Skip to main content

Blessed Is He Who Comes In The Name Of The Lord

If I may be direct and honest with you, I was worried and distracted at Mass today. I won't make any bold predictions about my vocation(s), but I personally feel pulled toward public life. I have loved politics since before I can remember. I care about it; I was defending Richard Nixon's pre-Watergate contributions to our country in the 45 seconds before I walked into the cathedral this morning. This is who I am. I'm also a theologian of sorts, and at the very least, hopefully, I'm not boring.

So, like I said, I'm worried. I don't think the current front-runner for the Republican nomination for President of the United States is worthy of it. His character is not worthy of emulation, much less to merit serious consideration for such a high office. I don't find anything to soften that. I won't, unless instructed by Church authority that the Democratic nominee would, in their judgment, be worse.

But then we spoke the words we always do right before the priest begins to make the Eucharistic sacrifice: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts! Heaven and earth are full of Your glory. Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!..."

I forgot to say the second "Hosanna in the highest!" It goes right where I cut off the quote. I got stuck right there: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! That statement doesn't apply or belong to Donald J. Trump, Marco Rubio, or any others. I say that as someone who is dismissive of those who yell out, "Jesus is King!" in every discussion, because the truth often is, they don't know enough or care enough to contribute. But Jesus really is King. Politics is not irrelevant to our lives, imaginary, or any such thing. But in the ultimate sense, the politics is settled. Remember what Jesus started with when He commissioned his apostles: All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me. I am moved right now upon reflection of this truth. If you will pardon the cleverness, Jesus has all the delegates.

Jesus, I trust in You!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un