Christian traditions originating from Greek- and Syriac-speaking populations
POPULARITY
52 episodes with eastern churches
12 episodes with eastern churches
3 episodes with eastern churches
2 episodes with eastern churches
4 episodes with eastern churches
2 episodes with eastern churches
2 episodes with eastern churches
2 episodes with eastern churches
3 episodes with eastern churches
In his address to the Eastern Churches, Pope Leo XIV spoke eloquently about the traditions of Eastern spirituality and their sense of mystery, and the Eastern Churches are needed by the Universal Church. He also said the East, ever ancient and ever new, is a medicine for the West. Perhaps revisiting Latin spirituality and worship can benefit from a look to the East.
In his address to the Eastern Churches, Pope Leo XIV spoke eloquently about the traditions of Eastern spirituality and their sense of mystery, and the Eastern Churches are needed by the Universal Church. He also said the East, ever ancient and ever new, is a medicine for the West. Perhaps revisiting Latin spirituality and worship can benefit from a look to the East.
A caller named Mike from Jacksonville asks the big question: Should Catholics receive Communion on the hand or on the tongue? Here's Patrick's response... What the Church Says: -Traditionally, Communion has always been received on the tongue in the Western Church. -After Vatican II, some people started receiving on the hand as a kind of liturgical trend. At first, the Church said, “No, you shouldn’t do that.” Yet people just kept doing it, and it became so widespread that eventually, St. Pope John Paul II permitted it to avoid constant conflict. -In the Eastern Churches (e.g., Byzantine Rite, Eastern Orthodox), receiving in the hand is unthinkable. Communion is always spooned directly into the mouth, and the idea of touching the Eucharist with your hands is considered outrageous. What’s Allowed Now: -The Church officially permits receiving Communion on the hand, but the preferred method is still on the tongue. -If you choose to receive in the hand, it’s recommended to make an extra sign of reverence, like a bow or making the Sign of the Cross. -Standing is the norm in the U.S., but kneeling is also allowed if you prefer it. Why Patrick Thinks Communion on the Tongue is Better: -Hands Matter: Priests’ hands are consecrated as part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The rest of us? Not so much. So, there’s a reverence factor there. -Tradition Matters: For about 1,500 years, the standard practice was to receive on the tongue, kneeling if possible. Sure, there were some places in the early Church where Communion in the hand happened, but that was far from the norm. -Personal Conviction: Patrick admits he’s in the minority here, but he thinks the traditional way is better because it emphasizes reverence and respect for the Eucharist. The Bottom Line: Yes, you can receive Communion in the hand, but if you ask Patrick: on the tongue is better. He thinks most people just automatically receive on their hands because that's how they were raised.
We're live now with Fr. Jason Charron, Ukrainian Catholic Priest who currently serves two parishes in the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Josaphat in Parma In Today's Show What are the rules for Roman Catholics attending a service at an Eastern Rite church? What is a proto-deacon in the Eastern Rite? Are there different vestments to distinguish a deacon from a proto-deacon? How often are Eastern Catholic priests married? How hard is it for a Roman Catholic to discover the Eastern Rites? How close are the Catholics and the Orthodox to reconciling? Where is Heaven? Why does feminism have a strong grasp today? How do we best deal with it? What are the differences between being out of the state of grace and being excommunicated? How do the Eastern Churches observe Lent and how is it different? If I ate meat on a Friday during Lent, what should I do? Which Protestant baptisms does the Catholic Church consider valid? Can martyrs of other faiths go to Heaven? Does have a Pope the biggest difference between the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics? How does the Eastern Rites deal with heretics? How do the Orthodox handle heresies? How should prayer while fasting differ from prayer in everyday life? Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, and sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows!
In this episode, Stephen responds to Dr. James White's claim that the bishopric was an Eastern development that only later spread to the West. Dr. White argues that Ignatius of Antioch's letters provide evidence for this view, particularly noting that Ignatius does not explicitly mention a bishop in his letter to the Romans. Stephen critically examines this argument, exploring the historical and theological significance of Ignatius' writings, the broader context of early church governance, and whether the absence of a direct reference to a bishop in Rome necessarily supports White's conclusion. Tune in for a thoughtful and well-researched discussion on the origins of episcopal leadership in the early Church.If you'd like to donate to our ministry or be a monthly partner that receives newsletters and one on one discussions with Dr. Boyce, here's a link: https://give.tithe.ly/?formId=6381a2ee-b82f-42a7-809e-6b733cec05a7 #ChurchHistory #EarlyChurch #IgnatiusOfAntioch #Bishopric #JamesWhite #CatholicVsProtestant #ApostolicSuccession #EasternChurch #WesternChurch #ChristianTheology #BiblicalDebate #ChurchFathers #ChristianPodcast #Orthodoxy #HistoricalTheology
Full Text of ReadingsMonday of the Fourth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 323The Saint of the day is Saint BlaiseSaint Blaise's Story We know more about the devotion to Saint Blaise by Christians around the world than we know about the saint himself. His feast is observed as a holy day in some Eastern Churches. In 1222, the Council of Oxford prohibited servile labor in England on Blaise's feast day. The Germans and Slavs hold him in special honor, and for decades many United States Catholics have sought the annual Saint Blaise blessing for their throats. We know that Bishop Blaise was martyred in his episcopal city of Sebastea, Armenia, in 316. The legendary Acts of St. Blaise were written 400 years later. According to them Blaise was a good bishop, working hard to encourage the spiritual and physical health of his people. Although the Edict of Toleration (311), granting freedom of worship in the Roman Empire, was already five years old, persecution still raged in Armenia. Blaise was apparently forced to flee to the back country. There he lived as a hermit in solitude and prayer, but he made friends with the wild animals. One day a group of hunters seeking wild animals for the amphitheater stumbled upon Blaise's cave. They were first surprised and then frightened. The bishop was kneeling in prayer surrounded by patiently waiting wolves, lions and bears. The legend has it that as the hunters hauled Blaise off to prison, a mother came with her young son who had a fish bone lodged in his throat. At Blaise's command the child was able to cough up the bone. Agricolaus, governor of Cappadocia, tried to persuade Blaise to sacrifice to pagan idols. The first time Blaise refused, he was beaten. The next time he was suspended from a tree and his flesh torn with iron combs or rakes. Finally, he was beheaded. Reflection Four centuries give ample opportunity for fiction to creep in with fact. Who can be sure how accurate Blaise's biographer was? But biographical details are not essential. Blaise is seen as one more example of the power those have who give themselves entirely to Jesus. As Jesus told his apostles at the Last Supper, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). With faith we can follow the lead of the Church in asking for Blaise's protection. Saint Blaise is the Patron Saint of: Relief from Throat AilmentsEnglish Wool Combers Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
Controversies in Church History returns to its ongoing series on the Latinization of the Eastern Churches. The tenth installment deals with the trials of the Armenian Catholic Church, which faced persecution within the Ottoman Empire but also suspicion from Rome, which led to a brief schism in the 1870s. Along the way we discuss the wider context of the Ottoman Empire, Vatican I and the calamity of the Armenian Genocide during WWI. Please spread the word about the podcast if you like what you hear. Pax Christi!
In an era where congregations are shrinking and fewer people engage with faith communities, Michael Plekon's book Ministry Matters: Pastors, Their Life and Work Today (Wipf and Stock, 2024) offers a timely exploration of both the challenges and opportunities facing modern Christian ministry. Through detailed analysis, Plekon traces the factors behind congregational decline while also highlighting inspiring stories of parishes that have successfully reimagined themselves for contemporary times. Our conversation today exemplifies what contemporary theological discussions should encompass - a profound dialogue about the relevance of Christian theology in our time, acknowledging both trauma and pain, while exploring the tremendous opportunity Christianity can offer each of us. This is more than just a book discussion - it's a sustained meditation on the vocation, lives, and work of pastors in our changing times. Michael Plekon is a unique voice in contemporary religious scholarship, bridging academic theology and lived spirituality. Born in Yonkers in 1948, he has dedicated his life to exploring what holiness looks like in modern times through both scholarly work and pastoral experience. As a professor at Baruch College (1977-2017) and an ordained priest who has served in both Western and Eastern Churches, Plekon brings a rare dual perspective to religious studies. His dozen-plus books, including the award-winning "Uncommon Prayer," focus on finding the sacred in everyday life and examining how modern saints - from Dorothy Day to Thomas Merton - navigate faith in contemporary society. Plekon's work is particularly relevant today as he explores the intersection of religious identity, social justice, and community building in an increasingly diverse America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In an era where congregations are shrinking and fewer people engage with faith communities, Michael Plekon's book Ministry Matters: Pastors, Their Life and Work Today (Wipf and Stock, 2024) offers a timely exploration of both the challenges and opportunities facing modern Christian ministry. Through detailed analysis, Plekon traces the factors behind congregational decline while also highlighting inspiring stories of parishes that have successfully reimagined themselves for contemporary times. Our conversation today exemplifies what contemporary theological discussions should encompass - a profound dialogue about the relevance of Christian theology in our time, acknowledging both trauma and pain, while exploring the tremendous opportunity Christianity can offer each of us. This is more than just a book discussion - it's a sustained meditation on the vocation, lives, and work of pastors in our changing times. Michael Plekon is a unique voice in contemporary religious scholarship, bridging academic theology and lived spirituality. Born in Yonkers in 1948, he has dedicated his life to exploring what holiness looks like in modern times through both scholarly work and pastoral experience. As a professor at Baruch College (1977-2017) and an ordained priest who has served in both Western and Eastern Churches, Plekon brings a rare dual perspective to religious studies. His dozen-plus books, including the award-winning "Uncommon Prayer," focus on finding the sacred in everyday life and examining how modern saints - from Dorothy Day to Thomas Merton - navigate faith in contemporary society. Plekon's work is particularly relevant today as he explores the intersection of religious identity, social justice, and community building in an increasingly diverse America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education
In an era where congregations are shrinking and fewer people engage with faith communities, Michael Plekon's book Ministry Matters: Pastors, Their Life and Work Today (Wipf and Stock, 2024) offers a timely exploration of both the challenges and opportunities facing modern Christian ministry. Through detailed analysis, Plekon traces the factors behind congregational decline while also highlighting inspiring stories of parishes that have successfully reimagined themselves for contemporary times. Our conversation today exemplifies what contemporary theological discussions should encompass - a profound dialogue about the relevance of Christian theology in our time, acknowledging both trauma and pain, while exploring the tremendous opportunity Christianity can offer each of us. This is more than just a book discussion - it's a sustained meditation on the vocation, lives, and work of pastors in our changing times. Michael Plekon is a unique voice in contemporary religious scholarship, bridging academic theology and lived spirituality. Born in Yonkers in 1948, he has dedicated his life to exploring what holiness looks like in modern times through both scholarly work and pastoral experience. As a professor at Baruch College (1977-2017) and an ordained priest who has served in both Western and Eastern Churches, Plekon brings a rare dual perspective to religious studies. His dozen-plus books, including the award-winning "Uncommon Prayer," focus on finding the sacred in everyday life and examining how modern saints - from Dorothy Day to Thomas Merton - navigate faith in contemporary society. Plekon's work is particularly relevant today as he explores the intersection of religious identity, social justice, and community building in an increasingly diverse America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion
In an era where congregations are shrinking and fewer people engage with faith communities, Michael Plekon's book Ministry Matters: Pastors, Their Life and Work Today (Wipf and Stock, 2024) offers a timely exploration of both the challenges and opportunities facing modern Christian ministry. Through detailed analysis, Plekon traces the factors behind congregational decline while also highlighting inspiring stories of parishes that have successfully reimagined themselves for contemporary times. Our conversation today exemplifies what contemporary theological discussions should encompass - a profound dialogue about the relevance of Christian theology in our time, acknowledging both trauma and pain, while exploring the tremendous opportunity Christianity can offer each of us. This is more than just a book discussion - it's a sustained meditation on the vocation, lives, and work of pastors in our changing times. Michael Plekon is a unique voice in contemporary religious scholarship, bridging academic theology and lived spirituality. Born in Yonkers in 1948, he has dedicated his life to exploring what holiness looks like in modern times through both scholarly work and pastoral experience. As a professor at Baruch College (1977-2017) and an ordained priest who has served in both Western and Eastern Churches, Plekon brings a rare dual perspective to religious studies. His dozen-plus books, including the award-winning "Uncommon Prayer," focus on finding the sacred in everyday life and examining how modern saints - from Dorothy Day to Thomas Merton - navigate faith in contemporary society. Plekon's work is particularly relevant today as he explores the intersection of religious identity, social justice, and community building in an increasingly diverse America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In an era where congregations are shrinking and fewer people engage with faith communities, Michael Plekon's book Ministry Matters: Pastors, Their Life and Work Today (Wipf and Stock, 2024) offers a timely exploration of both the challenges and opportunities facing modern Christian ministry. Through detailed analysis, Plekon traces the factors behind congregational decline while also highlighting inspiring stories of parishes that have successfully reimagined themselves for contemporary times. Our conversation today exemplifies what contemporary theological discussions should encompass - a profound dialogue about the relevance of Christian theology in our time, acknowledging both trauma and pain, while exploring the tremendous opportunity Christianity can offer each of us. This is more than just a book discussion - it's a sustained meditation on the vocation, lives, and work of pastors in our changing times. Michael Plekon is a unique voice in contemporary religious scholarship, bridging academic theology and lived spirituality. Born in Yonkers in 1948, he has dedicated his life to exploring what holiness looks like in modern times through both scholarly work and pastoral experience. As a professor at Baruch College (1977-2017) and an ordained priest who has served in both Western and Eastern Churches, Plekon brings a rare dual perspective to religious studies. His dozen-plus books, including the award-winning "Uncommon Prayer," focus on finding the sacred in everyday life and examining how modern saints - from Dorothy Day to Thomas Merton - navigate faith in contemporary society. Plekon's work is particularly relevant today as he explores the intersection of religious identity, social justice, and community building in an increasingly diverse America. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies
The Presentation of Our Lady Today we celebrate the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple, . . . . . . a celebration with a unique and somewhat debated history in the Roman Church calendar. Following the Second Vatican Council's revisions, questions arose about whether to retain this feast. While it had modest significance in the Western tradition, it holds profound importance in the Eastern Churches, where it has been celebrated for centuries. This prominence is partly due to the dedication of a significant church in Jerusalem on November 21, the origin of this feast's date. Ultimately, the Church chose to keep the feast as a gesture of respect for the shared traditions of the global Christian community. This decision underscores the Roman Church's recognition of the deep reverence for Our Lady shared with the Eastern Orthodox and other Christian traditions. On this feast, we honor the collective devotion to Mary and the pivotal role God assigned her in His plan for salvation. The Tradition of this Presentation The tradition of the Presentation originates from the Protoevangelium of James, an early but non-canonical text written to fill gaps in scripture about Mary's life. This text, while not divinely inspired, reflects the pious curiosity of early Christians about Mary's background, including her parents, Joachim and Anne, whose names also come from this source. Historically, their names are unknown, but the Church embraces them as a way to relate to Mary's human lineage. Mary's Mission The narrative of Mary's presentation parallels Old Testament stories, such as the conception of John the Baptist. These stories emphasize miraculous births to elderly, childless parents, symbolizing God's intervention in salvation history. However, unlike earlier figures, Mary stands out as a girl with a mission surpassing that of any man in salvation history. Her life mirrors these prophetic figures but also transcends them, pointing to her unique role as the Mother of God. This feast invites us to reflect on the divine purpose in Mary's life, celebrating her as the bridge between the Old and New Testaments and as the one through whom the world would receive its Savior. Hear more about the Presentation of Our Lady in the Temple. Listen to this Meditation Conference. Listen to: The Presentation of Our Lady -------------------------------- Image: Mary, Most Holy: American Artist and Painter: Charles Bosseron Chambers: 1930s This is an amazing “portrait” of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a child. In the painting, Mary is portrayed as a girl of about five years of age. C. Bosseron Chambers (1880 – 1964) was a painter, illustrator and teacher. One publication describes Chambers as the “Norman Rockwell of Catholic art”.
In continuation of our series on the Papacy, Justin Hibbard gives a brief snapshot of some of the greatest Popes in history. What common traits did these great Popes share; how did they balance spiritual, political, and administrative leadership; and how did their papacies change the world? Subscribe to Why Catholic? wherever you get your podcasts.Check out the Why Catholic Etsy shop (all proceeds support this podcast).Become a free subscriber or a patron of Why Catholic? and get the next episode and a discount code to the Why Catholic Etsy shop in your email inbox.Follow Why Catholic on Instagram.Subscribe to Why Catholic on YouTubeSHOW NOTES:* Battle of Lepanto - painting by Andries van Eertvelt* Episode 90 - The Hypostatic Union* The Tome of Leo (449)* Episode 111 - Papal Infallibility* Canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451)* Episode 104 - The Nuclear Football* Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton* Letters of Pope St. Gregory Great* Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla* Dignitatis Humanae (1965)* Gaudium et spes (1965)* Humanae Vitae (1968)* Evangelii Nuntiandi (1975)* Video of Pope John Paul II's Election* Video Playlist of 1995 World Youth Day Mass in Manilla, Philippines* Video: 40 years ago, John Paul II's first visit to Poland that brought the collapse of communism by Rome Reports* The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis* Video: Assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II* Video: Pope John Paul II Meets His Would-Be Assassin* Code of Canon Law (1983)* Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990)* Episode 63 - Not All Catholics are Roman Catholic* Catechism of the Catholic Church* Episode 105 - The Upside Down Kingdom Get full access to Why Catholic? at whycatholic.substack.com/subscribe
This blogcast explores “St. Andrew: What We Can Learn From The "Hidden Apostle" In Evangelization" written by Danielle Schmitz and read by Meghan Abando.In this blog post, Danielle shares about the model of St. Andrew and how he brought St. Peter to Jesus. We are called to bring others to Jesus so that they can fulfill the mission God has in mind for them. As we celebrate the Feast Day of St. Andrew the Apostle, I am always reminded of the hidden nature of St. Andrew's ministry. As seen in the passage from the Gospel of St. John above, Andrew is one of the first two apostles called by Jesus. Yet, we see very little of the rest of St. Andrew's specific ministry as an apostle outside of his crucial role in bringing St. Peter, his brother, to Christ. This action taken by St. Andrew – his ‘yes' to Jesus' mission – was crucial to the conversion of the rock of our Church, and requires greater reflection to see how just like St. Andrew, we are called to a hidden, simple, and apostolic life that leads to the raising up the next leaders of the Church. Like all things in the Christian life, St. Andrew's life changed when he met Jesus and was called to follow Him. Earlier in the first chapter of John, St. Andrew leaves behind everything to follow Jesus, recognizing Him as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Similarly, we in living the Christian life have all experienced that moment when we heard Jesus calling us into relationship and adventure with Him, and responded enthusiastically to that call, leaving behind the ways of the world to follow Christ. After being called, we see that St. Andrew helped to bring other people to Christ – he didn't want to keep the good news that he had found to himself. Not only did St. Andrew want to bring his brother Peter to Jesus, but he recognized that Peter had a mission in the Church as well, and he rejoiced in what God wanted to do with the life and talents of his brother. In stepping out in the apostolic life, the first step in evangelization is to go out and share the good news with those we encounter. However, the second, and I believe more important step, is to recognize gifts in others that can help to build up the kingdom, and calling those people to use their gifts for God's will. This kind of evangelization is very hidden – no one knows the people who helped to build up the great saints of the Church – and yet this ministry is so crucial. Evangelizing and accompanying, as St. Andrew exemplifies, allows us to rejoice in God's movement in the world, and allows others to fulfill the fullness of their personal vocation. Who in your life has been given gifts that can be used to build up the kingdom on earth? Take a step of boldness and guide them towards the Lord so that their gifts can be used for the greater glory of God. With the intercession of St. Andrew, let us pray that the Lord will give us the grace to live out the last line of the Litany of Humility fully: “That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.” St. Andrew, the hidden apostle, pray for us! Author:Danielle Schmitz is a Communications Associate for the Catholic Apostolate Center, where she assists in the updating and creation of social media content for new and ongoing projects at the Center. Danielle is a student at the Catholic University of America studying Marketing and Theology. Originally from San Jose, California, Danielle is currently studying abroad in Gaming, Austria with Franciscan University of Steubenville. St. Andrew:St. Andrew was one of the Twelve Apostles and brother to St. Peter. Born in the village of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee, Andrew was one of the first disciples of Jesus. Per Christian tradition, he went on to preach the Gospel in the region that is now Greece and Turkey. He was martyred by crucifixion in Patras; it is believed that he requested that his cross be made in the shape of an X because he thought he was unworthy to be killed on the same style of cross that Jesus had died upon. Andrew is the patron saint of fishermen because of his shared profession with his brother. Pope Benedict XVI called Andrew the “Apostle of the Greek world” and called on imagery of brotherhood between Peter and Andrew and Western and Eastern Churches. Follow us:The Catholic Apostolate CenterThe Center's podcast websiteInstagramFacebookApple PodcastsSpotify Fr. Frank Donio, S.A.C. also appears on the podcast, On Mission, which is produced by the Catholic Apostolate Center and you can also listen to his weekly Sunday Gospel reflections. Follow the Center on Facebook, Instagram, X (Twitter), and YouTube to remain up-to-date on the latest Center resources.
IMAGE DESCRIPTION Oxyrhynchus Papyrus fragment with text of John 6:8-12. 3rd century. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy1596-III.jpg LINKS Words of Jesus ("All the Red Letter Scriptures"): https://www.jesusbelieverjd.com/all-the-red-letter-scriptures-of-jesus-in-the-bible-kjv/ Parallel Passages in the Gospels: https://www.bible-researcher.com/parallels.html#sect1 Miracles of Jesus reference list: https://sunnyhillschurch.com/3301/the-37-miracles-of-jesus-in-chronological-order/ Venetian folk tale of Saint Peter's mom: https://iamnotmakingthisup.net/5663/saint-peters-mom-bless-her-heart/ Judas Boo: https://pixabay.com/sound-effects/boo-6377/ Joke Rimshot: https://pixabay.com/sound-effects/rimshot-joke-funny-80325/ TRANSCRIPT Welcome to the Popeular History Podcast: History through Pope Colored Glasses. My name is Gregg and this is episode 0.21h: Sayings of the Savior Part VIII: The Last Gospel All of these aught episodes are made to let us build our Pope-colored glasses so we can use the same lenses when we look at history together. If you're lost, start at the beginning! Today we continue our Sayings of the Savior series with a look at the Gospel according to John, covering everything Jesus said there that we haven't yet discussed–yes, still leaving off things like the miracles we did in 0.20 and the parables and other sayings we did in earlier Sayings of the Savior installments--once again leaving you in suspense right before the concluding few chapters discussing Jesus' death and such, which we'll cover as we finish the remaining mysteries of the rosary in future episodes of our Catholic Worldbuilding series. Before we get into it, a quick reminder that the Gospel of John is the odd one out of the four canonical gospels, that is, the Gospels that made it into the Bible. There are other Gospels, but not others that the Catholic Church holds as part of Scripture, that is, the inspired word of God. As you likely remember very well from the other episodes unless you're starting here for some reason, and if you're starting here because you don't know where to find the others you can check out the Catholic Worldbuilding section of my website, Popeularhistory.com, in any case, as you probably do recall the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are all known as synoptic gospels, that is, Gospels that should be read together, and clearly have a close relationship, with most of all of them being found in the rest of them. Luke Is the most unique, something like 35% of its material being standalone, much of that parables, some of that is Luke's memorable infancy narrative, while the approximately 20% of Matthew that's only in Matthew is a hodgepodge including Matthew's take on Jesus' infancy, and the 3ish % of material that's unique to Mark is… well Mark is the shortest Gospel so 3% of it isn't much but even so we haven't hit the most memorable bit of that small slice of the synoptics. We'll get there, but of course not yet because like I said today is about John. And I don't mean John Mark, the guy who wrote the Gospel of Mark, which really should be called John because you know, John is his actual first name, Mark's just a second part of it, anyways, uh yes so guy named John wrote half the gospels, don't worry about it, it's fine, one's the Gospel of Mark, one's the Gospel of John. I'm sure that's not confusing anything. Anyways, ignore the fact that I haven't said much about John yet today. I needed to give the Synoptics a bit of a collective farewell before we moved on and it seemed like a bit of statistics might be just the thing to get you all ready for me to change the topic. Now, though John's Gospel (not John Mark's Gospel) isn't one of the synoptics, there are a few parallel areas I'll flag as we go, so don't think we're leaving the other Gospels behind entirely. Even if we tried, they're a big part of looking at history through Pope Colored glasses overall, which, in case you've forgotten, is the actual main plan for this podcast. Allegedly these worldbuilding episodes are just the background materials for that. Overall, John stands out as the most theologically sophisticated of the Gospels, which has generally led scholars to argue it's the last-written of the bunch, a stance that actually aligns with tradition that credits the Gospel of John to, well, John, the longest-lived of the Twelve Apostles. Scholars, of course, aren't so sure about that specific attribution, as we've mentioned here and there they often like to think of a school of multiple authors writing the texts attributed to John, not just the Gospel but his three letters and the Book of Revelation. In any event, that sophisticated theology is on full display right from the beginning of the text, and the opening verses of John, often called the Prologue, are extremely well known and influential within Christianity. Which I know is a given for pretty much every section of the Gospel texts, but I mean like even more so than the average Gospel text. As in, these verses used to be read as an epilogue to nearly every Mass, something that gave it the nickname of “The Last Gospel”. Let's take it in: JOHN 1:1-14 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” GREGG First, I'll simply note that it would have been a straightforward enough matter for me to start the podcast here, rather than back in Genesis. In fact, the basics of Christian theology, the trinity I discussed in that first episode before launching into Genesis' actual narrative, all that is more at home in a discussion of these verses than in that creation story, because here is what makes Christian history: the Incarnation. The Word made Flesh. This word and flesh and light and darkness business is also a pretty natural tie-in to the oldest wrong theology in the history of Christianity, and it's fair enough that various commentators have seen hintings at gnosticism in the text of John's gospel. In fact, some have theorized that the Gospel of John was written as a refutation of Gnosticism, but of course I'm treating this as a start-from-scratch beginner friendly kit, so it wouldn't be right of me to just keep saying “gnosticism”, “gnosticism” without spelling out what that means. Oh, and speaking of spelling, it starts with a silent “G”, check out the transcript I'm now consistently creating for the show notes in the episode description if you'd like the full spelling. Gnosticism, in a nutshell, is the idea that the physical world is evil, created by a flawed God. To the gnostics, this evil, broken world is something to be rejected, to escape from. For many of the gnostics, Jesus is the servant of the higher God, and is our ticket out of the icky yucky material, fleshy world. The knowledge of the evil of the world and how to escape from it is the secret that gives gnosticism its name, “gnosis” being Greek for “knowledge”. Gnosticism had a habit of piggybacking off Judaism and Christianity, with Gnostics basically forming secret clubs within the already generally secret Christian communities. We'll talk plenty more about Gnosticism as we go, as it was a sort of theological cancer within the Church for many years, but there's your official high-level overview. Getting back to John 1, the first verse is probably the most famous: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The notion that Jesus has been around since the beginning, as outlined in this chapter, is ultimately what cemented the victory of Catholic theology over Arianism, another wrong belief found among some Christians, aka a heresy, this one teaching that Jesus is not God Himself but is simply a creature-an important creature sure but in the end still one of God's creatures and so not as exalted as God Himself. Like gnosticism, the The Arian refrain of “there was a time when he was not” cannot be be squared with John 1, hence the fundamental importance of The Last Gospel to Nicene Christianity. And yes, we'll talk about what “Nicene” Christianity is in the future, specifically in 0.24. But we'll need to get past the first verse of John to get there. The second verse, “He was with God in the beginning” really solidifies the anti-Arian interpretation, but believe it or not I'm actually not going to repeat the rest of the prologue, because ultimately this section, while very, very, important to Christian history, isn't one of the sayings of the Savior we're focusing on in this series. So, when does Jesus show up? Well, after a focus on John the Baptist, Jesus appears in verse 36, and speaks in verse 38: JOHN 1 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” 39 “Come,” he replied, “and you will see.” GREGG This particular calling is a favorite of the tv series The Chosen, which I know I've mentioned before but am not expecting to mention again, as we're heading out of their wheelhouse, at last as far as they've gotten up to this point. But it's worth checking out if you've got the time, and let's be honest, if you're listening to this, you probably do. What's next? Andrew and Simon Peter! JOHN 1 40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ). GREGG This section allows us to introduce the split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, though first off, there's been many splits and resolutions in that relationship over the years, not just the one in 1054, and second, while there's not currently unity there's not as fundamental a split as there has been previously since the mutual excommunications were lifted sixty years ago. Oh, and we've also made some reference to the difference already, when we were talking about the differences in biblical canons back in 0.7. Anyways, that's all years in the future. For now, just know that the tie-in is that eventually St Andrew would be credited with founding the Church in what wouId become Constantinople, the chief see of Orthodoxy, while St Peter would go down as the first Bishop of Rome, the beating heart of Catholicism. Having Saint Andrew as the first-called of the two--and the first-called Apostle overall–is therefore a point of pride for Orthodoxy, and one that I daresay as I look through these pope-colored glasses is a sorely needed one given Peter's elevation on pretty much every count afterwards. Note that he's already picked up his Peter slash Rocky nickname, much earlier in John than in the other Gospels, for example in Matthew that didn't happen until Chapter 16. Before we move on, I want you to know that I tried to look into Peter and Andrew's mother, considering we featured Peter's mother-in-law already and therefore it would seem to be quite the oversight to skip his actual mother, especially since she was apparently also the mother of Saint Andrew. Plus, it happens to be Mother's day when I'm writing this. But it turns out there's surprisingly little tradition on Peter's mother. Google seems to think her name is Joanna, but she's definitely not the better-known Saint Joanna mentioned at a few points in the Gospels. In fact, she's not a saint at all, according to the one story I did find about her, from, and this is the actual name: iamnotmakingthisup.net. Which isn't exactly an authoritative source but it points to a Venetian folk tale that describes Saint Peter's mother as irredeemable to the extent that Saint Peter has no way to let her into heaven based on her deeds. Which to be clear is incorrect theology considering your deeds aren't what get you into heaven, but let's roll with it. Apparently there was a time she gave someone an onion, so she got to try to climb to heaven via a string of onion roots, an effort which failed but got her promoted to taking care of Heaven's used wine barrels, ‘cause Venice. Speaking of promotions, before Chapter 1 is out Jesus promotes two more randos to disciple status, first Philip, who He tells “Follow me”, and then Nathanael, who gets to hear “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” When Nathanael asks Jesus how He knows him, Jesus replies, “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you,” to which Nathanael replies “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” Which leads us to Jesus's reply in the last couple verses: “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” The next chapter begins with Jesus' first public miracle, the miracle of the wedding at Cana, turning water into wine to keep the party going, which we covered in our miracles roundup in 0.20. The next scene is Jesus driving the moneychangers from the Temple, another one that shows up much earlier in John than it did in the synoptics, and always a crowd pleaser. Here's John's version: JOHN 2 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” 18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.” GREGG Considering John is already talking about the resurrection in Chapter 2, I guess my running gag of treating it as a spoiler is done. In John 3, we have the first appearance of Nicodemus, a man unknown to the Synoptics but a recurring figure in John's account. If you've ever heard the phrase “born-again Christian”, you've got this colorful exchange to thank for the imagery: JOHN 3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” 3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” 4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother's womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10 “You are Israel's teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” GREGG If you're thinking, “gosh that last part sounds like crucifixion imagery”, good job reading ahead; if you're *not* thinking “gosh that last part sounds like crucifixion imagery”, perhaps It would be helpful if I reminded you that the bronze serpent Moses had lifted up in the wilderness was lifted up in a pole, and that anyone who looked at it, according to Numbers 21, was cured and saved from the “firey serpents” that were plaguing the grumbly Israelites at the time. Interestingly, at least to me, the dominant symbol of healthcare worldwide is another serpent on a pole, which more cautious scholars don't necessarily connect with Moses' bronze serpent as it's definitely a symbol of the Greek god Aesculapius so not a Hebrew slash Jewish thing directly, but still, serpents on poles associated with medicine has to be a relatively limited field. And yet, not as limited as you might think, as there is apparently a shocking amount of controversy over whether to use one serpent or two on a pole to symbolize healthcare. But let's get back to John 3, which doesn't assign any speaking lines to Jesus, though the next few verses are, like John's prologue, a reflection that's proven *quite* influential in the history of Christianity, especially John 3:16, which reads: JOHN 3 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. GREGG The next verse hammers the same sort of anti-gnostic point we saw in the prologue: JOHN 3 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. GREGG So yay world! It's not all bad. Though it is pretty bad. Let's hear the rest of John's reflection without further interruption: JOHN 3 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. GREGG The chapter finishes with a heavy emphasis on John the Baptist, during which John says “He must become greater; I must become less.” So we'll take that and run with it, keeping John as a side character and chasing the sayings of the Savior into chapter 4, another classic scene, this time it's the Samaritan woman at the well. The parenthetical thoughts you'll hear early on are part of John's account: JOHN 4 7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” 13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” 17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” 25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” GREGG We've spoken about Samaritans before, though it was during my daily show experiment, specifically in the context of Samaritans Deacon Philip baptized in Acts 8. In case you missed that, in a nutshell the Samaritans are traditionally descendents of the ten “lost” tribes left behind when Assyria invaded the Northern Kingdom of Israel, though the fact that they're generally called the “lost” tribes gives an indication of how that tradition is generally received outside the community. The mountain the Samaritan woman is referencing Is Mount Gerizim, in Samaritan tradition the holiest place on earth and the proper site of worship, never mind that Jerusalem Temple business. So, yes, there are some similarities and some differences between Samaritans and Jews. Oh, speaking of Jews, next time you're talking to a Christian antisemite, remind them that here we have Jesus saying, and I quote, “salvation is from the Jews”. Also note that the woman lied to Jesus and also had five husbands before her current non-husband partner, which is probably not something Jesus approved of. And yet, no reproach is recorded. Because you don't have to be hammering people's faults all day, every day. Of course, we did stop at an odd point, with Jesus telling the woman–who Eastern Churches know as Saint Photine and consider not only a martyr but Equal to the Apostles, a level of veneration I genuinely wasn't expecting-anyways we left with Jesus telling the future Saint Photine He is the Messiah, and then I just cut things off. Why? Well, because my bible considered that the end of the section, but of course that just begs the question still. The reason we don't see her direct reply is the Apostles show up and interrupt things. Let's continue where we left off: JOHN 4 27 Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?” GREGG Interesting the specific call out for what they didn't ask, perhaps John wants to draw attention to how Jesus was bucking normal expectations here but the disciples were used to it. Anyways, JOHN 4 28 Then, leaving her water jar, the woman went back to the town and said to the people, 29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Messiah?” 30 They came out of the town and made their way toward him. 31 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” 33 Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” 34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. 35 Don't you have a saying, ‘It's still four months until harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. 36 Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. 37 Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps' is true. 38 I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.” 39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers. 42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” GREGG One aspect of this section is it has confirmation that my Sayings of the Savior series will always be incomplete, which isn't a surprise, presumably Jesus said lots of things that weren't recorded, in fact John basically says as much towards the end of his Gospel. Perhaps he hit the Samaritans with more of his patented harvest metaphors. Whatever it was, he spent two days at it. After that, Jesus went on a healing spree with miracles I covered in 0.20, including one on the Sabbath that got him into trouble with the local Jewish leaders. Here's the aftermath of that starting in Chapter 5 Verse 16: JOHN 5 16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. GREGG Jesus has a very lengthy response to this pushback, and it's another one that helped solidify Christian theology, so brace yourselves: JOHN 5 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. 28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. 31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true. 33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light. 36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. 41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? 45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” GREGG The next chapter, chapter 6, opens with a couple extra familiar miracles- feeding the five thousand and walking on water- and then gets real. Like, really real. Like, prepping for some Eucharistic mysteries level real. And the Eucharistic theme is touched off by folks from the five thousand looking for more bread. When they pursue him across the lake, he gives them a big old talk about what Catholics are happy to identify as the Eucharist, which we'll obviously be talking more about as we go. JOHN 6 “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” 30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'” 32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” 41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven'?” GREGG It's worth noting how controversially this is landing. Let's continue: JOHN 6 43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” GREGG Controversial for sure, but Jesus certainly shows no indication of a willingness to change analogy–or clarify that he's speaking metaphorically. So believers in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist are perfectly willing to note that he must indeed be being literal here when he says this next part: JOHN 6 “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum” 60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” 66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. GREGG After letting many of his followers walk over this whole bread is flesh and you must eat it business, and given passages like this and the Last Supper it's no wonder most Christians are big on the Eucharist, anyways, after that, Jesus turns to the Twelve: JOHN 6 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) GREGG It's always nice to see Peter stepping up, and it's always fun to queue up the boos when Judas Isacriot gets a mention . In the next section, chapter seven now, we see Jesus interacting with folks in the Feast of Booths aka the Festival of Tabernacles aka Sukkot. The scene naturally starts with Jesus declaring that he will do no such thing. JOHN 7 “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. GREGG Wait, didn't I promise Jesus at the Festival? What gives? Well, read on! JOHN 7 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. 11 Now at the festival the Jewish leaders were watching for Jesus and asking, “Where is he?” 12 Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” 13 But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the leaders. 14 Not until halfway through the festival did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. 15 The Jews there were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having been taught?” 16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18 Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” 20 “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered. “Who is trying to kill you?” 21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man's whole body on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” 25 At that point some of the people of Jerusalem began to ask, “Isn't this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Messiah? 27 But we know where this man is from; when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from.” 28 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.” 30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31 Still, many in the crowd believed in him. They said, “When the Messiah comes, will he perform more signs than this man?” 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him. 33 Jesus said, “I am with you for only a short time, and then I am going to the one who sent me. 34 You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come.” 35 The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we cannot find him? Will he go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks? 36 What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,' and ‘Where I am, you cannot come'?” 37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. GREGG The rest of the chapter is devoted to describing various responses to this preaching, from believing Jesus and accepting Him as the Messiah to wanting to execute him. Here Nicodemus pops up, perhaps unsurprisingly recommending the authorities hear Jesus out. Chapter 8 starts out with something of a tense scene, with Jesus effectively being given power of life and death over a woman who had been caught in adultery–no mention of the man. This woman, like many others, is unnamed in the text. The most common tradition in my experience is to associate her with Mary Magdalene, but that seems to miss the mark on several accounts, not least that John seems to like spelling out connections like that like when we saw Nicodemus pop up again last chapter when he was not only called Nicodemus but also described as “Nicodemus who had gone to Jesus earlier”, which is pretty straightforward. Also, Mary Magdalene's reputation as a reformed prostitute–apparently first popularized by none other than Pope Gregory the Great–doesn't have much of a leg to stand on unless you confuse her with the other Mary of Martha and Mary fame. Anyways, Mary Magdalene or not–probably not–but Mary Magdalene or not, the woman's life is in Jesus' hands: JOHN 8 “3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”” GREGG First off, note the presence of a call to repentance here, because my point earlier was not that it should never happen, but that it does not have to happen every time. This is also the only time we see Jesus writing, which I honestly probably wouldn't be pointing out if it weren't for the fact that we have no idea what he wrote. Like none. You tell me if you have ideas, Popeularhistory@gmail.com. One surprising bit about this passage is that apparently most Scripture scholars argue that it's a later addition, not an original part of the Gospel of John. An early addition, mind you, but an addition nonetheless. From the whole Pope-colored glasses perspective it doesn't matter, the canon of Scripture is settled and this passage is part of it. As we've discussed before, from a Catholic perspective the human authorship is theologically irrelevant. Of course, the number one use for this passage in Catholic water-cooler circles is a mariology joke: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone”... *rock whizzes by*- mom! *drum sting* In verse 12, the scene shifts abruptly, possibly due to the later addition scenario I mentioned a minute ago. Let's pick back up without any gap, and see yet another passage of John's Gospel at pains to explain Christology, which just in case I haven't said it already is the mainstream Christian theological understanding of Christ. Anyways: JOHN 8 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” 13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” 19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” 20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come. GREGG It's interesting to see Jesus referencing court here, or at least the temple courts, because I've got to say there's no way the argument He's giving would hold up in court. I probably would be pretty skeptical myself if I were one of the Pharisees here. Then again, I definitely get the sense that He's not primarily talking for *their* benefit here. Anyways, let's continue: JOHN 8 21 Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.” 22 This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come'?” 23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” 25 “Who are you?” they asked. “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.” 27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him. 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” GREGG This is the high water mark for this group following Jesus. It goes very far downhill as we continue, and understandably as Jesus has some hard things to say. You might also detect some feelings Jesus has about His own fate: JOHN 8 33 They answered him, “We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” 34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.” 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham's children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” GREGG Only after being called children of the devil do the Pharisees turn on Jesus here. Some might argue that they were never on his side to begin with, because that's how some similar accounts play out elsewhere in the Gospels, but there's no hint of that here, in fact quite the opposite, remember partway through this section John had noted that some of the Jews were starting to believe in Him and Jesus began speaking to them in particular. This is heavy stuff. Anyways: JOHN 8 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” 49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.” 52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?” 54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. GREGG So in the end, let it never be said that Jesus was unwilling to antagonize. Chapter 9 opens with a miracle, and the entire chapter is devoted to the fallout from that miracle. It was the case of a man who had been blind since birth, and we did cover the miracle itself and its immediate aftermath in our miracles series--now that we're making sure we hit all the sayings of the Savior it's time to cover a later portion of the chapter, after the Pharisees conduct an investigation that does not go well for the healed man. We're picking up in Verse 35: JOHN 9 35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 “Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.” 37 Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.” 38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” 40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. GREGG The next chapter opens with one of the closest things John has to a parable, and it's a big one: The Good Shepherd. JOHN 10 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” GREGG The image of the Shepherd is all over Christianity. Priests are called pastors, bishops carry a shepherd's crook, and archbishops' pallia are made from the wool of lambs from Tre Fontane Abbey in Rome. Of course some overtones of the imagery predate Christ's parable, with the blood of the passover lamb marking Jewish door lentils since the Exodus. More on the Lamb of God soon. Later in the chapter, Jesus gets asked a pretty blunt question, and gives a pretty blunt answer: JOHN 10 “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one. GREGG And, like last chapter, this declaration is not well received: JOHN 10 31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”'? 35 If he called them ‘gods,' to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God's Son'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. 40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. There he stayed, 41 and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42 And in that place many believed in Jesus. GREGG All right, I need to address how I can possibly have hope for everyone when Jesus is walking around calling many of the people he interacts with children of the devil, as he did in chapter 7, and specifically not his sheep, as he does here. It's one thing to hope for universal salvation in the face of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John's been hitting different. And yet in John 12:32 we'll hear Jesus say “I will draw all people to myself”. How do we get there from here? Well, ultimately, from a Christian perspective, the same way we get anywhere: by the grace of God. Not only at a higher level–the ”draw all people to myself” business is framed as being part of the Crucifixion–but also at a more intimate and personal level. Yes, I am suggesting that calling folks children of the devil is intimate and personal. When my children mess up, I parent them by clearly pointing out what they've done that's wrong and contrasting it to what they should be doing. It's not the warmest, fuzziest part of parenting, but it's an important part of parenting. I submit to you that Jesus is doing the same here. Of course in the end you may well not agree with me. That's to be expected. As long as you're getting something out of listening to all this, and presumably you are since you're a good chunk of the way through episode whatever, carry on. Let's get back to John's narrative. “If you do not believe me, believe the works”, Jesus said, and the next section, Chapter 11, is dominated by one of Jesus' most famous works, the resurrection of Lazarus. Of course we covered that among the miracles, and the Savior is silent outside of that portion, so on to Chapter 12, the anointing at Bethany. Those of you that listened to the daily show and Cardinal Numbers will recall the use I got out of the Martha/Mary dynamic, and I'm not the only one to use this Gospel scene as a parable. Let's go ahead and take it from the top, where it clearly ties in to the resurrection from the previous chapter: JOHN 12 12 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus' honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. GREGG Judas, Judas. Get yourself together, man. And so we set the stage for one of the most badly applied sayings of the Savior, see if you can spot it: JOHN 12 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” GREGG The interpretation I'm referring to is the idea that because there will always be poor people we should do nothing to help those in poverty. Thankfully, that's straightforwardly rebutted by the beatitudes and by every parable that shows acts of compassion for the least among us as the way to love Christ. This section is, however, a reminder that the “sell the Vatican, feed the world” position is also wrong, not only economically–you'd feed the world for a day and then what–but spiritually as well. We're a physical people, the more our senses are engaged the more fully we can participate in liturgy. And yet for someone who has an allergy to incense, incense isn't going to help them worship, and for someone who has baggage associated with one style or another, they may be served more effectively by another approach. One of the most controversial things you'll hear me say is that there are multiple right answers as far as liturgy goes. Worship is made to draw people to Christ, and people are coming from different places. As long as it's within bounds according to the Church, God can and will supply what is lacking. And sorry for getting into a “what kind of Mass is best” discussion here, that's decidedly looking into the future, but this passage features prominently in such discussions, and you all know I like teasing things before they properly emerge, so yes, get hype for 0.31: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. John 12 continues with that standard sign that we're coming towards the end of Jesus' time on earth, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Jesus doesn't say anything in John's account, but it's a significant scene, so let's check out John's version: JOHN 12 12 The next day the great crowd that had come for the festival heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the king of Israel!” 14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, as it is written: 15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt.” 16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that these things had been done to him. 17 Now the crowd that was with him when he called Lazarus from the tomb and raised him from the dead continued to spread the word. 18 Many people, because they had heard that he had performed this sign, went out to meet him. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!” GREGG The most particular feature is that last bit, with the frustrated Pharisees still getting a spotlight even among the triumph. John's account is really very interested in that conflict. The next section opens with a surprisingly long message chain: JOHN 12 20 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the festival. 21 They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” GREGG Jesus is a bit less direct about predicting his death in John than He was in the synoptics, calling it his “glorification”, but it's definitely still there, with the talk of seeds dying to spread growth. You get the sense that it's not really His first choice with His own description of His troubled soul, something that parallels Luke 22:42, Jesus' prayer in the garden at Gethsemane, pretty closely. And, yet while we will discuss that scene and that prayer, we actually haven't gotten to it yet, as Luke has it as part of his overall Passion narrative, a passion narrative being something discussing Jesus' finale of life, patior being a Latin term meaning to suffer, or to endure. By my counting, and folks vary, we're not *quite* to John's passion narrative yet, but the overlap is a sign that we're really very close. Then, God the Father, apparently, speaks, in a first for John's Gospel as John skipped the voice-from-heaven part of Jesus' baptism: JOHN 12 Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. 34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard f
Full Text of ReadingsFeast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Lectionary: 638The Saint of the day is Exaltation of the Holy CrossThe Story of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Early in the fourth century, Saint Helena, mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine, went to Jerusalem in search of the holy places of Christ's life. She razed the second-century Temple of Aphrodite, which tradition held was built over the Savior's tomb, and her son built the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher on that spot. During the excavation, workers found three crosses. Legend has it that the one on which Jesus died was identified when its touch healed a dying woman. The cross immediately became an object of veneration. At a Good Friday celebration in Jerusalem toward the end of the fourth century, according to an eyewitness, the wood was taken out of its silver container and placed on a table together with the inscription Pilate ordered placed above Jesus' head: Then “all the people pass through one by one; all of them bow down, touching the cross and the inscription, first with their foreheads, then with their eyes; and, after kissing the cross, they move on.” To this day, the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross on the September anniversary of the basilica's dedication. The feast entered the Western calendar in the seventh century after Emperor Heraclius recovered the cross from the Persians, who had carried it off in 614, 15 years earlier. According to the story, the emperor intended to carry the cross back into Jerusalem himself, but was unable to move forward until he took off his imperial garb and became a barefoot pilgrim. Reflection The cross is today the universal image of Christian belief. Countless generations of artists have turned it into a thing of beauty to be carried in procession or worn as jewelry. To the eyes of the first Christians, it had no beauty. It stood outside too many city walls, decorated only with decaying corpses, as a threat to anyone who defied Rome's authority—including Christians who refused sacrifice to Roman gods. Although believers spoke of the cross as the instrument of salvation, it seldom appeared in Christian art unless disguised as an anchor or the Chi-Rho until after Constantine's edict of toleration. Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
Some recent polling suggests that the number of those who identify with no religion has hit a ceiling, and it may even be declining. At the same time, a number of high-profile cultural influencers—even some formerly hostile to the faith—have either converted to Christianity or announced that they now identify as “cultural Christians.” Moreover, religion and politics, once considered verboten to mix, now seem to find themselves deeply intertwined. How do we assess these cultural and political developments from an evangelical perspective? Is it really the case that society is becoming more receptive to Christianity? Are all these developments positive for the Church, or should we take a more cautious approach to evaluating what all this means for the future? A listener asks what he can share with non-Catholics to perhaps change their minds. 00:00 | Intro 01:32 | Bishop Barron's update on the diocesan pastoral center 02:24 | Tracing the decline of Christianity in the West 06:07 | Assessing the decline of “nones” today 09:59 | Men, women, and trends of religious disaffiliation 13:45 | Public conversions and the indispensability of Christianity in culture 18:46 | Christianity, moral principles, and the legal system 23:09 | Is there broader cultural significance for the National Eucharistic Revival? 24:26 | Hopeful signs for Christianity in conversation 27:54 | Is interest in a broad Christianity simply good? 28:59 | What we can learn from the African and Eastern Churches 30:42 | Listener question 33:00 | Join the Word on Fire Institute Links: Pew Research Data: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/24/has-the-rise-of-religious-nones-come-to-an-end-in-the-us/ Data on Women Leaving the Church: https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/young-women-are-leaving-church-in-unprecedented-numbers/ Washington Examiner: “Faith and flag: Trump allies push for deeply conservative second term” Word on Fire Institute: https://institute.wordonfire.org/ NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a Word on Fire IGNITE member! Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners . . . like you! So become a part of this mission and join IGNITE today to become a Word on Fire insider and receive some special donor gifts for your generosity.
Full Text of ReadingsSolemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Lectionary: 621,622The Saint of the day is Assumption of the Blessed Virgin MaryThe Story of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary to be a dogma of faith: “We pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.” The pope proclaimed this dogma only after a broad consultation of bishops, theologians and laity. There were few dissenting voices. What the pope solemnly declared was already a common belief in the Catholic Church. We find homilies on the Assumption going back to the sixth century. In following centuries, the Eastern Churches held steadily to the doctrine, but some authors in the West were hesitant. However by the 13th century there was universal agreement. The feast was celebrated under various names—Commemoration, Dormition, Passing, Assumption—from at least the fifth or sixth century. Today it is celebrated as a solemnity. Scripture does not give an account of Mary's assumption into heaven. Nevertheless, Revelation 12 speaks of a woman who is caught up in the battle between good and evil. Many see this woman as God's people. Since Mary best embodies the people of both Old and New Testaments, her assumption can be seen as an exemplification of the woman's victory. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. Since Mary is closely associated with all the mysteries of Jesus' life, it is not surprising that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to believe in Mary's share in his glorification. So close was she to Jesus on earth, she must be with him body and soul in heaven. Reflection In the light of the Assumption of Mary, it is easy to pray her Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) with new meaning. In her glory she proclaims the greatness of the Lord and finds joy in God her savior. God has done marvels to her and she leads others to recognize God's holiness. She is the lowly handmaid who deeply reverenced her God and has been raised to the heights. From her position of strength she will help the lowly and the poor find justice on earth, and she will challenge the rich and powerful to distrust wealth and power as a source of happiness. Learn more about the Assumption of Mary! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
We're live now with Fr. Jason Charron, Ukrainian Catholic Priest who currently serves two parishes, as well as in a bi-ritual capacity with the Diocese of Pittsburgh. In Today's Show I've heard that for some Eastern Rite parishes, when they reach around 150 families, that it's a tradition that they open a new Church, is this true? A brief overview of the Ukrainian and other Eastern Churches. Do the Eastern Churches have teachings or traditions in regard to conscientious objection? 1Is the Sacrament of Confession identical to the Western Church? Are the words of absolution the same? How do the Eastern Churches set up their calendars, particularly in regard to their saints' feast days? Do the Eastern Catholics venerate the same saints that the Orthodox Church venerates? Would the canonization of Bishop Fulton Sheen be venerated by both Eastern and Western Churches? Would you say that the typical Melkite mass is closer to a Roman Rite Novus Ordo or TLM in terms of how it is celebrated? I was baptized Melkite and my husband Maronite, he wants to attend the Melkite parish, does he need to formally "switch" for the lack of a better word? Can Father give a brief history of the Ukrainian Catholic Church since the Council of Florence? How should an Eastern Catholic person lead a Bible study with a Western Catholic group? How do the Eastern Churches view the use of tattoos, given that the Coptic Catholic Church uses them on their arms due to the persecution they are under? Do Eastern Catholics share the same belief of Marian Apparitions as the Roman Rite vs the Orthodox? Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, and sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows!
Patrick Madrid explores a crucial topic with caller Ron from Staples, Minnesota: the proper way to show reverence to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Ron's Journey: Ron, a longtime listener and first-time caller, shared his increased participation in Eucharistic adoration thanks to the Eucharistic revival. He's noticed various reactions during these ceremonies and wanted Patrick's take on how to best show reverence. Patrick's Insightful Response: Patrick emphasized that reverence for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament can't be overdone. Jesus desires to receive everything we can give, and we owe him every ounce of veneration possible. Kneeling Tradition: In the Latin rite, kneeling during the consecration has been a tradition for over 1,500 years. However, some people with physical limitations might not be able to kneel, which is understandable. Eastern Rite Practices: On the flip side, the Eastern Churches stand as a sign of respect. Both forms are valid expressions of reverence. Different Expressions: Patrick pointed out that during Eucharistic adoration, you'll see different expressions of reverence—some people kneeling, others standing, and some even lifting their hands in praise. Every person is on a different point in their faith journey. All these acts, though different, should stem from a place of love and respect for Jesus. Assume Good Faith: Because of the variety of practices post-Vatican II, Patrick encouraged us to assume good faith in others' expressions of reverence. The fact that they're present and worshiping is a testament to their love for Jesus. Liturgical Guidelines: Patrick pointed out that in the U.S., the Bishops Conference states that kneeling is the proper posture during consecration. It should be the way we give worship to Jesus in this moment at Mass. While the ways of showing reverence might vary, the important thing is that people are coming to adore Jesus and showing him respect in their way. Key Takeaway: "Assume good faith and recognize that diverse expressions of reverence all stem from a deep love for Jesus in the Holy Eucharist." Will you visit Jesus in adoration soon? He loves you and desires to spend time with you!
Fr. Michael Copenhagen is a Catholic husband, father, and a priest at St. Nicholas the Wonderworker Melkite Catholic Church in Gates, New York. He holds a Bachelors of Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome. In Today's Show How does seminary work for a Melkite Catholic priest? Can you tell us a bit about your experience? Hi Father, I've been thinking about the part of the wedding vows “Till Death do us Part” and I was wondering is there really a Traditional Catholic background to these words? Is Marriage eternal? What do you think Christ meant when He said, "there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven"? Would changing the Nicene Creed to omit the Filioque be an indication of a doctrinal change since the creed has been upheld through councils and a summary of the important articles of faith? Do some of the Eastern Churches have more than 73 books of the Bible/Canons of Scripture? What are some of the most well-known or largest Eastern Rite Catholic churches and how do they differ from one another? Are Roman Catholics allowed to take the Eucharist in a Byzantine church? And vice versa. Are Eastern churches still in union with Rome? What is the relationship like with the Pope? Can a Eastern Rite Priest become pope? How did the Second Vatican Council change the Eastern Catholic Church? Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows, and submit your question for Father!
Hello! The latest episode in our series on the Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches is now available. In this episode, we take a broad look at the policy of the papacy toward the Eastern Churches--both Catholic and Orthodox--from the reign of Pius IX to the death of Pius XII. The episode discusses how the centralization of authority in the Vatican during the 19th century affected the Eastern Catholic Churches. I argue that though such centralization likely increased the tendency toward Latinization initially, it ultimately wound up benefiting the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/churchcontroversies/message
Hello everyone! The latest installment in our series on the Latinization of the Eastern Churches is now available to all of our listeners. In it, we discuss the conflict between the Latin rite bishops of the United States in the late nineteenth century and the immigrant clergy of the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which resulted in the defection of tens of thousands of Ruthenian Catholics to Orthodoxy. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/churchcontroversies/message
Full Text of ReadingsSaturday of the Fourth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 328The Saint of the day is Saint BlaiseSaint Blaise's Story We know more about the devotion to Saint Blaise by Christians around the world than we know about the saint himself. His feast is observed as a holy day in some Eastern Churches. In 1222, the Council of Oxford prohibited servile labor in England on Blaise's feast day. The Germans and Slavs hold him in special honor, and for decades many United States Catholics have sought the annual Saint Blaise blessing for their throats. We know that Bishop Blaise was martyred in his episcopal city of Sebastea, Armenia, in 316. The legendary Acts of St. Blaise were written 400 years later. According to them Blaise was a good bishop, working hard to encourage the spiritual and physical health of his people. Although the Edict of Toleration (311), granting freedom of worship in the Roman Empire, was already five years old, persecution still raged in Armenia. Blaise was apparently forced to flee to the back country. There he lived as a hermit in solitude and prayer, but he made friends with the wild animals. One day a group of hunters seeking wild animals for the amphitheater stumbled upon Blaise's cave. They were first surprised and then frightened. The bishop was kneeling in prayer surrounded by patiently waiting wolves, lions and bears. The legend has it that as the hunters hauled Blaise off to prison, a mother came with her young son who had a fish bone lodged in his throat. At Blaise's command the child was able to cough up the bone. Agricolaus, governor of Cappadocia, tried to persuade Blaise to sacrifice to pagan idols. The first time Blaise refused, he was beaten. The next time he was suspended from a tree and his flesh torn with iron combs or rakes. Finally, he was beheaded. Reflection Four centuries give ample opportunity for fiction to creep in with fact. Who can be sure how accurate Blaise's biographer was? But biographical details are not essential. Blaise is seen as one more example of the power those have who give themselves entirely to Jesus. As Jesus told his apostles at the Last Supper, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). With faith we can follow the lead of the Church in asking for Blaise's protection. Saint Blaise is the Patron Saint of: Relief from Throat AilmentsEnglish Wool Combers Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
NOTE: Though I mentioned timestamping, I've decided to forego that for now to allow me to go ahead and get this episode out without additional delay. I may well add it in retroactively at some point but for now you'll just have to survive with the free full transcript, below. https://columbuscatholic.org/chancery https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253959/cardinal-hollerich-there-s-space-to-expand-church-teaching-on-all-male-priesthood Hello everyone, welcome back to Popeular History, a library of Catholic knowledge and insights and I'm going to be skipping the brought to you daily part because I've switched, at least for the time being, back to a model that basically can best be described as brought to you as I am able: something every month, probably. Which, I admit, doesn't roll off the tongue quite so well, but it's the right move. Anyways, it's good to be back talking with you again, I've been using the time away wisely, taking care of family and household stuff that needed my attention. Thank you for understanding. This is going to be something of a glossary of various roles within the Catholic Church that are gonna keep popping up, so consider this your cheat sheets to consult as needed. Oh and good news, I learned how to timestamp show notes, at least on some catchers, so see if it works for you. Let me know if it doesn't. See the show notes. Without further ado, let's get into these church roles, starting with church roles you may recognize from the Bible but which are no longer a thing unless you're like a Mormon or something. First, APOSTLE. The most familiar use of this term is referring to one of the 12 Apostles, Jesus' closest followers: Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, the other James, Judas (not *that* Judas), Simon, and Judas (yes *that* Judas). At least, that's the listing of the 12 as given in the book of Acts, my favorite reference point as this podcast talks about Church history and Church history actually happens in Acts, unlike the Gospels where it's pre-Pentecost so it's not really Church history yet, per se. And really, *that* Judas, Judas Iscariot, is replaced by Matthias for most purposes when you're talking about the apostles because since Judas betrayed Jesus he's a bit of an embarrassment to the group, which, fair enough. In the end, Apostle is the only one of these titles where I'm going to name the main holders individually in this episode, though of course through future episodes of the podcast I'll name all the Popes and Cardinals I have documentation of any kind for and we should also recognize that the term Apostle is used outside the Twelve as well at various points, including most prominently Saint Paul and even the almost certainly female Junia in his Letter to the Romans. The broader term for one of the earlier followers of Jesus is a DISCIPLE, and while this one does have some use in contemporary Catholicism, for example my parish has a slogan of "making disciples and disciple makers", the title of disciple as a specific identifier is something you're going to encounter in the Bible rather than in the day-to-day, where it's more of a general goal as a follower of Jesus. Meanwhile, an EVANGELIST is one who wrote one of the Gospels. Earlier I committed to the Apostles being the only one of these titles where I'd name all 12 of the main holders and I'm going to stick to that, but yeah, it's that simple. Note that this is actually more restrictive than being one of the writers of Scripture in general, for instance even though he wrote a good chunk of the New Testament, Saint Paul doesn't get described as an Evangelist. That isn't to say there isn't a bit of a tradition of using even this term someone analogously for anyone who spreads the message of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, for example the decidedly non-Catholic phenomenon of Televangelists get their name as a play on this word. Our last Bible-times Church role is that of PROPHET. Simply put, a prophet is someone inspired by the Holy Spirit to deliver a message, John the Baptist being the most famous New Testament example though especially if you look closely at the Book of Acts you can find other examples. There have been a number of folks who have made claims to be prophets in some form or another, generally the Church has frowned on such pronouncements. Officially, all new *public* revelation closed with the death of John the last Apostle around the year 100. However, the door to being a legitimate prophet is not completely closed, since *private* revelation is still possible, for example the various Marian apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima. What makes revelation considered "private" is not so much its actual privacy as its non-binding nature. All Catholics are obliged to accept public revelation, namely the Bible; no one is obliged to accept any private revelation like latter-day Prophets, though such individuals can gain the basic endorsement of the Church, which is what made Fatima, for example, so influential. That bit of a gray area bringing a Biblical role to the present is a good transition to the category of Church roles we'll talk about next, namely the basic roles in and structure of the Catholic Church today. As a periodic reminder, the default perspective and focus of this show is Catholic Christianity. I say that because there are plenty of Christian groups that follow models different than what I'll be describing here, though in broad terms what we'll be talking about is the dominant structure of Christianity and has been for centuries if not millennia. The fundamental concept to understand for this part–and really, to understand much of Catholicism–is APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Apostolic succession is the notion that the Apostles were the first BISHOPS and picked folks to succeed them in their ministry as bishops. I'm not here to convince you that that's what happened, but since this show runs with Pope-colored glasses, it's what we're rolling with. In this framework, not just anyone can have authority in the Church, only those who have this apostolic succession. You can still get wrinkles, like MYSTICS that influence the bishops, but ultimately, whether a mystic has lasting influence is going to depend on whether any bishops- that is anyone who has apostolic succession- listens to her. And I say her because such mystics are typically female. And actually, I wasn't planning on covering mystics in this overview, but I guess I really should give them their own timestamp in the summary here since I've gone off on a tangent. I talked about them earlier in the context of modern day prophets. Basically, a mystic is someone who has some sort of special connection to revelation, whether God or the Blessed Virgin Mary or whoever. But anyways, back to bishops, because while stuff like mystics are fun, the majority of church admin is done in much more mundane fashion by the regular clergy like the Bishops. Catholic Bishops are always male, because in Catholicism ordination is what makes someone a bishop, and Catholic teaching holds that women cannot be ordained. Another particularity of ordination is that someone who is ordained can't get married, though put a pin in that because it's going to get more complicated when we talk about priests and especially deacons. Only bishops can carry out ordinations, and it involves physical touch so they cannot be done remotely. To minimize concerns about who has apostolic succession and who does not, for many years the standard has been that at least three bishops should participate in the ordination of a bishop, though this is not strictly speaking a requirement. With all of this apostolic succession and ordination business, the Catholic world is divided in two: the CLERGY, that is, those who are ordained, and the LAITY, that is, those who are not ordained. There's also sort of a third category but shush I'm keeping it simple and don't worry we'll get into that before we're done today. LAY, the shortened form of Laity, can also be used as an adjective in Church terminology, for instance in the phrase LAY EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS, or LAY CARDINALS, in both cases emphasizing that the individual being described is not as ordained as one might expect. Meanwhile, CLERG is not a word, pleaae don't try to make it a thing. Anyways, once ordained, bishops are typically assigned a specific geographic area called a DIOCESE. Their main base of operations will tend to be in what's called a CATHEDRAL that's generally in the most prominent city in that diocese, and the Diocese is generally named after the city, for instance my home diocese of Columbus is named after the city of Columbus in Ohio. In some ways bishops are equals, for instance all bishops can ordain successors. But in other ways they aren't, for instance Catholicism is somewhat famously centered around the Bishop of Rome, aka the POPE, who is prominent because the Diocese of Rome was where Saint Peter, the foremost disciple, settled down, never mind that by all accounts he also ran the Church in Antioch for a while. Collectively, all the Catholic Bishops in the world are called the COLLEGE OF BISHOPS, and according to the very handy and highly recommended Gcatholic.org there are well over 5000 such Catholic bishops alive today. Of course, there are also a good number of bishops who aren't Catholic, meaning they aren't in communion with the Pope, especially the Eastern Orthodox. And forgive me if I explain being in communion as like the Church version of being facebook friends. It's obviously more solemn than that, but basically yes, it's a mutual public acknowledgement that you're on good terms with someone else. Bishops who aren't in communion with Rome are still bishops- meaning they still have apostolic succession and can still create their own successors, which has lead to a fair amount of drama, historically. When I mentioned not all bishops are created equally, I wasn't just talking about the Pope. There are several different kinds of bishops to consider, so let's hit the highlights. In addition to a regular bishop who heads a diocese, there's a higher level bishop called an ARCHBISHOP who runs what's called an ARCHDIOCESE or you might see the term PROVINCE. Technically I believe a province is the combination of an Archdiocese and any regular diocese that are under its jurisdiction, which are called SUFFRAGAN diocese in that context while the Archdiocese is called the METROPOLITAN, which is also a shorthand way of referring to the archbishop in that arrangement, or you might more fully call him the METROPOLITAN ARCHBISHOP. To return to my home diocese as an example, the Metropolitan for the Diocese of Columbus is the Archbishop of Cincinnati. Not every Archbishop is a Metropolitan Archbishop, because not every Archdiocese has a suffragan diocese. You can also find cases where a person is personally made an Archbishop but is not put in charge of an Archdiocese, those cases are called "PRO HAC VICE", which is basically Latin for "for this occasion”, meaning while the person is being made an archbishop their diocese is not being made an archdiocese. There are weirder scenarios that can pop up as well, but I'm trying to focus on the highlights to keep this manageable and will point out the more unusual stuff when and if it pops up. In terms of territory, the next step above a province would typically be a REGION, which is generally just an administrative subdivision of a national bishops' Conference. Columbus is in a region with all the dioceses–it's hard to pluralize that–in Ohio and Michigan, called Region VI. This particular layer of admin is completely unremarkable and has no special titles or roles associated with it. At the top of the national level there's generally what's called a BISHOP'S CONFERENCE, an organization made up of the bishops and perhaps their equivalents across a given nation. Depending on the scale of things you might also see bishop's conferences that cover multiple countries or I think I've even seen some sub-national bishops' conferences here and there, it just depends on what makes sense given the geopolitics and the nature of the Catholic Community. Though there isn't a special churchy title for the leadership of a Bishops' Conference- they're just called President or whatever- I will tend to note when someone I'm going over holds a leadership post here since it's at the national level. Getting back to church titles rather than standard admin structure, it's worth noting that, in a nutshell, the older a diocese is the more prestige and gravitas it has. Historically, the oldest diocese in a given country had special importance and was something a bit above a regular archdiocese called a PRIMATIAL SEE held by a PRIMATE- not the monkey though sure joke away– oh and see by the way is just another word for a diocese, that's S-E-E. It's specifically referring to the bishop's "seat", which is the same concept that makes the head church of a Diocese called a Cathedral, cathedra being a Latin word for Chair. And yeah, it's a bit weird to have so much focus on what someone is sitting on but keep in mind thrones for kings kind of fill the same concept, it's basically the idea that it's the office that has its own importance that accumulates with each officeholder. Some diocese are dignified at an even higher level and are called Patriarchates, with bishops of those diocese being called Patriarchs. Historically the core group of patriarchates was Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Others have been added through the years, notably Moscow in the East. Generally Patriarchates are more associated with Eastern Orthodoxy since the highest ranking churchmen there are the Patriarchs, though the Popes would also flaunt their Papal powers over the church generally by setting up some new Western Patriarchates as well, like Lisbon and Venice. I'll definitely be spending a lot of time talking about all the various patriarchates in the main narrative, so stay tuned. Recently a new role has been developed, and of course I mean recently in church terms so, you know, in living memory, and that's the role of what's termed a "MAJOR ARCHBISHOP", just half a hair down from a Patriarch in dignity, and of course overseeing a "MAJOR ARCHBISHOPRIC". Check out my episode on Sviatoslav Shevchuk for more on that, basically the Vatican wanted to grant the Ukranians higher honor but could not fully commit to a new Patriarchate because of pressure from Moscow, so the position was developed as a compromise. There are now a total of four Major Archbishops, all Eastern Catholics. To explain very briefly, now that I'm mentioning Eastern Catholics, the Catholic Church is actually made up of a total of 24 sui iuris- that is, "self governing" Churches, called Particular churches. The one you're probably most familiar with is the biggest, what's called the Latin Church, but the other 23 are equally important at least in theory even though in practice they often get sidelined or overlooked. A single city may have multiple bishops because of these different rites, and also because of non-Catholic bishops, for example there are currently five people claiming the role of Patriarch of Antioch, three Catholic bishops from different sui iuris particular churches in union with Rome, and two Orthodox bishops not in union with Rome. None of these Patriarchs of Antioch are based in Antioch, modern Antakya. It's complicated. Collectively members of these non-Latin Sui Iuris churches are called Eastern Catholics and In most cases these are the results of various splits and reunions throughout Church history, resulting in a variety of local traditions maintained because 1 tradition is beautiful and 2 union with the Pope is more important to the Pope then making everyone do exactly the same thing, though there have certainly been pushes for that, and I hope that somewhat tongue-in-cheek brief overview isn't too insulting but long story short the variety resulting from these different traditions could easily double the length of this episode, but given the main purpose of this was to allow Cardinal-Watchers to follow Cardinal Numbers without getting too lost I'm going to let the Latin rite examples I've given form the core and I'll explain Eastern titles- such as calling most bishops EPARCHS and most Dioceses EPARCHIES- as they appear in individual episodes. Now, believe it or not, there's still a few more bishop-tier titles to go. First, a TITULAR BISHOP is a bishop who has been assigned a non-functional diocese, which sounds like a bit of a raw deal- and to be clear, it is- but it generally allows them to focus on other stuff they need to be doing while officially giving them the status and dignity of being a bishop. There are also titular archbishops and even titular patriarchs, basically the next few terms function as adjectives. Another modifier you might see before someone's bishop title is "Auxiliary". An AUXILIARY BISHOP is a bishop who assists in the administration of a see- typically an archdiocese or a patriarchate- while being titular bishop of another see. This keeps one person as the overall pastor but allows for easing the burden when there's a lot of bishopping to be done. There's another kind of bishop called a COADJUTOR. As the co- part might suggest, a coadjutor bishop acts alongside the regular bishop. Generally speaking a coadjutorship is a short term arrangement, designed to ease the transition when the regular bishop retires, with the coadjutor having automatic succession. Unlike Auxiliary bishops, coadjutor bishops are not typically given a separate titular see reflecting this even closer association with the diocese. Normally the goal is one bishop per diocese and one diocese per bishop, coadjustorships are treated as an exception to that ideal for the sake of smooth transition. Another adjective you'll see applied to someone's title as bishop is emeritus, and this one I think is more familiar to folks. A BISHOP EMERITUS is the former bishop of a diocese. In modern practice most Bishops are required to submit their resignation to the Pope once they turn 75, so that's the typical retirement age, but early retirements due to health reasons or air quotes "health reasons" are not unheard of, and sometimes folks are left in their posts for a bit longer. When a diocese has no serving bishop, that period is called a SEDE VACANTE, or "vacant seat". Most folks hear that in connection with the Pope, though the term can be used for all diocese, not just Rome. If the vacancy is a longer one, you'll often see what's called an APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATOR appointed for the interim, someone to keep things running who may or may not already be a bishop of another diocese, often the metropolitan. Finally, there's a broader term that includes but is not limited to bishops that I've been studiously avoiding: an ORDINARY. Most often the ordinary is a bishop, but there are some special jurisdictions outside the normal diocesan structure that are served by a non-episcopal-AKA non-bishop- ordinary. Such jurisdictions are called ORDINARIATES. And yeah, don't let the wording fool you, ordinariates headed by an ordinary are not, you know, the ordinary arrangement, those are for special circumstances. The most common type of ordinariate is a MILITARY ORDINARIATE. Given the special needs of armed forces and the families serving in them, many nations have a specific ordinariate dedicated to military families. There is also something called a PERSONAL ORDINARIATE, which in modern times is best understood as a bridge between Anglicanism and Catholicism, something Anglican leaders aren't particularly thrilled about but that didn't stop Pope Benedict XVI from setting up the structure a few years back. This is also as good a time as any to note that a CHAPLIN is like the priest-level edition of an ordinary, in the sense that they're dedicated to a specific group of people that isn't a geographic thing, and also in the sense that it's often something you'll see in a military or other institutional context, and *also* in the sense that a chaplain might not actually be a priest even though they carry out many similar functions, much like an ordinary may not actually be a bishop. Alright, next up, let's start looking at what's going on within a typical diocese, especially at Mass, that most Catholic of ceremonies. As you might have guessed, we're going to be talking a fair bit about PRIESTS today, so let's dive in there. Priests, like bishops, receive Holy Orders through ordination. They effectively function as a stand-in for the bishop, serving as his delegates in the local churches called PARISHES. They have apostolic succession only in a secondary sense- their holy orders are valid because of their bishop's valid apostolic succession, and they cannot ordain successors themselves. Unless of course they also happen to be a bishop, which, yes, Mr Offscreen Pedant, bishops are also priests, but I'm speaking specifically about priests who are not also bishops. All bishops are priests and deacons to boot, holy orders is a three-part deal that stacks up like that. Of course, not all deacons are priests, and not all priests are bishops. It's a squares and rectangles kind of thing. The primary function of a priest is to administer sacraments, especially saying Mass and hearing confessions. I actually have my sacraments series done for the Solemn High Pod, so check out the three part Popeular History episode 0.20 if you want to know more about Mass and the sacraments. If 0.23 and dare I hope 0.31 are done by the time you're listening to this you can check out those as well for more on the Mass. Like Bishops, priests are generally expected to practice clerical celibacy, especially in the Latin church but also in the East in the sense that they cannot get married after ordination. So if they want to join the ranks of the married clergy, they better already have the married part done before they do the clergy part. A priest is the most essential person when it comes to Mass, because priests are the ones who either celebrate or say Mass–either of those verbs will work, by the way, and I'm not actually aware of a difference in meaning. Anyways, this is brought home by the fact that priests can literally say Mass by themselves, with no one else present. And I don't want to go too far into theology in this org chart overview, but I really should note that ultimately, on a theological level, it's not so much the priests themselves saying Mass or hearing confessions, rather it's Christ acting through them. What about deacons? Well, first off, there are two kinds of deacons in current practice: TRANSITIONAL DEACONS and PERMANENT DEACONS. The transitional deaconate is a step towards priesthood, and typically lasts a year. It's the first rung of Holy Orders, the first ordination the future priest will receive. In the case of permanent deacons, rather than a stepping stone the diaconate is its own vocation, with the recruiting focus being on men ages 35-55 or so depending on the diocese. Even in the west married permanent deacons are normal, though still with the same caveat that I mentioned for eastern priests earlier: once you're ordained no more new marriages for you. Deacons have an assisting role at Mass and administering other rites and sacraments but historically their main role has been more in the realm of what's called works of mercy, aka helping the poor, as that was the original idea behind setting up the diaconate as outlined in the biblical Book of Acts. It was only in recent times–recent times in the scale of Catholicism of course meaning in you know, living memory, it's a big timeline–anyways it was only in recent times that the permanent diaconate was revived after a millenium of suppression. Technically, to be sure, there were some deacons in the middle ages–Pope Gregory VII gained his reputation as Deacon Hildebrand- but outside of the Papal court, where titles tend to carry on regardless, DROPDROP they were scarcely more than a step to the priesthood, DROPDROP that transitional model I mentioned earlier. Before that decline, deacons were actually generally more impactful than priests, often serving as the bishop's right hand, especially in the form of ARCHDEACONS. This model is still largely present in the Eastern Churches, especially if you recall that Arkdiyakon role I mentioned in the context of the Thomas Christians I mentioned last month. Finally, I should note that there is strong historical evidence for a female diaconate in the early Church, for example in Romans 16 Saint Paul refers to a certain Phoebe as a deaconess, and unlike in the historical argument over female priests and bishops, the Church accepts a form of female diaconate as a historical reality. However, it is argued that women deacons were not ordained, that their role was fundamentally different from that of male deacons. Whether to revive an unordained form of female diaconate is an active topic of discussion in Rome. Of course, we're well into the weeds now. Things have changed. But before we make our way back to the modern Church, let's take a quick look at how Holy Orders worked prior to the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. Before Vatican II, Holy Orders didn't start with the diaconate, the priesthood was actually the culmination of a seven-step process that began with what's called the minor orders. The lowest rung of this ladder was the PORTER, being basically the church doorman. After that, the LECTOR, in charge of some of the Bible reading at Mass, and a role which largely survived the council but was taken out of the context of a step on the path to priesthood, to the extent that even shock of shocks women can be Lectors. Next up was the ever crowd-pleasing role of EXORCIST, one trained to cast out demons, and perhaps surprisingly that's another role that's still with us, now taking the form of a special category of priests. As I understand it, to this day each Diocese has at least one exorcist, though their identities are typically kept secret because, ya know, kooks who won't stop bugging him because, I mean, real-life-exorcist. Cool. Finally, up at the top of the minor orders there was the role of ACOLYTE. Think alter server but one of the more active ones, not just a candle-holder. And yes, a role that was once higher than an exorcist is now generally occupied by a middle schooler. Right above the minor orders was the first rank that required ordination- no, not the deacon, the SUB-DEACON. Like all the other minor orders suppressed in the West, this role has been preserved in the East. Take this how you will, but the East has tended to more scrupulously preserve tradition than the Latin Church. It probably helps that they have no one with sufficient authority to come close to mucking around with tradition. I honestly don't think we'll be talking about sub-deacons much, but just know they're, well, right below a standard-issue deacon in the medieval pecking order, as you might have guessed, assisting at mass in similar but different roles. This office went away in the West with the abolition of the minor orders in Vatican II. After the sub-deacon the medieval and early modern seven stages of Holy Orders culminated with the familiar roles of Deacon- full on deacon this time- and then priest. Note that Bishop was not really considered a part of this progression in this model. Now, let's take a moment to chat through a couple other church roles largely or totally left to history while we're in the neighborhood. First, who can forget the fact that there's a whole Canterbury tale dedicated to the PARDONER. This wasn't someone who specialized in hearing confessions and absolving sins as you might expect after that episode we did on the newly elevated Cardinal Dri, the elderly Argintinian Capuchin with that focus. Instead, the focus of the Pardoner was on selling indulgences, those get-out-of-Purgatory-free cards that brought enough scandal to destroy the unity of western Christendom. And yes, I'm kind of acting like you already know about the Protestant Reformation in the same episode where I explain at a basic level what a priest is. Anyways, speaking of Protestants–or quasi-Protestants, or whatever you want to call them, perhaps just Anglicans– speaking of Anglicans, in many ways they're an even better time capsule for preserving some things lost to modern Catholicism than the East. Obviously not in all stripes of Anglicanism, as that wide tent contains a lot of innovations, but, well, on the traditionalist Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum you can still find things like CANONS and PREBENDS. Canons with one N of course, the church kind, though of course the martial Pope Julius II was fond of two-N cannons as well. Anyways, even ruling out the military cannons I need to specify, as there are not one not two but three distinct meanings of a one-N canon in medieval Catholicism and actually in contemporary Catholicism as well, though the role of canon- by definition our focus on this episode on roles in the Catholic Church- the role is much less common than it once was. But first, the most common meaning of the term Canon in contemporary Catholicism is in the context of Canon law, because that's the term for way the Church governs itself and specific sections of the overall governing document are called canons. Similarly, church councils, that is, gatherings of church leaders, also tend to produce canons, especially the great ecumenical–that is, universal–councils of old that we'll start discussing when we get to the fourth century. So for example someone might cite the first canon of the Council of Nicea, where the Church of old ruled on the pressing question of how being castrated would or would not impact one's ability to serve as a priest. There's also something called the Canon of the Mass, and really the root word helps to understand the meaning of both this and the law slash council thing, because a canon in Latin is something like a fixed measuring stick. The fixed part of Mass is the section of prayers that are always the same, or at least that were always the same until our old friend Vatican II made other options available (again, as I understand it). Nowadays the Canon of the Mass, also called the Roman Canon, is additionally referred to as Eucharistic Prayer 1, implying the existence of Eucharistic Prayer 2, which isn't just a theoretical thing but a real life shorter form that liturgical traditionalists like myself tend to hate. There's also Eucharistic Prayers 3 and 4, which are less egregious, but still, stick with Eucharistic Prayer 1, aka the Roman Canon, if you would be so kind. The third kind of Canon is, at last, the role, and interestingly the etymology here is the same root as the others, giving the sense of something standardized or fixed in place. In this case, the standardization is because the "Canons" of a cathedral or other significant church were a group of priests who had decided to live communally and establish their spiritual and physical lives around a set of rules, you know, standardizing them. Canonizing their lives, if you will. They were basically members of a religious order, though not one centrally governed. Oh, and I suppose I should also note that the term canonization fits into this overall picture in a similar way: it's called canonization because what canonization does is standardize the cult of a particular saint across the universal church. Oh and stop saying cult like it's a bad thing, in this case that's just the word used. It's not a wink and a nod to kool-aid. Also, a canon in the sense of a cathedral canon or other role in a religious order is different from a canon*ist* or a canon lawyer, which is one who studies and explains or practices Church law, respectively. Clear as mud? Fair. Oh, and the PREBEND I mentioned, well, that's basically just a fancier kind of Cathedral canon. Let's move on though. The last historical Church role I want to talk about today is the KING. Or the EMPEROR. Or, you know, whoever the relevant feudal LORD would be. Because such secular leaders were nevertheless seen as having a critical role within the Church, with the civil government and the Church not then tending to have the separation we're used to these days. Really, nobility in general was a big deal for the church until the last century or so. Ok, so we've talked about the various forms of bishops and their territories, and about who you might see at Mass. What about those between? Well, one of the most important functions in Church organization is training up the next generation of leadership, and that training of new priests tends to take place at special institutes called SEMINARIES. You can basically think of seminaries as universities for future priests, and there's also a junior league of sorts for younger students that's basically a kind of boarding school called a MINOR SEMINARY. Those who study at seminaries are called SEMINARIANS, and those who teach there are nowadays generally titled PROFESSORS having the same basic sense as in the secular world but with Catholicism baked in. Kind of like this show verses a generic non-Popeular podcast. The head of a seminary is generally called a RECTOR, though I'm sure there's some variety in that. As you may know depending on what's common in your neck of the woods, rector can also have the same basic sense in secular institutes of higher learning as well, which makes sense when you take a look at the root word there: basically, "ruler". Etymology is our friend here, there, and everywhere. Outside of seminary education, there's also the topic of the general administrative structure of a given diocese. Obviously the bishop is on top, and as you probably already guessed the priests of the diocese typically have admin roles in addition to saying Mass. As an American Catholic, I'm mostly used to hearing the term PASTOR for a priest who's tasked with running a local church community called a PARISH, though I gather canonically the Anglican sounding term VICAR is more precise. You'll also hear the term PARISH PRIEST used in the same sense. A single parish may have more than one priest assigned to it by the diocesan powers that be. A secondary priest is called a PAROCHIAL VICAR in more official stuff but ASSOCIATE PASTOR is the term you'll hear in common parlance, at least in American use. You might also see someone described as a CURATE, which in modern use designates a priest who assists the principal Vicar or Pastor or Rector of whatever, but historically would refer to the pastor themselves, and yes, it's complicated. There are higher levels to consider as well, both administratively and in terms of honorary titles. For example, MONSIGNOR is a special honorary title given to seasoned priests at the discretion of the Pope. It's not really a role, since it's purely a title and has no special function, but I figured I'd include it here. There are three levels within being titled a Monsignor, first a "CHAPLAIN OF HIS HOLINESS", second an "HONORARY PRELATE", and finally a "PROTONOTARY APOSTOLIC". These sorts of honorifics are currently out of favor in Rome given Pope Francis' strong preference for simple aesthetics and not seeking honor and titles, but he's pushing against a very long tradition of honors and titles in Roman culture, long enough that it goes back to the Cursus Honorum of ancient Pagan Rome, and I expect with the back-and-forth way the Papacy and the Curia operate, we haven't seen the last of ecclesiastical honorifics. After a fat Pope, the saying goes, a skinny Pope. Oh, there's even a kind of honorific for church buildings that functions in kind of the same way as making a priest a Monsignor, namely the status of BASILICA, which is basically just a way for the powers that be to say "hey check out this church it's extra nifty". Of course, not all higher titles within a Diocese are honorifics, there are functional roles as well. The overall day-to-day admin of the diocese is typically not run by the Bishop personally but by an office called the CHANCERY run by a CHANCELLOR, another term you may have heard in higher education because there's historical overlap between higher education and the admin of the Catholic Church or, you know, medieval courts in general. VICE-CHANCELLORS are also a thing, being second in command, behind the Chancellor. If you want a little more insight into what a Diocesan Chancery does, my home Diocese of Columbus has a write-up on their website that explains it better than I would so allow me to just quote them: "The Chancery includes those offices and persons who directly assist the Bishop in the pastoral and administrative governance of the Diocese of Columbus. The Chancery, on behalf of the Bishop, expedites canonical matters; collects and preserves diocesan and parish records; assists parishes and priests with civil matters; maintains files on priests and parishes; collects statistical information for the Diocese; facilitates communications with other dioceses and the Vatican; provides information on the Church or directs inquirers to appropriate sources; facilitates pre-Marriage dispensations and permissions and transmits to other dioceses pre-marriage files; and oversees diocesan offices." The rough Papal equivalent to the diocesan Chancery is the Roman CURIA. In Rome, the Church bureaucracy is sprawling. It's no secret that bureaucracies tend to grow over time when left unchecked, and historically Rome was just about the last place to look for a check on a bureaucracy. Even the ancient pre-Christian Romans exalted bureaucracy, with their skills as administrators being credited as a major unifying force for the Empire. Of course, administrative skills and bureaucracy can almost be contradictory concepts– after all, getting things done requires moving beyond committee after committee. But ultimately the purpose of the Curia is to spread the faith handed down from the Apostles throughout the world, and with that emphasis on handing down, tradition is a huge part of things. When you combine an emphasis on tradition with a massive scale- there are well over a billion Catholics in the world today- and a global scope–well, the Curia is absolutely massive and, despite repeated efforts at overhauling things, it's complicated as well. It would be deeply ironic but not inaccurate to call it Byzantine, a term for “really really complicated” drawn from another institution derived from ancient Rome, though the Byzantine empire is no more and the papacy is more globalized than ever. Pope Francis has been toying with the formula more than any other Pope in recent history, time will tell if the changes stick. One of the most apparent changes Pope Francis has made to the Curia, certainly in the context of our rundown of specific terms, is rebranding the various PONTIFICAL COUNCILS and CONGREGATIONS to DICASTERIES. The practical effect of this is minor but it's helpful to recognize these terms as referring to high level Curial departments–often but not always headed by Cardinals, indeed Pope Francis has structured things so there is no longer any official bar to Dicasteries headed by, say, a woman, though that hasn't actually happened yet. In any event, the heads of Dicasteries or Congregations or Pontifical Councils or whatever you want to call them are called PREFECTS, with the second in command being listed as SECRETARIES, and then things like UNDERSECRETARIES appearing further down the chain of command but still fairly high on the overall curial org chart. The CARDINALS I mentioned there are a special role connected to the Diocese of Rome. As a group they are called the COLLEGE OF CARDINALS, in much the same way that the bishops throughout the world collectively make up the COLLEGE OF BISHOPS. Most famously, it is the eligible Cardinals under the age of 80 who pick the next pope in a closed voting contest called a CONCLAVE during a Papal Sede Vacante, in a period of “vacant see”, you know, “empty chair”. Meetings of Cardinals more broadly speaking are called CONSISTORIES, because yeah, pretty much everything has a special term here, that's why you're listening to this episode. The office of Cardinal has historical connections to the clergy of Rome but it is not by definition an ordained role, meaning there could conceivably be women as Cardinals in the future as I discussed in my September 28th episode this year. There are three fundamental orders of Cardinals, the names of which are rooted in the origins of the college but which are no longer tied to their respective levels of Holy Orders in any particular way as all modern Cardinals are at least priests and most are bishops. Nevertheless, Cardinals are Categorized as either CARDINAL-BISHOPS, the highest level, or CARDINAL-PRIESTS, in the middle, or CARDINAL DEACONS, the lowest category, though really if you're a Cardinal even at the lowest level you're still pretty high up in the Church's pecking order. Special roles within the College of Cardinals include the PROTOPRIEST and the PROTODEACON, the longest serving of those respective orders. Historically, it was the Protodeacon's job to crown the Pope, though Popes haven't opted for crowns in decades. It's also the job of the most senior cardinal deacon participating in the Conclave to announce the new Pope through what's called the HABEMUS PAPAM, Latin for "we have a Pope". A specific name for a specific speech. Speaking of Conclaves and Papal Sede Vacantes and such, the CAMERLENGO OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH is the one who runs the show when there's no Pope around, assisted, of course, by a VICE CAMERLENGO. And to give you an idea of *just* *how* *wonky* the Curia can be, though the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church is generally a Cardinal, he should not be confused with the CAMERLENGO OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS, a role dedicated to administering the financial affairs of the Cardinals which has, mercifully, recently been allowed to lapse. So, yeah. There are a huge number of special roles and titles connected to the Curia. We'll be seeing them in action repeatedly as we go, but I don't want to get too hung up on them in this overview. Needless to say, Rome is a special case, full of special cases. Before we go, I do want to point out the NUNCIOS are effectively Papal Ambassadors, and the offices they head are called NUNCIATURES. A small step down the latter of diplomatic precedence there are PRO-NUNCIOS who have PRO-NUNCIATURES and who perhaps aspire to be full-on Nuncios one day–yes, oddly, in this case the "pro" prefix actually signifies as a *lower* rank. Finally, it would be just plain wrong of me to skip the fact that there is an important role called the LIBRARIAN OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH, which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, and which was historically also known as the BIBLIOTHECARIUS. Don't worry, we'll be following them especially closely. Anyways, any more standard diocese, including Columbus, may not have something as deep and extensive as the Curia, but they still have their own complexities not only within but also beyond the walls of the Chancery, often being subdivided into units called DEANERIES, which are groups of parishes. These multi-parish groups are headed, as you might have guessed, by someone called a DEAN, though you might have also guessed that a more official and less intuitive name exists in canon law: a deanery can also be listed as a FORANE VICARIATE, headed by a VICAR FORANE. There are other roles that aren't geographically based but are still critical to the functioning of the diocese, such as NOTARIES, who are permitted to draw up official documents on behalf of the local Church, and CONSULTORS, who, well, are there for the bishop to consult with on specific topics where he may need their advice. Ok, we're getting there. Now, you might think you know what RELIGIOUS means, but in a Catholic context it has a narrower definition. Being *a* religious means you have taken RELIGIOUS VOWS, specifically THE EVANGELICAL COUNSELS of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience. Obedience, in this case, meaning obedience to a religious superior. Welcome to the world of RELIGIOUS ORDERS, which you might also know variously as RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES, INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE, SOCIETIES OF APOSTOLIC LIFE, or even CONGREGATIONS, depending on a variety of factors and generally distinguished at a deeper level than I want to get into today. A fair amount of the variety comes from the various religious orders having their own distinct rules, called, well, RULES, and particular focuses, called CHARISMS. They also traditionally have distinct uniforms, called HABITS. You can typically recognize members of different religious orders by their habits, for example white and black robes will most often be a Dominican, brown or sometimes gray will trend to signify a Franciscan of some sort, though there are a lot more religious orders than there are basic colors so brown is also the dominant color in the unrelated Carmelite order. Anyways, the most classic form of a religious order is a MONASTERY with the members of the order being known as MONKS in the case of males or NUNS in the case of females– and monasteries have always been segregated by gender though there were historically sometimes what was called DOUBLE MONASTERIES with male and female wings. Given everyone involved had taken a vow of chastity, such a separation was seen as a practical step. Now, you might be surprised to hear me mentioning nuns in the context of a monastery, rather a CONVENT, a similar institution, which in contemporary English is where you'd expect to find nuns, with monasteries being reserved for monks. But I want to give you some historical understanding as well, and historically the distinction between a convent and a monastery was not one of gender but of specific type. Monasteries tended to be more rural and therefore removed from worldly concerns but could be communities of either gender, while convents tended to be more urban and therefore a bit more integrated into secular society. But that historical sense has faded sufficiently in English that you'll get weird looks if you say there are nuns in a monastery or monks in a convent. You may be technically correct, which is indeed the best kind of correct, but just be aware that the non-gendered sense of the terms is now not as common as it once was. Either way, members of religious communities are generally called BROTHER or SISTER as the default form of address unless another title supersedes. The head of a monastery is typically called an ABBOT in the case of a male CONGREGATION or an ABBESS in the case of a female congregation- the congregation being the community itself. Second in command in the case of a larger community or perhaps in overall command of a smaller community that is itself subordinated to a mother house is a PRIOR or PRIORESS, the former for a male community and the latter for a female community. In terms of the overall building, if the person in charge is an Abbott or Abbess then it's an ABBEY, if it's run by a Prior or a Prioress it's called a PRIORY, though it's not unusual for folks to simply fall back on the simplified and gendered newer meanings of monastery and convent I described earlier. A generic term for those in charge of a religious community is a SUPERIOR, or perhaps MOTHER SUPERIOR, with the leadership of the overall global order being typically called a SUPERIOR GENERAL. There's also a middle range of governance called a PROVINCE, giving that word a similar meaning to what we saw on the Diocesan side of things. All of these communities vary in a number of ways. Some are more removed from worldly affairs, with few to no outside visiters, those communities are called CLOISTERED. These communities go back to the origins of Christian monasticism, where an individual would often feel inspired to withdraw from the world and live a life of severe ASCETICISM, that is, renouncing pleasure and embracing prayer and PENANCE-reparations for sins- in the hope of spiritual rewards. In the common narrative, folks would come out to such HERMITS, who might be called DESERT FATHERS or DESERT MOTHERS, and seek to follow their example, forming a community. The term for the individual ascetic who vows to follow the evangelical counsels is a hermit like I mentioned or you might also call them an ANCHORITE, and that form of monasticism is EREMITIC, from same root word as "hermit". Once you're talking about living in community, that particular form of monasticism is called CENOBITIC monasticism, combining the greek words for "common" and "life". Not all monasticism is that degree of renunciation of the world, though certainly that form was most established in the early Church. But over time other orders with various special charisms- special focuses- emerged, with the rise of the MENDICANT orders- those that essentially live by begging- occurring in the 13th century, with the Franciscans and the Dominicans being classic examples. Male mendicants are called FRIARS. In time there would also be MISSIONARY orders such as the Jesuits or the Salesians, as you might guess those being dedicated to spreading Christianity to areas where Christianity was a minority. Members of missionary orders are simply called brothers or sisters, leaving the monk and nun labels to those living in more traditional communities. In a number of cases the communally living religious orders have established affiliated entities designed to allow those who live outside their actual communal life to nevertheless observe some form of their rule and wear some form of their habit. These are called THIRD ORDERS, the first and second orders being by implication the monks and the nuns in their communities. Members of third orders are also called TERTIARIES. Historically similar to third orders were things like BEGUINES and their male equivalents, BEGHARDS, though those were as much defined by their lack of official status in the Church as anything else, which makes them an awkward addition to this episode. So I'll leave it at that. Anyways, with the permission of their superior- keep in mind obedience is one of the monastic vows–the others being poverty and chastity if you need a refresher–anyway with the permission of their superior male religious are able to receive ordination and become clergy. Religious who become priests are called RELIGIOUS PRIESTS, which is fair enough as a title but does have an amusing effect in that priests who are not members of a religious order are called SECULAR PRIESTS, a term that made me laugh when I first saw it and which still makes me chuckle from time to time. They can also be called DIOCESAN PRIESTS, but what's the fun in that? Believe it or not, this overview has left a lot out. Like, I never told you about how CATHOLICOS was originally a title for a bishop whose territory was more devoted to a region than a specific city, but that it evolved to be the highest title in the Church of the East. But that's in part because while I intend to cover all 23 SUI IURIS–that is, self governing– churches that make up the overall Catholic church, nevertheless the ROMAN or LATIN CHURCH is the dominant stream of Catholic history, making up over 98% of Catholics today. In case I haven't made it clear enough yet, let me emphasize again that this stuff does get complicated and you don't need to feel bad about not knowing it all offhand. I've thought about this stuff for hours daily and I don't meet that bar, this episode required research like every other. But I hope this guide helps bring some clarity and can serve as a useful reference as you go. If I didn't explain it here, and possibly even if I did, I promise I'll explain it when it comes up as we go. Thank you for listening, God bless you all!
The Feast of the Presentation of Mary The Presentation of Our Lady is celebrated by the Church. The presentation in the life of Our Lady is not found in sacred scripture. The event was recounted in a very old document that is known as the prequel to the Gospel. It is the same source that we have the names of Mary's parents. Hear more about the importance of this book within the Church's teachings within the Homily. This feast was not initially a very big celebration in the origin of the Catholic Church. However, it was a significant feast day among the Eastern Churches. After the second Vatican Council when the revised liturgical calendar was made, this feast day was addressed. One of the reasons it was added to the calendar was a gesture of communion with the Eastern Church brothers. There is a significance to this Feast Day. The first is a question of calendar. Usually, the Sunday after this Feast is the Feast of Christ the King. That is a celebration near the end of the liturgical year, where we celebrate Jesus enthroned in His Glory Who will come to judge the living and the dead. The presentation feast is in contrast. It celebrates Mary's presentation when she was three or four years old, way before she'll become the Mother of God. It is the beginning and is in contrast to the Christ the King celebration at the end. Hear more within the Homily. Hear why this Presentation Feast Day is important to our own Spiritual Journey. Listen to The Feast of the Presentation of Mary. Listen to this Meditation Media.
Full Text of ReadingsFeast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Lectionary: 638The Saint of the day is Exaltation of the Holy CrossThe Story of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Early in the fourth century, Saint Helena, mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine, went to Jerusalem in search of the holy places of Christ's life. She razed the second-century Temple of Aphrodite, which tradition held was built over the Savior's tomb, and her son built the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher on that spot. During the excavation, workers found three crosses. Legend has it that the one on which Jesus died was identified when its touch healed a dying woman. The cross immediately became an object of veneration. At a Good Friday celebration in Jerusalem toward the end of the fourth century, according to an eyewitness, the wood was taken out of its silver container and placed on a table together with the inscription Pilate ordered placed above Jesus' head: Then “all the people pass through one by one; all of them bow down, touching the cross and the inscription, first with their foreheads, then with their eyes; and, after kissing the cross, they move on.” To this day, the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross on the September anniversary of the basilica's dedication. The feast entered the Western calendar in the seventh century after Emperor Heraclius recovered the cross from the Persians, who had carried it off in 614, 15 years earlier. According to the story, the emperor intended to carry the cross back into Jerusalem himself, but was unable to move forward until he took off his imperial garb and became a barefoot pilgrim. Reflection The cross is today the universal image of Christian belief. Countless generations of artists have turned it into a thing of beauty to be carried in procession or worn as jewelry. To the eyes of the first Christians, it had no beauty. It stood outside too many city walls, decorated only with decaying corpses, as a threat to anyone who defied Rome's authority—including Christians who refused sacrifice to Roman gods. Although believers spoke of the cross as the instrument of salvation, it seldom appeared in Christian art unless disguised as an anchor or the Chi-Rho until after Constantine's edict of toleration. Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
The story of those parts of the Eastern Orthodox Churches that reunited with Rome after the Great Schism of 1054 AD is a story filled with understanding and misunderstanding, but nonetheless essential.
Full Text of ReadingsSolemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Lectionary: 621, 622All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Assumption of the Blessed Virgin MaryThe Story of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary to be a dogma of faith: “We pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.” The pope proclaimed this dogma only after a broad consultation of bishops, theologians and laity. There were few dissenting voices. What the pope solemnly declared was already a common belief in the Catholic Church. We find homilies on the Assumption going back to the sixth century. In following centuries, the Eastern Churches held steadily to the doctrine, but some authors in the West were hesitant. However by the 13th century there was universal agreement. The feast was celebrated under various names—Commemoration, Dormition, Passing, Assumption—from at least the fifth or sixth century. Today it is celebrated as a solemnity. Scripture does not give an account of Mary's assumption into heaven. Nevertheless, Revelation 12 speaks of a woman who is caught up in the battle between good and evil. Many see this woman as God's people. Since Mary best embodies the people of both Old and New Testaments, her assumption can be seen as an exemplification of the woman's victory. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. Since Mary is closely associated with all the mysteries of Jesus' life, it is not surprising that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to believe in Mary's share in his glorification. So close was she to Jesus on earth, she must be with him body and soul in heaven. Reflection In the light of the Assumption of Mary, it is easy to pray her Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) with new meaning. In her glory she proclaims the greatness of the Lord and finds joy in God her savior. God has done marvels to her and she leads others to recognize God's holiness. She is the lowly handmaid who deeply reverenced her God and has been raised to the heights. From her position of strength she will help the lowly and the poor find justice on earth, and she will challenge the rich and powerful to distrust wealth and power as a source of happiness. Learn more about the Assumption of Mary! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
Chorbishop Abouna sharbel joined Patrick for a conversation about Eastern Catholic Churches. Topics included: getting to know Abouna sharbel (2:43), what is the Eastern Catholic Church (6:55), caller: I love the Byzantine Community (11:32), the divine liturgy (16:25), iconography (21:11), caller: I paint icons (22:52), caller: I recommend going to Eastern Churches (25:20), caller: My son is Byzantine (33:31), caller: Palm Sunday (40:28), caller: Eastern Church has enriched my life (45:30), sacraments (47:57).
Are you joyful, apprehensive or just plain confused about the Synodal process that you have been hearing about? The Eastern Churches can be of great help and clarity to you on this subject.
DescriptionThere is a weightiness to preaching that differs from every other kind of speaking. The message isn't our own. The impact isn't up to us. It's power comes from without, by grace lives within, and cannot be tamed, controlled, or cajoled. As the Spirit blows where it wills, the preacher waits on the Lord. This is the burden of preaching. But it's not a burden that rests heavy, only to crush, but a weight imbued with the Spirit that can (and must) be carried as the Preacher grows in trust of one greater, in trust of God, Father/Son, and Holy Spirit. As I spoke with today's guest, my dear friend Fr. Andriy Chirovsky, he shared about the weight and burden that comes along with Catholic preaching. I was riveted and I think you will be too. It challenged me out of thinking that I'm doing much of anything when I give talks and has encouraged me to wait on the Lord, beg for his mercy, and plead with God to speak to his people. Can't wait for you to hear this episode with my good friend, Fr. Andriy. The Right Reverend Mitered Protopresbyter Andriy Chirovsky, who prefers to sign his name as “Andriy, sinner-priest,” was ordained to the priesthood by the Confessor of the Faith, the patriarch of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Josyf Cardinal Slipyj in 1980. He has had extensive pastoral and academic experience across the United States and Canada, and has preached and lectured throughout North America, Eastern and Western Europe, and Australia. He founded the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies in 1986 at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago and was its first Director for 16 years. The author of several books and numerous articles, Fr. Andriy has now retired from academic work due to his health. He is currently pastor of St. Paul Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Mission Parish in Flagstaff, AZ, where he lives with his wife, Halyna (yes, there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches) and has founded East by Southwest Ministries, through which he is developing a series of podcasts on various aspects of the Theology, Spirituality, and History of the Eastern Churches, with an emphasis on East-West Ecumenism, and when appropriate, a good dose of humor as well. LinksFor more information about the Better Preach Podcast visit: www.ryanohara.org/betterpreachBetter Preach Podcast is now on YouTube. Here's a link to the channel. Better Preach is a proud member of Spoke Street, a Catholic Podcast Network that amplifies the voice of the Creator through fostering content that invites. Check out Ryan's FREE course on “sharing your faith as a Catholic.”Follow Ryan on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Facebook Join the Better Preach email list. I made this podcast with help from Riverside FM. Want to try it out for your podcast? Here's a link to get you started.
In the fourth installment of our series on Latinization of the Eastern Churches, we take a look at Rome during Renaissance and Reformation era and its relationship with the Eastern Churches that come into communion with it, above all the Maronite Church. We also take a look at the influence of European powers on this process, as well as the creation of new Eastern Catholic Churches in the 18th century. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/churchcontroversies/message
In light of recent events at St. John Lateran in Rome where Anglicans were allowed to say Mass at the Pope's own church, we thought it was a good time to revisit the topic of Anglican Orders. This is a "mega episode" because it has two parts: Part 1: A conversation between Fr. Creighton, Fr. Wesley, Bp. Chandler Jones and Fr. Becket Soule. Part 2: A re-run of an old episode in which Bp. Chad discusses the validity of Anglican orders with Fr. Wesley and Fr. Myles. Bp. Chandler Jones is the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of America and blogs at Philorthodox. Fr. Becket Soule has taught classical languages, law, and history at the Catholic University of America, the Dominican House of Studies (Washington, DC), the Pontifical College Josephinum (Columbus, OH), and Oxford University, and retired as Professor of Canon Law at St Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario. He has been visiting lecturer and fellow at other institutions of higher studies in the United States, Great Britain, and the Ukraine, and has served as an official of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches in Rome, and as Judicial Vicar and Episcopal Vicar of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter in the United States and Canada; Becket has also served Anglican and Catholic parishes in Texas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and England. He is now pastor of St Margaret of Scotland Catholic Church in Maggie Valley, NC. Be sure to check out the video of his presentation to the Ecclesiastical Law Society "The Recognition of Orders by the Roman Catholic Church". Send us your feedback and questions to thesacramentalists@gmail.com or reach out to us on Twitter @sacramentalists. Be sure to join our Communion of Patreon Saints for only $5 a month.
Hey everyone! This is a new feature I will be using going forward. I provide early access to certain episodes to my supporters on Patreon, in particular the episodes in my longer ongoing series. After a month, I drop the episode for everyone. So, to give non-subscribers a sneak preview, I am going to share clips of the full episodes before they drop, to give you a sense of what's going on. The current series is on the topic of Latinization, how Rome "latinized" or otherwise made Eastern Churches in communion with her adopt Latin liturgical and disciplinary customs. This clip is from Episode III of that series, a primer for the Early Modern Period. In it, I discuss Pope Benedict XIV, a scholar and pontiff of the 18th century who wrote an encyclical on the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome called Allatae Sunt (1755). The clip focuses on his contention that, barring any question of orthodoxy (which popes have a natural right to investigate), Eastern Christians in communion with the Holy See ought to keep and celebrate their own rites and not be "Latinized" by missionaries. You can hear the full discussion of this episode later in the month, or you can go to Controversies in Church History's patreon account to get access now. Thanks to all of my listeners as always. Pax Christi! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/churchcontroversies/message
Welcome to The Endow Podcast! This podcast is a forum for women to foster conversations about the intellectual life and intentional community for the cultivation of the feminine genius.On this episode, Simone Rizkallah, Director of Program Growth, interviews Nicole Delaney, JCL on Vatican II's decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite. They discuss the richness of the Church's legal system, the diversity and unity of the 24 Catholic Churches, and why this short decree should be read and lived by lay people. Link to the Vatican document: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html Nicole Delaney, JCL, is a native of Minnesota and attended the University of St. Thomas, receiving her Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration and Catholic Studies, with a minor in Theology. She spent two years working in the corporate sector before returning to school to study Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in Rome. After completing her studies, she began her education in canon law at the Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C. Upon graduation with her licentiate, Nicole moved to Arizona to begin working for the Tribunal of the Diocese of Phoenix. Nicole is currently the Director of the Office of Canonical Services & the Tribunal. Her duties include managing the daily operations of the Tribunal and supervising all procedures and staff. She also is a canonical advisor to the bishop, diocesan staff, and parishes. Nicole deals with any matter of canon law, most especially Sacramental Law, Religious Law, Eastern Canon Law, Special Law, and General Norms. She also assists in the training of clergy and parish ministers. Nicole lives in Phoenix with her husband and children.Support the Endow PodcastWhat's on your mind and heart? Let our host, Simone Rizkallah, know by connecting with her and The Endow Team on social media!Facebook at www.facebook.com/endowgroupsInstagram at www.instagram.com/endowgroupsWant to start your own Endow Group? Learn more by visiting our website at www.endowgroups.org or reach out to us at info@endowgroups.org. We look forward to serving you!
Peter teaches courses in theology, spirituality, and the arts at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, where he is professor of systematic theology and founding director of the Institute of Sacred Arts. His books include Sweeter than Honey: Orthodox Thinking on Dogma and Truth, Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings on the Biblical Creation Narratives, Arvo Pärt: Out of Silence, and How to Be a Sinner: Finding Yourself in the Language of Repentance. Peter has edited and co-edited many other books and published dozens of scholarly essays and book chapters, as well as articles in popular theological and music journals. Most recently he co-edited Arvo Pärt: Sounding the Sacred. In this episode, Peter shares his knowledge and experience with Orthodox Christianity and we discuss what makes an image or object sacred. He also clarifies some common misconceptions regarding differences between the Western and Eastern Churches.
A daily news briefing from Catholic News Agency, powered by artificial intelligence. Ask your smart speaker to play “Catholic News,” or listen every morning wherever you get podcasts. www.catholicnewsagency.com - The Claretian Missionaries' Independent Delegation for the Antilles reported that on February 7 one of its priests was kidnapped in Haiti. Father Antoine Macaire Christian Noah was abducted in the morning when he was going to his missionary community in Kazal, about 20 miles north of Port-au-Prince, the country's capital. The kidnappers have contacted “the superior of his missionary community asking for money in exchange for his release,” according to the Claretians. Macaire is originally from Cameroon and has been the parochial vicar at Saint Michael the Archangel Parish in Kazal for one year. In recent months, armed gangs have gained significant control over the country in Haiti and also are attacking Catholic schools and hospitals. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253591/priest-kidnapped-in-haiti-captors-demand-ransom Three prominent Christian leaders in Syria issued a joint letter Tuesday calling for an end to sanctions against Syria, which they say are unjustly preventing vital aid from reaching the people most affected by the devastating earthquake that struck the region earlier this week. The February 7 letter was signed by the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch Youssef the first, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem the second, and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch John the tenth. They wrote: “We, the three patriarchs with the heads of churches in Syria, demand from the United Nations and the countries imposing sanctions on Syria to lift the embargo and unjust sanctions imposed on the Syrian people, and to take exceptional measures and immediate initiatives to secure the delivery of the much-needed relief and humanitarian aid.” According to the latest available estimates as of midday Wednesday, the 7.8-magnitude quake has left at least 11,600 people dead in Turkey and Syria. Many international Catholic aid agencies, such as Caritas, Catholic Relief Services, and Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) are soliciting donations, mobilizing resources, and coordinating relief efforts. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253590/christian-leaders-in-syria-call-for-an-end-to-unjust-sanctions-that-they-say-hamper-aid-to-the-needy The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) announced Monday that it is switching its fixed-date religious celebrations to match the Gregorian calendar used by the Church in the West. Ukrainian Catholics have been among the few remaining sects under the papacy to celebrate holidays according to the Julian calendar, which celebrates Christmas on January 7 and Epiphany on January 19. The Russian Orthodox Church and other Eastern Churches under the Patriarchate of Moscow follow the Julian calendar. Now, Catholics in Ukraine will celebrate feasts on the same dates as Catholics in the US and other Western nations, meaning Christmas will be observed on December 25 and Epiphany on January 6. The change will take place at the beginning of the Ukrainian Catholic Church's liturgical year, September 1, 2023. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253587/ukrainian-catholics-will-now-celebrate-christmas-on-dec-25 Today, the Church celebrates Saint Apollonia of Alexandria, a holy virgin who suffered martyrdom in Alexandria during a local uprising against the Christians in the early 3rd century. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint/st-apollonia-of-alexandria-142
Full Text of ReadingsFriday of the Fourth Week in Ordinary Time Lectionary: 327All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Saint BlaiseSaint Blaise's Story We know more about the devotion to Saint Blaise by Christians around the world than we know about the saint himself. His feast is observed as a holy day in some Eastern Churches. In 1222, the Council of Oxford prohibited servile labor in England on Blaise's feast day. The Germans and Slavs hold him in special honor, and for decades many United States Catholics have sought the annual Saint Blaise blessing for their throats. We know that Bishop Blaise was martyred in his episcopal city of Sebastea, Armenia, in 316. The legendary Acts of St. Blaise were written 400 years later. According to them Blaise was a good bishop, working hard to encourage the spiritual and physical health of his people. Although the Edict of Toleration (311), granting freedom of worship in the Roman Empire, was already five years old, persecution still raged in Armenia. Blaise was apparently forced to flee to the back country. There he lived as a hermit in solitude and prayer, but he made friends with the wild animals. One day a group of hunters seeking wild animals for the amphitheater stumbled upon Blaise's cave. They were first surprised and then frightened. The bishop was kneeling in prayer surrounded by patiently waiting wolves, lions and bears. The legend has it that as the hunters hauled Blaise off to prison, a mother came with her young son who had a fish bone lodged in his throat. At Blaise's command the child was able to cough up the bone. Agricolaus, governor of Cappadocia, tried to persuade Blaise to sacrifice to pagan idols. The first time Blaise refused, he was beaten. The next time he was suspended from a tree and his flesh torn with iron combs or rakes. Finally, he was beheaded. Reflection Four centuries give ample opportunity for fiction to creep in with fact. Who can be sure how accurate Blaise's biographer was? But biographical details are not essential. Blaise is seen as one more example of the power those have who give themselves entirely to Jesus. As Jesus told his apostles at the Last Supper, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). With faith we can follow the lead of the Church in asking for Blaise's protection. Saint Blaise is the Patron Saint of: Relief from Throat AilmentsEnglish Wool Combers Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
The next runner to receive the baton in the relay race has to start running before the actually receive the baton from the previous runner. So it is now in the liturgical calendar of many Eastern Churches.
It's Time to Address the Papal Elephant in the RoomPope Francis is the 266th Pope of the Holy Catholic Church, having been elected to the papacy following the vacancy left by Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. I will be the first to admit that I was beyond upset when Benedict announced his resignation. I entertained all sorts of notions of conspiracy theories and that he must be being forced to resign in some way, though he has maintained that the decision was his and borne from personal prayer and discernment. When Pope Francis became Pope, I was watching the news like everyone else in the world. I heard the words “Habemus Papam [we have a pope], Cardinale Bergoglio.” Who?!? Who was this Argentinian Italian Cardinal? What? He's a Jesuit? He's chosen the name “Francis”?!? How odd. Then, over the last nine years, I have been edified, inspired, and emboldened by Pope Francis to have an ever greater zeal for evangelization and a decreased sense of materialism. His document Evangelii Gaudium (2013) is spectacular. I also enjoyed many of the teaching points of Laudato Si (2015). Gaudete et Exsultate (2018) has some solid moments as well! I also particularly like this line from Fratelli Tutti (2020): “We gorged ourselves on networking, and lost the taste of fraternity (FT, 33).” That is a fantastic line. The most recent document on the Eucharist is beautiful, though it does not offer anything substantial new in terms of reflection. No Shortage of Issues With the Current PontificateI know there has been some controversy lately about this document, claiming that the Pope is advancing some sort of Lutheranesque sola fide doctrine, but I unequivocally denounce these criticisms as the bad fruit of uncharity.What I want to stress here is that I have read every encyclical and exhortation that Pope Francis has published, including those not previously listed. I always try to give him a fair shake and read the documents charitably. But I have also been irritated, outraged, scandalized, and befuddled by Pope Francis, especially every time he speaks to reporters on airplanes, gives interviews to atheists who do not take notes, gives talks and sermons that suggest novel interpretations [always bad news when it comes to Church teaching], betrays the Church in China over and over again, allows too much nonsense to continue [in Belgium, Germany, the Amazon, et. al.], says something jesuitically ambiguous, or refuses to clarify matters of doctrine. There are plenty of things to be worried about with Pope Francis. However, I wonder if there are elements in the Church that are looking for problems where there are none. It is perfectly appropriate to charitably criticize error and imprudence. It is not okay to invent mountains out of molehills, or, as the case may be, to invent mountains out of level ground.Pope Francis has done and said many things which are problematic and borderline heretical (many of those in my company would argue that the line has been crossed numerous times into formal or material heresy). His general ambiguity and lack of clarity make it exceptionally difficult to have conversations about the consistency and authority of the Church with radical traditionalists [sedevacantists and those that reject Benedict's resignation], Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and non-Christians alike. This is especially the case in a climate of many lackluster, cowardly bishops and priests [not all, of course], an immobilized laity, a growing contingent of lapsed Catholics, and the ever-looming sex abuse crisis.Many in the Church are worried. Many of my friends have reached out to me to have conversations about the shenanigans they are seeing coming out of the Vatican or from Pope Francis himself. What are we, as faithful Catholics, to make of such turbulent times? I thought it might be fruitful to dive into what the Magisterium is and how we can evaluate levels of Magisterial authority.What is the Magisterium?Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and the Incarnate Word of God. He is also our King, reigning as our sovereign Lord. As the full revelation of God to man, He imparted all that He taught, did, implemented, and is to the Apostles. As the fathers of the Second Vatican Council put it in Dei Verbum, the sacred constitution on the Word of God:“... Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth (DV, 4).”The Church is His Body, of which He is the Head, and He reigns still. In obedience to Him, the faithful here on Earth continue to perpetuate this sacred Deposit of Faith, which is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures, until He comes again in glory. The council fathers, in the constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, said this:“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God (LG, 18).”The Magisterium, simply put, is the teaching authority of Jesus Christ to authentically interpret the Deposit of Faith in the age of the Church passed on to the Apostles and their successors: the Pope and the bishops in union with him. As History progresses, we have new technology, means of communication, and techniques which change the way we interact with one another and how we understand the world around us. As such, in His Wisdom, God gave us the Magisterium to faithfully interpret the perennial and unchanging teachings of the Church on Faith and Morals in contemporary circumstances, from age to age.It is important to emphasize this last point: Church teaching on Faith and Morals cannot, does not, and will not change. As the Second Vatican Council clearly teaches: “The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (DV, 4).”The Church's Magisterium, therefore, does not give us new teachings that contradict old ones, nor does it give us new revelations or pretend to alter the foundational doctrines and dogmas of the Holy Faith. The Magisterium, at any given time, is beholden to the preceding Magisterium. We faithfully echo on the words, life, and teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church without substantial change. A Religion of the Word - The Supreme Rule of FaithThe Word of God is the supreme rule of faith - the standard by which the Divine and infallible faith can be tested. The rule of faith and the Faith itself are from the same divine wellspring. This rule of faith is not extrinsic to the faith nor is it an add-on to the faith. Truly, the Word of God is not a collection of writings or even teachings. The Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself. We are not a religion of the book of God, but rather a religion of the Word of God.The Word of God flows into Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is the driving force of doctrine. The written word of God is inerrant and faithfully transmitted and guarded from error by Holy Mother Church. Sacred Tradition is not primarily a collection of doctrines, but, as the Directory for Catechesis teaches: “is a life of faith that is renewed every day (Dir. 26).” As St. Vincent of Larens taught, Sacred Tradition advances, “consolidated with the years, developed with time, deepened with age (ibid.).”How then can we arrive at the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? This is where the Magisterium comes in. The Directory for Catechesis puts the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium well:“The Church's Magisterium, supported by the Holy Spirit and endowed with the charism of truth, exercises its ministry of authentically interpreting the word of God, which it serves. The Magisterium therefore performs the ministry of safeguarding the integrity of Revelation, the word of God contained in Tradition and in Sacred Scripture, and its continual transmission. It is this living Magisterium that interprets it in a consistent manner and is subject to it (cf. DV 10) (Dir. 26).” The living Magisterium interprets Scripture and Tradition in a consistent manner. And the key phrase for today's discussion is that the Magisterium is “subject to” the Word of God. Remember, the supreme rule of faith is the Word of God, Jesus Christ. The Church cannot and will not contradict Jesus on Faith and Morals because the Church is divinely guarded by the charism of infallibility.How Do We Weigh Magisterial Teachings?Doctrine does not change, but it can develop, in a certain sense. Therefore, it is important to understand what is set dogma, what is developed doctrine, what is merely a discipline, and so on. We need to be able to weigh magisterial authority. Not everything the Church teaches is marked by infallibility. For example, let's look at the 1998 profession of faith that used to be used when someone assumed a certain office in the Church. Following the public profession of the Nicene Creed, they would say:“I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”So, some things are definitively proposed on faith and morals; to these, we firmly accept and hold. We give “religious submission of intellect and will” to the teachings of the Pope or college of Bishops when they speak together, even on matters other than faith and morals, even in the ordinary magisterium. Clearly from this, we see a distinction in level of authority and level of adherence to this spectrum of Church teachings.The main categories, in order of importance are: 1) dogmas, 2) other infallible statements, 3) doctrines that have not been taught infallibly, 4) theological opinions, 5) other non-doctrinal statements.* DogmaDogmas of the Church are truths that the Magisterium teaches infallibly as being divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. These can be taught by the Pope, an ecumenical council, or by the Church's ordinary and universal Magisterium. Dogmas require the theological assent of faith by all members of the faithful. We are not free to dissent from them in any way. To obstinately place them in doubt or deny them is to fall under the censure of heresy. HeresyAs an aside, a lot of people speak about this priest or that, or bishop, pope, or lay person, being a heretic. We have to understand the difference between the crime of heresy and sin of heresy. Formal heresy (the crime of heresy) is “the wilful and persistent adherence to an error in matters of faith” on the part of a baptized person; the persistence in error comes from having been formally corrected but continuing in error. Heresy is a grave sin as well, even if it is committed privately. The important note here is that heresy is the crime and sin of corrupting dogmas of the Church. Heresy is thrown around a lot today as a term, but most of the time the issues would better be described as either theological error or imprudence. For example, if the pope or a bishop phrases something in an unfortunate way, they could have misspoken or made a theological error without it rising to the grave sin and crime of heresy. We have to proceed in love of the truth but also in charity for the individual speaking or writing. * Other Infallible StatementsA step below dogma is “opinions to be held definitively” and these are taught infallibly but are not directly “divinely revealed.” The fact that only men can priests is infallible doctrine but not dogma because it is an open question, theologically, whether it is connected to divine revelation or is itself an example of divine revelation. There is a related discipline to this of clerical celibacy in the Latin Church and episcopal celibacy in the Eastern Churches. So, we see the dogma pertaining to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the infallible doctrine and reality that only baptized men can validly receive this Sacrament, and the discipline of clerical celibacy. All three: dogma, doctrine, and discipline are important but in various weights and with different magisterial weight.According to St. John Paul II in Ad Tuendam Fidem, in such cases of infallible statements the faithful are “required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”So, these statements still pack a lot of weight and are guarded by the charism of infallibility. Other examples of such infallible statements include:* When the Pope speaks ex cathedra with the authority of Peter. This is extraordinary magisterium.* When the bishops, in communion with the Pope, define doctrine at a General Council. This is also called extraordinary magisterium.* When the bishops, in communion with the Pope, together with the Pope, propose definitively in agreement, though they are dispersed. This is the ordinary and universal magisterium.* Doctrines That Have Not Been Taught InfalliblyWhen the Pope speaks in an ordinary, but authoritative way, we are required to submit our mind, intellect, and will, but it is not guaranteed to be infallible. Likewise, it is the case with bishops in communion with the Pope who teach authoritatively in their diocese. Just because these doctrines have not been infallibly declared does not make them unimportant. They are also part of the Deposit of Faith. Sometimes, in the history of the Church there has arisen solid reasons to take the time to define certain doctrines to protect against error or heresy.* Theological OpinionsTheological opinions are the next rung on the ladder. They are not infallible nor are they authoritative. The opinions of theologians can be in legitimate disagreement and ongoing dialogue.* Other Non-Doctrinal StatementsThere are some teachings of the magisterium that are not universal and to be held always. They are more or less circumstantial to time, customs, and culture. For example, if a Church document describes the state of a society, makes suggestions or exhortations, these are to be received with respect and a grateful heart, but do not require strict intellectual assent.Important Sources of Authoritative Catholic Teaching (Non-Papal)There is a hierarchy, not just of dogma, doctrines, and disciplines, but also of magisterial texts. The Church FathersThe writings of the Church Fathers, the writers of the first eight centuries of the Church, are accepted as true and authoritative when they speak “in unison” on a matter over those eight centuries. Repetition through the ages does matter. Doctors of the ChurchThe Doctors of the Church are those ecclesial writers who have been given this title for the great advantage given to the whole Church derived from their doctrine. There are now 23 Doctors of the Church who are held in very high esteem for their faithful teaching. The other Saints as well contribute to the great tradition of the Church in varying degrees through their lives and works.Rules of LifeThese rules govern communal life for certain communities and they have to be approved by the Pope. For example, the Benedictine Rule of Life is the ordered way of living as a Benedictine monk in a monastery.Code of Canon LawThe Code of Canon Law was first compiled from various sources in 1917 and was revised in 1982. The 1982 version is our current Church law which governs all Catholics of the Latin Rite. There is also a Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches. These canons are authoritative and binding on the faithful. Papal DocumentsPapal documents all carry various magisterial weight. The five main sources of these are (in order of importance): Wednesday audiences, Apostolic exhortations, encyclical letters, papal bulls, and the motu proprio.Wednesday audiencesEvery Wednesday normatively, when the Pope is in Rome, he gives an audience and a talk to those gathered in St. Peter's square. These audiences are authoritative when they involve teachings on faith and morals, but not infallible. For example, much of St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body was taken from his weekly Wednesday addresses.ExhortationsThe lowest authority of a Papal document is an apostolic exhortation. This is a document in which the Pope exhorts the faithful on a certain matter. An exhortation does not define doctrine, by design. It is higher in authority than a normal ecclesial letter. Exhortations usually follow a meeting of a synod of bishops to outline their deliberations.EncyclicalsA Papal encyclical or letter is a letter from the Pope to the entire Church. The first Encyclical was the first letter of St. Peter. The next recorded example after Peter is a letter from Pope Clement I to the Christians in Corinth. An encyclical seeks to clarify a certain doctrine. Therefore, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Pope and requires us to submit our mind and will on matters of faith and morals. Encyclicals have a high level of magisterial authority.Papal BullsA papal bull is a public decree or charter issued by the Pope. These are authoritative and binding. A Bull may treat statutes, appointment of bishops, dispensations, excommunications, Apostolic constitutions, canonizations, and convocations.Motu ProprioA motu proprio is technically a type of rescript, which is an official edict or announcement. A motu proprio is an official legal act taken by the Pope on his own power and volition and personally signed by him. It has full legal effect for Canon Law. Motu Proprio literally means “by his own hand.” Council DocumentsNext, let's take a look at three types of documents that come from General Councils: Constitutions, Decrees, and DeclarationsConstitutionsAn Apostolic Constitution is the most solemn form of legislation issued by the Pope. They are either doctrinal or pastoral. They are issued as Papal bulls because of their solemn and public form.DecreesA decree is an order or law given by the council and the Pope to the rest of the world or a specific group of people. These are legislative acts of the pope. These decrees have the full power of the Pope in making laws.DeclarationsDeclarations are more specific and usually address a specific topic. However, they still carry the same weight as other documents of a general council of bishops in communion with the Pope. So, they are authoritative and infallible on matters of faith and morals.CatechismsThroughout the Church's history, there have also been various written systematic presentations of the Faith. These are called Catechisms. Some are universal and others are for a particular locale. The Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated in 1992 originally and in English in 1997. This document was a game-changer. It was the first truly universal Catechism and was so beautifully compiled. It is the go-to standard in terms of understanding what the Church is and what she believes. The Baltimore Catechism was a question/answer Catechism which arose from a local council in Baltimore, Maryland in 1885. It is based on St. Robert Bellarmine's 1614 Small Catechism.The important thing to keep in mind about Catechisms is that they are compilations. They contain dogma, doctrine, and discipline. They contain prudential applications of principles and law. The doctrines contained in Catechism are thus magisterial, but they bear no more weight than before they were compiled in the Catechism.Judging the nature of a teaching…First, we can look at the nature of the document that teaches a doctrine. Some are more authoritative than others. For example, A papal encyclical is more authoritative than the weekly general audiences a pope gives, and the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican II are more authoritative than the council's decrees.The second test is the frequency with which the magisterium repeats a doctrine. If it is something mentioned only occasionally, or has not been mentioned in centuries, it will have a lower level of authority attached to it. But if it is something that the magisterium repeats with great regularity, it is more authoritative.The third test is the tone of the words used to express the teaching. If it is proposed briefly and tentatively, it will have less authority. If it is expounded at length or emphatically, it will have more authority.What To Do If the Pope Seems to Be In Error?So, what do we do when we think that Pope Francis is in error or is holding heretical positions? First, we pray for him. Second, we recognize that God alone judges the Pope… and I mean this juridically. Only the college of cardinals can formally correct the Pope in any sort of authoritative way. Further, no one can be found to be a manifest and formal heretic without a trial. In general, stop calling other people “heretics.” It is unhelpful and often uncharitable. We also need to remember that we must not be guilty of the sin of rash judgment in regards to the Pope (or anyone else, for that matter). The Fourth Council of Constantinople in Canon 10 says: “As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”I do not claim to have the answers. How do you solve a problem like Pope Francis? No clue. But I do know and believe that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church. I know and believe that the Church is the Body of Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior, and King. And I know and believe that the entire apostolic action of the Church is directed always to the glory of the Father. I propose that we dive deep into the study and love of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The perennial truths of the Faith will not and cannot pass away. When the Pope is truly in error, he ought to be charitably and fraternally corrected. But, if you are reading this (or listening to the podcast), then you are not likely to be the one to correct the Holy Father. Do not trust everything you hear from the armchair theologians and gossipers of the Church on YouTube and other podcasts. Theirs is a poison which does just as much, if not more, harm to the Church as anything we are seeing from the hierarchy. I know this was a much longer article/podcast than normal, but I did not want to shortchange any of the explanations. With much more left to say, I will opt to wait until another occasion. I will end with the words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians:“... test everything; hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21).”Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Thank you for reading Will Wright Catholic. This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit willwrightcatholic.substack.com
Full Text of ReadingsFeast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Lectionary: 638All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Exaltation of the Holy Crossof the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Early in the fourth century, Saint Helena, mother of the Roman Emperor Constantine, went to Jerusalem in search of the holy places of Christ's life. She razed the second-century Temple of Aphrodite, which tradition held was built over the Savior's tomb, and her son built the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher on that spot. During the excavation, workers found three crosses. Legend has it that the one on which Jesus died was identified when its touch healed a dying woman. The cross immediately became an object of veneration. At a Good Friday celebration in Jerusalem toward the end of the fourth century, according to an eyewitness, the wood was taken out of its silver container and placed on a table together with the inscription Pilate ordered placed above Jesus' head: Then “all the people pass through one by one; all of them bow down, touching the cross and the inscription, first with their foreheads, then with their eyes; and, after kissing the cross, they move on.” To this day, the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox alike, celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross on the September anniversary of the basilica's dedication. The feast entered the Western calendar in the seventh century after Emperor Heraclius recovered the cross from the Persians, who had carried it off in 614, 15 years earlier. According to the story, the emperor intended to carry the cross back into Jerusalem himself, but was unable to move forward until he took off his imperial garb and became a barefoot pilgrim. Reflection The cross is today the universal image of Christian belief. Countless generations of artists have turned it into a thing of beauty to be carried in procession or worn as jewelry. To the eyes of the first Christians, it had no beauty. It stood outside too many city walls, decorated only with decaying corpses, as a threat to anyone who defied Rome's authority—including Christians who refused sacrifice to Roman gods. Although believers spoke of the cross as the instrument of salvation, it seldom appeared in Christian art unless disguised as an anchor or the Chi-Rho until after Constantine's edict of toleration. Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
Among the many gifts of both lungs of the Church, East and West, we here at Light of the East have our ten favorite gifts that the Eastern Churches offer to the whole Church and the world.
Full Text of ReadingsSolemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Mass during the Day Lectionary: 622All podcast readings are produced by the USCCB and are from the Catholic Lectionary, based on the New American Bible and approved for use in the United States _______________________________________The Saint of the day is Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Maryof the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary to be a dogma of faith: “We pronounce, declare and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.” The pope proclaimed this dogma only after a broad consultation of bishops, theologians and laity. There were few dissenting voices. What the pope solemnly declared was already a common belief in the Catholic Church. We find homilies on the Assumption going back to the sixth century. In following centuries, the Eastern Churches held steadily to the doctrine, but some authors in the West were hesitant. However by the 13th century there was universal agreement. The feast was celebrated under various names—Commemoration, Dormition, Passing, Assumption—from at least the fifth or sixth century. Today it is celebrated as a solemnity. Scripture does not give an account of Mary's assumption into heaven. Nevertheless, Revelation 12 speaks of a woman who is caught up in the battle between good and evil. Many see this woman as God's people. Since Mary best embodies the people of both Old and New Testaments, her assumption can be seen as an exemplification of the woman's victory. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul speaks of Christ's resurrection as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. Since Mary is closely associated with all the mysteries of Jesus' life, it is not surprising that the Holy Spirit has led the Church to believe in Mary's share in his glorification. So close was she to Jesus on earth, she must be with him body and soul in heaven. Reflection In the light of the Assumption of Mary, it is easy to pray her Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) with new meaning. In her glory she proclaims the greatness of the Lord and finds joy in God her savior. God has done marvels to her and she leads others to recognize God's holiness. She is the lowly handmaid who deeply reverenced her God and has been raised to the heights. From her position of strength she will help the lowly and the poor find justice on earth, and she will challenge the rich and powerful to distrust wealth and power as a source of happiness. Learn more about the Assumption of Mary! Saint of the Day, Copyright Franciscan Media
Bible Study (2:20)- JER 30:1-2, 12-15, 18-22 Fr. Simon discusses the remnant and the tribes of Israel and the Covenant with the House of Israel MT 14:22-36 It's the passage where Jesus walks on water and Fr. Simon talks about holy boldness Letters (21:41) Question about the diffieren "Marys" at different apparitions? Recommend a good book about World Religions, from a Catholic perspective? Question about Acts 2:2 and it's interpretation and translation regarding the words "strong wind" Could you discuss speaking in tongues? How could we say the Eastern Churches are the 2nd lung of the Church when many don't believe in Immaculate Conception? Word of the Day-Nehushtan (34:24) Callers (39:48) Question about the validity of the Lutheran Eucharist? (42:26) Went to a mass on Sunday and they had guitars and singing. I left because it wasn't right. Did that count as my Sunday obligation? (46:51) I saw a Mass on TV where garments were placed on the Archbishop in front of the congregation. Why would they do that? (49:20) Question about when faith stops and becomes testing God?
Do Eastern churches express the heresy of ethnophyletism? Fr. Joseph Matlak, an Eastern Catholic priest, comments on this very controversial question.
In this first of two episodes on Confirmation, we'll first take a step back and look at the Institution of the Sacrament, its history, and why its practiced differently in the Eastern Churches versus the Latin Church. We'll also look briefly at the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Matter and Form of Confirmation, and why the Church talks about the Perfection of Catholic Virtues in this Sacrament more than the others.
Are there some dogmas Eastern Catholics can reject? Are some things true for Latin-Rite Catholics but not for Easter-Rite Catholics? Is the filioque up for grabs in Eastern Catholicism? Michael Lofton answers these questions, and more from the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches. 00:00 Introduction 00:40 A story of an Eastern Orthodox […]
Questions Covered: 13:47 – Is there a cycle of readings in the Eastern Churches, and what are they? How do they differ from the west? Are they similar to the readings from Orthodoxy? 17:56 – I'm part of the Assyrian Church of the East, being in partial communion what should I do? Should I seek full communion? 22:09 – For any of the Orthodox churches to come into the Church, does it boil down to the primacy of Peter or are the other things that are in the way? 30:41 – Why do you think we don't talk about the eastern rites among Catechism classes? 34:36 – I'm Eastern Orthodox. Why did you convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism? Is there anything else we can do to promote unity apart from praying? 42:33 – I heard that as a Catholic you can go to an Orthodox divine liturgy and fulfill the Sunday obligation. Is this true? 44:51 – Can you explain the use of the prayer rope in the east? 47:27 – Does the Russian government have any role to play in the lack of unity amongst the eastern orthodox churches? 49:22 – Mickey Rorke played St. Francis of Assisi in a Biopic movie. 50:18 – Is there any belief that the Orthodox have that we don’t as a point of faith? 53:16 – What is your perspective on the Orthodox teaching on contraception? …
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
