Tax season...

Tax season is almost over and then maybe I'll be able to post again. I just haven't had the time to type anything up here.

If God is for us...

"If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son but handed him over for us, how will he not also give us everything else along with Him? It is Christ Jesus who intercedes for us!!

Coming Soon....

Lent, Mass and my meeting with Fr. Breen.... seriously there is some good stuff coming up....

I realized

I realized today that next week I am turning 37....37!!! I am now officially closer to my 40's than I am to my 20's. How did this happen? When did this happen? My friends tell me that 40 is the new 30 and that we still rock and I suppose that's true, but darn... getting older ain't all that fun.

Jesus wept...

Under my quotes section of this page, I have a quote by Victor Hugo: “Jesus wept. Voltaire smiled. From that divine tear and from that human smile is derived the grace of present civilization.” It’s there because I thought it was beautiful. I didn’t think overly much about what it meant until I started writing this post. And then I realized that maybe I didn’t necessarily understand the context and I was a bit thrown off when I read an article about Voltaire that said, “He has generally been regarded… as a believer in a rational, non-Christian god.” (www.positiveatheism.org/hist/voltairen.htm ) There seems to be a question as to whether Voltaire was an atheist but the article also quoted an Alfred W. Bern as saying, “If [Voltaire] did not succeed in destroying Christianity, he did more towards turning it into a religion of humanity than any other man has ever done or can ever hope to do.”

Now I am not the smartest person, but I’m actually not sure that Christianity being “a religion of humanity” is all that bad; but, again, it probably depends on context. However I am not going to really go into that here. This intro was really to give a background as to why I’m not blogging about the original quote. Instead I decided to focus in on the first part of the quote: “Jesus wept.”

I want to start by giving the following disclaimer: a. I am not a Bible scholar, a theologian, or a minister; I’m just me, trying to make it all make sense, and b. I’m basing a lot of this on a Wikipedia article I found after I did a Google search on the term “Jesus wept” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_wept )

“Jesus wept” is apparently the shortest verse in the Bible. It IS John 11:35. That exact phrase is not found in all versions of the Bible. My God’s Word, New International Version has the verse as that, but my New American Bible, Catholic Edition has it as “Jesus began to weep.” The differences come down to (really) phraseology; the meaning, of course, is the same.

As I mentioned before, context CAN be very important. I’m not sure that’s true in this post, but if you don’t know and want to know the context, do a Wiki search on “Jesus wept”. Better yet, just go read the Gospel of John, chapter 11.

When I look at the phrase “Jesus wept”, I feel emotions attached to it. It, first, makes me a little sad. I’m an emotional person, so I cry over a lot of things, but it breaks my heart when others cry, out of sadness or helplessness (of course, tears can be happy too). But it also helps me feel a little closer to Jesus… more connected so to speak, because, hey, Jesus cried too. We DO have something in common…

The Wiki article goes on to list several interpretations of the quote. The first one it lists is probably the one I like the best. It shows Jesus as an actual human being with the emotions that go with that. Don’t we all struggle from time to time with a disconnect between ourselves and Jesus? Well, at least I do. I think of God/ Jesus as one and, very often, as intangible. I get caught in the trap of thinking of Jesus in terms of Him only being a spiritual being and then I question what I could possible have in common with Him. But, the fact is that Jesus was a fully human man. Of course He was MORE than that, but I think it’s important to remember that He WAS also human.

The article lists some other interpretations that I want to touch on. The thing is (and see my disclaimer) I’m not completely sure that the different interpretations are mutually exclusive. I’m sure there are many people, probably significantly smarter than me, who would disagree… people who would choose an interpretation, make it their own, swear by it, and then say it excludes all the others. All I’m saying is maybe we should open our minds and give other possibilities a chance. People are certainly capable of feeling many emotions, at one time, over a specific event. Why then should we assume that Jesus, in His human form, should be any different?

The article puts forward a second interpretation that Jesus weeping because Lazarus was dead is “unreasonable” due to the fact that He already knew He was going to raise Lazarus from the dead. This interpretation suggests that based on that premise, Jesus was actually weeping for all those present, even those who knew and followed Him, because they didn’t TRULY understand the concept that He was “the resurrection and the life” as he had told them (John 11:26). I can see that perspective too. Jesus knows He must and will raise Lazarus from the dead. He knows He must because He knows people don’t really comprehend who or what He REALLY is. How frustrating and sad that must have been for Him. I know I’ve been frustrated, to the point of tears. Haven’t we all? When someone doesn’t understand us, especially when it’s really important; when someone doesn’t really see/ understand who we are. Now, take that to the next level and try to imagine the frustration and sadness Jesus must have felt, facing all those people, in front of Lazarus’ tomb.

The final interpretation says that “the sadness shown by Jesus may not be for the death of Lazarus, but rather his resurrection.” Jesus knew that by raising Lazarus from the dead, he would be “taken from the promise of paradise and returned to an imperfect world.” I can certainly, on some level, see why that would make Jesus cry. Think about it… how would we handle it, being all knowing, knowing that Lazarus was this “” close to paradise but that we HAD to bring him back to a world which doesn’t and can’t compare to paradise. Could any of us even do it? I’m not sure I could. Jesus’ course was set… He HAD to bring Lazarus back. While I tended to think Jesus did a good think by bringing Lazarus back from the dead, I have to admit I had never really considered what He was taking away from Lazarus. For me, this interpretation was an eye opener; it made me consider this story from a whole new perspective. Should we try to put ourselves in Jesus’ place? I don’t know… something about that seems wrong. On one hand we can’t, not really, ever understand or imagine what it must have been like. On the other hand, how can we not TRY to imagine it, if for no other reason than to better ourselves and try to be closer to God?

I’m sure there are many other interpretations of this verse. I chose these three because they spoke to me. Each of these descriptions highlights Jesus in a different way:

Interpretation 1 shows Jesus as human
Interpretation 2 shows Jesus as human and divine
Interpretation 3 shows Jesus as divine

I feel that all three of these bleed over into each other, because the fact is Jesus wasn’t JUST human or JUST divine. Jesus WAS a human man, flesh and blood, who WAS the Son of God, born to save us all. Consider that, as I do, and then ask yourself, as I have, if these interpretations have to be mutually exclusive of each other.

As a human, Jesus wept for a departed friend; as a human who was the Son of God, he wept out of frustration and sadness because His own people didn’t truly understand Him and so, He had to show them; as the Son of God, he wept because He knew that raising Lazarus from the dead would take him away from paradise. Does one have to be truer than the others? See, I don’t think so. I think all of them can be true simply because Jesus was who He was.

The Wikipedia article references a quote from Pope Leo I. Pope Leo I talks about the verse in terms of showing the two sides of Jesus, human and divine: “In humanity Jesus wept for Lazarus; in His divinity He raised him from the dead.” Now see, that really is beautiful!!

All of the interpretations I mentioned here spoke to me. I still may feel that the first means the most to me because, well, it helps me feel a little closer to Jesus. But I am not about to assume the He didn’t actually feel all of these and maybe (probably) even more… emotions we haven’t thought of and probably can’t conceive of.

As the Son of God Jesus carried an unimaginable load on His shoulders, so who can blame Him, if, as a human man, “Jesus wept”…

A decision made...

Well, I think I've reached a decision and I believe it to be the right one. Last night when I got home I had a registration packet from St. Ann's. I had thought about it a lot, so I filled it out and stuck it in the mail this morning. Rather than be cynical and a bit obnoxious about it, I've decided to use this as an opportunity. To really make it a good experience about my faith and love for God. And I won't be going it alone. My best friend (whose son is my Godson) hasn't been going to Church either, so she is going to go with me. We'll see how long that lasts. But I am determined to make the most of it, put my heart into it and make is a good experience for me and to help bring me closer to God.

Maybe God did in fact whop me upside the head with a wake up call. Maybe this is what He wants me to do right now. We don't always get dealt the hand WE think WE deserve; mostly, I think, we get dealt the hand HE KNOWS we NEED. At least, that's what I'm hoping! I was thinking last night about my post on Plenary Indulgences and I realized that the reason I don't like the concept is because it seems too much like trying to bargain with God. Having a fair amount of experience at trying to bargain with God, I can tell you it very rarely rarely works out the way you think it should or you want it to. I think God probably gets a small chuckle out of it and then does what He wants to do. As it should be, really.

I don't know if this is the right decision, but I hope it is.. I'll pray it is!

The Cahtolic Curch offers an easier way to Heaven....

According to an article in the New York Times, the Catholic Church is now, once again, offering Plenary Indulgences. Really!? According to the Church you can't buy an indulgence, therefore you aren't really "buying" your way into Heaven. Hmmmm - I have to think about it.

For those of you who don't know what this is:

"According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.
There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?_r=2&em

Also for those who don't know... this was done before and the results were not good for the Catholic Church (Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, anyone?).

The article explains that part of what prompted this was a serious decline in people going to confession. The indulgences are meant to offer an incentive for people to go to confession - but at least they "aren't selling them anymore" (Rev. Tom Reese, from the article). I guess not, but still seems like a bribe to get people to do what the Church wants them to do.

I did find this to be very interesting: "After Catholics, the people most expert on the topic are probably Lutherans, whose church was born from the schism over indulgences and whose leaders have met regularly with Vatican officials since the 1960s in an effort to mend their differences. “It has been something of a mystery to us as to why now,” said the Rev. Dr. Michael Root, dean of the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, S.C., who has participated in those meetings. The renewal of indulgences, he said, has “not advanced” the dialogue. “Our main problem has always been the question of quantifying God’s blessing,” Dr. Root said. Lutherans believe that divine forgiveness is a given, but not something people can influence."

And isn't this telling:
"But for Catholic leaders, most prominently the pope, the focus in recent years has been less on what Catholics have in common with other religious groups than on what sets them apart — including the half-forgotten mystery of the indulgence." What does that really say about the Catholic Church

Something else interesting from the article: "To remain in good standing, Catholics are required to confess their sins at least once a year." I don't ever remember learning that growing up and I've got 10 years of Catholic School under my belt. But who knows maybe it is true... guess that would answer another question for me, wouldn't it?

Regardless of whether it's right or wrong and I'm not going judge it here; It just seems to me that if the Catholic Church can randomly decide whose going to heaven and how quickly they will get there... then they could allow me to stand up for Chloe for her confirmation without jumping through hoops... hmmm, maybe I should offer them a charitable contribution (wow - that was kind of nasty, wasn't it?).

I still haven't heard...

Well, I still haven't heard from St. Ann's. And I think I'm about to give up on that one. I'm planning on going to mass this weekend and I'll pick up a registration card and fill it out and become a member of the parish. Heck I'll even continue going to mass until the confirmation is over. See, here is the problem with that... it means that my only reason for going back to church and becoming an actual member is so that I can stand up for my cousin - and that seems hypocritical even to me. So sad! I can try to use it for a higher purpose I suppose. Gotta think on it.

Still got nothing

I've heard it said that patience is a virtue, but it has never been one of my stronger points. Do you suppose this is a test? Meant to see how patient I can be. Ah well, I feel just sick and yet I also feel that this could be pivotal; in some way very important to how I choose to live the rest of my life. It doesn't seem like it should be that earth shattering, does it? Maybe it's just the frustration of not knowing what to do next...

Confirmation... continued

Well, apparently since I am not an actual member of a Catholic parish, I have to provide a letter from a parish stating that I am "in good standing" in the church. Are you kidding me? I'm not even sure what that means. From the research I have done "in good standing" can mean anything from not being excommunicated and being eligible to receive the sacraments (there is an i word for this, but I can't remember it) to meaning goes to mass regularly and receives the sacraments regularly. Of course my question is how do I get a parish to write that letter if I'm not a member of a parish and don't go to mass regularly? So, I've e-mailed Father Breen at St. Ann's (my parents ARE members there). I got an e-mail back from the church secretary that she would give the e-mail to him and I should hear back from either him or one of the deacons, but so far... nada.

I am so frustrated and sad - I could just cry, and, in fact, have. It seems so unfair and honestly if I have to admit that Chuck was right (see post on how you say something), I may just never get over it. Of course, it's not his fault. I know whose fault it is. It's so much easier to blame someone else than yourself though.

I love my cousin and I love God and I believe I can be a good role model for her. I really, really want to be her sponsor. I was so excited and now I feel like I've been punched in the gut or whopped upside the head.

Oh well. That's all I've got for now. I'll write more when I know more!