Hehe! My brother is so sweet!
:-)
YEY! We have snow!!
Friday, December 30, 2005
One way to tell if your brother is Catholic...
...instead of rolling three balls of snow and making a snow-man with a carrot nose and button eyes, he sculpts a figure of 'Jesus the Divine Mercy' out of snow, and then uses branches to symbolise the blood and water pouring forth from Christ's heart!
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Objections to 'Who wrote the Bible' partIIII
part 4
okay, it is half-past midnight but I wanted to get all these answered today because I am out tomorrow, so this question (which is a real gold-nugget by the way) will have to be cut short (probably a good thing too as I am sure you are bored with my long posts!)
Okay Quooba, here is my last answer! I hope you have found my answers interesting! I have tried my best to explain with the knowledge I have. But only the Holy Spirit can truely open hearts to understand. I am praying for you!
By the way, this is a truely great website. It was written for Evangelicals and explains EVERYTHING about the Catholic faith in a really digestable manner. It helped me understand a lot.
with love,
-x-
4. Or that it is okay to believe in other Traditions that the Catholics make into dogma, that are not even mentioned in the Bible?
Well, simply because Jesus Himself told us that he has not yet revealed all truths to us.
We believe that these truths will be revealed in time (and some have been), under the influence of the Holy Spirit, when God decides. None of these contradict a single word in the Bible.
Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Jesus then told us how he was planning to assist us in knowing other truths.
Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
The New Testament writers sensed how they handled truth-bearing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received ...
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
okay, it is half-past midnight but I wanted to get all these answered today because I am out tomorrow, so this question (which is a real gold-nugget by the way) will have to be cut short (probably a good thing too as I am sure you are bored with my long posts!)
Okay Quooba, here is my last answer! I hope you have found my answers interesting! I have tried my best to explain with the knowledge I have. But only the Holy Spirit can truely open hearts to understand. I am praying for you!
By the way, this is a truely great website. It was written for Evangelicals and explains EVERYTHING about the Catholic faith in a really digestable manner. It helped me understand a lot.
with love,
-x-
4. Or that it is okay to believe in other Traditions that the Catholics make into dogma, that are not even mentioned in the Bible?
Well, simply because Jesus Himself told us that he has not yet revealed all truths to us.
We believe that these truths will be revealed in time (and some have been), under the influence of the Holy Spirit, when God decides. None of these contradict a single word in the Bible.
Jn 16:12-13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Jesus then told us how he was planning to assist us in knowing other truths.
Jn 14:16-17
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
The New Testament writers sensed how they handled truth-bearing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
1 Cor 15:3-4
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received ...
2 Tim 2:2
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
Objections to 'Who wrote the Bible' partIII
part 3 (see parts 1 & 2)
3. Also, where does it says in the Bible that it's up to the Catholic church, as a whole, to translate the Bible?
Do you mean to ‘interpret’ the Bible? Or to translate into different language? (I will assume you mean interpret….)
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘as a whole’? Do you mean as opposed to personal interpretation?
As we have already established, the Bible did not float down from Heaven into mankind’s lap. Man did not have the build the Church around the Bible’s teachings.
Rather, the Church existed first, and the Church wrote and complied the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on the authority of the Church, and not the other way round.
For hundreds of years there was NO Bible!
Yet the Church still grew and practiced.
The Bible is not like a secret code, with a hidden message that we have to interpret and try in vain to understand. It was written by people to explain and teach!
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the people who actually wrote & complied the writings of the New Testament will know better than others what these writings actually meant when they were written.
Furthermore, as St. Paul writes over and over again, his ORAL teachings are just as valid as what has been written down (see 2Tim 1:13–14, 2Tim 2:2 off the top of my head, I am sure there are others).
As the only Christians around at time were Catholics, then it is natural that the CATHOLIC Church, and only the Catholich Church, will know what these oral teachings were, and therefore will be able to understand the teachings of the Bible because these will coincide with what they will have taugh each other orally.
So, the reason why ONLY The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bible is correct is because…
a- Catholics wrote it and assessed it, and the Church knew what was meant by the various teachings. THE CHURCH EXISTED BEFORE THE BIBLE!
b- Christ promised to guide and protect his Church and to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13). Christ promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church, so we can be confident that Satan is no-where near the Church’s teachings (Mat 16:18-20).
Have a look at Acts 8:30-31
“When Philip ran up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’. ‘How can I?’ he replied ‘unless I have someone to guide me?’
The Catholic Church, who existed before the New Testament was even written or complied, is our guide.
~~~
Finally, regarding private revelation, and why personal interpretation of the Scriptures is worthless have a look at 2Peter 3:16:
(talking about Paul)
“..and this makes some points in his letters hard to understand; these are the points that uneducated and unbalanced people distort in the same way as they distort the rest of the scriputres – a fatal thing for them to do”
And this was the first Pope of the Catholic Church speaking!! I think that is a clear warning about interpreting things as one pleases.
3. Also, where does it says in the Bible that it's up to the Catholic church, as a whole, to translate the Bible?
Do you mean to ‘interpret’ the Bible? Or to translate into different language? (I will assume you mean interpret….)
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘as a whole’? Do you mean as opposed to personal interpretation?
As we have already established, the Bible did not float down from Heaven into mankind’s lap. Man did not have the build the Church around the Bible’s teachings.
Rather, the Church existed first, and the Church wrote and complied the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on the authority of the Church, and not the other way round.
For hundreds of years there was NO Bible!
Yet the Church still grew and practiced.
The Bible is not like a secret code, with a hidden message that we have to interpret and try in vain to understand. It was written by people to explain and teach!
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the people who actually wrote & complied the writings of the New Testament will know better than others what these writings actually meant when they were written.
Furthermore, as St. Paul writes over and over again, his ORAL teachings are just as valid as what has been written down (see 2Tim 1:13–14, 2Tim 2:2 off the top of my head, I am sure there are others).
As the only Christians around at time were Catholics, then it is natural that the CATHOLIC Church, and only the Catholich Church, will know what these oral teachings were, and therefore will be able to understand the teachings of the Bible because these will coincide with what they will have taugh each other orally.
So, the reason why ONLY The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bible is correct is because…
a- Catholics wrote it and assessed it, and the Church knew what was meant by the various teachings. THE CHURCH EXISTED BEFORE THE BIBLE!
b- Christ promised to guide and protect his Church and to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13). Christ promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church, so we can be confident that Satan is no-where near the Church’s teachings (Mat 16:18-20).
Have a look at Acts 8:30-31
“When Philip ran up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’. ‘How can I?’ he replied ‘unless I have someone to guide me?’
The Catholic Church, who existed before the New Testament was even written or complied, is our guide.
~~~
Finally, regarding private revelation, and why personal interpretation of the Scriptures is worthless have a look at 2Peter 3:16:
(talking about Paul)
“..and this makes some points in his letters hard to understand; these are the points that uneducated and unbalanced people distort in the same way as they distort the rest of the scriputres – a fatal thing for them to do”
And this was the first Pope of the Catholic Church speaking!! I think that is a clear warning about interpreting things as one pleases.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Objections to 'Who wrote the Bible' partII
(carrying on from my last post)
2. Did the Catholics put the Bible together? You're going to have to back that up with a source. Or, should I check out that "CatholicChics" website?
Haha! Feel free to check out the ‘CatholicChics’ website if you want! But I posted all the data they provide on this on my original post!
I’m not really sure what kind of a ‘source’ you want. All the names & dates of the people and Councils were provided on the original post, so all you really have to do is research them to see whether they are accurate or not!
Here is a separate, unrelated website with the same information on.
My University library has copies of the documents produced at the various Church Councils involved in making the decisions about which of the hundreds of letters & writings floating around at the time belonged in the New Testament.
Perhaps your local University (or large) library will have a copy of these too. I suspect however that they should also be avaliable online somewhere so if you are interested in reading them then it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Some of the Church Councils involved in making decisions about the books in the Bible that you could read up on include;
- The Council of Rome (AD 382)
- The Council of Hippo (AD 393) (where the majority of the ‘arguing out’ went on as to which books should, or shouldn’t be, included).
- The Council of Carthage (AD 397)
- The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (AD 787)
- It actually wasn’t till the Council of Florence (in 1442) that entire Church recognized all the books currently in the New Testament.
….and the Protestants only have their Bible because of all these Councils and because of all the decisions made by the Catholic Bishops and Priets (and yes, by the year 300 these people were, beyond any shadow of a doubt, CATHOLIC!!!!)
Again, as with the last post, this is really a matter of historical fact, and so not very difficult to prove if you familiarise yourself with the history.
2. Did the Catholics put the Bible together? You're going to have to back that up with a source. Or, should I check out that "CatholicChics" website?
Haha! Feel free to check out the ‘CatholicChics’ website if you want! But I posted all the data they provide on this on my original post!
I’m not really sure what kind of a ‘source’ you want. All the names & dates of the people and Councils were provided on the original post, so all you really have to do is research them to see whether they are accurate or not!
Here is a separate, unrelated website with the same information on.
My University library has copies of the documents produced at the various Church Councils involved in making the decisions about which of the hundreds of letters & writings floating around at the time belonged in the New Testament.
Perhaps your local University (or large) library will have a copy of these too. I suspect however that they should also be avaliable online somewhere so if you are interested in reading them then it shouldn't be too hard to find.
Some of the Church Councils involved in making decisions about the books in the Bible that you could read up on include;
- The Council of Rome (AD 382)
- The Council of Hippo (AD 393) (where the majority of the ‘arguing out’ went on as to which books should, or shouldn’t be, included).
- The Council of Carthage (AD 397)
- The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (AD 787)
- It actually wasn’t till the Council of Florence (in 1442) that entire Church recognized all the books currently in the New Testament.
….and the Protestants only have their Bible because of all these Councils and because of all the decisions made by the Catholic Bishops and Priets (and yes, by the year 300 these people were, beyond any shadow of a doubt, CATHOLIC!!!!)
Again, as with the last post, this is really a matter of historical fact, and so not very difficult to prove if you familiarise yourself with the history.
Objections to 'Who wrote the Bible' part I
In response to my last post, Quooba,asked some question wanting evidence & explanation for some of the stuff I wrote about the Bible. I thought it would be better to answer her fully, rather than in the ‘comments’ section, and hence this post!
To make it more manageable I will write each objection in a separate post.
If anyone wants to supplement what I've written then then PLEEEASE do so!
1. Could you back up your belief about Catholics creating the Bible? Last time I checked, those who did write the Words of God did not have the identity of being "Catholic". They were followers of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but there were no denominations during that time.
The term ‘Catholic’ was first used at the beginning of the second century (by Ignatius of Antioch if you wanna look it up!)
….so not even 100years after Jesus died the word ‘Catholic’ was in use to describe the followers of Christ.
The word “Catholic” means ‘universal’ and refers to a single visible communion, distinct from others (e.g. Jews, pagans etc).
It was not a term made up to identify a certain denomination of Christians….because there were no denominations! It was a term used to describe those who were baptised & believed that this ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ guy was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the Mankind.
This belief was spreading so fast all over the known world that the term ‘Catholic’ was used to encompass all these believers and to show that they, though scattered in place, were all part of one, single, visible and unified body and all proclaimed the same beliefs.
Thus all people baptised in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit were ‘Catholics’.
We know from the vast quantities of writings from the New Testament, from the early Church Fathers and other historical documents that the organisation & worship of these early Christians and the Church is much the same was as the Catholic Church now-a-days.
They believed in the sacrifice of the Mass, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, had validly ordained Priests, a hierarchical structure of the Church, believed in Papal primacy (& had an unbroken succession of Popes following St. Peter), and in Tradition etc etc.
I could give countless more examples of things the very first Christians did and believed that the Catholic Church today still does and believes.
Some digestible reading on this is here
But any good book on the early Church Fathers will show this.
The distinction between ‘Catholics’ and ‘non-Catholics’ is only as stark as it is now-a-days because of the multitude of non-Catholic groups who have broken away in protest from the Catholic Church.
All the faithful in the early Church were Catholic.
That’s what Christians were, they were Catholic!
The problem here is that the word ‘Catholic’ was actually invented after some of the Gospel writers lived (although not long after, because it was first in use in the early 2nd century as I said).
The word was used to describe these early Christians; who they were and what they believed.
I think that the problem in understanding this is because it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation!
The ‘chicken’ ( some of the New Testament writers & Christian faithful) actually came a bit before the ‘egg’ (the word ‘Catholic’).
But the key fact is that ALL Christians were Catholics and believed and did the same things that the Church does today.
Like I said, any book on the early Church will show you this.
Ignatious of Antioch wrote a load of letters and documents that show this so very clearly; he was a Bishop (a Catholic…because there were no other types of Christians!) and was taught the Good News by John himself (the Gospel writer). His writings date from around 110AD and his writings of what the early Church believed and did is practically identical to what the Catholic Church still believes and does today.
It is a historical fact; the first baptised believers were Christians….and all Christians were Catholics!
To make it more manageable I will write each objection in a separate post.
If anyone wants to supplement what I've written then then PLEEEASE do so!
1. Could you back up your belief about Catholics creating the Bible? Last time I checked, those who did write the Words of God did not have the identity of being "Catholic". They were followers of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but there were no denominations during that time.
The term ‘Catholic’ was first used at the beginning of the second century (by Ignatius of Antioch if you wanna look it up!)
….so not even 100years after Jesus died the word ‘Catholic’ was in use to describe the followers of Christ.
The word “Catholic” means ‘universal’ and refers to a single visible communion, distinct from others (e.g. Jews, pagans etc).
It was not a term made up to identify a certain denomination of Christians….because there were no denominations! It was a term used to describe those who were baptised & believed that this ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ guy was the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of the Mankind.
This belief was spreading so fast all over the known world that the term ‘Catholic’ was used to encompass all these believers and to show that they, though scattered in place, were all part of one, single, visible and unified body and all proclaimed the same beliefs.
Thus all people baptised in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit were ‘Catholics’.
We know from the vast quantities of writings from the New Testament, from the early Church Fathers and other historical documents that the organisation & worship of these early Christians and the Church is much the same was as the Catholic Church now-a-days.
They believed in the sacrifice of the Mass, the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, had validly ordained Priests, a hierarchical structure of the Church, believed in Papal primacy (& had an unbroken succession of Popes following St. Peter), and in Tradition etc etc.
I could give countless more examples of things the very first Christians did and believed that the Catholic Church today still does and believes.
Some digestible reading on this is here
But any good book on the early Church Fathers will show this.
The distinction between ‘Catholics’ and ‘non-Catholics’ is only as stark as it is now-a-days because of the multitude of non-Catholic groups who have broken away in protest from the Catholic Church.
All the faithful in the early Church were Catholic.
That’s what Christians were, they were Catholic!
The problem here is that the word ‘Catholic’ was actually invented after some of the Gospel writers lived (although not long after, because it was first in use in the early 2nd century as I said).
The word was used to describe these early Christians; who they were and what they believed.
I think that the problem in understanding this is because it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation!
The ‘chicken’ ( some of the New Testament writers & Christian faithful) actually came a bit before the ‘egg’ (the word ‘Catholic’).
But the key fact is that ALL Christians were Catholics and believed and did the same things that the Church does today.
Like I said, any book on the early Church will show you this.
Ignatious of Antioch wrote a load of letters and documents that show this so very clearly; he was a Bishop (a Catholic…because there were no other types of Christians!) and was taught the Good News by John himself (the Gospel writer). His writings date from around 110AD and his writings of what the early Church believed and did is practically identical to what the Catholic Church still believes and does today.
It is a historical fact; the first baptised believers were Christians….and all Christians were Catholics!
The Origins of the Bible
I found this cute little website called "CatholicChics: Cool Bits for Catholic Chics"!
It's a work-in-progress so it doesn't really have that much stuff on at the moment, but it does have some nice songs, and relevant Catholics links/documents for women as well as this great time-line of the 'Origins of the Bible'.
I find this a particularly interesting topic, especially when it comes up in conversation with Sola Scriptura Protestants, who try to argue that the Bible has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and that it can be interpreted & understood apart from the Church.....convieniently forgetting that the Bible was actually written and put together by Catholics, and it was Catholics who decided which of the hundreds of books floating around at the time were inspired by God, and worthy of going into the Bible.
Furthermore, for several hundred years there was no Bible....yet the Church still existed and taught and worshipped God!
This naturally begs the question then, if Protestants are willing to accept the books in the Bible that the Catholic Church decided were inspired, why aren't they willing to accept
a- What the Catholic Chuch says the verses mean (given Catholics wrote them, put them together and explained in other documents what was meant by them e.g. the Holy Eucharist & mass, the Priesthood, the Papacy etc etc)
b- Other teachings that the Church says are true & inspired by God.
Reading & interpreting the Bible must be done in the light that shines from God's one true Church, any other light is dim in comparison and can make it hard to see, and so lead to misreading, misunderstanding and error.
I guess I am still thinking about this issue as it was quite a key argument used by the Protestant guy (Robert M. Zins) in that audio tape debate I was listening to on Christmas day on whether Mary was a virgin her entire life (the Catholic argueing in favour was Gerry Matatics who used to be a Presbyterian minister).
One interesting comment I once read regarding the different ways that the Protestants & Catholics view the Bible in that "Protestants believe that everything that is true is in the Bible, Catholics believe that everything that is in the Bible in true" (....but Catholics believe there are other truths that are not obviously articulated in the Bible).
The Catholic position is supported by the teachings of the Bible itself, which states that both oral teachings, and the teachings of the Holy Spirit in time will continue to reveal truths to God's Church. (but obviously, none of these can contradict what the Bible teaches!) (& none do!)
anyway, the origins of the Bible...
Pentecost (30/33AD)
The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The New Testament was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent).
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
Vatican I Council (1869-1870)
Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."
Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903
Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies. Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."
Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914
Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.
Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922
Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.
Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958
Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no freedom interpreting the Scriptures.
Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958
Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives
Vatican II Council (1962-1965)
The decree, On Divine Revelation, declares that there is one source of Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ; that there are two modes of handing on revelation: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition : "in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end," and "it is not from Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed." Concerning Inerrancy of Scripture: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. "Emphasized that "in order to see what God wanted to communicate in Scripture, we must investigate the intention of the sacred author, and one way to do this is by paying attention to the literary form employed by the sacred writer."
It's a work-in-progress so it doesn't really have that much stuff on at the moment, but it does have some nice songs, and relevant Catholics links/documents for women as well as this great time-line of the 'Origins of the Bible'.
I find this a particularly interesting topic, especially when it comes up in conversation with Sola Scriptura Protestants, who try to argue that the Bible has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and that it can be interpreted & understood apart from the Church.....convieniently forgetting that the Bible was actually written and put together by Catholics, and it was Catholics who decided which of the hundreds of books floating around at the time were inspired by God, and worthy of going into the Bible.
Furthermore, for several hundred years there was no Bible....yet the Church still existed and taught and worshipped God!
This naturally begs the question then, if Protestants are willing to accept the books in the Bible that the Catholic Church decided were inspired, why aren't they willing to accept
a- What the Catholic Chuch says the verses mean (given Catholics wrote them, put them together and explained in other documents what was meant by them e.g. the Holy Eucharist & mass, the Priesthood, the Papacy etc etc)
b- Other teachings that the Church says are true & inspired by God.
Reading & interpreting the Bible must be done in the light that shines from God's one true Church, any other light is dim in comparison and can make it hard to see, and so lead to misreading, misunderstanding and error.
I guess I am still thinking about this issue as it was quite a key argument used by the Protestant guy (Robert M. Zins) in that audio tape debate I was listening to on Christmas day on whether Mary was a virgin her entire life (the Catholic argueing in favour was Gerry Matatics who used to be a Presbyterian minister).
One interesting comment I once read regarding the different ways that the Protestants & Catholics view the Bible in that "Protestants believe that everything that is true is in the Bible, Catholics believe that everything that is in the Bible in true" (....but Catholics believe there are other truths that are not obviously articulated in the Bible).
The Catholic position is supported by the teachings of the Bible itself, which states that both oral teachings, and the teachings of the Holy Spirit in time will continue to reveal truths to God's Church. (but obviously, none of these can contradict what the Bible teaches!) (& none do!)
anyway, the origins of the Bible...
Pentecost (30/33AD)
The beginning of the Church; the Church exists before a determination of a canon or a definitive list of books of what was later called the Bible. The New Testament was not even written yet. The Bible is the book of the Church, we are not a church of the Bible.
Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170)
Produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
Council of Laodicea (c. 360)
A local council of the church in union with Rome produced a list of books of the Bible similar to the Council of Trent's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Council of Rome (382)
Local church council under the authority of Pope Damasus, (366-384) gave a complete list of canonical books of the OT and NT which is identical with the list later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Hippo (393)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent).
Council of Carthage (397)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Pope Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, 401-417 (405)
Responded to a request by Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, with a list of canonical books of Scripture; this list was the same as later approved by the Council of Trent.
Council of Carthage (419)
Local North African Church council in union with and under the authority of the Bishop of Rome approved a list of OT and NT canon (same as later approved by the Council of Trent)
Council of Florence, an ecumenical council (1441)
Complete list of OT and NT canon was drawn up; this list later adopted by the Fathers of the Council of Trent
Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563)
The canon of OT and NT received final definitions: 45 books in the OT; 27 in the NT; "Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority." The ancient Vulgate edition of the Bible was called the authoritative edition of the Bible.
Vatican I Council (1869-1870)
Reaffirmed the decree of Trent. The Church holds the books of Holy Scripture as sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them, nor because they contain revelation without error, but precisely because "having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself."
Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII, Bishop of Rome, 1878-1903
Inaugurated a new era in Roman Catholic biblical studies. Presented a plan for biblical study; Defined inspiration: "By supernatural power God so moved and impelled the human authors to write - he so assisted them in writing - that the things he ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth."
Pascendi Dominica Gregis (1907), Pope Pius X, Bishop of Rome, 1903-1914
Refuted the errors of the Modernists; Scored erroneous teaching on the origin and nature of the Sacred Books, on inspiration; on the distinction between the purely human Christ of history and the divine Christ of faith; on the origin and growth of the Scriptures.
Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), Pope Benedict XV, Bishop of Rome, 1914-1922
Commends modern critical methods in biblical studies. All biblical interpretation rests upon the literal sense. Goal of biblical studies is to learn spiritual perfection, to arm oneself to defend the faith, to preach the word of God fruitfully.
Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939-1958
Permitted scholars to use original text of Scriptures. No claim was made that the Vulgate is always an accurate translation, but that it is free from any errors in faith or morals. The scholar must be principally concerned with the literal sense of the Scriptures; search out and expound the spiritual sense; avoid other figurative senses. Literary criticism should be employed. Stated that there are but few texts whose sense was determined by the authority of the Church (only seven biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals--Jn 3:5, Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24, Jn 20:22, Jn 20:23, Rom 5:12, Ja 5: 14); this counteracts the frequent misunderstanding that Catholics have no freedom interpreting the Scriptures.
Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII, Bishop of Rome, 1939 - 1958
Instructs scholars on evolution, polygenism and OT historical narratives
Vatican II Council (1962-1965)
The decree, On Divine Revelation, declares that there is one source of Divine Revelation, Jesus Christ; that there are two modes of handing on revelation: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition : "in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end," and "it is not from Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed." Concerning Inerrancy of Scripture: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. "Emphasized that "in order to see what God wanted to communicate in Scripture, we must investigate the intention of the sacred author, and one way to do this is by paying attention to the literary form employed by the sacred writer."
Monday, December 26, 2005
Marriage Works in Christ
On my random travels round the internet I found this set of talks from EWTN on Marriage.
They sound pretty good.
On a random unrelated note...CUTE OVERLOAD! They are adorable!
Despite having sat by by mobile phone for the entire day and my paranoia that it would ring during mass, or while I was having a shower...I haven't yet been called out. Only 6.5 more hours to go till I am off duty! (see previous post)
-x-
They sound pretty good.
On a random unrelated note...CUTE OVERLOAD! They are adorable!
Despite having sat by by mobile phone for the entire day and my paranoia that it would ring during mass, or while I was having a shower...I haven't yet been called out. Only 6.5 more hours to go till I am off duty! (see previous post)
-x-
Happy St. Stephen's Day!
Christmas AngelI hope you all had a lovely day yesterday!
We had a really nice Christmas here. We went to Midnight Mass (which for some reason started at 10pm, instead of midnight) which was lovely as always! Our priest gave a great homliy on the significance of the Angels announcing Christ's birth to the Shephards, who were smelly, dirty outcasts, the lowest of the low in Jewish Society.
Afterwards we came home and opened some presents. I got some really nice earings from my parents. Amongst other things, Chris got me a tendon hammer which I really need for Clinical School but haven't got around to buying yet. Here is a picture of me being silly and testing my knee reflex....
I get a bit hyper-excitable at Christmas...!On Christmas Day we watched the Pope's Urbi et Orbi Christmas message live on Vatican tv, and got his special blessing too!
We then went to mass at noon and afterwards our Priest friend came over for a scrumptious Christmas feast (compliments to the Chef....aka: my mum!)
The afternoon was spent digesting and my brother and I watched Toy Story2 on tv. We then decided it would be fun to watch old home videos of Christmas' in Saudi when we were children and so started rooting around for them. While doing so we came across some audio tapes that I didn't even know we had on a Protestant vs. Catholic debate on the perpetual Virginity of Mary. So my brother & I spent the evening listening to that! It was really really interesting!
We just got back from Mass and I have decided to spend my St. Stephen's Day clearning my room which has turned into a bit of a tip since my holiday strated on Friday.
I am also confined to the house for the rest of the day today because I am 'on call' for the organ transplant rota at the hospital.
Basically, medical students have to cover 24hr shifts and if an organ (e.g. a kidney, liver, heart etc) become unexpectedly avaliable, they get called up and have to get to the hospital within 30mins to assist with emergency organ transplant surgery (I am on call today and on December 30th too).
It's almost lunch time now, which means...LEFT-OVER TURKEY! YEY!
HAPPY CHRISTMAS!
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Dear blog readers,
I pray that you have a blessed and joyful Christmas!
The Saviour of all Mankind has been born!
GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO!
Here is a present for you all; click here
warning about 'Mary did you know' song
Further to my last post, the Holy Spirit and no doubt Mary herself, guided Father Joe to my site and he very kindly pointed out to me the heresy in that "Mary Did You Know' song.
I will let him explain it in his own words (see his comments below), but I just want to say thank you so much to him for posting it.
Funnily, last night I was actually thinking about that exact phrase 'The child that you delivered, will soon deliver you' and realised that there was something wrong with it as it didn't fit with Church teaching (as Mary was free sin from before her birth).
However to have Father Joe confirm it is really such a blessing and I am so thankful to him!
So to all Catholics...pretty tune or not, it's not a good song to listen to because it denies the truth as proclaimed by the Church.
Oh beautiful Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Thank you again Father Joe! What a gift God has given us to have spiritual fathers who look out for their children like you!
~~~~~~
Given that you define yourself as a 100% Catholic girl, I feel compelled to say something about the song, MARY DID YOU KNOW?
"Did you know" that the composer Mark Lowry deliberately inserted the following verses to repudiate the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception? "This child that you delivered, will soon deliver you."
Mary was already delivered, as you well know, by the redemptive action of the cross reaching backwards into human history and touching Mary at the very first moment of conception and life in the womb of Saint Ann, so that the one who is the Holy of Holies could pass through a pure vessel untouched by sin.
Lowry had remarks against the Catholic dogma on a webpage some years ago, but I have noticed that he took it offline. No doubt he is counting on the general ignorance of "papists" and the sentiment of the Christmas season to circulate the song-- and even Catholics have money to buy CDs. What is worse is that Catholic churches and schools frequently have their choirs singing the song. Permission to requests for public recital and to recopy lyrics, is granted with the provision that the lyrics cannot be altered.
It is a pretty song, but it is also heresy.
One collegue of mine tried to defend the song, saying, "I noticed the words, but my theological take was along the lines that Mary was redeemed by Christ in the eternal dimension but that the act of her redemption is the same as ours: the sacrifice of Christ in the dimension of time." I saw what he was trying to say, but again, the meaning of the lyrics was clearly set in a temporal context, "... will soon deliver you." Lowry does not believe, as a Protestant, in the Immaculate Conception, and the song deliberately says this to malign Catholic teaching and to proselytize. While the redemptive power and grace of the Cross cannot be segregated exclusively to any one time or place, the passion and crucifixion are themselves posited in human history as are their immediate effects upon mortal men and women. God who is in the eternal now, enters into human history and touches us where we live, so-to-speak. Lowry would see this encounter with saving grace as something accomplished with a faith profession in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. He also views the work of Christ as accomplished and that we need merely acknowledge it. Catholics would normally see it as impacting upon us, not only with faith, but in a faith that is actualized by obedience and charity within the community of the Church-- particularly through baptism and the other sacraments. While Christ has died, once-and-for-all, his saving work is extended or perpetuated or re-presented through the sacraments.
The mystery of Mary's sinlessness is measured temporally, from the very first moment of her existence in the womb of St. Ann. It was not that she had original sin and that it was quickly stripped away; rather, at the very moment of her conception and personhood, there was no trace or stain of sin. Historically this takes place maybe 45-50 years prior to the saving event at Calvary. Just as the ripples from the Paschal Mystery touch us forward in time, it reached backwards and touched Mary.
As you can tell, I have talked myself silly trying to get churches and schools to either change the offensive lines (no matter whay the composer wants) or to avoid it altogether.
Take care and God bless,
Father Joe Jenkins
I will let him explain it in his own words (see his comments below), but I just want to say thank you so much to him for posting it.
Funnily, last night I was actually thinking about that exact phrase 'The child that you delivered, will soon deliver you' and realised that there was something wrong with it as it didn't fit with Church teaching (as Mary was free sin from before her birth).
However to have Father Joe confirm it is really such a blessing and I am so thankful to him!
So to all Catholics...pretty tune or not, it's not a good song to listen to because it denies the truth as proclaimed by the Church.
Oh beautiful Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Thank you again Father Joe! What a gift God has given us to have spiritual fathers who look out for their children like you!
~~~~~~
Given that you define yourself as a 100% Catholic girl, I feel compelled to say something about the song, MARY DID YOU KNOW?
"Did you know" that the composer Mark Lowry deliberately inserted the following verses to repudiate the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception? "This child that you delivered, will soon deliver you."
Mary was already delivered, as you well know, by the redemptive action of the cross reaching backwards into human history and touching Mary at the very first moment of conception and life in the womb of Saint Ann, so that the one who is the Holy of Holies could pass through a pure vessel untouched by sin.
Lowry had remarks against the Catholic dogma on a webpage some years ago, but I have noticed that he took it offline. No doubt he is counting on the general ignorance of "papists" and the sentiment of the Christmas season to circulate the song-- and even Catholics have money to buy CDs. What is worse is that Catholic churches and schools frequently have their choirs singing the song. Permission to requests for public recital and to recopy lyrics, is granted with the provision that the lyrics cannot be altered.
It is a pretty song, but it is also heresy.
One collegue of mine tried to defend the song, saying, "I noticed the words, but my theological take was along the lines that Mary was redeemed by Christ in the eternal dimension but that the act of her redemption is the same as ours: the sacrifice of Christ in the dimension of time." I saw what he was trying to say, but again, the meaning of the lyrics was clearly set in a temporal context, "... will soon deliver you." Lowry does not believe, as a Protestant, in the Immaculate Conception, and the song deliberately says this to malign Catholic teaching and to proselytize. While the redemptive power and grace of the Cross cannot be segregated exclusively to any one time or place, the passion and crucifixion are themselves posited in human history as are their immediate effects upon mortal men and women. God who is in the eternal now, enters into human history and touches us where we live, so-to-speak. Lowry would see this encounter with saving grace as something accomplished with a faith profession in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior. He also views the work of Christ as accomplished and that we need merely acknowledge it. Catholics would normally see it as impacting upon us, not only with faith, but in a faith that is actualized by obedience and charity within the community of the Church-- particularly through baptism and the other sacraments. While Christ has died, once-and-for-all, his saving work is extended or perpetuated or re-presented through the sacraments.
The mystery of Mary's sinlessness is measured temporally, from the very first moment of her existence in the womb of St. Ann. It was not that she had original sin and that it was quickly stripped away; rather, at the very moment of her conception and personhood, there was no trace or stain of sin. Historically this takes place maybe 45-50 years prior to the saving event at Calvary. Just as the ripples from the Paschal Mystery touch us forward in time, it reached backwards and touched Mary.
As you can tell, I have talked myself silly trying to get churches and schools to either change the offensive lines (no matter whay the composer wants) or to avoid it altogether.
Take care and God bless,
Father Joe Jenkins
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Mary Did You Know?
POST REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE NATURE OF THE SONG DISCUSSED. SEE SUBSEQUENT POST.
~~~
Better go now as I am still trying to finish off my project on dolphins due in tomorrow!
-x-
~~~
Better go now as I am still trying to finish off my project on dolphins due in tomorrow!
-x-
WORLD YOUTH DAY THEME 2008
World Youth Day in 2008 will be held in Sydney from July 15-20.
The theme for this WYD has been announced; it will be:
"You will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses."
taken from the Acts of the Apostles (1:8).
World Youth Day 2006 & 2007 will be held at the diocesan level, unlike the 2008 event, in Australia, will be international.
In 2006, young people of the world will reflect on verse 105 of Psalm 119:
"Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path."
The theme chosen for 2007 is from the Gospel, John 13:34: "Love one another, as
I have loved you."
The theme for this WYD has been announced; it will be:
"You will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses."
taken from the Acts of the Apostles (1:8).
World Youth Day 2006 & 2007 will be held at the diocesan level, unlike the 2008 event, in Australia, will be international.
In 2006, young people of the world will reflect on verse 105 of Psalm 119:
"Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path."
The theme chosen for 2007 is from the Gospel, John 13:34: "Love one another, as
I have loved you."
The Camauro through history
Nice pictures of the Camauro in the last few hundred years.
I am still not on holiday yet!
Another 2 days to go!! aaaargh!
I am starting to get quite tired especially because the days are SO long as the doctors are trying to squeeze in as much teaching as possible!
For the last 2 days I have been at the hospital for 10hours! and likewise today I dont finish till 6pm!
All my friends keep complaining & everyone is desperate to go home!
:-)
The other day one of the doctors told us, 'This is only the beginning! Things get worse from here!'
anyway, I better go!
will update properly soon!
-x-x-x-
I am still not on holiday yet!
Another 2 days to go!! aaaargh!
I am starting to get quite tired especially because the days are SO long as the doctors are trying to squeeze in as much teaching as possible!
For the last 2 days I have been at the hospital for 10hours! and likewise today I dont finish till 6pm!
All my friends keep complaining & everyone is desperate to go home!
:-)
The other day one of the doctors told us, 'This is only the beginning! Things get worse from here!'
anyway, I better go!
will update properly soon!
-x-x-x-
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
How can you not love him?!!
It's B16!
Nope, that's not a Santa hat! It's a 'Camauro'.
"The camauro is the white fur-trimmed red bonnet reserved to Popes in place of the biretta.
The camauro, like the biretta, evolved from the academic cap of the Middle Ages. Unlike the biretta, however, it did not evolve much. The camauro in its present form was established by the twelfth century.
Pope John XXIII in 1963 was the last Pope to wear one."
from here
I'd be willing to bet that the 'traditional' Santa Claus hat actually evolved from the Camauro!
haha! bet the secular world dont know that!
Nope, that's not a Santa hat! It's a 'Camauro'.
"The camauro is the white fur-trimmed red bonnet reserved to Popes in place of the biretta.
The camauro, like the biretta, evolved from the academic cap of the Middle Ages. Unlike the biretta, however, it did not evolve much. The camauro in its present form was established by the twelfth century.
Pope John XXIII in 1963 was the last Pope to wear one."
from here
I'd be willing to bet that the 'traditional' Santa Claus hat actually evolved from the Camauro!
haha! bet the secular world dont know that!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
What Christmas presents does the Pope give ...
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- For his first Christmas as pope, Benedict XVI gave all Vatican employees signed Christmas cards and gifts of Italian cake, sparkling wine and rosaries.
The Vatican's 4,223 employees Dec. 14 each received a colorful Christmas postcard depicting a reproduction of a 16th-century painting of "Adoration of the Magi." The painting, crafted by an unknown artist, hangs in the chapel of St. Lawrence in the Vatican.
On the card's reverse side is the pope's coat of arms and a greeting -- a quote in Latin from a sermon of St. Augustine in the pope's handwriting.
"Awake mankind! For your sake God has become man," it says, followed by Pope Benedict's signature and the year.
Together with their cards, Vatican workers also carried home a large Italian Christmas cake called "panettone" and a bottle of Martini sparkling wine, gifts Pope John Paul II used to give employees every year along with his own hand-signed Christmas card.
But this year Pope Benedict also included a special set of blessed rosary beads whose metal center bears a "Madonna and Child" on one side and his coat of arms on the other.
The Vatican's 4,223 employees Dec. 14 each received a colorful Christmas postcard depicting a reproduction of a 16th-century painting of "Adoration of the Magi." The painting, crafted by an unknown artist, hangs in the chapel of St. Lawrence in the Vatican.
On the card's reverse side is the pope's coat of arms and a greeting -- a quote in Latin from a sermon of St. Augustine in the pope's handwriting.
"Awake mankind! For your sake God has become man," it says, followed by Pope Benedict's signature and the year.
Together with their cards, Vatican workers also carried home a large Italian Christmas cake called "panettone" and a bottle of Martini sparkling wine, gifts Pope John Paul II used to give employees every year along with his own hand-signed Christmas card.
But this year Pope Benedict also included a special set of blessed rosary beads whose metal center bears a "Madonna and Child" on one side and his coat of arms on the other.
100 of the greatest Catholic quotes
Completely randomly yesterday I came across this: 100 of the greatest Catholic quotes! So seeing as my last post was on quotes, I thought it would be great to link it here! Some of them are really good!
In other news, yesterday I spent some 5 hours trying to critically evaluate a paper on the use of dolphins to help reduce depressive symptoms in people with mild/moderate depression (the bottom line is that yes, they did find that interaction with dolphins did manage to reduce depression, but there were only 13 people in the test group, and 12 people in the control group, so there is some question as to the reliability). (Also, the study took place in Honduras on a private nature reserve, so if you ask me the sun, sea, warm and gorgeous environment probably helped too!!)
Rather amusingly, last month Carmel had written a little post about this very study on her blog!
at the moment I am also trying to collate together all the studies I can find about NFP so that I can send them to that doctor from the other day.
ps- Welcome to Jessica!
pps- Does anyone know how to link attachments onto blogs (e.g. word documents?)
thanks
-x-
In other news, yesterday I spent some 5 hours trying to critically evaluate a paper on the use of dolphins to help reduce depressive symptoms in people with mild/moderate depression (the bottom line is that yes, they did find that interaction with dolphins did manage to reduce depression, but there were only 13 people in the test group, and 12 people in the control group, so there is some question as to the reliability). (Also, the study took place in Honduras on a private nature reserve, so if you ask me the sun, sea, warm and gorgeous environment probably helped too!!)
Rather amusingly, last month Carmel had written a little post about this very study on her blog!
at the moment I am also trying to collate together all the studies I can find about NFP so that I can send them to that doctor from the other day.
ps- Welcome to Jessica!
pps- Does anyone know how to link attachments onto blogs (e.g. word documents?)
thanks
-x-
Friday, December 16, 2005
Quotable Quotes...
I have been tagged by 'The Queen of Winterr' (hehe! couldnt resist!) to post some of my favourite quotes.
I am actually a huge fan of quotes, especially the oh-so-simple-yet-mind-bogglingly-profound types. Inspiring quotes always pop into my head when I'm perplexed about something and contemplating what decision to take. Like little shining stars to light the way...for some reason though I cant seem to remember too many of them right now, so I will just quote some of the ones I can remember:
In no particular order...
" There are no coincidences with Providence"
- JP the great
"To God, everything is simple -- God's love for us is greater than all the conflicts, which will pass. "
- Mother Theresa
"Do not be afraid"
-Jesus
(but more recently repeatedly echoed by JP2)
- "I say to you, dear young people: Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life."
- Pope Benedict, MASS FOR THE INAUGURATIONOF THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI, April 2005
oh, I have so many more! It's 10:30pm though & so my brain isn't totally functioning so I will update as I remember!
I managed to get out of the confines of the hospital today and spent some 10 hours at the GP's (General Practitioners...sort of like a Family Physician in the US). We go for a full day once every 2 weeks and I had a pretty good day today!
I tried to convince one of the doctors that she should teach NFP to her patients (she seriously looked at me like I was a crazy person,). She didn't look like she believed me when I told her about the 99% method effectiveness rate at pregnancy prevention so I told her I will get back to her with a list of supporting medical studies.
The doctors also took me & the other 3 students out to lunch at an Indian restaurant! Woohoo! A free lunch is always a big bonus when you're a student! (although I am kind of a cheating student because I live at home this year so I get plenty of yummy food...but still....I gave my mum a break from cooking!)
anyway....
BED-TIME!
g'nite -x-
I am actually a huge fan of quotes, especially the oh-so-simple-yet-mind-bogglingly-profound types. Inspiring quotes always pop into my head when I'm perplexed about something and contemplating what decision to take. Like little shining stars to light the way...for some reason though I cant seem to remember too many of them right now, so I will just quote some of the ones I can remember:
In no particular order...
" There are no coincidences with Providence"
- JP the great
"To God, everything is simple -- God's love for us is greater than all the conflicts, which will pass. "
- Mother Theresa
"Do not be afraid"
-Jesus
(but more recently repeatedly echoed by JP2)
- "I say to you, dear young people: Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ – and you will find true life."
- Pope Benedict, MASS FOR THE INAUGURATIONOF THE PONTIFICATE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI, April 2005
oh, I have so many more! It's 10:30pm though & so my brain isn't totally functioning so I will update as I remember!
I managed to get out of the confines of the hospital today and spent some 10 hours at the GP's (General Practitioners...sort of like a Family Physician in the US). We go for a full day once every 2 weeks and I had a pretty good day today!
I tried to convince one of the doctors that she should teach NFP to her patients (she seriously looked at me like I was a crazy person,). She didn't look like she believed me when I told her about the 99% method effectiveness rate at pregnancy prevention so I told her I will get back to her with a list of supporting medical studies.
The doctors also took me & the other 3 students out to lunch at an Indian restaurant! Woohoo! A free lunch is always a big bonus when you're a student! (although I am kind of a cheating student because I live at home this year so I get plenty of yummy food...but still....I gave my mum a break from cooking!)
anyway....
BED-TIME!
g'nite -x-
Thursday, December 15, 2005
my week...crazy world...
I haven't been blogging much (/at all) this week because I have been trying to be a good girl and spend my evenings revising. I finially recovered from my 10 days of illness on Monday this week and so have been trying to make up for my lack-of-work during that period (..with variable success)!
Actually, I have had a pretty interesting week; I spent some time in rheumatology seeing people with all sorts of bone conditions, in a geriatrics clinic (although we cant say that anymore now, the new politically correct term is 'medicine for the elderly'). I spoke to a lovely lovely guy with bittle bone disease ('osteogenesis imperfecta') who has been in hospital for broken bones over 100 times, and I have been following the progress of a guy with suspected mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the lining of the lung. Poor guy, the disease actually has a very unhappy prognosis. It's linked to asbestos exposure and can take up to 45 years to develop after being exposed to the asbestos, so we are trying to identify any potential asbestos exposure he might have had in his life because the Government may need to get involved.
Ummm, what else have I been up to....neurology, pneumonia, strokes....actually, it's been a very interesting week.
Oh, something else that really stopped me in my tracks happened the other day..
There were a couple of us sitting round the table at lunch time. One guy is a non-denominational Christian and he was telling everyone about his plans once he graduates from med school; he wants to be a missionary and travel round the world converting people. He got married last year so someone asked whether his wife would come too and what they'd do about kids.
he said something like 'Yeh, she'll come. I guess we'll have kids at some point. I was an only child so I'd like to have more than one child; maybe 2 or even 3 kids..'
The guy sitting to his right was like: 'THREE KIDS?!!! wow!!!' with his eyes wide and mouth open in surprise.
Truthfully, I dont know who looked more shocked.....him at the thought of someone having THREE KIDS, or me!
I can't believe that the concept of having THREE children is actually shocking to someone!!!
Funnily almost the same thing happened to me yesterday. I was telling a friend of mind about this woman I know. She is a couple of years older than us (is Catholic), and got married while in 3rd year of med school, and had her first child during her 4th year. She's now about 28 and had her 4th child a few months ago, and still works as a doctor part-time.
My friend was like' FOUR?! no way?!' He too looked genuinely surprised!
What a sad world we live in where the idea of having 3 or 4 children is met with shock and disbelief!
anyway, it's actually my lunch break now and I have 3 hour of Respiratory Clinic starting soon so I better scootle!
Actually, I have had a pretty interesting week; I spent some time in rheumatology seeing people with all sorts of bone conditions, in a geriatrics clinic (although we cant say that anymore now, the new politically correct term is 'medicine for the elderly'). I spoke to a lovely lovely guy with bittle bone disease ('osteogenesis imperfecta') who has been in hospital for broken bones over 100 times, and I have been following the progress of a guy with suspected mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the lining of the lung. Poor guy, the disease actually has a very unhappy prognosis. It's linked to asbestos exposure and can take up to 45 years to develop after being exposed to the asbestos, so we are trying to identify any potential asbestos exposure he might have had in his life because the Government may need to get involved.
Ummm, what else have I been up to....neurology, pneumonia, strokes....actually, it's been a very interesting week.
Oh, something else that really stopped me in my tracks happened the other day..
There were a couple of us sitting round the table at lunch time. One guy is a non-denominational Christian and he was telling everyone about his plans once he graduates from med school; he wants to be a missionary and travel round the world converting people. He got married last year so someone asked whether his wife would come too and what they'd do about kids.
he said something like 'Yeh, she'll come. I guess we'll have kids at some point. I was an only child so I'd like to have more than one child; maybe 2 or even 3 kids..'
The guy sitting to his right was like: 'THREE KIDS?!!! wow!!!' with his eyes wide and mouth open in surprise.
Truthfully, I dont know who looked more shocked.....him at the thought of someone having THREE KIDS, or me!
I can't believe that the concept of having THREE children is actually shocking to someone!!!
Funnily almost the same thing happened to me yesterday. I was telling a friend of mind about this woman I know. She is a couple of years older than us (is Catholic), and got married while in 3rd year of med school, and had her first child during her 4th year. She's now about 28 and had her 4th child a few months ago, and still works as a doctor part-time.
My friend was like' FOUR?! no way?!' He too looked genuinely surprised!
What a sad world we live in where the idea of having 3 or 4 children is met with shock and disbelief!
anyway, it's actually my lunch break now and I have 3 hour of Respiratory Clinic starting soon so I better scootle!
Saturday, December 10, 2005
5 things about me..
I have sorta self-tagged myself to do this (see Carmel's blog)
5 Random Things about me..
1. I was 3 weeks old went I went on my first airplane flight
2. My confirmation Saint is St. Gianna. She was a medical doctor, mother, wife and martry and pro-life witness.
3. I have one sibling, a brother called Christopher Mark. (we call my brother Christopher, and my fiance Chris to try and avoid confusion!)
4. I don't like being cold
5. One of my favourite silly tv shows is 'Malcolm in the Middle' which I watch A LOT of!
5 Random Things about me..
1. I was 3 weeks old went I went on my first airplane flight
2. My confirmation Saint is St. Gianna. She was a medical doctor, mother, wife and martry and pro-life witness.
3. I have one sibling, a brother called Christopher Mark. (we call my brother Christopher, and my fiance Chris to try and avoid confusion!)
4. I don't like being cold
5. One of my favourite silly tv shows is 'Malcolm in the Middle' which I watch A LOT of!
Invitations..
Some of the 60+ invitations we sent out.
We have FINALLY sent out all the invitations! We have invited 105 people, which is about 15 people more than the reception venue can physically hold...so, cruel though it may sound, I'm kinda hoping some people won't be able to come (otherwise I don't actually know where they will fit!)
60% of the people on the guest list are Chris' relatives, 20% are mine, and 20% are communal friends.
There are so many more friends I would really like to invite, but because the wedding ins't taking place in my home town, and is in the middle of the summer, we can't just invite people to the wedding mass alone, but they also have to be invited to the reception meal afterwards...and we just can't afford to have that many people!
We already have a 'Guest List B' with about 10 names on for people I'd like to invite if enough people on 'Guest List A' cancel.
The wedding mass will start at 1pm (Sunday July 30th 2006) and we have decided to pray the Rosary from 12:30pm for the intention of the renewal of family life. I won't be able to go (seeing as I have to wait to make my grand entrance!) but Chris really wanted to have it.
We have also reminded guests to dress modestly, with reverence and respect, for the mass, and asked that women don't wear anything sleavless, or that exposes their belly-button or leg above the knee etc etc.
I think I have ranted about this before, but I really don't like it when women come to mass half-naked; I think it's extremly inappropriate.
anyhoo, all there is to do now is wait for the responses to roll in (rsvp date is Jan31st) .
Everything else is not going too badly either; my three bridesmaids are my brother's fiance and Chris' 2 sisters and I'm letting them choose whatever type of dress they want (as long as their shoulders are covered for the mass!). That'll be one less stress for me to worry about! I said that ideally their dresses should match, but if that's not possible then I don't mind if my maid of honour (bro's fiance) has one type of dress, and the other 2 bridesmaids have a different dress.
Otherwise, the only other major things that need to be done are still the cake, the wedding car and the honeymoon.
Oh, and the men's clothes, but that's one thing I have decided (wisely or foolishly) not worry myself about, but rather leave it up to Chris....!! :-)
Friday, December 09, 2005
C.S.Lewis's...
I just went to see it with some friends. It was pretty good; I have never read the books (although I may do now) but I had seen the BBC version when I was younger.
The only slightly odd part was Aslan's American accent....:)
ps- my 'fact of the day': C.S. Lewis' name is Clive Staples Lewis.
pps- (may interest Thursday...) apparently, "best-selling children’s author Philip Pullman, has described the Narnia series as “one of the most ugly and poisonous things I’ve ever read.” "
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Google Earth
I just got it (again...my first copy kept crashing).
IT
IS
SOO
COOL!!!!!!!!!!
For many many hours of fun (& procrastination)...GET GOOGLE EARTH!
IT
IS
SOO
COOL!!!!!!!!!!
For many many hours of fun (& procrastination)...GET GOOGLE EARTH!
Feast of the Immaculate Conception
..is today.
As it is also the 40th anniversary of the closure of the Second Vatican Council, the faithful are granted a plenary indulgence if they partake in...
- Sacramental Confession
- Eucharistic Communion
- Prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff
in spirit that is completely detached from affection for any sin
as well as if
- they participate in a sacred rite in honour of the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, or at least offer an open witness of Marian devotion before an image of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, displayed for public veneration, adding the recitation of the Our Father and the Creed and exclamatory invocations to Mary Immaculate (such as "You are All Fair, Mary, and in you there is no stain of original sin!", or "O Queen, conceived without original sin, pray for us!")
from the Vatican
~~
In other news; I am STILL ill.
I took Monday off work, as well as Tuesday morning, I dragged myself in for teaching on Wednesday, and today I have decided to take the morning off to 'work'.
I have to go in later for some silly communication skills class on 'Difference'.
Apparently we will be shown pictures of 'difference' and have to say how they make us feel (stuff like, a black man in a suit, or someone in a wheel-chair with a lab-coat on, or two homosexuals kissing).
siiigh. Good tax-payers money gets spent on things like that.
As it is also the 40th anniversary of the closure of the Second Vatican Council, the faithful are granted a plenary indulgence if they partake in...
- Sacramental Confession
- Eucharistic Communion
- Prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff
in spirit that is completely detached from affection for any sin
as well as if
- they participate in a sacred rite in honour of the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, or at least offer an open witness of Marian devotion before an image of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, displayed for public veneration, adding the recitation of the Our Father and the Creed and exclamatory invocations to Mary Immaculate (such as "You are All Fair, Mary, and in you there is no stain of original sin!", or "O Queen, conceived without original sin, pray for us!")
from the Vatican
~~
In other news; I am STILL ill.
I took Monday off work, as well as Tuesday morning, I dragged myself in for teaching on Wednesday, and today I have decided to take the morning off to 'work'.
I have to go in later for some silly communication skills class on 'Difference'.
Apparently we will be shown pictures of 'difference' and have to say how they make us feel (stuff like, a black man in a suit, or someone in a wheel-chair with a lab-coat on, or two homosexuals kissing).
siiigh. Good tax-payers money gets spent on things like that.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Frequent Confession..
Pope Pius Xll, in his encyclical: " Mystici Corporus" , summarized the principal fruits into 8 reasons for frequent confession:
1. Frequent Confession increases the true knowledge of oneself. By examining our conscience more frequently, we will have greater memory of all of our transgressions that need to be confessed, and not just our habitual sins.
2. Frequent Confession will encourage Christian humility. By better recognizing our sins, our confessions will be more humbling , which helps to make up for our pride, which is the root cause of all of our sins.
3. Frequent Confession tends to root out bad habits.
Frequent confession will help us to overcome our dominant faults, so that we can progress in improving our spiritual lives.
4. Frequent Confession fights spiritual negligence and tepidity. Tepidity is a blind settling mediocrity without a real willingness to come out of it. The extra graces we receive from frequent confesssion helps to move us past our lethargy to improve our spiritual lives.
5. Frequent Confession purifies the conscience. The cleansing of our consciences make our souls more transparant to the imperfections that previously were invisible to us, helping us to remove more of the stain of sin from our lives.
6. Frequent Confession strengthens the will. One of the greatest illness of our time is lack of will power and and weak character. We feel much stronger after Confession.
7. Frequent Confession lends itself to spiritual guidance. We should choose a regular confessor who can help us in Confession by guiding our conscience.
8. Frequent Confession increases graces. By its own effect, frequent confession increases sanctifying grace, is accompanied by a sacramental grace which wipes out sin, strengthers against temptation, and gives feelings of joy and peace to the soul.
Frequent Confession with frequent Holy Communion is the path recommended by Popes and many great Saints to bring us closer to Jesus, and progress in holiness in our spiritual lives. . It is what we should emulate.
1. Frequent Confession increases the true knowledge of oneself. By examining our conscience more frequently, we will have greater memory of all of our transgressions that need to be confessed, and not just our habitual sins.
2. Frequent Confession will encourage Christian humility. By better recognizing our sins, our confessions will be more humbling , which helps to make up for our pride, which is the root cause of all of our sins.
3. Frequent Confession tends to root out bad habits.
Frequent confession will help us to overcome our dominant faults, so that we can progress in improving our spiritual lives.
4. Frequent Confession fights spiritual negligence and tepidity. Tepidity is a blind settling mediocrity without a real willingness to come out of it. The extra graces we receive from frequent confesssion helps to move us past our lethargy to improve our spiritual lives.
5. Frequent Confession purifies the conscience. The cleansing of our consciences make our souls more transparant to the imperfections that previously were invisible to us, helping us to remove more of the stain of sin from our lives.
6. Frequent Confession strengthens the will. One of the greatest illness of our time is lack of will power and and weak character. We feel much stronger after Confession.
7. Frequent Confession lends itself to spiritual guidance. We should choose a regular confessor who can help us in Confession by guiding our conscience.
8. Frequent Confession increases graces. By its own effect, frequent confession increases sanctifying grace, is accompanied by a sacramental grace which wipes out sin, strengthers against temptation, and gives feelings of joy and peace to the soul.
Frequent Confession with frequent Holy Communion is the path recommended by Popes and many great Saints to bring us closer to Jesus, and progress in holiness in our spiritual lives. . It is what we should emulate.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
I'm iiiilllll
I'm an ill girl at the moment. I have a sore throat and have been feeling nauseous, tired and achey for the last 2 days.
It didn't help that I had to spend an 11 hour day at a GP (General Practitioner)'s yesterday. The bus coming back home was delayed on the busy Friday-night roads, so the return journey took almost 2 hours!
My mum reckons I am ill because I am not sleeping enough and am too tired these days. While there may be some truth in that, I don't think it helps that I am currently working on a Respiratory ward at the hospital where every 3rd patient has pneumonia or bronchitis. Two other people in my group and ill and they think they caught something off the patients, so maybe I did too.
'Under the Weather' :-)
In other news, on Thursday evening I went to see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire! I thought it was pretty good. The special effects were really impressive at any rate, and Ron is so much bigger than he used to be, and now has that teenage-boy awkward gangly-ness about him!! Hehe!The dark bits were pretty dark and a bit Satanic-ritual-esque (not that I know anything about that, but I imagine it would involve grave-yards and 'blood of thy enemy' type-stuff. )
I have recently been reading some of the anti-Harry Potter arguments (mainly from Christian groups), and while I do agree with some of their points, I don't know if I would stop reading the Harry Potter series altogether.
However, maybe I would be careful about my own kids reading them, and try to make sure they had a properly formed moral conscious before they did.
but for now....back to bed and my teddy bear!
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Vatican Message for World Day Against AIDS
(a few days old; it was 29th Nov)
I have slightly edited the message to high-light the points of particular interest to me & I have noted where I edited. There is a link for the full text at the bottom of the article:
~~~~~~
The best cure is prevention to avoid infection by HIV/AIDS, which we should remember is transmitted through the triple route of blood, transmission from mother to child, and sexual contact.
As regards transfusions and other forms of contact with the blood of an infected person, today such infection has been notably reduced. [next bit cut out]
We may thank the Lord that contagion from mother to child is strongly controlled by suitable drugs. [end of paragraph cut out]
The third pathway of infection -- sexual transmission -- still remains the most important.
This is greatly fostered by a kind of pansexual culture that devalues sexuality, reducing it to mere pleasure without any further meaning.
Radical prevention in this field must come from a correct conception and practice of sexuality, where sexual activity is understood in its deep meaning as a total and absolute expression of the fecund giving of love. This totality leads us to the exclusiveness of its exercise in marriage, which is unique and indissoluble. Secure prevention in this field thus lies in the intensification of the solidity of the family.
This is the profound meaning of the Sixth Commandment, of the law of God, which constitutes the fulcrum of the authentic prevention of AIDS in the field of sexual activity.
[next para cut out]
26.7% of centers for the provision of care in relation to HIV/AIDS in the world are Catholic based.
see full text here
~~~~
When will the world realise that only by following God's Laws will they be able to solve the problems that plauge humanity?
The only tools that Satan can ever provide are akin to throwing petrol on an already blazing out-of-control fire.
I have slightly edited the message to high-light the points of particular interest to me & I have noted where I edited. There is a link for the full text at the bottom of the article:
~~~~~~
The best cure is prevention to avoid infection by HIV/AIDS, which we should remember is transmitted through the triple route of blood, transmission from mother to child, and sexual contact.
As regards transfusions and other forms of contact with the blood of an infected person, today such infection has been notably reduced. [next bit cut out]
We may thank the Lord that contagion from mother to child is strongly controlled by suitable drugs. [end of paragraph cut out]
The third pathway of infection -- sexual transmission -- still remains the most important.
This is greatly fostered by a kind of pansexual culture that devalues sexuality, reducing it to mere pleasure without any further meaning.
Radical prevention in this field must come from a correct conception and practice of sexuality, where sexual activity is understood in its deep meaning as a total and absolute expression of the fecund giving of love. This totality leads us to the exclusiveness of its exercise in marriage, which is unique and indissoluble. Secure prevention in this field thus lies in the intensification of the solidity of the family.
This is the profound meaning of the Sixth Commandment, of the law of God, which constitutes the fulcrum of the authentic prevention of AIDS in the field of sexual activity.
[next para cut out]
26.7% of centers for the provision of care in relation to HIV/AIDS in the world are Catholic based.
see full text here
~~~~
When will the world realise that only by following God's Laws will they be able to solve the problems that plauge humanity?
The only tools that Satan can ever provide are akin to throwing petrol on an already blazing out-of-control fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
