore space, and given physical means to actuaries who calculate the cost of your insurance policies. 

We could go on, but perhaps the point is now made—that reality consists of material things and immaterial concepts. Materialists may not feel emotionally safe by admitting this, but there are many immaterial things that affect and effect our material lives. But this short explanation may suffice that our five physical senses are very much effected by the immaterial. 

Therefore, REALITY IS THE SUM OR WHOLE of all these many material and immaterial things and concepts. All these things are part of the one essence that we call reality. We might say that the sum of all this is one thing. There is one reality, which is the sum of these many diverse parts. 

But how is it possible that all of these diverse things and concepts form a whole, a oneness, that work together and keep our feet on the ground, and for the most part allow humans to interact safety with each other and the universe. What keeps reality from falling apart, imploding, exploding or disintegrating? We might express the answer to that question by saying there are “natural laws” that superintend over reality that keep it together, that make it constantly whole and protect its oneness. 

But how do natural laws work and keep all this together as ONE reality? Where did the laws and rules come from?  Many people answer that question by turning to mysticism, otherwise known as religion. I’m not sure what atheists call it, but theists and Jews and Christians (and may be Muslims) call the source and the power that keeps all this together by the common concept God. Such a God Force must be beyond the material and immaterial things that he controls. The philosophers among us would say that such a “force of nature” (or God) is so far beyond all that we call reality, that REALITY is simply part of God’s imagination. Or, in popular terms, we are part of God’s Matrix.  Somehow, mystically or mysteriously, a Supreme Being holds all of these diverse things together in a working whole. The sum of all reality is one. And while reality may be just the figment of the One’s imagination, it still is.

In Exodus 3 (of the Jewish and Christian Bible) when Moses asks God’s name, God answers, "I Am who I Am.” This is perhaps the most famous passage in the Bible. Linguistic scholars say it is a phrase that defies tense, or time. It is indeed mysterious, as was the story that transpired after Moses and God has this conversation in front of a bush that burned but was not consumed in the flames. The burning bush was part of Moses’ reality, as was the disembodied voice or thoughts that allowed Moses to record the conversation. And surely the 10 plagues that God cast over Egypt in an effort to free the Israelites, should have confirmed in the reality of Pharaoh, Moses and all the people of that time and place, that I AM WHO I AM has power over all reality….and thus demands a relationship of us with Him, as mysterious as that may be. 

It is in this way that reality is one, that we are part of it, and we have a relationship with the Supreme Being that controls it. 

Get over it.

END OF LINE

stan