The video at the bottom of the post is a remarkable 3-D video of a baby yawning in the womb. I was struck at how, while watching it, I began to yawn as well.
I want to say, that yawning is a very deep mystery. I have never heard an explanation for yawning that sounded very convincing. Frankly, honest medical people will shrug and say, no one really knows why we yawn, or why the practice is so catchy. It does seem related to fatigue but not every who is tired yawns.
“Explanations” abound. Hippocrates thought that yawning was to rid the lungs “bad air,” and bring in fresh air. Other have thought it helped get more blood to the brain. Still others hold that yawning helps increase blood oxygen levels and decrease carbon dioxide. But tests don’t really confirm these sorts of things. Put a person in a room with high CO2 and they don’t start yawning. And that surely doesn’t explain why babies who breathe water would yawn in the womb.
Some think yawning helps keep us awake, others think it helps relax us. Some say it helps regulate body temperature. But again tests such using EEGs to monitor brain activity, or taking temperature just don’t confirm this.
Still others think the behavior is related to imitation, empathy and social bonding behavior. But if that is so why do babies alone in the womb yawn? And why do most vertebrate animals, many of which exhibit little social bonding. yawn?
So you see, one of the most common human behaviors is deeply mysterious. We just don’t know why we yawn, or why the behavior is contagious. It is one of life’s imponderables.
One day we will have to ask God. Another mystery to ponder, do Jesus and Mary in their glorified bodies in heaven yawn? Yes, one day all will be reveled. For now, live the mystery and humbly accept a very humbling truth: no one knows why we yawn.
I tell you, I’ve been yawning all through typing this!
Just two little words in a carefully written text of the Second Vatican Council carry tremendous significance in terms of the emphasis that text was meant to convey. Two little words, so easily overlooked, add urgency to the task for evangelization, and usher in a reminder of why the task of the Church in announcing Jesus Christ is so critical.
What are these words? Simply these:
“But often….”
Perhaps you are less than amazed and wonder what they could have to do with evangelization, let alone urgency. These words occur in a critical text of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium # 16, which is often misunderstood to teach that just about everyone will be saved, baptized or not. Yet these two little words (“But often”) and the three sentences that follow set forth a critical interpretive key that is often wholly ignored by many who hold an expansive and universalist notion of salvation.
Let’s see the whole of Lumen Gentium 16 and see why these two words (which I bold in the text below) are so important:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Savior wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (LG # 16)
Clearly, the text expansively sets forth a case for God’s goodness and His desire to save all people. He will regard the good will of those who, through invincible ignorance, do not come to explicit confession of Jesus. And, presuming they are sincerely seeking God and striving to live according to the dictates of conscience, God can indeed save them.
But while such a scenario is certainly possible, we ought not presume it is widespread, or even necessarily common. And, the Lumen Gentium text does NOT in fact presume that.
And this is where our two little words are critical. For having set forth the possibility of salvation apart from explicit confession of Jesus and baptism, the text then states with proper and biblical sobriety:
BUT OFTEN men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.
The majority of this sentence is a direct quote from St. Paul to the Romans who speaks more fully of the problem of human sinfulness and rebellion and how it leads many to reject God. Paul speaks of:
…the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23)
“Often” lacking! With this Romans text in mind, Lumen Gentium, while acknowledging Gods goodness and desire to save all, states that, “often” the necessary ingredients for this anonymous Christianity, or implicit baptism of desire, are lacking. Thus the Council goes on to urge and exhort: Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
Sadly these two little words “but often” are brushed aside by many, if not most today who hold an opinion that almost everyone will be saved and go to heaven. Never mind that this view is almost wholly opposed to massive Biblical evidence, most of it right from the mouth of Jesus Christ, who rather consistently and vividly teaches that salvation is more difficult that most of us moderns assume, going so far as to say that “many” are lost and “few” are saved (e.g. Matt 7:14).
Of course all of this non-biblical thinking and misunderstanding of Lumen Gentium has devastated evangelization, both at the worldwide level, and even more so in the home and family. Most are very blase’ about urging the faith on children, siblings and friends. Most are lukewarm in their own reception of the sacraments and the living of the faith.
I want to hand the conversation over to Ralph Martin at this point. For I am here summarizing a central point he makes in his important book: Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches. I have reviewed the book more thoroughly HERE.
Please read this book, it is absolutely essential reading for every Catholic, especially clergy and parents.
In this brief video interview Ralph Martin sets forth the basic points of his book, and among the points he mentions are those two critical words “But often.”
Currently in the Liturgies of daily Mass we have been reading the Book of Revelation. It is commonly read at the end of the liturgical year, for it bespeaks the end of, and passing qualities of all things of this world.
It is also a book of glory, depicting the ultimate victory of our Lord Jesus Christ, after a great period of conflict between the doomed kingdom of this world, and the victorious Kingdom of Christ. In this context the Book of Revelation is not a mere tour guide to the last days, but is a book of glory reminding us that Christ has the total victory already wrapped up.
I would like in this post to present a view of the Book of Revelation that, while a minority opinion, I think better articulates the original context of the Book of Revelation and provides important interpretive keys to understanding its fundamental message.
The Majority of modern scholars place the date of the composition of the Book of Revelation between 90-110 AD. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the testimony of several Fathers of the Church. Irenaeus places the work at 96 AD. Victorinus places the writing in the context of the persecution of Domitian, and indicates it was thus that John was imprisoned on Patmos. Jerome and Eusebius say the same. This date of composition (90-110) also flows well with modern theories of biblical dating which tend to favor later dates as a general rule.
The Minority view places the date of composition before 70 AD, during the persecution of Nero. (This was the first and to that time, the worst persecution of the Church in the First Century). Although this view is clearly in the minority, it is gaining adherents.
Of course we might wonder if such an early date does not offend against the testimony of the Fathers of the Church just mentioned. But not, the most significant Father to attest to a mid-nineties date is Irenaeus. It is on him that most other Father’s based their conclusion. But it must be said, that in terms of dating, Ireneus is a bit unreliable. For example, he argues that Jesus was 50 when he was crucified. Thus, though Irenaeus gives us a lot of good biblical insight, he is less reliable for testimony referencing dates and time frames. Likewise, the grammar of the Greek sentence wherein Ireneus states the date of 96 AD is unclear. It can be translated two ways:
1- “John had this vision, near the end of his life, during the reign of Domitian” or 2- “John had this vision and lived on to the reign of Domitian“
Thus the minority opinion does not disregard the testimony of the Fathers, but it is understood by these scholars as more vague.
An additional and more central reason for leaning to the earlier date of prior to 70 AD, is that it gives a clearer account of the context for the persecutions being endured by the Christians that flows more from the actual biblical data, wherein the persecution derives more from fellow Jews, than from Romans alone.
Thus, these “minority” scholars seek to integrate the Book of Revelation within the same conflict of other New Testament books such as Acts and the Epistles, namely a dispute between Christians and their Jewish opponents, who then engage the Roman officials for redress, rather than to set Revelation as a conflict merely between Christians and pagan Rome.
To state again, the common modern and majority view is that the context of this book is the persecution against Christians by Domitian (Emperor from 81-96 AD) and the Roman Empire which he headed. John has been arrested and exiled to the Island of Patmos. Thus, the chief context for the majority view is the antagonism of the Roman Empire seeking to force Christians to emperor worship and apostasy from the Christian faith in the one true God. Further, the harlot city is defined in this point of view as Rome.
But the minority view holds that the primary antagonist is not Rome alone, but is a more complex reality of Jews and Romans in concert together against the early Christians.
Recall how Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate and the Romans. But, this was also due to the provocation of fellow Jews against Jesus. Peter and John, likewise Paul all suffered from the same collusion of fellow Jews who incited the concern and hostility of Roman officials. The general context of the early New Testament period is that fellow Jews, who did not accept Christ, stirred up trouble for the early Church and provoked the Roman authorities to arrest, punish and even put to death early Christians.
The minority position sees this as the primary historical context of the persecutions described in the Book of Revelation.
Recall too that the Book of Revelation presents the primary antagonist as a horrible Red Dragon. He is clearly the devil. But this Red Dragon gives birth to two beasts which antagonize the Church. This is the double threat experienced by the early Christians.
Historically, at the early stages, Roman authorities were generally indifferent to Christian teachings. However, when Jews, who rejected Christ, entered into open conflict with Christians, they did so in such a way as to involve, often unwillingly, Roman officials. Once provoked, these officials would often be fair, but could also be ruthless.
Later in the Book of Revelation, the double enemy against the Christians is described as a twofold threat, as a “beast” and a “harlot.” The minority view holds that the “harlot city” is really Jerusalem, not Rome.
“Jerusalem” here symbolizes Jews, but not all Jews. Remember that many Jews did in fact become Christians. “Jerusalem” here is understood as those Jews who emphatically rejected the Messiah. It especially represents the leadership centered in the Temple.
Thus the city that is destroyed in the Book of Revelation is, in fact, Jerusalem.
Now, this corresponds to what happened historically in 70 AD to Jerusalem. And thus, the minority view holds that the Book of Revelation dates from the period before 70 AD.
The year 70 was a crucial year for the city of Jerusalem, for it was that year that the war with the Romans was concluded. In this year, Jerusalem was sacked and burned and the Temple destroyed. Not one stone was left on another and the whole area (except for a few dwellings on Mt. Zion) was abandoned. Survivors were carried into slavery or killed. The destruction and abandonment was total and 1.2 million Jews lost their lives, according to Josephus, the Jewish historian.
So, the minority view holds that the book of Revelation was a prophecy of these events and actually served to warn the Christians of the signs that would precede the destruction that they flee before Jerusalem’s doom was sealed. Thus, the historical context of the Book of Revelation is the persecution of Christians by unbelieving Jews in partnership with Roman officials, and the subsequent destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Lord in Judgment of Israel’s unbelief and persecution of those who did believe.
Although it is a minority view, it is growing in acceptance and, I would argue is compelling for the following reasons:
I. It links the Book of Revelation to the “mini-Apocalypse” which has a clear context: the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. It also links it to similar prophecies of Christ in the Gospels, most notably the Mount Olivet Discourse: For example, (Mat 24:1-44):
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. {2} But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.” {3} As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” {4} And Jesus answered them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. {5} For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. {6} And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. {7} For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: {8} all this is but the beginning of the birth-pangs. {9} “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. {10} And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. {11} And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. {12} And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold. {13} But he who endures to the end will be saved. {14} And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. {15} “So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), {16} then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; {17} let him who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house; {18} and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. {19} And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! {20} Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. {21} For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. {22} And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. {23} Then if any one says to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. {24} For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. {25} Lo, I have told you beforehand. {26} So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. {27} For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. {28} Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. {29} “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; {30} then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; {31} and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. {32} “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. {33} So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. {34} Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. {35} Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. {36} “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. {37} As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. {38} For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, {39} and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man. {40} Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. {41} Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. {42} Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. {43} But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. {44} Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.
Note the similarities in passage like this to the prophecies of Revelation. Note too that the context of the Mount Olivet Discourse is the destruction of the Temple and the signs that precede it, not the destruction of Rome or of the world.
Indeed there are striking parallels in the details of Revelation and the Mount Olivet discourse wherein our Lord proclaimed the imminent destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The parallels are too numerous to detail here, But I have put them in column form here: The Fourth Apocalypse. But in effect, there are many who argue that the Book of Revelation is the Mount Olivet discourse, missing in John’s Gospel but theologically set forth in his second work: The Book of Revelation. And thus its content corresponds to the context of the Mt Olivet discourse, namely, the Destruction of Jerusalem, not Rome.
II. It links the Book of Revelation to prophetic books of the Old Testament and maintains their historical meaning and focus. Most of the Book of Revelation is drawn directly from Old Testament Prophets such as Joel, Daniel and Ezekiel. Since this is done, it is important to learn what their historical context and concerns were.
Most of the O.T. sources from which John and the Holy Spirit draw, have the historical context of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple which took place in 587 BC. If that was the original context of the texts from which John borrows, then it is strongly probable that John is saying, what happened then (in 587 BC) will happen again unless there is Jewish repentance and faith. This is what the passages meant in the Old Testament time and now John borrows them for the current time of 70 AD, wherein the Temple and Jerusalem were prophesied by Jesus to be destroyed again.
Thus parallel events are being described and point to the context in which John writes. The minority view fits nicely with this historical perspective.
III. It maintains the tradition of prophets in terms of the use of the word “harlot”. In the Old Testament, Jerusalem, and the people of Israel are called the “harlot” since they have committed adultery, forsaken the Lord, and are sleeping with false gods. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Rome or any pagan city called a harlot. But Jerusalem repeatedly is.
Thus again it seems unlikely that Revelations would depart so suddenly and steeply from a biblical tradition and assign the title “harlot” to the pagan city, Rome, rather than to its traditional referent in the prophetic school: Jerusalem. Here are some examples of the use of the word from the prophets:
1.(Isa 1:20-21) But if you refuse and rebel [O, Israel], you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” {21} How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.
2.(Jer 2:19-20) Your wickedness will chasten you, and your apostasy will reprove you. Know and see that it is evil and bitter for you to forsake the LORD your God; the fear of me is not in you, says the Lord GOD of hosts. {20} “For long ago you broke your yoke and burst your bonds; and you said, ‘I will not serve.’ Yea, upon every high hill and under every green tree you bowed down as a harlot.
3.(Ezek 23:28-30) For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will deliver you into the hands of those whom you hate, into the hands of those from whom you turned in disgust; {29} and they shall deal with you in hatred, and take away all the fruit of your labor, and leave you naked and bare, and the nakedness of your harlotry shall be uncovered. Your lewdness and your harlotry {30} have brought this upon you, because you played the harlot with the nations, and polluted yourself with their idols.
IV. It also fits with the most direct references as to the identity of the persecutors in the Book of Revelation. In Revelation 2 & 3 there is reference to a “synagogue of Satan” and that they consider themselves Jews. Romans would surely not have considered themselves Jews. Hence, we ought to take the text at face value: the primary persecutors are Jews. But the persecutor is not Jews alone, but also the Gentiles, responding to the complaints of Jews against the Christians. ( Thus the enemy is also identified as Caesar Nero: Here are a couple of texts that describe the persecutors of the Christians in very Jewish terms:
1.(Rev 2:8-9) And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. {9} “‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not2, but are a synagogue of Satan.
2.(Rev 3:9) Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie — behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you.
V. The Minority opinion also takes the clearest identity of the “harlot city” at face value and corresponds to it more exactly. In Revelation 11 the harlot city is identified as Jerusalem (not Rome):
(Rev 11:8) …and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.
Thus the city is Jerusalem, not Rome as is presupposed by the majority opinion. The city described as the place where their Lord was crucified can be no other place than Jerusalem.
VI. 666= Nero not Domitian. – The famous text identifying the “beast” as having a name that corresponds to the number “666” dates Revelation to 54-68 (Nero’s reign) not Domitian (81-96). Note the texts:
(Rev 13:18) This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.
There is little dispute today that “666” is a clear reference to Nero. But why would Nero be referenced in a persecution taking place near 90 AD under the reign of Domitian? Thus the minority view of Revelation as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (not Rome) in 70 AD seems more plausible.
VII. It will be noted that there are two beasts described in Revelation 13, one from “the land” and one from “the sea.”Hence there are two adversaries: Unbelieving Jews (The beast from the Land, for Land = “Promised Land”) and Rome (the beast from the Sea, for “Sea” is a common symbol of the Gentiles).
Both of these beasts emerged from a “red dragon” that has 7 heads (there were 7 Herods) and ten horns (there were ten Caesars who interacted with the 7 Herods). Thus a complex, double-enemy seems to be described.
These two beasts, both coming from the Red Dragon, seem to comport well with the data of the Book of Revelation and the Historical context of the time leading up to 70 AD wherein the two enemies who conspire against the early Church. Ultimately, as the Book of Revelation also describes, these two beasts turn on one another, and the harlot is destroyed.
This historically happened: In Revelation (Rev 17ff) The complex, two-fold enemy is described as a beast, and a harlot. The harlot city rides upon the beast. The beast later turns and devours the harlot with fire and total destruction. This in fact happened when Rome (which had a partnership with Jerusalem through the Herodian dynasty) turned against Jerusalem and totally destroyed her by fire, killing 1.2 million Jews.
Thus the Book of Revelation seems to describe an enemy of the early Christians that is a complex combination of two enemies who conspire against the early Church, and later turn on each other. This was historically the fact at the time of 70 AD when the Jews and Rome went to war against one another.
VIII. It flows well from the fuller context of the New Testament. through the bulk of the New Testament the antagonists are fellow Jews who do not accept Christ as the Messiah It is they who involve Roman authorities in exacting punishment on Christians. Those these Roman officials are often hesitant to become involved, though they are not thereby absolved of responsibility any more than Pilate can be absolved for his actions. Notice the consistent Biblical context of the double enemy face by Christians:
1.It was fellow Jews who handed Jesus over. In particular it was fellow Jews who had much invested in the Temple and its rituals who were most threatened by him who handed him over. Pilate, though unjust in his final action, was reluctant and it was only when He perceived that the Jewish leaders would lead a riot that he relented and had Jesus put to death.
2.In the Acts of the Apostles, it is always fellow Jews who attack and pursue Paul. The Romans, far from being Paul’s enemy are in fact his protectors on more than a few occasions. Even when he Romans do arrest Paul it is once again due to the insistence of fellow Jews and the threat of civil unrest it Roman officials did not comply. Again, the final arrest of Paul centered on a perceived defilement of the Temple that he supposedly committed. This was not in fact the case but was the pretext by which the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem handed him over.
3.In the Epistles of Paul, once again, it is fellow Jews and Judaizers (So-called Christians who wanted to bring the whole Jewish ceremonial law into the Church and make it binding on all Christians) who are the real enemies. Paul does not preach social unrest against Roman authority (Nor did Jesus). In fact, Paul counsels respect for authority and prayers for all in authority. Likewise, Jesus strongly resists any attempts to draw him into political zealotry and any conception of the Messiah that would understand him as military savior.
4.None of this is to render the New Testament anti Semitic. Remember, most of the early converts were Jews. Jewish Christians made up a sizable percentage of the early Church. The question here is not ethnic hatred but of a clear distinction between those who would accept Jesus as Lord and those who would not. The division was not some mere intellectual debate. It was a volatile clash between absolutely different understanding of the basic questions, who is God? Who is supreme? Who is to be worshiped?
5.It therefore seems unlikely and unusual that, very suddenly, the context changes radically in the final book of the New Testament. All along, the context was of the passing away of the Old Order of the Law and the Temple and the passionate fear and hatred that this caused. It seems more likely that the final book of the Bible would prophesy the conclusion to this clash.
IX. It takes the use of the word “soon” that is often used in the Book of Revelation more at face value. Throughout the Book of Revelation the temporal expectation that the events it describes are to take place “soon.” For example:
1.(Rev 1:1 ) The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must SOON take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2.(Rev 1:3 ) Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the TIME IS NEAR.
3.(Rev 2:5 ) [To the church at Ephesus] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
4.(Rev 2:16 ) Repent then. If not, I will come to you SOON and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
5.(Rev 3:11 ) I am coming SOON; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.
6.(Rev 22:12 ) Behold, I am coming SOON, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.
7.(Rev 22:20 ) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming SOON.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Now, it is true, “soon” can be understood from God’s perspective, a perspective that sees a watch in the night (4 hours) as equivalent to “a thousand years.” But we ought not dismiss that the “soon” referenced here might also have had a more denotative meaning and meant that, as Jesus said in the Mount Olivet discourse “There are some standing here today, who will not taste death until they see all these things take place.” For the early Christians “soon” may well have meant 70 AD, rather than the 90+ AD that many moderns presume.
X. If Rome is the harlot city, as the majority opinion presumes, there is a problem in that it was never destroyed. It was sacked many centuries after Biblical times (in the late 4th and early 5th Centuries AD), but it was never burned or destroyed as depicted in Revelation. Jerusalem however was destroyed and burned in 70 AD and thereby correspondent to the prophecies of the Book of Revelation (e.g. Rev 18:18 inter al).
Hence, for these reasons, and other reasons not set forth here, The “minority” view seems quite plausible. Namely, that the Book of Revelation is describing the clash between Jews and Christians (which drew in the Romans) and caused the persecutions against the Church which is described in Revelation. It is not merely a book describing Roman persecutions.
Further, the context of just prior to 70 AD, under Nero seems more plausible, (that the context of 90 AD under Domitian). And the war-like and apocryphal events described are those that lead up to the destruction of the Temple and the full establishment of the Church, as the new locus of the worship of God. Here is the more likely and immediate context of the Book of Revelation.
This does not mean that there is no value in the majority opinion, (namely that the beast (Harlot) is Rome and the context is a Roman persecution of the Church). Since this is the majority view it would be wrong to simply dismiss that view. Hence, what I have presented here is still described as the minority view.
But I have come to appreciate that the minority view enables us to have a far richer understanding of the Book of Revelation, since it sees the Book of Revelation as a part of the whole Bible rather than as merely an apocalyptic work that radically stands apart from the other biblical views.
Consider well the possibilities of the minority view of Revelation. Fundamentally this view roots the Book more solidly in the rest of Biblical tradition, and maintains the focus on the biblical city of Jerusalem and the context of faith, rather than the pagan city of Rome to which the early Church looked with evangelical mission and open doors, rather than with the polemical disdain and gleefully expectant destruction presumed by the majority view.
Surely, as with any minority view, as you ponder it, you may be troubled by the fact that it unsettles what seems more familiar. But I have come to see that it comports better with the actual data of the Book of Revelation. How say you?
************
By the way, David Chilton has written quite thoroughly of this “preterist” theory of the Book of Revelation here: Days of Vengeance
************
More is info is also available: HERE
************
At the end of this dreadful day of shopping so aptly named “Black Friday” I propose an image for the kingdom. As I reflect I realize I will sound like a man (Which I am). For it remains true that most men absolutely hate shopping (unless the shopping involves electronic devices or sports gear).
For most men the dreadful reality of shopping seems an image for the drudgery of this world, a world shouting to us like some huckster, demanding our attention, time and, most of all, our money. The hectic running about only to wait in line, the mad rush to acquire financed by the foolishness of debt, and none of it ultimately very satisfying. Shopping, a little taste of hell.
This is all well depicted in the commercial below. And, silly though the commercial is, it does to point to things that ultimately satisfy more: food, fellowship and fun. The men in the scene slip away from the mind-numbing tedium of shopping to a little “hush harbor” that celebrates life simpler pleasures: Good food, good friends, and a good fun.
I wonder if this isn’t an image for the Kingdom. One of the biblical images for the Kingdom from the Road to Emmaus is: walking, talking and dining. Jesus was quite famous for his table fellowship. He was often found dining and enjoying company, sometimes in questionable company! He several times used the image of a banquet to describe the Kingdom (e.g. Luke 14:15ff; Luke 22:29ff inter al).
And of course the Mass, our great foretaste of the Kingdom of heaven is set in the context of a sacred and sacrificial meal. In way, the Lord says to us each Sunday, “Come aside and rest awhile. Cease acquiring and enjoy what you have….The most important things in life aren’t things….come rest, eat, enjoy company, celebrate life’s simpler joys.”
Well I know you may think I draw far too much from this commercial. You may even consider me irreverent for seeing the Kingdom in a beer commercial. But bear with me my friends and have mercy. Black Friday is a pretty awful spectacle (especially for a typical man like me who so hates shopping). In fact, Black Friday is just awful enough to make a beer commercial seem like a step up closer to the Kingdom. Just sayin….
Now be of good cheer and realize that I write all this in something of a light-hearted manner. Do not debate me. Laugh with me, and jab back if you wish – light-heartedly of course.
My Father used to love Thanksgiving. It was for him the one one holiday that was not corrupted by silly sales, and endless machinations of marketers. It was just a time when family gathered, stores were closed and there wasn’t much the marketers could do to mess with our minds.
But as you know, the “sanctuary” of Thanksgiving, has been steadily eroded in the past ten years with the depressing and even tragic spectacle of “Black Friday.” What an awful thing it has become in recent years to see people lining up through the middle of the night to stampede into stores. Not only are there terse interactions, but also physical altercations, even a few deaths a couple years back as a stampede occurred (as I recall for some stupid doll that was the rage that year).
This year the erosion of Thanksgiving took a major chunk of territory as many stores announced that they would open on the evening of Thanksgiving. A sadly, for many shoppers who seem to suffer from some definite signs of addiction, this means Thanksgiving is all but gone since they feel compelled to stand in line for hours to be among the first to make the hideous rush into the store for some miserable gadget. It is a sad spectacle, so very sad.
I expect someone to write in her defending the practice and announcing that some very good deals are to be had. But honestly, is it worth it to see a decent holiday eroded by this? And I wonder too how standing in line for six hours to save a few bucks is really saving anything at all. For me, time is very valuable, time with family is valuable, yes time is precious. I dunno, called unsold on the “deals” that are available.
Black Friday got its name because this was the weekend when many retailers finally saw the ink on their ledgers go from red (deficit) to black (profit). But Black Friday is now earning a new reputation as it manifests the darker side our our nature.
Mind you, I am not calling for some new “law” and for government to “do something.” Marketers are free to open their establishments and people are free to shop as they please.
But I share a memory in my Father’s honor (may he rest in peace), that, once upon a time there was a holiday in America that was uncommercialized, a holiday that was just about family, and gratitude, just about simple togetherness. Yes, once upon a time, in an America increasingly far, far away.
On this feast of Thanksgiving (here in America) we do well to ponder how we ought to give thanks to God. Indeed, how can one adequately thank God who is the giver of every good and perfect gift? Is it really enough to simply kneel and say a prayer of thanks? Perhaps we should run to Church and light a candle, or visit some distant shrine? Perhaps even doing the “Snoopy dance” as we say over and over, Thank you thank you thank you” ?!
But none of these acts of thanksgiving would prove adequate. God has been too good, has done too much, and is, after all, God.
Indeed, a great question went up in the Old Testament regarding this very problem of adequately thanking God. It occurs in Psalm 116 wherein the psalmist plaintively asks
“What return can I ever make to the Lord for all the good he is done for me?” (Psalm 116:12)
To that point the Jewish people had been accustomed to killing thousands of animals every day and burning them up in the Temple in order to give thanks, and to atone for sin. But the blood of animals cannot atone for sin and neither can slaying even many thousands of them really give adequate thanks to God.
And thus the same psalm not only asked the question, but it gives the answer:
What return can I ever make to the Lord, for all the good he is done for me? The cup salvation I will take up, I will call on the name of the Lord! (Psalm 116:12-13)
And yet, in supplying this answer, the actual raising of the cup of salvation could only be pointed to in the Old Testament, it could not be done. The lifting up of the cup of salvation and the giving of adequate thanks could, and would only be done by Jesus.
And this brings us to the first Thanksgiving meal. No, we are not in Plymouth Massachusetts in the 1620s. We are at the first, the true, and the only Thanksgiving Meal that can ever really render adequate thanks to the Father. And that meal is in the upper room, at the Last Supper that Jesus had with his disciples. We are told that he took the bread bread, and having given thanks, he blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, “Take this all of you in eat of it, for this is my Body.” And likewise after the meal, he took the cup, and he gave thanks, and giving it to his disciples he said, “Take this all of you and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the New and eternal Covenant which will be poured out for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.” He adds, “Do this in memory of me.”
Yes, this is true and the first Thanksgiving meal. Jesus alone is able to fulfill Psalm 116, and taking the cup, the chalice, he lifts it up and give thanks to God adequately for all the good he’s done. He fulfills the Scripture and gives adequate thanks.
You and I can never give adequate thanks to the Father, but we do have a member of our family who is so able, he is our Brother and he is our Lord, he is Jesus Christ.
At Thanksgiving, how can you and I give adequate thanks to the Lord? The answer is not on some far-off distant mountaintop, it is as near as our parish church. We give adequate thanks to the Father by joining our meager thanksgiving, to the perfect Thanksgiving of Jesus in every Mass. We, as members of his Body, and he is the Head of his Body the Church at every mass fulfill Psalm 116 wherein we, through Jesus our head take the cup salvation and call on the name of the Lord. Joining our meager thanks to that of Jesus, the Father is perfectly glorified, and perfectly thanked. The Mass is the perfect Thanksgiving, it was is and remains for us our perfect Thanksgiving meal and sacrifice.
Hidden Mass? It is interesting that in one of the Gospels picked for the Mass of Thanksgiving, we have the gospel of the 10 lepers. And you may have noticed, but perhaps not, that the whole gospel, which is a gospel about giving thanks, indeed this whole gospel has the form of a mass. For there are lepers who gather, just as we lepers gather at every Mass. And as they are gathered, Jesus is in their midst, Jesus is passing by. It is just as Jesus acting through the person of the priest walks the aisle of our church. And seeing Jesus, the lepers cry out “Lord have mercy!” just as we cry out in every Mass: “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.” And Jesus, turning, gives them a word, quoting from Leviticus 13:2 “Go show yourselves to the priests.” We too are given a word from the Lord at every Mass. Jesus, homily to the lepers was a brief one, in effect, “Go do with this reading says.” And at the end of the day, that is a pretty good summary of what every sermon should be, as Jesus speaking through our clergy says to us, in effect, “Go do what this reading says.” One of the lepers, realizing he has been healed by this word false to his knees to give thanks. And so do we fall to our knees to give thanks in the great Eucharistic prayer. And the word “Eucharist” is from the Greek meaning to “give thanks.” Jesus then bids that the man that to go, saying that his faith and his act of thanksgiving have saved him. Thus we are told by the priest or deacon at the end of the mass to go and announce salvation to the world.
Yes, this gospel about giving thanks is in the very form of the Mass. And it is no mistake for the Mass is the perfect act of Thanksgiving wherein we are joined to Jesus in the one in perfect act of praise and thanksgiving.
Just a brief thought on Thanksgiving day. How shall we adequately thank God, for all the good he is done? You know the answer, go to Mass, join with Jesus in the only adequate way of really thanking the Father.
Here’s a nice old prayer. But the Mass is even better:
Yesterday on the blog we pondered that Mass attendance has held steady for Catholics at around 25% for at least a decade now and that there is a lot of coming and going in the number. So it is helpful to understand that things may be currently more stable than many of us presume.
That said, as a Catholic and a priest I remain quite stunned at the decline in Mass attendance during my overall lifetime. When I was a little child I remember jam packed Masses, get there early or stand. In those days of the early to mid sixties if you put up four walls Catholics would fill them. There were waiting lists for the parochial School, lots of Religious Sisters, and there was not just an associate pastor or curate, there was a first, second, third and fourth curate.
But this is largely gone. Yes, as we saw yesterday in the comments there are still some large parishes in suburban areas, and some are even growing. But overall in my lifetime, weekly Mass attendance has gone from 75-80% to 25% Vocations are beginning to rebound but the usual experience these days is empty convents and largely empty rectories. An Associate Pastor is unknown in many parishes and in some parts of the country even a resident pastor is often missing.
There is no other way to describe this than “stunning.” And I can hear all the usual arguments about why swimming in my brain. We abandoned tradition! No! Say others, we are not progressive enough!…..There are too many rules! No, say others our problem is that we abandoned all the rules!….I could go on. Everyone has their human explanations and there are lots of disagreements about them.
But what might God be doing or allowing? Now I know I am on difficult ground in attempting to ponder this question. But please be sure, I am merely pondering it, not proposing a complete answer. But I have often asked the Lord, “What’s up with the Church?….What has happened Lord?” I do not claim a bolt from heaven came in answer but just a gradual and increasing awareness that what we are experiencing is not really new. There does seem to be a Biblical precedent that, in the past, God has frequently seen fit to thin his ranks, to prune and purify his people.
Remnant Theology – In the Old Testament as well as the New, there seems to be a kind of “remnant theology” at work. That is to say, of the many followers of God, many if not most fall away, and only a small remnant remain to begin again. Perhaps some examples from Scripture will help:
There were Twelve Tribes in Israel. But ten of them were lost in the Assyrian Conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC. The Prophets had warned the Northern Kingdom of its wickedness but a refusal to repent brought the destruction promised. Those who did not die in the war were deported and disappeared by assimilating into the peoples around then. They are known as the Ten Lost tribes of Israel. Only a remnant, the Tribes of Judah and Levi survived in the Southern Kingdom of Judah.
A remnant of Judah – Judah too, grew wicked and prophets warned of destruction. The Babylonians then destroyed Judah, and Jerusalem with it, in 587 BC. They deported the survivors to Babylon. Eighty years later the Persians conquered the Babylonians and allowed the Jewish people to return to the Promised Land. But only a remnant went back, most chose to stay in the Diaspora, preferring Babylon to the Land promised by God.
Gideon had an army of 30,000 and faced the Midianites who had 60,000. But God said to him, “Your Army is too large. Tell the cowards to go home.” So Gideon told the soldiers who didn’t think they were up for this battle that they could leave. 20,000 left. Now with only 10,000 God said to Gideon, “Your army is still too large, lest you think you would win this battle on your own.” So God had Gideon observe the men at the stream as they drank water. Some drank leisurely and others lapped up the water like dogs! “That’s your army,” said the Lord, “300 men and I will be with you.” Gideon won that day with three hundred men whom the Lord had chosen. God thinned his ranks, and chose only a remnant as his true soldiers. (cf Judges 6 & 7)
Jesus too didn’t seem to trust big crowds. Some of his most difficult sayings come when there is a “large crowd.” In fact, anytime you see a mention of a large crowd in the Gospels, fasten your seat belt, because it is a practical guarantee that a hard saying is coming! Once when there was a large crowd, Jesus taught against divorce (Matt 5 & 19, Mark 10). Another time spoke to crowds and declared that no one could be his disciple unless they renounced their possessions took up a cross and followed him (e.g. Luke 14). Yet another time Jesus taught on the Eucharist and many left him and would no longer walk in his company (Jn 6).
These are just a few examples of remnant theology in the Scriptures. There are many more. I would like to quote one last one from Zechariah because it also gets to the root of what God may be doing in our times, if my hunch is right. First the quote:
“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!” declares the LORD Almighty. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones. In the whole land,” declares the LORD, “two-thirds will be struck down and perish; yet one-third will be left in it. This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.‘ ” (Zech 13:6-9)
A stunning passage to be sure. But it also show the purpose of God thinning his ranks. There is something very mysterious as to why God allows many to stray. And yet it is true that we are free to stay or go. There seem to be times in the History of the Church and Israel that God allows many to depart, even “causes” them to depart as this passage describes it. It is a hard mystery to stomach. But I suppose I understand one aspect of it.
Image of why – It is currently pruning time here in the Northeast. My mighty rose bushes, eight feet tall have been pruned to one foot off the ground. And I did it on purpose! But if my roses are to thrive next year and be beautiful, the pruning has to be done. The roses do not understand what I do, but I know of what I do. It is necessary, though painful. And God too knows of what he does and we cannot fathom it any more than my rosebushes fathom me. But he does it. And the 1/3 who remain in the passage above must also be purified, refined as in fire. But when it is done: they will be pure gold. Those who remain and accept purification will call on God’s name. They will be a people, a Church after his own heart.
To me it has become clear that the Lord is pruning his Church. He is preparing us for spring. And we do in fact have a difficult winter we are enduring. But we’re being purified, cleansed. These are tough days for the Church but as we have discussed, I already see signs of a great springtime ahead. There are many wonderful lay movements and growth areas in the Church. I am very impressed with the calibre of men entering the priesthood. These are men who love the Lord and His Church and who deeply desire to speak the truth in love. In my own Convent we had 25 young sisters of the Servants of the Lord, a wonderful new and missionary order. They had to leave to find a biggger convent because they were growing. They too love the Lord and his Church and want to spread his gospel everywhere.
Though our overall numbers of practicing Catholics are diminished, I see greater fervency in those who remain. In my own parish there are many who are devoted to prayer, bible study and praise of God. Eucharistic piety is stronger in the Church today through adoration, daily mass. On the Internet there are many signs of excitement and zeal for the faith. Many wonderful blogs and websites are emerging to strengthen Catholics. EWTN is doing wonderful works and many Catholic Radio Stations have begun.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. God has pruned and is purifying us as Church. I have no doubt that there are still some difficult winter days ahead before a full springtime sets in. But God never fails. He is renewing his Church and preparing us for whatever lies ahead.
Frankly it is going to take a stronger and purer Church to endure the cultural tsunami that is and has been rolling in. The first waves hit in the late 60s, and successive waves look to be even more destructive as Western culture is gradually being swept away. The Church will have to be pure and strong to endure the days ahead, to rescue those we can, and to help rebuild when the terrible waves have worked their last destruction.
I realize this post will not be without controversy. I do not propose it as the only answer to the times. Neither do I claim that fallen-away Catholics have simply been pruned as though we could know they will never return and be grafted on again. We should continue to Evangelize and seek to grow the Church by Christ’s own mandate. We cannot know the size the Lord wants us to be nor should we ever stifle the Spirit of Christ’s mandate, Go and make disciples of all the nations….
There are different ways of assessing the relative health or distress of the Catholic Church here in America. In yesterday’s blog we discussed some signs of vitality, in terms of both clergy and laity becoming more focused on the urgency of evangelization, and of personal conversion. There are many other ways of noting our strengths and struggles.
One of the most obvious metrics is to look at the raw numbers and ask, “Is the Catholic Church in America growing or shrinking?” A recent article at the blog of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) addresses this question, and I would like to present a quick summary of some of the findings. But at the end of the day I am also left with a fundamental question.
First a quick summary of the article. (The Full Article is HERE)
The article appears on the CARA blog “1964,” and is authored by Mark Gray, the usual researcher and blogger at the site. He is critiquing a study released recently by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), which seeks to make a case for “disappearing Catholics” in American culture. Mark Gray of CARA unambiguously states that the PRRI study is just plain wrong, and emphasizes that the Catholic share of the US population has remained relatively stable at about 25% (+ or – 3) of the US population. He further argues that, while some hold that we are retaining this percentage only due to immigration, the overall effect of immigration is far less than most people assume.
The usual narrative, or “conventional wisdom” is that the Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging numbers and that massive amounts of people are leaving the Church, which is only being saved by the arrival of large numbers of Hispanic immigrants.
But this “conventional wisdom” is largely set aside by the fact that foreign-born Catholics make up only 24% of the US Catholic population. Immigration from the south has also leveled off a great deal since 2007. Thus while immigration has contributed to the stability of the Catholic population percentage, it is not nearly the to the degree argued by many.
Another largely overlooked factor in the stability of Catholic numbers, is the phenomenon known as “reverts.” The fact is, there is a lot of “coming and going” in the Church. And while much is made of those who go forth from the Church, (ca 12% of cradle Catholics leave), the fact is, many will go eventually come back. Currently there are some 5 million Catholics who describe themselves as “reverts,” i.e. those who have returned after a significant absence.
The number of new converts is also not insignificant.
Gray therefore speaks of a kind of “life-cycle” that makes up the overall Catholic total of 25% of the US population (See diagram above from CARA). In this life-cycle, some go out of the Church, leaving her never to return. Others leave, but doing in fact return to the Church later in life. And to the number of returning Catholics is added the numbers of immigrants entering the U.S. Church, and those who convert to the Church later in life from other denominations, or from unbelief.
This is a complex life-cycle which is not easily captured by many snapshot polls that observe only a moment in time. And while polls that depict the numbers of those who leave often make the news, the more complex numbers stretched out over the life-cycle of Catholic demographics, do not make the news and are not easily reduced to headlines.
This leads Mark great to comment on why he thinks some numbers make the news, and other don’t:
So if life-cycle effects are so important to explaining how the US Catholic population percentage remains stable, and how the US Catholic population continues to grow, why isn’t this part of the conventional wisdom? In part, because I don’t think there are many people who want to hear it. Most religion reporters ignore research that indicates growth in, or satisfaction with the Catholic Church (while they go mega–front page crazy over stories that mention religious decline)… Even within the Church many don’t want to hear it. Both “progressive” and “traditional” Catholics want to be able to argue that the Church is losing members and can only regain them by urgently doing _________. Many would like to continue believing the Church is hemorrhaging members, and that Mass attendance is declining, even though neither of these claims can be found in the data. [2]
Gray has written elsewhere that Mass attendance has remained relatively stable at 25% of Catholics for over a decade now. And you can see that HERE.
OK, so, according to Mark Gray and the data he presents, it’s steady as you go for the Church in the past two decades both in terms of our percentage of the U.S. population and Mass attendance. I have great respect both for CARA and Mark Gray, and have read their material over the years. I find a deep respect for the data at CARA and a distinct hesitation by them to spin the data for some cause. This is good scholarship and I respect it.
But I do wonder how to square the data with my own experience as a priest. Of course my experience is only anecdotal, but it does join with the experience of many other priests and lay people I know. And my felt experience is that the Church is shrinking in many ways. As a youngster and even into college years I remember standing room only at most parishes for the principal liturgies. I remember full schools with waiting lists, and a kind of building boom as the Church claimed the suburbs. Now most parishes look to be significantly eroded here in the DC area. We have closed many schools and some parishes are not far from closure as well. According to our October “headcount” data, the number attending Mass in the past 12 years has dropped every year about 1% such that we have lost about 25,000 Catholics attending Mass overall in the DC area, though the population of DC has overall increased by about 13% in the past decade. Sacramental data, especially weddings have also declined over the last decades.
Now, of course Washington DC and its suburbs is a small sliver of data compared to the overall national numbers in the Church. Further, one might reasonably expect that the forces of secularization would be stronger in what is both a large urban area, and which trends liberal. And yet, many other dioceses have taken to closing schools and parishes throughout the country and this too adds to the impression of a loss scenario, not a steady as you go scenario. But again, as Mark Gray points out, the bad news gets the headlines.
So what are we to make of the national data and our local experience? Again, I trust CARA and Mark Gray is a straight shooter. But I am interested in your thoughts and even more your experience and actual data.
I am struck by his observation that many “want” the Church to be losing members for any number of reasons and agendas. So before you or I simply say what we think, it might be good to check a few of our premises that might color how we see things.
I personally experience a little disconnect with the analysis that Church numbers are steady, especially when it comes to Mass attendance and sacraments. But my sample is small: me and a few close friends and relatives.
How say you? What is your experience? Is the Church in your area growing, shrinking or holding steady?
