Daily Reflection on Scripture

Today is the Feast Day of Mary Magdalene. As I try to write this reflection, I find myself constantly wandering back to the debate about her. What a shame that is! I don't mean that in the sense that I'm minimizing the debate but that in the sense that a good relationship with God has its foundation in prayer and arguments like these take away from that.

I often am very sad about the Schism between Catholics and Protestants (who ironically agree on the point of Mary Magdalene) for this very reason. How much emphasis has been placed in the last 500 years on our differences and our disagreements that could have been spent in union with one another praying to God? Those lost years are very painful to me and I pray that we'll be able to come to a new unity that will truly reflect the need for One Holy and Apostolic Church.

So today, on the Feast Day of a woman who has recently been the focal point of division in the body of Christ, let us pray for God to lead us to that new unity. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever, Amen.

kencraw on 07.22.04 @ 04:07 PM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

'Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples,
"I have seen the Lord,"'

kencraw on 07.22.04 @ 03:54 PM PST [link]

Question of the Day: Why does the Catholic Church ignore the Gnostic Gospels that talk about Mary Magdalene?

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

In honor of today being the Feast Day of Mary Magdalene, I thought I'd answer a question about her. There's been a lot of "talk" about Mary Magdalene, a great Saint of the Catholic Church. Recently there have been a number of proponents of the idea that Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus. These proponents also believe that the Catholic Church has "hid" the truth from the world by not including the "Gnostic Gospels" as part of the Bible.

There are two important rebuttals to these assertions. First, the Gnostic Gospels don't actually say that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. Those who suggest this to be the case are reading between the lines and believe it is implied in certain language used. Second, the decision of what books belong in the Bible is an important part of what Catholicism is.

I don't have a lot of data at my disposal right now on the first point, but a book I read last year called "Breaking the DaVinci Code" went through the texts that supposedly state that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married. The text was surprisingly weak. It seems to me that to have a convincing argument in this regard you need two things: First that the texts actually say what you're hoping and second that the texts are a reliable source of data. The Gnostic Gospels can't even seem to make a compelling argument on the first point. It never comes out and says anything conclusively like "on their wedding day" or "He took her into is home" or anythink like that. It was pretty unconvincing text that I thought needed a pretty creative interpretation to argue that the two were married.

The second point of both the last two paragraphs boil down to the same thing: Can the Gnostic Gospels be taken seriously? Most Christians accept that the Bible is the word of God so naturally that we sometimes forget that it isn't really an easy conclusion. I can say right now: Bill Clinton is the anti-Christ! Does that make it true? Of course not. Just because someone wrote something down doesn't make it true. Further more, just because something is true, doesn't make it worthy of being considered The Word of God (which is what Christians consider the Bible to be). The Catholic Church had a to make a very difficult decision, one that could only be made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when it selected the books that would be included in the New Testament.

And don't kid yourself, that's exactly what happened. The Catholic Church, in an Ecumenical Council in 325, decided what the books of the new testament were going to be. When someone asks how we got the books of the Bible, there is only one answer: by the Authority of the Catholic Church as guided by the Holy Spirit.

This was not a case of anyone hiding anything. The Catholic Church didn't kill everyone who believed to the contrary. All it did was say: "These 29 books make up the New Testament of the Bible. They are the Word of God!" Of course that implies, as the Catholi Church intended, that the other writings were not the word of God. If I say, the DaVinci Code is wrong, am I hiding it? No, I'm just refuting it. There was no hiding on the part of the Catholic Church, just an statement of that it believed the truth to be.

And that's what this all comes down to: belief and authority. If you don't believe the Catholic Church has any authority, then you can believe whatever you want about the Bible. Before the Bible can teach anything to anyone, people must believe it to be the word of God. To do that, they must accept the authority of the group proporting it to be divinely inspired.

The same can be said for the proponents of the Gnostic Gospels. They too must convince people of their authority to promote the Gnostic Gospels as the word of God. Without that authority, they don't have much to stand on either. We don't have to believe them, just as they don't have to believe the Catholic Church.

I'm not saying these things to make a pitch for Catholicism (I'll save that pitch for another question of the day) but to put things on the right plane. In the end, it will always come down to what we believe and who we believe has authority. If we aren't willing to put our faith in one church, then we might put it in another. We must use our judgements to decide what the Truth is. That starts with deciding who to believe and who has authority to preach in the name of Christ.

You must decide. You can either accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or you can reject it. It is up to you.

kencraw on 07.22.04 @ 03:50 PM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

"For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father
is my brother, and sister, and mother."

-Matthew 12:50 from today's Gospel reading

kencraw on 07.20.04 @ 12:19 PM PST [link]

Question of the Day: Are Sacraments performed by clergy in mortal sin valid?

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

This question was submitted by John in the comment box of yesterday's Question of the Day. You can look at yesterdays comment box to see the full question (I have to abreviate for room).

This is another one I had to go do some research on to ensure what I thought was correct, was indeed correct.

One has to remember that the Priest is only acting as a channel for God's grace when he "performs" a Sacrament. It is reallly God who is granting the Grace to those who receive the Sacrament. So, while the a Priest or Bishop who was "performing" a Sacrament may be further damning themselves, the Sacrament remains valid for those who receive it in these cases.

It turns out this is not a new question. It dates back to at least the 4th century when Christians were persecuted by the Roman empire. Some Priests and Bishops would deny their faith to avoid being martyred and would then return to their ministry. Back in those days, one didn't receive absolution in an instant like today. The sin wasn't forgiven by the Church until a lengthy (often multi-year) penance was fulfilled. In the mean time, those clergy may or may not be continuing in their role as clergy and celebrating the Sacraments. The question arose, and was called the Donatist controversy, as to whether the Sacraments performed by those clergymen were valid. The Church decided that although not ideal, that the Sacrament was indeed valid by 'Ex Opere Operato' (it works by the very fact of the action being performed).

John (our question asker) specifically brought up the scenario of a Satanist who becomes Bishop by lying about his faith and whether the priests ordained by that Bishop are valid. Although the base principle stated above is correct, it is important to remember that the state of the person receiving is of issue as well. If I come to my wedding fully desiring to break my wedding vows, then my marriage is not valid. I would think that if the person who was receiving the sacrament from the Satanist were of sincere heart, the Church would honor that ordination. However, if the Satanist were to ordain another Satanist (because he was trying to get more Satanist "in" for example) then the Church would have easy cause to defrock (take away the ordination) of the Priest and the Bishop for that matter.

Similar to an Anullment in an invalid marriage, the Church does not take the process of defrocking lightly (as far as I can tell, the Catholic Church is the oldest institution in the world that promoted the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' (or sacramental until proven otherwise perhaps?)). There is a trial and good cause must be shown. As far as the Church is concerned, until both the Annulment and defrocking "trials" have completed, both Sacraments are considered valid and as such, assuming the other half of the sacramental equation is complete, all Sacraments performed by that Bishop would still be valid.

I think the final thing to remember is that all Sacraments, received invalidly, are inherently invalid. The combination of Ex Opere Operato and valid reception seem to be God's one-two punch to ensure availability without abusability, something us fallen humans aren't very good at by nature.

Thanks for the great question John.

kencraw on 07.20.04 @ 12:06 PM PST [link]

Daily Reflection on Scripture

Think about this statement from today's Gospel reading:

"An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign."

Let that sink in. How often do we, in our prayers, say 'Lord, if I could only have a sign!' We need to remember that it is a sign of our unfaithfulness when we ask for a sign.

I've read a number of pieces on "proving" something about God. Whether He exists or whether Christ was the Son of God, or whatever doesn't matter. What does matter is that if these things can indeed be definitively proven, then there is no belief. I don't believe that my glasses are on my face right now, I know they're there. I can feel them, I can see my vision is improved, I can touch them. Yup, they're there.

There is no faith in something like that (the Matrix movie fans aside). Faith requires something to believe in, not something to know about. A provable sign takes away that Faith. A provable sign transforms faith into fact. Although we may not understand why, I believe that Christ knew what he was saying when he said:

"Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:29)

May we all have the faith today not to ask for a sign.

kencraw on 07.19.04 @ 10:27 AM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

'Some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus,
"Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you."
He said to them in reply,
"An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign,
but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.
Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights,
so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth
three days and three nights."'

Matthew 12:38-40 from today's Gospel reading

kencraw on 07.19.04 @ 10:17 AM PST [link]

Question of the Day: Was there an 11 year old Pope?

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

I've heard this accusation a number of times so I decided to do some research. The Pope in question is Benedict IX. He was elected Pope in October 1032, that much is clear. His birthday however is more of a question mark. According to Raoul Glaber, a historian, he was born in late 1020. More current research shows that he was likely born in 1012.

While that to some degree clears up the "controversy", Pope Benedict IX was not exactly an exemplary Pope. He eventually resigned as Pope in 1045 supposedly so that he could marry and took a large sum of money from the next Pope, Gregory VI as part of the "deal". He then tried to seize it back in 1047 after he repented of the bargain, his attempt finally failing in 1048.

Before getting to the conclusion of his life, it is important to remember who the benchmark is for the Papacy: Peter. Peter was a man of great faith, but frequently made a fool of himself. In addition to denying Christ three times at a crucial moment in His life, he failed the test while walking on water and was called "Satan" by Christ (get behind me Satan). But in the end it was this man that Christ built his Church upon. (Even if you disagree about the Succession of Apostles and the Papacy, there is no denying from the Acts of the Apostles that Peter was leader of the early Church.)

Following the example He set with Peter, Christ has often called sinful and stupid men into the service of Him. Although Pope Benedict IX may have been young and foolish, it is believed he died a penitent man at the Abbey of Grottaferrata. Only God knows why he calls forth certain men to be the leader of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church.

An interesting side note is that in 1075, just a generation after Pope Benedict IX, Pope St. Gregory VII established the College of Cardinals as the means for electing the the successors to St. Peter. The College of Cardinals exists to this day and has been instrumental in helping the Church choose worthy and Holy men for the awesomely important and humbling task of leading Christ's Church.

kencraw on 07.19.04 @ 10:09 AM PST [link]