Most Catholics, and most Protestants, are familiar with the passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 16, where Jesus addresses “Simon Bar-Jona” and says: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and to thee I will give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven…”  Most Catholics know that this passage teaches that Peter was thereby designated the head of the Apostles, and would ultimately — as the first Bishop of the church in Rome — become the first “pope”, (tho’ that title would not be used for centuries).

Most Protestants know it doesn’t teach that at all. Of course not. Peter isn’t the rock… that can’t be what Jesus means…

A brief review of the entire story may help.

The disciples have been with Jesus a long time, they’ve had to absorb a great dealing of teaching, an entire Sermon on the Mount, dozens of parables… and so — in order to assure that they’ve been paying attention — Jesus provides them a “mid-term exam.”

“Who do men say the Son of Man is?” Well, the disciples have been hearing the buzz on the streets, they’ve overheard the comments of the crowds, and so they eagerly put forward some of the “conventional wisdom.”

“Some say ‘John the Baptist!’ ”

“Others say Elijah!”

“Others say jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”  … all the disciples, chiming in with what other people were saying. Then Jesus turns the tables, and asks the BIG question.

“But who do YOU say that I am?”

Suddenly the noisy disciples go strangely quiet… that awkward silence when no one in the class is really certain of the answer, and is praying that the teacher won’t call on them…

Then, a voice rings out: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” It is Simon, son of John… the fisherman from Cana, coarse and uneducated, but with a heart open to the Spirit of God.

Jesus answers him: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church…”

Immediately something is lost in the translation from Greek, (the language in which the New Testament was written), into English, because “Peter” and “rock” do not look or sound the same. Protestants will say “Peter” cannot be equated verbally to “rock” because even in the Greek, (where the words DO look and sound the same), the “Petros” translated “Peter”, and the “petra” translated ”rock” have two different genders. (In the Greek, the word for “rock” is feminine; “petra.” In order to make the word “rock” a masculine name, one would have to change the ending; “petra” => “petros”) The Protestant argument is that “petra” means “solid rock” — and Jesus is pointing to Himself, of course – and that “petros” means “a small stone.” Jesus is not equating them, but is instead contrasting them. But Greek scholars — even non-Catholic ones — admit that the words ”petros” and “petra” were synonymous in first century Greek. Karl Keating writes, in “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide”: The difference in meaning can be found only in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek — an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both “petros” and “petra” simply mean rock. The distinction that some Protestants attempt to make between “petros” and “petra” simply doesn’t exist!

But beyond that, when one considers that Jesus and the disciples most likely spoke Aramaic, and not Greek, (at least, not among themselves), the Protestant argument becomes even less defensible – the word for ”rock” in Aramaic is “kepha” , and because there are no distinctions between masculine and feminine, what Jesus would have said to Peter is: “You are ‘Kepha’, and upon this kepha I will build My Church.” The early Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, records that the Gospel according to St. Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, and was translated into Koine Greek early on, (possibly by St. Matthew himself.) Therefore, the earliest inspired record of this conversation would have clearly shown the verbal connection between “Cephas”, (as St. Paul refers to him in several places), and the ROCK upon which Christ promised to build His Church.

Unfortunately, a lot often gets lost in translation. Fortunately, we don’t have to search far to find what has been lost.

First of all, you have to know that I was - for almost 14 years - a Lutheran pastor. It was a combination of the “push” of the theological meltdown in my denomination, and the “pull” of the consistency and clarity and depth of the doctrine and devotion of the Catholic Faith, that caused me to leave behind my ministry and livelihood as a Protestant pastor and to come into “full communion” in the Catholic Church. And one of the first steps I took toward the Church, (tho’ I didn’t realize the “danger” at the time), was coming to the conviction that a Lutheran pastor could, with good conscience, use the ancient discipline of “praying the mysteries”, (aka, “the Rosary”).

It turns out that Luther himself had a very deep Marian piety, and personally held to the Immaculate Conception, and Bodily Assumption of Mary - and said that one could hold them as a matter of “pious private opinion.” Having discovered this about Luther, (information which, oddly, I had never heard during four years at a Lutheran seminary), I began to teach myself how to “meditate on the mysteries.” While one can find several guides describing “how to” pray the Rosary, I was most drawn to those which provided a Scripture meditation to be read after announcing each mystery. I was also drawn to the suggestion made by Pope John Paul II, (in his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae), that one add a clause after saying “Jesus” in the “Hail Mary” , in order to draw attention to the name of Jesus, which is the “center of gravity” of the prayer:

            Pope Paul VI drew attention… to the custom in certain regions of highlighting the name of Christ by the addition of a clause referring to the mystery being contemplated. This is a praiseworthy custom, especially during public recitation                                       (No. 33)

In this manner I began the daily discipline of “meditating on the mysteries”, and was probably one of the few Lutheran pastors in the country who was doing so on behalf of Pope John Paul during the vigil kept in St. Peter’s square in the hours before his death, and in the days which followed. Before the year was out, I had resigned from my Lutheran congregation for reasons of conscience, and knew that I was on a journey I never intended to take, headed somewhere I never intended to go.

I blame the Rosary.

So, if you are a Protestant, especially a Protestant clergy, and you DON’T EVER want to end up becoming “Roman Catholic”, then DON’T PRAY THE ROSARY!! ( They don’t call it “Our Mother’s lasso” for nothing! )

But assume you already are Catholic… would I still say, “DON’T ‘pray the Rosary’”?

Yes.

What I mean is, don’t simply recite the prayers! MEDITATE ON THE MYSTERIES OF THE GOSPEL!!

For example… When you annouce the First Luminous Mystery, read a brief passage from one of the Gospels that records the account of Jesus’ being baptized in the Jordan. (Or, assuming you know the Sacred Scriptures well enough, recall it to mind). Close your eyes, vizualize the scene… see Jesus kneeling in the Jordan, John the Baptist cupping his hands and pouring water over His head… see the Holy Spirit descending like a dove, hear the Father’s voice: “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

NOW, pray the “Our Father”… slowly, prayerfully. Then pray the “Hail Mary”, but when you get to the word “Jesus”… add a phrase which reflects your meditation on the mystery: “… of Whom the Father spoke, ‘This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.” Use this for each of the Hail Mary’s in that decade.

Move on to the Second Luminous Mystery, the wedding at Cana. Read - or recall - the story from the Gospel according to St. John’s Gospel, chapter two. Briefly meditate on the actions of Mary, of the servants, of Jesus, of the steward. Then pray, slowly, the “Our Father.” As you pray each ”Hail Mary”, pause at the word “Jesus”, … add a phrase that recalls the mystery… “Who turned water into wine”, (or, better yet, emphasize His continued grace and power in our lives… “Who TURNS water into wine.”)

When I served as Asst. Headmaster of St. Thomas More Academy, and as Head of Campion House, we would use this method as we prayed a decade of the Rosary each day during morning prayers “in house.”  I would gather four students, we would each chose some meditation/reflection to offer in the middle of the Hail Maryl, and then — kneeling in a line at the front of the class — lead the rest of the students in the Rosary, each one leading a decade and adding our reflection at the word “Jesus”, starting over at the beginning of the line for decades 6-10. It was powerful.

If “praying the Rosary” seems meaningless, maybe you’re only “reciting”. So, stop “praying” the Rosary, and start “meditating on the mysteries”!

Mr. Abbe,

I have been trying to explain to my fiancee’ lately about purgatory, temporal punishments from sins after we are forgiven, and indulgences. I have been having a hard time trying to explain it, and I was wondering if you could offer me some help from your own study of these issues coming from the Lutheran church. (The deeper I dig into it, the more confused I’m getting.)

I understand the concept of indulgences, and that they can remit partially or completely (”plenary”) the temporal punishment due our sins while we are on earth. So every sin we commit has a temporal punishment attached to it? If that’s the case, then are we running around trying to put marks by our sins, and when and where we need an indulgence to counteract it?

Brandon S.

Brandon,

Temporal punishment for sin was an issue that I struggled with as a Lutheran looking at the teachings of the Catholic Church, because the implication seemed to be that Christ’s death on the Cross was ”insufficient,” because we were still left paying part of the penalty for our sin. Part of the problem has to due with the “legal” language in which the doctrine is often explained, as one finds in the classic “Baltimore Catechism”:

Q. 1381. What is Purgatory?

A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.

Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?

A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.

Fr. Al Kimel, himself a convert, offers this commentary regarding the concept of “temporal punishment” on his (now archived) blog, “Pontifications.” (Emphasis mine): This penal understanding of a temporary post-mortem punishment has its roots in the Western patristic tradition and was elaborated with precision in the medieval period. It is grounded in the conviction that justice requires the perfect sanctification of sinners, achieved through penitence and suffering. St Bonaventure’s presentation may be considered representative. In his “Breviloquium” Bonaventure states that just as God, as supreme goodness, can suffer no good to remain unrewarded, so also he “cannot suffer any evil to remain unpunished.” Even the just, should they die before having completed their penance on earth, must endure a post-mortem penalty for their sins, “lest the beauty of universal order be disturbed.” However, while this sounds to modern ears as if God is punishing for punishment’s sake, this is not Bonaventure’s intent. The temporal punishment of sin is the sanctification and healing of the sinner. Sin distorts and corrupts the human being, attaching the will to lesser goods. While God forgives the offense of sin through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, in his justice he also requires the repentance, conversion, and healing of the sinner. The disorder of sin within the human heart must be rooted out, and because this sanctifying transformation involves suffering, it is metaphorically described as punishment.

The problem for most Protestants is the word “punishment”; if one exchanges the word “punishment” for the word “consequences,” (which would be a valid understanding, according to Kimel’s commentary), then we would be speaking in terms of temporal consequences of sin, which most Protestants would agree we still suffer even after our “redemption.”

To really understand the idea of “temporal punishment”, we have to come to a deeper understanding of sin; not just “sins”, but SIN as a principle, a “state”. When we sin, we reject God’s love, God’s truth, God’s will, God’s very being as GOD. Go back to Genesis chapter three… what half/truth does the Serpent tell Eve?  “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it [the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden] your eyes will be open and YOU WILL BE LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil.” (The “be like God” thing is the hook of pride, which caused Lucifer to fall in the first place. And after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they DID know the difference between good and evil… they knew that they HAD been good, and now they were evil…. anyway, I digress)

As a result of Sin, what took place (1) in the relationship between God and Man?; (2) in the relationship between Man and his fellow man (or, woman)?; and (3) between Man and his relationship to himself /his Self?

Wrong! Remember: Purgatory is simply the last stage of sanctification. Sanctification in this life involves pain, for “For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. . . . [And] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant” (Hebrews 12:6, 11), yet no one says that suffering infringes on Christ’s sufferings. In the same way, the suffering during the final sanctification in no way infringes on Christ’s sufferings or implies they were insufficient.

Quite the contrary! The fact is that the suffering we experience in sanctification in this life is something we receive because of Christ’s sacrifice for us. His sufferings paid the price for us to be sanctified, and his sufferings paid the price for the whole of our sanctification—both the initial and final parts. Thus it is because of Christ’s sacrifice that we receive the final sanctification in the first place! If he had not suffered, we would not be given the final sanctification (or the glorification to which it leads), but would go straight to hell. Thus purgatory does not imply Christ’s sufferings were insufficient; rather it is because of Christ’s sufferings that we are given the final sanctification of purgatory in the first place!

(Brandon responds) So… that’s where indulgences come in, right? They provide ”forgiveness” of temporal punishments, or consequences — the need for complete purification — that we need before being perfected in holiness.

That’s right. According to the CCC: An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sin whose guilt is already forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions, through the actions of the Church which — as the minister of redemption — dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. (1471) 

The CCC goes on to explain that: An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints, to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not simply want to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity. (1478)

In other words, because Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles the power “to bind and to loose” (to forgive or not forgive sin), the Church has the authority to offer the merits of Christ and the saints, attached to certain works of devotion, penance, or charity, as “remission” of some or all, (partial or plenary indulgence), of the temporal consequences of sin and need for purification.

But all those in purgatory are already ”saved”, right?

Correct. Salvation is not “earned” in purgatory, or lost in it either. It is simply a matter of getting “hosed off” — assuming you’d been playing in the mud when suddenly called in for supper – before putting on the wedding garment, and sitting down to the marriage feast of the Lamb.

Is all this making any more sense to you, (and Lisa), now?

It really helped! Thank you so much for the explanation!

Brandon S.

Reading the following around the internet….

The Myth of Pedophile Priests
As more pedophile priest scandals blow up across Europe we should be ashamed of the offenders and those who sheltered them and oppressed the victims. The guilty should be weeded out, removed from office and handed over to the civil authorities where they are guilty of crimes. Systems to avoid abuse must be established and rigorously maintained, and victims should be justly compensated for their suffering.

However, Penn State professor Philip Jenkins (who is not a Catholic) has written the most objective book on the subject, and he summarizes his arguments in this excellent article. In light of his work, we should remember some basic facts and principles:

* Priestly celibacy is not the issue - married men are more likely to abuse children than unmarried

* Most child abuse takes place within the home.

* All religious groups have pedophile scandals, and the Catholics (while the largest religious group) are at the bottom of the list statistically.

* Child abuse is prevalent in all areas of society: schools, youth organizations, sports, etc.

* Statistically, of all the professions, Christian clergy are least likely to offend. Doctors, Farmers and Teachers are the professions most likely to abuse children–not clergy.

* Among clergy offenders Catholic priests are least likely to offend.

* Catholic cases of pedophilia make more headlines because of anti Catholic prejudice and because the Catholic Church is bigger and more lucractive to sue.

* Pedophilia and Euphebophilia are different problems. The former is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The latter is attraction to teenagers. Most cases branded ‘pedophila’ are actually ‘euphebophila.’

* Most of the cases of euphebophilia are homosexual in nature, however the politically correct do not want this problem to be associated with homosexuality.

* The number of Catholic priests guilty of pedophilia is very small.

* What we now call ‘cover up’ was often done in a different cultural context, when the problem was not fully understood and when all establishment organizations hushed scandals. They did so for what seemed good reasons at the time: protection of the victims and their families, opportunity for rehabilitation of the offender, the avoidance of scandal to others. It is unfair to judge events thirty years ago by today’s standards.

* When lawsuits are looming people smell money. We must be wary of false accusations.

* When guilt is established the offender must be punished, not sheltered.

* Distinctions must be made between types of abuse. Some offenses are worse than others. Verbal abuse or corporal punishment during a time when that was acceptable, while lamentable, is not the same as sexual abuse or extreme physical abuse.

* Sexual abuse of an adult, or a sexually experienced older teenager is wrong, and damaging, and should be punished, but it is not the same as the sexual abuse of a younger, innocent child.

I am in no way wishing to be soft of pedophiles and those who covered for them, however justice and truth demand an objective analysis of the facts. ~From Father Longenecker’s blog.

And, from the Archbishop of NY, “What deepens the sadness now is the unrelenting insinuations against the Holy Father himself, as certain sources seem frenzied to implicate the man who, perhaps more than anyone else has been the leader in purification, reform, and renewal that the Church so needs…No one has been more vigorous in cleansing the Church of the effects of this sickening sin than the man we now call Pope Benedict XVI. The dramatic progress that the Catholic Church in the United States has made — documented again just last week by the report made by independent forensic auditors — could never have happened without the insistence and support of the very man now being daily crowned with thorns by groundless innuendo. ”

A reply to the New York Times article.

More on secular atheism and moral relativity.

A round up of many articles in support, via The Anchoress.
“Pope Benedict has taken serious steps to address the abuse scandal in the Church. What steps have a degenerate liberal elite taken to protect children in society at large? These are the same people who favor the abortion of unborn children.” http://catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=165:the-pope-and-his-pharisaical-attackers&catid=37:exclusive&Itemid=54 , 

PRAY for ALL victims and for the Pope.

John Paul II

   In the month after the death, days of mourning, and funeral of the late Pope John Paul II, a certain Lutheran youth pastor took 10 youth on a “pre-Confirmation” retreat, as part of their final preparation to receive the Rite of Confirmation. This pastor had, months earlier, expressly told these 10 youth that they would each need to ponder a saint of the Church whose life and faith were a witness to them, an example that they would wish to emulate, a patron saint whose name they would want to take on at their Confirmation.

As the van was unloading at the familiar beach retreat house, one young man said, “Pastor Paul, do you think they’re gonna make John Paul II a saint.” (”They” obviously meaning the Catholic Church.)

“Well, Keith*, I have no doubt that John Paul II was a saintly man, and I have little doubt that the Catholic Church will expedite the process of canonization for him… but why do you ask?”

“Cause that’s who I want for my saint’s name”

Two thoughts went through the pastor’s mind simultaneously: (1) “OOOKKKK…. that’s kinda outside the box…”, and (2) “WOW… I LIKE IT!”

“Keith*, we’ll need to sit down a little later and talk about that.”

Later that night, the pastor pulled the young man aside. “Sit down here, and explain to me why John Paul II is an example of faith to you, and someone whose name you would want to add to yours.”

“Well,” said the young man, “he took a bullet for the Faith, basically brought an end to the Cold War, and got old and sick and coulda quit but he didn’t… I think that’s pretty strong.”

Knowing there would probably be some “blow-back”, and not really caring very much if there was, the pastor smiled at the young man and said, “Keith, I agree with you, and I think that’s a very brave decision on your part. If anybody asks you, ‘Why John Paul?’, you just explain it to them like you did to me”

And so, on Pentecost Sunday, 2005, in a Lutheran church, the witness of the late Catholic pope changed the name of a young Lutheran boy, as I laid my hands upon his head, and proclaimed him Keith* Andrew “JOHN PAUL” Watson*

And the ceiling did NOT fall in.

That may not qualify as one of the three miracles necessary for canonization… but it comes pretty darn close.

Millions of people think that Satan, (aka, “the devil”), is a figment of human imagination; a non-existent being akin to orcs, goblins, and elves. They are mistaken. Holy Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, clearly teaches that Satan does exist. One has only to read the daily papers, or watch the evening news, to know that Satan exists and is as active today as he ever was in the past. Of all the enemies the human race has – especially those members of the human race who are part of the Church, the Body of Christ – this Enemy is the most dangerous.

391   Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.²⁶⁶ Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.²⁶⁷ The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”²⁶⁸

392   Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.²⁶⁹ This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.”²⁷⁰ The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.²⁷¹ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 266  Cf. Gen 3:1-5; Wis 2:24.   267   Cf Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9.   268  Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 800.   269  Cf. 2 Pet 2:4.   270  Gen 3:5.   271  1 Jn 3:8; Jn 8:44.

 His Name

The name Satan means _______________________ (“devil” means __________________________)

When this word is used as a proper noun, it describes the chief of the fallen spirits, the most malevolent adversary of God and man, (Jn 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech. 3:1), hostile to everything good or pure.

 His Aliases & Titles:

Matt. 12:24          “B_____________________” (means ______________________________________)*

John 8:44 (two)   “a murderer” and the “F___________________________________________”

John 14:30           “the ______________________________________________________________”

2 Cor. 4:4            “the ____________________________of this world”

2 Cor. 6:15           “Belial” (In common use, a Hebrew word for  “ __________________________” )

Eph 2:2                “the P______________________________________________________________”

Rev. 9:11 (two names)

                              “A_________________________” (means ______________________________)

                               “A_________________________” (means ______________________________)

                              (This passage also refers to him as “the angel of ___________________________” )

Rev. 12:10            “A __________________________________________________ “

Rev. 20:2             “the D_________________, the A______________________________”

His Origin

Nowhere does Holy Scripture specifically explain the origin of Satan, but two passages that biblical scholars often point two as possible “poetic” descriptions are: Isaiah 14:12-15 and  Ezekiel 29:12-19  (Look up both passages, read them together.  What words or phrases suggest to you that the prophets are talking to someone “beyond” the person they are addressing?)

  If these passages do disclose something to us about the origin of Satan, what do you “sense” might have happened? What was the root of his sin?

His Personality

Satan is a real, spiritual, being – a “person” in the same way the Holy Spirit is a “person.” Sacred Scripture teaches that he has:

      1. (2 Cor 11:3)  _____________________________;

      2. (2 Tim 2:26)  _____________________________; and,

      3. (Rev. 12:10)  _____________________________.

Furthermore, he is treated by God as a morally responsible being, not an impersonal power or thing, who of his own “free will” chose to rebel against God, and will suffer the due punishment. (Matt. 25:41, see also CCC par. 392-393)

 His Strategy

Satan is totally obsessed with hatred for the Almighty and all things holy and good. He never tires of trying to get others join him in his rebellion against the authority of the Almighty God, the Holy One. By his deceit, he lured Adam and Eve into sin against God, thereby stealing their innocence from them, and making them – and all their descendents – his slaves.  Every redeemed child of God who has confessed faith in Christ, all who have been baptized in the name of the Triune God, marked with the Cross and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, have been released from his dominion (Col. 1:13) – and have entered the battle against him. (cf. Liturgy for the Sacrament of Holy Baptism)

 Satan’s battle-plan is simple, but deadly:

1.      To lure people into sin (Genesis 3:1-12), and make them his slaves ( John 8:34).

2.      To oppose, hinder, and counterfeit the plan of God. (Daniel 10:10-14;  Rev. 13:1-10)

3.      To blind the minds of unbelievers, and snatch the Word of God from their heart.                (2 Cor. 4:4;  Luke 18:2)

4.      To deceive and destroy believers, (2 Cor. 11:14;  I Pet 5:8), tempting them to sin and to shipwreck their faith. (Acts 5:3;  Heb 3:12-13;  2^nd Tim. 4:9-10a;  1^st Tim 1:18,19)

 BUT… and this is crucial to remember: “The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”²⁷⁵ “  (CCC 395)  275 Rom 8:28.

 His Ultimate End

Though he is a spiritual being of enormous power, cunning, and wrath, the Devil is NOT equal with God. He is not invincible. He can be - and, in fact, has been – defeated, and faces eternal punishment.

1.      Judgment pronounced in Eden (Gen. 3:14-15)

2.      Judgment prophesied by Christ ( Luke 10:18)

3.      Judgment sealed at the Cross (John 12:31,32)

4.      Cast into the Lake of Fire at the end of time. (Rev. 20:10) 

The un-holy Trinity are the false goods and false gods that Satan sets up. They are the World, the Flesh and the Devil. I wrote about how the Holy Trinity counters the un-Holy Trinity here, but as we head into Lent consider the tools we are given to battle the un-holy Trinity: there are three, and they give us a well rounded and complete armory in the fight.

The three are prayer, almsgiving and abstinence, and together they counter the World, the Flesh and the Devil. How so?  The World is the underlying assumption that life is about power and prosperity. We’re here to get money, save money, spend money and attain worldly wealth and power right? Wrong. And it is almsgiving that counters this basic assumption that it’s all about money.

When you give your money sacrificially you’re telling your bank account who’s boss. You’re taking control of money and by giving it away you’re telling the money god just what you think of him. You’re reminding yourself that money is like manure: spread it around and it does a lot of good. Save it all in one place and it starts to stink and breeds germs. So almsgiving is a direct, practical and simpe way to put The World in its place and turn our hearts to heaven.

Abstinence, or giving something up for Lent, is a sure way to discipline the flesh. It’s fashionable to cut this one out these days and say, “Instead of giving something up, I’m taking something up.”–meaning some good cause. Actually we’re supposed to do both, and the old tradition of giving up some physical pleasure means that we are taking the threat of The Flesh seriously. The Flesh is not just the physical pleasures of food, sex, sleep, entertainment and drink. It is also the underlying assumption that life is all about keeping this body of mine satiated with all sorts of pleasurable sensations. Giving up a fleshly pleasure corrects that underlying assumption and shifts our attention to higher things.

Prayer is the antidote to The Devil. It’s simple. The Devil wants to be worshipped instead of God. By offering more prayer and worship to God we stymie the devil. By turning our attention to God and offering him our devotion and obedience we trample down the head of Satan during Lent.

So this Lent we battle the un-holy Trinity with three holy weapons. Almsgiving counters The World. Abstinence counters The Flesh and Prayer counters The Devil.

Once again this year, the National Right to Life convention is partly a reunion of veterans from battles past and partly a youth rally of those recruited for the battles to come. And that is just what it should be. The pro-life movement that began in the twentieth century laid the foundation for the pro-life movement of the twenty-first century. We have been at this a long time, and we are just getting started. All that has been and all that will be is prelude to, and anticipation of, an indomitable hope. All that has been and all that will be is premised upon the promise of Our Lord’s return in glory when, as we read in the Book of Revelation, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” And all things will be new.

That is the horizon of hope that, from generation to generation, sustains the great human rights cause of our time and all times—the cause of life. We contend, and we contend relentlessly, for the dignity of the human person, of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, destined from eternity for eternity—every human person, no matter how weak or how strong, no matter how young or how old, no matter how productive or how burdensome, no matter how welcome or how inconvenient. Nobody is a nobody; nobody is unwanted. All are wanted by God, and therefore to be respected, protected, and cherished by us.

We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person.

Against the encroaching shadows of the culture of death, against forces commanding immense power and wealth, against the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child, against what St. Paul calls the principalities and powers of the present time, this convention renews our resolve that we shall not weary, we shall not rest, until the culture of life is reflected in the rule of law and lived in the law of love.

It has been a long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go. Some say it started with the notorious Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 when, by what Justice Byron White called an act of raw judicial power, the Supreme Court wiped from the books of all fifty states every law protecting the unborn child. But it goes back long before that. Some say it started with the agitation for “liberalized abortion law” in the 1960s when the novel doctrine was proposed that a woman cannot be fulfilled unless she has the right to destroy her child. But it goes back long before that. It goes back to the movements for eugenics and racial and ideological cleansing of the last century.

Whether led by enlightened liberals, such as Margaret Sanger, or brutal totalitarians, whose names live in infamy, the doctrine and the practice was that some people stood in the way of progress and were therefore non-persons, living, as it was said, “lives unworthy of life.” But it goes back even before that. It goes back to the institution of slavery in which human beings were declared to be chattel property to be bought and sold and used and discarded at the whim of their masters. It goes way on back.

As Pope John Paul the Great wrote in his historic message Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) the culture of death goes all the way back to that fateful afternoon when Cain struck down his brother Abel, and the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And Cain answered, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” And the Lord said to Cain, “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” The voice of the blood of brothers and sisters beyond numbering cry out from the slave ships and battlegrounds and concentration camps and torture chambers of the past and the present. The voice of the blood of the innocents cries out from the abortuaries and sophisticated biotech laboratories of this beloved country today. Contending for the culture of life has been a very long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go.

The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. I expect many of us here, perhaps most of us here, can remember when we were first encountered by the idea. For me, it was in the 1960s when I was pastor of a very poor, very black, inner city parish in Brooklyn, New York. I had read that week an article by Ashley Montagu of Princeton University on what he called “A Life Worth Living.” He listed the qualifications for a life worth living: good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential. These were among the measures of what was called “a life worth living.”

And I remember vividly, as though it were yesterday, looking out the next Sunday morning at the congregation of St. John the Evangelist and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw that day the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning, a bolt of lightning that illuminated our moral and cultural moment, that Prof. Montagu and those of like mind believed that the people of St. John the Evangelist—people whom I knew and had come to love as people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—it struck me then that, by the criteria of the privileged and enlightened, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed.

In that moment, I knew that I had been recruited to the cause of the culture of life. To be recruited to the cause of the culture of life is to be recruited for the duration; and there is no end in sight, except to the eyes of faith.

Perhaps you, too, can specify such a moment when you knew you were recruited. At that moment you could have said, “Yes, it’s terrible that in this country alone 4,000 innocent children are killed every day, but then so many terrible things are happening in the world. Am I my infant brother’s keeper? Am I my infant sister’s keeper?” You could have said that, but you didn’t. You could have said, “Yes, the nation that I love is betraying its founding principles—that every human being is endowed by God with inalienable rights, including, and most foundationally, the right to life. But,” you could have said, “the Supreme Court has spoken and its word is the law of the land. What can I do about it?” You could have said that, but you didn’t. That horror, that betrayal, would not let you go. You knew, you knew there and then, that you were recruited to contend for the culture of life, and that you were recruited for the duration.

The contention between the culture of life and the culture of death is not a battle of our own choosing. We are not the ones who imposed upon the nation the lethal logic that human beings have no rights we are bound to respect if they are too small, too weak, too dependent, too burdensome. That lethal logic, backed by the force of law, was imposed by an arrogant elite that for almost forty years has been telling us to get over it, to get used to it.

But “We the People,” who are the political sovereign in this constitutional democracy, have not gotten over it, we have not gotten used to it, and we will never, we will never ever, agree that the culture of death is the unchangeable law of the land.

“We the People” have not and will not ratify the lethal logic of Roe v. Wade. That notorious decision of 1973 is the most consequential moral and political event of the last half century of our nation’s history. It has produced a dramatic realignment of moral and political forces, led by evangelicals and Catholics together, and joined by citizens beyond numbering who know that how we respond to this horror defines who we are as individuals and as a people. Our opponents, once so confident, are now on the defensive. Having lost the argument with the American people, they desperately cling to the dictates of the courts. No longer able to present themselves as the wave of the future, they watch in dismay as a younger generation recoils in horror from the bloodletting of an abortion industry so arrogantly imposed by judges beyond the rule of law.

We do not know, we do not need to know, how the battle for the dignity of the human person will be resolved. God knows, and that is enough. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta and saints beyond numbering have taught us, our task is not to be successful but to be faithful. Yet in that faithfulness is the lively hope of success. We are the stronger because we are unburdened by delusions. We know that in a sinful world, far short of the promised Kingdom of God, there will always be great evils. The principalities and powers will continue to rage, but they will not prevail.

In the midst of the encroaching darkness of the culture of death, we have heard the voice of him who said, “In the world you will have trouble. But fear not, I have overcome the world.” Because he has overcome, we shall overcome. We do not know when; we do not know how. God knows, and that is enough. We know the justice of our cause, we trust in the faithfulness of his promise, and therefore we shall not weary, we shall not rest.

Whether, in this great contest between the culture of life and the culture of death, we were recruited many years ago or whether we were recruited only yesterday, we have been recruited for the duration. We go from this convention refreshed in our resolve to fight the good fight. We go from this convention trusting in the words of the prophet Isaiah that “they who wait upon the Lord will renew their strength, they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not be weary, they will walk and not be faint.”

The journey has been long, and there are miles and miles to go. But from this convention the word is carried to every neighborhood, every house of worship, every congressional office, every state house, every precinct of this our beloved country—from this convention the word is carried that, until every human being created in the image and likeness of God—no matter how small or how weak, no matter how old or how burdensome—until every human being created in the image and likeness of God is protected in law and cared for in life, we shall not weary, we shall not rest. And, in this the great human rights struggle of our time and all times, we shall overcome.

As a tradition, First Things, (the magazine which Fr. Neuhaus founded), runs this speech every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Christ the King Sunday

(Note: This was the last sermon I ever preached as a Lutheran pastor; I don’t believe that anything I said THEN could not be said by a faithful Catholic NOW. The lessons refered to were from the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A.) 

“of Royal Blood”

It seems very fitting that the last Sunday of the Church year would be observed as the Sunday of the fulfillment, the Sunday of the culmination and consummation of all things – Christ the King Sunday. On this Sunday of the Church year we sum up all that has gone before, and affirm that ALL things are – and will be — summed up in the rule and reign of Christ.

Living in a democracy, (or, to be specific, a democratic republic), we aren’t used to the idea of royalty, of being subject to the rule of a king. And yet, Sacred Scripture affirms that just such an absolute monarchy exists within the Kingdom of God. Again and again, the evangelists and apostles bear witness that Jesus is Lord, that Christ is King. The Gospel reading for this coming Sunday provides an excellent example of this witness. “When the Son of Man comes in His glory… He will sit upon His glorious throne… then the King will say to those on His right… ‘Come… inherit the Kingdom…’ ” St. Paul also affirms the absolute monarchy of Christ in our Second Lesson this morning:

       For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet.

                                    (Sounds pretty “absolute” doesn’t it?)

The whole of the NT bears witness to this truth: the Angel Gabriel, announces to Mary that she is highly favored with grace, and will give birth to the Savior, “and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”  St. Paul tells us in his letter to the Philippians, “… at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord…” Again, St. Paul, writes in Romans (15:12), quoting Isaiah the prophet:

        The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.

The Revelation to St. John affirms again and again the reality that Christ rules the universe, even now, and that the saints in heaven continually proclaim His kingdom.

       And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

And there’s more. For this King not only died for His subjects, His servants – but by His victorious death and glorious resurrection, this King has adopted us as His own, claimed us as His very sons and daughters, made us to be of royal blood! As St. Paul writes in Ephesians, the very passage prior to our Second Lesson: “In love the Father predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”

What astounding love! What amazing grace! It would have been enough to have been freed from bondage, to have been given a new life… but to be taken into the King’s palace, to be cleansed and robed in royal robes, to be brought into the throne room and seated with Him… to be called no longer servants, but sons and daughters… to be made of royal blood… it should cause us to stand in awe, and to bow in adoration.

This King, and this King alone, has the right to rule over our lives. This King, and this King alone has the right to claim the throne of our lives. This King, and this King alone has the right to command us to kneel, and to make us royal knights in His service, to proclaim His glorious and gentle rule of justice and peace throughout the world, by our words, and by the very lives that we live in loving service to others: “as you have done it to the least of these…”

In a recent movie entitled, “The Kingdom of Heaven”, a young man, the illegitimate son of a noble knight, is claimed by his father, and at his father’s deathbed, is knighted and proclaimed as his father’s rightful heir, and given his father’s title. This young knight ultimately is left to defend Jerusalem against Sala’-hadin and his army of Saracens. It seems a hopeless task.  The bishop of Jerusalem, the patriarch of Jerusalem, expresses that hopelessness to Balian, the young knight.

        Bp: “My Lord… How do you intend to defend Jerusalem without any knights?  We have no knights!”

        Bn: “Truly?” He surveys the armed peasants that surround him, his eyes lighting on a tall boy, barely a man. “What is your condition?

        Boy: “I am a servant to the patriarch.” The bishop nods in agreement, “Yes, he is one of my servants

        Bn: You were born a servant?” The boy nods.

        Bn: “Kneel.”  (Again, surveying the peasant crowd.) “Kneel. Every man at arms, or capable of bearing them, kneel! … On your knees!

                Be without fear in the face of your enemies.

                Be brave and upright that God may love thee.

                Speak the truth even if it leads to your death.

                Safeguard the helpless. Do no wrong.

                This is your oath.”

He slaps the young man across the face. “And that is so you remember it. Rise - a knight.” He then turns and proclaims to all the men gathered, “Rise - a knight!”

        The bishop, scandalized at this indiscriminate “mass knighting” of ignorant and low-born peasants, protests: “Who do you think you are? Will you alter the world? Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter?”  Balian, turning to the bishop, says emphatically:  “Yes”

        And so, I call on each one of you, each one who will hear the call of the King, each one of you willing and able to bear His Word to the world… kneel. In this moment, in your heart, go to your knees!

        Be without fear in the face of your Enemy, THE EVIL ONE.

        Be brave and righteous for the sake of the One who loved you.

        Speak the truth of His Word, even if it leads to your death.

        Safeguard the helpless. Do no wrong.

        This is your oath.

        And this (X sign of the Cross) is so you remember it.

Rise… a knight of the Most High King. Go forth in the power of His might. Fight the good fight. Finish the course. Keep the Faith.

In the King’s Name, and for His sake… Amen.

Tomb of the Unknown

The Feast of All Saints, which we observed this Sunday, is just such a monument for the Church. From the early centuries of the Church, a day was set aside in which all those who had died in the Faith — most of them martyrs, having been put to death for their confession of Jesus as Lord, and most of those unknown by the Church, but known by God –  a day in which these saints would also be honored by the Church. In the Church of the East, the day was observed on the Sunday after Pentecost. There is a certain logic to that — the thought being that Pentecost is the “birth” of the Church, and the Church grows, in spite of persecution, because of the faithful witness of many who will suffer death before they deny the Lord who died for them, redeemed them by His blood, and rose again. As one early Church Father wrote: “The blood of the martyers is the seed of the Church.”

In the West, the Feast of All Saints is traced to the foundation, by Pope Gregory III (731-741), of an oratory in St. Peter’s for the relics “of the holy apostles and of all saints, martyrs and confessors, of all the just made perfect who are at rest throughout the world,” with the day set for November 1st. While “All Saints” is meant to honor those who have passed from this life, it would be a mistake for us to misunderstand or mis-interpret the word. When we speak of saints, we automatically think — almost unconsciously — “really holy” and “dead.” But one of these ideas needs to be re-examined.

One day, not long after Jesus had entered Jerusalem for the Passover — His “Passover” — He was teaching in the Temple. On that day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us, the first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, whose wife will she be in the resurrection, since all of them were married to her?”

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead — have you not read what God said to you, ‘I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, BUT OF THE LIVING.”

St. Matthew tells us that when the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching. And it is pretty astonishing — the declaration that God is no a God of the dead, but of the living; that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob — the holy patriarchs, having long passed from the earth, are NOT dead, but alive!

So what’s the connection to “All Saints”? Simply this: the saints who have gone before us, who have passed from this life, are not dead — they LIVE. They live IN CHRIST, who is LIFE. The saints LIVE, the ones known to the Church, and the ones known only to God. But unlike the honor guard keeping watch at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the saints — known and unknown — keep over us, a never-sleeping, ever-present, always watchful, honor guard.

“… since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, … let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us…”