USCCB »  Bible »  Daily Readings

January 28, 2014

Link to original  

Memorial of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Priest and Doctor of the Church
Lectionary: 318

Reading 12 SM 6:12B-15, 17-19

David went to bring up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom 

into the City of David amid festivities.

As soon as the bearers of the ark of the LORD had advanced six steps, 

he sacrificed an ox and a fatling.

The sacrifice on the seventh day is a Covenant similar to the Sabbath:

Genesis 2:3  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

David took the first six steps without mishap as God's agreement that He would permit the Ark to be moved safely.  

Then David, girt with a linen apron, 

came dancing before the LORD with abandon, 

as he and all the house of Israel were bringing up the ark of the LORD

with shouts of joy and to the sound of the horn.

The ark of the LORD was brought in and set in its place 

within the tent David had pitched for it.

Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD.

When he finished making these offerings, 

he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts.

He then distributed among all the people, 

to each man and each woman in the entire multitude of Israel, 

a loaf of bread, a cut of roast meat, and a raisin cake.

With this, all the people left for their homes.

Then David celebrated with the entire community that the Ark of the Lord had been moved to its place in Jerusalem.

Responsorial Psalm PS 24:7, 8, 9, 10

R. (8) Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!

Lift up, O gates, your lintels;

reach up, you ancient portals,

that the king of glory may come in!

R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!

Who is this king of glory?

The LORD, strong and mighty,

the LORD, mighty in battle.

R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!

Lift up, O gates, your lintels;

reach up, you ancient portals,

that the king of glory may come in!

R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!

Who is this king of glory?

The LORD of hosts; he is the king of glory.

R. Who is this king of glory? It is the Lord!

The gates and ancient doors which are called to lift up and let the King of Glory come in are figures of our hearts.  Let us all be open to the grace of God which is poured out to us in the Sacraments.  Do not put any obstacles to the grace of God when receiving His forgiving and merciful grace in the fountains which He established for our salvation.

Gospel MK 3:31-35

The mother of Jesus and his brothers arrived at the house.

Standing outside, they sent word to Jesus and called him.

A crowd seated around him told him,

“Your mother and your brothers and your sisters

are outside asking for you.”

But he said to them in reply,

“Who are my mother and my brothers?”

And looking around at those seated in the circle he said,

“Here are my mother and my brothers.

For whoever does the will of God

is my brother and sister and mother.”

Many people see this as a denial of Mary's special relationship to Jesus.  But, those people forget that Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables.  The parable here says that those who do the will of God are they who are more closely related to Him.  The more closely related, the more they have done in accordance with the Father's will.  Only one person in the history of mankind has done the will of God to the extent that she would be considered the Mother of God.  Mary:

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.  29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.  30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.  31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

 

USCCB »  Bible »  

Daily Readings

 

January 27, 2014

 

« January 26  |  January 28 »

Monday of the Third Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 317

Reading 12 SM 5:1-7, 10

All the tribes of Israel came to David in Hebron and said:
“Here we are, your bone and your flesh.
In days past, when Saul was our king, 
it was you who led the children of Israel out and brought them back.
And the LORD said to you, ‘You shall shepherd my people Israel 
and shall be commander of Israel.’”
When all the elders of Israel came to David in Hebron, 
King David made an agreement with them there before the LORD, 
and they anointed him king of Israel.
David was thirty years old when he became king, 
and he reigned for forty years: 
seven years and six months in Hebron over Judah, 
and thirty-three years in Jerusalem
over all Israel and Judah.

Then the king and his men set out for Jerusalem 
against the Jebusites who inhabited the region.
David was told, “You cannot enter here: 
the blind and the lame will drive you away!” 
which was their way of saying, “David cannot enter here.”
But David did take the stronghold of Zion, which is the City of David. 

David grew steadily more powerful,
for the LORD of hosts was with him.

After Saul was defeated and killed, David took over the throne of Israel and took his place in Jerusalem.  Jerusalem then became known as the City of David.  God was with David and he ruled a long time.

Responsorial Psalm PS 89:20, 21-22, 25-26

R. (25a) My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him.
Once you spoke in a vision,
and to your faithful ones you said:
“On a champion I have placed a crown;
over the people I have set a youth.”

R. My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him.
“I have found David, my servant;
with my holy oil I have anointed him,
That my hand may be always with him,
and that my arm may make him strong.”

R. My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him.
“My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him,
and through my name shall his horn be exalted.
I will set his hand upon the sea,
his right hand upon the rivers.”
R. My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him.

This verse is directly about King David but indirectly, in a figure, about Jesus Christ, the King of Kings.  It is to Jesus Christ that God the Father gave the eternal Kingship over His Domain.

Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

 

Gospel MK 3:22-30

The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said of Jesus, 
“He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and
“By the prince of demons he drives out demons.”

The Scribes, an elite group of Jews which might be likened to lawyers in our society, accused Jesus of being a demon.

Summoning them, he began to speak to them in parables, 

Jesus heard of this and called them over to confront them on this issue.

“How can Satan drive out Satan?
If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

He said, that doesn't make sense.  Any kingdom which is divided will fall.

And if a house is divided against itself, 
that house will not be able to stand.
And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, 
he cannot stand; 
that is the end of him.

Therefore, if I am a demon fighting against demons and doing what demons never do, then Satan is divided and will fall.

But no one can enter a strong man’s house to plunder his property 
unless he first ties up the strong man.

But no one can defeat Satan without first going into His house (i.e. prince of this world; John 12:31) and tying him up (Rev 20:2).

Then he can plunder his house. 

And then Jesus Christ will set the captives free (Luke 4:18).

Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies 
that people utter will be forgiven them.
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit 
will never have forgiveness, 
but is guilty of an everlasting sin.”
For they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

This is hard to explain.  But it illustrates what Pope Francis has been trying to explain.  The essence of our faith is the Spirit of Love.  It doesn't matter what people have done or what they look like.  If they are acting in a Spirit of love and repent of their sins, they can be saved, by God.

But those who deny the Spirit of God, will be condemned. 

Catholic Doors Ministry FAQ - How does a Catholic receive absolution for the sin of abortion

Catholic Doors Ministry
Catholic Answers to Catholic Questions

Frequently Asked Questions
regarding
THE SIN OF ABORTION
AND THE
SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION.

Q. 1. Does the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach us anything about how a Catholic can be forgiven of the sin of abortion?

A. 1. The following two sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church state:

# 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," [CIC, can. 1398] "by the very commission of the offense," [CIC, can. 1314] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. [Cf. CIC, cann. 1323-1324] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. [1463]

# 1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. [Cf. CIC, cann. 1331; 1354-1357; CCEO, can. 1431; 1434; 1420] In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication. [Cf. CIC, can. 976; CCEO, can. 725] [982]

Q. 2. What does that mean in simple English?

A. 2. It means that anyone who has an abortion, participates in an abortion, or supports an abortion, he or she, by the previously mentioned actions, is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church. (C.C.C. # 2273)

Accordingly, that person can no longer receive any of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, be it the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Communion), Marriage or the Sacrament of Confession. For an excommunication to be lifted (ended), the sinner must approach the local Bishop, inform him of his/her "latae sententiae" excommunication through the sin of abortion and ask the Bishop to have the excommunication lifted (ended) and to be absolved of the sin of abortion. The Bishop may authorize a priest to specifically deal with this absolution on his behalf. (C.C.C. # 1463) Contrary to the popular belief of Catholics, this does not mean that all priests can absolve a penitent of the excommunication. Only a priest who is specifically appointed by the Bishop to do so, may do so.

Q. 3. Does that mean that if a woman had an abortion and confessed it to a priest who had not been specifically appointed by the local Bishop to lift her excommunication, that her sin was never forgiven?

A. 3. That is correct! There have been many instances where priests did not realize that an abortion incurs an automatic excommunication. As such, while they may enjoy the authority to forgive sins, they do not have the authority to lift excommunications. Consequently, while a person is excommunicated, that person cannot validly receive any of the Sacraments, that including the Sacrament of Confession. (Exception: In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, any priest can absolve from every sin and excommunication.)

Q. 4. That being the case, most likely, a very large number of women never had their sin of abortion forgiven because they never had their excommunication lifted by their local Bishop or by a priest appointed by the local Bishop to do so.

A. 4. I agree with that. Most likely, less than 25% of Catholics who had an abortion, participated in one, or supported an abortion, actually had their sins forgiven because they did not observe the Church policy on the matter.

Q. 5. Would the same apply to Catholic politicians who support abortions?

A. 5. Yes! They are automatically excommunicated and are no longer able to enjoy any of the Church Sacraments. To receive any of the Church Sacraments after having been excommunicated, these politicians are drawing the wrath of God against them for continuing to insult the Lord Jesus after having shown little respect for life through the support of abortions.

To submit your question, please send to our: NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
(On the subject line: Indicate "FAQ" for "Frequently Asked Questions.")

January 26, 2014

Third Sunday in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 67
Reading 1 IS 8:23-9:3

First the Lord degraded the land of Zebulun
and the land of Naphtali;
but in the end he has glorified the seaward road,
the land west of the Jordan,
the District of the Gentiles.
Anguish has taken wing, dispelled is darkness:
for there is no gloom where but now there was distress.
The people who walked in darkness
have seen a great light;
upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom
a light has shone.
You have brought them abundant joy
and great rejoicing,
as they rejoice before you as at the harvest,
as people make merry when dividing spoils.
For the yoke that burdened them,
the pole on their shoulder,
and the rod of their taskmaster
you have smashed, as on the day of Midian.

This is a prophetic word which seems to speak of the punishment of the godless or gentile nations.  But then, speaks of the future glorification of these countries when they accept the Messiah.

Responsorial Psalm PS 27:1, 4, 13-14

R/ (1a) The Lord is my light and my salvation.
The LORD is my light and my salvation;
whom should I fear?
The LORD is my life’s refuge;
of whom should I be afraid?

R/ The Lord is my light and my salvation.
One thing I ask of the LORD;
this I seek:
To dwell in the house of the LORD
all the days of my life,
That I may gaze on the loveliness of the LORD
and contemplate his temple.

R/ The Lord is my light and my salvation.
I believe that I shall see the bounty of the LORD
in the land of the living.
Wait for the LORD with courage;
be stouthearted, and wait for the LORD.
R/ The Lord is my light and my salvation.

God is all that we have.  Don't lean upon wealth that perishes.  Only God is forever.  Lean upon Him and be saved.

Reading 2 1 COR 1:10-13, 17

I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters,
by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
I mean that each of you is saying,
“I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,”
or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
and not with the wisdom of human eloquence,
so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.

God doesn't want a divided Church.  The Reformers sinned greatly in tearing the Body of Christ asunder.  Let us redouble our prayers for a reunification of the True Church.  May all men of good faith come back to the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.

Gospel MT 4:12-23

When Jesus heard that John had been arrested,
he withdrew to Galilee.
He left Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum by the sea,
in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali,
that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet
might be fulfilled:
Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles,
the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light,
on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death
light has arisen.
From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say,
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This is the fulfillment of the Old Testament verse from Isaiah in the first reading.  

As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers,
Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew,
casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen.
He said to them,
“Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
At once they left their nets and followed him.
He walked along from there and saw two other brothers,
James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John.
They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets.
He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father
and followed him.
He went around all of Galilee,
teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom,
and curing every disease and illness among the people.

Then Jesus began to preach the Gosple of the Kingdom of Heaven throughout Galilee.

The alternate Gospel reading is only a subset of the primary reading.  No need for further comment. 

Or MT 4:12-17

When Jesus heard that John had been arrested,
he withdrew to Galilee.
He left Nazareth and went to live in Capernaum by the sea,
in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali,
that what had been said through Isaiah the prophet
might be fulfilled:
Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the way to the sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles,
the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light,
on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death
light has arisen.
From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say,
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Sunday Bible Reflections with Dr. Scott Hahn - January 26th 2014 - Third Sunday in Ordinary Time

Listen Here!
History Redeemed
Readings:
Isaiah 8:23-9:3
Psalm 27:1,4,13-14
1 Corinthians 1:10-13,17
Matthew 4:12-23


Today’s Liturgy gives us a lesson in ancient Israelite geography and history.

Isaiah’s prophecy in today’s First Reading is quoted by Matthew in today’s Gospel. Both intend to recall the apparent fall of the everlasting kingdom promised to David (see 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Psalm 89; Psalm 132:11-12).

Eight centuries before Christ, that part of the kingdom where the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali lived was attacked by the Assyrians and the tribes were hauled off into captivity (see 2 Kings 15:29; 1 Chronicles 5:26).

It marked the beginning of the kingdom’s end. It finally crumbled in the sixth century B.C., when Jerusalem was seized by Babylon and the remaining tribes were driven into exile (see 2 Kings 24:14).

Isaiah prophesied that Zebulun and Naphtali, the lands first to be degraded, would be the first to see the light of God’s salvation. Jesus today fulfills that prophecy - announcing the restoration of David’s kingdom at precisely the spot where the kingdom began to fall.

His gospel of the Kingdom includes not only the twelve tribes of Israel but all the nations - symbolized by the “Galilee of the Nations.” Calling His first disciples, two fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, He appoints them to be “fishers of men” - gathering people from the ends of the earth.

They are to preach the gospel, Paul says in today’s Epistle, to unite all peoples in the same mind and in the same purpose - in a worldwide kingdom of God.

By their preaching, Isaiah’s promise has been delivered. A world in darkness has seen the light. The yoke of slavery and sin, borne by humanity since time began, has been smashed.

And we are able now, as we sing in today’s Psalm, to dwell in the house of the Lord, to worship Him in the land of the living.

Yours in Christ,

Scott Hahn, Ph.D.

P.S. Do you want your friends, family, and co-workers to know the treasures of the Catholic faith through the treasure of God’s Word? Then join me in praying for the work of the St. Paul Center and please make your most generous financial contribution today.  You can donate now by credit card by visiting our secure, convenient website at www.salvationhistory.com

If you appreciate this service forward it to a friend!

January 25, 2014

Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, Apostle 
Lectionary: 519
Reading 1 ACTS 22:3-16

Paul addressed the people in these words:
“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia,
but brought up in this city.
At the feet of Gamaliel I was educated strictly in our ancestral law
and was zealous for God, just as all of you are today.
I persecuted this Way to death,
binding both men and women and delivering them to prison.
Even the high priest and the whole council of elders
can testify on my behalf.
For from them I even received letters to the brothers
and set out for Damascus to bring back to Jerusalem
in chains for punishment those there as well.

St. Paul was born Saul of Tarsus.  He was educated by the greatest Jewish theologian in history, the great Gamaliel.  And his knowledge of theology served him well in learning the Christian faith.  His insights are a testimony to the surpassing knowledge of his childhood teacher.  

Saul of Tarsus was also a persecutor of Christians before Jesus knocked him off his horse. 

“On that journey as I drew near to Damascus,
about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me.
I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me,
‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’
I replied, ‘Who are you, sir?’
And he said to me,
‘I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.’

Saul had never personally met Jesus.  Saul was persecuting Christians and the Christian Church.  But Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Church.  That is why we are considered His Body.  Therefore, when Saul persecuted the Church of Christ, he persecuted Christ.

My companions saw the light
but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
I asked, ‘What shall I do, sir?’
The Lord answered me, ‘Get up and go into Damascus,
and there you will be told about everything
appointed for you to do.’
Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light,
I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus.

“A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law,
and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,
came to me and stood there and said,
‘Saul, my brother, regain your sight.’
And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him.
Then he said,
‘The God of our ancestors designated you to know his will,
to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of his voice;
for you will be his witness before all
to what you have seen and heard.
Now, why delay?
Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away,
calling upon his name.’”

This is one of my favorite verses to highlight the effectualness of Baptism.  Baptism truly washes away the sins of the repentant believer.

Or ACTS 9:1-22

The version of St. Paul's conversion in Acts 22 is the retelling by St. Paul.  The first account of this story is in chapter 9.

Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord,
went to the high priest and asked him
for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that,
if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way,
he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.
On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus,
a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.
He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him,
“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
He said, “Who are you, sir?”
The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Saul had never personally met Jesus.  Saul was persecuting Christians and the Christian Church.  But Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Church.  That is why we are considered His Body.  Therefore, when Saul persecuted the Church of Christ, he persecuted Christ.

Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless,
for they heard the voice but could see no one.
Saul got up from the ground,
but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing;
so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.
For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank.

Jesus had knocked Saul off his horse and struck him blind.  In this condition, Saul was instructed to meet the Christians in Damascus.

There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias,
and the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias.”
He answered, “Here I am, Lord.”
The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight
and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul.
He is there praying,
and in a vision he has seen a man named Ananias
come in and lay his hands on him,
that he may regain his sight.”
But Ananias replied,
“Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man,
what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem.
And here he has authority from the chief priests
to imprison all who call upon your name.”
But the Lord said to him,
“Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine
to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and children of Israel,
and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.”

Simultaneously, Jesus appeared to a Christian man named Ananias and instructed him to baptize Saul.  Ananias was understandably concerned because Saul's vicious reputation preceded him.

So Ananias went and entered the house;
laying his hands on him, he said,
“Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me,
Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came,
that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes
and he regained his sight.
He got up and was baptized,
and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength.

But Ananias obeyed Jesus' instructions and baptized Saul.  Immediately, Saul regained his sight.

He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus,
and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues,
that he is the Son of God.
All who heard him were astounded and said,
“Is not this the man who in Jerusalem
ravaged those who call upon this name,
and came here expressly to take them back in chains
to the chief priests?”
But Saul grew all the stronger
and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus,
proving that this is the Christ.

People recognized Saul and were amazed that the persecutor of the Church was now a member of the Church.

Responsorial Psalm PS 117:1BC, 2

R. (Mark 16:15) Go out to all the world and tell the Good News.
or:
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
Praise the LORD, all you nations;
glorify him, all you peoples!

R. Go out to all the world, and tell the Good News.
or:
R. Alleluia, alleluia.
For steadfast is his kindness toward us,
and the fidelity of the LORD endures forever.

R. Go out to all the world, and tell the Good News.
or:
R. Alleluia, alleluia.

Go out to the world and tell them how much God loves you!  When something good happens to us or when we are proud of someone, we can't help but tell all with whom we come in contact.  We need to do the same to show that we love Jesus Christ.  Tell all the world the good news!

Gospel MK 16:15-18

Jesus appeared to the Eleven and said to them:
“Go into the whole world
and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved;
whoever does not believe will be condemned.
These signs will accompany those who believe:
in my name they will drive out demons,
they will speak new languages.
They will pick up serpents with their hands,
and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them.
They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Jesus Christ established the Church and commanded the Church to proclaim the Gospel.  The Gospel contains all the Doctrines of Jesus Christ.  His Traditions which He established and commanded the Church to pass on.  The Church then wrote the New Testament based upon the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

The Fray - How to save a life

Step one, you say we need to talk
He walks, you say sit down, it's just a talk
He smiles politely back at you
You stare politely right on through
Some sort of window to your right
As he goes left, and you stay right
Between the lines of fear and blame
You begin to wonder why you came

[Chorus]
Where did I go wrong? 
I lost a friend
Somewhere along in the bitterness
And I would have stayed up with you all night
Had I known how to save a life

Let him know that you know best
Cause after all, you do know best
Try to slip past his defense
Without granting innocence
Lay down a list of what is wrong
The things you've told him all along
And pray to God he hears you
And I pray to God he hears you

[Chorus]

As he begins to raise his voice
You lower yours and grant him one last choice
Drive until you lose the road
Or break with the ones you've followed
He will do one of two things
He will admit to everything
Or he'll say he's just not the same
And you'll begin to wonder why you came

[Chorus: x2]

How to save a life
How to save a life

[Chorus: x2]

How to save a life
How to save a life

Catholic Doctrine makes sense - Christ our surety

Catholic Doctrine all makes sense.  It just makes sense.

Consider the Teaching that Christ is our surety with regards to the Doctrine of Atonement.

Protestants claim that Christ is our surety because He was punished in our place by God the Father.  They say that our sins, including the guilt for our sins, were imputed to Christ and that God the Father punished Jesus Christ by pouring out His wrath upon Him.  Some even claim that Jesus Christ descended into hell to receive the punishments of hell.

But that twists the meaning of the word, "surety" and makes nonsense of it.  A surety is not one that gets punished in someone's place.  Let's look at the meaning of surety:

Google dictionary:
sur·e·ty
ˈSHo͝oritē/Submit
noun
1.
a person who takes responsibility for another's performance of an undertaking, for example their appearing in court or the payment of a debt.

Merriam Webster online dictionary
sure·ty noun \ˈshu̇r(-ə)-tē\
law : money that you give as a guarantee that you will do what you are legally required to do (such as to appear in court)

law : someone who agrees to be legally responsible if another person fails to pay a debt or to perform a duty

: the state of being or feeling sure or certain

I've been a surety for others and others have been a surety for me.  And here is how it works.

A surety is more commonly referred to as a "co-signer".  This person become responsible for the repayment of a loan should the principle debtor fail to pay.  Should that happen, the surety or co-signer will become the responsible party and is expected to pay the debt.  If he does so, then the principle debtor is set free from both the debt and any punishment for defaulting on the loan.

If the surety can't pay, then both parties are punished.  Not just eh debtor.

Now, ask yourself, did Jesus default on our loan?  Or did He pay our debt?

If you believe that Jesus was punished in our place, then you believe that Jesus did not have the wherewithal to pay our debt of sin and therefore had to be punished along with us.

But, if you believe that Jesus sacrificed Himself to pay for our sins, and thus paid in full the debt which only He could satisfy, then you understand the Catholic Doctrine correctly.

Yes, Catholic Doctrine all makes sense.

Sincerely,

De Maria

January 24, 2014

Memorial of Saint Francis de Sales, Bishop and Doctor of the Church
Lectionary: 315
Reading 1 1 SM 24:3-21

Saul took three thousand picked men from all Israel
and went in search of David and his men
in the direction of the wild goat crags.
When he came to the sheepfolds along the way, he found a cave,
which he entered to relieve himself.
David and his men were occupying the inmost recesses of the cave.

This is kind of funny.  King Saul went in search of David in order to kill him.  But, as the saying goes, nature called and he entered a nearby cave in order to answer nature's call.  It just so happened that David and his men were hiding in that cave.

David’s servants said to him,
“This is the day of which the LORD said to you,
‘I will deliver your enemy into your grasp;
do with him as you see fit.’”
So David moved up and stealthily cut off an end of Saul’s mantle.

While Saul was answering nature's call, David sneaked up on him and cut off some of his clothing.

Afterward, however, David regretted that he had cut off
an end of Saul’s mantle.
He said to his men,
“The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my master,
the LORD’s anointed, as to lay a hand on him,
for he is the LORD’s anointed.”
With these words David restrained his men
and would not permit them to attack Saul.

David would not allow his men to attack Saul because Saul was still Israel's King.

Saul then left the cave and went on his way.
David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul,
“My lord the king!”
When Saul looked back, David bowed to the ground in homage and asked Saul:
“Why do you listen to those who say,
‘David is trying to harm you’?
You see for yourself today that the LORD just now delivered you
into my grasp in the cave.
I had some thought of killing you, but I took pity on you instead.
I decided, ‘I will not raise a hand against my lord,
for he is the LORD’s anointed and a father to me.’
Look here at this end of your mantle which I hold.
Since I cut off an end of your mantle and did not kill you,
see and be convinced that I plan no harm and no rebellion.
I have done you no wrong,
though you are hunting me down to take my life.
The LORD will judge between me and you,
and the LORD will exact justice from you in my case.
I shall not touch you.
The old proverb says, ‘From the wicked comes forth wickedness.’
So I will take no action against you.
Against whom are you on campaign, O king of Israel?
Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog, or a single flea!
The LORD will be the judge; he will decide between me and you.
May he see this, and take my part,
and grant me justice beyond your reach!”
When David finished saying these things to Saul, Saul answered,
“Is that your voice, my son David?”
And Saul wept aloud.
Saul then said to David: “You are in the right rather than I;
you have treated me generously, while I have done you harm.
Great is the generosity you showed me today,
when the LORD delivered me into your grasp
and you did not kill me.
For if a man meets his enemy, does he send him away unharmed?
May the LORD reward you generously for what you have done this day.
And now, I know that you shall surely be king
and that sovereignty over Israel shall come into your possession.”

When Saul exited the cave, David showed him that he could have killed him at any time while Saul was in there.  Saul then realized that David had done him a great favor in sparing his life and relented from his persecution.

Responsorial Psalm PS 57:2, 3-4, 6 AND 11

R. (2a) Have mercy on me, God, have mercy.
Have mercy on me, O God; have mercy on me,
for in you I take refuge.
In the shadow of your wings I take refuge,
till harm pass by.

R. Have mercy on me, God, have mercy.
I call to God the Most High,
to God, my benefactor.
May he send from heaven and save me;
may he make those a reproach who trample upon me;
may God send his mercy and his faithfulness.

R. Have mercy on me, God, have mercy.
Be exalted above the heavens, O God;
above all the earth be your glory!
For your mercy towers to the heavens,
and your faithfulness to the skies.
R. Have mercy on me, God, have mercy.

Unite yourself to God and do His will and He will bestow His mercy upon you.

Gospel MK 3:13-19

Jesus went up the mountain and summoned those whom he wanted
and they came to him.
He appointed Twelve, whom he also named Apostles,
that they might be with him
and he might send them forth to preach
and to have authority to drive out demons:
He appointed the Twelve:
Simon, whom he named Peter;
James, son of Zebedee,
and John the brother of James, whom he named Boanerges,
that is, sons of thunder;
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew,
Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus;
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean,
and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

The Twelve Apostles are the foundation of the Church.  

Ephesians 2:20

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 

Journey Home - Lou Everett

January 23, 2014

Thursday of the Second week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 314
Reading 1 1 SM 18:6-9;19:1-7

When David and Saul approached
(on David’s return after slaying the Philistine),
women came out from each of the cities of Israel to meet King Saul,
singing and dancing, with tambourines, joyful songs, and sistrums.
The women played and sang:

“Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his ten thousands.”

Saul was very angry and resentful of the song, for he thought:
“They give David ten thousands, but only thousands to me.
All that remains for him is the kingship.”
And from that day on, Saul was jealous of David.

Saul, the king of Israel, was jealous of David because he was becoming very popular with the people of Israel.

Saul discussed his intention of killing David
with his son Jonathan and with all his servants.
But Saul’s son Jonathan, who was very fond of David, told him:
“My father Saul is trying to kill you.
Therefore, please be on your guard tomorrow morning;
get out of sight and remain in hiding.
I, however, will go out and stand beside my father
in the countryside where you are, and will speak to him about you.
If I learn anything, I will let you know.”

Saul was so angry with David that he discussed with Jonathan, his son, that he was planning to kill David. 

Jonathan then spoke well of David to his father Saul, saying to him:
“Let not your majesty sin against his servant David,
for he has committed no offense against you,
but has helped you very much by his deeds.
When he took his life in his hands and slew the Philistine,
and the LORD brought about a great victory
for all Israel through him,
you were glad to see it.
Why, then, should you become guilty of shedding innocent blood
by killing David without cause?”
Saul heeded Jonathan’s plea and swore,
“As the LORD lives, he shall not be killed.”
So Jonathan summoned David and repeated the whole conversation to him.
Jonathan then brought David to Saul, and David served him as before.

But Jonathan loved David is a brother. And he convinced his father to forgive David.

Responsorial Psalm PS 56:2-3, 9-10A, 10B-11, 12-13

R. (5b) In God I trust; I shall not fear.
Have mercy on me, O God, for men trample upon me;
all the day they press their attack against me.
My adversaries trample upon me all the day;
yes, many fight against me.

R. In God I trust; I shall not fear.
My wanderings you have counted;
my tears are stored in your flask;
are they not recorded in your book?
Then do my enemies turn back,
when I call upon you.

R. In God I trust; I shall not fear.
Now I know that God is with me.
In God, in whose promise I glory,
in God I trust without fear;
what can flesh do against me?

R. In God I trust; I shall not fear.
I am bound, O God, by vows to you;
your thank offerings I will fulfill.
For you have rescued me from death,
my feet, too, from stumbling;
that I may walk before God in the light of the living.

R. In God I trust; I shall not fear.

We should all put our trust in God as the psalmist. God will take care of us and protect us from all evil. This is not to say that we will not suffer. For suffering will come in this life. But it is to those who suffer and unite themselves to Christ that the inheritance of glory is given.

Gospel MK 3:7-12

Jesus withdrew toward the sea with his disciples.
A large number of people followed from Galilee and from Judea.
Hearing what he was doing,
a large number of people came to him also from Jerusalem,
from Idumea, from beyond the Jordan,
and from the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon.
He told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd,
so that they would not crush him.
He had cured many and, as a result, those who had diseases
were pressing upon him to touch him.
And whenever unclean spirits saw him they would fall down before him
and shout, “You are the Son of God.”
He warned them sternly not to make him known.

Jesus became more famous. Everywhere he went crowds followed him. Since he cured so many people the sick wanted to touch him in order to be cured. Even the demons would do him homage and call him, "the son of God".

January 22, 2014

Day of Prayer for the Legal Protection of Unborn Children
Lectionary: 313
Reading 1 1 SM 17:32-33, 37, 40-51

David spoke to Saul:
“Let your majesty not lose courage.
I am at your service to go and fight this Philistine.”
But Saul answered David,
“You cannot go up against this Philistine and fight with him,
for you are only a youth, while he has been a warrior from his youth.”

David continued:
“The LORD, who delivered me from the claws of the lion and the bear,
will also keep me safe from the clutches of this Philistine.”
Saul answered David, “Go! the LORD will be with you.”

Then, staff in hand, David selected five smooth stones from the wadi
and put them in the pocket of his shepherd’s bag.
With his sling also ready to hand, he approached the Philistine.

With his shield bearer marching before him,
the Philistine also advanced closer and closer to David.
When he had sized David up,
and seen that he was youthful, and ruddy, and handsome in appearance,
the Philistine held David in contempt.
The Philistine said to David,
“Am I a dog that you come against me with a staff?”
Then the Philistine cursed David by his gods
and said to him, “Come here to me,
and I will leave your flesh for the birds of the air
and the beasts of the field.”
David answered him:
“You come against me with sword and spear and scimitar,
but I come against you in the name of the LORD of hosts,
the God of the armies of Israel that you have insulted.
Today the LORD shall deliver you into my hand;
I will strike you down and cut off your head.
This very day I will leave your corpse
and the corpses of the Philistine army for the birds of the air
and the beasts of the field;
thus the whole land shall learn that Israel has a God.
All this multitude, too,
shall learn that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves.
For the battle is the LORD’s and he shall deliver you into our hands.”

The Philistine then moved to meet David at close quarters,
while David ran quickly toward the battle line
in the direction of the Philistine.
David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone,
hurled it with the sling,
and struck the Philistine on the forehead.
The stone embedded itself in his brow,
and he fell prostrate on the ground.
Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone;
he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.
Then David ran and stood over him;
with the Philistine’s own sword which he drew from its sheath
he dispatched him and cut off his head.

This is the recounting of the famous story of David and Goliath. David was still a young man and yet braver than any warrior in all of Israel. It was his faith in God that made David so brave. And it was God who brought him success.

Responsorial Psalm PS 144:1B, 2, 9-10

R. (1) Blessed be the Lord, my Rock!
Blessed be the LORD, my rock,
who trains my hands for battle, my fingers for war.

R. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock!
My refuge and my fortress,
my stronghold, my deliverer,
My shield, in whom I trust,
who subdues my people under me.

R. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock!
O God, I will sing a new song to you;
with a ten-stringed lyre I will chant your praise,
You who give victory to kings,
and deliver David, your servant from the evil sword.
R. Blessed be the Lord, my Rock!

Blessed be God! He delivers the faithful from the clutches of the enemy. Blessed be God! He pours out his mercy upon those who love him.

Gospel MK 3:1-6

Jesus entered the synagogue.
There was a man there who had a withered hand.
They watched Jesus closely
to see if he would cure him on the sabbath
so that they might accuse him.
He said to the man with the withered hand,
“Come up here before us.”
Then he said to the Pharisees,
“Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil,
to save life rather than to destroy it?”
But they remained silent.
Looking around at them with anger
and grieved at their hardness of heart,
Jesus said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.”
He stretched it out and his hand was restored.
The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel
with the Herodians against him to put him to death.

Even the Commandments say that a man must help his enemy to recover his oxen on the Sabbath. But the Pharisees were so filled with hatred and so hardhearted but they could not permit a man to be healed on the Sabbath.

Response to Russell's - HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BEEN A FRIEND OF THE BIBLE?

Saturday, December 28, 2013

On his blog, Answering Catholic Claims, Russell said,

HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BEEN A FRIEND OF THE BIBLE?

The short answer is, "YES!"

Much has been written about the Catholic Church (both pro and con) concerning its faithfulness to the Scriptures.  But today we’d like to pose some questions concerning Catholicism and its attitude toward the Bible over the years:  Has the Catholic Church ever banned the Bible?

No.  The Catholic Church has banned false interpretations of the Bible.

But I think what you mean to be asking should read, "Has the Catholic Church ever forbidden its members to read the Bible without proper guidance from the Church?"  The answer to that question is, "Yes."  The Catholic Church does forbid, to this day, that anyone should read the Bible without following the guidance of the Church.

 Have popes ever forbidden the Scriptures to the common people?  Have they ever tried to limit access to the Sacred Writings in the vernacular (i.e., the common language of the people)?  In this article, we hope to clear up some misunderstandings concerning this issue.

Looks to me as though you're adding to the misunderstandings rather than trying to clear them up.  

Sometimes the Protestant claims against the Catholic Church on this topic are exaggerated.  But there are extremes on both sides.  But for those who believe that the Catholic Church has never restricted the reading of Scripture, please note the following…
A Few Popes 

According to the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia" (online), here is a short list of popes and brief comments concerning their restrictions on the reading, owning, printing, or distribution of the Scriptures:

All of these Popes have followed the admonitions of Scripture in so doing.  I'll show you.

Gregory VII (1080 A.D.) prevented the Bohemian people from obtaining the Bible in their own language because he feared it would lead to “irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text.”

Hebrews 13:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Innocent III (1199) wrote to the Bishop of Metz (a city in France) and said that the practice of reading the Scriptures, though praiseworthy, was “dangerous for the simple and unlearned.”     

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 

Gregory IX (1229), in the Council (Synod) of Toulouse, prohibited the laity (non-clergy) from having the books of the Old or New Testament, and “most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” (Canon 14 - Emphasis added)  

Gregory IX (1233), in the Council (Synod) of Tarragona, issued a similar prohibition, stating that no one (whether “cleric or layman”) may possess Scripture in “the Romance language” (referring to the vernacular).  If anyone had such books, he was to turn the writings over to the authorities (to be burned), until he was “cleared of all suspicion.” (Canon 2)  

This answer below addresses both the Council of Toulouse and Tarragona.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism 
by Karl Keating 

10. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse in A.D. 1229 a) [The] Index was established in 1543, so a council held in 1229 hardly could have listed a book on it...The council held in Toulouse dealt with the Albigensian heresy, a variety of Manichaeanism, which maintained that marriage is evil because the flesh is evil...In order to promulgate their views, the Albigensians used vernacular versions of the Bible to “substantiate” their theories...[and they] were twisting the Bible to support an immoral

Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

       
Gregory XII (1408), in the Third Synod of Oxford, only allowed the laity to read versions that were approved by the church authorities.

That sounds reasonable to me.  What do you find wrong with that?

Pius IV (1564), in his constitution, “Dominici Gregis,” published the “Index of Prohibited Books.”  In it, Scripture reading was again limited to only those persons approved by the bishop. 

Still good.  It is the Church which is entrusted with the Teaching of the Word of God:

Matthew 28:19-20
King James Version (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 

Clement VIII (1596) added the above restriction to the fourth rule of the Index.
Sixtus V (1598) reserved this power of approval to himself or to the “Sacred Congregation of the Index.”            

Still good.  See above. 

Clement XI (1713), in his Papal Bull “Unigenitus,” in condemning certain teachings, questioned the necessity of reading the Bible.

See above.  The Church is the authorized Teacher of the Word of God.  See also Eph 3:10 which says:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 

Benedict XIV (1757) allowed the reading of vernacular versions by the laity, but only with the Church’s approval, or with footnotes from the fathers or of “learned and pious authors.”

Excellent! 

Pius VI (1794), in his Papal Bull “Auctorem Fidei,” continued the condemnation by Clement XI (above).

Still good.  The Church is still the organization established by Jesus Christ and authorized to Teach His Doctrines.

Pius VII (1816) warned against allowing the laity to read the Scriptures “indiscriminately” in the vernacular.

Good warning.  The Protestant denominations are a good indicator of what would happen to Cathlicism if all Catholics were allowed to read Scripture "indiscriminately".

Gregory XVI (1836) again allowed only Church-approved reading of the Bible. 

Gregory XVI (1844) repeated the same regulation (above) when writing against Bible Societies in his encyclical, “Inter praecipuas.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm

No problem there.  The Catholic Church has the authority given by Christ to make rules for her disciples.
Matthew 28:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.


19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

A Few Others
All of these popes, and more, suppressed the Scriptures in some form or another.  Other popes issuing similar restrictions include:

You are mixing in your presuppositions.  All of these Popes protected the Laity from misinterpretations of the Scriptures and from uneducated twisting of the Scriptures which would lead them to eternal destruction.

Leo XII (1824) wrote against the work of the “Bible Society” in his papal encyclical “Ubi primum.”

 The Bible Society must have been mixing in Protestant errors.  They have done so in the past.

Pius VIII (1829) wrote against unapproved vernacular versions of the Bible in the papal encyclical “Traditi humilitati.”

That is perfectly Scriptural.  The Church has the authority given by Jesus Christ to "bind and loose on earth and it is bound and loosed in heaven (Matt 16:18-19)." 

Pius IX (1846), in his papal encyclical, “Qui pluribus,” was writing against the Bible Societies who would “ceaselessly force on people of all kinds, even the uneducated, gifts of the Bible.”  How horrible!  What beasts these Bible Societies must have been, to “force” this gift of God’s Word upon the people!

It is horrible when you realize that they were giving them Protestant versions of the Scriptures which contained, as Protestant Bibles do to this day, many errors which can lead the uneducated to the destruction of their souls. 

Leo XIII (1897), in his apostolic constitution “Officiorum ac Munerum,” softened the punishment for these “crimes” of Bible reading somewhat, yet continued to prohibit the Word in the vernacular.  It was still only allowed by those who were approved by the Catholic Church.  

Excellent!  The Church continues to obey Christ! 

For anyone who would like to research / confirm these facts, most (if not all) of these can be found online on Catholic websites (e.g., EWTN, the “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia,” the official Vatican website, etc.).

They are welcomed to do so.  The Catholic Church promotes good and honest history. Not the twisting which you are doing above.   Better that they read it from a Catholic source than from you trying to charge the Church insidious reasons for the good she is doing.

So, if anyone tells you that the Catholic Church (through its popes) never restricted or banned the Bible, he is either misinformed or he is a liar.  It may not have been a complete or total ban, but they were nevertheless bans which sometimes included severe (and punishable) restrictions. 

The Church has never restricted or banned the Bible unless there were errors in that Bible.  The Church has often placed safeguards in the reading of the Bible so that her members would not be led astray by false teachers or by their own erroneous understanding of the Bible.

But Why?

You know why, Russell.  Because the Church is the organization appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to teach His Commands.

But the question is, why would the Catholic Church ever ban Scripture AT ALL?

That is the way you look at it.  The Church has never banned Scripture.  The Church has banned erroneous interpretations of Scripture.

Catholics will say that these were only local bans, and supposedly, all these restrictions were only temporary regulations.  

I told you that you knew the reasons.  

Supposedly, they were protecting the purity of Scripture.  

Absolutely! 

They tell us that only the “unfaithful” or “corrupt” translations of the Bible were banned, or that it was only the “deuterocanonical-deprived” (Protestant) versions that were forbidden to be read by its members.  

That is true!

They will say that the Catholic Church has only forbidden Bible reading when “it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.”  ("New Advent" article linked above)

Thank you!

Note that the Council of Trent’s Rule 4 on prohibited books (the section titled, “Ten Rules concerning prohibited books drawn up by the fathers chosen by the Council of Trent and approved by Pope Pius”) spoke of Scripture reading by the uneducated as doing “more harm than good” because it could be abused by certain people.  

As it was abused by the Reformers and continues to be abused by people like you.  No disrespect intended.  It is merely the truth.

But if that’s the case, why take a chance with the Eucharist?  If they are afraid of having something precious (like Scripture) violated by abuse, then shouldn’t the Eucharist also be withheld for the same reason?  

Not sure what you mean there.  No one is permitted to confect the Eucharist except duly ordained Priests.  Anyone who receives the Eucharist without a proper disposition of faith is warned of the fact that they will condemn themselves in so doing.

What's the point of your question?

The possibility of “serious harm” is certainly present here in the Eucharist, as well, since it too can be abused by the individual (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).  But no one in the Catholic Church stopped giving the Eucharist to the poor and uneducated because of possible abuse.

They have in the past. Protestants object to the fact that the Church, at one point, restricted the laity from receiving Eucharist to once a year.  They also object to the fact that at one point, the Church restricted receiving of the Eucharist to the Bread only.  As a rule, Protestants object to any exercise of Catholic Church authority.

The fact is, personal Scripture reading, like receiving the Eucharist (or Communion), is an issue of personal accountability.  Both are to be done responsibly, and with the right attitude.  But keeping it away from those who don’t abuse it is not the answer.

On the contrary, there is no strictly personal accountability.  In the Old Testament and the New, God expects His chosen leaders to admonish and guide His people to salvation.  If they fail in this duty, they will be dealt with sternly:
Hosea 4:6

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. 

James 3:1

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

And if these bans were only temporary, then why did pope after pope continue to issue them?  

Because they were still needed.  The existence of Protestantism is proof that it is needed even today. 

It’s funny, but it seems that none of these quotes restricting the reading of Scripture ever mention being only “temporary.”  If there was indeed some abuse of Scripture, then keeping the people from reading it was hardly the correct way of handling the situation.  Remember, even in the days of the apostles there were Gnostics and other heretics who abused Scripture.  But Jesus and the apostles often pointed the people to the Scriptures; they never tried to ban anyone from reading them because of possible abuse or misunderstanding.  This would be like forbidding innocent couples to have children just because some might possibly abuse their children, or might not raise them perfectly.

You are mistaken.  Scripture shows that the Church is the official Teacher of the Word of God by Tradition or Scripture.  You just refuse to acknowledge that which the Scriptures are telling you:
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Ulterior Motive?

This is your problem.  You always cast aspersions upon the Catholic Church regardless of the reasonableness of her actions.

One must ask, were these popes who restricted God’s Word really concerned about “maintaining the purity of the Scriptures”?  Were these bans really put into place to prevent heresy, or was it something else?  Could it be that they were trying to hide something?  Or that it was all about power and control?  

It was and remains about the salvation of souls. 

According to Catholic Historian Paul Johnson:

“In the West, the clergy had begun to assert an exclusive interpretive, indeed custodial, right to the Bible as early as the ninth century; and from about 1080 there had been frequent instances of the Pope, councils and bishops forbidding not only vernacular translations but any reading at all, by laymen, of the Bible taken as a whole. In some ways this was the most scandalous aspect of the medieval Latin Church. From the Waldensians onwards, attempts to scrutinize the Bible became proof presumptive of heresy - a man or woman might burn for it alone - and, conversely, the heterodox were increasingly convinced that the Bible was incompatible with papal and clerical claims.” (“A History of Christianity,” Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Copyright 1976, page 273)

He is just a man with an opinion.  That is all.  If his opinion were correct, then Jesus would be wrong.  We prefer to believe Jesus when He said, "the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18-19).

Why did it bother the Catholic Church so much to have the Bible in the language of the common man?  

Because the unlearned twist the Word of God to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:15-16). 

They seem to be saying that it would be better to be altogether deprived of personal Bible reading than to have some misunderstandings of it (even if these misunderstandings could be corrected later).

That is correct.  Those misunderstandings may or not be corrected later.  As we have seen, the Protestant misunderstandings have not been corrected for over 500 years and proliferate to this day.  Adding error upon error to their twisting of Scripture.

After all, if the papacy and Catholicism itself are truly scriptural concepts,

They are.  The Papacy and the Catholic Church can both be traced to Matt 16:18-19.  However, a better understanding is this.  The Bible is a Catholic record of early Church Teaching.  It is the Catholic Church which wrote about Christ, and about itself, and Catholic Doctrine in the New Testament of the Bible.

what did the Church have to fear by allowing them to freely read the Bible in their own language?  

That they would lose their souls by following false teachers like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Perhaps the Catholic Church was beginning to realize that many of its own members were recognizing the inconsistencies between Scripture and the Catholic Church’s doctrines. 

No.  The Catholic Church always knew that at a time would come when people would, "not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2 Timothy 4:3}".

Why Latin?

Because it was the universal language of its day.  It was a very wise decision for the Church to use the Latin language.  It simplified teaching, preaching and even record keeping.

And if the Catholic Church really wanted to clearly stress the pure truth to the common people, then why was the Mass performed for so long in Latin?  

 The teaching part of the Mass, the homily, was always done in the vernacular.

Since the majority of the people were uneducated and only the educated understood Latin, then why have the Mass done in that language?

 What would be easier in your opinion, to teach in one language or to teach in 1000 languages?

 If you have one person who understands Latin and English, another who understands Latin and Spanish, another who understands Latin and Portuguese.  And you have a teacher who speaks Latin and Greek, in which language do you think they should all be taught?

 If a proper understanding was so important (as they claim), why not have the Mass in a language that everyone could understand?  On the one hand, they claim that it is important to avoid heresy and confusion, yet, on the other hand, they shroud the message in mystery.

Proper understanding has always been important.  Teaching the Doctrines of Christianity to the laity has never been restricted to the Latin.  That has always been done in the vernacular.

It is these types of things that cause us to doubt the sincerity of the Catholic Church when they say that they are concerned for the souls of the common people, and that they wanted God’s Word put into their hands.  

It is those things which cause me to doubt the sincerity of Protestants who object to such an obviously logical solution to the problem of teaching the whole world.  The Protestant solution results in anarchy.  Another Tower of Babel.  The Catholic solution was sheer genius.  Teach in one language, pray in one language.  Simplicity itself.

There just never seemed to be any kind of priority, or much of a serious encouragement of Bible reading throughout the centuries on the part of the Catholic Church.  It seems that only recently that this has changed to some extent.

You are wrong.  It is because of the Catholic Church's commitment to the spreading of the Word of God by Sacred Tradition through word and epistle (2 Thess 2:15) that the Church placed such a high priority in the proper transmission of the Doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Leo XIII
There are also other reasons for questioning some popes’ concern for “protecting the purity of Scripture.”  We will use some of the popes listed above (who banned or restricted Scripture) as examples: 

First, Pope Leo XIII was known as “the Rosary Pope,” since he wrote so much about (and encouraged the use of) the rosary.  He wrote at least eleven official documents on the rosary.  But reciting the rosary is a totally unbiblical and pagan practice.  See here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/catholic-rosary.html

You're mistaken.  Only those who don't understand the Rosary would make such a cockamamie charge.  The Rosary is the prayerful meditation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is perfectly in line with the Word of God.
1 Timothy 4:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

If Leo XIII was truly concerned about keeping the truths of the Bible pure and undefiled,

He was. 

he would have led others away from this unbiblical (and anti-biblical) concept.  

The Rosary is perfectly.  As I mentioned above, it is a meditation on the Gospels of Jesus Christ and is based upon the Our Father (Matt 6:9-13)

And no doubt many other popes have encouraged praying the rosary, as well.  But this does not support sound doctrine.

Sure it does.  Your objection rests upon the term, "use not vain repetitions".
Matthew 6:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 

But the praying of the Rosary is not vain.  A meditation on the word of God can't possibly be vain.  It is repetitious.  How can we help but repeating the Our Father?  If we pray it more than once, we have repeated.  Jesus did not prohibit repetition.  He repeated VAIN repetition.  Two very different concepts.

Pius IX
Next, Pope Pius IX also adds to our suspicion of an ulterior motive from the Church.  In 1854, he “infallibly” proclaimed that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was “immaculately conceived”; that is, from the moment that she was conceived, she had no sin (and remained sinless throughout her entire life).  This “infallible” teaching of Pius IX was not only not a biblical concept, but it was anti-biblical, as well.  See here:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/05/was-mary-without-sin.html

It is, in fact, perfectly Biblical.  In the very beginning, God revealed that He would put enmity between The Woman  and the Serpent.  That Woman is Mary.

Genesis 3:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Mary never had anything in common with the Serpent because of this enmity.  Therefore, she never sinned.

Is the doctrine of the “Immaculate Conception” another example of a pope’s concern for “doctrinal purity”?  It seems that Pius IX was little worried about false doctrine or scriptural truth!

I'm glad you said this.  It is a beautiful example of how Protestants twist the truth in order to trick people into believing their false doctrines.  "Doctrinal purity" means freedom from "doctrinal error".  Therefore, he is very concerned about false doctrine and maintaining Scriptural Truth.  

Another issue concerning Pope Pius IX is his behavior during the First Vatican Council, which he presided over, beginning in 1869.  According to the “New Catholic Encyclopedia” (Copyright 1967):

“One of the chief issues dividing Catholics on the eve of the council was that of a possible definition of papal infallibility.” (Volume XIV, p. 561)
Pius IX’s definition of papal infallibility was different from many others in the Church, and this caused some very serious divisions in the Catholic Church.
Former Catholic (Jesuit) priest and historian, Peter de Rosa, gives us some interesting details on the events of that Council and how it was handled by the pope.  For all practical purposes, the vote was rigged in the sense that many who attended the council were on the pope’s payroll and under intense pressure, so most dared not vote against him.  For many bishops, it was either vote against their conscience or publicly offend the “Holy Father” by voting against him.  Therefore, many of them abstained.  Although many in the Church were against his constitution, “Pius IX refused to listen to the opposition, claiming he was ‘merely the mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost.’”  De Rosa points out that the council’s decision “did not adequately mirror the mind of the Western church.  A very important truth was at stake and the decree was felt by many to be defective.”  One outspoken bishop (Strossmayer) complained that this particular council “lacks both liberty and truth.” (“Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side of the Papacy,”, Poolbeg Press, Copyright 2000, p. 133-136)

You see, for Pius IX, this was all about power; he was a power-hungry pope who pressured his subjects to “agree” with his unbiblical (and even non-Traditional) idea of papal infallibility.  At one point, Bishop Guidi of Bologna pointed out that Pius’ view of infallibility was not supported by Sacred Tradition.  Pius then thundered, “I AM Tradition… I AM the Church!”  What a fine example of humility and sound doctrine!  After this, any references to his concern for “purity of Scripture” ring hollow.  It is evident that his concern was not about the purity of doctrine, but about CONTROL of doctrine.

Its funny how Protestants quickly forget Scripture when it is convenient for them.  Scripture holds the following admonitions against what you have just done:
1 Corinthians 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 

The Pope is the highest ranking spiritual man on this earth.  Therefore, he is not here for you to judge him.

Romans 14:4

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

He is God's servant and therefore God's to judge.

But you, like most Protestants, could care less what Scripture says.

Innocent III
Another pope listed above, Innocent III, initiated the Crusade against the Albigenses, which gave rise to the medieval Inquisition.  So, the Catholic Church began putting many “heretics” to death.  Other popes would participate in other crusades and inquisitions, as well.  But is this the way Jesus taught us to deal with the enemies of the faith?  Can we trust these popes’ loyalty to the Scriptures when they showed such disregard for the most basic principles of the gospel?

All these Popes upheld Biblical principles.  The Inquisitions were used to find those Muslims who were posing as Christians.  Much like today, they were infiltrating Christian society with the intention of destroying it.  Do you remember September 11th?  It is largely because of the Inquisitions that you are not praying to Allah five times a day.  But you will no doubt deny and reject your debt of gratitude to the Catholic Church for your ability to worship Christ today.

Backlash
Question:  Why doesn’t the Catholic Church kill heretics today?  

The Catholic Church has never killed anyone.  Period.

Obviously, they’d have to admit that this is wrong.  Jesus never said to kill heretics.  And if it’s wrong today, then it was also wrong in the days of the Crusades / Inquisitions.  All of this killing of “heretics” was to maintain power for the Catholic Church.  It was not about devotion to the truth or protecting Scripture.

The Catholic Church never killed any heretics during the Crusades or the Inquisitions.  You are simply passing along anti-Catholic lies.  

In the Crusades, Catholics went to war with Muslims and freed the Eastern Catholics (who are now the Orthodox) from Muslim hostile rule.  Any Christians living in Muslim territory know what this is about.

The Inquisitions were conducted to identify Muslim infiltrators posing as Christians.  The governments of the lands wherein these judgements were made were the ones who carried out any punishments.

What about the backlash from the Crusades and Inquisition?  It is our personal opinion that it is because of the Catholic Church and their involvement in these events that more people have turned away from God and have become atheists than for any other reason.

Then you can blame yourselves for passing on the lies which you have done.  If people had known the truth they would not have converted away from God.

The well-known German Catholic priest and theologian, Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger wrote about the Catholic Church’s inquisitions:
“From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.”  (The Pope and the Council, Roberts Brothers, Copyright 1870, p. 192-193)

Well known where?  In anti-Catholic circles, that's where.  He is a man who followed in Luther's footsteps and sought to undermine the Catholic Church.  He was excommunicated for his efforts.

Conclusion
No doubt, other examples could be given, but this is just a sampling of some popes’ attitudes and lack of true concern for Scripture.  Here we see that the ones who banned or restricted the reading of the Bible (supposedly for reasons of “faithfulness”) are the very ones violating that same Bible.  In at least some cases, their “concern” is at best, lip service, and at worst, deliberately withholding the Word of Life from the common people.  But to restrict personal Bible reading is to restrict personal spiritual growth. 

No, what we see is your twisting of the facts to make it appear as though the Catholic Church was against the Bible.   But you have contradicted all that you said above in the following sentence:

In fairness, it is true that over the centuries the Catholic Church had its monks copy and preserve the Scriptures.  

THANK YOU!  It is because of the Catholic Church that you even have the remnant of a Bible that you have left.  If it had been up to the Protestants, even more of the Bible would have been cast out than the seven books which they removed from the Bible.

But we’ll have to give more credit to these monks than to some of the popes.  Popes speak of concern for “serious spiritual harm” in the Church, yet they are masters of spiritual harm, due to their false doctrine and their power and influence.  The bottom line is that the Catholic Church can hardly be considered a friend of the Bible, even today, when it has so many teachings contrary to the sacred Scriptures. 

It is Protestants who have caused the spiritual harm.  It is Protestants whose doctrines are completely in contradiction to Scripture.  I am proving this in my series of responses to your notes on Sola Scriptura series.   

Sincerely,

De Maria

My responses to Russell's replies on his board:

• RussellJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:26 PM
  Hello De Maria,
  
  (Part 1)
  
  But this is a straw man argument, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of my arguments in the article. I never said or implied that the “Index” was in effect before 1543.
• 
  

• You missed the point.  Read my response more closely.  You claimed that the Bible was suppressed because of a language problem. Whereas, it was to fight the Manichaean heresy that the Pope restricted the free interpretation of the Bible.

• 
  Tell me, when the Pharisees and scribes abused the Scriptures (e.g., Mark 7:9-13; Matthew 15:3-6), did Jesus take their scrolls and say, “You are abusing the Law / Scriptures, therefore I must take them away from you so I can protect you from misinterpretations”? No, He never suggested such a thing. It was never a consideration for Jesus or the apostles to prohibit the Scriptures to anyone interested.
• 
  

• Tell me, did the Pharisees recognize the authority of Jesus Christ?  I've read the Scriptures and the Pharisees did not believe in Jesus.  Therefore, Jesus could not have ordered them to stop misusing the Scriptures, unless He wanted to use His Godly authority.  Which He didn't at that time.  However, He instructed the Church to make disciples of the world.  That means that He instructed the Church to become the MASTER of the world.  .

• 
  De Maria, you are falsely accusing me of twisting the truth BEFORE I had actually even commented on those events. I’m not “twisting” anything. I was simply quoting the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. THEY are the ones who are admitting that these were instances when the Catholic Church banned Scripture.
• 
  

• Lol!  Your words are loaded with anti-Catholic presuppositions.  It is one thing to "ban Scripture".  It is quite another to ban false interpretations of Scripture and falsely translated versions of the Bible when they are the central cause of heresies in the Church.

• 
  I had pointed out the excuses that Catholics use to defend their restricting of Bible reading, and you seem to agree with (and actually believe) those excuses. You apparently think that these are good reasons, but I went on to demonstrate that some of the Catholic Church’s leaders don’t really care about “pure doctrine.” That’s the whole point of the article.
• 
  

• You made your opinions clear.  I made mine clear.  There are two sides to every argument.  I believe the Catholic Church continues to be the one institution that cares more about pure Christian doctrine.  Certainly, neither you nor any other Protestants care about it.

• 
  I agree. But why not avoid any possible abuse and withhold it (the Eucharist) from the poor and uneducated, as they did with Scripture? It seems the Catholic Church is being inconsistent here. If prohibition cures abuse, then why not prohibit both Scripture and the Eucharist, since either can be abused?
• 
  

• It is you that is being inconsistent.  At times the Church has restricted the Eucharist.  And at times it has restricted the Bible.  Today, it restricts neither.

• 
  That’s true, but does this mean that God CANNOT punish you for following false teaching if your priest / bishop / pope would happen to be wrong? 
• 
  

• No.  But have you not read in Scripture:

• Luke 12:46-48

• King James Version (KJV)

• 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

• 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

• 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

• In addition, the Church itself, in ecumenical council is infallible.  And also the Pope speaking ex-cathedra.  

• Is that what you are saying?
• 
  

• No.  

• No personal accountability? 

The Church teaches, "Mea culpa!"  You know that.

• But you just admitted above that a person CAN INDEED be condemned (and is therefore accountable) by abusing the Eucharist. We are all accountable to God for what we believe. No one can claim ignorance on Judgment Day when standing before God. And no one will be able to escape judgment by blaming it on the pope / priest / minister.
• 
  

• Nor will anyone be able to escape judgment by blaming it on the Bible alone.  Or by claiming salvation by faith alone.  We will all stand before the Just Judge on the Last Day.

• So, what's your point.  That you don't want to obey the Scripture?

• Hebrews 13:17

• King James Version (KJV)

• 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

• 
  RussellJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:32 PM
  (Part 2)
  
  I argued that the bans were not just “temporary,” since they were issued by several popes in a row. And you said that this was because they were still needed (and you pointed to Protestantism as proof of that need).
  
  Ok, then no one can use the excuse that it was “only temporary,” as some Catholics claim, can they? It is, in fact, an excuse; one that you have fallen victim to.</b>

You are twisting the argument.  Our government issues temporary curfews whenever they are needed.  By your argument, temporary curfews are permanent simply because they are still needed today when emergencies arise.  

The other, more subtle implication which you are making is that the Church does not have the authority to make any restrictions.  But you are wrong.  The Church was appointed by Jesus Christ to make disciples of the world and was given His authority in this world.

But someone could say the same thing about everything that YOU say. </b>

True.  But if it is about you or I or anyone else, what is the point of this discussion?

You know as well as I do that I can list many more Catholic historians who agree with me than you can those who agree with you.  But what is the point?

De Maria, it is true that the gates of Hell WILL NOT ultimately prevail against the church.

They will not ever prevail against Christ's Church.

But your understanding of this verse AND of the true meaning of “the church” is simply wrong. So please quit making this ridiculous assertion.

My stance is precisely the opposite.  I believe that your understanding of this verse and of the true meaning of "the church" is simply wrong.  Therefore, you need to quit making your ridiculous assertions.

If Paul Johnson’s “opinion” is correct, it only demonstrates that the Catholic Church is not the true church, after all (big surprise);.

But Paul Johnson is wrong and the Catholic Church is the true Church.

 it DOESN’T have to mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the true church

If there is no church in this world with pure doctrine, then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

But why do you insist that personal Bible reading MUST end in wrong interpretation?

1.  When did I say that?
2.  I provided three examples, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, where personal bible reading did end in wrong interpretation.  

This is such an arrogant and elitist mindset – as though we must leave everything to “the experts.” But it is a common Catholic mindset, especially in its leadership.

It is Biblical:Hebrews 13:7King James Version (KJV)7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

….If I am guilty of “judging,” then so are you…..

I am comparing your deeds to Scripture.  Whereas you are accusing a man of God.
1 Corinthians 2:15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

There are so many more things that I could respond to, but neither time nor prudence allow me to go farther. De Maria, you and I have been discussing and debating many things over the years, and recently it quickly gets to the point of frustration for me, which makes me often wonder if I am not just “casting pearls” (Matthew 7:6). 

I feel the same way about talking to Protestants.  Even when things are proven to them from Scripture, they prefer to remain in their errors.

For many Catholics like yourself, there is this “The-Catholic-Church-is-the-true-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-because-she-SAYS-she-is-no-matter-how-you-interpret-the-Bible” mentality. The Church can do no wrong.

Scripture says:
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

You keep referring to “the Church,” and use certain Scriptures repeatedly (e.g., Hebrews 13:17; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Matthew 16:18-19, and 28:18-20; and Ephesians 3:10) but you prove nothing. The Scriptures you present do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to demonstrate that the modern Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ. I will ask the reader to take an honest and prayerful look at each of these Scriptures, IN CONTEXT, and evaluate whether De Maria’s claims are convincing. I am confident that a truly honest study of these Scriptures will not support Catholic claims. That’s what this blog is about – pointing Catholics to the truth and answering Catholic claims through Scripture and common sense.

Thank you.  That's all I ask.  Prayerfully consider those verses and compare them to that which the Protestants teach.  See which the Holy Spirit tell you are in accordance with the Word of God.

In His Name,
Russell

Sincerely,De Maria