Stop trying to live others life's - live your own!

Today I am going to just ramble or vent a bit. I hope you will excuse me for doing so. Last night I met with a child of a friend at their request to talk to her about her attitude. During the conversation I said, "Why is it your teacher gives you a glowing report. She says you are the best student in your grade in the entire school and you are the most respectful child she has ever met. She claims she can only describe you as excellent - perfect", but that is not how your parents describe you.

She replied, "I am not the same at school as I am at home".  The first time I met this child several years ago I told her uncle they are going to have problems with her. She is "intelligent" and she knows it. The things they believe is cute now is not going to be cute in a few years. Well my prophesy was correct.

At home she wants to do things when she wants to do them and not when she is told to do them. If you cross her she yells and walks off.  You get the "whatever" with the hand in the air pointed towards you. If you try and talk to her she plays the I 'am sorry bit' and cries to make THEM feel sorry for her. She has the technique of getting and doing what she wants down pat. She has no problems calling cousins and siblings stupid because they do not excel in school as she does.

I ask her, "Why are you not the same at school as at home? Why are you not the same everywhere? Are you telling me that sometimes you are a phony - fake? Her reply was, "I do not know why I am different at school".

During my 3 a.m. prayer session it hit me like a ton of bricks - Tom why are you not the same everywhere with everyone?

My answer was - I was taught that I am to meet the expectations of those I am accountable to. That is a lesson I wish I had not learned so well. It has at times made my life miserable. I really did not want to be the best at everything I tried. I wanted to do MY best, but not try to be better than everyone else. I did not want to compete. I wanted to be good, fair, just, humble, faithful and loyal, but I personally did not have a need to be perfect all the time and I wasn't no matter how hard I tried.

Many in my family tried to live their life through me. I was the only one to go to college even up to today. I was the only minister. I was the only business owner, except for two uncles and grandfather. I was certainly the only one to graduate cum laud. All I wanted was to be was a minister from age six.

I was told in the seminary (cemetery) that a good minister has to appear to have all the answers. After all that is why they pay you and come to you for advice. I felt inadequate because I did not and do not have all the answers and it took me about ten years to realize I could just tell the people "I do not know". That was hard because I personally felt I had failed them. The authority figures in my life had told me I would be a failure if people thought I did not know it all.

Then came the time when I began not to agree with everything the hierarchy of my denomination handed down for us to teach. Do I tell the people I do not  believe abortion is an unforgivable sin and if it is forgiven the bishop must forgive it? Do I tell them I believe that having children they cannot afford is a bigger sin than using artificial birth control? Do I tell them Christ was not born in the month of December? Do I tell them the Shepherds did not arrive when Christ was a baby in a manger? Do I tell them that infant baptism is a ritual and it is okay, but I really believe it is best to wait until the children can acknowledge their own baptism? Do I tell them that I do not believe once saved always saved? Do I tell them I thing the Church is wrong to deny Communion to divorced and remarried couples or gay and lesbian couples? Will I be honest with myself or meet the expectations others place on me. Eventually, I began to preference things that I really did not support with - "THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES" and people in my parish knew that I did not whole heartily agree and then I would say other Christians believe -----.

Oh believe me when I say, it caused a lot of flack for me by some, but the majority supported me and did not want me to change. They were looking for truth and wanted to have the opportunity to pray, study and reason what was the truth. I would say the majority of Christians want to be TOLD what to believe.

Back to the beginning why have I spent my life trying to please others? All I really ever wanted was to please is God and myself. Why do I have to guard what I say so others will not be offended? What right do they have to impose their beliefs on me or what right do I have to impose my beliefs on them?

I sympathize with the gay and lesbian community. Their sexuality is between them and God as long as they obey the laws of the land (and lot of laws need to be changed) and they do not physically or emotional hurt others that is between them and God. What right do I have to judge them?

I do not want to anyone come back and say their actions emotionally offend me because it goes against what I believe God said - you should not be so emotionally weak. You can hold to your beliefs and let others do the same if you are really as faithful as you say you are.

I think a lot of Christians today have confused following God with trying to be God.

I am now getting nearer 80 every week and I frankly no longer care what others think of me and my beliefs if I feel I am right with God. I do not have to conform to anyone else belief system.  You have no right to judge me and I have no right to judge you. I can forgive the offences you did to me, but I cannot forgive the offences you did to others.  Only God and the ones you harmed can do that. By the way no other priest, bishops, cardinal or pope can forgive your sins either.

So in closing, I frankly do not care what you think of my of my political, personal or religious beliefs! I just want to be who God created me to be and please Him.

If you are allowing others to live their life through you or put demands on you to meet their expectations of what you should be or do my advise to you is make your own decisions and make yourself happy.

I just typed and did not worry about grammar or spelling or anything else. Please forgive me and do not nick-pick me. I actually have stupid people come back and say, "You were never a priest you misspell this or that or your grammar is terrible and you do not know where a comma, period or question mark belongs".  Hate to tell you priest are not perfect and they have the same bodily functions you do.  

Have you tested what your preachers or religious leaders said?

Pope Francis during a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution is compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation and he is being attack by some theologians/preachers for saying it.

Christians should reject the idea that the world came into being by chance, but to continue to dispute proven scientific facts makes a mockery of Christianity and the Bible.  Why can evolution not be part of God’s plan?

The author or authors of Genesis were trying to explain something they could not possibly understand at the time. They were not lying, but theologians/preachers today that continue to support the fantasy that everything was created in seven days are lying and I believe they know it. It insults my intelligence, the intelligence that God gave me, for them to continue to try and force me to believe a fantasy in order for them to consider me a Christian.

Just as some theologians/preachers today have a need to think they can explain everything some of the authors of the Bible may have suffered from the same weakness. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it is not the dictated Word of God. It is time for theologians/preachers to stop trying to force us to believe that the Bible is a science book or history book. The Bible is a book that God used and continues to use to teach us moral values. Unfortunately, some authors of scripture allowed their personal moral values, which were influenced by man’s traditions and culture, to be included in the Bible and we must use our God given intelligences to try and distinguish between what is God and what is man.

I do not need to believe in fictional stories in order to believe in God. I do need to try and understand the lessons that are being taught by those stories in order to have a better relationship with God and to be a better person. Quite honestly, I do not believe God endorsed slavery; I do not believe God endorsed the killing of innocent women and children; I do not believe God endorsed denying women equal rights; I do not believe God endorsed many of the things found in Proverbs and Leviticus and I do not believe theologians/preachers that claim to believe in the literal translation of the Bible believe it either or they would apply them to their personal lives, instead of ignoring them as they do.

A lot of Christians today are making the mistake of listening only to theologians/preachers, instead of listening to the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us. Yes, He instructed the disciples to go forth into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but he never said they were to become our god or take the place of the Holy Spirit.  God does not come in confusion and when a theologian/preacher speaks words that cause you confusion you need to get alone with God and allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you.  Do you not inject your personal beliefs into the things that you communicate? If you do then why do you think theologians/preachers do not do the same?

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Catholic Mass, at the consecration in Communion, the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but they retain the appearance of bread and wine.

 In the year 1215A.D. Pope Innocent III decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. Five years later in 1220A.D. Pope Honorius sanctioned the adoration and or worship of the wafer and wine as doctrine. Then The Council of Trent re-confirmed the teaching: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."  The Council of Trent began Dec. 13, 1545 and ended on October 11, 1551. Was transubstantiation always ‘the conviction of the Church of God’ or did it come about in 1215A.D.

Saint Thomas said, “No act is greater than the consecration of the body of Christ. In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.” How many times does Christ need to be sacrificed for our sins?

This doctrine gave the men of the church tremendous power. They could do something that no other man or woman could do. People who refused to believe they had this power were killed.

No matter if I do or do not believe the doctrine of transubstantiation it does not make me love the Catholic Mass any more or any less. Regardless of my belief I like the dignity, honor and respect the Catholic Mass gives the Sacrament of Communion. A respect that I do not think most Protestant Churches give Communion and a respect that I believe Communion deserves. I do resent being told I must believe one way or the other in order to be a Catholic.

The Protestants do have a valid argument against transubstantiation. Some of the verses used to substantiate the Catholic teaching are the following: Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," John 6:52-53. "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves,” 1 Cor. 11:27. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." One could question are these words spoken literally or not and how could it have been possible for them to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ if He had not yet been sacrificed.

"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom," Matthew 26:29. Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine", wine, if it was His literal blood? Jesus called it wine. There are many more questions rightly raised by the Protestants.

I have gotten alone with God, pray, meditated, studied and sought direction from the Holy Spirit and I am content with my decision on transubstantiation and other Catholics must do the same.

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or fiction to teach a moral lesson. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. We know that a man can live one day in the belly of a whale, but three days we do not know. Some Protestant theologians/preachers question the faith of Christians that do not believe the story of Jonah happened literally as told in the Bible.

I am content with the lesson we can learn from Jonah and the whale. It should bring comfort to all of us who fall short at times when it comes to obedience and when we attempt to run away from what we know God wants us to do. Jonah’s story should serve as a lesson to all who sometimes possess a short fuse and who at times are guilty of a superior attitude. What is more important, the lesson to be learned or accepting the story to be literally true.  I happen to think the lesson to be learned is more important.  

If anyone asks you do you take the Bible literally be careful how you answer. If you say "Yes," they may quote some Bible verses that, if taken literally, make little sense. For example Mark 9:42-48, which tells Christians if their hand or foot "offends" them, they should "cut it off," and if their eye "offends" them, they should "pluck it out." Do you really take that scripture literally? If you say “No.” they may claim the Bible means whatever the believer wants it to mean. Therefore, any person’s interpretation is as good — or poor — as anyone else’s.

I have found the best reply is, “I take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and I use common sense, my experience, my knowledge of language and grammar, the techniques of hermeneutics (interpretations) and rely on the Holy Spirit for help in knowing the difference.  I do the same thing you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything."

Knowledge of the Bible is a great thing to have; it can help you defend your faith and to teach others in it. But knowledge alone does not signify spiritual maturity. It is our personal relationship with God that causes us to grow spiritually. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to right interpretations. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to a stronger faith.

I think God prefers us to know what we believe and why we believe it rather than being spoon fed religious beliefs without questioning them. I know it makes for a stronger faith and not a weaker faith. Unfortunately the beliefs and faith of the majority of Christians today are based on what the leadership believes and not what the Christian personally believes.  

Do you feel the Catholic Church has failed you?

I have reached a point where I can no longer justify the actions of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I have not had anything done to me personally, but I have witnessed for years how the hierarchy’s thirst to hold on to power and control has hurt and even destroyed others. I have managed to continue to attend Sunday after Sunday by telling myself the church is not at fault it is the hierarchy of the church that is at fault.

I thought Pope John Paul I would bring change, but his death came too quickly. I thought Pope John Paul II would bring about change, but he caved to the misguided Cardinals. I knew when Pope Benedict XVI came to power all hope for change was lost.  I still cling to hope that Pope Francis can bring about change, but I do not think I will live to see it due to my bad health.

I realize the church is governed by men who are not perfect. Anyone who expects them to be flawless is not logical. I can deal with not personally agreeing with some of the decisions they make, but when I see people being hurt by their decision it is difficult for me to deal with that.

For years I have ask God Do I leave or do I stick it out and continue to hope for change? There are many denominations that I could attend like Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, but I love the Mass. No other denomination could replace the Mass for me.

 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.

No matter the issue of hurt, harm or anguish, Jesus is the head of the church, not the pope, not the cardinals, not the bishops and that will never change.  Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy of the church have come to believe it is their church, they are in charge, they make the rules and the rest of us must follow without questioning them.

“So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11.

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Luke 11:13.

When in doubt I go the Bible and the Holy Spirit for guidance. If the words of the hierarchy do not line up with the Bible and the direction the Holy Spirit leads me I ignore their words.

The Holy Spirit does not just speak to the hierarchy of the church He speaks to us to. When we are living in close relationship with God, the close proximity of our heart to His allows us the privilege of hearing as He speaks to us with peace in our decision-making processes.  If you are walking with God and do not feel peace about a situation then something is wrong for our God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor. 14:33). There is a reason the Holy Spirit is not giving you peace and this should guide your decisions in all situations, including church situations.

There was a time when it bothered me to hear a Christians say, ‘The church has failed me’.  I now think differently because if you are Catholic you have no say in the decisions of the church. If you are Protestant you do. Protestants have a say in making the church what it should be, but Catholics do not.  If you risk speaking out in the Catholic Church you risk being excommunicated. There is no democracy within the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church would be the first to admit that. The hierarchy has unquestionable authority. The priests cannot even question their authority.

Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe artificial birth control is a sin? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorced and remarried people should be denied Communion? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorce should not be allowed? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe you can pray the dead into heaven? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and priests believe the same on the issue of homosexuality? Do you honestly believe all Catholic priests were for the bishops covering up pedophilia by other priests?  I know they do not and did not! Many priests reported child abuse to their bishops and it fail on deaf ears.

The church hierarchy is not infallible; neither are the pastors. What do you do as a Catholic when you are assigned a pastor by the bishop that is lazy, arrogant, and stubborn, has a bad attitude, and never prepares a homily? You do nothing because you have no say on who your pastor will be or who the assistants will be. You pray you can tolerate him for six years. If you are Protestant you take it up with the Board or Elders.

For decades and decades and decades we sat silently suspecting something might be odd with our priest, but we never uttered a word that he might be molesting children. When some began to speak out they were not only attack by the hierarchy of the church they were attacked by some priests and some of the laity.  We had been trained well. Catholics never speak in a negative way about their priest. To speak against the priest or the hierarchy is to speak evil of the Catholic Church. I would venture to say some feel it is speaking evil against God.

I am all for having people of authority in the church, but I am not for those people abusing that authority. All organizations need authority figures, especially the church.

There was a time in history when absolute control may have been justified, but not today.  Any curious challenge or genuine question about Scripture, teachings traditions or doctrines is seen by the hierarchy as a direct attack on church leadership. I know people who have been branded as spiritually rebellious for questioning something they've been told rather than silently accepting it without question.

I feel like the hierarchy of the church is preoccupied with maintaining its position of authority in a changing society rather than seriously challenging itself. It appears to me the hierarchy would prefer the church to be an outdated museum than a relevant part of modern society. It refuses to make any changes to adapt to modern society. The attitude seems to be if it worked in 300A.D. it should work today and if it does not then something is wrong with you. The Church hierarchy has allowed the church to become out of touch and ineffective. It has become steeped in hypocrisy and complacency.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9).

This is speaking of confessing our sins to God not man.  There was a time when only the bishops could forgive abortion and allow you to take Communion again. Now the bishop can allow the priest under him to forgive abortion and permit you to take Communion again.  This is a change and a good change, but whose Communion is it, the bishops, the priest or Gods? Why does a woman have to tell her bishop or priest about the abortion if she has confessed it to God, repented and sought forgiveness. It seems to me the change did not go far enough, but we do not have the right to question if the change went far enough or not.

“…for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (herself).” 1 Corinthians 11:29.

This scripture does not say he that gives the Communion brings damnation to himself. It says the one taking the Communion unworthy brings damnation to himself. Should the worthiness to partake in Communion be between God and the Communicant or the hierarchy/priest of the church and the Communicant? Should anyone have the right to deny another Christian the right to take Communion? None of us hierarchy/priest/laity are really worthy.  How can my divorced friends and homosexual friends feel a part of the church when they are judged by the church every Sunday?

Don’t tell me we cannot change we no longer own slaves, we no longer kill our children that talk back to us, we no longer require women to remain silent, we no longer consider women property of men, we no longer require women to cover their heads in church, we allow women to do the 1st and 2nd readings and we are now allowed to attend weddings and funerals at churches of other denominations. This is just a few of the unjust and silly cultural/traditions that we have done away with.

My closing words to the hierarchy/priest/pious laity is take the 2x4 out of your eye before you try to take the splinter out of your brother’s or sister’s eye. Then maybe we can become the church God called us to be.

The mass conversion of Jews to Christianity will bring about Jesus' second coming - REALLY!

The Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations said, “Catholics should witness to their faith, but not undertake organized efforts to convert Jews.”  The document they issued said, “Catholics should take a different approach to Judaism than to other religions.”

The Vatican commission produced the new document to mark the 50th anniversary of a groundbreaking document on Catholic-Jewish relations, “Nostra Aetate,” in which the church rejected the notion that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death. The new document describes the Torah as, “… the instruction for a successful life in right relationship with God.” The new document could also be a prelude to Francis visit to Rome’s Great Synagogue on January 17, 2016.

Until reforms in the 1960s, Second Vatican Council, prayers at Catholic Masses on Good Friday, described Jews as “faithless” and called for their conversion. In the past the church was clear on their belief that all Jewish people were guilty for Jesus' death. Many historians and theologians said the prayers and the collective guilt concept contributed to anti-Semitism and the unnecessary persecution of Jews.

In 2008, in response to requests from traditionalist Catholics who reject any theological dialogue with the Jewish religious leaders, Pope Benedict XVI allowed Catholics to return to using the old prayer used in the Tridentine Rite. Benedict tweaked the prayer slightly to refer to “the blindness of that people”, meaning the Jews. Many Jewish organizations still found the prayer offensive and it caused a mini-crisis between Jews and Catholics.

The latest Vatican document appears to be another step toward easing Jewish/Catholic tensions created in 2008 and it comes a week after a group of Orthodox rabbis issued a statement calling Christianity part of a divine plan in which God would have Jews and Christians work together to redeem the world.

The new Vatican document is more in line with the thinking of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has often called for collaboration between religions to obtain justice, peace, conservation and reconciliation. He has also repeatedly stressed that a Christian can never be an anti-Semite, especially because of the Jewish roots of Christianity. Pope Francis has definitely been more compassionate and open than Pope Benedict XVI. He has attempted to move the church further away from entrenched traditions that no longer serve a purpose.

Vatican-Israeli ties were strained again earlier this year when the Vatican signed an agreement recognizing the state of Palestine. The signing of that document damaged the prospects for advancing a peace agreement and slowed international effort to convince the Palestinian Authority to return to direct negotiations with Israel.

I welcome the attempt by my church, the Catholic Church, to improve Christian/Jewish relationships. I vigorously oppose what many in the Evangelical Christian churches are doing to entice vulnerable young Jews to convert to Christianity which is damaging Christian/Jewish relationships.

In some Evangelical Christian churches they do not have Sunday services they meet only on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings. I see this as a deliberate attempt to keep young Jews that are showing an interest in Christianity from attending Temple. They never have a cross or an altar in their meeting room. Instead, there is a Holy Ark with a Star of David adorning its velvet cover, and a stage for prayer services in the center of the sanctuary. The leader will wear the vestments of a Jewish Rabbi. I see their efforts as an attempt to make the young Jewish believers think there are no differences, are only slight differences, between Judaism and Christianity, which is not true.

In some Evangelical Christian congregations they greet each other with joyous shouts of “Shabbat Shalom” and “Baruch Hashem”. The meeting room is filled with the beat of a modern Israeli musical. These congregations are purposely designed to appear Jewish, but they are actually fundamentalist Christian churches which use traditional Jewish symbols to lure the most vulnerable of the young Jewish people into their ranks and their marketing ploys are proving to be successful.

These groups estimate they get 8,000 young Jews to cross over to the “Hebrew-Christian” movement each year. These fundamentalist Christians are unyielding in their commitment to convert Jews to their zealous brand of Christianity. There are an estimated 70 million fundamentalist Christians in America. The Southern Baptist Convention passed numerous resolutions encouraging its more than 15-million American members to target the Jewish people.

They can quote scripture to support their belief and there is scripture that can be used to support their belief. There is scripture that would just about support anyone’s belief. That is why one must read scripture with a critical mindset keeping in mind the historical time in which it was written.

I believe the Evangelical Christian goal is a selfish goal they are trying to hasten the coming of end time. Evangelical Christians widely believe that the mass conversion of the Jews will bring about Jesus’ “second coming”. They believe the Jews, in a sense, are holding up the second coming of Jesus.

A few decades ago, there were only a handful of Messianic congregations throughout the United States. But today, several hundred actively attract and recruit Jews who lack a sound Jewish education and support system. Their mission field is largely University Campuses. These young Jews, often away from home for the first time, are buying the manipulative rhetoric and persuasive techniques of the Hebrew-Christian missionary movement.

These Messianic congregations have been quite successful among all the most vulnerable segments of the Jewish community – the very young, the very old, and the former Soviet Union Jews.

There are over 1,000 Christian missions dedicated to converting the Jewish people. It is estimated that there are more than 250,000 Hebrew-Christians in North America and Israel.

The Roman Catholic Church is by far the largest denomination in Christendom. Yet, despite Rome’s past bitter relationship with the Jewish people, today’s Catholic Church is, for the most part, not interested in converting Jews. Mainline or liberal Protestant denominations, Methodist, Episcopalian, Unitarian, etc., are also not interested in converting Jews. The Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church in America and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod has each adopted statements of conviction on the necessity of Jewish evangelism.

It is significant to me that Christianity swept through Europe almost overnight. The same is true for Latin America. Yet, the Jews, despite the unyielding persecution and the forced exile they have endured refuses to convert. This question has perplexed many of the Evangelical Fundamentalist so much that during the mid-1970’s they convened the most significant symposiums ever held in Switzerland and Thailand. They sought to unravel the mystery of why the Christian Church had been so unsuccessful in their efforts to convert the Jews and what new techniques could they employ to finally attract masses of new, unclaimed Jewish souls.

I could have told them Jewish people historically tend to equate Christianity with persecution. Jewish people often feel somewhat uncomfortable just hearing the words “Jesus Christ,” and when they see a Cross or a Church icon, it rarely conjures up warm, affectionate feelings. Jewish people tend to feel alienated by churches and its rituals. I am sure the Vatican’s position during World War II contributes to these feelings. It is my opinion the Vatican was more interested in protecting church property and priest in Germany than they were in protecting the Jews.

To overcome the Jewish people’s anti-Christian mindset the Evangelical Fundamentalist came up with a new strategy. The new sales pitch goes like this: When you’re becoming a believer in Jesus, you are not converting to another religion. On the contrary, you’re becoming a ‘fulfilled Jew’ or a ‘completed Jew.’ After all, Jesus was a Jew and his followers were Jewish; therefore, it stands to reason that believing in Jesus is the most Jewish thing you can do!

They also developed the slick idea of “Messianic synagogues,” that I discussed earlier in this piece, which are designed to look nothing like a church. They are deliberately built, furnished, and decorated to resemble a typical synagogue. They adopt Jewish holidays, for example you can watch on Christian television throughout the world and you will see Messianic congregations holding elaborate and well-publicized Passover Seders.

These groups shrewdly include Christian doctrines into the Messianic Passover Seder like: The matzah has stripes because Jesus had stripes across His back as a result of the scourging that he endured during his trial. The matzah is broken because Jesus was brutally broken on the cross. The matzah is wrapped in a white towel because Jesus was wrapped in a white burial shroud. The middle matzah is hidden because Jesus was hidden away in the tomb following his crucifixion. The matzah is brought back at the end of the meal because Jesus will return in the Second Coming at the End of Days. They claim this is all prophecy that Jesus fulfilled.

I believe God has called Christians to provoke Israel to jealousy—to draw Jewish people to the Messiah through our acts of love and kindness, speaking out against anti-Semitism and by doing so we will introduce the Jewish people to the Messiah. I personally do not seek to make Jewish converts. I prefer to let my life introduce these people to the Messiah. I let my life speak for me, while I pray and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Do women not have the ability to be priest - church hierarchy think not.

The Catholic Church (my church) declared Mary the most important human being of all time. The Catholic Church has put more attention on Mary than any other denomination. I think they have put too much emphasis on Mary and it has caused confusion among Catholics. Instead of revering Mary some Catholics, especially in third and second world countries worship and some even want to put her on the same level as Jesus Christ. But, the same church refuses to ordain women.

God has given women many important roles in history, but man continues to deny her the right to be a priest. The men of the church hierarchy claim they have in the past and continue to deal with the question of ordination of women the same way they approach every other important decision; with prayer, the Bible, Church Tradition and the wisdom of theologians. They claim, “The Church wants to know what God has to say about this, and we believe God does not want women ordained priest.” The words they use seem to tell me they really see themselves as “the church”. PRIDE!

John Paul II, whom I love and respect, said: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

I have no problem with Pope John Paul II decision not to ordain women that was his right to do so. I disagree with his believing that all Catholics must agree with him and not question what he said.

There are many people in the Catholic Church that pray and read the Bible as much as the hierarchy of the church. I also believe God speaks to everyone’s heart. In fact, I know many priests that the only time they read the Bible is during the Mass. I know many priests that do not have any personal prayer time. I know many priests that do not consult God on personal or professional decisions.

The thought that theologians know more about what God wants than devoted Christians is arrogant to me. One of the problems within our church is that many of the theologians think that seminary training makes them experts in all things pertaining to God. It certainly does not make all of them good preachers. It seems some priest think wearing the right vestments and clerical clothes make them more important than the laity in the church. They think because they are the only ones that can administer the sacraments the church cannot function without them. This alone is a good reason for ordaining women.

I do not think Pope John Paul II was a chauvinist, but I do think he relied too much on church traditions, that were established by men, and considered the personal feelings of Cardinals and Bishops too much when making his decisions.

Relying on church traditions have value, but they can also be abused and prevent needed reform. One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is Protestants rely more on the Bible than traditions and it seems Catholics often rely more on traditions.

Many traditionalist Catholics disliked Pope John Paul II because they felt he was "too liberal". Many of us who loved Pope John Paul II thought he would bring more needed changes to the church, but he did not because he was too conservative in many areas and unlike Pope Francis did not have the personality to stand up to those who opposed his ideas.

 I do not think his position on ordination of women was about discriminating against women or that women did not have the abilities needed to be a priest, but rather he thought he was following God's desire for the Church and feared it would cause too much division in the Catholic Church. Some in the church will argue he was proven right because Methodist, Anglican and Episcopal ordained women and it caused their attendance to decrease and caused divisions in their denominations.

Change regardless if it is good or bad always brings division and causes some to leave that cannot adapt. All denominations, including Catholic, have suffered losses in attendance. This is due more to changes in society than anything else. We would suffer more loss in attendance if not for Second and Third World countries where “OBLIGATED ATTENDANCE” is still taken seriously. In addition our membership grows every time we baptize an infant.  

There are less conservative people who will argue that Pope John Paul II did not declare for the church to not ordain women from the 'Chair of Peter', therefore the statement was not "infallibly" made. I am one of them. He left the door open for change someday.

The ultra-conservatives in the Catholic Church will argue that those of us who make the “infallibly” claim are the same ones who want same sex marriage and contraception use approved by the pope. They are correct when they accuse me of wanting to broaden contraceptive rights. I am for non-abortive artificial contraception. I think God is more pleased with people who use contraception, instead of bringing children into the world they cannot properly educate, clothe, feed and provide medical care for. I believe each denomination has the right to decide if they will perform or not perform same sex marriages. I believe the government should provide some type of protection for those in same sex relationships that want to commit to one another and have the same protection as those in opposite sex relationships have. I do not want to call it “marriage” because I do respect the tradition of “marriage”.

I think Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be influenced by traditions when it came to some issues pertaining to male and female. One cannot deny that Jesus Christ gave power to women that at the time were unheard of. I know that Jesus Christ broke many Jewish traditions, but that does not mean He did not choose a female to be one of the twelve disciples because He did not believe women were qualified to have the title disciple or that He was sending us a message in 2015 that women should not be ordained. I think He did not bestow the title of Disciple on a female follower because it was a tradition that He knew would make His ministry and the ministry of His follower even more difficult than it was.

Those that argue Jesus was a tradition breaker and would have given the title of Disciple to a female if it was acceptable to His Father will say He broke other traditions pertaining to women such as healing a woman on the Sabbath; speaking with the Samaritan woman and freeing the woman caught in adultery from being stoned. They will argue that Jesus was clearly not afraid to break the traditions of His time; therefore if it was okay to ordain women today He would have designated a female disciple. It is true that Jesus was not afraid to break Jewish traditions, but He also honored many Jewish traditions in order not to offend the Jewish leaders unnecessarily. He knew to pick and choose the battles He wanted to encounter.

Ultra-conservatives within the Catholic Church will argue we have to consider that there were women performing similar roles to a priest in other religions at the time of Jesus, therefore it is inaccurate to say there was no historical precedence for women being priest. There were not women performing priestly duties in the JEWISH religion. The women performing priestly duties were priestesses in PAGAN religions. The Jewish leaders bitterly opposed the priestesses and I am sure they would have accused Jesus of starting a pagan religion if He would have suggested women priest or women disciples. It would have created an unnecessary battle for Jesus and His followers to fight.

Ultra-conservatives will say scripture refers to the Bride and Bridegroom when speaking of the relationship between Christ and the church. I certainly agree with that, but scripture is talking about JESUS CHRIST relationship with the CHURCH not a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest relationship with the church. Are they trying to say that a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest has the SAME relationship with the church as Jesus Christ?

Their argument is the priest represents Christ "In persona Christi" when administering the Sacraments, and as such is the groom of the church and must be male. In persona Christi is a Latin phrase meaning "in the person of Christ" a man-made theological concept, not a Biblical concept and refers to the action of a bishop or priest while celebrating a sacrament.

The priest acts in the person of Christ in the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite. There are essential moments in the rites where the priest's words and gestures confect the sacrament, change bread/wine to body/blood. I guess it really comes down to they believe men have certain mystical powers women do not have when it comes to saying ‘certain words’.

Ultra-conservatives will argue that Pope St. Gelasius (494 AD) wrote a letter of discipline to an area that was allowing women to serve at the altar. They will say it does not prove there was a historical precedent for female priest it only proves that some in the church were violating the rules of the church and they were wrong and just as Saint Paul did Pope St. Gelasius stepped in to correct mistakes in the administration of the Eucharist.

Ultra-conservatives put total faith in the magisterium which gives the pope, cardinals and bishops the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. I believe unity is not only important, but is essential, but unity dictated by a few in the hierarchy of the church without the opportunity for the laity to offer opposing views can also be dangerous. In essences it requires Catholics to turn their brains off when it comes to matters of the church, religion, teachings, etc., and accept the words of the hierarchy to be the only truth.

It could be interpreted by non-Catholics or Catholics who are not willing to turn their God given brain off that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is trying to say God only speaks to them. According to the church hierarchy if they say God does not want women to be ordained the matter is not open for discussion. I think it also says volumes about the hierarchy of the church wanting to guarantee that males control the church.

I would say most Catholics do not know that women with theology degrees are now "Chaplains" in most Catholic high schools and universities. Ultra- conservatives argue the term "chaplain" can only be used for a priest, Canon Law 564-572. They also claim that some of these women are not being made to be extra careful to uphold the teachings of the Church the way the priest are.

Here are some of the arguments the ultra-conservatives use to try and get women chaplains removed from schools and universities – THEY TEACH: Scripture is not inerrant, and only parts of it are the true Words of God, it should be read with a critical eye; Many of the miracles can be explained in natural ways, like the miracle of the loaves came from people sharing what they already had; Purgatory is an invention of the Middle Ages to keep control of the masses and keep them obedient to the Church and make money; Contraception is good if sex outside of marriage is going to be practiced and total dependency on chastity among youth, due to peer pressure and hormones, is unrealistic in society today; The Magisterium is an "old boys club", not the institution put in place by Jesus to guard and direct the Church; Same sex attraction is very complicated and the Church should not make an absolute pronouncement that it is disordered to act on it; Confession is a good psychological cleansing, but that's about all it is. A priest isn't necessary to reconcile with God and Baptizing is a good tradition that fosters belonging, but it is not the means of salvation.

I have found male chaplains that teach and believe the same way the female chaplains do. There does not seem to be the same outcry against the male chaplains as it is against the female chaplains. Is it possibly a sexist thing? I have found many priest believe as the female and male chaplains do.

One ultra-conservative said this, “… my prayer is that one day the majority of women with theology degrees who work in high school chaplaincy offices will focus on teaching the Word of God, rather than challenging it. All the faithful women I know have absolutely no interest in challenging the Church teaching on a male priesthood.” Of course they don’t, because they are comfortable with being where they are in the church structure and have no desire to advance to a higher position within the church. I do not think these women chaplains are challenging the Word of God they are challenging the Word of Catholic men in authority.

Ultra-conservatives use the fact that the Catholic Church included in our Bible the book of "Judith", book of “Esther” and the book of “Ruth” as proof we do not discriminate against women. I really do not see the connection, but I suppose they do. They get really excited over the fact that Ruth wasn't even a Jew, yet she plays a key role in salvation history.

They even claim if the Catholic Church discriminated against women they would have rewritten the story of Mary – do they really believe we didn’t when most Catholics turn to Mary more than they do the Holy Spirit. I think we gave Mother Mary a role that God never intended her to have.

They think they have a real argument supporting the Catholic Churches refusal to ordain women by pointing out that the Catholic Church recognizes Martha, Mary Magdalene, Anna, Elizabeth and a dozen more women as a prophet. It would be hard not to recognize these women as prophets. I honestly do not see how recognizing a few women as prophets have anything to do with ordaining women.

Most ultra-conservatives put their hopes in Pope Benedict the XVI. They believed he would close all the doors that Pope John Paul II cracked open. I had one tell me that he bet I prayed every day that Benedict would die. I never hoped that and certainly never prayed that, but Benedict took care of the problem himself or divine province did when he retired.

I prefer to see qualified women ordained rather than see parishes closing because we do not have men to staff them and for some strange reason I think God prefers the same. The harvest potential is great, but there are not enough harvesters.

 

2015 Vatican Synod on Family Life

The bishops’ synod wrapped up its business in Rome last weekend what are they all afraid of?

The Final Report made no explicit mention of a path to communion for the divorced and remarried, much less sanctioning “artificial” contraception or living out of wedlock. Same-sex relationships got thumbs down.

Pope Francis took the tiny opening that last year’s synod gave to annulment reform and pushed through new canon law. Who knows what he’ll do with the openings he’s been given now? Are they afraid of what Pope Francis may do in the future or are they afraid that Pope Francis might decide to act on his irritation with conservatives?

If the results of this synod had been under Pope John Paul II it would have raised little concern. The cardinals were not suspicious of Pope John Paul and believed he would not go against anything the Cardinals wanted, but with Pope Francis he is his own man.

The majority of the cardinals would like to see the issue of divorce-remarry-communion remain as the rules were written in the Fourth Century. Eastern Orthodoxy permits sacramental remarriages. The cardinals leading the Roman Catholic Church have yet to realize that some valid marriages sometimes have to be ended by divorce. They prefer Catholics who get divorced apply to them for an annulment and they decide who will be or will not be granted one. They prefer the children of divorced Catholics to be declared illegitimate by the Catholic Church because they were born to a marriage that never existed in the eyes of the Church, that seems harsh to me.  Perhaps I might consider the stand the Catholic leadership takes on divorce for second marriages.

I believe that the marriage-divorce-annulment-remarriage issue is as it is today because, as in many things in our church, the cardinals take the stand that’s the way it has always been and that is the way it will stay. Tradition takes presentence over what is reality, practical and obtainable for today’s Christians.  It would be different if Catholics were adhering to these archaic traditions, but they are not.

The Catholic cardinals did pave the way for greater openness towards divorcees. Cardinals agreed divorcees must be “more integrated in Christian communities”. The cardinals decided to allow the local clergy to decide whether to allow divorcees to participate fully in church life. What was once left to the bishops and ultimately Rome is now in the hands of the local pastors as it should be. I will be more comfortable with this decision when it is formulate and put in writing.

While bishops have spoken, it is up to the pope to decide the next move. Beyond the synod vote, he will face tough opposition in any attempt to change archaic church rules, but the upcoming jubilee year of mercy could serve as an opportunity to table new plans for Catholic Family Life.

Pope Francis on Sunday at the end of the synod appeared to lecture church elders, suggesting they should not be quick to exclude a broad array of people deserving of God’s grace. The pope implied the men of the church needed to be more aware of the needs of the people and take action instead of turning a blind eye and trying not to become involved.

While subjects were addressed that previous popes and synods would have never discussed the opposition in the synod to rapid changes in rules also suggested how far off Catholics may be from seeing Francis’s revolutionary style turned into practice.

Now the media will start debating who won the debate the pope, the conservatives or the liberals.  If anyone won it was the pope for in the end he has the final say. Doors were open for him to make changes.  Changes may take years and he may not live to see them, but at least the ball for change is now rolling and I do not think it can be stopped. The laity today is too intelligent and has access to more knowledge than in the past and will no longer be pushed around and accept doctrine they consider is without merit.  

I think it was a tie and no one won as far as the conservative and reformers go. The conservative were able to prevent changes or slow changes that they adamantly did not want and the liberals or reformers got the debate started on changes they did want and I believe that debate will continue.

I think the Pope was the real winner over all for he made it clear following the synod that he is tired of the Bishops not following his instructions and not practicing what they are teaching.  This is probably why many of them left Rome a bit shaken and frighten.

Does the Bible Prove the Existence of God?

 I recently heard about a book called “Has Christianity Failed You.”  I heard about the book on a Christian program being broadcasted by a Christian station.  A few days later I ran across a piece on You Tube where an atheist was questioning the material in the book.  I have not read the book, as yet, but it seems that the atheist challenging the book believes the author used only the Bible to try and prove the existence of a God.   He states that it is impossible to use a book, which many do not believe in, to prove the existence of a God. He states that the author would first have to prove the book he is using, the Bible, is accurate in every detail.  I agree with that.  Unless you have allowed yourself to have a personal relationship with God, I do not believe the Bible, is enough to allow you to completely believe in God.  A personal relationship is one where you have felt the intervention of God in your life on a personal level.  Atheist and many Christians wrongly deny these personal God interventions and write them off as coincidences.

The atheist takes segments of the Bible and used them to try and prove his point that there is no God, particularly a Christian God.  I believe both men to be wrong.  I do not believe you can prove the existence of a God or non-existence of a God with ANY book.  All books are written by men and all books are influenced by men and all men have an agenda when writing a book.  Unless you have allowed yourself to have a personal relationship with God you open yourself up to always have your faith in God challenged by the words of men verbally or through books. 

The thing that attracted me most to the Catholic faith is that they do not require one to believe in the literal translation of the Bible.  They acknowledge many of the stories in the Bible like Noah’s flood, the creation story, Jonah and the fish story, the tower of Babel and others are stories, but valuable stories that one can learn from.  Unlike Fundamentalist Christians, Catholic’s are not required to believe that these stories happened literally, word for word, as man told them and later wrote them down.  If you profess to believe the literal translation of the Bible you open yourself up to be made a fool of by atheist.  The Bible can become a weapon that is used against you, instead of a tool that can draw you closer to God.

In my ‘old age’ the thing that disappoints me the most is the Catholic Christians that I meet who believe they are good Catholic Christians simply because they attend Mass, perform Catholic rituals and believe in the Bible.   The same is true of Protestant Christians. Many Protestants believe if they attend church, profess to believe literally in the Bible and tithe they are good Christians. Christianity is more than satisfying the requirements of men.  Christianity is following the teachings of Christ that were implanted in us by God when God sent the Holy Spirit.  I would say the majority of Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians do not have any idea what God wants of them they simply act like a sponge and assorp all the teachings as proclaimed by their leaders without ever questioning them. 

We should not be doing something simply because the Bible or man tells us to do it.  We should be doing the things we feel God is leading us to do.  Morality is doing those things that bring happiness, health and wellbeing to self and others and by our doing these things we make our community a better place.  Immorality is doing the opposite.  Many moral teachings are in the Bible and we should follow them, but as atheist always point out there are some immoral things listed in the Bible and we certainly should avoid them.  I am not going in to all these things in detail, but I certainly believe it is immoral to own slaves and the Bible grants some the authority to do so. I believe my God believes it is immoral to own slaves.

I believe my God judges me to be as good a Christian Catholic as possible, but according to many in the Catholic Church my present beliefs would prohibit them from believing I was.   I have studied the history of the Catholic Church and I know for a FACT there have been many evil Popes.  I do not believe my God wants me to follow ANY man blindly be they pope, bishop, priest, religious leader or self-proclaimed SON OF GOD like Pastor Apollo.  At the moment a reproductive bill is before the Philippine Congress and Senate and the Catholic hierarchy is standing in the way of its passage.  I believe their stand to be immoral and I believe God through the Holy Spirit has led me to this belief.  Just last week charges were brought against a Filipino priest for rape and his bishop protects him by bringing him into his home and is protecting him from being arrested as any other citizen of the Philippines would be.  I believe this is immoral and it certainly by no means passes my definition of morality. 

 People need to attempt a personal relationship with God and use that to define God and not rely totally on the Bible, religion, denomination or men.  Regardless of what anyone says my faith in God can only be affected by my personal relationship with God and no man or woman can change that.