Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Was Jesus Crucified on Passover?

Reading Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI has been a wonderful experience for me. In this original work, drawing on his deep faith in Jesus, his vast scholarship and his great intellectual ability, our former Holy Father offers profound and beautiful insights into the figure and Person of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. Pope Benedict’s remarkable talent for Scripture study is marvelously evident in this three-volume book; he draws brilliant connections between various Scripture passages and truly makes the Scriptures come alive. In summary, I have been greatly enriched through my reading of Jesus of Nazareth, and I would highly recommend this book series to anyone.

In his Foreword to Jesus of Nazareth, Benedict XVI points out that this book is not an exercise of the Church’s Magisterium but rather “my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps. 27:8).” (p. xxiii) He adds, “Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.” (p. xxiv) Having gladly given such initial goodwill, I have found very little to disagree with in the book. However, I did find one area where I respectfully disagree with the former pontiff, and that is in his discussion of the dating of the Last Supper and Christ’s crucifixion in relation to the date of the Passover feast (Jesus of Nazareth—Part Two: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), pp. 106-115).



In this discussion, Benedict XVI draws attention to the apparent contradiction between the date of Passover as recounted in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and as recounted in the Gospel of John. He observes that the Synoptics place the Last Supper “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mk. 14:12), and clearly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal. This meal took place on Thursday evening, which according to the Synoptic chronology was the eve of Passover. Jesus was then crucified the following day, which would have been the very day of the Passover feast. The Pope finds it improbable that Jesus would have been tried and executed on the important Jewish feast day of Passover. As evidence against this hypothesis, he points to a comment from Mark: “He tells us that two days before the feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and scribes were looking for an opportunity to bring Jesus under their control by stealth and kill him, but in this regard, they declared: ‘not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people’ (14:1-2)” (pp. 107-108).

Benedict then turns to John’s chronology and highlights the differences between it and the Synoptic chronologies. He says that John goes to great lengths to show that Jesus’ Last Supper was not a Passover meal. He also notes that “the Jewish authorities who led Jesus before Pilate’s court avoided entering the praetorium, ‘so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover’ (18:28)” (p. 108), implying—in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels—that the Passover had not yet begun at the time of Jesus’ trial. According to John’s chronology, therefore, Jesus was tried and executed on the day before Passover, not on the feast day itself. Both the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies agree that the Last Supper took place on Thursday, Jesus’ death on Friday, repose in the tomb on Saturday, and the Resurrection on Sunday. But while the Synoptic accounts explicitly have the Passover feast begin on Thursday evening, John’s gospel implies that it began on Friday evening.

Benedict remarks that, if John’s chronology is correct, the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple at the same time that Jesus, the true Lamb, was crucified. He observes that this theologically significant connection has led many scholars to write off John’s chronology as a “theological” chronology, deliberately constructed in order to bring out this important theological connection. However, the Holy Father believes that the Johannine chronology is more historically probable than the Synoptic chronologies because it seems unlikely that Jesus would have been executed on the feast of Passover. “On the other hand,” he writes, “Jesus’ Last Supper seems so closely tied to the Passover tradition that to deny its Passover character is problematic” (p. 109).

Benedict notes that attempts have frequently been made to reconcile the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies. He discusses at some length the interesting theory of twentieth-century French scholar Annie Jaubert, who claimed that Jesus celebrated the feast of Passover on a Tuesday evening following an ancient priestly calendar, while the Jewish authorities, following their own calendar, would have celebrated the Passover on Friday evening. Thus the difference between the Synoptic and Johannine dating of Passover can be explained by the use of two different calendars. However, Pope Benedict points out that John’s gospel itself indicates that Jesus followed the same calendar as the Jewish authorities, and he also notes the long tradition assigning Jesus’ Last Supper to Thursday. He concludes: “So while I would not reject this theory outright, it cannot simply be accepted at face value, in view of the various problems that remain unresolved” (p. 112).

Benedict finds a solution to the Passover discrepancy in a meticulous and comprehensive scholarly work by John P. Meier entitled A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Concluding that one must choose between the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies, Meier argues that the weight of evidence favors the Johannine version of events. The former pontiff notes that Meier cannot give a convincing explanation for the Synoptic references to a Passover meal, dismissing them as later additions to the gospel texts. Meier claims that Jesus’ Last Supper was not a true Passover meal according to Jewish ritual and calendar, but that it was Jesus’ own personal version of a Passover meal in which he gave himself to his disciples as the true Lamb on the eve of his passion and death. Benedict describes this viewpoint as follows: “Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the inner connection of the whole event with Jesus’ death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus’ Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out—when their time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them” (p. 114).

Personally, I find little reason to doubt the accuracy of the Synoptic chronologies. The Synoptic gospels are straightforward historical accounts of Jesus’ life, teaching, Passion, Death and Resurrection. They were written much closer in time to the events they record than was the Gospel of John. It makes sense, as the Synoptics tell us, that the Last Supper was a real Passover meal taken by Jesus and his disciples on the opening night of the Passover feast. After all, Jesus observed all the major Jewish feast days. The notions that Jesus’ Last Supper was not a genuine Passover meal and did not take place on the eve of Passover I find distasteful, unacceptable and incompatible with the Synoptic gospel accounts. Those accounts also contain significant theological connections. According to the Synoptics, the institution of the Holy Eucharist took place appropriately on the feast of Unleavened Bread. Then on the feast of Passover, the day on which the Israelites were delivered from slavery in Egypt, Christ passed over into the realm of the dead, delivering mankind from the slavery of sin. I believe that Jesus’ trial and execution did actually take place on the feast of Passover as the Synoptics indicate. The chief priests and scribes may have originally planned not to arrest and kill Jesus on Passover as Mark’s gospel relates (14:1-2), but then Judas offered to hand Jesus over to them (14:10-11) and did so at a convenient opportunity, which happened to be the night before the Passover feast. Moreover, a statement by Jesus in Matthew’s gospel seems to confirm that his death would really take place on Passover. Jesus says to his disciples: “You know that in two days’ time it will be Passover, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified” (26:2). The way this statement is worded implies two simultaneous events: Passover and crucifixion. It really does not make sense to interpret it any other way. If Jesus was going to be crucified before the Passover, why would he bother to mention the Passover first—or at all? Finally, the Roman governor had a custom of releasing one prisoner chosen by the people on the occasion of Passover (Mt. 27:15); Pilate followed this custom, offering to release Jesus, but the crowds, stirred up by the chief priests and elders, demanded Barabbas’ release instead (Mt. 27:16ff). It makes sense that this amnesty would have been granted on the actual day of the Passover feast.

It’s true that, unlike the Synoptics, John’s gospel makes no mention of Christ’s Last Supper as being a Passover meal. However, John does not therefore deny the Passover character of the Last Supper. He simply chooses to focus on Jesus’ example of humble service in the washing of his disciples’ feet. John fails to mention a great many facts recounted in the Synoptics because his approach is different; his gospel is the “theological” gospel, and his main concern is not to record all the facts of Jesus’ life but rather to present him in all his glory as the Son of God. Also, John prefaces his account of the Last Supper with the words, “Before the feast of Passover” (13:1); this can mean that the Passover feast would occur the next day, that is, Friday.

But how can we explain the statement in John’s gospel that the Jews who led Jesus before Pilate avoided entering the praetorium “so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover” (18:28)? Is this merely a theological device intended to connect Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs? No; this is a simple factual statement, and as such it cannot reasonably be doubted or explained away, even if it seems to contradict the Synoptics. Perhaps this verse from John can be reconciled with the Synoptic accounts in this way. The Jewish feast of Passover is in fact not confined to a single day but constitutes a week-long celebration. True, the principal Passover meal takes place on the first evening of this feast, but the lesser meals taken on the succeeding days are also part of the Passover celebration. The Passover may have already begun on Thursday evening, but the Jews who brought Jesus before Pilate still had to keep themselves ritually pure if they were to continue to eat the Passover feast, which would continue until the following Thursday.

So perhaps there is no real conflict between the Synoptic and Johannine accounts of Christ’s Last Supper and crucifixion in relation to the Passover feast. But even if my explanation of John 18:28 turns out to be inadequate and not well supported, I would still tend to favor the Synoptic version of events, which I find to be historically accurate as well as theologically significant. In the meantime, I will try to keep an open mind pending additional research on this subject.


Copyright © 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Quote of the Day

But there is another form of poverty! It is the spiritual poverty of our time, which afflicts the so-called richer countries particularly seriously. It is what my much-loved predecessor, Benedict XVI, called the "tyranny of relativism", which makes everyone his own criterion and endangers the coexistence of peoples...Francis of Assisi tells us we should work to build peace. But there is no true peace without truth! There cannot be true peace if everyone is his own criterion, if everyone can always claim exclusively his own rights, without at the same time caring for the good of others, of everyone, on the basis of the nature that unites every human being on this earth.
--Pope Francis

Friday, March 22, 2013

Quote of the Day


"The vocation of being a "protector", however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as Saint Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God''s creatures and respecting the environment in which we live. It means protecting people, showing loving concern for each and every person, especially children, the elderly, those in need, who are often the last we think about. It means caring for one another in our families: husbands and wives first protect one another, and then, as parents, they care for their children, and children themselves, in time, protect their parents. It means building sincere friendships in which we protect one another in trust, respect, and goodness. In the end, everything has been entrusted to our protection, and all of us are responsible for it. Be protectors of God''s gifts!
--Pope Francis

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

March for Marriage

From the Virginia Catholic Conference:

"Next Tuesday, March 26, 2013, several organizations from across the country will join together to stage a National March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. The March presents a significant opportunity to promote and defend marriage and the good of our nation, to pray for our Supreme Court justices, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will. It also complements a Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty announced last November by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Joining the USCCB’s Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, the Virginia Catholic Conference encourages Catholics to attend and support the March for Marriage.


"The March marks the two days --- March 26 and 27--- when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases related to so-called same-sex “marriage.” Petitioners are asking the Court to rule on the constitutionality of limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman. Currently nine jurisdictions, including Maryland and the District of Columbia, have redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships.

"Our own Virginia bishops, in their 2006 pastoral letter on marriage, noted that marriage “is inscribed in our human nature.” Further, the U.S. bishops in 2009 pointed to the Second Vatican Council, which reminded us that “marriage is not a purely human institution’’ but one “established by the creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws.” The unique, fundamental meaning and purpose of this universal institution is to unite a man and a woman with each other and with the children born from their union. In fact, government has long recognized marriage because it is the institution best designed to protect children and their families. Those who want to redefine marriage claim marriage exists to satisfy an emotional need or to support voluntary relationships. However, the institution of marriage is not simply one of many alternative kinds of relationships. Rather, it is the very building block of the family and of society. Because of the unique contributions this institution makes to the common good, it must be clearly distinguished from other relationships.

"In 2006, Virginia voters passed a constitutional amendment to protect marriage and prevent legislators and judges from redefining it. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could have a profound impact on marriage laws across the nation and could even put individual and organizational conscience rights in jeopardy.

"To learn more about what the Church teaches about marriage, see the USCCB site as well as Marriage: Unique for a Reason.

"The Virginia Catholic Conference encourages all those who are able to attend the March for Marriage on March 26 and provide public witness as well as prayer on this critical issue."

Great idea. Life, marriage, and religious liberty are under attack in our nation today as never before. We Catholics need to stand up for what we believe and join with other people of goodwill to defend the traditional values on which our nation is built. We have the annual March for Life in Washington, and now there will be a March for Marriage.

Thankfully, our Catholic bishops have been doing a fine job of leading this effort to protect the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage, and our religious freedom and moral conscience rights. I think the bishops should go one step further and organize a massive march on Washington for life, marriage, and religious liberty. If it was well organized and well presented, millions of people--Catholic and non-Catholic alike--would attend. This could make an impact similar to that of the civil rights march of 1964: the federal government might actually listen to the people and take meaningful, decisive political action to protect their God-given human rights in response to massive public pressure. Let's hope and pray that this happens in the near future.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Quote of the Day

It was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham and his descendants that he would inherit the world, but through the righteousness that comes from faith...For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us, as it is written, "I have made you father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not exist. He believed, hoping against hope, that he would become "the father of many nations," according to what was said, "Thus shall your descendants be."...That is why "it was credited to him as righteousness."

--Romans 4:13, 16-18, 22

Monday, March 18, 2013

Quote of the Day

"I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
--John 8:12

Thursday, March 14, 2013

A Pope of Surprises

(Note: This is a revised and expanded edition of my previous post.)

Yesterday, on just the second day of the conclave and on the fifth ballot, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was elected the 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, and the 265th Successor of Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Francis. He is the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit pontiff, and the first non-European pope in many centuries.


This new pope brings many surprises. For one thing, I did not expect the cardinals to elect a new pontiff so quickly, given that they seemed to lack clear direction in the wake of Pope Benedict's stunning resignation, and the fact that no single cardinal stood out as a clear front-runner going into this conclave. But apparently the cardinals had already begun to form a consensus around a particular candidate when they entered the conclave—a candidate about whom they did not speak openly to the news media. That was a tactful move on their part, and a brilliant way of dealing with the modern world media machine that tries its best to influence the election of the next pope. They allowed journalists to focus on their favorite candidates and indulge in their favorite speculations, and then pulled the rug from under their feet with the quick election of a “dark horse.” It’s plainly obvious that the cardinal electors did not allow the world’s media to influence their decision. That is heartening, and the cardinal electors deserve our great respect and warm congratulations for carrying out their duty so well amid difficult circumstances. In choosing a pope, their solemn responsibility is to follow their consciences and cast their ballot for the man whom they feel is best qualified to lead the Church at this particular moment. And they have taken that responsibility seriously, thanks be to God.

For another thing, I was not expecting this particular cardinal to be elected to the papacy. I did include him on my list of thirty-two papabili (see my recent article, "Who Will Be the Next Pope?") because according to my research he met the qualifications for a serious papal candidate; however, I put him a ways down the list (at #20) because I felt he was a bit of a long shot, mainly because of his age and relative obscurity. I also felt a Latin American pope was less likely than an Italian or other European. But age, nationality, and familiarity with the general public are only secondary considerations for the cardinal electors in choosing a new pope.

Also, I was not expecting a Jesuit pope, but I am nonetheless delighted to see one. I have great respect for the Jesuits because of their high education and faithful service to the Church over the centuries as well as in our own day. They were founded by Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be simple yet highly trained and loyal servants of the pope, and they were forbidden to accept ecclesiastical honors such as being made a bishop, a cardinal, or pope. So it is ironic to have a Jesuit who has accepted all three of these honors. But of course, it is up to the pope to appoint bishops and name cardinals, and he can bestow these honors on whomever he thinks should be given them. And it’s up to the cardinals to elect a pope and to choose the man whom they believe is most suited for that position. Saint Ignatius perceived that the danger in accepting honors is that they can make men proud and arrogant. But even with his great learning, Jorge Bergoglio is obviously a humble man and has remained so, which is why he was given these honors—and why it was appropriate that he should have been given them. He accepted them in humble obedience to the authority of the Church, not out of pride or to advance his ecclesiastical career. His education as a Jesuit will no doubt prove a valuable contribution to the papacy and the Church.

And finally, I was not expecting the new pope to take a name that no previous pontiff has used. I thought he would call himself Pope John Paul III or Benedict XVII or Paul VII or John XXIV or Pius XIII or something like that. But no, he chose Francis. What a beautiful and appropriate name--perhaps in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor and humble man, and Saint Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit missionary--or perhaps in honor of Saint Francis de Sales, the sixteenth-century "gentleman saint."

This man was unfamiliar to me; I had never really seen him prior to his appearance on the loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica, so I wasn't sure what to expect. When he first came out on the balcony, initially he seemed a little distant and reserved, perhaps even a bit nervous and fearful, as he stood there almost motionless, solemnly facing the massive crowds of cheering people in Saint Peter's Square, acknowledging their applause with an occasional slight wave of one hand. He seemed as stunned as we were by the cardinals’ choice of a pope. Frankly, I felt a bit sorry for him. Just like Cardinal Ratzinger before him, he did not want to be elected pope, and probably did not even expect it. As he stood there before us, clothed simply in the white papal garments with his pectoral cross, he seemed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders—and in a very real sense he did, because the modern papacy is a tremendous responsibility. His rigid and dignified stance reminded me of earlier pre-Vatican II pontiffs.

Then as His Holiness began speaking into the microphone, smiling as he warmly greeted the people in Italian, my apprehensions melted away and I was instantly won over to the new pope. His words of greeting lasted at least a minute, longer than those of the two previous pontiffs. In a thoughtful and respectful gesture, he first directed our attention to his great predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and led us in praying an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be for him. I was impressed by how he then bowed down in front of the whole world and asked us, the faithful, to pray that God would bless him before he gave us his first blessing as our new Shepherd in Christ. Once he had done that, he added a few words of farewell, saying he looked forward to seeing the people on Sunday, and wishing them good night.

This is clearly a man of profound humility, simplicity and deep faith, a man of restrained and even temperament who also knows how to communicate with an audience through carefully chosen words and meaningful gestures—a man who, I believe, will evangelize the world mainly through his own powerful example of holiness.

Now that I’m getting to know Pope Francis a little better, and who he was as Cardinal Bergoglio, I realize that my first impressions of this man as being distant and fearful were inaccurate. This is not a bold and outgoing character like Pope John Paul II or a shy and gentle scholar like Pope Benedict XVI. This is a different kind of man altogether: noble and dignified, reserved and correct, with quiet presence, yet nonetheless a man of deep joy, kind and cheerful, who is able to connect with people. He has his own personality and style, and as he stepped onto the world stage as our new pope, he was more or less simply being himself.

I do gather one thing in particular about this man’s unique personality and style from the time we spent waiting for him to emerge after the white smoke and the official announcement of his election, and the time he took on the balcony to greet us and lead us in prayer, and how he lingered a moment before departing. This is a man who is not in a hurry. He takes his time, and is comfortable doing so. And I believe that that sends a very significant message to our modern, fast-paced, highly secularized and materialistic twenty-first-century world, in which we are pressured to rush to get so many different things, that there is something far more important than everything else that is worth not rushing for. It is when we slow down and let go and listen that God can speak to us in the stillness of our hearts. We must have the courage to shut out the world from time to time in order to deepen our relationship with God and allow him to direct our lives towards our heavenly goal.

As I continue to observe the papacy, I’m coming to learn that each pope is unique and has something special to teach us. Pope John Paul II taught us to be bold and fearless in proclaiming the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Pope Benedict XVI taught us the importance of being correctly formed in our faith and of keeping the liturgy and the Second Vatican Council within the proper context of the Church’s rich tradition. And I believe that Pope Francis will teach us how to slow down and listen to the Holy Spirit, as well as how to serve the Lord and one another in simplicity, humility, and charity. His style will take some getting used to, but we will get used to it just as we got accustomed to the style of Pope Benedict XVI before him. I'm sure he will do a fine job of succeeding the two great pontiffs of our time, and will continue leading the Church in the direction it has been taken by Popes John Paul and Benedict.

We are truly blessed to have Pope Francis as our new Holy Father. May God bless him and help him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, to faithfully carry out the task entrusted to him for years to come.


Copyright 2013 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Habemus Papam! We Have a Pope!

(Photo credit: AP)

Today, on just the second day of the conclave and on the fifth ballot, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, has been elected the 266th Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, and the 265th Successor of Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Pope Francis. He is the first pope from Latin America, the first Jesuit, and the first non-European pope in many centuries.

Wow! Lots of surprises here. For one thing, I did not expect the cardinals to elect a new pope so quickly, given that the cardinals seemed to lack clear direction in the wake of Pope Benedict's stunning resignation, and the fact that no single cardinal stood out as a clear front-runner going into this conclave. But apparently the cardinals took their responsibility seriously and were able to reach a consensus quickly.

For another thing, I was not expecting this particular man to be elected. I did include him on my list of thirty-two papabili (see recent post below, "Who Will Be the Next Pope?") because according to my research he did meet the qualifications for a serious papal candidate; however, I put him a ways down the list (at #20)because I felt he was a bit of a long shot, partly because of his age. I also felt a Latin American pope was less likely than an Italian or other European. But age, nationality, and even precedent are not the primary considerations for the cardinal electors in choosing a new pope. Their solemn responsibility is to follow their consciences and cast their ballot for the man whom they feel is best qualified to lead the Church at this particular moment. And that they have done, thanks be to God.

Also, I was not expecting the new pope to take a name that no previous pope has used. I thought he would call himself Pope John Paul III or Benedict XVII or Paul VII or John XXIV or Pius XIII or something like that. But no, he chose Francis. What a beautiful and appropriate name--perhaps in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, the poor and humble man, and Saint Francis Xavier, the great Jesuit missionary--or perhaps in honor of Saint Francis de Sales, the sixteenth-century "gentleman saint."

I had never seen this man prior to his appearance on the loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Initially he seemed a little distant and rigid, perhaps a bit hesitant, standing almost motionless, solemnly facing the massive crowds of cheering people in Saint Peter's Square, acknowledging their applause with an occasional slight wave of one hand. His dignified stance reminded me of Pope Pius XII and earlier pre-Vatican II pontiffs. Then as he began speaking into the microphone, smiling as he warmly greeted the people, my fears melted away and I was instantly won over to the new pope. His words of greeting lasted at least a minute, longer than those of the two previous popes. I was impressed by how he bowed down in front of the whole world and asked us, the faithful, to pray that God would bless him before he gave us his first blessing as our new pope. Once he had done that, he added a few words of farewell, saying he looked forward to seeing the people on Sunday, and wishing them good night. This is a man of profound humility and deep faith, a man of restrained and even temperament who also knows how to communicate with an audience through words and meaningful gestures. I'm sure he will do a fine job of succeeding the two great pontiffs before him.

We are truly blessed to have Pope Francis as our new Holy Father. May God bless him and help him, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, to faithfully carry out the task entrusted to him for years to come.

Deo gratias!
Laudate Iesu Christe!

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

As the Historic Conclave Begins...

...My prayer is that the Cardinals will be given the graces they need to follow the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and elect the man whom God wills to lead the Church as the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

What an awesome Church we have--the one true Church of Jesus Christ. And what an awesome responsibility is that of the Pope, and that of the Cardinals who must choose him.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Quote of the Day

If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic. A despotism may almost be defined as a tired democracy. As fatigue falls on a community, the citizens are less inclined for that eternal vigilance which has truly been called the price of liberty; and they prefer to arm only one single sentinel to watch the city while they sleep. It is also true that they sometimes needed him for some sudden and militant act of reform; it is equally true that he often took advantage of being the strong man armed to be a tyrant like some of the Sultans of the East...But the spirit that endures the mere cruelties and caprices of an established despot is the spirit of an ancient and settled and probably stiffened society, not the spirit of a new one.

--G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, 1925
(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008, pp. 58-59)

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Thought for the Day

"The message of Benedict XVI...is in the end a dramatic appeal to the Church and the world, to each individual: There is no way we can possibly continue as before, he exclaims. Mankind stands at a crossroads. It is time for reflection. Time for change. Time for conversion. And unwaveringly he maintains: 'There are so many problems that all have to be solved but that will not all be solved unless God stands in the center and becomes visible again in the world.'"
--Peter Seewald, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), p. xix.

Monday, March 4, 2013

"Selections from The St. Michael Hymnal" Now Available

My first musical album, "Selections from The St. Michael Hymnal," was released this past week and is now available for sale on the Internet.

This is a two-CD set of instrumental piano music. It features recordings of 48 of the greatest traditional and contemporary Catholic hymns found in The Saint Michael Hymnal, Fourth Edition (Lafayette, IN: Saint Boniface Catholic Church, 2011), an excellent Catholic musical resource that aspires to fulfill the true vision and spirit of Vatican II for Catholic liturgical music and sacred hymns. I highly recommend this hymnal for use in Catholic parishes across the United States. It is available at www.stmichaelhymnal.com.

The CDs are suitable for sing-along purposes for Catholic schools, prayer groups and so forth as well as just for your listening pleasure.
To order your copy of the two-volume set, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181092603046

If you would like to order a copy of just Volume I, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181091994702

Or, if you'd like to order just Volume II by itself, please click here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=181092519379

Thank you for your interest. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at justin_86@ntelos.net.