Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
THE CANONIZATION OF SAINTS
Mgr. P. E. Hallett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the writers on the subject of canonization of the saints begin by contrasting it with the pagan custom of apotheosis. Under the Roman Empire this was an honour reserved to the members of the Imperial family, and not, like Christian canonization, a distinction given to those who have lived lives of heroic sanctity, whatever their worldly position. More important still, the pagan superstition claimed to confer divinity upon men, a claim abhorrent to Catholics and, indeed, philosophically impossible. In all that we shall have to say about canonization we shall presuppose a knowledge of the Catholic doctrine upon the subordinate position of the saints. They are creatures and can never be otherwise; but they are the glorified members of Christ's Mystical Body, that is, the Church, and as such are to be honoured by us and in return are able to help us by their powerful intercession.
We may see in the concluding chapters of the Book of Ecclesiasticus an attempt to draw up a formal list of the saints of the Old Testament. "Let us praise men of renown, and our fathers in their generation . . . their glory shall not be forsaken. Their bodies are buried in peace, and their name liveth unto generation and generation. Let the people show forth their wisdom and the Church declare their praise" (chapter 44). The writer then gives his list, Henoch, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, etc.
Coming now to Christian times, we have evidence from the earliest days of the Church's history of the honour and veneration she paid to her martyrs, and therein we may see the germ of the whole system, afterwards elaborated in such detail, of beatification and canonization. We read, for example, of the zealous care of the faithful to preserve the bodies, or a part of the relics, of the martyrs, and, on the other hand, of the efforts of the pagans, by burning the bodies, casting the ashes into the Tiber, etc., to hinder them. For it was the Christian custom to give honourable burial to the tortured remains, to erect above them an altar, and thereupon to offer the Holy Mass, the Eucharist, or a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God for the glorious constancy of His martyrs. Even in so early a book as the Apocalypse we have evidence of this practice. "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony (paptupiav) which they held" (vi. 9).
Even at this very day we have essentially the same procedure in the elaborate rite for the consecration of a church. The relics of martyrs are brought into the sacred building in solemn procession, not in sorrow but in joy, and laid to rest beneath the altar. The older churches, those in Rome for example, may often be considered as the triumphal monuments erected above the bodies of the martyrs. Thus "martyrium" was the early word for a church, and the altar over a martyr's tomb, <e.g.>, St. Peter's in Rome, was and is called the "confessio," which is merely the Latin for the Greek " martyrium."
Whilst the early honour paid to the martyrs was generally confined to one place, yet there was naturally a tendency, especially where the witness of a martyr had been especially heroic, or otherwise noteworthy, for it to spread to other churches. Often the facts of the martyrdoms were written out and communicated to other churches. Well-known early examples are the letter from the Church of Smyrna, recounting the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John the Evangelist, and the letter from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne concerning their many martyrs to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. The names of martyrs thus commended in authentic letters would be added to the diptychs of other churches.
Diptychs
It may be well to say a little about these diptychs. They were folding tablets which stood upon the altar and contained the names that were to be mentioned in the Mass. Often they were read out by the deacon to the people, or whispered in the ear of the priest. In some of the old manuscripts the names are written in the margin of the Mass book. On these tablets were entered names both of the living and of the dead, and the latter were again divided into two classes, those for whom we pray and those for whom it would be wrong to pray. The last-mentioned were, of course, the martyrs for, according to the well-known words of Innocent III, "he does an injustice to a martyr who prays for him." In the Roman Missal we have now the memento of the living, followed by the prayer "Communicantes," with a list of saints and, after the Consecration, the memento of the dead followed by the prayer "Nobis quoque peccatoribus," with a further list of saints. There seems no doubt that originally the two mementos followed each other without a break, and that the two lists of saints were united. Thus does the Canon of the Mass, with its mention of the name of the Pope, the bishop, the faithful throughout the world, the living, the souls in Purgatory, and the saints, recall the old diptychs. In many old Missals, indeed, the memento for the living has the rubrical direction "Super diptyca." In the names of the saints, then, in the Mass, we have the Church's earliest list of canonized saints, for to canonize meant originally to place the name of the saint in the Canon of the Mass (See Du Cange, s.v.).
Owing to the enormous numbers of the early martyrs and the later canonizations, it has not been possible to continue to add their names to the Canon, and although we still speak of the addition of each new saint to the catalogue or album of the saints, no such list actually exists in this world. Even the Roman Martyrology does not serve the purpose, for it contains, in addition to Old Testament saints, many names which are reckoned amongst the blessed only, and not amongst the saints. Since, however, the reign of Pope Benedict XIV no new names, save those of canonized saints, have been added to it.
Caution Of Ecclesiastical Authority
From the earliest times it was realised by the Church how necessary it was to get authentic information so that true martyrs should be distinguished from false claimants to that honour. Sometimes it was possible to get copies of the official legal reports preserved in the State archives. The acts of St. Justin Martyr are recognized as possessing this official character. Sometimes the martyrs themselves would write a narrative, like the precious and touching composition of the heroic African martyr, St. Perpetua.
Often a Christian scribe would attend the court and take down a verbatim report of the proceedings, using, as we are assured, a species of shorthand. Thus, according to the "Liber Pontificalis," St. Clement,. Pope (A.D. 90 to 112) appointed seven notaries, so that each, in the portion of the city of Rome assigned to him, might diligently enquire into, and commit to writing; the acts of the martyrs. In such a manner were the official "Acts of the martyrs " drawn up, many of which have come down to us, though, unfortunately, in later times combined with many legends. On the anniversaries of martyrdom the " Acts " were in many places read out in the church, though Rome seems always to have shown especial caution in the matter. A decree attributed by savants in part, at least, to the sixth century, and included in that section of the Corpus Juris (Dist. xv. c. iii.) which gives a list of the books received by the Catholic Church, may be translated as follows: "Also the Acts of the holy martyrs, resplendent with the glory of numberless torments and heroic witness unto death. What Catholic doubts of the greatness of their sufferings in the arena, or imagines that they could have endured by their own strength without the grace and help of God ? But according to ancient custom the Acts are not read in the Roman Church, because of its great cautiousness, for they are written by unknown persons and are esteemed superfluous or imperfect by infidels and the unlearned." At a later period, however, they seem to have been read even in Rome.
At an early date ecclesiastical authority drew up lists of authentic martyrs, "martyres vindicati," as they were called, and forbade public honour to be given to any others. Thus in the fourth century, Lucilla, a wealthy matron of Carthage was rebuked by the archdeacon Caecilian for kissing, before the reception of Holy Communion, the relic of some martyr not yet "vindicatus." The local bishop was the competent authority for the martyrs of his diocese, though Africa was an exception, for there the right was reserved to the primatial See of Carthage.
In forming their judgment, there is ample evidence that the bishops took account, not only of the prodigies which sometimes accompanied the deaths of the martyrs, <e.g.>, the bursting forth of a stream, as in the case of St. Alban, and of the miracles which were said to be wrought by their intercession, but also of their previous lives. According to the well-known dictum of St. Augustine, it is not the suffering that makes the martyr, but the cause for which he suffers. This local approbation usually was followed by the erection of a church, or at least an altar, where Mass could be offered in honour of the martyr.
Distinction Between Canonization And Beatification
We are now in a position to make a broad distinction between beatification and canonization. Some writers say that at first there was no distinction between them, but it would be truer to say that the custom of beatification alone was at first in vogue, and that only at a later date did canonization arise. For, as we now distinguish the words, beatification means the giving of permission for a local honour or cultus, whilst canonization means the official commendation of the cultus of the saint to the Universal Church. Evidently, then, although a local bishop could permit the honours of beatification, yet to decree the honours of canonization could be within the competence of him only who exercises jurisdiction in the Universal Church, that is, the Supreme Pontiff. Thus, whilst the cultus of the more famous Roman martyrs, such as St. Agnes and St. Lawrence, spread to the whole Church, many examples show the care with which the acts of martyrs who suffered elsewhere were brought to Rome for the approbation of the Pope.
With the exception of Our Blessed Lady, all the saints mentioned in the Canon of the Mass are martyrs, as indeed were all the saints of the first three centuries of our era. Only in the fourth century does the cultus of any who were not martyred seem to have established itself, and then only after long discussion. Our Lord's words: "Whosoever shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. x. 32) were understood only of the witness borne to Christ by martyrdom. "Confessor" is the Latin for the Greek word "martyr," and at first they were regarded as synonymous, but at length the word confessor gained the specialized meaning which now it has of one who, though not a martyr, yet bears witness to Our Lord by a saintly life. In the sixth century, St. Isidore writes: "There are two classes of martyrs, one in open suffering, the other in the secret virtue of the soul. Many have withstood the onslaughts of the devil, and resisted all the lusts of the flesh, and as they have thus sacrificed themselves in their hearts to Almighty God they have become martyrs when the Church was in peace, just as they would have been martyrs if she had been suffering persecution."
Amongst the earliest confessors whose cultus was authorised were the hermits of the desert in the East and St. Martin of Tours in the West. As confessors were honoured, so, too, were virgins and widows who were not martyrs.
Constantly, however, the Church had to guard against the extravagant and unauthorised devotion of the people. St. Gregory the Great had to make a rule that the bodies of the Popes should be carried to their sepulchres without palls, because the people, out of reverence for the pontifical dignity, used to tear these coverings to pieces and honour them as sacred relics. In the life of St. Martin of Tours we read that near his episcopal city there was a shrine much honoured by the people as the tomb of a martyr. Upon doubts arising, the holy bishop went to the place and solemnly adjured the supposed martyr to declare himself. Hereupon we are assured that a dark shade appeared and confessed that he had been a robber, who was put to death for his crimes. Amongst others, Charlemagne and St. Anselm of Canterbury might be named as the authors of synodal laws that no public honour should be paid to new saints without the authority of the bishop.
Often the episcopal approbation took the form of, or at least was accompanied by, the solemn translation of the body of the saint, <i.e.>, its removal to an honourable place under an altar. Thus we in England used to celebrate the feasts of the translation of St. Thomas, St. Swithun, etc.
Up to the twelfth century, then, the position was that local bishops could beatify the servants of God by permitting public cultus, <e.g.>, the erection of altars, the celebration of feasts, the offering of Holy Mass in their honour within the limits of their diocese. Of all those thus locally honoured, however, only those are now considered as beatified whose cultus, either expressly or tacitly, has been accepted by the Holy See, and only those as canonized saints whose cultus has been extended to the Universal Church.
An interesting case is that of the Emperor Charlemagne. He was canonized on December 29th, 1165, by Paschal III. This prelate, however, was an anti-pope, one of a series raised up by the notorious Emperor Frederic Barbarossa in rebellion against the lawful Pope Alexander III. Yet Charlemagne has since that time received a local cultus in certain parts of Germany, Belgium, and France, against which the supreme pontiffs have never protested. In virtue then of this toleration, and not of course in virtue of the act of the anti-pope, which was null and void, it has been held (e.g,. by Benedict XIV, writing as a private theologian, not officially as Pope) that he is to be considered as beatified.
Gradual Centralization
Long before the tenth century we find many examples of the papal approbation being sought for local cultus. Thus Offa, King of Mercia in the eighth century, is said to have obtained from Pope Hadrian I the canonization of St. Alban, the protomartyr of England, who had long been locally honoured in this country. But yet the first formal decree of canonization seems to be that of St. Ulrich, Bishop of Augsburg, which Pope John XV issued in a synod at the Lateran of the year 993. For some centuries these decrees were ordinarily, although not exclusively, issued in councils or synods, as the following extract from the Bull of canonization of St. Edward the Confessor will show. "Having seen the letters of Our predecessor, Pope Innocent of holy memory, and having received your evidence (he is referring to the English bishops), although so difficult and sacred a matter is rarely granted, save in a solemn synod, yet after counsel taken with Our brethren, according to the ardent desire of Our son the King (Henry II) and of all of you, we decree that the body of the Confessor be honoured and glorified with due rites upon earth, just as the Lord has already by His grace glorified him in heaven." Pope Alexander III, who thus canonized St. Edward, canonized also St. Thomas of Canterbury. Another important act of the same pontiff was the issuing of a decree in 1181, which led to a far-reaching change in discipline. A gross abuse from the diocese of Lisieux had been brought to his notice, whereby the honours of martyrdom were being paid to a man who had died in a drunken brawl. The Pope answered: "The Apostle says that drunkards shall not possess the kingdom of God. Therefore presume not henceforth to honour that man, for even though many miracles were performed by him, it would not be lawful for you to venerate him publicly as a saint without the authority of the Roman Church."
Although it was by some maintained that this decree was only of particular application, yet gradually it established itself as a general rule, and the power of beatification, or allowing a local cultus, became lost to the diocesan bishops and reserved exclusively to the Pope. The process was very slow, and some bishops maintained their right of granting permission for local cultus until a very late period. The last instance, recorded by Benedict XIV in his classical work on the Beatification and Canonization of the Saints, is as recent as 1603, when the Archbishop of Malines allowed in his diocese the public cultus of Blessed, now Saint, Boniface of Lausanne. But the decrees of Pope Urban VIII, which came into full force in 1634, finally decided that no public honour could be allowed to any who had not been beatified by the Apostolic See, with certain exceptions for those who had been honoured from time immemorial. He also forbade the printing of accounts of miracles, favours, revelations, visions, etc., and the giving to pictures the aureole or other characteristic mark of sanctity, in regard to all not yet beatified and canonized, without the leave of the Bishop and the Holy See. This is the reason for the protestation we so often see printed at the beginning of lives of the servants of God who are not yet canonized.
From the time, then, of Urban VIII, the processes for the causes of beatification and canonization have been established in substantially the form they now have, although some modifications were introduced by the code of Canon Law, which came into force in 1918. Before, however, giving an account of these processes, it will be well to say a word as to what they effect.
Significance Of Beatification And Canonization
Whilst we are at liberty privately to venerate and invoke the intercession of any one whom we may think to be in heaven, yet the Church will not allow any act that betokens religious honour or cultus to be paid publicly to any one whom she has not declared blessed. Beatification, however, permits a certain cultus, but always limited very strictly. The limits are set down in the decree of beatification, and vary from case to case. Thus a feast may be celebrated in honour of Blessed Richard Reynolds in every Bridgettine Convent, and each bishop in England may erect one altar, and one only, in his diocese to the martyrs' honour. Relics of the beatified may be exposed for veneration in churches only where their Mass and Office is permitted. Churches may not be dedicated to them, nor may they be chosen as patrons of nations, dioceses or religious bodies.
Canonization, on the contrary, decrees the public cultus of the Universal Church to the saints. Benedict XIV enumerates seven acts as constituting this official cultus. (1). All Christians are commanded to regard them as, and call them, saints. (2). They are invoked in the public prayers of the Church, and it is forbidden any longer to pray <for> them. (3). Churches and altars may be dedicated to God in their honour. (4). Mass is offered and Divine Office recited in their honour, and though this Mass may not be prescribed for the universal Church, but only for one or more dioceses, yet it may be said, as a votive Mass, anywhere throughout the Church. (5). Feast days are assigned to them. (6). Their images are depicted with the aureole or other attributes of sanctity. (7). Their relics are publicly honoured.
Canonization is the final and irreformable judgment of the Church, and therefore we are bound, as her dutiful children, to believe that saints duly canonized are in heaven.[1] Beatification, on the contrary, is not a decree for the whole Church, but rather of the nature of a local tolerance, and therefore we are not bound to believe that the beatified are in heaven, although we should be extremely rash not to do so, especially where they have been formally beatified by the Church, and not merely allowed to retain an immemorial cultus.
May we not' regard it as a ground for hope, and as a sign that the mercy of God is, in the language of Holy Scripture, above all His works, that His Church has authority to draw up a list of those who are certainly in heaven, but no such authority in regard to those who are lost?
We come now to the procedure in causes of beatification and canonization.
Ordinary Processes
Any Catholic may petition the bishop to begin the proceedings. The first step will be to appoint a postulator. He must be a priest ordinarily resident in Rome, and it is his duty, either in person or by his deputies, called vice-postulators, to make the formal request to the competent court for the introduction of the cause, to urge it forward in every legitimate way, to draw up a brief statement of the facts which he proposes to prove, to get the witnesses, and to give in their names to the court, to put in documents in evidence and, last but not least, to provide for the expenses of the whole proceeding.
The bishop then will begin by collecting information in judicial form, which is intended to provide a <prima facie> case to induce the Holy See to take up the cause. Hence these processes are called "informative" or "ordinary," as being under the jurisdiction of the local bishop or ordinary, and in his ecclesiastical court. Over the sessions of the court one judge alone may preside, if he be the bishop himself. If, as is usually the case, the bishop cannot undertake this arduous work, he must appoint three judges to act in his name.
An important official is the promoter of the Faith (popularly known as the "Devil's Advocate"). He should be present at every session, or at least examine the acts afterwards. He is appointed by the bishop in the "ordinary" processes, and has a right of intervention at every stage, for it is his duty to put forward every objection that can be conceived against the cause.
The hardest worked of all the officials is the notary, who may, however, have an assistant, He has to take down a verbatim report of everything, questions and answers, and he is not permitted the use of shorthand. There should be also a cursor or messenger, whose duty it is to summon the officials to the various sessions, and to serve citations upon the witnesses.
All the officials in the bishop's court have to take oaths of secrecy until the process is published, and oaths to carry out their duties faithfully, and to take no bribes, whilst the postulator has to swear to use no fraud or deceit. Besides the witnesses the postulator offers, the promoter of the Faith will call any whom he may think likely to give adverse testimony, and the judges may call any others whose names happen to be mentioned in the depositions of others, or any who, in their opinion, may throw light upon the facts. Moreover, it is a rule of Canon Law, which the promoter of the Faith should promulgate in places where it may be useful to do so (<e. g.>, in religious houses where the cause concerns a member of the community) that anyone who is in possession of facts which seem to him or her to tell against the sanctity of the servant of God, or against the miraculous character of any fact which is being investigated, is under a strict obligation to reveal them. Even heretics and infidels are received as witnesses, but not the father confessor, even though his penitent should have released him from the obligation of the seal of confession. Every witness takes a two-fold oath, first, to tell the truth, and then, when what they have testified has been read over to them, and they have made any additions or corrections they wish, that what they have testified is true. They also have to take an oath to observe secrecy until the process is completed and published.
The postulator offers his witnesses to the court but retires, while they are examined, behind closed doors. All questions are put to them by the judges, though they may be suggested to the latter by the promoter of the Faith. Witnesses are first examined on a series of questions drawn up in writing by the promoter. These are under seal, are opened only in court, and then re-sealed until the next session, so that even the postulator is ignorant of their tenor. Next the witnesses are asked for their evidence upon the statement of facts which the postulator has handed in as the case he proposes to prove.
Subject-Matter Of Ordinary Processes
Before we can give an account of the matters treated in the bishop's court, we must make a distinction between those processes which follow the ordinary course and those which are claimed as exceptions from the decrees of Urban VIII. This Pope exempted from his decrees all those cases in which, by the common consent of the Church, or by immemorial custom, by the writings of the fathers and the saints, or by the long-continued tolerance of the Holy See, public cultus had been allowed. The time requisite for this immemorial custom or long-continued tolerance is laid down as one hundred years, but exceptions have been allowed. Thus our English martyrs who were beatified by Leo XIII were allowed to come under this head, the precedents for the toleration of the Holy See being enumerated in the decree as follows: "Gregory XIII granted in their honour several privileges appertaining to public and ecclesiastical worship; and chiefly that of using their relics in the consecration of altars, when relics of ancient holy martyrs could not be had. Moreover, after he had caused the sufferings of the Christian martyrs to be painted in fresco by Nicholas Circiniani, in the church of St. Stephen, on the Coelian Hill, he permitted also the martyrs of the Church in England, both of ancient and of more recent times, to be represented in like manner by the same artist in the English church of the Most Holy Trinity in Rome, including those who, from the year 1535 to 1583, had died under King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth, for the Catholic Faith and for the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. The representations of these martyrdoms, painted in the said church, remained, with the knowledge and approbation of the Roman Pontiffs who succeeded Gregory XIII, for two centuries until . . . they were destroyed...." Here a very great concession was made, for 1583, the date of the painting of the pictures, is far less than a century before Urban VIII. We may remark, in passing, that this is the reason why no martyrs who suffered after 1583 are included in the list beatified by Leo XIII.
But if a cause is to proceed in the ordinary method, a beginning will be made when a bishop, either spontaneously or at the request of the faithful, institutes three proceedings. They are called "de scriptis," "de fama sanctitatis et mirraculorum," and "de non cultu." The first is the collection and examination of the writings of the servant of God. Letters, books, diaries, sermons, etc., printed or in MS., must be sent in to the bishop, autographs or at least certified copies. Although the final judgment is reserved to the Holy See, yet the bishop will naturally not proceed with the cause if he finds, from the writings, that there is no hope of a successful issue.
The second is an informative process upon the reputation of sanctity enjoyed by the servant of God, upon the fact of his martyrdom or the exercise of heroic virtue, and upon the report that miracles have been worked through his intercession. On this we may note that the difference between the cause of a martyr and a confessor or virgin, is that for the latter it must be proved that the virtues were exercised in an heroic degree, whilst for the former it is sufficient to prove the fact of martyrdom. Martyrdom for the faith of Christ, by itself, is accepted as a proof of heroic charity, according to the text, "Greater love than this no man hath, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John xv. 13). At this stage, miracles need not be proved in detail, for all that the informative processes are intended to do is to provide a ground for the Holy See to open the cause officially.
Thirdly, a process must show that the decrees of Pope Urban VIII, prohibiting public cultus, have been obeyed.
Procedure In Rome
Authoritative copies of these processes are then sent under seal to Rome, with letters from the bishop certifying their genuineness. They are considered by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, within whose competence comes everything connected with beatification or canonization. One of the cardinals of this Congregation takes charge of each cause, studies it specially, and reports to the Congregation upon it. He is called the "Ponente," or "Relator."
First comes up for treatment the process "de scriptis." The writings are examined by two revisors appointed by the Cardinal Relator, who are unknown to each other, and give separate verdicts in writing. What they are chiefly concerned about is purity of faith and morals. For martyrs it is important to know that it was for the true faith they died, for heresy also has had sufferers unto death. One instance will show the broad-minded way in which the writings are dealt with. Father Henry Walpole, S.J., was induced in prison to sign a promise to attend the Protestant Church. Documents in proof of this were produced, and yet, in view of his final constancy and heroic martyrdom, it was decided that these documents need be no obstacle, and Father Walpole was declared blessed in December, 1929.
If the report upon the writings is favourable, the record of the informative processes, that "de fama sanctitatis et miraculorum," has to be considered. The evidence is as a rule extremely voluminous and unwieldy. For St. Teresa of Lisieux, the "Little Flower," for example, it amounted to 3,000 pages of close writing, the outcome of 109 judicial sessions of five or six hours each. The postulator therefore usually employs an advocate to draw up a summary, which is called the "positio," or statement of the case, with arguments to support it. This is shown to the official of the Congregation of Rites, who acts as promoter of the Faith, and with its help, and the help of the original evidence, he draws up his objections in writing. To these the advocate in turn replies. The three documents, the "positio," the objections and the reply, are now printed and circulated to the members of the Congregation thirty days before their meeting. At their meeting the Cardinal Ponente puts the question whether the cause should be introduced, and, with the help of the printed documents, the members give their decision. If it is favourable, they recommend that the Pope, if he wills, should sign the commission for the introduction of the cause. If he does so, the cause is withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the local bishop and placed henceforth under the authority of the Congregation of Rites.
The Congregation then examines the process showing that no public cultus has been given to the servant of God, and if it is satisfied upon this point the cause proceeds, though no formal decree is issued. Though the cause is now formally accepted by the Congregation, yet no public honour may be given, and the servant of God (contrary to former usage) may not yet be called "Venerable."
Apostolic Processes
From this point the processes are called "Apostolic," because, even though they take place in the diocesan court, they are held by the authority of the Holy See, and governed at every step by its instructions. From Rome are sent what are called "Remissorial Letters" to five ecclesiastics empowering them to act as judges in the processes. If the local bishop is among the number, he acts as their president, but in any case he is required to lend to the judges the support of his authority; Instructions are also sent by the Promoter General of the Faith in Rome to two ecclesiastics who are to act as his delegates and are called sub-promoters. It is sufficient if three of the judges and one of the sub-promoters are present at each session of the court.
The first process concerns the reputation for sanctity, and the report of miracles or martyrdom, but if there is no doubt that this general popular opinion remains, the Roman authorities will easily allow the process to be omitted, as the ground has already been covered in the informative process.
The second process, or set of processes, is much more important, for it is no longer concerned with report or general estimation, but has to show that the servant of God exercised each of the theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, and the four great moral virtues, prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, and that not in any ordinary, but in an heroic, degree. Instead of this, for martyrs, as we have said, it is required that the fact and the cause of martyrdom be proved. Normally, too, Rome gives instructions for the body to be exhumed and minutely examined. Then at least two miracles must be definitely proved in detail, although for the beatification of martyrs they are sometimes dispensed.
The procedure, in regard to judges, witnesses, promoter of the Faith, and their respective oaths, etc., is much the same as in the earlier informative processes. When, however, miracles of healing come up for discussion, the court obtains the help of a doctor, a specialist, if possible, in that particular kind of disease which is alleged to be miraculously cured, who assists in the examination of the witnesses by suggesting the questions that will make for clearness and the discovery of the complete truth.
The evidence of these apostolic processes is, again, usually most voluminous. For St. Teresa of Lisieux, for example, it amounted to 2,500 pages, the product of 91 sessions. It must, however, be copied by hand and the copy certified as correct. Whilst the original is to be kept sealed and unopened (save with the permission of the Holy See) in the bishop's archives, the copy is, as before, taken to Rome.
Further Procedure In Rome
The first matter to be decided by the Congregation of Rites is that its instructions have been carried out, and that the copy received from the local courts is to be accepted as valid. For this the advocate prepares a "positio," the promoter of the Faith his objections, and the advocate his replies, all of which are printed as before. If the Congregation is satisfied upon this point, the way is open for the discussion of the evidence upon, first, heroic virtue or the fact of martyrdom, second, the miracles proposed. For each of these matters, three sessions of the Congregation are required, named respectively, ante-preparatory, preparatory, and general. The ante-preparatory is held at the house of the Cardinal Relator, and attended by the officials of the cause and the consultor of the Congregation, but the second is held in the presence of all the cardinals who are members of the Congregation. In each there will be judgment given upon the printed documents, consisting, as before, of a "positio" by the advocate, objections by the promoter of the Faith, and the advocate's replies. After the preparatory session, the Cardinal Relator goes to the Holy Father to acquaint him with the main facts of the case and the outcome of the discussions. At the general session the Pope himself presides, and after consideration of a final "positio" by the advocate, with a brief summary of all that has already been done, the members of the Congregation give their vote, which is, however, only consultative, as the final decision rests with the Holy Father. If it is favourable there will be promulgated a decree which confirms the fact of the heroic virtue or martyrdom of the servant of God. Once this stage is reached, the servant of God may be styled "Venerable," though no public religious honour may yet be given. It may be as well to notice that under the former regulations the title "Venerable" was granted at a much earlier stage.
Miracles
Next must come three similar sessions of the Congregation for the discussion of the miracles proposed. The procedure is similar to that just described for the consideration of the fact of heroic virtue, except that the services of two experts are enlisted. These will be usually physicians or surgeons and, if possible, specialists in the disease alleged to have been cured. They have to testify that a complete cure has really taken place and that it cannot be explained by natural laws. If they both agree in rejecting the miracle, the Congregation of Rites will not consider it further. Two miracles are sufficient if they can be proved by eyewitnesses, but three or four will be required if the evidence is second-hand.
The cautiousness of the Holy See in accepting miracles is proverbial. In Benedict XIV's monumental work will be found the criteria of a true miracle, and many examples of miracles rejected through lack of such criteria. Any cure that could be attributed to autosuggestion, anything of the nature of hysteria, etc., will be rigorously excluded. Cures of epilepsy, etc., have been rejected, for it can hardly be proved that the disease will not recur. It is useless to put forward cures where there has been an operation, for it will be held that the operation, rather than the intercession of the servant of God, was responsible for the cure.
As an example we may give the two miracles accepted for the beatification in 1908 of Gabriel Possenti, of the Sorrows, a Passionist, who was canonized in 1920. The cures both occurred in the year 1892. The first was of Maria Mazzarella, a girl of 17, who appeared to be dying of tuberculosis, being covered all over the body with abscesses, and looking like a corpse. The third day of the novena she was not expected to live the night, but in the morning she arose, put on her clothes, and came down stairs perfectly cured. The second was of Dominic Tiberi, who suffered from chronic hernia of a most distressing character, from which it often seemed that he was about to die. He dragged himself to the saint's tomb in church, and thence went to his doctor, who found him perfectly cured with no trace left of his disease.
Even after a satisfactory result from the three sessions of the Congregation for the discussion of the miracles, a further session is held, in the presence of the Pope, "De Tuto," as it is called, the question being discussed: "Is it safe to proceed to the beatification of the servant of God?" On this question being satisfactorily answered, the Pope, if and when he wills, orders the issue of the decree of formal beatification.
The above-described procedure is modified for causes which are excepted from the decrees of Urban VIII, for in these, far from proving that no honour has been paid to the servant of God, the postulator seeks to show that public honour has been paid with the tolerance of the Holy See from time immemorial, and to obtain now its official confirmation. Besides this, it has to be shown that the reputation for sanctity and the general report of miracles has lasted up to the present time, but no miracles have at this stage to be proved in detail. With these exceptions, the procedure is the same, and if the cause goes through satisfactorily, the servant of God is said to be equivalently beatified by the decree in which the Pope confirms the immemorial cultus.
Procedure For Canonization
The procedure for canonization is, first, the production to the Sacred Congregation of Rites of an authentic document to prove the fact of beatification, either formal or equivalent, and in defect of such document a judicial process to establish the fact and, secondly, processes to prove miracles in detail. Just as for beatification, these must be proved by the apostolic processes in the local bishop's court, and then discussed in three sessions of the Congregation of Rites in Rome. Only miracles granted since beatification are taken into account, and these must be two in number for those formally beatified, three for those equivalently beatified, for, as we have said, in their case no miracles have, up to this point, been required to be proved in detail.
Eight instances of miracles accepted can be found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1925, in which year four saints were canonized, SS. Teresa of Lisieux, Peter Canisius, John Eudes, and Magdalen Sophie Barat. Thus for St. John Eudes were accepted the cure of Sister Johanna Beatrice of Tours from diabetes with complications, nephritis, furunculosis, and abscess, and the cure of Bonaventure Romero from traumatic peritonitis and grave fracture of the skull. Each cure was proved to have been instantaneous and perfect.
After discussion in three sessions of the miracles, the Congregation of Rites holds, as before, a still further session, "De Tuto," after which, if all has gone well, the Pope, after imploring the guidance of the Holy Spirit, arranges, if he thinks fit, the day for the solemn canonization.
The canonization, on May 19th, 1935, of SS. John Fisher and Thomas More was the first occasion, since the days of Urban VIII, of a formal canonization with a dispensation from the proof of miracles. Martyrs have always been, by the law of the Church, in a favoured position and, as we have said, dispensation from proof of miracles has often been granted for their beatification. But on this occasion it was held that the provision of law permitting such a dispensation was applicable also to canonization, in accordance with the words of Canon 2139 Ss2 of the Code of Canon Law. This decision may have far-reaching consequences.
The processes we have outlined are those prescribed in the Code of Canon Law. It must be remembered, however, that the Pope, like the King in English law, is the source of all authority in purely ecclesiastical law, and can therefore suspend or modify procedure if he wills. In the plenitude of his power he could canonize saints without any preliminaries at all, although, of course, he would never do so.
Equipollent Canonization
Thus, in cases where there has been local honour (which, as we have said is, if tolerated by the Holy See, equivalent to beatification) paid from time immemorial, the Pope has in several instances extended that cultus to the Universal Church, without judicial process, thereby exercising his power of canonization. St. Ephrem is one example. He had been honoured in Syria since the fourth century, being one of the very first confessors, as distinct from martyrs, to receive public cultus. By Benedict XV he was nominated a Doctor of the Church, and his feast extended to the whole world. This is called equipollent canonization.
Another instance is St. Albert the Great, Doctor of the Church, canonized by Pius XI, in December, 1931. Although, as has been said, in these cases there has not been a judicial process, with evidence taken under oath, etc., yet lest anyone should think that these steps were taken lightly, let him study the volume giving the grounds for St. Albert the Great's canonization. It is a large folio volume of 818 printed pages, containing critical discussions of his life and writings, a full list of precedents in the shape of papal decrees, a detailed account of the local cultus he has received, etc., etc. The Promoter of the Faith, or Devil's Advocate, had his opportunity of - objection, and his judgment is incorporated in the volume.
Ceremonies Of Beatification
We may conclude by some account of the ceremonies of beatification and canonization. There is no record of any ceremony of beatification in St. Peter's, Rome, until after the middle of the seventeenth century. Before that time a celebration would be held in some church particularly connected with the newly-honoured servant of God, but Pope Alexander VII decreed that in future the beatification should always take place in St. Peter's. The first was that of B. Francis de Sales, in 1662. (He was canonized three years later.)
The ceremonies include, in the morning, the promulgation of a plenary indulgence to all who visit St. Peter's on that day: the reading of the decree of beatification in the presence of all the cardinals of the Congregation of Rites, the clergy of St. Peter's, the faithful, etc.: the singing of the Te Deum: the unveiling of the picture of the new "beatus," to whom all do reverence: the recitation of the prayer or collect: the incensing of the relics and, finally, High Mass sung by a bishop. In the evening, about the hour of Vespers, the Pope visits the basilica to pay his homage to the "beatus."
Ceremonies Of Canonization
In the days when the Popes did not so constantly remain in Rome, as at present, they often canonized saints away from the Holy City. Thus St. Edmund of Canterbury was canonized at Lyons, St. Thomas of Hereford and St. Thomas Aquinas at Avignon. Earlier canonizations, too, taking place as we have said in a General Council, were not always even in a church: several. for example. were in the Lateran Palace.
But since the canonization of St. Stanislaus, martyr, in 1253, solemn canonizations have always taken place in a church, and Benedict XIV ruled that henceforth they should always take place in St. Peter's, Rome.
The ceremonies are the most splendid and magnificent that the Church can command. The vast basilica of the Vatican is decorated and illuminated, and the expense is so enormous that often it is arranged that several saints are canonized on the same day, in order that the various postulators may share the cost. Pictures representing the new saint, and scenes from his life, hang upon the walls. The Pope, surrounded by a brilliant company of cardinals and bishops, presides over the ceremony. An advocate, on behalf of the postulator of the cause, makes a formal request to the Pope for the canonization ("instanter"). On behalf of His Holiness, a prelate replies that, though the virtues of the servant of God are clear and evident, yet before canonization God's guidance must be asked. Then are recited the Litanies of the Saints. A second time the advocate asks for the canonization ("instanter, instantius"), and a similar reply is made. Then is sung the "Veni Creator." A third time the request is made ("instanter, instantius, instantissime"), and now at length the prelate signifies that the Pope will grant the favour desired.
The Pope then pronounces the following or a similar formula: "To the honour of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Ourselves, after mature deliberation and many petitions for the Divine assistance, with the advice of Our venerable brethren the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops and bishops at present in Rome, We decree and define that N. is a saint, and We insert his name upon the catalogue of saints, commanding that his memory be annually venerated by the Universal Church upon the <n.th> day of the <n.th> month. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
After the advocate has returned thanks, a solemn Te Deum is intoned, the bells . are rung in all the churches of the city, and in olden times guns were fired from the castle of St. Angelo. Then the Supreme Pontiff, after reciting the collect of the saint, sings High Mass in his honour.
In cases, however, of equipollent canonization, where the Holy Father, without judicial forms, issues a decree confirming immemorial local cultus and extending it to the Universal Church, these elaborate ceremonies are not observed.
Readers will be interested to know something of the expenses of these processes and ceremonies, but it is only possible to give vague indications, as the labour involved varies from case to case, and the expenses of the ceremony of canonization may be shared by two or more postulators. Expenses are obviously heavy, as notaries and advocates have to be paid for their services, witnesses indemnified against loss, etc., etc. Father Beccari, S.J., who was the postulator for the cause of the English martyrs, writing in the Catholic Encyclopedia, gives L4,000 as a minimum estimate of the expenses up to beatification, and a further L2,000 up to the time of canonization. The costs of the final ceremony for the canonization of St. Anthony Maria Zaccaria and St. Peter Fourier, under the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII, of which Fr. Beccari speaks for purposes of illustration, came to nearly L9,000. The changing value of money must also be taken into account.
Large though these sums appear to be, where popular devotion has been aroused there need be no difficulty about finance. For the canonization of St. Teresa of Lisieux, the Little Flower, generous offerings flowed in from the whole world.
"God is wonderful in His saints: the God of Israel is He who will give power and strength to His people. Blessed be God" (Ps. 1xviii. 36).
CANONIZATION
Canonization procedures varied over the centuries, and from one Christian Church to another. The Roman Catholic situation is summarized as follows:
"In the first six centuries of the Church, the sanctity, at first of martyrs, then of confessors of the faith, and later of those of heroic Christian virtue and of those exemplary in their apostolic zeal for the Church -- doctors, bishops, missionaries -- was so acclaimed by the vox populi of the faithful. From the sixth to the tenth century the definitive pronouncement of approval on the part of the local bishop gradually became a necessary culmination of a process of inquiry into the validity of such a veneration, the cult of doulia on the part of the faithful. Canonization has By 973 formal approval of the Roman Pontiff was deemed a matter of greater prestige for the veneration of a venerated saint, St. Udalricus. Under Gregory IX (1234) papal canonization became the only and exclusive legitimate form of inquiry into the saints' lives and miracles according to newly established procedural formes and canonical processes. In 1588 Pope Sixtus V, by his Immensa Aeterni Dei, entrusted the process of papal canonization to the Congregation of Rites. In 1642 Urban VIII ordered all the decrees and studies of canonizations during his own pontificate to be published in one volume -- and a century later, Benedict XIV systematized in a clear and definitive manner the basic expectations of heroic virtue and the indispensable requirements of the canonical processes according to the evidences of the Congregation of Rites. Pius X (1914) divided this Congregation into two sections: one, the liturgical section, and the other assigned entirely to the causes for canonization. In 1930, Pius XI established the historical section devoted to the critical-historical scrutiny of the evidences put forth in the causes for canonization."
[from a critical book on Hans Kung by Joseph F. Costanzo S.J.: On the net at http://abbey.apana.org.au/Theology/Costanzo/KungInf/p017.htm ]
In 1917, the formal procedure was incorporated in the Church's Code of Canon Law. In 1982, Pope John Paul II introduced a new simplified process. After a rigorous examination of a candidate's life, work and writings, undertaken by the Postulator of the Cause, the Pope accepts that the Servant of God has practised the Christian virtues in a heroic degree, and declares them Venerable, the first of three steps on the road of sainthood.Following a physical miracle, such as an unexplained healing, the candidate is Beatified by the Pope, and declared Blessed. A further physical miracle is required before the person is Canonised and declared a Saint of the Church.
It isn't always easy to pray and to read the Bible. As you can see. But it is a must and a necessity if you want to grow. "... grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ..." 2 Peter 3:18 Being born-again is great and wonderful, but to be a mature saint and soldier of Jesus Christ you will need to stop making excuses.
You can have a feast but there is always time to clean up. "He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." Psalms 24:4
Are your hands clean? What have your eyes read today? You need to keep your heart right toward God. Before you pray, be sure you are in right standing with the Lord! Clear your mind and ask the Holy Spirit to show you anything in your heart that may have not been pleasing to Him.
Sin in our lives can hinder our prayers. It is important to acknowledge your unworthiness and lostness before the Lord, but it is equally important to acknowledge your faith in Jesus' blood to cover all your confessed sin and to put you in right standing with Christ.
PRAISE THE LORD
Besides cleaning up the table we need to praise the Lord with thanksgiving for all the wonderful things He has done. Here you are entering into prayer with the Creator of all things; you ask Him to bless your day and begin to mention some needs that you know of, when all of a sudden you find that there doesn't seem to be anything else to pray about. All you can think about is what's going to happen later today or you begin to wonder if you packed your pencil in your backpack after you used it to clean your sister's hair out of the sink drain last night. Is this lack of focus still praying? Don't worry, this is a common struggle. I haven't heard anyone claim that they find it easy to keep focused. Let's consider how praise can keep a focused mind on God.
Remember, you are talking to the one and only true GOD. Focus on Him while you're praying. Reading a psalm or hymn of praise beforehand can help draw your mind into a heavenly perspective. Beginning with praise in your prayer times lifts our spirits and helps us to know that we are before a God that can do anything. It also lets God know that we're not just coming for Him to meet our needs, but we are coming to worship Him first. In your prayer, you can keep returning to praise between petitions, reminding yourself of who it is exactly that you have audience with!
CALL TO OBEDIENCE
March 2001
The Consequences of Sin
by Pastor Schultze
"...and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." Proverbs 16:6
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7).
This Scripture holds a warning that is not too well received by many believers. The warning-BE NOT DECEIVED - means that even though God forgives the penitent sinner, there will be a consequence to that which he has sown in the flesh. In fact, the next verse tells us so even more clearly:
"For he that soweth in his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (v. 8).
Anything sown in the flesh will have eternal consequences, and anything sown in the Spirit will bring a harvest of blessings that will never end.
The popular perceptions that Christians can sin with impunity or no consequence has no biblical basis whatsoever. The spiritual principle is, "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." This is a universal; it has always been true. It is true now and will be so until the season of sowing is forever ended. No one is exempt from this law; neither the sinner nor the saint. And this truth is as old as Adam and Eve, who for their sin were cast out of the garden, putting the whole human race in jeopardy. Let us not be deceived!
I have already mentioned the sins of our first parents. Let us now look at another convincing biblical proof that sin has its consequences, even for the best of saints, by looking at the life of King David’s sins of adultery and murder. In fact, by looking at David, we are looking at a man who, God said, was a man after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22).
Preacher, Sunday school teacher, layman, beware: if you commit adultery, you will suffer for the consequence of that sin until the end of time. God has not changed. The God of King David is our God. His name is I AM. He said, "I am the Lord, I change not" (Mal. 3:6).
Forgiveness removes the consequence of eternal punishment. Praise the Lord! But forgiveness does not remove the temporal consequences. Forgiveness brings restoration with God. Praise God! And we have learned from the Sermon on the Mount that the sin of adultery not only extends to the flesh but also to the spirit: "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28).
Do not think for one moment that a man who looks at pornographic material will not suffer the consequences of the sin of adultery. A man who is in adultery, whether it be physical or spiritual, is a man whose prayers will not be heard and whose life will not be blessed. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." God is against the adulterous spirit as much as he is against the adulterous act. And once adultery has been committed, things will never be the same! Such was the case with King David.
David Reaped What He Sowed
In 2 Samuel 11, we read of the sins of David. In chapter 12, we read of the consequences. First notice why David sinned. David’s sin of adultery began because there was a day when he did not keep his heart. There was a day when he did not sing God’s praises, when he did not pray. And on that day, he ended up at the wrong place, at the wrong time. That’s the background. He saw, he lusted, and he acted. He took someone’s wife, sending her husband to be slain in battle, and then he felt good, successful, and happy. He thought he had done nothing wrong. For a short time, David felt no remorse, no sorrow, no guilt. When we stop keeping our heart, when we stop praying and praising, we can sin with impunity, or we just might keep up certain rituals of religious duties to convince ourselves and others that everything is fine.
David was blinded by the gravity of his sin of adultery. Most people who have committed adultery in the flesh or are in pornography are spiritually blinded by the gravity of that sin. It is the same with any other sin: murder, selfishness, criticism, etc. Were it not for a man of God, David may have gone on to his grave out of fellowship with God. But isn’t God wonderful!? Isn’t God merciful!? "And the Lord sent Nathan unto David" (2 Sam. 12:1).
Consider it an act of God’s mercy when he sends a man of God to awaken you. The punishment for adultery is death. Because of God’s justice and holiness, anyone in adultery, pornography, or other sin does not deserve to live another day. He has despised the commandment of the Lord and despised the Lord himself (12:9–10). But because David repented in his heart, God forgave him and gave him another day, and another day, and so on.
But oh, dear friend, see the judgment of God! Because David had despised the law of the Lord, and the Lord himself, notice the list of consequences, the heavy baggage he had to pull the rest of his life:
The Sword Shall Never Depart from Thy House.
"Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife" (12:10).
Notice the word never. Is that a long time or is it longer than that? His children would suffer, his grandchildren would suffer, his great-grandchildren would suffer, and on and on forever! We read in some cases that the iniquity of the fathers shall be visited upon their children unto the third and fourth generation (Num. 14:18), but David’s suffering, because of his adultery, goes beyond the fourth generation. God, through the prophet, said that the sword would never leave his house. Adultery is so serious! Is there anything much worse than the sin of adultery? Brother, if you take another man’s wife into your life, what are you doing to your children and grandchildren and so on? Will the consequences ever end?
Your Sin Shall Be Revealed.
"For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun" (2 Sam. 12:12).
Your sin will find you out. When a husband goes to bed with someone else’s wife, he is blinded to the consequences. When he watches pornography behind closed doors, he thinks no one will ever find out. Oh, be not deceived. Every Bible published speaks of this sin of David. What man does in secret, God will reveal it openly. When you commit adultery, even though you repent and are forgiven, you will lose the respect of all godly people. You will lose their trust. You will lose your honor. Your testimony will never have the same strength. It will hurt and disappoint your children more than you could possibly ever imagine. Your children will know it. Your grandchildren will know it, and your great-grandchildren will see an ugly spot in the family tree forever. What you do in private, God will reveal it unto all under the sun. How costly is sin? Can it be measured?
I Will Raise Evil out of Thine Own House (12:11)
After David had been forgiven and restored to God, God planted a tree of evil in his house. God said, "I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house." If you have committed adultery, whenever evil arises in your house, you will be tempted to say, "The devil is fighting us terribly," when you should realize that it is the Lord himself who has planted the tree of evil in your life because of your great sin against his holiness. Is this harsh? Is this unfair? Is this unjust? No, "let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).
It is harsh to lust after another woman! It is unjust, it is unfair! It is devilish. It is what the devil wants us to do. Do not find fault with God, or a worse thing will come upon you. Be thankful that when you repent and turn from your wickedness, you do not have to pay the ultimate price: banishment from God to a place where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
The evil planted in a house because of adultery may come through the children, through financial hardship, through sickness, etc. The sins of the father or mother will often be repeated by their children. For example, the sexual immorality of David was found in his son Ammon, who raped his sister Tamar. Immorality and the sword never left the house of David.
Your Enemies Will Blaspheme the Lord. (v. 14)
This means that the unbelievers will show utter contempt for the Lord. They will despise the Lord. Adulterers and fornicators cause unbelievers to despise God. It will cause them to make a mockery of Christianity. Forgiveness and restoration – yes! But what baggage did David have to carry the rest of his life! Is it worth it to commit adultery? Is it worth it to be unfaithful to our spouse? Is it worth it to go into pornography?
The Child Born unto Thee Shall Die. (v. 14)
Forgiveness and restoration were given to David, but the first fruit of his sexual union was death. Where, my friend, is the blessing in sin? Can you find it? Can anyone find it?
Where Do We Go from Here?
Where do we go when we have failed miserably? We go on with God! That is what David did. Anything less than that will mean eternal damnation, more mockery of the enemy, more damage to others, and a yet heavier wagon for us to pull the rest of our lives. So the rest of David’s life consisted of two things: the harvesting of thorns and the sowing of good seeds.
As you have sinned, my dear friend, you will suffer the consequences. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption..." (Gal. 6:7–8a). But remember that once you have repented and are forgiven, you must now be so much more diligent in sowing in the Spirit in order to reap a harvest of blessings that will never end: "...but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (v. 8b).
Yes, you must pull the heavy wagon of consequence of what you have sown in the flesh. No one can pull it for you, but God’s grace is sufficient for you. So sing the song of the redeemed while you pull that wagon, cast out God’s gospel seeds generously wherever you go as you pull, and you will bring forth fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and perhaps, one hundred-fold. There will be blessings coming out of your life after all. Hence, you will be in that great company of the "such are some of you" church people, people who Paul said were fornicators, idolators, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, and drunkards, but who are now washed, justified, and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9–11).
A Minute For Mom
I continue teaching piano lessons and Charles is the back-up violin soloist for the Spring Concert in March. Daniel got the part - which I felt was well deserved - but Jim wants me to keep Charles fresh in case Daniel gets the flu or something. Our practice times have been so animated for several weeks. His face gets this rapt look and he keeps stopping and trying new fingerings, positions to get better tone or to create new harmonies. He keeps hollering to me if he is practicing alone, "Mommy, come here! Listen to this!" Almost every day he composes something on the violin or the piano. Sometimes I video tape it so we can write it down later if we decide to develop one. Most of them he forgets, but every so many, he remembers and develops it further. I don't know how to thank the Lord for His wonderful help in this area. It is beyond me. We did not give him this ability. We only tried to clear his soul so that God could open the gifts within him. We cannot expect the same gifts in this next child, but we pray that we can make them fertile ground for whatever work the Lord wants to do, whether music, auto mechanics, or something we have never thought of...
I never thought seriously about being a writer. It seems that God has decided that I am one - though I don't try to be one or even know how to be one. I haven't had one writing class in my life and not even a college degree in any area. God has a sense of humor and also amazing sovereignty. Last week, a Chinese lady called and was so moved by the booklet I have written entitled: "The Lamb Will Rule, Not The Lion" (a small booklet written especially for parents of infants and toddlers). She asked for permission to translate it into Chinese and have it published in mainland China. She says they are ripe for it there with all the single mothers that need help. She liked it because the size and the price would not scare anyone away and also because it wasn't 'over biblical' and I know what she means by that. I watch with interest and fascination - wondering where it got its wings to fly off without me like that. God is merciful. He has a plan. I want to be a part of that plan. It sure exceeds any plans I have for myself.
Faith initiative may be revised
“WE’RE POSTPONING,” said Don Eberly, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “We’re not ready to send our own bill up.” Eberly acknowledged that the proposal “may need to be corrected in some areas,” particularly the interplay between religious programs and government funding.
CHORUS OF DOUBTS
The White House expected church-state separation groups to object to the program. But it didn’t expect a chorus of doubts from religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Richard Land, Michael Horowitz and even Marvin Olasky, one of the program’s early architects. They worry that churches would be corrupted by government regulations or that objectionable sects would be rewarded.
President Bush, in an interview Friday, expressed confidence in the program, a cornerstone of his “compassionate conservatism” that once seemed to be an innocuous program meant to boost charitable works.
Some people “are worried that once government gets in their lives, government will force a change in their religion,” he said. “There are some who worry about, once government gets involved, government will force religion on people. And I am mindful of those concerns, and our policy will understand that. We’ll fashion a policy—that we have already fashioned—that will, I believe, answer those critics.”
More Post coverage
What Bush calls his faith-based initiative is a much broader program that includes noncontroversial provisions that will likely be implemented quickly and quietly. A proposal to expand the charitable tax deduction to those who don’t itemize has almost no opposition; Independent Sector, an association of nonprofits, said that could mean a $14 billion, or 11 percent, annual increase in charitable giving.
The administration’s budget blueprint also contains a provision to let states use surplus welfare funds to promote a new tax credit for charitable donations—also without controversy.
‘MAY GOD BLESS YOU’
Bush’s proposed “Compassion Capital Fund” for public-private partnerships was part of his address to Congress. Another key element of the program is Bush’s installation of adviser Stephen Goldsmith atop the AmeriCorps national service program to expand those efforts and recruit more religious volunteers.
Also, Bush officials can achieve much of the office’s mission—reducing regulations that hamstring religious charities—without approval from Congress.
“Federal agencies are already in the process of becoming more responsive,” Eberly said. “That is the muscle on the bone, the major policy initiative.”
The White House office sets the tone. The message tape for after-hours calls provides the business hours and then says, “May God bless you, and have a nice day.”
The major argument is about a law passed in 1996 as part of welfare reform and signed by President Bill Clinton. Bush isn’t proposing changing what is known as the charitable choice provision—which lets religious charities compete for government welfare dollars—but merely wants to expand its reach to other programs.
Instead of limiting charitable choice to a few programs in the Department of Health and Human Services, Bush would expand the provision to allow religious charities to compete for more than 100 programs in the departments of labor (job training, for example), justice (community policing), education (after-school programs) and housing and urban development.
It is this proposal that faces serious obstacles. “My sense is that it’s not dead but that they are going to have to think very carefully about the way forward,” said Bill Galston, a University of Maryland professor and former policy adviser to Clinton.
Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition official now with the Hudson Institute, concurred. “It has the president’s blessing, so it’s not going to collapse,” he said. “But the program may be trimmed back significantly.”
In the latest setback to the effort, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), who had been a backer of the initiative, said the administration should delay the program until it can figure out how to avoid violating civil rights. Eberly and others argue that much of the conservative opposition is “friendly criticism” that, with some minor changes in the proposal, could be silenced.’
PUBLIC FEUD
But instead of wooing conservatives, the White House has been feuding with them. John J. DiIulio Jr., the Bush official in charge of the program, last week lashed out at “predominantly white, exurban evangelical” leaders for their lack of interest in urban problems, saying their objections “would rankle less if they were backed by real human and financial help.”
As president of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Land is one of the nation’s leading religious conservatives. He retorted: “It would rankle less if he wasn’t so ignorant about us and didn’t try to stereotype us.”
Much of the controversy is over the requirement that programs segregate their religious and service messages; if such groups require religious conversion, they wouldn’t be eligible.
Olasky, a Bush adviser who helped formulate “compassionate conservatism,” complained that under Bush’s guidelines, some of the expressly religious programs that the president has pointedly named in campaign appearances as deserving of government support, especially the anti-addiction program “Teen Challenge,” would not be eligible for a government grant.
“If the federal government puts out the welcome mat for some religious groups and tells others to ‘opt out,’ it is preferring one religious belief over another,” Olasky said. “This is exactly the type of religious discrimination that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.”
But any move to please the likes of Olasky would likely produce more outcry on the left. There, the criticism focuses on the concerns that awarding grants to religious groups will violate the separation of church and state, and that tax money will be used to finance programs allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring practices. Even Lieberman has joined that argument.
Liberal critics feel strengthened. “This is a program that seems to be developing more and more problems the more you think about it,” said Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) said the proposal “creates new holes in our civil rights laws and would allow religious bigotry in hiring to be practiced with the use of federal funds.”
Supporters are concerned about the opposition. “They could very well lock up all the Democrats in the Senate with this so-called hiring discrimination argument,” said Nathan Diament, who directs public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, which supports the plan.
A number of conservative activists are proposing alternatives in an attempt to avoid church-state collisions. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Mich., proposed, for example, a tax deduction or credit as an incentive for doctors, nurses, lawyers and other professionals who volunteer work time to helping the poor.
Along similar lines, Robert Woodson, who has been active with community-based service programs around the nation, said a change in the law authorizing or requiring private insurance providers to pay for qualified social services given by church agencies would be a way to channel cash to many programs in poor areas.
The most promising alternative, many involved in the debate say, is the notion of vouchers, which allow government funds to be used for a religious purpose but make sure the individual recipient, not the government, would be choosing the religious option. An addict, for example, could redeem a treatment voucher at a church program or a government program.
The idea still is opposed by some such as Lynn, who calls it “a transfer of money to a religious mission,” but provokes far less anger than the direct-grant idea.
“It is a way out and one that seems to be win-win,” Eberly said. “If this becomes problematic, vouchers is certainly an option we’d consider.”
Bush, in the interview, embraced the idea of “social vouchers” as one way to fund religious programs without as many of the church-state complications inherent in government grants.
“There’s a lot of concern about proselytization and that we should not use taxpayers’ money to fund groups that proselytize,” Bush said. “My attitude is, you fund an individual.”
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Debates have an unwarranted impact on elections
Now the candidates have moved to the debating the debates stage of the campaign. They realize that debates have an inordinate importance, and will fiercely argue about the smallest of details.
The first televised debate was in 1960 between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Kennedy looked tanned and rested, while Nixon was ill and appeared fatigued. The Republican turned down an offer of stage makeup. That may have determined the future of the Nation.
Many who listened on radio thought Nixon had the better of the match. But those who watched on TV, as most people had, believed Kennedy had won decisively.
It didn’t matter that sometimes Kennedy’s words made little sense:
"Well, I would say in the latter, that the – and that’s what I found somewhat unsatisfactory about the figures, Mr. Nixon, that you used in your previous speech. When you talk about the Truman administration, you – Mr. Truman came to office in 1944, and at the end of the war, and the difficulties that were facing the United States during that period of transition, 1946, when price controls were lifted, so it’s rather difficult to use an overall figure of those seven and one-half years and comparing them to the last eight years. I prefer to take the overall percentage of the last 20 years of the Democrats and eight of the Republicans, to show an overall period of growth. . . .So that I don’t think that we have moved . . . .with sufficient vigor."
No, it made little difference. John Kennedy looked like he knew what he was talking about, and that was sufficient. Historian Daniel J. Boorstin likened the 1960 debates to the quiz shows that were popular at the time: "These four programs, pompously and self-righteously advertised by the broadcast networks, were remarkably successful in reducing great national issues to trivial dimensions. With appropriate vulgarity, they might have been called the $400,000 Question (Prize: a $100,000-a-year job for four years)."
Far behind in the polls, President Ford challenged Jimmy Carter to debate in the 1976 campaign. In one debate, Ford claimed: "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe . . ."
That patently inaccurate statement would haunt him as he lost an extremely tight contest. President Carter later said, "If it hadn’t been for the debates, I would have lost."
Mr. Carter avoided serious mistakes with his opponent, Ronald Reagan, in 1980. Governor Reagan did manage to use his "There you go again" line to advantage. And even the president’s partisans must have scratched their heads when he talked about nuclear weapons and ended with, "I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was . . ."
Four years later Democrats hoped for a major Reagan gaffe in his two encounters with Walter Mondale, but it didn’t happen. President Reagan edged out the Minnesotan 49 states to one.
In 1988 Michael Dukakis demonstrated how crucial image was in presidential debates. His staff successfully negotiated having a riser for the short-in-stature Dukakis to stand on behind his podium. To make sure he didn’t have to take an obvious high step to get on the riser, Dukakis demanded it be tapered.
A turning point in the Dukakis campaign occurred with this question from CNN’s Bernard Shaw: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"
Showing absolutely no emotion, Mr. Dukakis answered: "No, I don’t, Bernard, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." The seemingly passionless response proved to be a major error.
Candidates in 1992’s debates steered clear of any big blunders. Two memorable instances included one in which President Bush was caught looking at his watch as though he were late for a date. (As we now all know, if there were a candidate with that problem, it wasn’t George Bush).
In the other incident, a thirty-something man inquired: "And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you, to meet our needs . . ."
We have indeed been reduced to a people needing to be coddled, protected, taken care of, patronized and patted on the butt. A reason is we pay so little attention to what’s going on. In a country in which a third of us can’t even identify even one of the three branches of the Federal government, it’s no wonder presidential debates take on an importance far beyond their genuine worth.
So we sit there, watching the debates, waiting to see who can promise us the most. Ninety minutes of highly scripted theatrics appealing to greed and stupidity, not necessarily in that order. Then the talking heads are trotted out to tell us if any of the candidates made a big mistake.
It’s superficial, shallow and foolish. It’s what we’ve become.
George Stephanopoulos:
"For several years, I had served as Clinton's character witness. Now I felt like a dupe."
Monica Lewinsky:
"I think people of my generation are much more comfortable with our sexuality. I think that needs to be honored and cherished."
So who wants to be a director at the new Gov board?
Somebody else should have started this thread. Somebody else should start a new relig thread as well.
A nation of wusses!
My friends, America has become a nation of wusses. If anybody doubts, you simply have to review the last four days of the National Weather Service's Wild Guess 2001. We were going to have more than two feet of snow in New York City - maybe more! Six hundred flights into and out of New York City were cancelled. Every TV network on Monday showed scenes where there was no snow and gravely said "the worst is yet to come."
But they told us by noon on Sunday the entire Eastern Seaboard would be paralyzed. Yet when the National Weather Service reported that the snow line had moved up to Massachusetts, and that this was going to be a rain event, the media kept up with the hype.
Suddenly, we were told that we had to watch out for beach erosion. "Snowflake 2001" is a totally phony ratings drama about an average storm. It's turning out to be one of the most insignificant, inconsequential snowfalls in history, yet all during the day Monday it was still being reported as one of "potentially the deadliest."
As early as Saturday or Sunday, I was telling people, "You watch, this isn't going to materialize, anything. This forecast, too dramatic. Here it is, still 48 hours away, and they're talking about this as The Storm of the Century? There's not enough here to indicate that yet." When was the last storm the cable news channels didn't name "The Storm of the Century", anyway? They're all The Storm of the Century!
I received a great e-mail from a lawyer in Illinois who wrote, "Rush, it's the seriousness of the forecast that matters here. The charge is so serious, we must take this storm seriously." This points out the hypocrisy perfectly, folks. It's not the facts, it's the charge that matters.
Some of you are saying, "Rush, you're making too big a deal of this. It's better to be forewarned and have it not to be as bad than to miss it entirely and be swamped." But that doesn't justify the panic that's been created, the looting of stores because people are being told they'll be snowed in for days. No wonder America is becoming a nation of bumbling, fat slobs.
I was out playing golf on Saturday, and down where I live, it's been 87 degrees for the past month, and I was going to go to New York on Sunday, because I had some business to attend to. Then I caught this weather forecast, and, if I believed what I was seeing, it was obvious that I shouldn't go. I happened to run into Donald Trump, because I was golfing on his course, and he said he was going to go back North early.
Trump said that this snowfall kills him in Atlantic City, because, if people think it's going to snow, they don't get on the roads and go there. The result? There were probably more journalists walking the boardwalk of Atlantic City on Monday than people, but there wasn't one drop of rain on the camera lens! The wind was barely blowing, so they were warning us that there might be a "high tide." So now the tides are cause for panic?
I can understand the need for weather forecasters to alert people and report what might happen. The National Weather Service has models, and they're bound by them because they don't want to get sued for missing a frost or a hurricane. But when you add the mix of the modern media to it, it makes us look like babies to all the world like babies.
Can you imagine how much would never have gotten done if current weather forecasting techniques and reporting had been in place during the nation's founding or World War II? We'd have never invaded on D-Day. Lewis & Clark would have said, "The hell with it! It's going to snow, I'm not going."
Even the diaries of the ill-fated Donner Party only made one reference to the weather, writing that it was "an unusually cold winter." That was as close to complaining as they did, and they were driven to cannibalism by the weather! Now what happens? Four inches of snow and a little rain, and we're just paralyzed. We board up airports, schools and businesses. It just boggles the mind.
The way this non-storm is being reported brings to mind the panic created whenever you hear dire predictions about global warming. Our best scientists can't tell us what's going to happen on Manhattan island tomorrow, yet they presume to tell us how much the entire globe will warm up - to the tenth degree - in the year 3200. Remember this the next time you hear some end-of-the-world, doom-and-gloom type tell you about the temperature in the next century and all the calamities associated with it.
Maybe it sounds like I'm bashing meteorologists, but I'm really talking about the media coverage, and this public attitude that says we're supposed to panic over every little challenge. So even if it does snow 12 inches this week? That happened all the time when I was a kid, and sometimes they didn't even cancel school. Now they cancel school over forecasts of four inches, before one flake falls.
What bothers me about it is what bunch of softies we appear to have become. Twelve inches of snowfall ought not cause panic and become the topic of the conversation for hours and hours and hours. It's the weather, for crying out loud! Can you imagine if this kind of panic occurred in the ski resort areas of this country?
It used to be that the forecast of dangerous weather was done for one reason, and that was safety. Now it's a moneymaking thing. We have logos, theme songs, icons and special coverage: "You Will Die from This Snowstorm - Brought to You by Vick's. If you're one of the few who does live through this winter Armageddon, you'll at least get a cold, so take these throat lozenges."
I'm not turning anti-capitalist. I'm just against this journalism trend where accuracy is a casualty of the war to get and hold an audience, and then the fall-back position is, "Well, would you rather have us really get it wrong on the positive side or really blow it and have everybody in deep trouble?"
It doesn't have to be that extreme a choice, folks. The media should report the news, and when a huge storm is predicted but fizzles, they should report that too - not keep the story alive "in case" it still happens, then claim victory when it doesn't. By that logic, they'll be predicting "The Storm of the Century" every single day.
Welcome to the Simply Politics Board--
As an avid follower of the latest in Washington I loves a little political controversy. I wanted to create a board for our members to discuss what is going on in the world of politics, not just Presidents. Questions, comments, complaints, let'm fly because there ain't know holding back here.
Take it away Investors Hub Members......
Who does this remind you of...
Between you and I, grammar makes me nauseous
One of the advantages of being in the old fogy club is that we’re expected to fulminate against the modern age. Not only is it our right, it’s our responsibility to point out at every opportunity how things have degenerated since we were callow youths.
This week’s rant is about how what used to be termed Standard English has deteriorated. In the second (1962) edition of "The Perrin-Smith Handbook of Current English," Standard English is defined as "the English that is used by educated people in carrying on the affairs of business, science, literature, government – the effective language of public affairs in general."
The problem is that today’s educated people aren’t very good at grammar. Years ago I received correspondence from a man identifying himself as a "collage graduate." He ended his letter by demanding to know "how dam dom do you think I am?" I knew precisely how dam dom he was.
Regularly on TV and radio you hear people, often commentators and politicians, speak of something as "between you and I." These educated folks apparently were trained to believe that if a phrase sounds artificial and pretentious, it must be good English. Every time I hear "between you and I" alarms bells go off in my head. Not that that’s all bad. It’s a pleasant change from those darn voices usually chattering at me.
"Infer" is now often used interchangeably with "imply." There once was a considerable difference, with the speaker or writer implying and the listener or reader inferring.
One grammatical blunder particularly turns my stomach. When people claim that someone or something makes them nauseous, I want to soak them with industrial strength Pepto. The perpetrators may well be nauseous, which means disgusting. That has nothing to do, however, with the cause of their discomfort, which made them nauseated.
The battle between "fewer" and "less" has pretty much been decided. As you other fogies may recall, "fewer" applied to numbers while "less" applied to quantity. That’s no longer true, and the change may partially be attributable to advertising. There’s no shortage of tasty snacks that now boast "less calories." This may be a trend and one day the same items may claim they have "fewer fat." Then there are the ubiquitous "15 items or less" signs in checkout lanes.
We have folks who appraise their boss of a situation. Apprising would have been just as good. Medicine may affect our concentration, but for others it effects their concentration. Some places accept personal checks while other spots except them.
There must be a place that provides specialized training in grammar to waitresses. I mean waitpersons. Or perhaps servers. Invariably, they’ll approach a table and ask something along the lines of, "Are you guys ready to order?" It makes no difference how many females are in the party. Over and over, the word "guys" is used. Do you think the EEOC would send me some cash for bringing this rampant sexism to its attention?
Sloppy English may be a consequence of the do your own thing, make your own rules, don’t be judgmental mindset of the boomer generation. For decades now, questioning authority has been fashionable. Why be bound by silly old conventions?
Perhaps there’s no need to go to the extent of French Jesuit grammarian Dominique Bouhours. When his death was imminent (or is that eminent?), he said, "I am about to – or I am going to – die; either expression is used."
On the other hand, individuals are often judged by the way they speak and write. Thomas Mann observed: "Speech is civilization itself."
By the way (a tiresomely overused expression if I’ve ever heard of one), before readers jump all over me for my own grammatical transgressions, keep in mind that I shouldn’t be too stringently bound by rules of grammar. This is known as artistic license. Please keep the snickering here to a minimum.
Kindly note also that while I abhor poor English, I don’t pretend to be an expert. I ain’t that dom.
October 5, 2000
That deserves another round (hic)
Showers what do we smell, Or are we just that good looking? ;O)
Possibly depending on where you're going. There is always skinny dipping late at night in the creek,river,lake. Another big :O)
Modern science had constructed portable shower tents for the modern camper.
To reek or not to reek that is the question.
Give me all you have and I'll make some arrangements. If there are campgrounds nearby than I'll stay there and do some fishing. I'm looking for a map and directions to the Guide, and then I'll go from there.
Trying not to bother you with the petty things but appreciate your help none the less.
I’ll buy the next round!
Paule
Harbor Light
1 1/2 shot glass
1 pt coffee liqueur
1 pt to kill ya
1 pt crème de mint
splash the top with 151
Light on fire wait a few seconds and then blow it out and slam it down.
Yukon Jack Imported Canadian Liqueur....
The Black Sheep of Canadian Liquors. 100 proof.
I used to be a Southern Comfort and squirt man until I had a shot of Youkon. MMMMM good. Some like it with ice, two cubes, stirr just a little bit, and sip. I like it straight up and down. ar ar ar.
Have you ever had a Harbor light?
And Who this guy? I never seen him before in my life. ;O)
Paule
Off topic re Spam at other site...
We fought it with Alta Vista and now Lycos.
The difference is when you click the links with Lycos you are sent to child porn sites. Another reason I am leaving that site for good. When I spammed this site and the new Bible thread the post was removed in 1 hour. I tossed the child porn site for two full days before it was removed.
I wonder who owns Lycos.
Make that two private messages. eom
You Lush ;O)
ROFLAMO eom
Youkon Jack! Double please,I'm celebrating my up coming hunting trips.
This celebration shouldn't last too long. How many bottles you got?
Paule
I plan on jumping at least once in my life. I had a friend who's uncle was going to take us up for free. Unfortunately his service had an accident after I was invited (awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww splat) so I declined to go with them.
Maybe after I tire of wrestling the bears.
They calls me Grizzly Paule/cuzIf@@kbears
So I call California fish and game on the phone to see if there is a faster way to obtain a non-resident license and Pig tag. I was happy to find out that I may do this over the fax machine. The only problem is that I needed proof of a hunter’s safety course. I took mine over 15 years ago. How would a 13 year old hold on to information that long? What do these people expect? The polite lady told me that my Oregon’s Hunting license would be sufficient. The fax will be arriving in about 15 minutes. They told me that approximately 20-30 minutes after they receive the fax they would call me back with conformation and my numbers to send to the Guide. Now was that easy or what?
I feel it’s kind of stupid for California to ask for proof of hunters safety, but accept an out of state license as substitute. In Oregon they didn’t ask if I had taken any safety class. Just for my Odl. I don’t know maybe Oregon has it on record that I did take one? That would make sense. Otherwise I see it as another useless law of restriction that is easily circumvented..
Any thoughts?
Paule
BTW Paule has ELK TAG! No Draw! Will be planning a trip to the Wilson/Trask area to hunt in the snow. Throw in a little white tail action before hand, to get a good scout on my area and That should do it for this year and hunts. California Wild Boar followed by Alaskan caribou topped off by a little local deer and elk hunts. Who could ask for anything more?
Now thinking 2002!
Prong Horn in Arizona???
Thank You God.
Went shooting with Pre this Saturday...
I Know I had an enjoyable time. I believe Pre Did as well. Pre was sporting a very nice looking 22.250 while I was plugging away with the Bee.300mag. Pre was old deadeye, and I an starting to show consistent improvement.
At the pistol range Pre and Myself were not the only .454's of the day. Another gentleman (whom I found out is taking a caribou trip in sept) was also packing a Ruger .454. We each laid out our guns side by side so the other shooters (and there was plenty of them) could gawk and drool. And Drool they did.
Another Accident free shooting Adventure.
Colostomy bagola.I missed you this weekend. I was so looking forward to seeing you. We could have buried the hatchet. ;0)
My 145lb Rott was just itching to say hi. He would jump in the air and bark "RY ROYFRIEND ROLA IS ROMMING..."
Paule
I'll start the day with a Youkon straight up.No rocks no chaser thank you.
Paule
Bloated egos, and way overblown sense of Influential charisma. It was a class envy ploy
"See we the rich powerful beautiful movie star, the one every one of you is dying to be like, know what’s better for you. So you continue to watch our movies making us richer and we'll pretend like we really care about you. You did go see my movie right? You better have"
At least I think that’s what they're saying
Paule
This is just too hysterical...
"paule
Throwing a party? Not that little party board of
nyc's? You guys aren't any fun, you are abusive,
cliquish. intolerant...gosh, all the things you were
at RB.
Things never change do they you, lily-livered little
squirt?
Get back under the porch.
sharps"
I beat him and he just can't take it. I ignore him at RB and he chases me through my e-mail.Have you seen the rant at relig?
Hey OLA Judd has my rl address he's sent me catnip. Why don't you come on over and visit me. Really we could have a few drinks get to know each other and then I'll fumigate after you leave.
Do they make a spray disinfectant for aids?
Your heterosexual friend
Paule
Works for me I'll see you saturday at high noon!
You can just call me greenhorn...
everything I try will be a new experience of trial and error.I noticed they stated rifle and scope.I wanted to use the hand cannon so I started looking elsewhere.
Live chat? Does that mean you type fast??? I'm there now.We need to set up a time for all to gather and shoot the shat
Really....
Give me some details. Sounds pretty inexpensive and fun.looks like the calander is open..
Im going to call this - ken whitaker you mentioned to see what if anything he has available.
I don't know what it is today people too cheap to fork out 5-6 bill for priceless memories while, but have no problem spending a few thousand on fast food through out the year.All they remember turns out to be the heartburn
Geesh
Paule
Here you go Pre
http://www.boaring.com/
Pre ...
If I can find a fitter and a friend with 6bills I am trying for one this year. So far its looking like a 1/1 by myself.
I was loking at the economy because most all my friends are poor.
I'll post you the web sight its a classy operation with this being their poor mans trip.
A COMPARISON OF SEVENTH DAY BAPTISTS
WITH SEVENTH - DAY ADVENTISTS
There is a tendency for many people to confuse Seventh Day Baptists with the much larger, but also much younger Seventh-day Adventists. Although there is agreement in some areas, there are considerable differences in others, both historical and theological.
Seventh Day Baptists trace their origin to the mid-seventeenth century separatist movement in England. Emphasizing the importance of a Scriptural basis for doctrine and practice, some Baptists concluded that the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath was an inescapable requirement for biblical Christianity. In America, the first Seventh Day Baptist Church began when the study of the Scriptures caused others to come to the same conclusion and thus withdraw from their non-Sabbath keeping Baptist brethren in 1671. Though there were eventually leaders among the early Seventh Day Baptists, the movement was not founded upon the writings or leadership of any single person. Even today, Seventh Day Baptists recognize no authoritative leaders or prophets.
Seventh-day Adventists trace their roots to the first half of the nineteenth century and the teachings of William Miller, whose interpretation of Daniel's prophecy calculated that Christ's return would come in 1844. When the prophetic note proved to be a "great disappointment," many of his followers continued with modified interpretations of his eschatology and became influenced by teachings of the Seventh Day Baptists concerning the Sabbath. The two strains of Millerite eschatology and Sabbatarianism were solidified through the visions of Ellen G. White, who became the authoritative prophet of the movement. Mrs. White, though eschewing the title of prophetess, spoke with near absolute authority during her lifetime. At the 1857 Conference her testimony to the church was, "received as the voice of the Lord to His people" (Review & Herald, Nov. 12, 1857). Her ministry was alleged to include even more than the term "prophet" signified (Review & Herald, July 26, 1906, page 3).
Similarities
Both denominations practice baptism of believers by immersion;
Both observe the Biblical Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.
Both practice a non-liturgical form of worship.
Both are champions of religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
Differences
1. Seventh Day Baptists hold to the historic Protestant principle that the Bible alone is the authoritative source of faith.
1. Seventh-day Adventists hold the Bible as the source of their faith, but also believe that Ellen G. White was an inspired prophetess, and that her writings and interpretations are to be received as authoritative in the church.
2. Seventh Day Baptists hold that Christ will return to earth in power at an undisclosed time. They believe that a detailed understanding of prophetic texts is a matter of individual interpretation, and that Christ will return for those who believe in him--whether or not they have gained such an understanding.
2. Seventh-day Adventists place great emphasis on accepting the interpretation of the apocalyptic writings which they believe to be correct. They also believe that only those who live up to the SDA concept of "present truth" will be prepared for "translation" when Christ appears.
3. Seventh Day Baptists hold to the congregational form of organization, by which the congregation as a whole has the final authority in decision- making locally, and each local church is autonomous with respect to the General Conference (which is a "conference" of churches, not an authority structure). Thus the General Conference operates on the principle of "advice and consent" for cooperative programs, fellowship and spiritual enrichment, while local congregations direct their own activities (including the call and support of ministers).
3. Seventh-day Adventists hold to an Episcopal form of organization in which the power and many of the decisions flow from the top down.
4. Seventh Day Baptists cherish the freedom of the individual to interpret the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For this reason they allow differences of belief and understanding of the Scriptures within the framework of their agreed upon common faith.
4. Seventh-day Adventists hold to a more dogmatic position, insisting on a detailed and extensive uniformity in the beliefs and practices of their members.
5. Seventh Day Baptists recognize a distinction between moral laws of the Old Testament (such as the Ten Commandments), intended to express principles of "right and wrong" for mankind in all ages, and more ceremonial or "national" laws intended to guide Israelite worship under the Old Covenant, teach symbolic truths, and govern Israelite life in the land of Canaan. Therefore, Seventh Day Baptists do not consider that such things as the dietary laws of the Old Covenant are still obligatory under the New Covenant in Christ (Mark 7:19).
5. Seventh-day Adventists teach that such regulations as the Old Testament dietary distinctions between clean and unclean meats are still required of Christians.
6. Seventh Day Baptists agree with other Protestants that Christ's atoning work was finished on the cross; that it alone, not our own works of righteousness, is the basis for salvation; and that salvation is by God's grace and is received by faith. They believe that the gift of eternal life thus gained assures a future free from condemnation (John 5:24). Therefore, they deny that salvation depends upon a person's confession of every individual sin, and they reject the unscriptural concept of an "investigative judgment."
6. Seventh-day Adventists lay great stress on the "third angel's message" ( Revelation 14:9-12). They consider that Christ entered a (literal) heavenly sanctuary in 1844 and that an "investigative judgment" of human lives is now going on in heaven. Thus the atoning work of Christ is unfinished. The practical consequences of this view are that believers are denied the assurance of their salvation and are left with the responsibility to establish their worthiness for it, by their efforts to identify and confess each individual sin and live a righteous life.
7. Seventh Day Baptists approve of tithing, but do not make it obligatory. Instead, they teach that as faithful stewards of God's creation, believers ought to give a fair proportion of their income, voluntarily, cheerfully and in the amount they have decided in their own hearts. This should be done as an act of worship, in response to God's love and provision. Tithing is a model to consider, not a rule to obey.
7. Seventh-day Adventists hold tithing of income (for support of the ministry) to be obligatory, supplemented by offerings.
8. Seventh Day Baptists in general believe that, upon death, the body "falls asleep" (figuratively), but the spirits of the righteous go to be with Christ in the Father's presence, and are not unconscious there. They believe that the redeemed will be given spiritual and glorified bodies at the resurrection.
8. Seventh-day Adventists teach that both the spirit and the body fall asleep in death, not to waken until Christ returns. The righteous are with Christ, but are (literally) unconscious.
9. Seventh Day Baptists have preached from the very beginning their distinctive doctrine of the Sabbath as a blessing for mankind and an experience of God's eternal presence with His people. They practice obedience to God's command as a loving response to His grace in Christ. They believe the Sabbath should be faithfully observed as a day of rest, worship and celebration, but leave it up to the individual how best to do this.
9. Seventh-day Adventists have been in agreement with the Sabbath of their historic heritage, but at times have cast it into the judgmental framework of the heavenly sanctuary doctrine, giving it a role in determining a person's salvation. They have also expected their members to conform to the same standards for Sabbath observance, as taught by their church.
10. Seventh Day Baptists
practice baptism of believers as a "witness to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord." Though believer's baptism is required for membership in a Seventh Day Baptist church, church membership is a separate (but related) step of discipleship. When requested to do so, Seventh Day Baptists have baptized believers who wish to testify to their faith in Christ, but do not intend to join a Seventh Day Baptist church.
10. Seventh-day Adventists practice baptism of believers as a means of acknowledging Christ as Lord and Savior, but also as a means of entrance into the Seventh day-Adventist Church. Seventh day-Adventist certificates of baptism affirm the candidate's acceptance of the distinctive doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church.
11. Seventh Day Baptists have been ecumenical in their relations with other denominations, believing that while other believers may be mistaken in some of their practices and beliefs, only the denial of Christ or the Gospel would be cause for not receiving them as Christian brothers and sisters. Seventh Day Baptists do not associate Sunday observance with (or identify it with) "the mark of the Beast" mentioned in Rev. 13:15-17, 16:2, 19:20 (NIV). The mark is presented in those texts, not as a sign of faulty Bible interpretation or disobedience to the law or to Christ (as Sunday observance might be characterized), but as a sign of the direct denial of Christ by those who (in order to buy and sell, under the domination of the Beast) "worshiped his image."
11. Seventh-day Adventists historically have subscribed to a remnant theology (according to which salvation is open to them alone), with the question of the Sabbath playing a central role in the great controversy between Christ and Satan. Their association of Sunday observance with "the sign of the Beast" has tended to restrict their relationships with other denominations.
Note: Characterizing SDA beliefs is difficult because of the existence of movements within the church today which interpret the writings of Ellen White differently. Also, where the characterization of SDB beliefs above has touched on areas not specifically addressed by the Conference's Statement of Belief, it has been a characterization of the beliefs of the majority of churches and individuals.
SEVENTH DAY BAPTIST STATEMENT OF BELIEF
Introduction
Seventh Day Baptists consider liberty of thought under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to be essential to Christian belief and practice. Therefore we encourage the unhindered study and open discussion of Scripture. We uphold the individual's freedom of conscience in seeking to determine and obey the will of God.
The following statement is not intended to be exhaustive, but is an expression of our common belief, which is derived from our understanding of Scripture.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 2 Timothy 2:15; Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:3-6, 15; Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
I. God
We believe in one God, infinite and perfect, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe who exists eternally in three persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--and desires to share His love in a personal relationship with everyone.
1 Timothy 1:17; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Kings 8:27; 1 John 1:5; Genesis 1:1-2; Acts 17:24-25, 28; Psalm 90:1-2; Matthew 28:19; John 3:16; Isaiah 57:15; 2 Peter 3:9.
The Father
We believe in God the Father, who is sovereign over all, and is loving and just as He forgives the repentant and condemns the unrepentant.
1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; Ezekiel 33:11; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; John 5:24; John 3:16-18.
The Son
We believe in God the Son, who became incarnate in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. He gave Himself on the cross as the complete and final sacrifice for sin. As our Risen Lord, He is the mediator between God the Father and mankind.
John 1:34; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:14-18; Romans 1:3-4; 1 John 3:16; 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 10:10-14; 1 Corinthians 15:20-21; 1 Timothy 2:5; John 14:6; 1 John 2:1-2.
The Holy Spirit
We believe in God the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who gives spiritual birth to believers lives within them, and empowers them for witnessing and service. We believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, convicts of sin and instructs in righteousness.
John 14:16; 3:5-8; 14:17; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 12:4-7; 2 Peter 1:20-21; John 16:7-11.
II. The Bible
We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is our final authority in matters of faith and practice. We believe that Jesus Christ, in His life and teachings as recorded in the Bible, is the supreme interpreter of God's will for mankind.
2 Peter 1:20-21; Romans 3:2; 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; Matthew 5:17-19; Psalm 119:105; John 20:30-31; Hebrews 1:1-2.
III. Mankind
We believe that mankind was created in the image of God and is therefore the noblest work of creation. We believe that human beings have moral responsibility and are created to enjoy both divine and human fellowship as children of God.
Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 8:3-9; Micah 6:8; Matthew 5:44-48; 1 John 1:3; John 1:12.
IV. Sin and Salvation
We believe that sin is disobedience to God and failure to live according to His will. Because of sin all people have separated themselves from God. We believe that because we are sinners, we are in need of a Savior.
We believe that salvation from sin and death is the gift of God by redeeming love accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, and is received only by repentance and faith in Him. We believe that all who repent of their sin and receive Christ as Savior will not be punished at the final judgment but enjoy eternal life.
1 John 3:4-5; Romans 3:23-25; Isaiah 59:2; 1 John 1:8-10; Romans 5:6-8; Romans 6:23; Hebrews 10:10-14; 1 Peter 1:3; John 3:16-18, 36; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 14:6; Matthew 25:41-46; Romans 5:10.
V. Eternal Life
We believe that Jesus rose from the dead and lives eternally with the Father, and that He will come again with power and great glory. We believe that eternal life begins in knowing God through a commitment to Jesus Christ. We believe that because He died and lives again, resurrection with spiritual and imperishable bodies is the gift of God to believers. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 20-23; John 14:1-3; Matthew 24:30; Titus 2:13; John 17:3; 1 John 5:11-13; 1 Corinthians 15:42-44; John 10:27-28; John 6:40.
VI. The Church
We believe that the church of God is all believers gathered by the Holy Spirit and joined into one body, of which Christ is the Head. We believe that the local church is a community of believers organized in covenant relationship for worship, fellowship and service, practicing and proclaiming common convictions, while growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
We believe in the priesthood of all believers and practice the autonomy of the local congregation, as we seek to work in association with others for more effective witness.
Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13, 14, 27; Romans 12:4-5; Colossians 1:18; Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22; Romans 15:5-7; Ephesians 4:11-16; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 2:4-10; Matthew 18:20; Hebrews 10:24-25.
VII. Baptism
We believe that baptism of believers in obedience to Christ's command is a witness to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. We believe in baptism by immersion as a symbol of death to sin, a pledge to a new life in Him.
Romans 6:3-4; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:41; Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:11; Galatians 3:26-27
VIII. The Lord's Supper
We believe that the Lord's Supper commemorates the suffering and death of our Redeemer until He comes, and is a symbol of union in Christ and a pledge of renewed allegiance to our risen Lord.
Mark 14:22-25; Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30.
IX. Sabbath
We believe that the Sabbath of the Bible, the seventh day of the week, is sacred time, a gift of God to all people, instituted at creation, affirmed in the Ten Commandments and reaffirmed in the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles.
We believe that the gift of Sabbath rest is an experience of God's eternal presence with His people.
We believe that in obedience to God and in loving response to His grace in Christ, the Sabbath should be faithfully observed as a day of rest, worship, and celebration.
Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 16:23-30; Exodus 20:8-11; Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 2:27-28; Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14, 42-44; 16:11-13; 17:2-3; 18:4-11; Ezekiel 20:19-20; Hebrews 4:9-10; John 14:15; Isaiah 58:13-14; Luke 23:56.
X. Evangelism
We believe that Jesus Christ commissions us to proclaim the Gospel, to make disciples, to baptize and to teach observance of all that He has commanded. We are called to be witnesses for Christ throughout the world and in all human relationships. Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 4:1-2, 5-6; 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; Ephesians 6:14-20.
God's Sabbath Trail
What does this Sabbath trail really mean?
It's truly finished, no longer just a dream;
This is the place where every soul can go;
To feel the peace that everyone should know.
Walking on the paths and reading each stone;
Carved there to share the truth that must be made known;
It speaks to the heart in the quiet of the way;
Revealing the holy message of the Sabbath Day.
Come along the trail from it's beginning to the end;
Reflect upon it's meaning of true rest, my friend;
From the first book of the Bible way back in the past;
Is traced God's Sabbath Day, for it was meant to last.
As you spend time walking this special trail;
Please don't let it be to you of no avail;
Find the beauty of it's rest straight from the heart of God;
For you're traveling the same path those before you have trod.
Until that blessed Day when we see our Lord so dear;
May you feel His presence each time you visit here;
Till we meet in the new world and God's face we seek;
On our Lord's special Sabbath - the 7th Day each week.
by Patty Kubicki