Why Confess Sins to a Man? (Blanquette de Veau vs Burrito Supreme)

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

Why do we Catholics confess our sins to priests who are mere men?

This is a question that Protestants repeatedly raise. I raised it as a Protestant almost every time I spoke to a Catholic about matters of religion. Even Catholics are puzzled by it.

Even one of my sons asked me, "Dad, it's difficult. Why must we confess our sins to a priest when it is God that forgives us? Why not go straight to Jesus?"

This is a great question and it deserves more than a well-packaged apologist's answer. We all know the quick and easy answer:

1. Jesus Christ gave the Apostles authority to forgive sins in John 20:21-23. 
2. The Apostles are the first priests and they are mere humans. 
3. Priests (with historical succession from the Apostles) can only declare the forgiveness of sins if they are told the sins by those who committed the sins.
4. Therefore, we must reveal the sins to the priests so that these sins will then be forgiven through a means defined by Christ who is God.

That's tight. It's logical. It works.

But there's a harder question beneath all of this: 

"But why did Jesus set it up like this? Could not have Christ arranged things so that we merely voiced each and ever sin to Him? Why did Christ introduce an intermediary stage?"

Here we move away from easy apologetics. We move to the heart of it. Why must I reveal deep, dark, and embarrassing things to a man wearing a purple stole. Christ already knows. Why bring in a middle man? Laymen, monks, nuns, priests, bishops, cardinals, even Popes - everyone has to do it. Why?

I cannot presume to know the mind of God. However, I have an idea...

Christ knows that we would cheat ourselves.That's right. We wouldn't take the sin seriously. Nor would we take the grace received seriously. 

I have confessed my sins straight to God. I have confessed my sins to God in the presence of a priest who heard every word. There is a qualitative difference between the two ways. 

By myself, I am repentant about "my sins." It's general and less precise. However, when I confess my sins in the presence of the priest, it is specific. Moreover, there is a sense of dread followed by a wave of mercy crashing upon my soul.

I think the difference is like eating at Taco Bell vs eating at an elegant French restaurant. They both advertise food. But the French restaurant provides an experience. The French restaurant experience includes a gentleman wearing black and white. (Sound familiar?)

Regardless of the food, the experience is better and more connected at the French restaurant because it is mediated by a human server who has a real human experience with you.

The French waiter cares for you during the experience, carries and presents the entrees to us, elegantly clears the table, scrapes the bread crumbs off the linen with that little device, and then makes sure that we are comfortable and happy. The post-production of the desserts and digestifs are also a big part of the experience.

Nobody does that at Taco Bell and that's why it's Taco Bell.

My suggestion is that Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance because He passionately desires for us to experience His Divine Mercy in a tangible way. Forgiveness requires a human experience - not just words.

It would be more difficult for a woman to feel healing in her bedroom as she confesses an abortion from 25 years ago. However, in the presence of a fellow sinner (the priest), she hears words of comfort and then an audible and divinely ratified proclamation that her sins are officially forgiven and cast into the sea.

That's the difference between a Burrito Supreme at the drive through and enjoying Blanquette de Veau or Beef Bourguignon under the care of a French waiter with the help of his sommelier.

Of course, the Blanquette de Veau or Beef Bourguignon experience costs you a lot more than the quick Burrito Supreme in a wrapper: But which would you prefer?

Yes, confession to a priest has more "emotional cost"? But would you have it any other way?

Time to open the comments: Would you agree that Christ set up the forgiveness of sins in the best possible way? Is the "emotional cost" worth it? Please leave a comments about your own experience.

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.

Was Christ Assumed into Heaven?

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

Catholics sometimes make the claim that while Christ "ascended" into Heaven, our Blessed Mother was "assumed" into Heaven. The difference, they say, is that Christ ascended by His own divine power; but that Mary was raised by the power of God. The apologist using this argument usually seeks to show Protestant objectors that Mary's assumption is categorically different than Christ's ascension.

Such an argument is fundamentally correct and in accordance with orthodox theology, but the vocabulary isn't correct. As a result the argument can be a little confusing. 

The Language of Ascension and Assumption

The Greek and Latin used in the Gospels (and Acts) employ terminology of "assumption" for the ascension of Christ. First let us examine three verses that describe Our Lord's ascension in terms of assumption, and then describe the theological significance.

“Et Dominus quidem Jesus postquam locutus est eis, assumptus est in cælum (He was assumed into Heaven), et sedet a dextris Dei.” (Mark 16:19, VGCLEM)

“usque in diem qua præcipiens Apostolis per Spiritum Sanctum, quos elegit, assumptus est (He was assumed)” (Acts 1:2, VGCLEM)

“qui et dixerunt : Viri Galilæi, quid statis aspicientes in cælum ? Hic Jesus, qui assumptus est (Who was assumed) a vobis in cælum, sic veniet quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in cælum.” (Acts 1:11, VGCLEM)

For our Greek scholars, the Greek word here in Mark and Acts is the aorist passive form of ἀναλαμβάνω. It corresponds to "taken up" or "assumed."

The conclusion is that Scripture uses the language of ascension and assumption for Our Lord's transition into Heaven. (Saint John's Gospel frequently uses the language of ascension.)

The Theology of Ascension and Assumption

The obvious difference between the terms is that to ascend is active and to be assumed or to be taken up is passive. Ascension denotes an agent going up by his own power. He ascended the mountain. Assumption denotes that an object was moved by an agent. It's passive. The office was assumed by the soldier.

Now Our Lady's body did not go to Heaven by its own natural power. Hence, we usually refer to her transition to Heaven as an assumption. Christ actively raised her to His right hand. However, Christ's bodily transition was both an ascension (active) and an assumption (passive).

With regard to the activity of His divinity, Christ's body ascended. With regard to humble obedience of His human soul, He was assumed into Heaven. 

According to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Christ possesses two wills - the divine will of the Holy Trinity and His created human will corresponding to His created human soul. When we remind ourselves of this mystery, we can see more clearly how Christ both ascended with divine power and willed to be received and elevated by the Father. Hence, both Saint Mark and Saint Luke use the language of assumptus est to describe the ascension of Christ.

Happy Feast of the Ascension! We have a High Priest in Heaven who intercedes for us from His Sacred Heart at every second of the day. 

Question: Have you heard of the "assumption/ascension" distinction before? Do you think it's a useful apologetical tool? I'd love to hear your experience. Please leave a comment.

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.

Is Sloth a Sin? (And Joy as the Cure)

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

The Sloth

I take my children to the Dallas Aquarium often. One of the most interesting attractions is their sloth. The animal is so slow. It's almost unreal. It's a horrid looking creature and it's movements seem careful and calculated. However, after you watch it for a while, you realize that it's not being careful. It's just being a sloth.

The sloth is named after the capital sin "sloth." In Latin, the sin is acedia. Sloth is defined as a slowness in life. 

Saint Thomas Aquinas defines it as a bearing down on the soul. He sees it as a spiritual problem. Saint John Damascene concurs by saying that is an "oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man's mind, that he wants to do nothing" (De Fide Orth. ii, 14).

Sloth is spiritual paralysis. Thomas says that it is a refusal to eat spiritual food.

Whenever I sit down with the family at night to pray the Rosary and I don't want to and I just want to "get it over" - that's sloth. My soul is acting like that slow sloth at the Dallas Aquarium. It doesn't spring upward to God. It's crawls reluctantly.

How do we overcome this defect in our lives?

Thomas Aquinas says that sloth is opposed to joy. So the answer to overcoming sloth is greater joy and peace in your life. If you can't pick yourself off the floor spiritually, the solution is an attitude of gratitude. You must begin to recount all the good things in your life and thank God for them. This always uncovers a spring of joy in the soul. Being thankful is the best medicine. 

My wife is named Joy - so God gave me a constant reminder of this cure to spiritual sloth. What a blessing!

I can always be grateful for her and thousands of other wonderful things in my life - including being a Catholic and all that goes with it!

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.

The Golden Key to Thomas Aquinas: Analogy

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

Well, I poured my cup of decaf herbal tea this morning with a relief. The new book Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages is finished and the inner circle of collaborators have a copy for review. After we massage the text a little, it will "ship out" to you via email on May 31. If you would like a copy on May 31, please sign up by clicking here.

As I drank my decaf herbal tea this morning, I asked myself, "What if someone doesn't want to read my new book on Thomas Aquinas? What if they voted for another book and they just aren't interested? What would be the one thing that I would say to that person?"

So here's the one thing. In order to understand Thomas Aquinas, you need to understand how he uses analogy with regard to theology.

Here's a clipping from Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages that sums up this principle.

Analogy or “God Is Like This”

The “analogy of being” is the centerpiece of Thomistic philosophy. If one does not understand the analogy of being, one does not understand Thomas Aquinas. It is impossible to penetrate his thought without fully appreciating his doctrine of analogy. In fact, this section of the book in your hands is the most important few pages of the entire book so read carefully and make sure that you understand this before moving on.

We must first understand three fancy philosophical terms: univocal, equivocal, and analogical. Here is another table for simplicity’s sake:

Univocal=same

Equivocal=different

Analogical=similar

All rational human beings already understand these three concepts, but it is important for us to fully appreciate the terminology. In order to do so, let us imagine three different philosophers. 

The first philosopher is named “Ulric the Univocal.” The second philosopher is named “Ezekiel the Equivocal.” The third philosopher is named “Aquinas the Analogical.” 

1) Ulrick the Univocal

Let’s begin with Ulric the Univocal. Pretend that Ulric the Univocal says, “The pasta is perfect.” Here we have “pasta” joined to the word “perfect.” To understand this in a univocal way would be to assume always and everywhere that “pasta” and “perfect” are absolutely the same. So that when Ulric says, “pasta” he means “perfect” and when he says “perfect” he means “pasta.” 

If Ulric’s statement were entirely univocal then he would also say things like “Your test was pasta!” or “His golf swing is absolutely pasta.”Ulric the Univocal might also say things like “May I please have some more marinara sauce on my perfect?” or “Farfalli is my favorite kind of perfect.” 

Small children between the ages of two and three often make these mistakes. Small children do not always pick up the subtlety of language. For example, if you say, “The shirt is big,” they might say, “I want to wear the big.” This is an example of univocity. 

By using language univocally, we run into problems, and this is especially true when we are doing philosophy. If Ulric the Univocal heard someone say, “God is my Father,” he assumes that the term “God” and “my father” are one and the same. If Ulric the Univocal understood you univocally, then when he met your father, he would address him as “God.” That’s a big problem.

2) Ezekiel the Equivocal

Let us now turn to Ezekiel the Equivocal. Ezekiel styles himself as a sharp philosopher and he is aware of all the problems that Ulric the Univocal experiences. Ezekiel the Equivocal takes it upon himself to disprove what everybody says. 

If his mother says, “This pasta is perfect!” then Ezekiel the Equivocal interrupts her and says, “Perfect is defined as having all the required and desirable elements, qualities, and characteristics, that is, perfect is as good as it is possible to be.” Then Ezekiel the Equivocal squints his eyes and wrinkles his nose as he asks, “Do you really think that this pasta meets that criteria?” His mother is now a little annoyed. “Well no. I just meant that I really like this pasta.” Ezekiel smiles with satisfaction. He has one again clarified a situation.

Another time, he hears his mother say, “God is my rock.” Ezekiel throws his hands in the air. “What? How could God, an infinite being, become your rock. Mom, you’re crazy.” This is why nobody likes Ezekiel the Equivocal. He always points out the fact that our truth claims are equivocal. If someone says, “Look up into the night sky. There’s the big dipper!” Ezekiel says, “That’s not a big dipper. It’s just a cluster of stars!” If someone says, “Ezekiel, you’re such a pain in the neck!” he simply responds by saying, “How can I be in your neck. That’s impossible.”

3) Aquinas the Analogical

So far, we have found that both Ulric the Univocal’s philosophic method and the method of Ezekiel the Equivocal are unsatisfying. Ulric is confused about pasta and perfection and Ezekiel is right, but just downright annoying. Fortunately, we have Aquinas the Analogical to solve our problem. Aquinas walks over to Ezekiel the Equivocal and says:

"You know, Ezekiel the Equivocal, you’re on the right track, but you have forgotten the principle of analogy. When your mom says, ‘God is my rock’ she means it by way of analogy. She means God is like a rock. God is strong. When someone says, ‘You’re a pain in the neck,’ what they means is that you are like a pain in the neck. Literally speaking, it is false. You are not in his neck. But analogically, it is true. You are really are annoying, just like a pain in the neck."

You see, Thomas Aquinas insists on the principle of analogy. This is true whenever we speak about existence (metaphysics) and when we speak about knowing the truth (epistemology). 

The best way is to speak in terms of analogy. This is especially the case when it comes to God. It is true that anything we say about God is not fully accurate. If I say, “God is perfect,” then Ezekiel the Equivocal is going to interrupt and say that my finite and human notion of “perfection” is insufficient in describing God’s perfection. Ezekiel would be correct, by the way. 

When I say that ice cream, pasta, or a golf swing is perfect, this is a far cry from the absolute perfection of God. Since I know that my human notion of “perfect” is insufficient, I simply respond analogically: “Well God’s perfection issimilar (analogical) to an earthly example in perfection, but in a much greater way.” In summary, then, Ezekiel the Equivocal is technically correct, but he is dismissed since he does not fully appreciate how we speak of things being similar or analogical to each other.

Now all of this is rooted in the metaphysics of Aquinas, which I try to explain briefly and simply in the new free book. I think you can see here that the principle of analogy is absolutely essential for philosophy. Otherwise, things get confusing very quickly. It also means that one must be very precise at all times. This requires constant distinctions - something Thomas is always doing.

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.

10 Reasons Why It's Hard to Become Catholic

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

Is it difficult to become Catholic?

I don't often disclose personal thoughts on this blog, but I feel that this is something that might be helpful for folks on both sides of the Tiber: Ten Reasons why it's hard to become Catholic.

I have spoken to somewhere between 50-100 Protestant ministers who have become Catholic or are contemplating entry into full communion with the Catholic Church. Most of these are Anglican or Presbyterian. A few have been Lutheran. 

Over the last several years, I've gathered up the "big ten" that either cause pain or lead to a man saying "No thanks," to the Catholic Church.

#10 Theological Submission

It's difficult to say serviam ("I will serve"). Theology is no longer "what I think". It requires a submission of the mind. At the same time, this a liberation of the mind. Still, it is difficult to tell oneself: "I don't fully understand the Treasury of Merit, but I will submit my reason to the reason of the Church."

#9 Priests

Catholic priests are not like Protestant ministers. Relatively speaking, they are more distant than Protestant clergy, albeit for good reasons sometimes. A Protestant has the experience of a minister smiling whenever he sees you, memorizing your name, and generally going out of his way to make a personal connection. This rarely happens in Catholicism. I admit it - it wounds my pride a little. I wish that I were greeted and hailed by the pastor after Mass. It's humbling to be part of the masses at Mass.

Protestant ministers usually have smaller congregations and more competition with one another. Hence, the minister is much more likely to say, "Hey, let's go to Starbucks this week and talk about your faith."

Of course, I know dozens of Catholic priests who do reach out on a personal level, but for the most part, Catholic priests are stretched out more thinly. Consequently, personal access is more rare. And to be honest, I'm glad to know that my priests are hearing confessions and going to the hospital all the time. That's a much better use of their time than drinking expensive coffee with me.

#8 Liturgy

I am beginning to think that there is nothing as controversial in the Catholic Church as liturgy. It is at the center of everything.

I like clean, tight liturgies. Altar boys turning on a dime and making a 90 degree right angle around the altar. Latin. Gregorian chant. Synchronized genuflections. Defined signs of the crosses. Corporal folded the proper way (up not down!) You may have guessed it. I attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

However, it's not like that everywhere. There are some wonderful liturgies and some not-so-wonderful liturgies. Sometimes, potential converts walk in to a not-so-wonderful liturgy with broken rubrics and oddities. It's difficult for many - especially if they are coming from a more liturgical form of Protestantism. I don't know the best answer to this problem. All I know that it is a problem.

My suggested solution is the "Great Catholic Migration of the 21th Century." Click here to read more about "the great migration."

#7 Dealing with marriage, divorce, homosexuality, contraception, abortion

Some people have irregular marriages, live homosexual lifestyles, or enjoy the comforts of contraception. It's painful to allow your divorce and re-marriage to be examined by the bishop's tribunal. It's embarrassing to talk about a 'lifestyle.' It's not easy to imagine having a minivan overflowing with car seats or to rethink the vasectomy. 

For some, they have to revisit an abortion that occurred decades ago. These sort of things cut deep to the heart and make us squirm. All this is understandable and I think that these things should be addressed with caution and compassion. If you're a potential convert, pray for and seek out a good priest with whom you can speak confidentially.

I'll also add from personal experience, the healing a good confession is about 100 times more powerful than any of the shame or fear associated with past problems. I think others here would agree. 

(Please leave a comment below to testify to this reality so others might be assured.)

#6 Financial discomforts

If you're a clergyman you stand to lose your great pension, great health benefits, discretionary fund, and your salary. I've been there and it's tough. It's likely that you haven't been trained to do anything else that is marketable. I doubt that anyone out there will pay you six figures to write sermons for them or lead a small-group Bible study. It goes without saying that most ministers take a major pay cut when they become Catholic. Their family income goes down. They usually start having more kids. Also, they usually start paying for parochial education - another hit to the pocketbook.

#5 Vocational confusion

It was difficult at first to admit that my Anglican priesthood was invalid. I wasn't a priest long, but I heard confessions, anointed the dying, etc. What was I doing? What was God doing? Why did God let me function sacramentally with people who were deeply hurting. I still don't know how to "classify" those ministerial acts.

I think other would-be converts struggle with the same ideas. Even if they were laymen, they wonder about their past roles as Sunday school teachers, mentors, Bible study leaders, counselors, etc.

#4 Non-Catholic ridicule and estrangement

Family and friends do not understand. Even when they try to understand, they will never appreciate the frustrations, study, and heart-searching that goes into becoming Catholic. Some Anglicans still call me "Father", which makes me feel uncomfortable. Others have written terrible things about me. I've never been more greatly attacked for anything else in my life.

Tension often arises with parents and siblings. I've even heard of converts who were cut out of the inheritance because they became "Roman".

#3 Catholic ridicule and estrangement

This may seem odd, but some Catholics are suspicious of converts to Catholicism. These come in two forms. Type A is the cradle-Catholic who has all their ducks in a row and suspects the convert of being a crypto-Protestant unschooled in the ways of being Catholic. If the new Catholic prays extemporaneously, then it's "We don't do that." If the convert quotes Scripture about something, they frown upon this, too. 

Some Catholics also seem to think that it is helpful to ridicule my past as a non-Catholic, as if that would somehow validate me as now "one of them." Some Catholics just love to hear converts bash their former faith. This places converts in a strange position.

Type B is the cradle-Catholic who is less committed to the distinctives of the Catholic faith. They see zealous converts as a threat. These converts are overly-concerned with dogma and truth. And this leads us to obstruction number two...

#2 RCIA (Rite for Christian Initiation of Adults)

RCIA must have been invented so that every conversion to the Catholic Church might somehow be miraculous. It is becoming an element of Catholic lore that RCIA is commonly led or organized by someone who is a "type B" Catholic as described above. These people don't seem to understand how zealous these converts can be. These leaders stress the "feelings" part of Catholicism and not the "orthodoxy" part of Catholicism much to the chagrin of the converts who have had it up to their ears in Protestant appeals to their feelings.

It's amazing how many people "give up" in RCIA. It's also amazing how many push on through. I know many who have had wonderful RCIA experiences, but I know many more who had to defend the Catholic faith while taking RCIA.

Just so I don't step on any toes, I salute and applaud all the great RCIA teachers out there. I know that you're out there and we are thankful for you! Keep up the great work.

#1 Pride

I don't know how to say this in a witty way, but pride holds the number one slot. At one point in life I felt that I was too good for all those people who respected the Infant of Prague. I'm ashamed to admit, but there it is. Why join a religion where adherents air brush images of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the hoods of their lowriders? (I grew up in Texas...) One Protestant gentlemen even told me that he couldn't be Catholic because it was "the religion of the masses." I asked him what he meant, and the term "Mexicans" was employed in his reply. 

It's snobbery against the religion of the masses and immigrants.

It's just cooler to go to an Evangelical mega-church that has a pool, basketball gym, powerpoint presentations, podcasts, and a rocking "praise team." I sometimes wish that our homilies had really cool cultural references in them or solidly crafted "gotcha" endings. Alas, this is not typical of the parochial homily.

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.

The Two Beasts in Revelation - What Do They Represent?

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

If you watch History Channel documentaries, then you've probably come across some pretty wacky information about the Book of Revelation and the end of the world. 

Before you continue reading, bracket off all that you've heard. Let's look at the subject with new eyes. Let's look at it from within the context of the Old Testament.

Everyone would agree that one of the most confusing topics of the Apocalypse is the identities of the two beasts. Is it America, a Muslim nation, Russia, China, or perhaps the UN? These guesses are misled because they do not presume that the Old Testament provides the interpretive key for the New Testament.

This is just a brief post outlining the argument which I make in my new book The Eternal City.It is an old Catholic argument - namely that the two Beasts of the Apocalypse are the two political machines responsible for the death of Christ and 100% of all Christian martyrs of the early epoch. 

These two powers are Jerusalem and Rome. Of course, both forces allied to kill Christ (represented by Pontius Pilate plus the High Priest). However, this alliance continued with the martyrdom of Saint Steven, Saint James, the rest of the Apostles and then almost all the martyrs until Constantine.

If Rome is the great and terrible Beast described by Daniel, and Nero Caesar is the historical personage associated with the fierce actions of the apocalyptic Antichrist, then the Book of Revelation becomes much easier to understand in the context of history. 

• The dragon of Revelation is Satan, the serpentine demon who seeks to destroy Christ and his followers. 
• The terrible Beast is the Fourth Beast described by Daniel, the Roman Empire that issued the death sentence against Jesus Christ. 
• The sixth king is the sixth emperor of the Roman Empire whose name adds up to 666 (Nero Caesar) and who persecuted the Christians for forty-two months—Nero Caesar who foreshadows the future political Antichrist. 
• The woman who gives birth to the Messiah represents Israel but chiefly the most blessed Israelite virgin and mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
• The New Jerusalem from above is the Church, for she is described as the Bride of the Lamb, the Lamb being Christ Himself.

There are two more dominant symbolic images that remain to be identified in the Book of Revelation. Chapter thirteen of the Apocalypse describes two different beasts: 

1) the beast arising from sea.

2) the beast arising from the land. 

The sea is a symbol of the “peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues” (Apoc 17:15). The Sea Beast is the Beast ruling the Gentile nations – the Roman Empire as we have seen before. This beast resembles the dragon and receives a head wound—a reference to the protoevangelion in Genesis 3:15, when God promised that a descendant of Eve would boot the head of the serpent.

The second beast arises from “the land.” Some translations read “the earth” but the context of the Book of Revelation reveals that “the land” is a certain place. The book of Revelation uses the expression “the inhabitants the the land” twelve times to refer to the inhabitants of Israel. The land of Palestine was promised to Abraham, received after the death of Moses, and conquered by King David. The phrase “those who live in the land” refers to the Holy Land and the Old Testament frequently employs this phrase to refer to God’s judgment against the idolatrous Israelites living in “the land.”

The beast arising out of “the land” is thus a beast arising out of the Holy Land of Israel. Those who worship this beast are “the inhabitants of the land,” again a common prophetic motif denoting idolatrous Israel. 

The Land Beast had “two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon” (Apoc 13:11). In other words, this beast looks and sounds good, but it is truly evil. It is the apostate High priesthood and Levitical system of sacrifice that does not recognize the sacrifice of Christ. It's the form of Judaism that denies the Messianic claims of King Jesus of Nazareth.

It may seem rather shocking to some readers that the Book of Revelation depicts the High Priest and the sacrificial system he represented as an apostate beast fostering worship of the Roman Empire. However, we should remember that when faced with the choice between Caesar and Christ, the chief priests and leaders of the Jewish people shouted: “We have no king but Caesar!” (Jn 19:15). In this moment, the chief priests of Israel changed their allegiance from the God of Israel to the Caesar of Rome. They bowed down to the Roman Beast of the Gentiles and in turn became the Beast of the Holy Land.

The Land Beast who represents the violent, apostate version of Israel is able to work miracles through its union with the diabolic Sea Beast of Rome. The Book of Acts depicts the enemies of the Apostles as Jewish magicians (cf. Acts 8:9-24) and as ones working in concert with Roman officials (cf. Acts 13:6-11). The Land Beast also seeks to force Christians to “worship the Sea Beast” on pain of death. The Book of Acts reveals that the persecution of the early Church was almost uniquely a Jewish persecution of the faithful in concert with Roman officials.

Just as with the trial and murder of Christ, the apostate Jewish leadership planned their persecution in league with Roman officers. Paul himself suffered because of “the plots of the Jews” (Acts 20:19) and described his attackers as “wild beasts” (1 Cor 15:32).

The Book of the Apocalypse is a cosmic battle. It is a battle for the truth! The Church of Jesus Christ goes toe-to-toe with two fearsome enemies who have entered into an unholy alliance: Rome and Jerusalem. In brief, the Book of Revelation is an apocalyptic vision foretelling that the Church of Jesus Christ will overcome these two beasts and the demonic dragon behind their plots. 

It is the story of how the Church overcomes the Roman Empire and becomes the Roman Catholic Church. It is also the story of how the Church overcomes apostate Jerusalem and becomes the New Jerusalem. In both instances, the Church overcomes evil through suffering.

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.

The Devils and Consecration to Mary as Taught by St John Damascene & St Louis de Montfort

Posted by Taylor Marshall 

One of the most interesting paintings of Marian devotion

Saint Bernard being comforted by Mary

when he said, "Show me that you're my mother."

About three years ago I performed the 33 day consecration to Jesus through Mary as described by St Louis de Montfort. A strange thing happened. On the 33rd day, which I had timed to be August 15 (the Assumption of Mary and my wife's birthday), I entered the church and I experienced this very strange feeling of terror.

It was a demonic attack. It surprised me. I felt a dark presence. I felt terrible feelings and terrible thoughts began to crowd in my mind. I was a little scared. I felt like my soul was being suffocated with smoke.

Yet, I finished my prayers for the 33 Day Consecration in the church and at the very moment I finished, I felt like all the evil smoke had been sucked out of the room. I had an intense feeling of peace, love, grace, and mercy. I felt that Jesus loved me intensely and that Mary had wrapped her mantle around me to protect me. She was drawing me closer to Jesus. I felt it. I cannot explain it.

My diagnosis is that the devils did not want me to consecrate myself to Jesus through Mary and they realized that I would be gaining a special protection. They made a last ditch effort...and Mary's foot crushed their heads. They fled when the deal was done.

Regrettably, theologians beginning in the 1950s began to question to the concept of "consecration to Mary." Everyone is agreed that people and things can be consecrated to the Most Holy Trinity, and this true of the Eucharist in a preeminent way, but also true for the priesthood, nuns, and holy vessels, and our baptized bodies as tabernacles of the Holy Spirit (which is the reason that we must retain holy purity and custody of the eyes).

How then could people or items be consecrated to the Blessed Virgin Mary who is a human person and creature? This question often comes up regarding Our Lady's request for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Some say this is impossible since the Immaculate Heart of Mary is created and therefore not a proper object of solemn consecration.

Saint Louis de Montfort is the saint to answer this question since he shows that all consecrations to Mary (or to any saint for that matter) are ordered to our Lord Jesus Christ through His Sacred Humanity. Since all saints are members of His Body and partakers of His Divine Nature, consecrations to them are relative and are therefore through them to Christ our God. 

The same is true for prayer to saints. We pray to saints but understand that the prayer "to" a saint is relative and not absolute. Absolutely speaking, the intercessions of saints have their final terminus in Jesus Christ, the one mediator between God and men.

“For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5, D-R)

Saint John Damascene is one ancient example of "consecration to Mary."

We are present before you, O Lady, Lady I say and again Lady, binding our souls to our hope in you, and as to a most secure and firm anchor , to you we consecrate {anathémenoi} our minds, our souls, our bodies, in a word, our very selves, honoring you with psalms, hymns and spiritual canticles, insofar as we are able-even though it is impossible to do so worthily. If truly, as the sacred word has taught us, the honor paid to our fellow servants testifies to our good will towards our common Master, how could we neglect honoring you who have brought forth your Master? In this way we can better show our attachment to our Master.

-St John Damascene, "Sermo Prima de Dormitione," Patroligia Graeca 96, 720C-D, 721A-B.

Saint John Damascene, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, consecrates himself and his hearers to the Blessed Virgin Mary using the word anathémenoi. You will recognize this as the same word from which we derive "anathema" which can mean "set above," "suspended," "banned," and usually "accursed." It is the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word חֵרֶם {charem} for those people or things which belong to God as either holy or cursed. The same idea is preserved in Latin where "sacrosanctum" can refer to persons who are either "holy" or "cursed." For example, to be "sacrilegious" has the same connotations.

All this relates to things "reserved for God" and this can be a blessing or a curse. For example the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest blessing for one receiving It in a state of grace, but also the greatest curse if received in a state of original sin or mortal sin. Sacrosanctity cuts both ways.

Back to St John Damascene. He consecrates himself to Mary in this way by using the term "anathémenoi." This means that he is totally and completely given over and reserved for the Blessed Virgin Mary. (this should remind us of Blessed John Paul II, whose motto was directed to Mary: "Totus tuus" or "Totally yours.") Woe to him if should fail in his devotion to her. Yet this "Marian anathema" also includes the amazingly brilliant graces that he shall receive through her from Christ.

Moreover, this consecration to Mary in the form of an "anathema" is Christocentric (Christ-centered), or as I prefer to say, Christotelic (leading to Christ).Observe how St John Damascene concludes his consecration to Mary: "In this way we can better show our attachment to our Master." Our Master is Christ the Lord.

The whole point of Marian consecration is not to exalt Mary to the level of deity or to place her in competition with Christ. True Marian consecration (as also endorsed by St Louis de Montfort and St Maximilian Maria Kolbe) leads to greater love and service for Christ.

Do you want to consecrate yourself to the Immaculate Mother in this way? If so, I heartily recommend both St Louis de Montfort's consecration, but especially that of St Maximilian Maria Kolbe.

To use the Kolbe consecration in a solemn way, choose a Marian feast day. Fast on the day before (one meal), pray the Holy Rosary and attend Mass and Confession on that Marian feast day, and then recite the prayer of consecration. Renew the consecration annually.

Here's the Kolbe form of consecration.

Our Immaculate Lady, Mother of the Church, pray for us.

Marian books that you should own:

  

When in Cebu City, please visit http://www.gregmelep.com for your real estate and retirement needs. Avail of the opportunity to own a condominium unit in Cebu City at the low amount of only P 9,333.33 and House and Lot @ P 7,306.81/month only. Hurry while supply of units still last. Just call the Tel. Nos. shown herein: (053)555-84-64/09155734856/09173373687/09222737836.