What I Have Learned About Mary

What I have learned about Mary.

Mary was, of course, Jesus' mom. One of the worst things that can happen to someone is to lose their kids and in her case, she didn't just lose him, she saw him crucified. That's a horrible way to die. She really went through a lot in her walk with God and in her obedience to God's call to be Jesus' mom.

Therefore,  I can believe the doctrine that Mary was assumed into heaven like Elijah and Enoch. Having him grow inside her would have created quite a bond, plus going through seeing the crucifixion. Neither Elijah nor Enoch could have suffered quite like her, or had opportunity to be that close to the Lord and develop so unique a relationship with the Lord as Mary. Therefore, once I think about it, I would actually find it harder to believe that she wasn't Assumed into heaven than that she was. There is no grave, anymore than there is a record of her rapture. Its something one has to just pray about and decide what they believe. Either way, its taken on faith. Once I considered it, it takes more faith for me to continue to  believe she wasn't. The only thing challenging about it for me is that it is a totally new concept to me.

As to the perpetual virginity, I didn't accept that for a long time because for a Jewish woman, that would have been like God giving somebody some radical "special grace" never to pray again! Sex in marriage is a Miztvah, in Judaism. Its like a sacrament is to Catholics and Lutherans and Orthodox and all the other liturgical churches... Its connected to holiness and is a part of participating in the life of faith - if one is married. Then my friend Mike who is an ordained Protestant minister and was studying the Orthodox church told me about a book called the Evangelion. Its written by James, the (step) Brother of Jesus. The book had used to be bound with it, and the Orthodox church still holds it sacred, although its not canonized as actual scripture as far as I know. Its Sacred in that it gives important historical insights and context and eyewitness testimony of things like the virgin birth and such. "Sola Scriptura" - scripture alone, was a Luther thing. The older churches all have something called sacred tradition and other things that they use to interpret the bible, and count them as Sacred along with the Bible, since it's kind of hard to understand scripture correctly without it. James wrote that Mary was indeed a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born, and also for the rest of her life. James' mom had died. His dad was very old, and did not feel he should remarry since he was so old, especially not someone as young as Mary. He married her because it became very clear that God wanted him to, long story short.
The reason Jesus had to get somebody else, specifically John, to look after his mom after he went to the cross was because she had no other kids. He was her only son, her only child. He had step-siblings though. “Thy mother and thy brethren are looking for you” it was Mary and His step siblings. James probably wrote all that to give eyewitness testimony that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin and such like. None of the gospels are eye-witness accounts of that particular part. James said that Jesus was virgin-born, and that Mary stayed a virgin all her life. Mike says James hinted that his dad couldn't actually do anything to change that... Joseph was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping with her because God himself had lived inside her. That plus he was very old.
James' writings about family life with Jesus were typically bound with the Bible, I guess. In his research, Mike says he learned that Catholicism tossed James' accounts of Jesus upbringing and his family stuff when the King James Bible was made. There was a compromise between Catholics and Protestants on the KJV Bible since King James wanted to make a Bible everyone would accept in order to unify his country. Protestants wanted the Evangelion of James removed because it supported doctrine that they did not maintain. Mike never found anything challenging its authorship, just “We don't want it in there because it supports doctrine that we don't have.” Mike didn't believe in the perpetual virginity either, until he read that book. So now I do actually believe in it too.
Mike has since started a ministry that includes Orthodox, Messianic Jews, Catholics, and Protestant Christians and gets everybody working together to reach out. He says some pentecostal ministers he knows try and explain their discomfort saying, “The perpetual virginity isn't in the Bible.” Mike's like, “They basically used to be. They were removed in order to prevent anything support those doctrines. Its not that the doctrines were made-up with no support or apostolic testimony. People changed the doctrines, then removed the texts that supported the beliefs that they didn't accept.” I'm annoyed actually, because for example, atheists on facebook made an anti-Christian cartoon, showing a fundamentalist tearing into aspects of Darwin's theory that aren't rock-solid-proven, then they are asked if Jesus was born of a virgin and if so how do they know. They said, smiling, "Yes, absolutely, because somebody is said to have written something to confirm it, that we don't have."  The truth is, we did have it and some people (Orthodox churches) still do. it was thrown out of the Catholic church because of denominationalism, basically. The Vatican and King James and the Protestant leaders were trying to stop rioting and war between Christians. Its totally embarrassing and shameful, but that's basically how it unfolded as far as I can so far tell. :( Now, without the apostolic account that the doctrine is based on, catholic teaching on the subject has Joseph, of an unknown age, living in celibacy with his wife in order to support God's call on her life to stay pure forever in honor of Jesus having been carried in her body.
I can see bits of the truth in there, like Joseph was wigged out because God had lived in her womb, and he felt he might be defiling, possibly, if he consummated the marriage. But in the absence of the foundation, the story has gotten a bit warped. They removed it to compromise with Protestants though. Of course you'll not likely hear that from catholic catechists, but that's what happened as far as I know now.
My thought is, Joseph married Mary out of submission to the will of God, not on his own will. He was old and extremely nervous about being with her after she carried God in her body. He submitted to God to be Mary and Jesus' protector and provider, and thus supported Mary's calling to be Jesus' mother. If God wished for her to stay a virgin forever, He picked the right guy for that, too. The East and West remain divided partly because of those minute differences in their doctrines, but I don't think they're incompatible. Joseph submitted to God to marry Mary, it was God's will not his. The call of God on Mary's life plus possibly Joseph's great age, brought it about that she was a virgin all her life, like the Lord intended. Mike says she was in a religious vocation at the temple, much like  what we call a nun, but for some reason it was decided that she should marry, and when the will of God was sought as to who it should be, it became obvious that God wanted Joseph for the job. If there were vows involved in that vocation she had previously been in, she never had to break them... Long story short, I see the two doctrines as very compatible. The Orthodox church has a document of apostolic authorship to back its story, the Catholic church doesn't. So I am inclined to side with the East if an argument arises but really, I don't see them as being incompatible.
It was James' testimony, relayed to me through my friend, that made me believe in the perpetual virginity. 

That leaves the Immaculate conception. I don't have anything to support it, really. The Immaculate conception is not the belief that Mary never committed any sins, but that she was born without original sin in order to make a pure vessel to carry Jesus in. I guess I can see the thinking behind it, so it doesn't bother me like it used to would have, but obviously I don't have anything to support that. Belief is a choice here, and I don't think it takes more faith to believe it, but less, like Jesus would be contaminated if it weren't for Mary's Immaculate conception. Mary could be born without original sin form a mom who had it, but God himself couldn't. IT doesn't increase my faith to believe that. Its not that I need to exercise my faith to believe it is possible. I chose, based on the fact that God seemed to be calling me to the Catholic church, to try embracing this doctrine. It has not done anything to help my faith, really. If anything it weakens it. So I am putting this one back on the shelf and saying, "Maybe. But I don't think so." I won't completely rule it out, but I don't think it was necessary, and if anything, the opposite may have been, but again I am not completely sure of that either.

So, I have still come a long way from my previous position on the Marian dogmas, and for awhile I embraced all four, and at the moment I won't rule the fourth out, but I am not really on board with it that much.

~Mother Star

My Most Powerful Good Friday Ever

Well, Dickens said it well when he said, "It was the best of times it was the worst of times."
On Good Friday this year, I was under the impression that my dad did not want to speak to me anymore. Therefore, when I thought about Jesus' agony in the garden, knowing he was soon to become sin for us and accept our punishment and out judgment from the Father, I could relate. It was an amazingly painful situation, but through meditating on how well Jesus understood my pain, it made this the most powerful Good Friday of my life.

I really enjoyed the Paschal Triduum. In the Protestant Church, we had to cram the whole thing into an Easter Sunday Service. It was awesome every time. Being raised Pentecostal, I was used to prayers for everyone who needed it on almost any Sunday. I noticed that more people actually got healed when prayed for on Easter Sunday. It is a powerful time and has always been, at least for me.

It didn't work quite that way in the Catholic church, it was still very special and restorative. One of my old friends who has gotten out of fellowship and into a lot of weird or heretical teachings came to my confirmation. It was nice that he went to church, for once.

The staff advisor of the PRIDE chapter at my community college was there on Good Friday. His husband (in the states eyes, but obviously not in God's) and the kids they have both adopted were not there, though. He was there alone, for some reason. He  kissed he cross and walked out singing, "Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom," and left before they served communion.
He sang solos at the Saturday Vigil, and was in the choir for the special music. Again, the man he is involved with and the kids they are raising together were not there.
I pray for God to draw him, and to bring healing to his life, to the other man's life, and to do a profound work in those children's life.

I was invited to my Methodist Friend's Good Friday service. They sang a hymn about how Sunday's palms are Wednesday's ashes. Both churches sang a black spiritual called "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?" Both churches read a lot of the same verses and said similar or same prayers. I was allowed to take communion there even though I am not Methodist, while at St Patrick's it was the last time that I couldn't. Communion is a powerful experience for me, even when I was Protestant. I had been really missing that while going through RCIA.


All this time I was thinking I had no blood-family anymore, except my mom. I later learned there was a problem with the phones that was really strange and I am glad my dad did not actually turn away from me in real life.
I sent my dad an email on Good Friday Evening, from an email address he did not have in case he had blocked me. A few days later I got a text message that said, "I LOVE YOU!" from him. I called and we figured out what had happened, bit not how it had happened. Somehow, his number in my phone got edited and one digit changed, and he wasn't getting my messages. It was someone else's phone that was set, at the subscriber's request, not to accept my calls.
 Jesus was also restored to His father. My dad told me emphatically that he would never, ever, do such a thing, he would never decide he did not want to be in my life. I hope that this is true. I know it is true of the Father I reached for when I thought that my earthly dad had turned away from me. It was a crazy mix-up of communication devices there an it caused a lot of pain, but it also helped make this the most wonderful Good Friday service ever.

Adventures in RCIA: An Updated Discussion on Mariology

On the Virgin birth, obviously I have always believed it and always will.
As to the perpetual virginity, the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe got me wondering and I went from disbelieving to wondering. Later, a friend who is studying the Orthodox church read a book by St.  James, who was Jesus' step-brother. In this book, James says Mary was indeed a virgin all her life because of his father's advanced age. He hinted that Joseph couldn't actually do anything about that, basically.
This differs from the Catholic teaching that she remained a virgin all her life due to a call to do so from God, but it does give an explanation for the perpetual virginity of a married Jewish woman. Being called by God to stay in that marriage, and after Joseph's death to be celibate and give herself to ministry, doesn't clash with anything she would likely have believed, as far as I know.
I therefore can assent to the perpetual virginity of Mary, in light of this further information.

As far as her ascension, she would not be the only person besides Jesus to do this. Enoch went that way and so did Elijah. All of the oldest churches believe this, including the Copts. I don't have legitimate reason not to. Therefore, I do.

Regarding the Immaculate conception, I am still unsure. It doesn't make any more sense to me than it did before. The only improvement I have in this area is that I can believe all the other ones. I do not believe that thinking this will send someone to hell. I have my doubts, serious doubts, but still,.. I think belief is a choice. I am going to pray about it, and consider if God would have a problem with my choosing to believe it until further evidence is offered that she wasn't. It may help me, in some ways, as far as theneed for a female role-model, and with this revised understanding of perpetual virginity, I would not have an obstacle to that anymore, especially since right now I am single.
I expect I will proceed as if she was, and just go from there, and if God wants me to not believe that, then He will be able to tell me. Right now, I feel called to the Catholic church and sense in my spirit that God is going to straighten out the reservations I have about gender roles. I hope so.
So, at this time I do, with some minimal reservation, accept the Catholic teaching on Mary.


Godspeed.

~Mother Star.

Adventures in RCIA: My First Lenten Season

Well, I think we're about half-way through Lent.
Yesterday was Friday and I ate meat. I forgot until it was too late.
I think last week I did not, but I can't remember. I have been able to abstain from chocolate and sweets.
I have a Valentine's heart full of chocolates and an organic fair trade dark chocolate bar sitting on a stand near my bed, and I have not touched them.

There are certain things I really wanted to stop doing through this season of repentance, and at first I was doing ok, but lately I have not been doing as well. I have "Gotten back up" to some extent, but not to the degree I would like. I have not yet been to confession.

What I have succeeded in dong is praying more and worshiping more. I have been working my way through the Book of Sirach, whereas for a while I had not been doing much scripture reading. I think this increase in scripture reading is going to give me the wherewithal to get the victory I am really hoping for in certain areas of my life.

Adventures in RCIA - The Difference between a Mass and a Protestant Service

There are some differences between a Mass and a Protestant service. The Mass is modeled very much after the Jewish tradition, whereas Protestant churches usually, though not always, have a tradition all their own or at least much further removed from Jewish traditions.
The first thing that is different is that a Mass is called a Mass instead of a service or meeting. The word is capitalized.
Not every Protestant church uses vestments for the ministers.
Protestant churches usually do not have communion at every single service, though some do.
You can go to Mass about every day if you choose to, whereas most Protestant churches meet 1-3 times a week.
The pulpit in a Catholic church is called an ambo, but it works the same way.
Superficial differences aside,
The first thing that happens is a server, formerly called an alter boy, carries in a cross. The cross goes ahead of everything, since the Jesus' cross is how we are saved. It's the core of our faith. That goes ahead of everything.
Another server will carry a big, ornate book. It has the gospels in it. Not the whole Bible, Just the gospels, and it is held aloft as it is carried. Again. the gospel is the core of our faith.
The priest walks in last. These all comedown in a procession, like a little parade.
Some Protestant churches have a similar arrangement but most don't. Most of the tens of thousands of Protestant sects in the U.S, are pentecostal or non-denominational charismatic churches. Such churches tend to have very little ritual, and do not follow a liturgical calender, save Easter and Christmas.

Water is mixed with the blood of Christ to represent Jesus's humanity. It is not holy water, just regular water. As far as I know, there are no Protestant sects that mix the communion wine/juice with any amount of water, unless they use unfermented juice from a concentrate, which, again, I've never heard of. I would not be surprised though, to hear of it.
Some charismatic and/or non-denominational  churches do not have a set order for their service but pretty much "play it by ear" every week! I've been in those. They say they let the Holy Spirit run the service, and have free reign. I am not sure that is necessarily what is happening all the time though, I think many times it is the emotions and whims of those in the church running the service. I have no doubt the holy spirit takes advantage of this open door, but strongly doubt whether anybody is capable of hearing and discerning so well that they can truly let the Holy Ghost order the service individually and specifically each time. Also there is not always adequate accountability for the leadership. I have been fleeced pretty badly in a church like that, as well as seeing a lot of corrupt doctrine that proved to be destructive in my life and others, and more false prophesy than I can even specifically recall.
Loads upon loads of false prophecy like that is much harder to find in Catholicism. In the Catholic church, a committee of bishops and cardinals have to examine and verify a spiritual gift like prophesy or word of knowledge before the church recognizes it. It may seem like quenching the spirit, but I see wisdom in it. Some people have had "words" for people to go off of their medicine, and the individual died as a result. A pastor of a church my family went to lost a dear friend that way. Others have just made fools of themselves and God by giving words about "Problem between you and your wife will be resolved" to unbelievers visiting who were not married. My dad actually saw that happen once.
Mass is a very different thing for me, obviously, but I enjoy it.

I will discuss the actual Mass and how it runs and the meanings and roots behind everything in my ext post. Today I just wanted to do a contrast and point out some differences that might take newbies by surprise, I will remind everybody not to take communion in a Catholic church unless you have been confirmed Catholic.

Adventures in RCIA - More on the Eucharist

As I mentioned in my first post in this series, this is one of the biggest pulls for me, to the Catholic church.
Eucharist is a Greek word that means, "thanksgiving." It refers to Holy Communion.

There are a few description that Catholics use to explain the Eucharist that work very well for insiders, but will make little sense to someone who is not already Catholic.
"The Real Presence of Christ" for example. This refers to "trans-substantiation," the belief that the second person of the Trinity is present in the bread and wine. When the bread is blessed, we believe that Jesus'presence comes into the bread and wine, sort of like a vessel carrying his spiritual presence. We do not think that a chemical test would start showing human flesh and blood rather than grains and fermented fruit, though.
God is everywhere, of course, but yet if you have had any kind of encounter with God at all, you understand how God can seem to be more in some places than others at times. We believe that, spiritually Jesus is present with us in the Eucharist in a special way.
We believe this is referred to in John -6:24-69. If Jesus had been speaking metaphorically, wouldn't he have said so, for the sake of the disciples who he so loved who were offended and walked away? In RCIA last week, it was explained that this has always been a hard teaching for people, and this scripture was given to demonstrate both how upsetting it was for Jesus' first followers and how important it is to him. He came to die by torture for those people. He had just fed them all with a miracle because he cared about them (v. 5-24), if he was speaking metaphorically, don't you think he would have explained himself to those who he cared about? Having people walk away from you because they do not like what you are saying is one thing, but letting them go like that to damnation (it says they "walked no more with him") over a misunderstanding is something else.
I note that in this text, it says they told him he was crazy when he said that he was God and was before Abraham and that some in the crowd intended to kill him.
I do not find actual scriptural support for the notion that communion is supposed to be just a symbol. He said on two occasions that "This is my body, this is  my blood." Paul taught that we should examine ourselves before communion, and that it is life-threateningly dangerous to take communion when not right with God (1 Corinthians 11:27-32), because when we do that we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
I think this is because the early church was before the Catholic/Protestant division, before Constantine and long before Luther. They did not have any offense at any group within the body that they sought very hard to distance themselves from, and did not have anyone telling them it was only a symbol. They were in agreement about what they were doing, so it would have been that powerful.
If you visit a Catholic church, either do not go down for communion, or go down with your arms crossed over your chest, sort of like the traditional coffin laying position. The communion servers will give you a blessing instead of communion, because you are out of agreement in what is going an and since everyone is in such agreement about the actual habitation of the spirit of Christ resting on that host (the bread and wine); it is not safe for you to eat it. "According to your faith be it done to you." If you commune in a Protestant church, you are not in danger of dying. Nobody invited Jesus to use that bread and wine that way, it is only a symbol. go ahead and eat it, if you agree to revere what it symbolizes.
I would probably take communion in a Protestant church again, I can receive it as a symbol to recollect things by. However, I was told in RCIA that "memorial" in Judaism,like the Passover, is not just sitting around recalling something. It is reliving. It is almost like repeating but not exactly. Its not just thinking about something, it goes much farther.
The RCIA lady who taught the class last week said Eucharist was what drew her to this Church as well, and when she finished RCIA and took communion the first time, she was full on just that.
You are supposed to fast an hour before receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic church,so she was ravenous when she went up, but she was full for hours after taking it. It is only one bite worth, maybe less, of unleavened bread, but she was full the rest of the day and felt the presence of God very strongly.  I believe this happened for her because her belief was so strong. She said she actually snatched it out of the priest's hand, which was not proper decorum at all, because she was so excited about it. He forgave her and overlooked it, though.
I hope I don't do anything drastic like that...
Communion is supposed to mimic the Passover. Like the Passover Feast, it is not a mere recalling but a reliving, an actual experience of it, sort of like. The sacrifice is Jesus, present in the Eucharist and consumed just like the lamb was. The Passover also foreshadowed the coming of Jesus and his Sacrifice for us all. In the Eucharist, we relive the sacrifice of Jesus. We have our Passover Feast - every single week, and almost every day if we so choose. There are daily Masses as well as Sunday Masses.

Next time in RCIA, we will be having a walk through the Mass. I am greatly looking forward to it. I understand there is a connection between the Mass and the Catholic interpretation of Revelation. Soon I will be going through some extra things that are part of actually joining the Church, so I can also fill you in on those details when I get them.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - The Catholic Church Calender: Easter Time

In the Catholic Church, there is Easter Sunday and then there is Easter Time. It lasts for 50 days after Easter Sunday. It ends with Pentecost.

There are a great deal of flowers, like on Easter Sunday and the pulling-out-all-stops decor of Easter Sunday stay until Pentecost. There is a special dismissal chant for Easter and Pentecost.

The scripture readings in the Mass, (which are also at least some of the texts for the homilies Acts of the apostles, Revelation, and the Gospel accounts of Jesus time on earth after the Resurrection, the Ascension, and Pentecost.

The book of Revelation is interpreted very differently in the Catholic church than in Protestant churches. They do not teach that it foretells the end of the world. There is nothing frightening in it for them, for the Catholic church, Revelation is a book full of hope and there is nothing fearful in it. I have more study to do on it. I very much look forward to learning more about that, and then sharing what I learn.

Solemnities of the Octave of Easter - Every day for 8 days after Easter.

Special days in Easter Time include include:
Divine Mercy Sunday - The 2nd Sunday after Easter. It was Pope John Paul II's "special task," as he put it. St Faustina had some revelations during the time of Hitler's reign in Germany. It gave tremendous hope to the Polish Catholics who suffered in the concentration camps, one of whom later became a bishop and began the process that led to St. Faustina being made a Saint. The revelations of Divine Mercy are summed up in the statement that "Good triumphs over evil, life is stronger than death and God's love is more powerful than sin." This is revealed in Christ's cross, but St. Faustina''s very timely spiritual experience explained this in a way that made it very accessible to the understanding at a time when it was so urgently needed. It is also a message of the need for us all to forgive. During the Cold War, when John Paul II instituted this Special Day, and now when we hear of wars and rumors of wars everywhere, the Catholic church believes it is very important that those who follow Christ remember these revelations and ponder them. I agree. I really look forward eagerly to celebrating my first Divine Mercy Sunday and hearing/reading more teaching about it. I expect that it might need its own post!
The Feast of St. Mark the Evangelist. - April 25th
Solemnity of the Ascension of Our Lord - 40 days after Easter
Solemnity of the Feast of St. Matthais the Apostle - May 14th
Solemnity of Pentecost Sunday - 50 Days after Easter.

I see I will need to do more study of the book of Revelation, Divine Mercy Sunday, and the Octave of Easter. Those look like some pretty special and important subjects. Having been raised Pentecostal, and knowing that my pastor was raised Pentecostal, I wonder what kind of sermon I will hear on Pentecost.

If any of you see a special day or some other topic you would like me to investigate or inquire about, leave it in the comments below and I will see what I can do.

Take care and God bless.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - Dispelling Some Myths About the Pope, Pt. 1

Recently, I asked my pastor, who has a great deal of education in Catholic theology, and is, of course, a Catholic priest, if the Catholic church thinks the pope is "prophet, priest,and king" like some Protestants say that they do.

He said the pope is prophet, priest and king by virtue of his baptism, just like every other baptized believer. He said not "every believer" because demons believe too, and this does not apply to them. He said a Christian is a little Christ.
The role of a prophet, according to catholic church is basically a witness of God's Word (and I think there were a few other things he mentioned and I couldn't write that fast, but I think he was elaborating on "a witness of God's word"). The Role of a priest is to offer sacrifices (and again I think there were a few other things he mentioned and I couldn't write that fast) and king is a ruler.
As believers we have the job, and are equipped by the holy spirit, to be witnesses of God's word. As believers, it is also our job to offer sacrifices, first of all in gratitude and praise, and also offering ourselves, and offering our lives - our struggles, our joys, etc,etc, etc. to God.
We have responsibility and ability given by god to be rulers of ourselves. Living by the spirit, saying no to the flesh, and again these are rights/abilities given to us by God, and by God's power we exercise them.
My baptism in a baptist church ten years ago counts as my baptism into the catholic church, because protestants are counted as Christians in official catholic doctrine as long as they believe in the Trinity. So my baptism, and your baptism all would make us "little Christs" and therefore prophets, priests and kings/queens, like Christ but on a smaller scale, every bit as much as the pope is. That's official Catholic doctrine. The text cited for this is the same as I got in the "who you are in Christ" things I have read in the Protestant world, 1 Peter 2:9, and several verses around it, likely familiar to most of us.
He said that is how the Pope is Prophet, Priest and King, and that is the ONLY way he is those three things, "The Pope is not 'King of the church, or anything like that,'" he said, "absolutely not".
I really feel like my job, through going through this process, is to remove barriers and lies people believe about each other by sharing what I am learning as I go. Lots of Protestants have exaggerated ideas about what Catholics think of the Pope, including me up until recently. This was really big news to me, to learn this today. Perhaps it will be for you too.
Godspeed.

Adventures in RCIA: What Pope Francis' Recent Message Said

Today, in our church bulletin, there was a message from Pope Francis. It is mostly a prayer, and one which I fully agree with. It made me realize what a job it is to be the pope of Rome.

There are Catholic churches and members of religious orders working in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. all over Africa, China, and even in North and South Korea, as well as in more affluent nations. Feedback from all these places funnels up the various chains of command to the Vatican. Senior pastors have so much crap come across their desks, but imagine if your desk was just full of wars, plagues, trafficking, international controversies, and gross sin, with all its consequences, on a large scale? The job is harder than being president of the U. S. Nobody asks to be Pope either; they can only accept or decline the task. If someone seems to want the job, it rules them as a candidate; there's no campaigning to be Pope.
 While surfing youtube fairly recently, I have seen footage from the same events, shared by various anti-Catholics, claiming that Pope Francis was bad because he supposedly said at these events that he favors abortion (he doesn't) AND that he was bad because he was saying, at the same events,  that he is against abortion. Some of the same images alleged to be pics of him saying to kill gay people or some such (he doesn't say that) AND that he was pro-gay (he's not). 
Today I did a search in youtube for "pope francis." Scrolling the results, it mostly read like a list of headlines from Weekly World News, (that's a defunct, faux newspaper with headlines like "Bat-Child Found in Cave," "World to End in Two Weeks," "Aliens Steal Family Dog, Leave Life-Changing Messages," "80-Foot Tall Two Year Old Wreaks Havoc in India." One of those actually was a Weekly World News front-page headline when I was kid!), I can't believe the stuff people come up with - and believe! So, before any of this gets distorted beyond recognition by whoever and by whatever means, here is a synopsis of the "Urbi et Orbi, Message of Pope Francis", that I got today in my church bulletin. Exact quotes will be in "" marks:

"Thursday, December 25th, 2014
Dear Brothers and Sisters, Happy Christmas!
Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of the World, is born for us, born in Bethlehem of a Virgin, fulfilling ancient prophecies. The Virgin's name was Mary, the wife of Joseph." (That is both the first, of the only two, brief mentions of Mary in the whole thing) 
"Humble people, full of hope in the goodness of God, are those who welcome Jesus and recognize Him." The Holy Spirit enlightened the shepherds of Bethlehem, and they rushed to adore Him. The Spirit led Simeon and Anna to Jerusalem, and they recognized Him as Messiah. "'My eyes have seen your salvation,' Simeon Exclaimed, 'the salvation prepared by God in the sight of all peoples' (Luke 2:30)."
"Yes, brothers and sisters, Jesus is the salvation for every person and for every people!"
Today, I ask Jesus to help our brothers and sisters in Iraq and Syria, who for too long have suffered brutal persecution, along with other ethnic and religious groups. May Christmas bring to them, and the other refugees and displaced persons of all ages from this region, hope. "May indifference be changed closeness and rejection into hospitality, so that all who are now suffering may receive the necessary humanitarian help to overcome the rigours of winter, return to their countries and live with dignity. May the Lord open hearts to trust" and may he bring his peace to the whole middle east, beginning in the place of his birth.
"May Jesus, the Saviour of the world, protect all who suffer in Ukraine," and help them overcome tensions and violence and begin a healing journey of reconciliation.
"May Christ the Saviour bring peace to Nigeria, where even in these hours more blood is being shed and too many people are being unjustly deprived of their possessions, held as hostages, or killed." I contend for peace in other parts of Africa. "I beseech all who have political responsibility to commit themselves through dialogue to overcoming differences and to build a lasting, fraternal coexistence."
May Jesus save all the trafficked and enslaved children. "Children, so many abused children. May he give comfort to the families of the children killed in Pakistan last week." May he be with all who are ill, especially victims of Ebola (This makes sense, as many of those people are on their deathbed now, sadly). I thank all those dedicated to helping the sick, and their family members, and I make another urgent appeal that the necessary help be provided.
"The Child Jesus. My thoughts turn to all those children today who are killed and ill-treated, be they infants killed in the womb, deprived of that generous love of their parents and then buried in the egoism of a culture that does not love life; be they children displaced due to war and persecution, abused and taken advantage of before our very eyes and our complicit silence. I think of those infants massacred in bomb attacks, also those where the Son of God was born. Even today, their impotent silence cries out under the sword of so many Herods. In their blood stands the shadow of contemporary Herods. Truly there are so many tears this Christmas, together with the tears of the infant Jesus."
May the Holy Spirit enlighten our hearts now, to recognize in the Infant Jesus the salvation God has given to each of us, and to all the peoples of the earth. May the power of Christ, which brings freedom and service, be felt in so many hearts afflicted by atrocity. "May this divine power, by its meekness, take away the hardness of heart of so many men and women immersed in worldliness and indifference, the globalization of indifference." May his grace transform weapons to ploughshares, destruction to creativity, and hatred to love, that we may cry out with joy, "'Our eyes have seen your salvation"

I wish you a Happy Christmas!

"Francis"

Now, I agree that wars, plagues, and abounding evil are signs of the times, but they are still the work of the Christians' sole enemy. We are to resist those things passionately, with prayer and other means when possible. We are soldiers of peace and light, don't forget it. 
I see nothing unscriptural, dangerous, or unglodly in this prayer. I see a believer whose heart is broken for the heaps of reports about hideous atrocity, and equally atrocious selfishness and indifference, accumulating in his office daily. I see someone sending out his prayer for us all to read and to agree with. I for one will say "Amen!"

By the way, "Urbi et Orbi"means "City and World" in Latin, according to google translate. I had to put it in one word at a time to get it to translate it, but that is what those words mean.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - Catholics DO NOT worship the "Queen of Heaven"

Regardless of how this goes, whether I do get confirmed or not, I do want to clarify one more thing about Mary before I forget again.
"Queen of Heaven" does NOT mean to put St. Mary above, or on par with, God.
They say that in the Bible, the Isreali king's wife had to ask permission to come in, and bow, and do everything else the same way that others in the kingdom had to. The kind's mom on the other hand was the Queen Mother. She could walk right in and ask for something on somebody's behalf and pretty much expect it to get done. She definitely could not make decisions like the king, but held an awful lot of sway in his court.

Addressing Mary as Queen of Heaven is a reference to the ancient Isreali "Queen Mother" type of situation (though the term is not often used in the Bible) combined with the same beliefs behind "prayers" to saints. Look at 1 Kings 1:14-16, compared with 1 Kings 2:18-20. Bathsheba as King's wife versus Bathsheba as King's mom. That is where they get these notions about Mary. The term "Queen Mother" is not used but the idea they call "Queen Mother" is illustrated here, When they say that Mary sits at Jesus' right hand, it's because Bathsheba sat at Solomon's right hand. Therefore they infer that Jewish King's moms sat at their right hand and held a lot of influence. They think Mary has a position in Heaven kind of like Bathsheba had in Solomon's court, and is so very highly favored, throughout eternity.
 "Queen of Heaven" is not intended to revere Mary as a God(dess). I was really thrown by that "Queen of Heaven" reference a lot too, until it was explained. They also point to the story of turning Water into wine and say that Mary's intercession altered Jesus' decision about whether to do something about the wine shortage to demonstrate that she has the same degree of favor and her prayers have same impact as Bathsheba seems to have had in Solomon's court. They infer therefore that Prophet Priest and "King of the Jews" Jesus has the same setup in Heaven's court. That does not make her an actual ruler of Heaven, nor on par with God in Roman Catholic theology, though.

Personally, I am not sure I think the throne room in heaven works like the Isreali king's court did, just I know it resembles the temple/tabernacle Moses was ordered to set up and which foreshadowed Jesus' sacrifice and etc. The temple and the palace weren't the same thing. However, I understand the thinking, how they could think that way and say that. They are trying to keep with Jewish roots, and it may or may not have gone awry here, but at least no one need freak about idolatry. Not when it comes to an informed/educated Catholic anyway. Some people pay no better attention in catechism than some folks do in school, which is not much, and they walk out with weird ideas, I am told.


 


There are individuals who pray always to Mary and ask her to take everything to Jesus for them, but that is not required. There is a question of "Minimalism and Maximalism" concerning Mariology in the Catholic Church. The over-emphasis on Mary has been warned against by influential Catholics for centuries, but the opposite extreme is also warned against, and that is acting like she is no big deal at all or being too timid in presentation of her... well, basically what Protestants do.
So I hope I cleared that up for some people.
There are some prayers or songs I am not comfortable singing because I am uncomfortable saying the words in them to anyone but God. I rather doubt that Mary is offended by that, honestly, and these prayers are not required, as far as I know.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

Adventures in RCIA - Deliverance Ministry in the Catholic Church PT. 3

Several more good points from Fr. Gabriel Amorth's book, An Exorcist Tells His Story.

Fr. Amorth notes a common complaint of any who study deliverance ministry. There are various degrees of impact that evil spirits can make on a person's life. There is no set terminology for these various degrees. It can work rather like a continuum, though there are instances where Satan's ability to work in a person's life can take a big jump. More on all that later.
Like most books on the topic, Fr. Amorth puts forth a set of terms he uses in his own text and which should not be assumed to apply to any other text on the subject.

Levels of demonic activity according to Fr. Gabriel Amorth:
Ordinary activity: just regular temptations and the crap that happens to obstruct our work for the Lord or distract us from our calling. Those were not his words, obviously, but that's the gist of it.
External Physical Pain: being physically flogged, beaten or pummeled by demons.
Possession: Totally taking over the body, but not the soul, of the victim. Making actions where the victim is unaware of what happens and is not voluntarily participating.
Oppression: Fr. Amorth defines this as being struck by the devil in health, jobs or relationships. Job and the woman Jesus healed of being bent over for 18 years are examples of his definition of oppression.
Obsession: Difficult to differentiate from mental illness. Victim experiences sudden attacks or sometimes ongoing obsessive thoughts. They may or may not be rationally absurd. Person lives in a perpetual state of desperation, prostration, or suicide attempts. If examination by a qualified professional yields confusing results, no resemblance to any known disorders, priest may attempt an exorcism.
Subjugation or Dependence: People fall into this when they voluntarily submit to Satan, such as through blood pact or some other ritual consecration.


I will include some further insight and detail from Lester Sumrall's teaching on the subject, which uses a different set of terms. Therefore I will have to explain this additional set of terms.
I want to stress that in no case should a Christian, be they Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, ever be afraid of Satan.



Lester Sumrall
Regression -  moving backward. First red-flag of a negative power at work. Going backward, not forward. Could be caused just by you, especially when too reliant on your own strength.
Repression - to restrain or squeeze. Restrains expression. Not permitted to be oneself probably sign of repression. Destroy natural expression of personality, takes away joy out of the person's life.
Suppression - Press under, to keep back, to conceal, an exclusion of desire and feeling
Depression -   to be low in spirit to have gloominess, a decrease in feelings of hopelessness or inadequacy
Oppression - pressure or power to crush, power to smother, to overpower another power, to overwhelm, to harass, to ravish, to rape.
Obsession - In the first 5 you can deliver yourself. this one, you need someone else to help you. To besiege, to haunt, to be fixed on a  single idea to an unreasonable degree. Mind no longer clear
Possession - To inhabit, to occupy, to control, to hold as property, to dominate, to actuate, to rule by extraneous forces.
Not everyone afflicted of the devil comes into it through the same order of steps. There might be other things, or steps might be skipped or things may occur in a different order. This process need not be carried all the way to complete possession. Nevertheless, this rough sketch of common series of conditions is helpful.

You must yield to Satan for him to gain control of you. Satan seldom takes a life completely in one shot. It is normally an incremental process, sometimes it takes years, sometimes the process is much faster than this if you give in very quickly. You do not have to realize it is Satan you are yielding to, It could be you think it is to your own feelings or your own mind, or to a spirit of a deceased person or an angel or something else. Rarely do people knowingly submit to the enemy.

Being very deeply involved in sin can lead to the enemy having a profound hold on a person.
"Submit therefore to God, resist the devil and he will flee from you." James 4:7

Adventures in RCIA - To be Confirmed, or Not Be Confirmed

Well, my current struggle concerns whether or not to be confirmed. I began RCIA absolutely sure I wanted to be confirmed, however, if I am required to accept all the dogmas about Mary to do so, then I cannot. It's simply not an option.
I find denominationalism a sad thing, and I think it will be important for the Catholic attitude about this subject to loosen up if they and the orthodox church are ever to reunite.
I did a web search about being or remaining Catholic without receiving all of the 4 dogmas about Mary. I found a lot of haughty-taughty talking-down to people answers when others posed this question. Some people seemed to think you could actually go to hell for not believing it. If that is the case, then I will not be confirmed.
I find it funny though, that there are Catholics mad at Pope Francis, there are Catholics who regard most of the revisions of Vatican II to be ungodly, and call this a time of chastisement for the Catholic church, and etc. Yet, according to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, they can't do that and still be Catholic.
The mayor of NYC was promoting abortion like crazy, even though Catholic doctrine says he is to be excommunicated if he participates in abortion in any way. There are supposedly Catholic organizations that are openly gay and support "Gay theology." They have not been excommunicated.
There is at least one nun going around promoting abortion. I do not believe in any of this stuff, but are these people still catholic?
If they can be part of the church and not agree on those doctrines,some of which promise excommunication for disobedience, then what about me?
These are questions I hope I can answer after the next RCIA class.
I hope to be able to update this issue within the next couple of weeks.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

My questions about Mary make confirmation a question, not a certainty.

I pray for clarification on where to go with this issue and what to do.

Adventures in RCIA - Mary the Mother of Jesus Pt 2

Continuing on this sticky (for me) subject...

Dogmas of the Catholic church about Mary:
Virgin Birth: Jesus was born of a virgin.
Immaculate Conception: Mary was born without original sin, essentially born saved, so that she could give birth to Jesus without giving him original sin.
Perpetual Virginity: She stayed a virgin all her life, and Joseph agreed to support this calling on her life by abstaining along with her so she could be faithful to God's call as Jesus' mom.
Ascension into Heaven: Mary ascended like Jesus did, she did not die.

I covered the first two before. Now lets finish out the second half of the list.

Perpetual Virginity
This Catholic Dogma presents Joseph as sort of submitting, like a Western man might think of it, to give up the Western "masculine sex-right" to honor Mary's alleged call form God.
Joseph was Jewish, as Mary was.
Jewish view of sexuality:
Sex between a husband and wife is a mitzvah, which is a lot like our word sacrament. It is a commandment, and a meritorious or charitable act.
Jewish people link sexuality in marriage with holiness, so this dogma states that they served God by violating His rules for their lives as married people. From the Jewish Virtual Library:
"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). A man may not take a vow to abstain from sex for an extended period of time, and may not take a journey for an extended period of time, because that would deprive his wife of sexual relations. In addition, a husband's consistent refusal to engage in sexual relations is grounds for compelling a man to divorce his wife, even if the couple has already fulfilled the halakhic obligation to procreate.
Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce settlement provided for in the ketubah."
To us Westerner's that might sound gross, or perverse, but it is the Jewish way going far, far back to ancient times. The mitzvah of procreation is a separate one, the pleasure and bonding aspect is also sacred in Judaism, not just procreation.
If you told our very beloved, Jewish, Mother of God the dogma that she responded to God's call by staying a virgin after she was married, this would have been, to her ears, bordering on blasphemy/sacrilege. It would mean that God called her and Joseph to sin, basically. To be married and abstain the whole time is, for them, about as bad as doing stuff when you are not married. It's on par with adultery, as we know it, and grounds for divorce.
A marriage counselor, Earl Henslin, who has worked with many Jewish couples wrote in Chapter 2 of This is Your Brain on Love that no matter how bad things are in their marriages, it does not get into their bedroom. Why? "I am not going to have sex with my spouse" is like saying "I am not going to pray." He writes, "It is unthinkable," because they link marital sexuality with holiness.

Mary was Jewish. Mary was married. Therefore, Mary had three basic rights Joseph was supposed to provide: food, shelter and sex. I don't think it will kill anyone to live without it, but still, they were Jewish, and that was and is Jewish teaching.
Matthew 1:24-25. "...he took her [Mary] as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had born a son; and he named him Jesus."
That word "until" is two Greek words:
heos Strong's #2193 Definitions: of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).
hou Strong's #3757 Definitions: generic of (3739) as adverb; at which place, i.e. where: - where (-in), whither ([-soever]).
It seems to indicate a span of time terminating at a given point. The point given in this case is the birth of Jesus. The necessity of abstinence was over then, Jesus did not need her to abstain anymore. Since she was a godly, Jewish, married woman, she had a different requirement for holy living than she did as the single or merely betrothed woman that she was when He was conceived. Nothing happened between them until after he was born, no doubt. After he was born, they clearly carried on with the mitzvah ordained by God for married people, since that is what they were. If they did not, they would have been less holy, not more. This mitzvah is not inextricably tied to procreation in Judaism either, so not having any (surviving?) children at Jesus' death does not really mean anything either.
The dogma of Perpetual virginity does not make any sense, given that Mary was Jewish, as Joseph also was.
Do I believe that Early Christians believed this? Absolutely. Many of them came from pagan cultures that had practices that could put extreme ideas about virginity in their heads. Old ideas sometimes die really hard, or don't die at all. However, that does not mean God would actually have called two Jewish people to live like that. These are very definitely pagan ideas, not sanctioned or created by YHVH.

Finally, Mary is an example to us. If she remained a virgin until married, and waited even longer because of carrying Jesus, but carried out God's intent for married women after he was born, then she is a great example. An ideal.
If she went through life pretending to be a good wife before the world while not living or relating in that important relationship like she was supposed to, refraining from a commanded and meritous behavior (mitzvah means a command, and a charitable or meritous act), then she is a bad example to follow, and so not much of a saint. Right? I believe the Catholic Church has attempted to be very true to the beginings, but this is a point where the pagan ways were not left behind, and Mary would likely be very upset by this story.

Assumption into Heaven
I would need more information. I think it is possible, kind of like Enoch and Elijah. I have no certainty at this point though, since I already see evidence of the early church projecting things onto Mary that seemed great to them but could not be true (e.g. Perpetual Virginity). Therefore, I really don't know. It sounds good, but that isn't enough for me...

This song has always been really cool to me. Now that I am studying and thinking about Mary more, it means even more than it ever did, with or without Immaculate conception or Perpetual Virginity. So Hail, Mary, full of grace.

Godspeed.
~ M. S.

Adventures in RCIA - Mary the Mother of Jesus Pt. 1

Ok, here is where it gets sticky for me...

Dogmas of the Catholic church about Mary:
Virgin Birth: Jesus was born of a virgin.
Immaculate Conception: Mary was born without original sin, essentially born saved, so that she could give birth to Jesus without giving him original sin.
Perpetual Virginity: She stayed a virgin all her life, and Joseph agreed to support this calling on her life by abstaining along with her so she could be faithful to God's call as Jesus' mom.
Ascension into Heaven: Mary ascended like Jesus did, she did not die.

Virgin Birth: I absolutely believe.
Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Luke 1:26-42  "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

Immaculate Conception:
Why is it necessary? If she could come from a mom that had original sin, and supposedly not have it, why couldn't Jesus have the same miracle instead? Being "born saved" like this Dogma teaches, would also take away Mary's choice to be saved or not. Mary had a choice to accept carrying him, a choice to believe in him as the savior or not, and a chance to reject his plan of salvation - which may still not have been her expectation or plan, but she took it all as it came.
"Full of Grace" does not mean "without sin." I looked up "full of grace" in Greek, and asked a friend who had resources to study the word that I do not have to look it up too. Here is what we found:
G5487 χαριτόω / charitoō / From G5485 [see below]; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.
G5485: χάρις / charis / From G5463 [see below]; graciousness (as gratifying), of manner or act (abstract or concrete; literal, figurative or spiritual; especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; including gratitude): - acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).
G5463: χαίρω / chairō / A primary verb; to be full of “cheer”, that is, calmly happy or well off; impersonal especially as a salutation (on meeting or parting), be well: - farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hail, joy (-fully), rejoice.

I totally see that there was divine favor, and grace to be able to do something. She would need an amazing fortitude to do all that she did, and only God could provide that. However I don't find it compelling evidence for lack of original sin or any such like. As far as the argument in the catechism video, "If you existed before your mother, and could make her any way you wanted, how would you make her?" It depends what your goal was in making this mother and coming into the world. One of the things we all have to deal with is growing up with imperfect parents. I surely don't think Mary was abusive, but what is the point of coming to walk our path with us and understand what we are going through (Heb 4:15) if you're going to spare yourself imperfect parenting? You can't identify with all our temptations if you spare yourself from a major test/temptation that is universal to the rest of humankind. If his mom had no original sin, it would negatively impact his ability to live in the world like we do, with imperfect and original-sin carrying parents.
I can see how being the spawn of the Holy spirit could alone protect Jesus from original sin. What would have caused that for Mary? Nothing.
This is not adding up...

While I deeply appreciate Mary and her gifts to the world through her obedience and sacrifice, I struggle a lot with some of the dogmas about her.

I wonder what she would think if she heard them...

Adventures in RCIA - Deliverance Ministry in the Catholic Church Pt.2

As promised,
Here are several prayers of deliverance included in Fr. Amorth's book An Exorcist Tells His Story:

Prayer Against Malifice (including hexes)  from the Greek Ritual:
Kyrie eleison. God our Lord, King of ages, All-powerful, and All-mighty, you who made everything and who transforms everything  simply by your will. You who in Babylon changed into dew the flames of the seven-times-hotter furnace and protected and saved the three holy children. You are the doctor and the physician of our soul. You are the Salvation of those who turn to you. We beseech you to make powerless, banish. and drive out every diabolic power, presence, and machination; every evil influence, malefice, or evil eye and all evil actions aimed against your servant [name]. Where there is envy and malice, give us an abundance of goodness, endurance, victory and charity. O Lord, you who love humankind, we beg you to reach out your powerful hands and your most high and mighty arms and come to our aid. Help us, who are made in your image; send the angel of peace over us, protect us body and soul. May he keep at bay ans vanquish every evil power. every poison or malice invoked against us by corrupt and envious people. Then, under the protection of your authority may we sing, in gratitude, "The Lord is my Salvation, whom shall I fear? I will not fear evil because you are with me, my God, my strength, my powerful Lord, Lord of peace, Father of all ages."


The Anima Christi (Soul of Christ)
Soul of Christ, sanctify me. Body of Christ, save me. Blood of Christ, inebriate me. Water from the side of Christ, wash me. Passion of Christ, strengthen me. O good Jesus, hear me; within your wounds, hide me. Let me never be separated from you. From the evil one, protect me. At the hour of my death, call me and bid me come to you, that with your saints I may praise you forever and ever.
Amen.


Prayer for Inner Healing
Lord Jesus, you came to heal our wounded and troubled hearts. I beg you to heal the torments that cause anxiety in my heart. I beg you in a particular way, to heal all who are the cause of my sin.
I beg you to come into my life and heal me of the psychological harms that struck me in my early years and and from the injuries they caused me throughout my life.
Lord Jesus, you know my burdens. I lay them all on your Good Shepherd's Heart. I beseech you - by the merits of the great, open wound in your heart - to heal the small wounds that are mine. Heal the pain of my memories, so that nothing that has happened to me will cause me to remain in pain and anguish, filled with anxiety.
Heal O Lord all the wounds that have been the cause of all the evil in my life. I want to forgive all those who have offended me. Look to those inner sores that make me unable to forgive. You who came to forgive the afflicted of heart, please, heal my own heart.
Heal, my Lord Jesus, those intimate wounds that cause me physical illness. I offer you my heart. Accept it, Lord, purify it and give me the sentiments of your Divine Heart. Help me to be meek and humble.
Heal me, O Lord, from pain caused by the death of my loved ones, which is oppressing me. Grant me to regain peace and joy in the knowledge that you are the Resurrection and the Life. Make me an authentic witness to your Resurrection, your victory over sin and death, your living presence among us. Amen.

God's church still stands,against every evil and against every deception and every dark power. And on the Word, we will stand, now and forever. Amen.
A testimony from my missionary friend Rob about confronting witchcraft:
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 2 Tim 1:7
I can remember back in 2004 I was preaching in the streets of Uruguay, South America. I watched as a woman slowly made her way through the crowd and over to me and the pastor. "I need you to come and clean the evil spirits out of my house" she said to us. We agreed and we were on our way! As we were approaching the house, the woman told us that she was a witch and that she was ready for a life change. She then told us that her husband hated God and Christians, and that he would be home any moment. She let us know that if he caught us in their house, he would kill us. 'Well then we better get started!' I said nervously. She began to show us around her house and show us all of the things she would use in her spells and incantations. I figured it would be best to follow the book of acts model, and I asked her if she was ready to know Jesus right then. She responded that she was, and then I proceeded to say 'we need to burn all of it'” She agreed, and before we knew it we had a great bonfire going on her backyard. She gladly received Jesus, renounced all of the witchcraft - and that was when her husband came home. He glared at us menacingly, face beet red and fists clenched. As he tried to attack me, he couldn’t. An invisible force literally held him back, and he fled to his bedroom and slammed the door. That is the power of our God friends; His Son Jesus is the true Mystic Secret of heaven!"

Adventures in RCIA - Deliverance Ministry in the Catholic Church pt. 1

Deliverance ministry was a huge thing for my family when I was growing up and has been important in my life in many ways. Thus, when I felt led to become Catholic, the first thing I started researching was deliverance ministry and exorcism. There is no information on this offered on our RCIA classes, so I have been investigating on my own. I can't help comparing things to what I knew growing up. Since most of this blog series is about ecumenism, I feel I should include those thoughts here as well, so I did.

In "An Exorcist Tells His Story," Fr Gabriel Amorth, a Vatican exorcist, mentioned several things that struck me.

His opening chapter was "The Centrality of Christ." He said before beginning any discussion on how to handle demon power it was important. The deliverance ministers from Protestant Communities that I know would find this a positive and promising way to introduce the topic. It is the center of everything we do as deliverance ministers.

He quotes Mark 16:17 "These signs shall follow them that believe, in my name, they shall cast out demons." Fr. Amorth states that this power is still alive and active and acknowledges that it was given to all those who believe in Jesus. This is what I was taught in Protestantism, too. Fr. Amorth calls this "Prayers of Deliverance."

He places the Exorcisms, rites performed by designated Vatican exorcists, in a different category. It is something the Catholic Church specifically wrote out as a sacramental and it has a specific ritual. This can only be performed by priests, and even then only by those specifically appointed for the job by their Bishops. The written ritual for exorcisms is described as fairly short, a series of required and some merely suggested prayers and some general guidelines. It involves holy water, anointing oil and sanctified salt.

He warned that there were many people, going around claiming to be exorcists and claiming to perform Exorcisms when they do not do so. He said that, at best they offer prayers of deliverance, at worst they go completely outside of Christian practices, practicing witchcraft instead! I can believe this. In protestant communities, there are sometimes similar problems with people doing unscriptural things that could cross the line into witchcraft.

He said most of the books on demon power and how Christians should deal with it were written by protestants, and that a lot of them are good. He said there was a desperate need throughout Christianity for more education and teaching on this topic. I and every Protestant deliverance minister I have ever had any exposure to completely agree with that. He said the Catholic community was hurting the most for more information on the topic, and that this applies to the Bishops and the priesthood, not just among the laity. Most protestant ministers have little or no knowledge how to handle the demonic either, so who is in the worst shape is debatable, though not worth debating.

Fr. Amorth did say that Protestant deliverance ministries, and similar ministries among the laity in the Catholic church are, indeed Christian and effective. He grieved that Catholics had to go to Protestants, who at least could usually help them, or resorted to witch doctors, who ultimately made them worse, because no help was offered by their local Church pastors who were actually responsible for the job. He said never to go to witch doctors or mediums or such for help, but there was no problem with Protestants and Charismatic (a.k.a. "Renewal") lay Catholics, the latter of whom he says usually learn from protestant teaching materials anyway.

Fr. Amorth has witnessed, as have I, that many Protestant deliverance ministries have very powerful effects. Personally, I have also seen very poor examples of deliverance practice, along with the very good and fruitful deliverance ministries in the various Protestant Communities I have been in. The signs of what I would label a very bad deliverance ministry are as follows:

* Ordering the demon to manifest (e.g. to speak, to shake the person, to do something blatantly supernatural and/or frightening/evil to make it really obvious that it is there)

 * Trying to get the demon to tell them its name, or to receive communication from the demon about anything. (Jesus only did that once, just as he only spit on the ground and made mud to put on a blind man's eyes for healing once. It was not typical of his deliverance practices).

* Trying to get people to throw up, as if they need to puke disincarnate, non-physical entities physically out of their mouth like an offending piece of food. THAT is ridiculous, unscriptural, and revolting.

* Thinking that (almost) everybody has a demon and needs it cast out.

* That use terms like "submit to deliverance" or telling you to "submit" to whatever they are calling the specific practice they think gets rid of a demon - especially if you must submit the the authority/leadership of their pastor or someone he appoints thereafter, lest it should return otherwise. Run from that, fast.

* Teachings that involve creating fear (e.g. of sleeping or of having anesthesia for surgery, lest a demon might possess one while in that unvigilant state; or a fear of being touched by or near people from other cultures or who look different or do not believe in God, lest one might catch demons from them like catching colds or the flu; or etc.).

* Associating demonic activity with anything outwardly different about a person - different language or culture, different style of dress, handicap, scaring or deformity, or etc. That is not discernment, that is prejudice.

The first two of these do, unfortunately, occur in Fr. Amorth's and the theologian Malachi Martin, author of Hostage to the Devil, descriptions of Catholic Exorcisms. However, I infer that the ritual does not require communication with demons because Fr. Amorth's says that his late mentor, Fr. Candido Amantini, often did not communicate with the demons at all; this had happened gradually, with much experience and time in prayer. Martins' book says that exorcists have a lot of individual control over how they conduct an exorcism. Fr. Amorth discourages people doing prayers of deliverance (exercising their power as believers according to Mark 16:17) from communicating at all with the demons, as it is dangerous in numerous ways. This is the practice most powerful deliverance ministries I have ever known use "Have no fellowship or communication with demons." Period.

Malachi Martins' book says that Vatican exorcists, and their priestly or lay assistants, suffer enormous torments during Exorcisms. They must be prepared to suffer horrendous verbal abuse, supernatural emotional/mental torment, have their darkest secrets screeched out for all to hear, or their fondest memories mocked and attacked in singularly impactful ways, etc. They must prepare the room where it is to be done, and remove most anything in it and sometimes board the windows, as objects can go flying. Martin's informants, all Vatican exorcists, report that they are sometimes hurt by things flying at them ore attacked physically, and this is part of what they must endure in their position, so they just submit to it. So does anyone who assists them. Martin's informants said Exorcisms take several hours at the very least, and can take days, weeks or sometimes years. The effective deliverance ministries I brought up with, including what was classified by Protestants as exorcisms, never take that long. If it is taking that long, then something is wrong and your supposed to stop. Demons are not permitted to speak or do harm.

In Protestantism, people say "possession" whether the demon/demons possess an inanimate object, an animal, or a human. Catholics call it "infested" except in human cases. Fr. Amorth reported that when dealing with a house that is infested with demons because witchcraft was practiced in it, then he has often had to recommend that the residents just move out of it instead.

Official Exorcisms are supposed to be for extreme cases only. He included, at the back of the book, several prayers of deliverance, which I have copied and will probably copy down in the next blog on this subject.

I appreciate the work of Fr. Amorth's mentor, and the testimonies of people who indeed were eventually delivered completely through both these men's ministries. However, I think that if I discerned some need for deliverance ministry, I expect that what the Catholic church calls "prayers of deliverance" would work fine. The deliverance ministry I was brought up in had no testimonies of failure, no communication with devils, and no need to batten down the hatches. A max of 3 days fasting and major prayer was the most that would be needed, and that would be if you dealing with a demon prince such as those mentioned in Ephesians 6:12. 

Since it is sanctioned by experts at the Vatican, and need for this is asserted to be so great, here is a bit from my parents deliverance class from when I was a baby. Notice how brief of time it takes, how safe it is, and that no communication with the devil is ever used. Jesus' words when casting out demons were normally along the lines of "Shut up, and go." That's pretty much what you will be learning to say here. "In the name of Jesus shut up and go."

Godspeed.

~M. S.

Adventures in RCIA - Purgatory, Hell, and the Afterlife

I walked into RCIA tonight not believing in purgatory.
I thought that purgatory was a place where SAVED people burned like hellfire until all their sins got burned away.
THAT is a blasphemous idea.
What I was taught tonight about it does not resemble what Protestants taught me that it was - big surprise huh? I guess not really...

I went in thinking that it was only based on a passage from Maccabees. It's not. They have a different interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:15.

I need to ask Fr. John about it, as several interpretations of what purgatory was were offered. One of them is that is takes only a split second. That when you die, you see the truth and God and all the things in your self and your choices that were not right, and it it painful but it tears that old fleshly part away in a split second, and that split second is purgatory. The nun who teaches theology I think, is the one who put that forth.
The general idea I was taught tonight was that it is a cleansing of anything in your life or person that you did not fully give to God, that you kept back and did not allow God into. There are variations and debated questions about how exactly it works. Is it really some kind of fire, or is that a metaphor?
Does it hurt, like Protestants teach that Hell hurts?

Speaking of which, they discussed Hell tonight too, and it is not that they do not believe in it, but their beliefs are a bit different. They believe that Jesus was saying that it is definitely NOT something you want, and it pertains to being destroyed, and it is something terrible and shameful and rotten and undesirable. They are not sure that it is an endless burning, like burning to death but never passing out or dying for all eternity like I was taught. One guy said he read something about hell being in the same place as heaven,but you do not see where you are or know it or perceive it, you are separated and cut off from it in sensing something completely different. I can see how one could be horrified by that and call it hell, but I don't think I buy into that. He had no support form it other than somebody just dreaming it up and thinking it sucked really bad.
I asked my friend who was raised Catholic for part of his life and is currently becoming Orthodox what the Orthodox church says about Purgatory. They do not have that.
He said it was determined that purgatory was a papal invention to get money out of the grieving.
I told him it does not cost anything.
He said when he was a teenager, his grandma died. She was extremely saintly lady and loved God with all she was, but the priest came over to his dad's house and asked how much money they thought they could raise to get her soul out of purgatory.
I told him what I learned tonight, and he said "If that's what the doctrine is now, they've come along way. That must be a Vatican II amendment." He was pleased.

I hereby apologize to anybody who was extorted from in the manner of the old way of doing things that I heard about from my friend, and is offended about it.
I pray that God will continue to purify the Church of every evil practice and everything that is not pleasing to Him.

Adventures in RCIA - Healing and the Sacrement of Prayer for the Sick

We had an anointing of the sick at Saint Patrick's a while ago. I almost gave up on Catholicism that day, I was so mad.
Do I believe in anointing the sick? Absolutely. However, I do not believe that officially joining a your church first or being part of your denomination should be requirement first.

I went down at the alter call and sat in the pews reserved those wanting to receive anointing off the sick. Fr. John skipped me and refused to anoint of pray for me. He said, "We'll talk later."

I left early that day.

Later, Fr. John explained that the Sacrament of Prayer for the Sick is only for confirmed catholics. Why? Same reason as communion, nobody else believes in it. He came from a Pentecostal background, and seemed to feel that prayer for the sick was trivialized or something, when anybody could do it.
Scripture and the lives of Jesus and his Apostles sing a different tune to Catholic doctrine on this issue.

In the John 5:1-16 Jesus healed a guy who did not seem to know or care who He was.
When He was being arrested, Jesus healed one of the Temple guards who came to get Him. (Luke 22:50-52).

In John 2:23, 4:31, 7:31, we see that many people believed in Jesus because of the miracles.

In Acts 3:1-10, Peter and John were going to the temple,and healed a guy who was asking for money, not to be healed. There is no evidence that he was a disciple before this.

The Great Commission says that signs of laying hands on the sick and they recover will follow those who believe, not just leaders or elders or priests.

In the small,not well known churches and non-famous minsters I knew growing up, people got healed. My grandmother even got healed. I got healed, seriously.
None of us experienced this as a "Sacrament". I know of no one getting healed when they had that prayer and anointing event that I was refused due to not being confirmed yet.

I believe the Church is guilty of quenching the Spirit in this situation,and pray that through Pope Francis' and others' reforms, by the power of the Holy Spirit, this situation will be rectified.

In conclusion, I would like to share the powerful testimony of some protestant missionaries i have been privileged to know. Please enjoy this video prayerfully, and remember that not every culture or Christian community is as ritualed or subdued as ours, but they love God just as much, He uses them powerfully, and He would like to use all of us powerfully too.

Adventures in RCIA: The Bible

Well, I am in the process of joining the Catholic church. I am looking for the first time at these "new" books, which my protestant brothers call "The Apocrypha." The book of Sirach, which I read from in the video, was not canonized by Jews, but the earlychuch canonized it. I do not know when, and do not yet know whether the original apostles like Peter and St. Paul the Great considered it the inspired word of God or not. I doubt it. I donot think it is, though I do think parts of it are anointed and that is has some value. I just do not believe it has the divine authority of Scripture. Sirach was openly misogynistic, he did not just have a differentiating view of gender roles, he came out and said having a daguhter was a curse, not a blessing. El Shaddai spoke to Moses and said to give daughters land,justliek was customarily done with boys, and many other things that indicate a respectful and valuing attitude toward women. Lady Wisdom was not sexualized in Proverbs like she was in Sirach. This may be why the ancient Jews never considered him insired. In any case, they didn't and I don't either. Most of these were written during the time my protestant brethren call, "400 years of silence," the ideabeing that godjust shut up the wholetime and did not send any important prophets or offer any guidance. Then, I was taught, God started talking again like crazy. Well, maybe so. But we talk a lot about the early church and how the early church did tis ad that. The early church cannonized alot of this, and the oldest churches there are still use some or all of it. So, I am beginning my journey through "the Apocrypha" if indeed that is what it all is.



I will post more about this when I know more. I am excited to read about Bel and the Dragon, and Judith, and Susanna. The Song of the Three Jews is beautiful. I just do not have a clue about whether it really was sung by Daniel's three freinds when they were thrown into the furnace for being faithful to God. Their names may have been put in later, when people shoved it in with Daniel's writings, but maybe not. SOMEBODY wrote an annointed worship song, I just do not know if it was really written by who it is attributed to.

 I hope everyone has a wonderful day.
Goodnight and Godspeed.

~Mother Star