What if I am being fed at a megachurch? And I really love the style of worship at the megachurch--there's something there for everyone! Doesn't God just want to be worshipped by His creatures, in whatever way speaks to us?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Short answer:  no, God doesn't just want to be worshipped by His creatures in whatever way speaks to us.  That is a man-made tradition. One can search the entirety of what God has revealed and never find anywhere that God has said we may worship Him in whatever manner we find personally pleasing and fulfilling.  

God has given us the highest form of worship:  the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Other churches, while prayerful,  lively and animated,  may indeed have Christ's presence there ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”); however, their worship is man-made, not God given.  

(This is not to say that the prayers and worship of members of these other churches are wrong or not pleasing to God.  I think they are indeed pleasing to God.  It just ought not be considered a worthy substitute for the Mass.)

This Sunday is the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, also known as the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.  It is for this reason that we go to Mass:  because He is present there in His Most Holy Body and Blood, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where we partake in the Eternal Sacrifice of Calvary and stand at the foot of the cross with Him.  

God Himself has revealed to us how He wants to be worshipped.  The apostles received this revelation and then went on to proclaim to the early Christians this sacred, God-instituted form of worship. This Sunday we will hear the apostle Paul speak of this worship:

I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, 
that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, 
took bread, and, after he had given thanks,
broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, 
you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes
 (1 Cor 11:23-26)

Although Paul was not present at the Last Supper, we can conclude that he received this from the Lord through the other apostles. And in this text above we read that he has already proclaimed it (presumably through Sacred or Oral Tradition, not through the written letter)  to the fledgling Church.  (This verse is also another verse which supports that God's revelation is not through Scripture alone, but rather through Scripture and Oral Tradition.)

From Apologist Jim Blackburn:

In an all-too-common tragedy these days, a poorly catechized Catholic attends a worship service at a megachurch, mistakenly believing the worship service simply to be a modern, non-Catholic version of the Mass. The Catholic feels emotionally drawn to the megachurch worship service and decides Mass, in comparison, is boring. A typical view might be, “Wow, I’m being fed here like I’m not being fed at Mass.”

The American Heritage Dictionary defines megachurch as “a large, independent, usually nondenominational worship group, especially one formed as an offshoot of a Protestant church. Also called seeker church.”

“Large” is right. Among the better known megachurches are Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church in Houston (attendance 43,500), Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago (attendance 23,000), and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church (attendance 20,000) in my backyard in Orange County, California.

Many megachurches are known for their concert-style worship services, consisting of passionate preaching accompanied by emotionally driven music.  I often hear stories about local Catholics in my diocese who venture into one of Saddleback’s worship services—only to be “sold” on this new style of worship, and never again to return to the Catholic Mass.

“Something for Everyone”
From a superficial perspective it’s easy to see why ill-informed Catholics can be drawn in so easily. A quick visit to Saddleback’s Web site (saddleback.com) reveals a veritable menu of Sunday worship services to satisfy the taste of just about any self-indulgent seeker. For example, consider these six offerings, as described on the site:

•         Worship Center Times: You’ll engage in an array of contemporary worship music and enjoy live teaching that is video cast to our other venues.

•         Fuel Times: FUEL is our newest venue for young adults ages 20s to 30s (but everyone is welcome). Join us in Refinery main auditorium for live teaching, worship, food, and relationship building. All of this and more, packed into a shorter service.

•         Overdrive Times: This service is filled with guitar-driven, rock-infused worship sure to amplify your experience. You’ll feel like you’re worshiping in a musical concert setting! The message will follow, video cast live from the Worship Center.

•         Praise Times: This venue is filled with inspiring gospel music that will move your heart and encourage your spirit. The gospel choir will get you up off your feet in whole-hearted praise to God. Worship is followed by the video cast message.

•         Terrace Cafe Times: Grab a cup of coffee and relax in this outdoor worship environment. Located on the top of the Plaza Building, the Terrace Cafe is a perfect place to bring your friends for fellowship and a casual worship experience.

•         Traditions Times: Enjoy a warm, small church community and a traditional approach to worship through hymns and choruses.

Now, each of these forms of worship can be perfectly fine. The problem arises with the gross misconception that such worship is in any significant way comparable to the Catholic Mass. The truth is there really is no comparison at all.

The Day of Obligation
Down through history, the Church Fathers attest that the Eucharist has been the constant and most sacred form of authentic Christian worship. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the Catholic Church continues this form of worship and obliges Catholics to participate.

The authority to oblige Catholics in such a way was endowed to the Church by Jesus himself. He said first to Peter and later to all of the apostles, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19, 18:18).

The Church has always recognized in these words the authority to enact disciplinary laws which the faithful must follow. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter . . . (CCC 553, emphasis added)

Today the obligation to attend the Mass is found in the Code of Canon Law: “Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation . . . On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass” (CIC 1246 §1–1247).

Symbol or Reality?
Not long ago, Rick Warren announced, “We’re adding the Lord’s Supper . . . to 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm Sunday evening services every week!”

Some people have wondered whether “the Lord’s Supper” at Saddleback Church is the authentic Eucharist. The answer is no. The power and authority to consecrate the Eucharist has never been available to just anyone; it has always been necessary to be appointed by one of the apostles or their successors. Luke provides evidence of this: “[T]hey [Paul and Barnabas, in this case] had appointed elders for them in every church . . .” (Acts 14:23). As does Paul: “This is why I left you [Titus] in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you . . .” (Ti 1:5).

The term “elders” in these passages is translated from the Greek word presbyterous, from which we derive the English word priest. It is clear in the passages just cited that priests were necessarily appointed in every Church. In part, this was for the valid consecration of the Eucharist.

Since megachurches like Saddleback Church do not have priests ordained by successors of the apostles (i.e., Catholic bishops), they do not have the power or the authority necessary to consecrate the Eucharist changing its substance into the body and blood of Jesus.
Also, I’m not aware of any megachurches that recognize the life-giving presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, for Catholics the “source and summit” of the faith. In describing its Lord’s Supper, Saddleback Church’s Web site states: “The elements of bread and wine or juice are symbols of Christ’s broken body and shed blood. Communion is not a means of salvation.”

Mass Is Not Optional
There is no comparison between a modern megachurch worship service— however entertaining it might be—and the Eucharist instituted by Jesus. A person should never mistake such megachurch worship as any sort of alternative to the Mass. And, if he’s a Catholic, he must never neglect his obligation to participate in the Mass.

If a Catholic wishes to indulge in megachurch worship, and he can do so without endangering his own faith or scandalizing others, he is not explicitly forbidden from doing so. Even so, he cannot licitly participate in a megachurch communion service. This is forbidden by the Code of Canon Law: “Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone . . . ” (844 §1).

The bottom line is this: Jesus didn’t instruct the apostles to perpetuate megachurch-style worship services, nor did he indicate that such worship would be life-giving. But he did institute the Eucharist, commanded the apostles to perpetuate it, and promised life to those who participate in it. Don’t we owe it to him to worship as he commanded? 
source:  http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/worship-the-way-god-commanded

And this youtube video brings a smile to my face:  a parody of these Sunday worship services, posted with a wink and a smile, with no disrespect intended.  Again, there is no doubt that God is pleased with worship and praise offered to Him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RJBd8zE48A

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Haven't some popes claimed to be God on earth?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

A cursory search on google came up with these quotes:

"As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth"

Pope Nicholas I said that "the Pope, being God, is judged by no man."

Pope Piux X said of himself, "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."

Pope John XXII says that it is heresy to deny the power of "Our Lord God the Pope."

Is this what Catholics believe about our pope?  

Answer:  No.  Catholics believe that Jesus Christ alone is God on earth.

When Catholics are presented with these quotes the best thing we can do is ask for a source.  There will be, of course, some sort of citation that will be provided, but it ought to be from the pen of the pope himself, not what a book or website claims a particular pope proclaimed.

Here is one source from the internet:

http://biblelight.net/claims.htm

but you will note that not a single document is cited that has the actual encyclical or writing from a pope.  No primary sources are provided.

All of the above quotes are second-hand, (or even umpteenth-hand), taken out of context, mistranslated, embellished, fanciful contortions.

Catholic apologist Phil Porvaznik responds:

A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, October 3, 1895, charges Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say:

"The Pope REPRESENTS Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, that is, the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

Pope Nicholas I. said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

REPLY: Never did Pope Nicholas I say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this:

"Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none."

And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is "above the law," and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, "The king can do no wrong." Italy itself has acknowledged the justice of the Pope's claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

In the "Extravagantes" of Pope John XXII, Roman Canon Law says that it is heresy to deny the power of "Our Lord God the Pope."

REPLY: That remark is attributed, not to Pope John XXII, but to the Canonist Zenzelinus, in his commentary on Title XIV of the "Extravagantes." But an examination of the original manuscript of Zenzelinus, preserved in the Vatican Library, failed to reveal the words attributed to him; and it has been definitely proved that the reference to God is an interpolation in later copies of his commentary.

Often, a nebulous, vague reference will be given such as, "a distinguished theologian has stated..." or "a Catholic writer maintains..." without any concrete evidence of these claims.

Note:  Even if a Catholic writer did proclaim such nonsense, we ought not confuse the writings of a Catholic with what the Church, as a teaching authority, actually proclaims.  For references to what the Church teaches we look to the Catechism and to the encyclicals of the popes and documents of the various Church councils throughout her 2000 year history.  Those are the writings that we deem to be authoritative.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Why isn't it a sacrament when women become nuns, but it is when men get ordained?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

 From Catholic Answers website:  http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-isnt-a-sacrament-when-women-become-nuns-but-it-is-when-men-are-ordained-priests

If a sacrament is an outward sign of grace, then why is the process of being ordained a sacrament for a priest but not a sacrament when women become nuns?  How is this fair?

A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ.  Jesus determines what a sacrament is and who will receive it.  As for the priesthood, it is not comparable to religious life.  In fact it it's not comparable to any other thing on the earth.  It is a share in Christ's priesthood which he himself established.  No one is worthy of it.  A Catholic priest actually ministers in the person of Christ.  That Jesus ordained only men would be unfair if all human beings had a right to such an honor.  The fact is, we don't.

Religious life, on the other hand, is a way of living that is based on the evangelical counsels that Jesus preached. The vows of religious life represent the totality of human existence.  We are all called to be chaste (both married and single), we are all called to obey lawful authority, and we are all called to be poor in spirit.  Religious life accentuates these by going a step farther, thereby drawing attention to them.  It acts as a beacon, reminding people that we all owe God the oblation of all that we are. Religious life is opened to men and women alike.

Answered by:  Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

I have heard it said that when an ordination occurs, the universe is changed forever.  What existed 30 seconds prior to ordination exists no more for eternity!  The man who stood before God and the Church is no more.  

Ordination confers on his soul a new ontological (that is, at its essence or at our very being) participation in the ministry of Christ.

This is why the priesthood is so very different from the ministry of Protestant churches.  Protestant ministers are about what they do.  The Catholic priesthood is who he is. Ontologically.  At his essence.  

As such, ordination is not the "deputizing" of someone to perform an assignment. It is NOT the admission of someone to a profession such as medicine or law.

And this is why women can never be ordained as priests.  For the priesthood is not about what he does--clearly, a woman can "do" everything a man may "do" in his job as a priest: a woman could indeed sit in a confessional, hear someone's sins and say the words--the same as any man can.  And perhaps offer more nurturing, counseling and better insight than a man...

and a woman could indeed say the words of consecration--perhaps with even more emotion, better diction, more sincerity, etc etc etc...

That is, women are quite capable of the doing part of what a priest does. 

When someone has an impoverished understanding of the priesthood he cannot see why women can't be priests--because he sees it as akin to being a counselor, or a manager, or an evangelist.  And who in the right mind would say that a woman can't be a counselor, or manage a business, or preach the good news?  But we understand that the priesthood is not about what he does, but about what he is.

So even if a woman were "ordained" to the priesthood, she would not be, at her essence a priest.  It's just not ontologically possible.  

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

  

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Isn't the Church against Science?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

         and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Prayer for our Holy Father Pope Francis:

O God, shepherd and ruler of all the faithful,
look favorably on your servant Francis,
whom you have set at the head of your Church as her shepherd;
Grant, we pray, that by word and example
he may be of service to those over whom he presides
so that, together with the flock entrusted to his care,
he may come to everlasting life.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
 who lives and reigns with you in the
unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.
http://www.usccb.org/about/leadership/holy-see/francis/pope-francis-prayer-card-and-photo.cfm
 

Question:   Isn't the Church against Science?

So when we were touring colleges for our oldest daughter we visited a Catholic university, Notre Dame.  During the tour one clueless high schooler commented, "I am not Catholic.  But since this is a Catholic university, will Notre Dame be teaching science here?" 

Seriously?



Unfortunately, there is a world out there that thinks that Catholics are anti-science, because, in their view, if we really examined the world in the way that science does, and followed the evidence, the Catholic Church would be destroyed by the scientific evidence.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  The Catholic Church has always been a patron of science.  From The Sun in the Church: 

"The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning in the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions." 

See this list of Catholic scientists who have paved the way for significant progress in the scientific method.  In particular, look at the prominence of Jesuit scientists who have contributed to the sciences!  Go Pope Francis!!It has been the constant teaching of the Church that we are to use our Reason/Intellect as well as our Faith to apprehend the Truth.  The First Vatican Council states there are two inseparable yet distinct orders of knowledge:

1) Reason, which is governed by our senses and our experience
2) Faith, which is nourished and enlightened by the Holy Spirit

In his splendid encyclical, Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), Pope John Paul II proclaims we can come to a knowledge of the truths of our human existence through:

• Immediate evidence, informed and confirmed by experimentation (e.g., science)
• Philosophical truth apprehended by use of the speculative powers of our intellect
• Religious truths that come to us through Divine Revelation (faith)

In fact, the "mantra" of the Catholic Church throughout the ages has been fides quaerens intellectum, or, "faith seeking understanding".  Blind faith--believing without any attempt to understand--is to be rejected. Or, as Blaise Pascal said so eloquently, "Two errors: to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason."

In other words, we are to reject 2 errors in thinking:

• Fideism:  to accept all things on faith alone, rejecting science as evil and contrary to the faith.
• Empiricism:  the belief that all knowledge can only be achieved through experimentation and observation.

Both are wrong. 

The Church, as usual, takes a both/and approach rather than an either/or.

However, while the Church champions science, and proclaims its goodness, the Church also maintains the superiority of Faith.  Science is limited in its approach and must be "set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of sin."  In other words, because of our wounded human nature, our intellect is fragile and limited.  Faith is required to apprehend the ultimate truths of God's revelation. Yet,

“Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth”.--Fides et Ratio

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Summary of Fides et Ratio

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

How can it be true that Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb? If Jesus died on a Friday and rose early on Sunday, how can that be 3 days?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul, 

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

 

There is a movement in some Christian circles questioning the idea of Jesus being crucified on Good Friday. Essentially this is a movement to usurp the authority of the Catholic Church by saying that the Church simply made up Good Friday.  They proclaim that the Bible never states that Jesus died on a Friday, and to declare this is to contradict Jesus' prediction that he would be buried "in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."--Matt 12:40.

From this non-Catholic website: 

Did Christ mean what He said? Did He really expect his burial in the earth to last 72 hours? Jesus did not say, "After two nights and one day I will rise again." He said, "After three days I will rise again." He meant three FULL days -- a full seventy-two hours! Upon Jesus’ crucifixion, the Jews remembered this sign.

And here's a comment from an article called "The Hoax of Good Friday":

There ought not to be anything that you believe unless it's in the Bible. What does the Bible teach? Now, I know that all over the country on the Friday before Easter, people gave their Good Friday services, and they start at noon, and they run the Good Friday services through three o'clock in the afternoon, and people say our Lord was crucified so many years ago just at this time of the day, and so forth, and it makes a very pretty thing, except it's not true. It is not true. Our Lord was crucified on Wednesday. He gave up the Ghost at three o'clock on Wednesday afternoon. He was laid in the grave somewhere about six o'clock on Wednesday evening. He was in the grave Wednesday evening, all day Thursday, Thursday evening, all day Friday, Friday evening, and all day Saturday, and He rose from the grave on Sunday.

What is the Catholic response?

Firstly, we ought to counter anyone who states, "There ought not to be anything that you believe unless it's in the Bible" with the query:  "Where does the Bible state that?"  (Answer: no where.  That's a man-made tradition many have been duped into believing).  To say that we can't believe anything unless it's in the Bible is self-refuting, because it's a paradigm that can't be supported in the Bible. 

That segues nicely with addressing the point that "The Bible doesn't state anywhere that Jesus died on a Friday!".  The Catholic response can be, "That's ok. We don't have to have all of our beliefs explicitly found in the Bible, because the Bible doesn't command that all of our beliefs need to be found in the Bible." (But all of our beliefs can be supported implicitly in the Scriptures.  That is, however, fodder for another discussion. Suffice it to say that the Bible was never meant to be a full compendium of the faith. We do not extract our doctrines from the pages of a book, no matter how holy. Rather, the Bible reflects the teachings that were already given to the Church.)

Essentially, when the Scriptures proclaim Jesus would be in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights, that was a Jewish idiom.  It is not meant to mean, literally, 72 hours. 

Also, Jewish culture did not count days/nights in the same way that we do in our western world.  From Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin: 

In Jesus’ day, the Jews reckoned the day as beginning at sunset. When Scripture indicates that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, therefore, it means that he rose on the day that began at sunset on Saturday and lasted until sunset on Sunday. Since we are told his tomb was found empty “after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1), he must have risen between sunset Saturday and dawn Sunday. Whether this was before or after midnight Scripture does not say. He might have risen either Saturday night or Sunday morning before dawn, though, for purposes of determining when he was crucified, it doesn’t matter.

In the Bible, parts of time units were frequently counted as wholes. Thus a king might be said to have reigned for two years, even if he reigned for only 14 months. In the same way, a day and a night does not mean a period of 24 hours. It can refer to any portion of a day coupled with any portion of a night. The expression “three days and three nights” could be used as simply a slightly hyperbolic way of referring to “three days.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-crucifixion-wednesday-or-friday#ixzz2OUXPmjgP

Incidentally, if some Christians are going to be literal about Jesus' prediction that he would be "in the heart of the earth three days and three nights" then they ought to question the fact that Jesus was not actually buried in the heart of the earth.  In fact, he was not in the earth at all but rather placed in a rocky tomb presumably above the earth.

Clearly, as no one seems to dispute that Jesus was placed in a rocky tomb and not "in the heart of the earth", Christians should see that Jesus was not speaking literally with that prophecy; but, for some peculiar reason, believe that Jesus had to be speaking literally about the "three days and three nights" part of his statement.
 

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Was Jesus Crucified on a Wednesday or a Friday? by Jimmy Akin

Catholics Come Home

Catholic Bible online
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15