Laudate Catholic App

An excellent app with many resources that Catholics need, including daily Mass readings, Stations of the Cross, interactive Rosary, large selection of Latin and English prayers, and guide to Confession. It also has links to the Liturgy of the Hours, the Catechism and two versions of the Bible including the Douay Rheims version. Some of these features require internet access, but it is still a very good app and best of all it's free.

Download Links:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aycka.apps.MassReadings&hl=en

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/laudate-1-free-catholic-app/id499428207?mt=8

The Story of Eli: A Moral Tale on the Peril of Poor Parenting and Unfaithful Priestly Ministry

From http://blog.adw.org/2012/07/the-story-of-eli-a-moral-tale-on-the-peril-of-poor-parenting-and-unfaithful-priestly-ministry-2/

In the First Book of Samuel, we see are rather stunning portrait of poor parenting and poor priestly leadership in the person of of High Priest of the Sanctuary at Shiloh, Eli. Consider this line from the Scriptures:

Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the LORD where the ark of God was. The LORD called to Samuel, who answered, “Here I am.” Samuel ran to Eli and said, “Here I am. You called me.”“I did not call you,” Eli said. “Go back to sleep.” …..At that time Samuel was not familiar with the LORD, because the LORD had not revealed anything to him as yet. (1 Sam 3:3-5).

Now let me ask you, how could it be that Samuel, a young boy living in the temple of the Lord and under the foster parentage of the High Priest was “not familiar” with the Lord? Some may argue he is but a young boy. Still, he is old enough to speak with Eli, to hear and heed Eli’s instructions. Has Eli told him nothing of the Lord? It would seem so. Ah, but you say, the text has indicated that Samuel knew nothing because the Lord had not yet revealed anything to him. The text seems to root the cause of his unfamiliarity in the Lord rather than Eli. But Eli is still without excuse for it remains true that God reveals himself to us not usually as a voice in the night, or some unusual Theophany. Rather, God reveals himself to us through parents, priests, religious and other elders. For a young and already talking Samuel to be unfamiliar with the Lord while living under the care of the High Priest supposedly ministering in the very House of The Lord is unconscionable. It is a dereliction of duty. Eli has failed thus far as a parent and a priest. Children should be taught of God from their first interactive moments. Among the first things they learn should be Bible stories and prayers. They should be made aware of and become familiar with the “still small voice” of God as he whispers his presence to them.

I have only a few memories of being a very young child of about 5 years of age. But one of the memories I most cherish is how plainly I heard the voice of God and felt his presence. There was a very beautiful statue of the Sacred Heart near my dresser and God surely spoke to me from there and I was familiar with his calming and loving presence. But I could understand what I was experiencing because my parents had made me familiar with the Lord. I knew who it was that was speaking to me in those quiet and calm whispers. It was the Lord. Sadly, as I grew older and the flesh became more alive I lost my ability to hear the “still, small voice” of the Lord. I have sought it ever since my conversion back to the Lord and am only in recent years beginning to experience it again in moments of contemplative prayer.

I knew who spoke to me and had been made familiar with him, but Samuel did not and this is a very serious dereliction of duty on the part of Eli. When asked he finally did tell Samuel of the Lord but Samuel should not have had to ask.

Perhaps you think I am being too hard on Eli or reading into the text a bit. Maybe Eli was a busy man being High Priest and all. Or perhaps I am just plain wrong and Eli was actually a good father figure for Samuel.

A Pattern – But I do not think I am wrong nor am I being too harsh for poor parenting and poor priestly leadership are a pattern for Eli. Consider another story about the two priestly sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas:

Eli’s sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD. Now it was the practice of the priests with the people that whenever anyone offered a sacrifice and while the meat was being boiled, the servant of the priest would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand. He would plunge it into the pan or kettle or caldron or pot, and the priest would take for himself whatever the fork brought up. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. But even before the fat was burned, the servant of the priest would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give the priest some meat to roast; he won’t accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.” If the man said to him, “Let the fat be burned up first, and then take whatever you want,” the servant would then answer, “No, hand it over now; if you don’t, I’ll take it by force.” This sin of the young men was very great in the LORD’s sight, for they were treating the LORD’s offering with contempt……Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. No, my sons; it is not a good report that I hear spreading among the LORD’s people. If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?” His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death…..Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “This is what the LORD says: Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?’ “Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: …those who despise me will be disdained. The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your family line …” ‘And what happens to your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will be a sign to you—they will both die on the same day. I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly establish his house, and he will minister before my anointed one always. (1 Sam 2:selected verses)

The basic facts are these:

1. The priestly sons of Eli, Hophniand Phinehas, are wicked men. They violate the sacred liturgy and and take more than their portion, a portion that belongs to God. They scandalize the faithful, act unjustly toward them and have illicit sexual relations with the young women assigned to care for the Shrine at Shiloh.
2. But Eli does nothing. When it is called to his attention he gives a verbal rebuke. But he must do more than this. They have acted so scandalously that they must be removed. They are a threat to others by their exploitative and opportunistic behavior. They should have been removed. It is a true fact that we struggled with this very same thing in the clergy sexual abuse scandal of recent years.
3. God rebukes Eli for his weak rebuke and tells him that his weak response indicates that Eli favors his sons more than God and also scorns the sacred liturgy.
4. God cannot allow Eli and his sons to minister at Shiloh any longer. He will bring Eli’s family down and replace him with a priest who is faithful and will do what is in God’s heart and mind. In a word, Eli has been replaced. Samuel will soon enough take up the holy priesthood. Hophni and Phinehas will die soon for their sins, and Eli’s line is at an end.

How has all this happened? Poor parenting and an unfaithful priestly ministry. In failing to raise his children in the fear of the Lord and in failing to punish wrongdoing Eli has brought grave harm upon himself, his family and his sons. In addition, when Samuel was placed in his care he continued with his pattern of failing to preach the Lord and make Samuel familair with him.

This is a moral tale for our times as well. How many young people today have not been raised in the reverential fear of the Lord, have not been raised to be familiar with the Lord, have not been properly disciplined by parents and trained in righteousness? How many of them have not been instructed in God’s ways and have been allowed to fall deep into sinful habits and patterns.

In the Church too some have not at times been willing to discipline where necessary. Sin is often not rebuked from our pulpits, children are poorly instructed in the faith. We celebrate compassion but sometimes to a fault where sin is tolerated and grows very serious in people’s lives. Silence by many clergy and Church leaders in the face of serious sin can and is taken to be tacit approval of sin and has led to a widespread moral malaise. Disobedience in the clergy has sometimes been tolerated. Liturgical norms and the sacred liturgy have often been abused. And yes, as we sadly know there has been abusive and illicit sexual activity too.

Thank God there are signs of revival and renewal in many of these areas in the Church and in some of our families. But the story of Eli is an important moral tale for our times that God wants us to take serious our obligation to raise our children to know the Lord and walk in his ways. Through proper discipline and instruction we are summoned to have our children be familiar with the Lord at the very dawning of consciousness and reason. To fail in this regard is something God takes very seriously. Thank God for good parents, clergy and religious who have done their very best in this regard. Hopefully the story of Eli for most of us is simply an encouragement to do what we are already doing. But for those who fail to take seriously their obligations in this regard it should be seen for what it also is: a warning.

Mark's Gospel Is An Early Memoir of Peter

See http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Marks_Gospel_Is_An_Early_Memoir_of_Peter

Biblical proof that Mary (and Joseph) made a vow of virginity

From http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/biblical-proof-that-mary-and-joseph.html

 

4^th Sunday of Advent, Luke 1:26-38

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

The Gospel text recounting the Annunciation of the angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary contains the biblical evidence and proof that she had made a vow of virginity prior to her conception of the Christ Child. Further, as we consider the historical circumstances of her betrothal to Joseph, it will become quite clear that he also had vowed perpetual continence as the spouse of our Lady.

Rather than discussing the universal and emphatic teachings of the Fathers of the Church – all of whom assert that Mary had made a vow of virginity – because such texts will often be ignored by Protestants (to their eternal ruin), we will look simply at the Gospel text itself and shall assert only those things which are affirmed also by the Evangelist.

The account of the Annunciation, the words of Mary

After the archangel Gabriel tells our Lady that she is to be the Mother of the Messiah, she responds with a simple question: How can this be? We must not think that Mary doubted the words of the angel or the plan of God – far be it from us to impute sin to our Mother! Rather, it is clear (also from the context, since the angel does not rebuke Mary as he had rebuked Zechariah for his doubt) that the Virgin believes that God’s word will be fulfilled, but simply does not understand how this will take place – hence, she asks How can this be?

And what is it that confuses Mary? She says How can this be? Since I have no relations with a man. Mary does not doubt that she will indeed conceive and bear a son, but what she does not understand is the mode of conception. We will consider why she was confused in a moment – first, let us look at the words of the Gospel.

The New American Bible offers a loose translation of this verse (Luke 1:34) – Since I have no relations with a man. The more literal translation is: Since I do not know man. The original Greek: ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;

Of course, the phrase “do not know man” refers to sexual relations, as is common throughout the Bible. What I want to point out is that Mary does not say, “Since I have not yet known a man” or “Since I have never known man” – i.e. she does not speak in the past tense. Rather, our Lady uses the present indicative: Since I do not know man. She does not merely affirm that she has been a virgin, but implies that in the moment she intends to remain a virgin.

This is what confused our Lady: That she was a virgin, and yet the angel said she would conceive and give birth to a son.

Proof of the vow of virginity

Now, our Lady was already betrothed to St. Joseph (cf. Luke 1:27) – she had not yet come into his home, but she was soon to do so (cf. Matthew 1:18,24). If the Blessed Virgin Mary had intended to have sexual relations with Joseph – according to the ordinary mode of married life – how can we think that she would have been confused by the words of the angel?

Mary did not say simply: “How can I bear a son? Since I have not yet known a man but intend to soon enter into relations with Joseph.” This would not even make any sense! For she would have presumed then that the child would be the son of Joseph.

The only way we can account for Mary’s confusion, and also for her use of the present (rather than past) tense verb I do not know man, is if we admit that she had no intention of entering into sexual relations with Joseph or with any other man.

Mary could only ask this question of the angel, if she had some good reason for thinking that the child would not be the son of Joseph. And the only good reason she could have to think that Jesus would not be the biological son of Joseph is if she had no intention of ever giving up her virginity to Joseph. Hence, it is clear, that Mary must have made a vow of virginity to God.

Joseph’s betrothal to our Lady

Now, given that we must conclude that our Lady had no intention of entering into sexual relations with Joseph to whom she was betrothed and whom she would soon marry, how can we fail to believe that Joseph must have made the vow of continence together with Mary?

Could we possibly presume that our Lady would enter into a marriage with St. Joseph without telling him that she intended to remain a virgin?! Why, even on a natural level, we know that this would never happen! Of all the things which would have to be discussed before marriage, certainly a vow of perpetual virginity would have to be at the top of the list!

But, if Mary had told Joseph of her vow of virginity (as surely she must have), then we are led to conclude that, since Joseph agreed to marry her, he too must have made a vow of perpetual continence (i.e. to refrain from all sexual relations even within marriage).

We do not say necessarily that Joseph was a virgin – for it is possible that he had been married before and had been widowed – but we are sure of this much at least: After his betrothal to the Virgin Mary, he had forsook all sexual relations. Joseph had no intention of engaging in relations with the Mother of God. Further, we know that this vow must have taken place even before the Annunciation, since our Lady would have had to discuss the matter with Joseph BEFORE the betrothal – it would be quite a surprise to spring it on him only after they were committed to marriage!

Thus, from the text of Scripture itself, it is clear that both Mary and Joseph had made a perpetual vow to abstain from all sexual relations – there can be no doubt that the Mother of God remained a virgin throughout her entire life.

Replies to objections

Here we will briefly consider only the most popular objections to Mary’s perpetual vow of virginity. The objections will be written in italics, followed by the answers in normal font.

But Jesus had “brothers and sisters”. This objection is very easy to answer, since it was common to call cousins “brothers and sisters” – indeed, there was no word specific to “cousin” in ancient Aramaic, hence the New Testament writers felt no need to differentiate between cousins and closer relatives. This same use of the term “brothers and sisters” referring rather to “cousins” is found in Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22. If Jesus really had brothers and sisters who were sons and daughters of Mary, why did he entrust his Mother to John the Beloved at his death? Would she not have been cared for by the other children? [further, it is possible that these “brothers and sisters” where children of Joseph by a previous marriage of which he was widowed]

But Matthew 1:18 says, “BEFORE Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” And it would not say BEFORE, if they did not have relations after. The response is simple: We often say things like, “I left the city BEFORE I was able to visit my friend” and we by no means imply that we visited our friend AFTER we left.

But Jesus is called the “first-born son”, which implies that there were others. Rather, the words “first-born” are a title which is applied even if there are no other children. It was of great significance in Jewish culture to be the first-born son, and this title was given even before any other children were born and was retained even if no other children were born.

But Matthew 1:24-25 says, “And [Joseph] took unto him his wife [Mary]; and he knew her not TILL she brought forth her first-born Son.” And Matthew would not have said TILL or UNTIL, if Joseph had not had relations with Mary after the birth of the Christ. This is certainly the most complicated objection and it requires wisdom to see the truth. St. Jerome explains that, in the Scriptures, the word “until” is sometimes used to designate a fixed time, but also can designate and indefinite time. Hence, Psalm 122:2 states, “Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, UNTIL he have mercy on us” – but from this we are not to suppose that we turn our eyes away from the Lord after he is merciful! Rather, our eyes are fixed on the Lord until he shows us his mercy and, after he is merciful to us, our eyes remain fixed upon him all the more! And St. Jerome concluded, “Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards.” (Adversus Helvid. v) And this interpretation is required by the other texts of Scripture (namely, her reply at the Annunciation) which indicate that Mary was indeed always a virgin.

Pope Benedict Insists that Bible’s Truth is Found in its Totality

From Catholic Herald May 5, 2011:

While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“It is possible to perceive the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

“It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression,” the Pope wrote in the message released today at the Vatican.

The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican from May 2 to May 6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible”.

In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.

“An interpretation of the sacred writings that disregards or forgets their inspiration does not take into account their most important and precious characteristic, that they come from God,” he said.

The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit inspired the biblical writers so that “human words express the word of God”, he said.

“Through his word God wants to communicate to us the whole truth about himself and his plan of salvation for humanity,” the Pope wrote. “A commitment to discovering ever more the truth of the sacred books, therefore, is a commitment to seeking to better know God and the mystery of his saving will.”

Three Biblical Reasons Fasting and Self-Denial

Canterbury Tales March 28, 2011:

Every year at the beginning of Lent, I'm encouraged and excited about it. However after a few weeks (like today), I start growing weary of the fasting and penance. So in order to remind myself of why we're keeping Lent, here are more reflections on what Bible teaches about fasting and self-denial:

1. Fasting as a Preparation for a Divine Event
In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, self-denial is a way of preparing spiritually for something spiritually important. Of course, in Lent we are spiritually preparing the the Easter celebration of Christ's resurrection from the dead. Moses fasted for forty days in preparation for receiving the Ten Commandments (Ex 34:28). The prophet Daniel fasted for three weeks before receiving his vision (Dan 10:2-6). Elijah the prophet fasted forty days before God spoke to him (1 Kings 19:8). And we all know that Christ our Savior fasted for forty days in preparation for His temptation by the devil and for the beginning of His ministry (Mt 4:1-11, Lk 4:1-13).

2. Fasting as Penitence
A few weeks ago we looked at the Bible verses for penitence or repentance. The fact is that we are sinners. Self-denial, then, has a twofold purpose. First, penance is a outward sign of an inward contrition. We outwardly express to God our inward sorrow for sin.

Secondly, penance or self-sacrifice is a remedy for future sin. If you teach yourself to say "no" to good things (meat, desserts, comforts, marital pleasure) then you strengthen your will to resist bad things (sin). For example, you're not going to be able to rescue someone pinned under a car (a bad thing) if you don't daily lift weights and build muscle (a good thing).

The concept of penance or self-sacrifice is all over the Bible. Jonah prophesied the destruction of pagan Nineveh, but the Ninevites fasted as a sign of repentance and God spared them (Jonah 3:3-9). The Jewish Day of Atonement was an annual day of obligation of fasting for all Hebrews (Numbers 29:7). In fact, whenever Israel sinned, they "humbled themselves," wore sackcloth, put on ashes, and fasted in order to show God their sorrow for sin (cf. Judges 20:26, 1 Sam 7:6).

3. Fasting for Sorrow
In the Bible, sometimes fasting simply shows sorrow. When tragic things happen, we sometimes lose our appetite naturally. This human experience is also found in Scripture. King David fasted as a sign of grief when Abner was killed (2 Samuel 3:35). There was also a seven-day fast at the death of Saul (1 Samuel 31:13). During Holy Week, and especially on Good Friday, we should be fasting for sorrow, because the "Bridegroom has been taken away from us" (cf. (Matthew 9:14-15; Mark 2:18-20; Luke 5:33-35).

So keep up your penance and reflect on Christ as the Crucified One in order to find strength. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us!

Biblical parting of the Red Sea 'could have happened'

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8015908/Biblical-parting-of-the-Red-Sea-could-have-happened.html

Published 21 Sep 2010

A new computer modelling study suggests a powerful wind could have divided the waters just as depicted in the Book of Exodus.
The likely location of the ''miracle'' was not the Red Sea as such, but a nearby spot in the Nile Delta region.
In the biblical account, Moses and the fleeing Israelites are trapped between the Pharaoh's advancing chariots and a body of water identified from translations as either the Red Sea or Sea of Reeds.
Thanks to divine intervention, a mighty east wind blows all night, splitting the waters to leave a passage of dry land with walls of water on both sides.
The Israelites make their escape, but when the Pharaoh's army tries to pursue them the waters come crashing back and drown the soldiers.
Scientists in the US studying ancient maps of the Nile Delta region pinpointed where the crossing may have occurred, just south of the Mediterranean Sea
Here, according to some experts, an ancient branch of the Nile flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis.
Analysis of archaeological records, satellite measurements and maps allowed the researchers to estimate the water flow and depth at the site 3,000 years ago.
An ocean computer model was then used to simulate the impact of a strong overnight wind on the six-foot-deep waters.
The scientists found that an east wind of 63 mph blowing for 12 hours would have driven the shallow waters back, both into the lake and the river channel.
For a period of four hours, this would have created a land bridge about two miles long and three miles wide.
The waters really would have been parted, with barriers of water raised on both sides of the newly exposed mud flats.
As soon as the winds dropped, the waters would have rushed back, much like a tidal bore. Anyone stranded on the mud flats would have been at risk of drowning, said the scientists, whose findings are reported today in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.
Lead researcher Carl Drews, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said: ''The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus.
''The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that's in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in.
''People have always been fascinated by this Exodus story, wondering if it comes from historical facts. What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws.''
The set of 14 computer simulations showed that dry land could also have been exposed at two other nearby sites during a wind storm from the east.
Those events did not fit so well with the Biblical account, since both involved a single body of water getting pushed to one side rather than being parted.
Several previous theories have been put forward to explain the the parting of the Red Sea.
One involved a tsunami, which can cause a body of water to retreat and then advance rapidly. But such an event would not have caused the gradual overnight divide of the waters as described in the Bible, or been so associated with winds.
Other experts have focused on a phenomenon linked to strong persistent winds known as ''wind setdown'' which can lower water levels in one area while piling up water downwind.
One study found that winds blowing from the north-west at a near-hurricane force of 74mph could in theory have exposed an underwater reef near the present-day Suez Canal, providing a walkable land passage.
Mr Drews' team found that the reef would have had to be entirely flat to allow the water to drain off it in 12 hours. A more realistic reef with lower and deeper sections would have retained water-filled channels that would have been difficult to wade through.
It was also unlikely that the refugees could have made the crossing in almost hurricane-force winds, said the Colorado researchers.