Yesterday’s blog on the increasing darkness in our culture received a lot of good feedback. Special thanks to Patrick Madrid for spreading the word. Reading such data can cause us to feel discouraged at times. Here are a few thoughts on this discouragement and what we can do about it.
1. The beatitude “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted” comes to mind. Who are those who mourn? It is they who see the awful state of God’s people: that so many do not know Him or honor Him. Those who mourn are those who see how many do not know why they were made and spend their lives on lesser or even useless things (and get lost in sin and the deadly wages of sin). Seeing this, they mourn. But this mourning is not depression; it is a sadness rooted in love, and so, as the beatitude says, they are “comforted.” But here the word comforted is to be understood more in relation to its Latin root confirmare which means to strengthen. Hence those who mourn because they love God’s people and see their awful state are also those who will be strengthened and motivated to go to work to make a difference.
2. Indeed, there is an old Chinese proverb that says, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” And though we may feel things have descended deeply and rapidly, just keep preaching, teaching, and striving for holiness. God has a way of multiplying our works when we least expect it. The harvest will come; for now, just keep sowing seeds and watering them with your tears of love.
3. Another saying goes, “It is easier to wear slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth.” Further, we are instructed just before a flight that in the event of an emergency we should don our own mask before assisting others with theirs. In both of these instances, we hear the additional advice that we should initiate any reform by first tending to our own heart and life. If the world is going to reform, it has to begin with me, with my own decisions. Scripture says, “They made me a keeper of vineyards, but my own vineyard I have not kept” (Song, 1:6). May it not be so for us.
There are many things we can do, big and small, that can begin to make a difference. Some involve small personal changes, others summon us to greater courage in relationships, and still others call us to greater generosity. Here is a list of some possible avenues. Please add to it! (Note: this list was not created with any particular order in mind.)
Participate in pro-life vigils and “40 Days for Life.”
Inform others, including media companies and manufacturers, when they have done well. Warn them when they cooperate in evils such as abortion (via support of Planned Parenthood) or homosexual activism.
Ask for the gifts of joy, gratitude, and serenity. Others will notice and ask you about it!
Read Catholic media; listen to Catholic Answers and EWTN radio. Grow in your faith!
Work on overcoming your most frequent sins. Make a particular examen to help this.
Pray over the news; don’t just watch it or read it, or, even worse, just complain about how awful things are. Pray as you listen and read.
Sign up for Eucharistic adoration; encourage others to do so.
Repent; go to confession frequently.
Ask a friend to Mass; if he says “no,” ask again later and/or ask another person. But resolve to seldom come to Mass alone.
Spend time with younger people; encourage in them what is good; explain what they misunderstand.
Be consistent with prayer.
Consider praying the rosary every day; if you can, add the Divine Mercy Chaplet as well.
Support cloistered religious communities and ask their prayers.
Be willing to take the risk and correct a fellow sinner; be humble but clear.
Have the courage to warn those in your own family who may be mired in sins such as greed, fornication, cohabitation, unforgiveness, planning a divorce, etc.
Have more children; be generous with life!
If you are older, support those who do have many children by assisting with childcare or providing other necessary help.
Support outreach to the poor, especially those programs that help them to break the cycle of poverty and to become more deeply rooted in the life of faith.
Encourage bishops, priests, and deacons who are courageous in addressing what ails us.
Support Catholic groups that seek to engage the culture and summon the world to reform and to Jesus.
Pray! And then pray some more. If you can, fast occasionally.
Pray some more!
In other words, consecrate your life to God and begin the great reform by looking to your own heart and mind. When people start to notice, ask them to join you. Many little things add up to a lot. We can’t change the culture overnight, but we surely can begin to make a difference in our own life and in the vineyard of our family, parish, and community, all of which the Lord has asked us to tend.
The results of a recent Gallup poll on a range of moral issues do a pretty good job of showing how dramatically America has changed in a rather short period of time. Many behaviors now deemed “largely acceptable” were once considered very wrong. In fact, most of us over fifty remember an America that was very different.
Until the mid-1960s, birth control was unapproved—even illegal to sell in many jurisdictions. It was associated with prostitution.
Divorce was something that people whispered about. And until 1969 it was so difficult to get a divorce that the few who did want them were willing to go to Mexico to in order to obtain them.
As for gambling, Catholics were less adamant about it and permitted “light” forms of gambling like bingo. But among the Protestants, “gambling” was synonymous with sin. Some of the old spirituals warned gamblers of the fires of Hell: “I would not be a gambler. I’ll tell you the reason why. I’m afraid my Lord might call my name and I wouldn’t be ready to die.”
Having a baby outside of marriage was considered so shameful that girls who got pregnant were often sent away to have the baby, which was then usually put up for adoption. Frankly, the final result was often better for the infant, who was usually adopted quickly by a married couple. Catholic orders of nuns were often the ones who handled these matters, and did so discreetly and lovingly.
Sex before marriage happened, but far less frequently—and almost no one thought it was OK. In those days there were also many protections that society insisted upon to help prevent sex before marriage. For example, young people were often chaperoned on dates. Dances and other group events were commonly arranged by adults in order to encourage young people to meet, but there were prudent limits set. Parents were more vigilant and insisted that their youngsters be home at a reasonable hour. Women’s dormitories at colleges were more strictly guarded and a young man who called was expected to meet his young lady in the lobby and say farewell to her there. Young people also got married a lot sooner. Most did so right after high school or college.
Homosexual activity of any sort was not just considered shocking; it was deemed repulsive.
Abortion was illegal—an unmentionable horror. It was associated with prostitution and utter desperation. Frankly, I don’t think I ever heard the word abortion before 1970, though I admit I was only about ten at that time.
Only the death penalty and wearing fur were more acceptable in the pre-revolution days than they are today.
Behold the cultural revolution! And revolution is the only word for it. America before the revolution was NOT a perfect culture. Racism was more widespread; there were two major wars before 1950, and there was a rather decadent period in the 1920s. But overall, we were a lot clearer about the values necessary to ensure our future: marriage, sex, and children. People got married and usually stayed married. We frowned upon, limited, and punished behaviors and attitudes that destroyed our families: sex before marriage, homosexual acts, abortion, and divorce. Today most of these behaviors are not only widely tolerated, but outright celebrated.
Why has this happened and why so suddenly? The world, the flesh, and the devil.
At the level of the demonic, there surely is strong satanic influence in the “high places” of Hollywood, the music industry, Madison Avenue, and Pennsylvania Avenue (at both ends of the block). American culture, via movies and music, generates a steady stream of sewer-like themes that celebrate fornication, divorce, adultery, and homosexuality, and that portray abortion sympathetically.
At the level of the flesh, Americans consume filth in enormous quantities. Internet porn sites are among the most frequently visited. Most Americans are no longer shocked by foul language, pornographic themes, or nudity in movies and music. Granted, the desire to consume this material comes from weakness due to our sinful human nature, but indulging these weaknesses leads to successively darker places, to a dulling of the sense of morality, to enslavement by the senses, and ultimately to a downright craving for the filth.
At the level of the world there is the rebellion that is at its heart. The “world,” in the scriptural sense of the term, refers to that collection of interests and powers arrayed against God and His Kingdom. To build its power, the world entices in order to enslave; it offers pleasures but then sends the bill. The world works quite handily with Satan.
At the end of the day, however, we in the Church bear a lot of the responsibility. This has happened on our watch. Jesus commissioned us to be the light of the world. So why is the world in such darkness? I have little doubt that the Lord has allowed a kind of satanic incursion for His own mysterious reasons. Perhaps the Church needs to be purified. Perhaps the West needs to be plowed under, as many previous eras and empires have been. Perhaps He is preparing a great renewal. I just don’t know.
But I do know that we must work more consciously to be the light we are supposed to be. This poll is a gauge of the extent of the darkness. Usually the lights go out as a result of a power failure. But in this case it is a moral failure. It is a failure of our mission as Christians that has led us here. Start with your own life and with your own family. Work in your own parish. Start lighting candles and living in the light.
A couple of years ago I wrote of an unusual experience I had at Mass wherein a person who was troubled by a demon had those demons manifest themselves at the consecration, causing the person to run out of the Church. More on that in a moment.
I thought of that long-ago incident in relation to the current events transpiring in Oklahoma City, where a satanic cult stole the Eucharist from a Catholic parish and announced plans to desecrate it at a satanic “mass” in September. Archbishop Paul Coakley filed a lawsuit, asking a judge to stop the desecration by requiring the group to return the stolen property. He indicated in the suit that the Host was to be desecrated in the vilest ways imaginable as an offering in sacrifice to Satan.
A spokesman from the satanic group, Adam Daniels, said, “The whole basis of the [satanic] ‘mass‘ is that we take the consecrated host and give it a ‘blessing‘ or offering to Satan. We’re censoring it, [I think he means using incense], doing all things that’s [sic] normally done to bless a sacrifice, which is obviously the host body of Christ. Then we’re taking that and we’re reconsecrating it, or the Devil does …”
[The bracketed comment and the single quotation marks within the above quote are mine.]
In light of the threatened lawsuit, the group returned the consecrated host to the Church. Thanks be to God. But did you notice the satanic spokesman’s attestation regarding the host: “which is obviously the host body of Christ”?
Grave and sad though this incident was (and it wasn’t the first), these Satanists obviously consider the Catholic Eucharist to be the Body of Christ. Unless I missed it, there have been no attempts by Satanists to steal and use a Methodist host, or an Episcopal one, or a Baptist one, or a Lutheran one, etc. It is a Catholic host they seek. Here then is an affirmation of the Scripture which says, Even the demons believe—and shudder (James 2:19).
Elsewhere, Scripture says of a demon that afflicted a man among the tombs,And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him (Mark 5:6). And in Luke’s Gospel, And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ (Lk 4:41-42).
Indeed, as many who have assisted at exorcisms can attest, there is wonderful power in holy water, relics, the exorcist’s cross, the touch of a priest’s stole, and so forth in afflicting demons and urging them to leave. Yet so many Catholics and others discount these sacramentals (as well as the Sacraments), using them carelessly, infrequently, or not at all. Many people, even faithful Catholics, consider them of little significance. But demons do not. Shamefully, demons sometimes manifest more faith (out of fear) in these things than actual believers who ought to revere them out of loving faith. Even this Satanist in Oklahoma acknowledges that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist and he seeks a host for that reason, although obviously for nefarious and perverse purposes.
And that leads to a story of my own that I published a long while back. Here is an excerpt from that piece:
It was almost 15 years ago. I was At Old St. Mary’s here in D.C. celebrating Mass in the Latin (Extraordinary Form). It was a solemn high Mass. I don’t suppose I thought it any different than most Sundays, but something quite amazing was about to happen.
As you may know, the ancient Latin Mass is celebrated “ad orientem” (toward the Liturgical East). Priest and people all face in one direction. What this means practically for the celebrant is that the people are behind him. It was time for the consecration. At this time, the priest is directed to bow low with his forearms on the altar table and the host between his fingers.
As directed, the venerable words of Consecration were said in a low but distinct voice, Hoc est enim Corpus meum (For this is my Body). The bells rang as I genuflected.
But behind me there was a disturbance of some sort; a shaking or rustling sound came from the front pews behind me to my right. And then a moaning or grumbling. “What was that?” I wondered. It did not really sound human, more like the grumbling of a large animal such as a boar or a bear, along with a plaintive moan that also did not seem human. I elevated the host and again wondered, “What was that?” Then silence. As the celebrant in the ancient Latin Mass I could not easily turn to look. But still I thought, “What was that?”
It was time for the consecration of the chalice. Again I bowed low, pronouncing clearly and distinctly but in a low voice, Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et æterni testamenti; mysterium fidei; qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem pecatorum. Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis (for this is the cup of my Blood, of the new and eternal covenant; the mystery of faith; which will for the many be shed unto the remission of sins. Whensoever you do this, you do it in my memory.)
Then, I heard another sound, this time an undeniable moan and then a shriek as someone cried out, “Leave me alone, Jesus! Why do you torture me?” Suddenly there was a scuffling noise and someone ran out with the groaning sound of having been injured. The back doors swung open and then closed. Then silence.
Realization – I could not turn to look for I was raising the Chalice high over my head. But I knew in an instant that some poor demon-tormented soul had encountered Christ in the Eucharist and could not endure His real presence displayed for all to see. And the words of Scripture occurred to me: Even Demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).
Repentance – But just as James used those words to rebuke the weak faith of his flock, I too had to repent. Why was a demon-troubled man more aware of the true presence and more astonished by it than I was? He was moved in a negative sense and ran. Why was I not more moved in a positive but comparable way? What of the other believers in the pews? I don’t doubt that all of us believed intellectually in the true presence. But there is something very different and far more wonderful in being moved to the depth of your soul! It is so easy for us to be sleepy in the presence of the Divine, to be forgetful of the miraculous and awesome Presence available to us.
Let the record show that on that day, almost 15 years ago, it was made quite plain to me that I held in my hands the Lord of Glory, the King of Heaven and earth, the just Judge and Ruler of the kings of the earth. Is the Lord truly present in the Eucharist? You’d better believe it; even demons believe that!
The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter—the Office of the Papacy—for Peter’s successors are the popes. The word “pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.
That Peter receives an office and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the Office of the Papacy, we will also deal with them later. But for now let’s look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.
I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“
It should be noted that in asking these questions Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of Him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.
Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods.
1. The Poll – Jesus asks who the crowds say that He is. In modern times we love to take polls and many moderns put a lot of stock in what polls say. Many people (Catholics among them) like to point out that x% of Catholics think this or that about moral teachings or about doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something makes it true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.
But as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong no matter what percentage held them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll-taking or democracy seems not to be a model that works.
2. The Panel – Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a group of experts, a “blue-ribbon panel” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom, not wanting to answer lest they look foolish. The politics on the panel led not to truth but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.
That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel but for another reason altogether.
Hence the blue-ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.
And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to His identity. All we have are opinions or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forward to describe God’s plan in setting forth the truths of faith.
II. The Individual that is Inspired – The text says, Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly not because he was the smartest (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), or because he happened to guess correctly. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
It’s not polls or panels that God uses—it’s Peter.
And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God. He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says the following of Peter and his successors, the popes:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them … The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 880-884, selected).
All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God Himself chooses to operate.
And note, too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he has power, riches, or other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not in flesh and blood that we put our trust; it is in God Himself, who we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.
And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.
III. The Installation that is Initiated – The text says, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further and declares that He will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus He calls him Peter (rock). And here, too, He does not merely mean this as a personal gift or as a sort of recognition that will die with Peter. In giving Peter the keys, He is establishing an office, not merely a “promotion” for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren (Luke 22:31).
Hence it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter (and his successors), that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united. Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for His Church.
It is true that many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Jesus is establishing both Peter and an office that will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of His Church.
Some object that within other verses Peter will be called “Satan” and will deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this and still said and did what He does here.
Others object that Jesus is the head and foundation, that He is the rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is He Himself who calls Peter the rock and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE). And in addition that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises His headship and foundational aspect.
Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” Without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. Personally, I think this is exaggerated—but not by much. Protestants all claim the Scriptures as their source of the truth but differ on many essential matters such as sexual morality, authority, the necessity of baptism, whether once saved is always saved, etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among Protestants, that goes,
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations that I know get along fine on a personal level. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very important things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless division. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus installed an individual in this role to manifest His office of rock and head of the Church. That individual was Peter and after, his successors.
Here’s a light-hearted video I put together commemorating Pope Benedict’s many visits to unite and strengthen us. I don’t have enough footage yet to do a Pope Francis video. But I suspect he’ll rack up the miles, too!
Usually we don’t like to know the end of the story and when someone blurts out the ending it’s called a “spoiler.” What fun is it to read a “whodunnit” when you already know who did it?
But when it comes to the faith, not only should we know the end of the story—we must never forget it and must base our very lives on it. As we look about the world, it is easy to get discouraged and think that evil is winning. And yet Scripture plainly states that Satan’s plans are going nowhere, that Jesus has already won the victory. Mysteriously, the Lord allows Satan a little time to sift through the ruins of his former kingdom, but do not be deceived—Satan has lost and so have all who are allied with him.
Some lines from Psalm 37 come to mind:
Wait a little, and the wicked will be no more; look for them and they will not be there. But the poor will inherit the earth, will delight in great prosperity. But my Lord laughs at the wicked, because he sees that their day is coming. Wait eagerly for the LORD, and keep his way; He will raise you up to inherit the earth; you will see when the wicked are cut off. I have seen a ruthless scoundrel, spreading out like a green cedar. When I passed by again, he was gone; though I searched, he could not be found. mark the upright; Because there is a future for a man of peace. Sinners will be destroyed together; the future of the wicked will be cut off.
Spoiler Alert! Yes, dear brethren, I checked. I went to the end of the story and sure enough, Jesus wins! There it is right at the end of the Bible. But this is a spoiler you need to know, because you have to choose which team you’ll be on and it’s nice to know ahead of time whose team has already won. It’s like going to today’s horserace with tomorrow’s paper. You’d be a fool to bet on any horse other than the winning one. Well, you have tomorrow’s paper and here is what it says:
20:7When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison. 8 He will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. 9 They invaded the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down from heaven and consumed them. 10 The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 Next I saw a large white throne and the one who was sitting on it. The earth and the sky fled from his presence and there was no place for them. 12 I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. 13 The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death.) 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire (Rev 20:7–15).
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them [as their God]. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, [for] the old order has passed away.” 5 The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then he said, “Write these words down, for they are trustworthy and true.” 6 He said to me, “They are accomplished. I [am] the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. 7 The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son. 8 But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death” (Rev 21:1–8).
22:6 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true, and the Lord, the God of prophetic spirits, sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.” 7 “Behold, I am coming soon.” Blessed is the one who keeps the prophetic message of this book. 20 The one who gives this testimony says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! 21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all (Rev 22:6–7; 20-21).
Keep this in mind; keep it always on your mind. The result of this victory is obtained in the paradox of the cross. Jesus destroys death by dying and tells us that to save our life we must lose it to this world. Whatever the struggles and setbacks, do not be dismayed. Love and humility have already overcome hatred and pride. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred, only love can do that. Pride cannot drive out pride, only humility can do that. And thus the Lord allows opportunities for the light of truth to shine in the error of darkness, for love to endure in the face of hatred, and for humility to shame pride.
Until the last day when the trumpet shall sound, the drama carries on. But see what the end shall be. You already know the end of the story. Just make sure you serve in the Lord’s army and wield the weapons of light, love, and humility.
Well I know this video is going to seem strange after such a serious reflection. But what could be more humble than a little pig “spoiling” the movie as the patrons go in? And yet, if you listen to his advice, he’s basically saying what I just did. “Don’t waste your time on losers; don’t waste your time going down a path of wrong ideas or theories; don’t get all worked up about characters and things that don’t matter—here’s what’s really going on in the movie.”
Not bad advice for life either. If you know the end of the story, there’s a lot you can disregard along the way, and you’ll know where to set your focus. Keep your eyes on Jesus and the truth of His Gospel.
Some years ago a woman (and parishioner) told me, almost in passing, that she and her husband were planning to divorce. Knowing that she had two young children, both under 10, I asked her in so many words, “What about the children?” Unabashedly she assured me that they were in fact divorcing for the sake of the children. Perhaps she saw my bewildered, dubious look, so she added, “We don’t want them to experience all the yelling and bickering.” “Hmmm … ,” I said. “Well then stop the bickering and yelling. Get whatever help you need, but don’t make the kids pay even more for your problems.”
I was a parochial vicar in those days, so the woman informed the pastor of my “insensitive” remark and demanded that I be taught to be more sensitive and diplomatic. Luckily, the pastor saw the irony of her demands, since diplomacy between spouses seemed lacking as did sensitivity toward children who did not likely “feel” great that their home was breaking up because the adults couldn’t get along.
When I was a little child (not so long ago) in the mid 60s, divorce was still considered shocking, and to a large degree morally wrong. But that was before we crossed the chasm of the cultural and sexual revolution. In 1969, no-fault divorce began to careen through the land like a runaway train leaking poisonous gas. Within less than a decade, divorce went from something shocking and whispered about to a mainstream action for which we are expected to have sympathy. After all, the thinking goes, doesn’t God want everyone to be happy? How can we be so mean as to say that people should stay in “unhappy marriages”? Never mind those vows, which have no happiness clause and even seem to imply that there will be unhappy times: better or WORSE, richer or POORER, in SICKNESS and in health for as long as we both shall live. No, forget all that. Marriage is about “happiness” and everyone’s “God-given right to be happy.” God only wants me to be happy. Jesus wasn’t really serious when He spoke of the cross and our need to carry it through patience, suffering, forgiveness, and bearing with one another.
I remember another couple who were fighting bitterly in my rectory parlor. They began throwing around the “divorce” word. I asked them, “But what about the vows you took?” After a pause, the husband said, “What vows, Father?” So I recited them from memory. “Oh, that … ,” said the husband. “But you know, you just say those words at the ceremony because you’re supposed to … ” He seemed to have thought of them as only ritual words and considered himself exempt from the vows that had come forth from his very mouth before both God and man.
In the short span of a few decades, we have come to the point where many do not see marriage as about keeping vows, or commitments, or about what is best for children. Marriage is now about adults and what makes them happy. And all of us are just supposed to accept this regardless of the effect that it (obviously) has on children.
Parents will say, “My children can never be happy unless I am happy,” but they should not lay that narcissistic unction to their souls. Children need parents who love them, not parents who are contented; they are too young to be asked to lay down their lives for someone else. It is not the job of the child to suffer for the parent, but the job of the parent to endure, to make the best of a poor situation, to swallow his pride, to bend her knees, for the sake of the child. I have heard [from those] who still quaver in voice when they speak about what their divorced parents did to them – hustling them from one half of a home to another half, enlisting them as confidants, one against the other, [threatening] them that they may just find themselves a lot less often with a parent they love if they do not do exactly what the [threatener] demands.[and I would add forcing them to endure Daddy’s new live-in girlfriend, or Mommy’s new husband, or a strange new step-brother who is hard to get along with and who started touching them in embarrassing places.]Children must grow up at age ten so their parents don’t have to (p. 142).
Esolen also comments on how children often have divorce “explained” to them:
[The Child] must be told that the father, although he wasn’t so terrible, just couldn’t satisfy the mother in some mysterious way, and so bad was this dissatisfaction that she had no choice but to compel her son [or daughter] to live without a father … Adults are wonderfully adept at weaving webs of self-deceit around themselves for protection. Children aren’t … They aren’t yet dulled by habit, or by slogans, or by a long history of compromising with the truth, so that what they do see, they see clearly (p. 138).
Yes, indeed, children are famous for for seeing through the hypocrisy of adults. Their innocence is still shocked by misbehavior and inconsistency. I remember a high-school classmate, whose parents had divorced, wondering why “the rules” in the house only applied to her. One day she asked her mother, who had divorced, why she couldn’t love her father anymore. The mother replied, “But I still do love him.” My classmate saw through this self-justifying lie and challenged her mother to “get back together with Dad again.” Her mother just responded, “You’ll understand when you get older.” In one short phrase, her mother managed to both patronize her daughter and introduce her to the cynical and compromised world of the baby-boomer generation, a generation that collectively never grew up and that may well be the most narcissistic, egocentric, selfish, and immature generation since the patricians of the late Greco-Roman culture.
Disclaimer – I realize that every divorce story is an individual one. I know that there are some who read this who will be angry or hurt and who will insist that my picture does not take into account the special and unique circumstances that led to their particular divorce. I realize, too, that some people really tried to save their marriages but could not because the other spouse refused. OK. But I only speak to the general problem, not to every specific case. The critique here is of the culture, first and foremost. The fact is that by and large people used to work out their differences and stay married, but today they do not. We used to consider the impact that divorce would have on children. Today it is either not considered or the children are way down on the list below the needs and wishes of the adults.
Divorce has shredded our families and caused grave harm and hurt to children: psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and even physically. If we cannot see this then we are not only divorced from marriage; we are divorced from reality. You might say, “Well, I don’t think it’s so bad. The roads are paved and the planes run on time.” OK, but talk to someone whose parents divorced. Talk to them honestly about the absurdities to which they were subjected: they were supposed to get along with their siblings while Mom and Dad played by other rules. Talk to them about being shipped back and forth to different homes, about feeling guilty that they liked one setting or parent more than the other, about two houses with two different sets of rules, about Mom and Dad bad-mouthing each other, about being subjected to “loyalty tests” by their parents. Ask them about how all of this affects their understanding of acceptance, loyalty, trust, self-esteem, respect for authority, appreciation for the truth, personal responsibility, courageousness, perseverance, forgiveness, human dignity, sexual responsibility, marriage, family, love, and on and on.
We need to see divorce for the diabolical lie that it is. It comes from the hardness of our hearts, as Jesus clearly says in Matthew 19. We ought not separate what God has joined. And if we do, there can be little but destruction that comes from it.
Splitting the family is like splitting the atom. And for all the anxiety we had back in the 80s about “the bomb,” as usual, Satan had us focused on the lesser thing in order to keep us from concentrating on the greater and more dangerous problem. All the silly “nuclear-free zones” did nothing. A few “divorce-free zones” (like we had prior to 1969) might have actually made a difference! But the problem is always someone else, not me or the decisions I make.
Even in the Church we got all swept up in issues of nuclear war, etc. And while total silence on that matter from the Church would have been wrong, where were similar statements against the nuclear fission of divorce as our families were split and we were handing out annulments like candy?
Do not mistake this for “bishop bashing.” We cannot expect the clergy to solve every problem in a cultural and moral tsunami in which lay people outnumber clergy 5000 to 1. But clarity and a bit more courage never hurts.
Perhaps it is like the clarity and courage my old pastor (referred to above) showed me when I was “turned in” for being insensitive and undiplomatic, who saw the hypocrisy of the complainant and commended me, instead of scolding me, for raising the simple question, “What about the children?”
The Jewish people took the burial of the dead quite seriously; it was the way a community paid its last respects to the one who died. The Scriptures laid down quite firmly that no dead body was to be left unburied—even that of one’s worst enemy. Perhaps one of the stronger horrors that a Jewish person could imagine was stated in Psalm 78: They have thrown the bodies of thy servants as food for the birds of heaven; wild beast feast on the corpses of the just.
The dead, therefore, had a right to ceremonial care. As soon as a person was dead, his eyes were to be closed, he was to be kissed with love, and his body was to be washed (Genesis 50:1; Acts 9:37). In this washing, the body was anointed with perfumes. Nard was the most usual of these, but myrrh and aloes were also used.
By the time of Christ, the custom was that the body was elaborately wrapped in a shroud and the face was covered with a special cloth called a sudarium. The hands and feet were tied with strips of cloth.
Once this was done, relatives and friends could come to the home to say goodbye to the deceased for the last time. All of this happened in very short order; burial usually followed within eight hours of death. In such a hot climate, burial could not be delayed.
After this brief time during which the living could say their farewells to the deceased, the body was carried in a kind of litter to the grave. There were no professional carriers; the person’s relatives and friends took turns carrying the body as a sign of affection. Women led the procession and it was usually quite a noisy spectacle—even in cases in which the sorrow was not that great (such as in the case of a person who had died after a long illness). All funeral processions were expected to have those who wailed loudly and threw dust in their hair as well as flautists who played doleful music on their instruments. Given these expectations, families often hired professional mourners who assisted in the process.
The Jews never cremated their dead; indeed they had a revulsion for the practice since they believed in the resurrection of the body.
Cemeteries were always to be at least fifty yards outside of any town or village.
The typical tombs of Jesus’ day involved a kind of cave or excavation cut into a rocky cliff. Sometimes larger families or groups of families would use these burial areas together. An opening in the side of a cliff might lead into a crypt of several rooms used by different families. There would be an outer and an inner chamber, or at least a front and back portion to the cave. In the outer chamber the body would be laid out on a kind of bench or shelf cut into the rock. After the final respects were paid, a large round stone was usually rolled into place (via a groove) to cover the tomb.
These large stones would often be whitewashed as a kind of warning to passersby that the area was in fact a gravesite. This was because Jews incurred ritual uncleanliness by coming in close contact with a dead body. Surely this could be endured as an act of charity for a dead relative, but one would not wish to incur it for a stranger. Thus the whitewashed tomb entrances served as a kind of warning to steer clear.
Very poor people, who could not afford a rock-hewn tomb, or foreigners who had no land were buried within vertical shafts in designated fields. In the Gospels there is reference to the purchase of the potter’s field as a place to bury the poor and foreigners who died in Israel (Mat 27:7).
A brief repast would follow and included the ritual drinking of wine and eating of the bread of mourning. For the very closest relatives (such as a wife, son, or daughter) mourning lasted for 30 days. This was observed by the wearing of special clothing, by refraining from wearing phylacteries during prayer, and by not answering greetings in the street.
After about a year, family members would return to the tomb and collect the bones, placing them in a box called an ossuary. They would mark the box with identifying information and place it in the back room of the tomb where the bones of other relatives were also stored. This is the basis of the Jewish expression that the deceased “rested with his ancestors.” It also explains the concerns of the patriarch Joseph: Then Joseph took an oath from the sons of Israel, saying, “God will visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here” (Gen 50:25). And Scripture says that as Moses left Egypt he took the bones of Joseph with him; for Joseph had solemnly sworn the people of Israel, saying, “God will visit you; then you must carry my bones with you from here” (Exodus, 13:19). And Scripture says that after entering the land, The bones of Joseph which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried at Shechem, in the portion of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph (Jos 24:32).
Thus Joseph rested with his ancestors. And so will we, until our bodies shall rise at the Last Trumpet.
As you may know, the Catholic Faith was illegal in the Roman Empire prior to 313 AD, when the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan permitting the Christian Faith to flourish publicly. Prior to that time, Church buildings as we know them today were rare—Mass was usually celebrated in houses.
Now be careful here; these “houses” were usually rather sizable, with a central courtyard or large room that permitted something a little more formal than Mass “around the dining room table.” I remember being taught (incorrectly) that these early Masses were informal, emphasized a relaxed, communal quality, and were celebrated facing the people. Well, it turns out that really isn’t true. People didn’t just sit around a table or sit in circle—not at all. They sat or stood formally, and everyone faced in one direction: east.
In the drawing (to the right) you can see the layout of an ancient house church (actually more often called a DomusDei (House of God)) drawn based on an excavated 3rd century house church in Dura-Europos (located in what is now today’s Syria). Click on the diagram for a clearer view. The assembly room is to the left and a priest or bishop is depicted conducting a liturgy (facing east) at an altar against the east wall. A baptistery is on the right and a deacon is depicted guarding the entrance door. The lonely-looking deacon in the back of the assembly hall is there to “preserve good order,” as you will read below. The photograph below shows the baptistery of the Dura-Europos house church.
What is remarkable about these early liturgies is how formal they were despite the fact that they were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. The following text is from the Didiscalia, a document written in about 250 AD. Among other things, it gives rather elaborate details about the celebration of the early Catholic Mass in these “house liturgies.” I have included an excerpt here and interspersed my own comments in RED. You will find that there are some rather humorous remarks in this ancient text toward the end.
Now, in your gatherings, in the holy Church, convene yourselves modestly in places of the brethren, as you will, in a manner pleasing and ordered with care. [So these “house liturgies” were NOT informal Masses. Good order and careful attention to detail were essential.]Let the place of the priests be separated in a part of the house that faces east.[So even in these early house Masses, the sanctuary (the place where the clergy ministered) was an area distinct from where the laity gathered. People were not all just gathered around a dining room table.] In the midst of them is placed the bishop’s chair, and with him let the priests be seated. Likewise, and in another section let the lay men be seated facing east.[Prayer was conducted facing east, not facing the people.]For thus it is proper: that the priests sit with the bishop in a part of the house to the east and after them the lay men and the lay women, [Notice that men and women sat in separate sections. This was traditional in many churches until rather recently, say the last 150 years.]and when you stand to pray, the ecclesial leaders rise first, and after them the lay men, and again, then the women. Now, you ought to face to east to pray for, as you know, scripture has it, Give praise to God who ascends above the highest heavens to the east.[Again, note that Mass was NOT celebrated facing the people as some suppose of the early Church. Everyone was to face to the east, both clergy and laypeople. Everyone faced in the same direction. The text cites Scripture as the reason for this. God is to the east, the origin of the light.]
Now, of the deacons, one always stands by the Eucharistic oblations and the others stand outside the door watching those who enter[Remember, this was a time of persecution and the early Christians were careful to allow only baptized and bona fide members to enter the Sacred Mysteries. No one was permitted to enter the Sacred Liturgy until after having been baptized. This was called the disciplina arcanis, or “discipline of the secret.” Deacons guarded the door to maintain this discipline.] and afterwards, when you offer let them together minister in the church.[Once the door was locked and the Mass began, it would seem that the deacons took their place in the sanctuary. However it also appears that one deacon remained outside the sanctuary to maintain “good order” among the laity.] And if there is one to be found who is not sitting in his place let the deacon who is within, rebuke him, and make him to rise and sit in his fitting place … also, in the church the young ones ought to sit separately, if there is a place, if not let them stand. Those of more advanced age should sit separately; the boys should sit separately or their fathers and mothers should take them and stand; and let the young girls sit separately, if there is really not a place, let them stand behind the women; let the young who are married and have little children stand separately, the older women and widows should sit separately. [This may all seem a bit complicated, but the bottom line is that seating was according to sex and age: the men on one side, the women on the other, older folks to the front, younger ones to the back. Also, those caring for young children were to stand in a separate area. See? Even in the old days there was a “cry room!”]And a deacon should see that each one who enters gets to his place, and that none of these sits in an inappropriate place. Likewise, the deacon ought to see that there are none who whisper or sleep or laugh or nod off.[Wait a minute! Do you mean to tell me that some of the early Christians did such things? Say it isn’t so! Today, ushers do this preserving of good order, but the need remains.] For in the Church it is necessary to have discipline, sober vigilance, and attentive ear to the Word of the Lord. [Well that is said pretty plainly—and the advice is still needed.]
Yesterday’s blog on the increasing darkness in our culture received a lot of good feedback. Special thanks to Patrick Madrid for spreading the word. Reading such data can cause us to feel discouraged at times. Here are a few thoughts on this discouragement and what we can do about it.
