The ancient world was very far from being politically correct by modern standards, and as a result, the Bible contains passages that seem politically incorrect today.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, St. Paul seems to suggest that women should be totally silent in church.
Is this true?
If so, how do we square it with the practice of the Church today?
I would appreciate your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This is difficult to address in front of a group of women.
I understand the difficulty.
Reading the Passage Itself
Let’s begin by looking at what the passage says, with a bit of the immediate context:
1 Corinthians 14
[33b] As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
[35] If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church
[36] What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
[37] If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.
[38] If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
The immediate context does not, in this case, make things easier. It actually seems to make them harder.
St. Paul appears to “up the ante” by saying that this is a commandment from the Lord (Jesus himself), and that anyone who rejects this view should have his view rejected.
But perhaps the broader context of St. Paul’s thought may put things in a different light.
And, in fact, it does. Even just a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians, St. Paul indicates that women do not have to remain literally silent in church . . .
It has been a couple of weeks since the last edition of The Weekly Benedict. While the Pope has been on vacation apparently so have the English translators for the Vatican. So this is a catch up edition with the translations released this week.
How did ancient Rome influence the Bible and the gospel story itself? The essential facts every Christian needs to know!The Bible records a number of ancient civilizations. Perhaps the most famous of these is ancient Rome.
By the time of the New Testament, Rome was the major world power, and it was in control of the Holy Land during the entire earthly life of Jesus and during the lives of his immediate followers.
Jesus was born during the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus. He was crucified during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius. The book of Acts records the Roman emperor Claudius by name. And both St. Peter and St. Paul were martyred at Rome by the Emperor Nero.
It is clear that the Romans were extraordinarily important to the world in which the New Testament was written.
All that makes it worth asking: Who were the Romans, and where did their civilization come from?
The Legendary Founding
The answer is shrouded in the mists of time, and ancient legends get in the way of an exact knowledge of the facts.
According to the Romans’ own account, the city of Rome was founded in the wake of the famous Trojan War.
Specifically, it was founded on April 21st in 753 B.C. by two twins named Romulus and Remus.
These two twins were supposedly the grandsons of an earlier king—Numitor—but they were raised by a she-wolf, and so they were feral children.
When they founded the city of Rome they had a quarrel, and Romulus killed Remus. Romulus thus became the sole and original king of Rome.
The Roman Kingdom
This led to a period known as “the Roman kindom,” in which Rome was ruled by a series of kings.
This period is supposed to have lasted from the founding in 753 B.C. until about 509 B.C.
It is characterized by the fact that Rome was ruled by kings, just like other peoples were. During this time seven kings supposedly reigned over Rome, beginning with Romulus and ending with Tarquinius Superbus, or “Tarquin the Proud.”
Eventually, however, the people of Rome were fed up with their kings and overthrew them, leading to a new period in the history of Rome.
The Roman Republic
This led to the “Roman Republic,” a period in which Rome lacked a monarch.
The word “republic” comes from the Latin res publica,which means “public thing”—a reference to the fact that how the state was governed was now a public thing rather than a matter for just the kings.
To replace the kings, power was divided between two men, known as consuls, who were elected every year and had significant checks on their powers, including term limits.
The Roman Republic lasted from the overthrow of the kings around 509 B.C. until the first century B.C.
The Roman Empire
The Romans found that their system of divided government, with power split up among the consuls and other government officials, was at times unwieldy.
As a result, in times of crisis, they sometimes appointed dictators—men who could run the state as single individuals, but only for a limited period prescribed by law, to keep the dictator from turning into a tyrant.
Eventually this system broke down, when one particular dictator—Julius Caesar—engineered a situation in which he was proclaimed “dictator in perpetuity.”
That was too close to the idea of kingship, and the situation didn’t last long. He was quickly assassinated by a conspiracy in the Senate.
His heir was a man named Octavian, and he eventually accumulated as much power as Julius Caesar had possessed—and more.
Some wanted him to be given the title “king,” but Octavian knew that would be dangerous, so he allowed the Roman Senate to vote him different titles.
One title became the name he is known by today: Augustus.
The other was a military title that meant “commander.” In Latin this word is imperator, and from it we get the English word emperor.
Augustus this became the first of the Roman emperors, and the Roman empire was born.
Rome and the Life of Jesus
Rome had been accumulating power through conquest even since the time of the Roman kings, and by the reign of Augustus Caesar it had become the dominant power in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
They were in political control of the Holy Land at the time Jesus was born, and it was they who had appointed Herod as “king of the Jews.” It was also Augustus Caesar who called for the enrollment that led Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.
The impact of the Romans on the gospel story is thus apparent right from the beginning.
Their impact was still present at the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, when other members of the Herod family were ruling parts of his kingdom, and when the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, agreed to have Jesus crucified.
“We Have No King But Caesar”
It is ironic that, at the time of Jesus’ Passion, the crowds cried, “We have no king but Caesar!”
The Roman ruler of the day was Augustus’s successor, Tiberius Caesar, and he did not technically have the title “king.” The Romans were too proud of having overthrown their kings for that. But the emperors were functioning as kings, and it was obvious to everyone.
The Empire Strikes Back
The power of the emperors continued to have an impact on the early Church. Just a few decades later it was the Emperor Nero who put St. Peter and St. Paul to death at Rome.
Later emperors launched the persecutions that martyred so many early Christians—and paradoxically caused the Church to grow, until the Roman empire itself was converted to Christ.
The Roman empire was something that the first Christians had to deal with constantly. It loomed over their lives and tried to destroy them and their faith.
It will help us all understand and appreciate our faith better if we know something about the Roman empire and the impact it had on the Bible and the early Church.
Learning More
The persecution by the Roman authorities is a big part of what the book of Revelation is about.
If you’d like to learn more about that, I’d like to invite you to join my my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
One of the distinctive Protestant principles is expressed in the slogan sola scriptura, which is Latin for “by Scripture only.” The idea is that every teaching on faith or morals must be directly or indirectly based on the Scriptures.
That leads to the common question, “Where’s that in the Bible?”
It’s an important question. In fact, it’s a question that needs to be asked about the doctrine of sola scriptura itself. Because if every teaching on faith or morals has to be based on the Bible then sola scriptura must be based on the Bible.
If it’s not, then it is a self-refuting claim and is false.
So what passages do Protestant Christians appeal to in support of sola scriptura?
Berean Christianity!
One that is sometimes cited is Acts 17, which deals with an incident that happened when St. Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue in the Greek city of Berea.
St. Luke writes:
Acts 17
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Many in the Protestant community have found this an inspiring story, and some have even named their ministries after the Berean Jews. If you go online you can find all kinds of Berean churches, schools, ministries, and bookstores.
The idea is that we should imitate the Berean Jews and take a skeptical attitude of theological ideas we are presented with. Instead of just accepting them, we should search the Scriptures daily to see if what we are being told is true or not. If it’s not, then we should not accept it.
If that’s what the passage means—if it is commending the Bereans for their skeptical attitude and refusal to believe a teaching unless it can be found in Scripture—then this would be good evidence for sola scriptura.
But that’s not what it means, and it’s easy to show that.
What About Thessalonica?
You’ll notice that Acts 17:11 says that the Berean Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, which raises an immediate question: “What were the Thessalonian Jews like?”
If they are less noble in contrast to the skeptical Bereans, presumably they were credulous individuals who accepted what they were told without Scriptural proof.
That’s not what they were like at all. To see this, let’s back up to the beginning of the chapter, where we read:
Acts 17
[1] Now when [Paul and his companions] had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
[2] And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures,
[3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”
[4] And some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.
[5] But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked fellows of the rabble, they gathered a crowd, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brethren before the city authorities, crying, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,
[7] and Jason has received them; and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.”
[8] And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard this.
[9] And when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.
[10] The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
It’s in that context that we now return to the verse where we started:
[11] Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
The Real Reason the Bereans Were Praised?
So the contrast isn’t between the skeptical Bereans, who insisted on Scriptural proof of what Paul was saying, and the credulous Thessalonians, who accepted it without question.
Instead, the contrast is between the open-minded Bereans, who were willing and eager to examine the Scriptures and see if what Paul was saying was true, versus the hostile Thessalonians, who started a riot and got Paul in trouble with the authorities, even though he had proved from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
This understanding is confirmed by the following verses, where we read:
[12] Many of [the Bereans] therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there too, stirring up and inciting the crowds.
[14] Then the brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there.
So the Thessalonians forced Paul to flee Berea, just as they had forced him to flee from their own town.
Thus it wasn’t the Bereans who were skeptical. It was the Thessalonians.
“By the Old Testament Alone?”
There is also another reason why this passage isn’t a good proof text for sola scriptura, which is this: The Christian faith contains doctrines that aren’t found in the Old Testament.
What’s why even those who favor doing theology “by Scripture alone” don’t favor doing it “by the Old Testament alone.”
While the Old Testament does contain prophecies that point forward to Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, it doesn’t contain the whole of the Christian faith.
What the Berean Jews were willing to do, therefore, was to open-mindedly look at the Old Testament Scriptures, see if they confirmed Paul’s preaching that Jesus was the Messiah, and then go on to accept the new, Christian revelation that Paul also imparted.
And he imparted it by preaching, because the books of the New Testament were not all written yet.
The True Attitude of Berean and Thessalonian Christians
If we were to follow the example of the Bereans, we would look at whether the Scriptures we do have support a particular message and, if they do, then be willing to accept further revelation not found in those Scriptures.
We would, ironically, embrace the attitude of those at Thessalonica who did accept the Christian faith, for in 2 Thessalonians 2, St. Paul told them:
2 Thessialonians 2
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
In other words, we would recognize the authority of all of the traditions passed on from Christ and the apostles, whether they were written or not.
And this is what the Catholic Church says we should do.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about these and other matters, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
It’s a service I operate by email which is absolutely free. I send out fascinating information on a variety of topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign up form:
The Virgin of Guadalupe displays the sun, moon, and stars symbolism of the Woman of Revelation 12
The book of Revelation contains a passage in which St. John sees a great sign in the sky. He wrote:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne [Rev. 12:1, 5].
Who is this mysterious Woman clothed in the sun?
In the following video–and the accompanying audio (see the bottom of the post)–we explore that question and look at different theories that have been proposed.
In particular, we look at the view advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, both in his personal writing and in his teaching as pope.
The answer may surprise you!
Is She the Virgin Mary?
Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].
Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.
The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.
And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.
But there is more to the story.
Is She Israel . . . or the Church?
The symbolism connected with the Woman is drawn from the book of Genesis, where the patriarch Joseph has a dream involving the sun, the moon, and the stars.
Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”
But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” [Gen. 37:9-10].
The symbolism of the sun, moon, and twelve stars comes from Genesis, where it refers to the family of Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, who headed the twelve tribes of Israel.
That has led some to say that the Woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.
You could go further and note that the Church is the spiritual Israel. So some have suggested that the Woman as the Church.
Figuring out Which View is True
Which view is true?
Is the Woman Mary?
Is the Woman Israel?
Is the Woman the Church?
You could try to solve this problem by making some of the symbols primary and some secondary.
For example, you could make the Woman’s role as the mother of Jesus primary, so she’s his literal mother, Mary, and the sun, moon, and stars imagery only means that Mary was a Jewish woman.
Or you could make the sun, moon, and stars imagery primary and say that she’s Israel, and the fact that Mary was the particular Jewish woman who gave birth to Jesus is secondary.
Either/Or Vs. Both/And
We don’t have to make that choice, because if you study the way symbolism is used in the book of Revelation, it often uses a single symbol points to more than one thing.
For example, Revelation 17 tells us what the seven heads of the beast represents:
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the [Whore of Babylon] is seated; they are also seven kings (Rev. 17:9-10).
If the seven heads can be seven mountains and seven kings then the Woman clothed with the sun might be the Virgin Mary and Israel and the Church.
Pope Benedict’s View
That’s what Pope Benedict suggests. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume 2, he writes:
When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the whole Church. . . .
On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].
On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].
As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents.
In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
The very first thing you’ll get is a free “interview” with Pope Benedict where I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings.
He has lots of interesting things to say!
You’ll also get lots of additional information on fascinating topics, absolutely FREE, so you should join now using this handy form:
What's the best way to say the Rosary?People say the Rosary in a variety of ways. Some say a simple version without any “add-ons.” Others use the Fatima Prayer. Many add the Hail, Holy Queen or other prayers at the end. Some add Scripture verses for meditation.
This raises some questions: Is there one right way to say the Rosary? Are some ways better than others?
A reader from the Philippines writes:
Sir Jimmy, a vital question. I somehow made an initiative to put “add-ons” to my rosary. For example, I put Bible verses before every decade, in order to capture the essence and the focus in every mystery.
I get distracted and drift away when my focus is lost, especially in the repetition of the Hail Mary’s without this.
I knew this is unhealthy, but maybe I have not arrived at the point yet that I can really meditate through the repetitions.
I am a young and adjusting Catholic. Is what I’m doing permissible?
Adding Scripture Verses
First of all, I would not say that it is unhealthy to add Bible verses before each decade. This practice is extremely common, there are many texts that have been published to help people do exactly this, and many people find it helpful to deepen their meditation.
You know who specifically endorsed this practice? Bl. John Paul II. In his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, he wrote:
30. In order to supply a Biblical foundation and greater depth to our meditation, it is helpful to follow the announcement of the mystery with the proclamation of a related Biblical passage, long or short, depending on the circumstances. No other words can ever match the efficacy of the inspired word. As we listen, we are certain that this is the word of God, spoken for today and spoken “for me”.
If received in this way, the word of God can become part of the Rosary’s methodology of repetition without giving rise to the ennui derived from the simple recollection of something already well known. It is not a matter of recalling information but of allowing God to speak.In certain solemn communal celebrations, this word can be appropriately illustrated by a brief commentary.
Got that? Not only is reading Bible passages–even longer ones–okay, but adding a brief commentary to them is okay, too!
So if the reader from the Philippines finds that adding biblical verses between the decades helps his own meditation, that’s great.
But the flexibility in how the Rosary can be said goes beyond this . . .
Different Openings
In the same apostolic letter, John Paul II noted:
37.At present, in different parts of the Church, there are many ways to introduce the Rosary. In some places, it is customary to begin with the opening words of Psalm 70: “O God, come to my aid; O Lord, make haste to help me”, as if to nourish in those who are praying a humble awareness of their own insufficiency. In other places, the Rosary begins with the recitation of the Creed, as if to make the profession of faith the basis of the contemplative journey about to be undertaken. These and similar customs, to the extent that they prepare the mind for contemplation, are all equally legitimate.
Different Ways of Announcing the Mysteries
There are also different ways of announcing and preparing for the mysteries. According to John Paul II:
29. Announcing each mystery, and perhaps even using a suitable icon to portray it, is as it were to open up a scenario on which to focus our attention. The words direct the imagination and the mind towards a particular episode or moment in the life of Christ. In the Church’s traditional spirituality, the veneration of icons and the many devotions appealing to the senses, as well as the method of prayer proposed by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in the Spiritual Exercises, make use of visual and imaginative elements (the compositio loci), judged to be of great help in concentrating the mind on the particular mystery.
Taking a Moment for Silence
One may also take a moment for silence after the mystery has been announced and any Scripture readings done. John Paul II indicates that this is fitting (though he does not say it is required):
31. Listening and meditation are nourished by silence. After the announcement of the mystery and the proclamation of the word, it is fitting to pause and focus one’s attention for a suitable period of time on the mystery concerned, before moving into vocal prayer. A discovery of the importance of silence is one of the secrets of practicing contemplation and meditation. One drawback of a society dominated by technology and the mass media is the fact that silence becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. Just as moments of silence are recommended in the Liturgy, so too in the recitation of the Rosary it is fitting to pause briefly after listening to the word of God, while the mind focuses on the content of a particular mystery.
Differences in the Gloria (“Glory Be”)
The Glory Be that concludes each decade can also be done in more than one way. John Paul II indicates that it may be said or sung:
34. . . . It is important that the Gloria, the high-point of contemplation, be given due prominence in the Rosary. In public recitation it could be sung, as a way of giving proper emphasis to the essentially Trinitarian structure of all Christian prayer.
Prayers at the End of Each Decade
There is also variability in the prayer (if any) said at the end of each decade, after the Glory Be:
35. In current practice, the Trinitarian doxology is followed by a brief concluding prayer which varies according to local custom. Without in any way diminishing the value of such invocations, it is worthwhile to note that the contemplation of the mysteries could better express their full spiritual fruitfulness if an effort were made to conclude each mystery with a prayer for the fruits specific to that particular mystery. In this way the Rosary would better express its connection with the Christian life. One fine liturgical prayer suggests as much, inviting us to pray that, by meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary, we may come to “imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise”.
Such a final prayer could take on a legitimate variety of forms, as indeed it already does. In this way the Rosary can be better adapted to different spiritual traditions and different Christian communities. It is to be hoped, then, that appropriate formulas will be widely circulated, after due pastoral discernment and possibly after experimental use in centres and shrines particularly devoted to the Rosary, so that the People of God may benefit from an abundance of authentic spiritual riches and find nourishment for their personal contemplation.
Different Closings
If there are different ways to begin the Rosary, there are also different ways to close it:
37. . . .Is it any wonder, then, that the soul feels the need, after saying this prayer and experiencing so profoundly the motherhood of Mary, to burst forth in praise of the Blessed Virgin, either in that splendid prayer the Salve Regina or in the Litany of Loreto? This is the crowning moment of an inner journey which has brought the faithful into living contact with the mystery of Christ and his Blessed Mother.
Different Mysteries
Of course, John Paul II would be the first person to agree that different mysteries can be used in the Rosary. He was the pope who, in the same apostolic letter we’ve been quoting, proposed the Luminous Mysteries, but these are optional. He wrote:
19. . . . I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ’s public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion.
The Best Way to Say the Rosary
From what we’ve seen, there is not one “right” way to say the Rosary. There are many legitimate options. But is there a best way?
For a given individual or group . . . perhaps.
The underlying principle by which “bestness” should be judged is the degree to which it helps with devotion, with meditation, with growing closer to God.
For an individual, there might be one particular way that does that better than other ways. Or a person might find different ways equally helpful. If so then for that person there is no “best” way.
When the Rosary is said in groups, it can certainly help for there to be a predictable format, so that everyone in the group knows what to expect and is not caught off guard in a way that disturbs their meditation.
The “best” way for that group, then, is likely to be the format every is expecting. That might change over time. The group might decide to include new things, omit some things that were there before, or substitute one option for another. That is okay. The key is not jarring people with the unexpected. (Which, incidentally, can also include the speed at which the prayers are said. Some people race through them, which isn’t good. Others can take a really slow, contemplative pace that might suit them personally but may not be suited for the group. In general, a not-rushed but not-glacial pace is good for groups, without dramatic speed ups or slow downs.)
Expecting the Unexpected
In some cases, when a group recites the Rosary together on a regular basis, over a long period of time, with the same people there, a common format may emerge by consensus. When that’s the situation, individuals should generally try to conform to the group’s way of doing things so as not to disturb the meditation of others by proposing–or even defiantly imposing–what they find privately preferable.
But since many groups are less stable and include different people passing in an out of them, some variability is to be expected with some groups.
When that happens, people should treat it as an opportunity to experience the Rosary in a different way. It may not be the way that they personally would have done it, were they leading the whole thing, but they should “go with the flow” and not get bent out of shape internally (or externally).
In particular, they should recognize that different people have different spiritualities and not look down on the different spirituality of someone else. If another person adds a prayer that you wouldn’t have added, fine. If they omit a prayer that you would have included, fine. If they substitute a different prayer, fine.
What we should not do is look down our noses at others for their differences in these matters. Nobody is “a better Catholic” because they maximize the number of prayers . . . or minimize it . . . or use different ones.
We’re all just different . . . which is the will of God.
What do you think?
By the Way . . .
He has interesting things to say on the Book of RevelationI’ve gone into this kind of information before with the Secret Information Club.
If you haven’t already joined, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.
St. Paul describes the "whole armor of God" in Ephesians 6, a classic spiritual warfare text
Spiritual Warfare
What is spiritual warfare?
Why is it practiced differently in the Catholic Church than in other churches?
What are the principles that it is based on?
Are ordinary Christians authorized to cast out demons?
What does St. Paul really mean when he talks about putting on the “whole armor of God”?
What is the “spirit of fear”?
How about the “spirit of religion”?
Who has the power to “bind and loose”? Is it just St. Peter, or is it broader than that?
What does “binding and loosing” mean, anyway?
Who is allowed to perform exorcisms–and do they need special permission?
Does the Bible support the idea that only certain people are authorized to perform exorcism?
What are the dangers exorcism involves for the unprepared?
Is the devil responsible for all of our temptations?
Can we attribute too much power to the devil?
What is a balanced approach to spiritual warfare?
The Hungry Ghosts
Should Catholic schools allow non-Christians to conduct prayer services on school property?
What if it’s in the chapel?
What if it’s in the parking lot?
Who should be consulted in cases of doubt?
Blindness
What is it like to be blind? What struggles do people with severe vision impairment face that sighted people never think about?
What has Jimmy’s own experience with being legally blind for a month taught him about the situation of blind people, and how has it affected his prayer life.
By the way, toward the end of the program, I invite people to join the Secret Information Club. To do that, you can use this handy form:
I’d like to thank everyone who has been praying for my recent eye surgery. I meant to provide a blog update before now, but I’ve been swamped catching up on things.
For any who may not be aware, I’ve been dealing with cataracts for some time, and for the last month I was legally blind.
Here’s what happened . . . and what I learned.
What They Did
The good news is that the surgery went very well. The procedure, which involves taking out the current lens in your eye and putting in an artificial one, took about twenty minutes.
I was conscious for the whole procedure. They gave me something which they said would relax me, but I don’t know if they gave me quite enough because I remember forcibly relaxing myself several times in the procedure.
Improvement in my vision was immediate. As soon as the new lens was in, I was no longer legally blind. In fact, it was good enough that–simply in terms of vision–I could have driven home. That’s not allowed, though, because of the anesthesia they give you, so a friend drove me back.
Once I was home I started having repeated experiences of, “Oh! Here’s where I left that small object weeks ago.”
To protect the eye during the first day of healing, they put a clear plastic cover over my eye. I’m also supposed to wear that when I’m asleep for the first week, to keep me from accidentally rubbing my eye.
And I’m taking three kinds of eye drops four times a day–one anti-bacterial (to prevent infection) and two anti-inflammatories.
Not the Solution I Expected
Here’s something I wasn’t expecting: It turns out that one of the anti-inflammatories, prednisol, tastes really bad. I was surprised to learn this, because I didn’t put any of the prednisol in my mouth. The folks at the eye surgeon’s office explained that the eye drops get into your tear ducts, which drain into your throat, so an unpleasant tasting eye drop can result in a bad taste in the back of your mouth.
Who knew?
I told them they need grape or cherry flavored prednisol.
They said, “Just don’t blink. That’s what forces the eye drop into the tear duct. Close your eye instead for a minute.” And it helped.
The Results
Now here’s the really good news: I went back the next day for an post-operative evaluation, they checked my vision, and it was now 20/20! (Meaning: An object that is 20 feet away from me looks the way it would to a person with normal vision at 20 feet.)
From legally blind to 20/20 vision the day after is really good, they said, and they went on to say that my vision should continue to improve for the first two weeks.
I now don’t need glasses to do anything with distance. I don’t need them to drive (that has not been the case ever before, as I was wearing glasses by the time I got my first drivers’ license) or to see objects across the room clearly, etc.
I do still need glasses to read, but only inexpensive, non-prescription ones. Someone on the Internet kindly suggested that they could be had for $1 at the dollar store, so I went by a near by dollar store and got seven pairs for seven bucks.
I decided on a volume purchase because, now that I don’t have to wear my glasses constantly, it’s easy to leave them lying someplace or forget to take them with you–a problem that I knew people had but never really understood. “Why not just wear glasses all the time?” I wondered, not realizing that keeping your reading glasses on can make your distance vision worse.
I Now Have a Minor Superpower
Another thing I didn’t expect is that the lens they put in is treated to have UV protection, so I now have UV protection built into my eye. I still need to wear sunglasses in bright light, simply to reduce the amount of light, but not as much for the UV protection.
Something I had some indication of before surgery was that my color vision would improve. Apparently, I am informed by a kind commenter, all adults start having clouding of the lens by the time they are in their 20s, and thus have some loss of color vision.
With my new lens, WOW! ARE THE COLORS INTENSE! Reds are redder, greens are greener, blues are bluer, etc. It’s like the whole world is now in Technicolor.
Children, apparently, live in a much more colorful world than adults do.
All of the above applies to my right eye, which was the one I had the surgery on. My left eye is scheduled for surgery in September.
So I wanted to thank everyone who has been praying for the surgery and the recovery. It means a lot to me.
What I Learned
The experience has also been valuable to me in that I now have a much better understanding of what it’s like to live with severe vision impairment. There are all kinds of things that blind people have to deal with, and not all of them you would expect. For example: Cooking meat is really difficult. How do you know when it’s done? How do you know it’s not over-done? Or how can you tell if vegetables are fresh or going bad? How do you chop vegetables? I’m not saying that these things can’t be done, but it requires a whole different approach than what sighted people are used to.
I’m just thankful that there is something that could be done to restore my vision, which would not have been the case in the past. A century ago, I would have been stuck and remained functionally (and eventually fully) blind for the rest of my life.
An ongoing part of my own prayers will now be for people whose conditions aren’t as easily treated as mine, that new options will become available and that, until then, they have the help from God and others to deal with the challenges the situation poses.
It’s the day I get eye surgery on my right eye (the left will be in a month or so), so that I can (hopefully) stop being legally blind.
Recently, when I was in the eye surgeon’s office, having my eyes measured for the surgery, this exchange occurred:
ME: As far as I know, I’m legally blind right now.
TECHNICIAN WHO MEASURED EYES: (Snort!) That’s a safe bet.
Heh. 🙂
Anyway, I wanted to thank everyone for their prayers.
Some people have asked the exact time, and it’s scheduled to start around 3:15 or 3:30 Pacific Time and run about 20-30 minutes.
Some have also asked for my prayers, including one gentleman who is scheduled for cataract surgery the very next day.
I will be praying for everyone who has been kind enough to pray for me and offer up the experience of the surgery and recovery for their intentions. I’ll also be praying for everyone in similar situations, as well as anyone who might want or benefit from prayer.
Many thanks to everyone!
BTW, here’s a picture I took of my work screen today, to illustrate the giant-type, high-contrast mode I’ve had to put the computer in to be able to read. Even with this mode, it still looks blurry to me, but hopefully that will be over very soon.
This looks blurry to me when I'm a foot away from it.
The Immaculate Conception Is About MaryA reader writes:
Can you point me in the direction of why the Immaculate Conception is important in regards to salvation?
A follow up or clarification might be how does Mary’s Immaculate Conception point to Christ’s redeeming act on the cross?
First of all, let’s deal with a common misunderstanding: The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. Instead, it refers to the conception of Mary in such a way that she was preserved free from all stain of original sin.
I gather that the first question may be based on a common Protestant objection to the Immaculate Conception.
This objection is based on the fact that the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church and so is required belief for Catholics. To know that it is infallibly defined, to know that beliefs that are infallibly defined must be accepted, and to deliberately reject such belief would fulfill the conditions for mortal sin.
So what makes the Immaculate Conception so important that our salvation should hinge on it?
At First Glance
The concern expressed in the objection is understandable. At first glance, the Immaculate Conception does not seem like something that our salvation ought to hinge upon.
After all, it’s not a truth directly connected with how to achieve salvation. It’s not like accepting belief in God, repenting of sin, having faith in Christ’s atonement, and being baptized. It’s not one of what theologians would call soteriological beliefs (from “soteriology”–the doctrine of salvation).
Compared to the the Trinity, the central mystery of the Christian faith, the Immaculate Conception is lower down on what the Second Vatican Council referred to as the “hierarchy of truths.”
This is illustrated, among other ways, by the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined until 1854
So what makes it important enough that our salvation should hinge on accepting it?
Another Way of Looking at the Issue
Consider this fact: The Bible discusses angels and the fact that they are rational, non-physical beings created by God.
We are obliged to believe in the existence of angels because the Bible is the inspired, written expression of God’s word, and as such it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author. Consequently, whatever Scripture asserts (in the proper sense) is something asserted by the Holy Spirit.
You might look at the doctrine of angels (angelology) and say, “This isn’t directly related to our salvation. It might be helpful to us in some way to know about the existence of angels, but they are clearly far down the hierarchy of truths.”
In fact, knowing about the existence of angels is not dissimilar to knowing about the existence of aliens. If God has created other rational physical beings in the universe, it might be of some use to know about them, but that knowledge isn’t essential to our salvation.
One might object that angels have, in fact, interacted with our race, which is true, but that doesn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology. (Just as if it turned out that aliens had interacted with our race, that wouldn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology, either.)
The point is this . . .
It’s a Question of What God Reveals
The reason that we are obliged to believe in the existence of angels but not aliens is that God has revealed the existence of the former to us but not the latter.
For us to reject the existence of angels would be to reject the authority of God as our teacher, and to do that knowingly and deliberately would be a mortal sin.
For those who have been exposed to God’s revelation such that they know he has revealed the existence of angels, their salvation does hinge on their believing in angels–not because the doctrine of angels is high up in the hierarchy of truths, and not because it is a truth directly connected with salvation, but because it is a truth God has revealed.
We are obliged to accept whatever God has revealed. We may have questions at times about what the meaning is of something he has revealed, but if we know for a fact that a particular proposition has been declared to us by God, we must accept it in order to be in union with him.
This is what the Church refers to as having divine faith, which includes belief in God and in whatever he reveals–because of the authority of him who reveals it.
There is another mode of faith, though . . .
Catholic Faith
Catholic faith refers to the faith that we are called to exercise when the Church has definitively proposed something. It also ultimately rests on divine faith, because the Church has no teaching authority apart from God.
However, God has given the Church the authority to teach us and even to infallibly proclaim things to us in certain situations. He also has revealed that this is the case, and so divine faith entails Catholic faith.
One of the key functions of the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, is to help us understand what God has revealed, to make sure that we don’t ignore or misinterpret it, and it has done so in a variety of ways down the centuries.
Early in Church history, the truths that are at the top of the hierarchy of truths were infallibly defined–the existence of one and only one God, the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc. And over time, once the most important issues were taken care of, the Church has deemed it appropriate to define truths that are lower in the hierarchy.
The Immaculate Conception
By 1854, the Magisterium determined that the time had come to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so Pope Pius IX defined it in that year.
It had already been divinely revealed and thus called for divine faith, but not that it had been infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it came to call for catholic faith as well.
As such, it is obligatory for us, not because it is a truth at the top of the hierarchy of truths, not because it is directly connected with how to be saved, but because it has been infallibly proposed by the Church using the authority given to her by God. To know all this and to deliberately reject it would thus be to reject the teaching authority of God, and thus commit a mortal sin.
That’s true of anything that must be believed by divine faith or by catholic faith, for both are backed by the authority of God.
God, for reasons known to him, deemed it useful for us to know about the existence of angels, and so he revealed that truth. He also deemed it useful for us to know about the Immaculate Conception of his Son’s mother, and so he revealed that as well.
To promote knowledge and ensure belief in the latter revelation, the Church deemed it useful to exercise the authority God gave it to infallibly define it.
The reason why has to do with the reader’s section question . . .
The Immaculate Conception & the Cross
The Immaculate Conception can be related to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross in various ways. Some of these go beyond Church doctrine and into the realm of theological elaboration. But here are two ways that seem certain. . . .
The Immaculate Conception Prepares for the Cross
First, the Immaculate Conception prepares for the Cross by making Mary a fitting mother for the Son of God, who came to die on the Cross. It isn’t that God had to make Mary immaculate in order to send his Son into the world. He didn’t. God is omnipotent, and his power is not limited. He could send his Son into the world without an immaculate mother if he chose.
But it was fitting that the mother of Christ be a holy woman, and in fact a woman who was a perfect example of holiness. Thus he prepared her for this role from the moment of her conception by giving her a special grace to preserve her from all stain of original sin.
This is why in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which he defined the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX spoke of it being “fitting” that Christ’s mother would be so prepared, not that it would be “necessary” that she be so prepared.
The Immaculate Conception Reflects the Cross
Second, the Immaculate Conception reflects the cross in that it is what Jesus did on the Cross that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it.
This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting in part the Second Vatican Council, explains the Immaculate Conception by saying:
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
But since all redemption comes to mankind through the Cross, it was the Cross itself that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
There is also another way in which the Immaculate Conception reflects the Cross . . .
An Icon of Our Destiny
Although God does not redeem us the same way he redeemed Mary, at the beginning of our lives, he will eventually free us of all stain of original sin as well. We will all one day be “stainless” (immaculate) if we persevere in his grace.
Thus, by redeeming Mary in such a way that she was given this gift while still in this life–and at the very beginning of her life–he made her an icon of what he will one day do for all of us.
Mary thus shows us what we an be–and will become–as a result of Christ’s death on the Cross, if we only persevere in the Christian life. She shows us the fruit of the Cross in one who is a mere human being, like us.
Christ also show us what we will become, for as Scripture says, when he appears again we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.
He, of course, is not just human but also the divine Son of God. Mary, however, is just human, and thus she serves as a direct example of what it is like for a human to be fully conformed to the image of her Son.
All these may offered as reasons why God–and the Church–deemed it important for us to know about the Immaculate Conception.
By the Way . . .
I’m currently preparing a mailing for the Secret Information Club in which I talk about Pope Benedict’s book recommendations for summer reading.
I had to delay the mailing a few days while I’m waiting on eye surgery. (I was able to get the piece composed, but not loaded into the highly graphical interface to send it.)
As a result, there’s still time to sign up!
Would you like a book recommendation from the pope?
Assuming all goes well with the eye surgery (prayers appreciated!), I should be sending out the special mailing with Pope Benedict’s summer reading recommendations later this week.
You’ll also get additional fascinating things. In fact, the very first thing you’ll get when you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the Book of Revelation (I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings). Its fascinating stuff, so be sure not to miss out!
To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:
