New Subtitle

I suppose I could re-subtitle my blog "In studio Deorum proposito" (pardon my poor Latin -- I did spend half an hour working on this).

On next Monday I am getting initiated/addmitted/whatever into the Knights. I don't know all that it entails, or even where it is. I'm supposed to know more in the coming week. We'll see.

I'm going to start meeting with Fr. Val to discuss the discernment process for either the priesthood or monkhood (it's a word know). I don't really know if if God's calling me that way or toward married life, but I know he is calling me to take a more active role of discernment. We'll meet occassionally and just discuss things. Right at the moment I think everyother though is "priethood," "married life," "priest hood," "married life," etc. We'll see where it goes.

Anyway, pray for me and we'll see where this goes.

What if this worked . . .

So I have a theory and how to turn a flagging/heterodox/problematic parisch around. It's simple, but I have a feeling it would work. It would require slight alteration to certain systems, but I think it could be done.

When the priest is due for a transfer move him out and bring in three monks, one who is a priest. Each and everyday they celebrate Mass together, and each and everyday they hold Liturgy of the Hours. Once a week they hold a Tridentine Liturgy. All of these are open to the parishiners and interested public. The monks spend some of their time outside the church, getting to know the population, inviting them to church.

I have a feeling that one by one the people would come, first those who fished for orthodoxy, then the curious, and soon the other Catholics, and even the non-Catholics, for three people truly living the church would shine like a beacon in the dark mist of secularism.

Sources

So I'm doing research on the Renaissance for a book I'm writing. The only problem is our school library has a total of three books about the Renaissance itself.

Believe me. I counted.

I started reading one of those books. I got about five pages in before getting bored and flipping to the front. It was part of a history series. As I read the list of other books, I decided I couldn't use it a source, given one fact. The book on the Catholic Church was written by Hans Küng. Somehow I didn't trust the accuracy of anyone who would ask a heretical, nigh excommunicated pseudo-theologian to write a work of history.

Which brings me to my actual point: there are people out there who read Hans Küng's work and believe it an accurate representation of the Church. Likewise, there are people who read A Woman Rides the Beast and find it accurate (Dave Hunt is one of the most virulent anti-Catholics still around. Of course, his sister converted to the Church, so that tells you something). How do we go about reinforcing the truth, particularly when our authors claim to be Catholic, and in some cases have received holy orders?

I really only have the question here, though if I develop a good answer I'll post it later. If you develop a good answer yourself, feel free to comment.

Pushing

So God decided to push me a little bit today.

First, however, a little background for those of you who don't know me.

I read. A lot. When I entered the Church I studied apologetics religiously (pun fully intended) and gained an incredibly thorough understanding of the Catholic/Protestant dichotomy. I also happen to remember almost everything I read, so I have these arguments readily available.

Today God told me "That's good. Now I want you to do more."

A friend of mine (a former Catholic) informed me she recently broke up with her fiancee and had a miscarriage. She then said that "It was nice being a Christian, because there was something there when the grief hit, something to fall back on." She went on to say she has nothing and it hurts a lot. She was pretty clear that she was not planning on returning to the fold anytime soon (though I did say we'd always be glad to have her back), but she is seeking.

It seems God is now desiring me to study the arguments for the faith from the outside, to open a door to those who have rejected Christianity in any form. I think this is going ot be tough, but I have a feeling it will have good results.

Please pray for me, but more importantly for my friend and all those who have left the faith.

The Bible

I mentioned my Biblical Foundations of Literature class earlier, but I failed to note that it has a blog.

Some of the stuff there probably only makes sense to those in the class, but a lot of what I'm writing could be place here as well, though it is generally far more oriented toward the Bible and its origins (the class seems to be more about the Bible as literature then the Bible as foundation of Western literature, but meh). Feel free to read and comment.

Hypocrisy

So in a talk with K-- today she mentioned a letter she received from a friend of hers, explaning why she (the friend, not K--) was not a Chrisitian, despite believing in Christ (or some such like that). One of her reasons listed was the hypocrisy in the Church, which got me thinking.

If hypocrisy is simple saying one thing and doing another, anyone trying to support a moral system will inherently be a hypocrite, because we are imperfect people. Hypocrisy then loses all meaning.

Really, though, hypocrisy means telling people to do one thing while not even trying to hold your self to it. If I told someone not to have sex before marriage yet I was living with a girlfriend, that would be hypocrisy. If, however, I made one mistake in a similar situation, that would not quite be hypocrisy, because I was trying to live but what I proclaimed.

And that, really, is what it comes down too. We need to strive to live the life we proclaim, ere we become false prophets, speaking our own doom.

"Work for your salvation with fear and trembling." Hypocrisy is born when we do not even try.

Saint of the Day

For lack of a better post (and since I have Bible study and game night coming I have no time to develop something better) we have "Saint of the Day!" (duh da da dah!)

St. Meinhard was one of the first missionaries to the Latvian people. He founded a Church and became the first bishop of Ikskile (and of Latvia) in 1186. He is also known as the apostle of Latvia.

A dilema, as it were

When I first arrived on campus three years ago, I met up with some friends from highschool and some of their friends I did not know. This core group was made up mostly of Protestants (of which I was one at the time) and provided a fairly solid Christian background for me.

Over the past couple of years, however, the demographics of this group has changed. A few members of the core are still around, but the breakdown is something like 4 non-Christian couples, 6 non-Christian singles, 1 Christian couple (one is Catholic, though to a varying degree, the other is interested) and three Christian singles. Comes down to: 14 non-Christians, 5 Christians.

So my problem is this: I don't feel myself necissariyl being edified by this group, as a whole. I don't want to completly leave them hanging, but I'm not sure I can, in good conscience, place myself regularly within their meeting.

On the flip side, some of them are interested in the Church, and I am really their only presence to them of Her.

What I'm probably going to do (unless I get a better idea) is decrease my time with them and increase the amount of time I hang out with Catholics. Course, I need you guys to hang out with me in return (it's a two way street here).

Anyway, thanks for reading my rant (as it were), its just been bothering me the last couple of days.

KOFC

So today, while waiting for a friend, I read every bulletin board at Holy Rosary. Twice. During that process the local Grand Knight of the Knight's of Columbus saw me reading their board and later approached me. We talked for a few minutes and he gave me the sign up information.

Now I just have to figure out if this is what God wants. Seems like a good way to get established with a fairly orthodox Catholic Group that exists all across America.

So that's my news for the day (probably more for the month cause I don't talk about myself here).

The Bible

So I posted earlier about how, as Catholics, we don't have to worry about if we have the right Bible. Something else came to me yesterday.

Over the past two hundred years, historical criticism has been providing new interpretations of many of the Bible stories, particularly in Genisis. Many of these stories are decent explanations of what the story means, and could conceivable damage someones faith, particularly by inspiring certain heresies.

Once again, as a Catholic, I need not worry. I know the Church has correctly interpreted the meaning of the stories, and no new theory can supplant my belief. I don't need to fight misinterpretations to find who is 'most right' because the Vicar of Christ has provided the answer for me.

Limbo

So I can't help but think that the most media outlets fail to do any reasearch. What. So. Ever. when talking about the Church. All the responses to the discussion of Limbo show they have an amateur understanding of the concept which I could correct in one sentence.

"Limbo is not doctrine and therefore was never officially the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Done. No "Pope trying to win hearts and minds. . ." or "Pope changing Church teaching . . ." etc.

We just don't know what happens to unbaptized babies, so unless the Church condemns it, feel free to believe in Limbo. I, however, don't like it, so I'm going with trusting the mercy of God.

Oh, and I have a feeling the Radical Traditionalist/Sedevacantist (not much difference twixt the two) will have a field day with this one, making the same mistakes the media did.