Our Darkest Day

And he hath broken my teeth one by one, he hath fed me with ashes. And my soul is removed far off from peace, I have forgotten good things. And I said: My end and my hope is perished from the Lord. Remember my poverty, and transgression, the wormwood, and the gall. I will be mindful and remember, and my soul shall languish within me.

These things I shall think over in my heart, therefore will I hope. The mercies of the Lord that we are not consumed: because his commiserations have not failed. They are new every morning, great is thy faithfulness. The Lord is my portion, said my soul: therefore will I wait for him. (Lam 3:16-24)

Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. (Charles Schultz)

This image of the Rising Dawn, Orient, Dayspring, or Sun of Justice (depending on the verse or translation), is one of the most used of the coming Christ. There seems to be something in our human programming that attracts us to this as it seems universal among various pagan religions. What images hope like the rising sun? It’s often used in analogies for certainty, as in, “As sure as the sun rises in the east…” And as this rising sun, an image of the our Lord’s Advent, Nativity, Resurrection, and Return, a hope we can believe in with certainty, comes up over the snow (the picture is the view from my doorstep), today in Vespers, we address our Savior as “Oriens”, the Rising Dawn.

I’m sure the ancient mystagogues figured this out years ago, but the dawn of this day is special, since it's our shortest day, making “Oriens” a fitting placement on the calendar.

This brings to mind an interesting documentary I saw last year, The Star of Bethlehem. It’s impressive. That’s assuming the self-produced film isn’t a hoax, and not being much of a star gazer myself I’m not in a place to pass judgment. The filmmaker and star, Frederick Larson, details his personal faith journey, his research and his amazing findings, showing what he believes is the real star. However, I was uncomfortable with part of what he stated.

According to the film, as I can recollect, he found these amazing messages in the stars around the time of Jesus’ birth that seem to correlate with the biblical account. However, Christian Tradition was ignored, and without a good reason in my opinion.

According to his figuring, the magi arrived somewhere around December 25th. I assume he’s using the Gregorian Calendar, but he didn’t specify. After showing these results, he goes on to say, “I’m not saying that Jesus was born on December 25th. I don’t think anyone believes that.” [My recollection of the quote]

Well, I hate to break it to him, but I do. His findings actually might suggest it if he would take another look at them and the biblical Nativity. I’m a year removed from watching it, so I can’t document it completely, but I don’t think he took into account two facts:

1. Zachariah was incensing the Holiest of Holies roughly six months before the annunciation. Such a ritual could only take place on one day in the year – Yom Kippur. This would have occurred between mid-September and mid-October, Gregorian (it would be interesting to see the actual dates of Yom Kippur from 2 and 3 BC). From a theological perspective, this makes perfect sense – to announce the forerunner, the one who will provide a baptism of repentance, on the Jewish Day of Atonement. This, quite conceivably, could have taken place on the Autumn Equinox. So, with some rough reckoning (Annunciation six months later, and our Lord’s Nativity nine months later) we can see, with the Bible as our guide, that Jesus must have been born sometime near December 25th.

2. Under the Julian calendar, June 24th was the Summer Solstice, and December 25th was the Winter Solstice. Of course, June 24th is the Nativity of John the Baptist, the one who said, “He must increase, and I must decrease.” And, on the old calendar, the sun in fact did decrease daily, until the darkest day of the year, December 25th. God could pick no better day than this one to bring to us the Light of the World, when the world was most in need of light.


The date of December 25th fits biblically and uses the natural rhythms of nature to tell us something theologically. Frederick Larson, for all his interesting work on the biblical star, missed that. I still highly recommend this video – it is extremely impressive despite my quibbles. But it’s too bad, because even if he doesn’t give the date of Christmas credence, his research still points to it. His findings also gives the magi longer than twelve days to arrive at Bethlehem, something they would definitely need if they in fact launched from Susa, Babylon, Nineveh, or some other place of Zoroastrian-Persian origin. An arrival on January 6th (Julian) certainly wouldn’t seem out of the question with his findings.

I guess the point is, Catholic Tradition is reliable, as sure as the sun rises in the east. In fact, more sure, because even the atheists know that the day will come when the day won’t come.

And although I will keep in line with the Church and celebrate Christmas on December 25th, it is still not lost on me that Jesus was born on the old December 25th, the Winter Solstice, which is in fact today. Happy Birthday, my Lord!

O Rising Sun, splendour of light eternal and sun of righteousness: Come and enlighten those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death. (Vespers Antiphon, Divine Office for Dec 21)

OSAS Defeated by a Single Two-letter Word

As you probably don't know, I love apologetics, especially the arguments that I often see from our separated Bible-believing brethren, you know who. Sometimes I get in "study mode" and I turn on a Protestant radio station and listen to whatever is on.

This morning, David Wheaton was on challenging people to call in and discuss OSAS, aka "Once Saved, Always Saved". He said that the most convincing argument in his mind for it comes in the tenth chapter of the gospel of John:

John 10:27-29

My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.

Aside from the knee-jerk apologetic reaction, the "Yeah, but we can take ourselves out of his hand", I decided to think a little deeper.

The foundation of his argument hinged on the statement that he believes that "Those who have really been saved are saved", as in "those who have truly decided to follow Christ are saved". But that leaves the question, assuming his assertion is true - How do I know that I have truly decided to follow Christ?

I think most people who follow OSAS assume that they have, but I have met a couple of people who have fallen away for a time and have come back. That leads them to believe that they weren't really saved in the first place, and then they realize that they can never really know if they are currently saved, or are they one of those who will fall away again?

Let's look at the verse in John. The key to the argument is this: "My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me." So if we are really his sheep, then we hear Jesus' voice. But how do we hear Jesus' voice?

Luke 10:1-3,16

After this the Lord appointed seventy[-two] others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place he intended to visit. He said to them, “The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest. Go on your way; behold, I am sending you like lambs among wolves. Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

In this verse, Jesus demonstrates the Church. This group of people he has called and sent forth to proclaim the good news. Those who listen to them, listen to Christ. How do the sheep hear his voice? Through the Church!

But one may argue that the "Church" is nothing but the set of all believers in Christ, and in one sense it is, but that is not the Church that Christ established. He established a visible Church made up of true teachers, not an invisible Church made up of true believers (as many non-Catholics believe). How do we know this?

Matthew 16:18-19

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus said "IT". The gates of hell will not prevail against "it". He didn't say "the gates of hell will not prevail against "them".

We sheep hear His voice, and the voice is His Church, the Catholic Church, founded upon Jesus and all of His teachings. And the teaching of the Catholic Church is that, unless we are predestined, that we are most certainly not "Once Saved, Always Saved."

Divorce is Not a Sin

Call me a fly-by-night theologian. Perhaps that is what I am, but today I believe I had an epiphany, and its so simple its beautiful.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage, validly entered, is indisoluable, and while there are certain passages that (in some Bible translations) say that there is an exception for adultery, the church doesn't teach that, and it takes a long drawn out explanation of what the word "porneia" means and its really a hard thing to explain to your plain average Joe Protestant.

Instead, lets look at divorce from a common Protestant perspective, which is that divorce itself is a sin. There is argument among even Protestants as to whether or not this is true, and whether or not marriage is a covenant, but those who believe it is not often claim that divorce is a sin and that, once you divorce, you just need to confess it to God and he will forgive you. Then, they may claim that you are free to marry another person.

This logic does not hold, though, and the reason is simple: divorce cannot be a sin because God permitted it (via Moses) in the Old Covenant. Since God is all good, he would never give someone a license to sin, because that would make God evil. But because of the fact that God cannot approve of sin, divorce is not a sin. And if divorce is not a sin, then you cannot confess it and have it forgiven of you, thus you cannot get out of a marriage by confessing a divorce to God. You are still married, just as God intended, if you are a Christian.

Also, let's say for argument's sake, that divorce were a sin. Then you could confess it, but you need to repent, that is, amend your life. How do you amend your life for a divorce? You "remarry" or reconnect with your "divorced" spouse. So regardless of whether divorce is a sin or not, you are not able to exit from a marriage covenant that is validly made.

Now that is not to say that in certain circumstances, such as abuse, a person could not leave their spouse. But if they were to remarry they would be committing adultery, and the only way to repent from that would be to leave their new spouse and remain single for the rest of their life.

The apostles understood this when Jesus spoke to them. You can hear it in their voice when they said "If that is the case, then it is not expedient to marry."

Call this human logic but the Catholic Church has got this right. Marriage is forever. Praise God!