Psalm-inspired

Sometimes I am just inspired by the way the writer of the book of psalms or wisdom etc express their divinely-inspired reflections on God.

And I've been doing mini-reflections for a couple of weeks now, may not be 'divinely inspired', but they are sort of reminders to me, of how I should always relate God in my daily life, through reflecting on my own personalities and ways.

One of them is on joy.

I felt like today is one of my 'happy-hyper' days, and yet at the back of my mind I am always reminded by this phrase that I sort of 'curse' or confine myself into: 'Laugh so much now, will cry lots later'.

I dunno where I got the idea from.

To be honest that's how I've been living my life with, and now I think it is very un-Christian like. And not true. It is only because my mind is set to be like that, that I somehow 'fulfil' this phrase 'prophetically'.

As though to belittle God's gift of joy. However, there are such things as wise joy ad foolish joy. I probably was being foolishly joyful before that had cause me lots of pain afterwards.

I made myself a post-it poem on reflecting this:

Joy is good, joy is a blessing.

Being joyful doesn't mean to be ignorant,

nor to be insensitive,

nor to be blind to the truth,

nor to be foolish.

True joy comes from God,

And maintains its wisdom,

Such joy is a blessing indeed,

A joy that the wise one deserves to keep.

Galileo

When I heard about people criticizing the church because of Galileo, I was concern. Since I believe in science discovery, and if the church had made an infallible church teaching on Galileo's theory is wrong, then, the church would not really be... infallible.

Then everything that I have believed in would be wrong.

I've searched everywhere, for an explanations that I can explain. Most of them gave really complicated answers with Catholic terms that ignorant (or ex-ignorant?) lay Catholic such as myself would never understand.

But I found this >article<.

I will try find more explanations because I want to compare and contrast the evidence.

By the way, Catholics don't reject Evolution. (Nor that it infallibly supports it either). It is because, our understanding of the Bible is that, the Bible can be understood in 4 ways (I got this explanation from >here<: The literal sense, the allegorical sense, the moral sense, and the anagogical sense.  

The literal sense when one reads about a temple in the bible is a big building where everyone went to worship. 

This is what the Pharisee thought that Jesus was talking about in John 2 when Jesus said “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days.” However, Jesus was talking about the allegorical sense (how the text refers to Jesus) and the fact that His Body is the new Temple.  

The moral sense of scripture is how the verse applies to us and our personal morality.  Since the bible says that our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 6, then we should not spend one second desecrating our temple by getting drunk, watching impure movies, having an abortion, cursing, etc.  The desecration of the temple is what started the whole Maccabean revolt in 1 Maccabees.  

The last method, the anagogical sense, refers to the heavenly sense.  We know that after the second coming there will be a new heavenly temple (Revelation 21), and the old earth and all of its churches and temples will pass away.  

>Here< is a more technical explanation. Which I myself have not read for the time being. Wait until my exam is over.

Matchmaking

If I'm not mistaken, Michael Voris is still single.

If so, I think Michael Voris and Mary Beth Bonacci should get together. To me they seem like they're going to make a great couple.

And how I love both of them in different ways. They are inspiring!

I pray that God will have their paths cross soon, only if that's His will. And if it is so, I hope both of them get to see this post. I am being very imaginative here. Wouldn't it be cool if they do get together because of my post (of course with God's grace as well, acting through me ^^)?

Hahahaha *Entertaining myself at the thought*

The freedom to do sin

I've just heard a really good and practical explanation of the freedom of committing sin.

God gives us the freedom whether to choose Him or sin right? However, have we thought about the consequences of each choices?

The freedom of committing sin is like the freedom to not study in school. We have the freedom to choose to study well and pass the exams, and have more freedom to choose from all sorts of good opportunities opening up from passing the exam, or we have the freedom to choose to slack off and fail the test, thus not having much freedom to choose good things in the future, instead got restricted and confined to all the lousy options.

Think about all sorts of addicts out there. Alcoholics, sex-addicts, people who greed over wealth and power... This is so easy to prove.

Therefore, to have freedom and to choose sin over good (God), will eventually imprison and condemn ourselves. More specifically, to be in hell, for eternity.

However, to make good use of that freedom and choose God, although it seems difficult at first as one has to transform ones life completely, making many adjustments, even sacrifice and suffers at times, it will get easier in time, before one knows it, one is free from the clench of sin, and free to be with God with the fullness of joy and love, at the end of time, for eternity.

The most beautiful explanation on the Passion and Death of Christ ever

This video taught about His love in the most beautiful way I've ever heard/seen in my whole life. I just could not stop tear up.  And, I personally feel that this explanation just makes me want to sin no more, however small it is. Watch it, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean.

It taught about sufferings too. To me who had some share in this thing I called sufferings (okay, I know there are more people who suffer more than I do and much much more unlucky than I am), maybe less than a speck sized of what our Lord had to endure, but I can now truly say I feel it from the bottom of my heart of how sorry and sad I am for His sufferings. Words can't describe enough what I mean by this. You just have to watch this video yourself.

Enjoy!



This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

The Bible - The Origin, Canonization and Its Disputes

While we believe that the Bible is the Word of God just as Protestants do, what we Catholics also believe is that, the Bible came out from the Church (i.e. the Catholic Church which has always been around since Jesus's time established starting the Pentecost until now), rather than the other way around.

What I mean by this is not that the Church who wrote the Bible per se (but yeah it IS the Church that produced the New Testaments though, to know what I mean please the videos at the bottom), I know that they are scriptures written as inspired by God over the centuries, but it was the Church that compiled the scriptures (all 73 of them) together into this book we call as the Bible now. Otherwise what would we have to use in the whole 2 centuries after Jesus' time? It was the Church that canonized and decided what scriptures were divinely inspired and to be included, and what scriptures were not. It was the Catholic Church that hold the authority, as given by Jesus as He founded the church on Peter which later on succeeded by the apostles, and made all these decisions.

(I am quoting and adapting the answers from this website which has a very understandable and polite way of answering, after cross referencing with other authorized Catholic resources)

Deuterocanonical Books - (The Apocrypha) ?

Just to start off, the Protestant Bible has only 66 books, missing seven whole books (I and II Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and portions of two others (Daniel and Esther) in comparison to the Catholic Bible. These missing parts is called the Apocrypha by the protestants of which they believe to be good books but not divinely inspired as the rest. The Catholics call these books deuterocanonical books. Deutrerocanon means “second canon”. Deuteronomy means “second book”, just as II Peter is also second book. III John is a third book. The term “deuterocanon” refers to the fact that these books were written and accepted later in time than the rest of the Old Testament canon. The word was never intended to imply that these books were not suitable to be read.

During Jesus' time there were two Old Testament's in use. There was the Palestinian canon (written in Hebrew) , which is identical to the Protestant Old Testament, and there was the Alexandrian canon (written in Greek) also known as the Septuagint, which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Comparisons of the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that an accurate "eyewitness" exists to the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the Septuagint (instead of the Hebrew/Palestinian Canon/Protestant OT) in 80% of his Old Testament references. Please click this link. See how the different usage of words that Jesus and the apostles used in NT compared to the Hebrew OT, give rise to somewhat different meanings. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books (the Septuagint/Greek Canon/Catholic OT) as part of canon of the Old Testament. 

The Septuagint was the Scripture of Jesus' time. It has the order of Bible books that we find in modern Bibles, the Palestinian canon has a completely different order. The NIV Bible use the Septuagint's order of books, yet it leaves out some of the books (Deuterocanonical books) that we find there.

The Alexandrian and Palestinian canons were almost identical except the Septuagint contained the seven Deuterocanonical books, which Protestants call the Apocrypha. ("Canon" means the list of books) The Apostles and the early Church including the early Church fathers used the Septuagint. The African Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) also approved it.

Protestants favour the Palestinian canon because it is the one that the Jews ratified in 90 AD at the Jewish (non-Christian) Council of Jamnia. Catholics feel that this Jewish council was not binding by God because God's authority was passed over to Christians at the Pentecost (Acts 2:1) sixty years earlier. Some people question if an actual council occurred at Jamnia but that does not change the premise. The Jews decided to review their canon books after the resurrection of our Lord, and therefore those decisions are not at all binding on Christians.

Furthermore, what the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of who the Messiah was (namely, Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings. And apparently, the Jews did not reject these seven books – or the Septuagint as a whole – for roughly 250 years before that. From the completion of the Septuagint to the school of Jamnia a large group of Greek speaking Jews were happy to use the Septuagint. This group of Jews included Jesus and His disciples. 

So I don't think to follow the list set by Christ-rejecting Jews of the time (i.e. without the 7 Deuterocanonical books as in the Protestant's ones) is rational. 

Did Saint Jerome not rejected these books?

No, he didn't. What Saint Jerome (the man who compiled and translated the first unified Bible in the early 400s) did was believe in Hebraica veritias (“Hebrew truth”). He believed that the Scriptures written in Hebrew were superior and gave a better witness to Christ. He expressed misgivings about the seven deuterocanonical books but agreed to the authority of the Church and the pope and included them in his translation. This is an example of a non infallible opinion from a man, of which later he did heed to the infallible authority of the Church.

Keep in mind that Protestants reject the longer, Alexandrian version of Daniel; St. Jerome did not. 

In addition, a snip from Columbia University (Secular institution)

"As to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Jerome made hasty translations of Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Daniel and Esther; the rest he did not touch, hence the Vulgate includes Old Latin versions of them." http://www.answers.com/topic/vulgate

The Vulgate (the bible in Latin that Christians has always been using since 400 A.D.) ALWAYS included the Deuteros. Four were translated by Jerome and the rest of them used the old Latin. In other words the Church ALWAYS accepted them. 

The Deuterocanonical books were not added to the Bible at the council of Trent like many opponents to them say. Christians always considered them part of the Bible. The Latin Vulgate which was written in 400 A.D. by Jerome, included the Deuterocanonical books. Their formal acceptance happened at Trent as a response to the Reform. This was the first time the Deuterocanonical books were called into serious question.

Furthermore: The Gutenberg Bible of 1455 contained the Deuterocanonical books. It was the Vulgate. It was written in Latin. It predates (even before) the Reformation.

Peter Flint, the author of the only existing English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (published in 1999, www.deadseascrolls.org). His book on the scrolls was declared book of the year 2003 by the Institute of Biblical Archeology in Washington DC.  He made it plain that the Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) were included with the other books of the Old Testament in the scrolls. They were found together. This helps to confirm that the Deuterocanonical books are valid.

Professor Flint, who is an Evangelical Protestant Bible scholar made a powerful statement:

While we know that at the time of Jesus there were different canons of the Old Testament because the canonical process was not yet complete, the glorious truth is that God has invited humans to be partners in the putting together of Scripture. I think the implications are that you cannot have Scripture without the community of faith [in other words, the Church]. It’s not just a private revelation. God gives us Scripture, but then the [Church], by God’s guidance, has to choose what’s in and what’s out. (as quoted in Christianity Today, October 6, 1997.)  

He also said "Without the Church you have a bunch of books. With the Church you have a Bible." (Lecture Feb. 13, 2004, Ottawa, Canada)

These books contain fantastical and inappropriate elements.

The Gospels contain a man being resurrected from the dead, the ascension of Jesus. Genesis contains the creation of the whole universe! These things are just as fantastical as anything in the deuterocanon, say the dragon thing from the expurged parts of Daniel.

Just because something does not match up with a personal theology it cannot simply be discarded; there are some people today who deny certain aspects of Christian moral teaching (such as homosexuality, for example). We can't just discard any sections of the Bible that put forward those moral views.

Catholics believe that the canon of the Bible is not open to interpretation and modification by people who are doing so just because it doesn't agree with their personal theology. Truth is truth, it cannot change over time nor can it contradicts each other because the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be confused. If the books of the Bible disagrees with anyone's personal theology, it is a sign that his/her personal theology is wrong, not that the book should not be in the Bible. No individuals have the authority to made the personal, sole decision to discard anything from the Bible that has been agreed upon for 1500 years under the infallible decision by the Catholic Church, of which Jesus Christ Himself promised to protect for all eternity through the Holy Spirit. [Matthew 28:20] (More on the Church authority and infallibility of Her teachings in the future)

Neither Jesus nor His apostles quote the deuterocanonical books, they should be left out of the Bible.

This claim ignores that Jesus nor His apostles do not quote Ecclesiastes, Esther or the Song of Songs, nor even mention them in the New Testament; yet Protestants accept these books. Furthermore, the New Testament quotes and refers to many non-canonical books, like pagan poetry quoted by Paul and Jewish stories referred to by Jude, which neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as Scripture. Clearly New Testament quotation, or the lack thereof, cannot be a reliable indicator of Old Testament canonicity.

Although no direct quotes, biblical evidence to indirectly link the Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament can be found here.

The Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon.

This is also incorrect. Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon.[12] Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418).[13] All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.

This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397).[14] In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse,[15] the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical[16] Council of Florence in 1442.[17] When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.

And....
...
...
...



To conclude (Logical point of view that's going to make you say 'Eh... Ya la ho.., and less technical, I promise!)


If the Bible requires the Church for its compilation/canonization (since the Bible doesn't appear from thin air or drop from the sky all of a sudden one day), I would think that the decision process to decide on the Canon would have to be "inspired" by God. I think the same kind of Grace would be required to decide on what books to include in the Bible Canon as was required to write the books in the first place. To me there are 4 possibilities.

1. God did not inspire the decision on the Canon.
2. God gave the Jews that Grace in the 2^nd century A.D. when they chose the Masoretic (similar to Hebrew/Palestinian) Canon, i.e. (after they rejected his son, the Messiah)
3. God gave the Reformation that Grace in 1546
4. God give the Catholic Church that Grace at Carthage in 397 A.D.

I can't imagine God being OK with there being two Canons floating around so I would rule out #1. I can't imagine God waiting 1550 years until the Reformation (more like, Martin Luther, based on his own authority) to inspire a decision on the Canon. So I also would rule out #3. That leaves me with the option that either the Jews were given that Grace in the 2^nd century A.D. or the Catholic Church was given that Grace at Carthage. I have difficulty believing God would give more grace to the Jews after they rejected his Son the Messiah than they would give the early Christians who used the Deuteros. So I believe that Grace was given to the early Christians who used the Dueteros and ratified their inclusion in the Canon in 397 A.D. at Carthage. 


The final lists produced by the various councils who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to determine which books were in the Bible are the very same lists which give us the books of the New Testament. If you don't trust the lists for the Old Testament, why do you trust them for the New Testament?


Everybody loves visual media. 


Believe it or not, but for God's sake please watch the videos below and give them a deep, deep thought about them, because it is a serious matter of your own eternal salvation.

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

Please click the large space below (if you can't see the video) and download the video to watch the 2nd part of 'Where did the Bible come from?'.

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

Personal rantings:
Headache yet? Just because Catholic Church has so much to learn about does not make her wrong and that the much simplified and easier versions of Christianity to be right. If you really know the Bible, you'll know that from the OT to the NT, being a true follower of Christ/God was never easy and simple. If you are looking for a Christianity that is all simple, all happy and all easy you might as well not being a Christian at all, since [Matthew 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.] and [Philippians 2:12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.] Please don't take our God, nor His sacrifice for granted. I beg you, don't be complacent with whatever comfort zone you're in. Never stop searching for Him!


The Church knows it and this is reflected in the history of our saints, in the teachings, in the things we do in honouring Him. After all, the Church has 2000 years of unbroken history and knowledge revealed and protected unfailingly all these time by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Jesus Christ Himself) since the pentecost of Jesus' time! [Matthew 28:20 ... I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.] Everything we do has reasons and a purpose, in terms of biblically, common sense and historically. Don't believe me? Stay up-to-date with me on this blog. I have so much more that I'm aching to share with you readers!


Depending on my inspirations, coming topics might be...
The Bible and Its role in Catholic Church.
The Bible and Its interpretation.
Sola Scriptura?


Other references that I used: http://www.catholicscomehome.org/ http://www.realcatholictv.com/ http://www.cuf.org/ http://www.catholic.com/

The Objective

As 2011 is starting, I had a sudden reflection of myself. It was upsetting to realize that despite my desires and thoughts and talks of being closer and closer to Jesus, I found myself to have been wasting my current conflict-free free time with other worldly and non-essential activities that actually lured me away from Christ.

To be honest I feel more sinful living this apparent conflict-free life. He was a lot closer to me when I was rock-bottomed and surrounded by all sorts of conflicts. I had become complacent.

I was never the 'reflecting' type of person unless I am in trouble. Trouble-free at the moment, maybe He was trying to move my heart and call out to me again. Surely He doesn't want me to 'use' Him only in times of trouble, but also not neglecting Him times of peace such as now. Praise God for the calling.

My main two things in life now is my study (at the moment) and my God (forever). This blog is dedicated in honouring Him.

I had been thinking about the style and the way I would like to get this across. Yesterday I learnt about the different way sins can be performed:

sins through thoughts, words, or deeds, of which can be both the doings or the non-doings of them.

I have a vocation that I discovered through my 2 months stay in Bournemouth in 2010, which is to help teaching the real Catholic faith to the people back home, especially the young people, because I know from my own experience, the young people there grew up in the name of Catholic but knows nothing about Catholicsm, which give rise to lukewarm or ignorant Catholics, just as how I was before.

People seems to have forgotten, or do not realize, that faith is NOT a LIFESTYLE which we can choose to ignore, but is THE WAY to LIVE.

I have so far done nothing towards that vocation. It is time I start being dedicated.

That being said, I am well aware of and fear Jeremiah 23, which speaks of misleading shepherds and the false prophets.

Therefore this blog would be a journey of me, as honestly and as sincerely as possible, questioning and finding the answers to Catholicsm and Christianity in general (by Christianity I mean all Christian faiths that believe in the basic Trinity concept and that Jesus as the Messiah, INCLUDING Catholics since Catholic IS Christian), which I hope to establish through the 3 main pillars that I consider important to form the basis of my faith:

the Bible, the Historical facts, and common sense.

I will pray for every posts, so that I will not do harm in His name. That being said, I AM a mere sinful human like everyone else, I more than capable of making mistakes.

And also, my personal opinions does not necessarily represent the teachings of the church, therefore, again, my wrong does not necessarily represent mistakes in the church's teaching. However, I would refer the quoted opinions/teachings back to original author.

If you have any questions, do ask or leave comments... POLITELY and in the spirit of CHARITY, not of pride, there's nothing more annoying than people just lash out whatever irrational or illogical arguments, just for the sake of wanting to win. This is not about winning or losing an argument. This is about ME finding THE way to save my own soul for eternity, and possibly pulling however few people I can along the way.

My ultimate aim here in this blog is not to convert anybody to become a Christian and/or Catholic, but rather to find out more of the much-misunderstood Catholic Church which I was borne into, and to help other people, especially my family and friends, to understand how I understand my own faith, to find out if the Catholic faith is the one true faith, and to see if the faith is worth me sticking up for... Most importantly, this blog is a preparation or training for my vocation which I believe will be focusing on the ignorant Catholics, like who I myself used to be back home.

Or, if in the end I find the Catholic faith to be wrong and erroneous, and thus being called by God to the other side, I will be bound by my conscience to change to another faith and you shall witness the conversion here.

If people do get converted or feel the calling to Christianity or Catholicsm because of what I talk about in this blog, I pray that it is truly God's calling, after you have put a lot of rational thoughts, and after saying a lot of prayers, and after you have done a lot of your own investigation and research. Then praise God for my mini-ministry. If it is JUST a FEELING, well, I should remind you, feelings can be deceiving, although it could on the other hand be a tool to draw you closer to the truth. Therefore, never stop your journey in faith. Keep on searching for Him. Amen.

Most of my posts will probably be related to the typical questions by a protestant to a catholic, this is because it is through them that I started to question my faith, of which later made me search for the answers. This got me to start falling in love more and more with our Lord once I got to know more about Him in the light of the Catholic Church. I owe my love for God, well, to His grace of course, and also the Church, but especially my Protestant friends, of which through their warm and charitable fellowship, I started to want to know more. (This is what the Church still struggle to achieve by itself - to arouse the interest of Catholics to know about their God and their own faith, and that we don't have good fellowships, the best one out of two or three that I've seen is the one in Bournemouth).

I was really shocked, that after learning more and more about the Catholic faith, to know of how much the world, Atheists, Protestants and Catholics (esp me in the past) alike, overlook and deprived of the treasure of Christ contained within the depths of this faith, of just how so misunderstood it is simply because the knowledge is too vast. Everytime I would think to myself, 'If only people know this... If only people found out about that...' So here I am, hoping to eliminate all the 'if only's and do something about it. And because I have so many non-Catholic friends whom all I love dearly, I hope you people will give my blog a chance, to clear up the misunderstandings, and see if you can see what I see, and understand the faith the way I do.

The reason why I do it through blog, is because I can't speak, I can't debate, I am bad with oral explanations. My brain can't remember things well, and I get emotional easily, I'd get choked up easily when it comes to talking about my faith. Because I feel too strongly about it perhaps? I guess that's why God made internet. To allow people like me to work (or/and practise) for Him in this virtual realm.

In short, this blog is my personal quest and training (of which I wish you readers would join me as well) in the Roman Catholic faith.