The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 3,700 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 3 trips to carry that many people.
Image by J. Stephen Conn via Flickr
Image by luc legay via Flickr
It never ends…this is tremendous. Again non-attacking personally, but taking the bull by the horns so to speak. Instead of being angry at our very sincere Protestant brother in Christ, Jefferson Bethke, perhaps we should be appreciative of the many thoughtful responses and discussions he has evoked. As I continue to say, both views have some merit. Bethke is right–religion–OURS–has at times erred, not in faith and morals, but in her application of them. We need to admit it and be done trying to “explain it away.” BUT–as our near-Friar friend suggests so poetically, Bethke would not be sharing his own words had it not been for the Catholic Church and her biggest gift to the Christian world, which is the Sacred Scriptures he himself reads and tries to follow in his own life.
And the same authority which God gave to the early Church Councils to determine what belonged in Sacred Scriptures still exists–it is called Rome and the Bishops in union with her and the Holy Father, who is Rome’s bishop. Another wonderful and original response.
NOTE: this video is from one of our future Church leaders…his website is www.makeafriar.com. I have had personal contact with this guy from time to time and he is very way cool.
Image via Wikipedia
I was sent this video in response to the one I posted yesterday, which is flying at the speed of light all over the Internet. I still stand with my belief that the first young man was very sincere and had much courage in his original video. However I need to correct some of the definitions I used. The following video does a marvelous job of doing this for me, so I will let it speak for itself. I also would like thank David Demboski for sharing a bit more about the Sacraments and the theology behind them (see end of this post for his well-written words), which I was not expressing as clearly as I meant to do.
In short I think both sides have a point and need to continue listening to one another without attacking each other’s motives or resorting to name-calling. That is what bothered me the most about the abundance of “Catholic answers” floating about. I also learned that we as Catholics probably use the word “religion” in a slightly different way than the rest of the world does, and that may have triggered some of the original irritation towards the first fine young man.
If we define “religion” as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then I totally agree, he is off-base. If we however use it as most people do today, which includes every Christian (or Christian-like) denomination, Buddhism, Shintoism, Muslims, and Hindus, and yes Catholics, then I agree with him that “religion” in and of itself does not save. That is the distinction I took away from the first video. But I can see why it offended many of my Faith when realizing those distinctly different takes on that word. “Religion” in a general sense does not save, but Jesus through the true Religion does. Do you want the “old-time religion?” Then look into the Catholic Church and you will find it is all there.
Good discussion…and to finish off I will include, in full, David Demboski’s comments to me, and my response from FB, regarding yesterday’s posting. They are worth reading, I believe.
David Demboski says:
Richard, I appreciate the thoughts on this guy. You’re right, there have been a lot of criticism flying around towards him, and I agree with you mostly about what you say above, but I do have some disagreement. I certainly agree that the message behind what he is saying is well intended and correct. He was Christians to not be hypocrites because that only hurts the Body of Christ and those the Church is trying to reach. He is, however, very misinformed/ignorant about many of the issues he discusses. I think if we were to ask what he defines “religion” we would disagree about the definition. You’re right, he probably does mean liturgical denominations like Catholics, Presbyterians, etc, but like many of the articles in response to the video have pointed out, that would not be the definition of religion. Obviously, if he is speaking about the Catholic Church, his criticism about building big churches and not feeding/helping the poor is completely off base. You know as well as I that the Catholic Church helps more poor and oppressed that any other organization in the world, but he either is ignorant of that fact or ignores it. In summary, I think the criticisms launched at this video have been spot-on, but, like yourself, I do not think they affirm the good in the video enough. Is that fair to say? I also want to suggest something about your sacraments-being-efficacious comment above. I think you might be slightly off there, but I could be mistaken. I believe the sacraments are efficacious in the sense that as long as the matter and form are met, they give grace (special grace, obviously). They are more than just symbols; they give the grace they represent. For Baptism faith is required (either of the baptized or the parents), but as long as all of the correct elements are there, it is efficacious: it really does bring about a change in the believer even if they do not live out the Christian life afterwords. I think the Catechism communicates this. Tell me what you think. From CCC 1127 and 1128: “Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies…This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.” I think that last sentence is what you were getting at. Still, once the Sacrament is performed, grace is given. For example, when some 8th grader is confirmed (like I was) without truly understanding what was happening or afterwards trying to live out the Christian faith, I still received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (the Sacrament was efficacious), but it was still up to me to use them (the fruit depends on the disposition of the one who receives them). As always I very much appreciate your commentary and contribution, and I respect you opinion. I just wanted to share this with you. Please tell me what you think. Peace.
My response to David is as follows:
One of my brothers in Christ and the Church, David Demboski, (not pictured above, by the way!) pointed out to me that the Sacraments ARE efficacious at all times according to the Catechism, and he is of course correct. However if we are not properly disposed to them, they sort of are “frozen in place” and do not accomplish all they are meant to–NOT because of them, but because of us. The distinction is important because the first statement implies that they do not have power in and of themselves. They do. I stand corrected (actually I am seated but you get the point!). Also the video’s use of the word “religion” bothered him because, again rightly pointing out, that TRUE religion does indeed give us the graces we need and that is the gift of the Church to us. It, ironically, is the very vehicle that even this young man has received Christ as a result of–and that is true of all “Bible believing Christians.” Points VERY well taken, David. In response I would say that it depends how you define “religion” however. Muslims and Buddhism are commonly called “religions” in the more modern and broader definition of the word. So no, “religion” in that sense does not save. I think that was the point our young rap star was pointing out and on that I agree with him still. Conversely, James in the New Testament tells us what “true religion” is and there is a place for it in our lives as well. So I think both sides have something to say to one another. What I strongly object to is the amount of name-calling and sarcasm I have seen towards someone who at least seems to be attempting to live for God, and who had to know his video was going to upset some people–yet he posted it anyway. And I still object to that. I respect his courage and his willingness to take the flack he is no doubt getting along with the accolades. I am not sure, at that age or stage in my life, if I would have had the gumption to face all of that personally. As I said already I think we should pray for him to have a greater understanding of what/who the Church actually is. does, and teaches, and go from there. And finally we need to remember that we are not enemies with opposite objectives here. We are brothers in Christ and as such both need to hear one another out. Thanks David Demboski. And thanks be to God for his ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
AND for a Reformed Protestant Christian view…for the record very similar to the Catholic ones here linked to, see the site below–a great wealth of information from a more Calvinist perspective:
So now we have a wide variety of food for thought here…more comments welcome–but let us respect all views here. We are all on the same team.
