Daily Reflection on Scripture

Now that I've gotten my gidy pride out of the way...

The story of Lararus's death is just an amazing story from so many angles. Martha's role in it is remarkable as well. I've never lost a close relative or friend (God has been generous to me, even in my undeserving), but I can imagine that it will be a painful time when it does occur. How many people out there think they'd be able to be as humble and gentle as Martha was in her encounter with Christ? I don't think I could be.

Her brother had just died two days ago. I don't care how much you rationally knew that Christ knew what he was doing, it would be hard to humbly submit to that. Martha does. It would be very easy to be angry. She isn't angry in the least. She still had the strength to affirm that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God". It leaves me in awe of her.

May the Peace of Christ which is offered to us all, help us to have the humility that Martha had and be able to affirm God's greatness even in our most difficult hours.

kencraw on 07.29.04 @ 02:32 PM PST [link]

I love my auto color changing blog!

Forgive me my gidy pride, but I think my auto color changing blog that changes to the appropriate liturgical color of the day is so cool. It's so nice to come look at my blog and see that today is a special day, that we are celebrating the life of St. Martha. And it's even nicer because it doesn't take any work on my part, at least not since I wrote the logic to figure it out (if anyone needs a formula to calculate when Easter will be, let me know).

For all of you computer nerds out there who want to know how it works, keep reading my blog. Someday I may tell you.

kencraw on 07.29.04 @ 02:20 PM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

'Martha said to Jesus,
"Lord, if you had been here,
my brother would not have died.
But even now I know that whatever you ask of God,
God will give you."
Jesus said to her,
"Your brother will rise."
Martha said to him,
"I know he will rise,
in the resurrection on the last day."
Jesus told her,
"I am the resurrection and the life;
whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live,
and anyone who lives and believes in me will never die.
Do you believe this?"
She said to him, "Yes, Lord.
I have come to believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God,
the one who is coming into the world."'

-John 11:20-27 from today's Gospel reading

kencraw on 07.29.04 @ 02:14 PM PST [link]

Question of the Day: Was Martha Mary Magdalene's sister?

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

In honor of today being St. Martha's feast day, I thought I'd answer a question about her. Martha is referenced two times in scripture. First in Luke chapter 10 and in John chapters 11-12. Those references make up two stories, one where Mary sits and listens to Christ after supper while Martha is slaving away in the kitchen (about which Martha is not too happy) and the second is the story of Lazarus's death and being raised from the dead.

What is clear from scripture is that Mary, Martha and Lazarus are brother's and sisters. The question remains, which Mary? Is Mary, THE Mary Magdalene? Depending on who you talk to, maybe, maybe not. there are so many references to a Mary in scripture that it is hard to pick one from another. But there are clearly some who are not the same person. Amongst all these Mary's, there are three references to a Mary that could one, two or even up to three Mary's. They are as follows:

-The "sinner" in Luke chapter 7 who washes Christ's feet with tears and annoints them with oil.
-The sister of Martha
-Mary Magdalene

To add to the multitude, it has been widely believed that the adulterer in John chapter 8 is the "sinner" in Luke chapter 7. Currently most scholars believe that from scripture there is no reason to believe that they are the same person.

While the association between the sinner and the adulter is much weaker, the strong parallel between the Mary in Luke chapter 7 and Mary, the sister of Martha, who also annoints Christ's feet with oil is much more compelling. While Luke doesn't give a qualifier like Magdalene or sister of Martha to the first Mary, it is reasonable that Luke and John have chronicled the same event and therefore the two Mary's are the same person.

As for linking Mary Magdalene to the first two Mary's, the story of the rising of Lazarus is just days before Christ was crucified and the Gospel of John and its continuity seems to suggest that Mary, the sister of Martha, is also Mary Magdalene who picks up right where Mary sister of Martha left off.

The problem is that Martha's home was in Bethany and Mary Magdalene was from the town of Magdala (which is how she get's her name). So the question becomes whether Mary moved from Magdala to Bethany or not. She could have moved with Martha and Lazarus. This doesn't seem impossible, particularly since Jesus was from Galilie (which Magdala is in) and there is no Gospel story to suggest how Mary, Martha and Lazarus became such good friends. One could argue that they knew each other before Christ's ministry which would have placed them in Galilie at some point.

The reality is that we don't know for sure. We can only guess. The Catholic Church has long put forth that all the three Mary's mentioned above are the same Mary. I'm inclined to believe that the Church is correct. That said, we must accept that this is not a definitive teaching of the Church (not even close really) and we should not scoff at those who believe otherwise.

kencraw on 07.29.04 @ 02:12 PM PST [link]

Are you a Yak-Whomper or a Knuckle-Scraper?

I think I'm both. Read this article. It's hilariously true.

Thanks to Greg at Crowhill.net for the link.

kencraw on 07.29.04 @ 11:06 AM PST [link]

Daily reflection on Scripture

How often do we try to compartmentalize our faith? How often do we say, 'isn't what I'm giving enough?' or 'Do I really need to do that to get to Heaven?'

Today's simile by Christ speaks to just how precious being with him is. The merchant doesn't say, 'gee that pearl looks like it is worth $10K, I'll see if I can get it for $9K. No, he goes and sells ALL that he has. He's willing to give up everything, even if it is worth more, at least from our human perspective, than the pearl of the Kingdom of God.

We need to have that kind of resolve with searching out Christ in our lives. We must be willing to give ALL that we have to Him and His Kingdom. Christ has given us a great pearl. May we all have the Faith to give all that we have to bring it home.

kencraw on 07.28.04 @ 08:40 PM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

"the Kingdom of heaven is like a merchant
searching for fine pearls.
When he finds a pearl of great price,
he goes and sells all that he has and buys it."

-Matthew 13:45-46 from today's Gospel reading

kencraw on 07.28.04 @ 08:33 PM PST [link]

Question of the Day: Was Jesus really born on December 25th, or is it a Pagan holiday?

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

The simple answer to this question is that we don't know exactly when Christ was born. In fact, current research suggests not only was he not born in December but he wasn't even born in zero AD. He was likely born in 4-6 BC. This comes from combining Roman records and the Biblical accounts of His birth. King Herod, who sent the Magi to find the infant Christ, died in 4 BC according to Roman records. So assuming those records are accurate, Christ must have been born before then. As for the time of year, most scholars think that he was probably born in the late summer, perhaps August and much of that information comes from when Census's were often held.

So with all of this being true, why is it that we celebrate Christmas in December?

Some make the accusation that the Catholic Church, to be popular, adopted the Winter Solstace rituals from the Roman Pagan religions. This however is a drastic oversimplification.

When is Kwanza celebrated? Right after Christmas. Do you think that the originators of Kwanza are trying to adopt Christianity? I guarantee you that is not the case. They are quite hostile to Christmas. They're trying to turn the Christmas celebration into their own celebration of their African roots.

Similarly, the Catholic Church saw an opportunity to convert Pagans to Christianity by giving new meaning to the Solstace. What happens at the Winter Solstace? Things change from getting darker to getting lighter.

Christ is the light. When He was born it was the beginning of His bringing light to the world. It took 30 years for Him to be ready to share His message with the world. So, like the Winter Solstace, it was still dark when He was born, but he was bringing hope to the world, slowly but surely. This symbolism, although often lost in our modern secular world, was much more prevelant in the early Church.

So yes, the Winter Solstace was celebrated as a Pagan holiday. But by transforming the holiday from a Pagan one to a Christian one, the Catholic Church was not showing it's "true Pagan colors" but shining the brilliant light of Christ for the whole Pagan world to see.

kencraw on 07.28.04 @ 08:32 PM PST [link]

Daily Reflection on Scripture

No, I didn't pick today's scripture because I haven't been posting Scripture reflections lately.

I picked it today because I think it should be on our mind these days. Our Church is in a time of crisis. Many Priests and Bishops have failed to protect the children of our Church and we, the general population of the Church, are more to blame than we admit to.

I've heard it said that "We get the Bishops we deserve" usually in reference to quotes from lay Catholics who are asking the Bishops to stay out of their lives and are defending their un-Catholic behavior. I believe it is true. The Bishops we have today are a reflection of the people of the Church. While this doesn't excuse the behavior or Bishops or Priests who fail the Church, it does mean that we all must accept some responsibility for the state of our Church.

So today I quote Jeremiah. Today I think we should reflect on our own lives and how we are failing to contribute to the Church in the way Christ needs us to. We should reflect on how with God's grace we can help our Bishops lead our Church out of the tragedies of the past and into a more Holy future.

May God's grace fill our hearts and help us to renew our Church so that His name may be glorified.

kencraw on 07.27.04 @ 09:46 AM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

"We recognize, O LORD, our wickedness,
the guilt of our fathers;
that we have sinned against you.
For your name's sake spurn us not,
disgrace not the throne of your glory;
remember your covenant with us, and break it not."

-Jeremiah 14:20-21 from today's Old Testament reading

kencraw on 07.27.04 @ 09:22 AM PST [link]

Question of the Day: Why do Protestants and Catholics have different sets of 10 Commandments

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

Today's question comes via e-mail from Trevor, a Catechumen in my Parish's RCIA program. Here's the full text of his question:

'I had a question from a conversation that occured between me and my friend Jeff at work who is a "Born Again" Christian. He had a list of the Ten Commandments that was unfamilar to me. The 2nd commandment was something about not praying to symbols or something along those lines. Then tenth was simply "thou shal not covet." He told me our (Catholic) Commandments are differant. When I got home I checked and he was right. Our 2nd one is do not take the Lord's name in vain and the 9th and 10th are "thou shal not covet thy neighbors wife" and "thou shal not covet thy neighbors goods."'


The Ten Commandments originally come from Moses and the Jewish Exodus from Egypt to the Holy Land. They are referenced twice in the Old Testament, Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5. Here is the reference from Exodus 20 (Deuteronomy 5 is nearly identical) from the New American Bible (other translations of the Bible are very similar):

2. "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3. You shall not have other gods besides me.
4. You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5. you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6. but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7. "You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
8. "Remember to keep holy the sabbath day.
9. Six days you may labor and do all your work,
10. but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you.
11. In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12. "Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
13. "You shall not kill.
14. "You shall not commit adultery.
15. "You shall not steal.
16. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."


Notice that there aren't inherently numbers associated to the text (the numbers on the left are verse numbers). So in ALL cases the 10 Commandments are somewhat artificially separated into 10. Said differently, there are 15 verses which have been summed up into 10 Commandments. Protestants and Catholics have separated them differently.

The best example to use of how we've seperated them is the Commandment: "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day" because both Catholics and Protestants treat it the same. In Exodus 20 that Commandment is verse 8. Verses 9 through 11 speak in greater depth to that point, so they are assumed, as far as listing the 10 commandments, to be one. One could argue that there should be a separate commandment "No work should be done on the Sabbath" as keeping the Sabbath holy could be considered too vague to necessarily mean that one couldn't work on that day. But both Catholic and Protestants see verses 8 through 11 as 1 Commandment.

The "controversy" is over the same decision with the 1st Commandment. The Catholic interpretation would be that verses 4 through 6 have the same relationship to verse 3 as verses 9 through 11 do to verse 8 (Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day). Having no other God's besides God, would naturally mean that we don't have any other idols and we sure wouldn't worship them as that would be having another God besides our God. So we see verses 4 through 6 as commentary on the 1st Commandment: You shall have no Gods besides me.

Of course, since it is desired to have 10 commandments, that means that verse 17 can now be split up into two commandments, one that we shouldn't covet your neightbors wife and separately you shouldn't covet your neighbors "stuff" (house, slave, ox, etc.).

The reality is that all Christians hold to the same truths about the 10 commandments. We all believe that what is stated in them is correct and there need be no omissions. As Catholics we don't worship Mary or the Saints. They are not God and should not be worshiped. Similarly, Protestants don't have a reduced emphasis on coveting wives and posessions even though they've reduced those 2 Commandments to 1. We all believe that worship of other Gods/Idols is bad and that coveting other's wives and possessions is bad. All that's been done is that we've numbered the 10 Commandments differently.

What can indeed be said is that during the Reformation, some set of Protestants (it doesn't seem to be linked to Martin Luther, but perhaps either the English Protestants or John Calvin) wanted to make the point that worship of Idols was unacceptable and therefore re-worked the numbering to re-emphasize the commentary (verses 4-6) on what Catholics call the 1st commandment. They expanded it into 2 commandments, the 2nd being that we shouldn't worship idols. Again, wanting to keep it to 10, they collapsed the 9th and 10th Commandments as numbered by the Catholic Church, into 1 Commandment.

As for the history of the Catholic numbering, it seems to date back at least to St. Augustine (born 354, died 430) who wrote of them in his book "Questions of Exodus". The numbering was formally ratified by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent between 1545 and 1563. The Council of Trent is one of the most important Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church where a number of long held teachings of the Church were officially ratified. This was in response to the reformation which started early that same century and was changing things that had long been held like the numbering of the 10 Commandments and the books of the Old Testament.

In closing I'd just like to point out that this is not an issue anyone should get up in arms about. The important matter is the principles communicated in the 10 Commandments. On this almost all Christians (Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants) agree. We shouldn't be too worried about how we number them as long as we're faithfully following what they say.

Thanks for you question Trevor.

kencraw on 07.27.04 @ 09:17 AM PST [link]

Scripture Quote of the Day

'Jesus proposed a parable to the crowds.
"The Kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed
that a person took and sowed in a field.
It is the smallest of all the seeds,
yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants.
It becomes a large bush,
and the ‘birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches.'"'

-Matthew 13:31-32 from today's Gospel reading

kencraw on 07.26.04 @ 05:13 PM PST [link]

Question of the Day: What are the Gnostic Gospels?

NOTE: If you'd like to submit a question, either post it as a comment in this entry or e-mail me at questions at thecrawfordfamily dot net.

Today's question comes from John, who asked for more details on the Gnostic Gospels after my question of the day on Thursday. The full text of his question (as always I edit for title space) can be found in the comment section of Thursday's question of the day.

The term Gnostic Gospels isn't as specific as one would like. In general it refers to any Gospel (the story of Christ's life) that was written by a Gnostic. A Gnostic is someone who believes in a secret set of knowledge or Gnosis that is the key to salvation. People who knew this knowledge would be saved, other's would not. That's an oversimplification, but good enough for the point of this answer.

What is generally considered the Gnostic Gospels these days are the writings discovered in the 60's in northern Africa I believe. A monestary had an extensive collection of old manuscripts dating back to the 3rd century that included a number of non-canonical (i.e. books that are not in the Catholic Bible) books. These include the Gospels of Thomas, Phillip, and Mary (referring to Mary Magdalene) which are often referred to in the context of being Gnostic Gospels.

It is important to note that while the Gospels that are in the Catholic Bible are generally believed to be written by the author titled (the Gospel of Mark was actually written by Mark, etc.) or at least finished by their close followers shortly after their death, the same can not be said of the majority of other Gospels. Most of them are thought to have been written by others in the 2nd and 3rd century well after the stated authors had died. As this seems to suggest, these other Gospels can be said to be written, at least in the technical sense of the term, by Gnostics (those who had secret knowledge passed down from the stated author).

Along these lines, many are surprised to hear that these discovered Gnostic Gospels were not a surprise to find. The Catholic Church and many historians knew they existed, although they may not have had the text of it in many cases. There are many references by early Church father's to these works and that knowledge was not lost over time. What was interesting about the discovery of the manuscripts in the 60's is that we now had the text for some documents that had been lost and, as with the Dead Sea Scrolls, a new manuscript to check existing copies against for accuracy and different "editions".

To finish off answering John's question, I don't know a whole lot about what the Gnostic Gospels say, but mostly it is a lot of the same stuff you'd see in the Canonical Gospels. There are new stories and parables here and there and some differences in how the Passion plays out (similar to how they play out slightly differently in the Canonical Gospels) but overall, from what I understand, nothing remarkable.

What can make them remarkable is that these few differences between them and the Canonical Gospels can be said to be information that the Catholic Church has hidden. Some will take those changes/additions and scrutinize them to find the hidden message within the Gnostic Gospels. This is the root of what is referred to as neo-Gnosticism.

As to how we should approach them as Orthodox Christians (and by that I mean Christians who hold to what has traditionally been called Christianity), we should recognize how valuable every piece of written information from the early Church is. I've always been a big fan of reading books that disagree with my viewpoint. I'm in the middle of reading the book of mormon to understand the mormons and to get an insight into how they think. The same can be said of the Gnostic Gospels. They are written by a people who had a significant impact on the early Christian movements. To understand the people of the time will give us better insight into the Canonical Gospels and the points they were trying to make.

In the end, however, it must be remember that from the Catholic Church's perspective, these Gospels are not the Word of God. They are merely books, books that cronicle the same events as the Canonical Gospels that are believed by most Christians to be the Authoritative Word of God.

Thanks again for your question John.

kencraw on 07.26.04 @ 05:11 PM PST [link]

Sorry for missing Weds. and Fri.

Work has been busy lately. It's been keeping me from morning Mass. Arg! I'm back on track this week. Thanks for you patience.

kencraw on 07.26.04 @ 04:13 PM PST [link]