My heart felt so full of joy at mass yesterday. I was so happy to be there, to worship Jesus Christ and receive his body and partake in John 6:54-55. I felt a level of joy that I have not felt in a long time. It seemed like a consolation from God to confirm the decision I made to move.
Try to disengage yourself from so many cares, and take a little time to think of God and to rest in Him. Enter into the secret chamber of your heart, and banish from it every thing save your Creator alone and what can help you to find Him; then having closed the door, say to […]
“Why would intelligent, successful people give up careers, alienate friends, and cause havoc in their families…to become Catholic?”
That is from the film’s description on Amazon. It is a great question, because it is the reality for many who convert to the Catholic Church. My conversion wasn’t quite that dramatic, but I do suspect my family and friends think I acted impulsively when I became Catholic because it happened rather quickly.
The film is a collection of interviews from prominent Catholic converts. Many were atheists prior to converting, others were Protestants, others were cradle Catholics who left the Church but came back. All of them are educated and smart, and they all thought through their journey into the Church very thoroughly. I think pretty much all of them said they initially resisted the idea of becoming Catholic, and I remember feeling that way too briefly. The bottom line for many was how the Church’s authority can be traced back to Christ himself, and how that authority unifies the Church. Radio host and ex-atheist Jennifer Fulwiler is one of the interviewees, and her explanation on this point was one of the best I’ve seen.
It is free to watch if you have Amazon Prime. Watch it here:
Just because I say nothing, does not mean I have nothing to say.
Just because I don’t say anything bad about a person or a group, does not mean I have no criticism of the person or the group.
Do not assume my silence equals assent. It may, but then again, it may not. Don’t assume that my compliment about someone means I approve of what they believe. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen said in A Plea for Intolerance:
Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.
I try very hard to distinguish between the person (who was made in the image of God) and what they believe (which may be erroneous or not). They might believe something erroneous, but it is not necessarily my job to point that out to their face. If their erroneous belief causes them to act in a way that is harmful, then I can point out how the action is harmful, and how it may be evidence of an erroneous belief.
But in regards to the person, apart from their behavior, I might be wrong about their error, because there might be important facts of which I am unaware, or, I might be the one who is in error.
I tread carefully, slowly, patiently.
Authorities found his body today. He hanged himself.
In October of 2016, I wrote about the song Numb and Bennington as a child of divorce and a victim of sexual abuse:
He is survived by his wife and six children.
Lord, may your perpetual light shine upon him and may he rest in peace. Amen.
Check out this site. It is an interactive display of the solar system. It shows all of the planets and their speed relative to each other.
As each planet crosses the horizontal line, it plays a note. They all have different notes. You can adjust the speed to make the planets go slower or faster.
In the screenshot that I took, Mercury has gone around the sun 825 times, and Pluto has not gone around even once.
This site has been around for a long time; I discovered it years ago, maybe even before the divorce. I had kind of forgotten about it for a while, but remembered it just the other day. I couldn’t immediately remember the name, but googled around a bit until I did.
It shows the relative speeds, but not the relative distances or sizes. That is super fascinating, but it is another post.
I don’t remember precisely when I had this dream, and a few of the details are fuzzy. I think it was in about April 1990 but I am not 100% certain. It might have been earlier but it was not later. I was pregnant at the time, and so was Torri. I don’t think any of the other women were pregnant at the time of the dream.
In the dream, I dreamed that five of the women in the cult were pregnant, and they all had girls. Me and Torri were in the dream, but I am not certain which of the other women were in the dream.
I had Rebecca, Torri had Tamara, and three of the other women became pregnant, one of whom might have already been pregnant at the time of the dream. They all had girls.
There are several photos of these five girls, and they were all taken because of my dream. One of the cutest is when they are being held by their dads. It was taken in the Grange hall.
Just came across this from Matt Walsh at The Blaze:
I can’t help but notice a potential correlation between [the Democrats] eagerness to murder the next generation and their inability to win elections. There is an argument to be made, at least, that you can’t cultivate future voters by ripping them to pieces and selling them for parts…
He goes on to defend this assertion, then makes another important point as well:
…how can we [pro-life Christians] be so selfish, bigoted, and hateful if we’re the ones trying to convince you to stop killing your children? Pro-life Christians would benefit the least from the abolition of abortion, yet we are the only ones calling for it to be abolished. If we really hate black people, why are we trying to see to it that more black people are permitted to enter the world? If we really hate women, why are we advocating for a policy that would result in more of them existing? If we really hate you, why are we arguing in favor of something that may ultimately help your political objectives more than it helps ours?
If we were truly hateful and bigoted (and politically savvy) we would celebrate your abortions more than you do. Every time another abortion clinic opened in the inner city, we would be there to cut the ribbon and throw a parade. Instead, we’re there to protest and pray. Why is that? Why are we trying to help you and save your children if we are so filled with hate?
Read the whole thing:
Other posts in this series:
… he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
I was reading Hebrews 9, and this verse jumped out at me. I remember learning as a Protestant that Christ’s resurrected body had no blood in it. Here is an example of what I mean. This is from a popular Protestant website called CARM.org:
The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). If this is so, then how could physical body have been raised? The answer is simple. After His resurrection Jesus said, “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, “flesh and blood.” He said, “flesh and bones.” This is because Jesus’ blood was shed on the cross. The life is in the blood and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul,” (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body, but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones. I am of the opinion that Jesus’ body had no functional blood in it. Remember, after the resurrection He still retained the wounds in His hands, feet, and side. But, His blood was the thing that cleanses us of our sins: “but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin,” (1 John 1:7). His body was raised, but it had no blood flowing through its veins. It was a glorified, physical body.
This isn’t what the Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s resurrected body does have blood in it. But that is not the point I want to make here.
Instead, I want to ask a question. If the Protestants are correct, where does Christ get his blood in order to fulfill Heb. 9:12 where it says, “taking…his own blood”?
I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
I read this today and something occured to me. Isn’t this what Jesus does for us at mass? He presents his body to us, a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to the Father.
Looked at another way: does he ask us to do something here and now that he himself does not do here and now?