This popularized belief states that “true Christians” will be secretly and invisibly whisked away in order to be spared the great tribulation, as described in Revelation, prior to a literal one thousand year earthly reign of Christ. The belief in a literal one thousand year reign is referred to as millenarianism and has been soundly rejected by the Catholic Church (CCC 676). The Church has always taught that this one thousand years is the long period, but not a literal millennia, between the first and second coming of Christ when Jesus reigns imperfectly through his kingdom on earth, the Church. (See Rev 20:1-10)

This “secret rapture” is also contrary to what the bible tells us. As Paul Thigpen points out in his book The Rapture Trap, “No one who reads [Revelation] can reasonably claim that God keeps Christians from suffering the great tribulation of the last days.” He’s right. And we can go well beyond just the book of Revelation to see his point. Christians will not escape the persecution. ( See John 17:15, Matt 10:38, Matt 13:21, Acts 14:22, Rom 8:17, Rom 8:35-38, Rom 12:12, Phil 3:10, 2 Tim 1:11-12, 1 Peter 1:6, 1 Peter 4:12-13, Rev 2:10, Rev 6:9-11, Rev 7:13-14. See also 2 Thess 1:5; Heb 12:1-11; Rev 1:9.) Jesus will return after the tribulation (See Matt 24:19-30.) once and visibly (See Dan 7:13, Matt 24:27, Matt 24:30, Acts 1:11, Rev 1:7.) and, the rapture will occur at the second coming, not before. (See Matt 24:29-31; 1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 2:1,3,8.)

Even with all the evidence to the contrary, secret rapturists will still try to use the bible and other means to prove their point. Here are a few of their methods:

• They’ll claim that experts have interpreted the bible in such a way that confirms the secret rapture belief. The Nazis had experts who confirmed the belief in a master race so just because a person claims to be an expert, it doesn’t mean they are, and it doesn’t mean they’re right.
• They’ll give empirical value to numbers that are meant to be symbolic. In other words, if Revelation states that Christ will have a one thousand year earthly reign, they will claim this means that Christ will literally and physically be enthroned on earth for one thousand thousand years. This is an easy mathematical sleight of hand since our modern western culture doesn’t use numbers in symbolic fashion.
• They’ll take phrases out of context and make them absolute. They’ll take a phrase like “the end” and claim that the phrase always means the end of the age when in fact it could be referring to the end of a battle or the end of a life.
• They’ll take similar words and phrases and claim that because they are different they must be referring to different events. For example, imagine that a writer has written a book about the Grand Canyon and in this book the writer refers to the Grand Canyon as the “awesome canyon” and other times as the “huge canyon”, under the methodology applied by secret rapturists, they would claim that the author is referring to three different canyons; the Grand canyon, the awesome canyon, and the huge canyon. A particularly offensive trick is to take similar Greek words and claim they have different meanings. This is an easy lie to get away with since so few of us are versed in ancient Greek. It’s helpful to point out to the secret rapturist that under this flawed logic it could be implied that Jesus was born more than once and crucified four times.

Of course all this maneuvering is wrapped in irony since secret rapturists deny the teaching authority of the Church and claim that bible interpretation should be based on the “plain sense” of its meaning. The scriptural dance they have to perform to try to prove their flawed theology goes well beyond the “plain sense” of scripture.

The secret rapture isn’t a biblical tradition or Church tradition, it’s a human tradition—and the tradition of just a handful of humans at that. Around the year 1830 an ex-Anglican apocalyptic preacher named John Nelson Darby met fifteen year old Margaret MacDonald who claimed to have had a private revelation of a secret rapture. Not all Christians would be rescued, only certain faithful ones. From this beginning, Darby and his followers started teaching that all true believers will be rescued in a secret rapture distinct from the second coming of Christ. Although they never came right out and said it, this amounted to two second comings. By the year 1909 a self appointed biblical scholar (He was actually a Kansas lawyer.) by the name of C.I. Scofield published what quickly became the most popular study bible in America—the Scofield Reference Bible, its notes always explained the passages from the secret rapturist perspective. By the early to mid-20^th Century schools like the Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, and Talbot Seminary produced new pastors and bible study materials that promoted the immanence of the secret rapture and that it was the core message of the gospels.

So why is the secret rapture so popular? Well, who wants to suffer? It’s easy to believe that the end is near just by watching the news or reading a newspaper. It makes coping with this televised turmoil easier to bear just knowing that Jesus is about to whisk away and save true believers. Many secret rapture promoters point out the gloom and doom of the modern world to legitimize themselves and their beliefs to huge arenas full of the fearful and faithful. But any cursory glance at history tells us that times have always been bad. Imagine being in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when the Roman army razed the Jewish temple to the ground, or being in Rome at its fall in 476 A.D., an event that plunged all of Western civilization into a dark age. Our imagined fears pale in comparison to these historical realities. It’s also nice to be in-the-know, and secret rapturists can feel secure with a wink and a nudge that they know true revelation and will be spared suffering. But, again, neither the bible nor the Church has ever provided such assurances.

As Christians we need to speak out against the false teaching of the secret rapture; any teaching that takes people away from God’s true message to humanity is damaging since God is the Truth (See John 14:6) and apostasy from the Truth is apostasy from God. In particular, we need to speak out against the Left Behind book series. The books are written by avowed anti-Catholics, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, and the books often contain anti-Catholic storylines. In one book of the series, the hero is a Pope who rejects the church’s teaching in favor of Luther’s. The Left Behind series is unashamedly anti-Catholic in its theology, storyline, and authorship.

We need to ask the secret rapturist where in the bible it states specifically and clearly, in the “plain sense” of the scripture, that there will be a “second” second coming and then be prepared to point out the passages and points listed above that will refute this false belief. Finally, don’t get discouraged, as Catholics we are not alone—mainstream Protestant denominations have never promoted, believed in, or taught of a “secret rapture” either.

If you would like to learn more, I would recommend either “Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” By David B. Currie or, “The Rapture Trap: A Catholic Response to ‘End Times’ Fever” by Paul Thigpen. I have found the latter to be less clinical and more charitable.

There has been a lot of talk in the popular media lately about the family of Jesus Christ, particularly about his “brother” James. A few years ago a book boldly titled “The Brother of Jesus” claimed to have found a bone box (ossuary) inscribed with the name “James” with the additional inscription “brother of Jesus”. As the Israeli Antiquities Authority put it, the box is real, but the inscription is a fake. And just a few weeks ago Discovery Channel aired a movie claiming to have found more bone boxes of Jesus and some of his family members, this so-called documentary has so many factual holes, I’ll leave it to others to comment.

So did Jesus have brothers? No, he didn’t, and here is how we as Catholics can prove the point:

In the New Testament mention is made several times of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus (Mt 12:46, 13:55, John 2:12, Acts 1:14, I Corinthians 9:5, Galatians 1:19); Four of his “brothers”—James (the Less: Mark 15:40), Joseph (or Joses: the spelling varies in the manuscripts), Simon, and Jude—are named explicitly in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, the “sisters” of Jesus are referred to, but not named.

In this question, we must distinguish between what is certain, what is probable and what is uncertain. It is certain that these people are not brothers and sisters of Jesus in the strict sense, that is, they are not children of The Virgin Mary, but they are cousins of some form or another.

It is true that the original language of the New Testament is Greek and that the words for “brother” and “sister” have about the same meaning as these words have in English—children of the same parent. However, we are justified in considering these terms as literal translations of the Semitic languages (Aramaic and Hebrew) which were used in Palestine at the time of Christ, and consequently have the same meaning in the New Testament as they do in Aramaic and Hebrew. The fact that the Semitic usage of the word “brother” (‘ah) differs from that of English and other European languages is clear from its usage in the Old Testament. For Example, Lot, who was really Abraham’s nephew, is called his “brother” (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16) as in kinsmen, not as in brother of the same parents. Hebrew and Aramaic have no simple term for “cousin”; there is the Hebrew phrase ben-dod meaning “the son of the brother of a paternal uncle,” but for other kinds of cousins a person would have to use some extravagant , roundabout language such as “the son of the brother of his mother,” or “the son of the sister of his mother,” Therefore, the regular Semitic word for “cousins” is ‘ahÄ«m, “brothers.”

The most famous of “the brothers of Jesus” are really His cousins and can be proved from the following facts:

The four men named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as “the brothers of Jesus” can be shown to be of a mother other than Mary the mother of Jesus. The first two of these brothers, James and Joseph, are mentioned in Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 in connection with the Lord’s death on Calvary, and they are then called the sons of another Mary completely distinct from Mary the mother of Jesus. When an author names two brothers and repeats their names in the same brief literary work without further qualification, the presumption is that he is speaking of the same men. It follows that the third and fourth “brothers” of Jesus (Simon and Jude) of Matthew 13:55 are also merely cousins of Jesus, even though their relationship to the first two is uncertain; they were probably cousins, not brothers in the strict sense, of James and Joseph, since only these two are mentioned as brothers in the strict sense in Matthew 27:56. This “other Mary” is specifically referred to as the mother of James and Joseph (Joses) (Matthew 27:56), and the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and wife of Clopas (sometimes referred to as Cleophas or Alpheus) (John 19:25). Since it’s easy to assume that parents would not name two daughters the same name, it is speculated that this “other Mary” is The Virgin Mary’s sister-in-law. Either way, this makes this “other Mary” an aunt to Jesus, and her children, James and Joseph, in fact, Jesus’ cousins.

These conclusions can be supported by the following facts: 1) Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:20-23, Luke 1:26-35). 2) At the age of twelve Jesus was apparently the only son of Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:41-52). 3) The “brothers” of Jesus, who appear only after his public ministry, are never called the sons of Mary and Joseph. 4) When dying, Jesus commends His mother to His Disciple John (John 19:26) which is understandable only on the assumption that she had no other children but Jesus.

Finally, if there are still doubts, take a look at Luke 2:48. If the term “brother” absolutely means true, familial sibling, then this same simple reasoning means that Joseph, not God, is the father of Jesus. No Christian can make that claim and still be considered a Christian. In fact, early Christian heretics made just that claim, based on the fact that the bible said Joseph was Jesus’ father. Now, today, we have some making the claim that Jesus had brothers based on the same simple-minded, flawed reasoning.

The term Mass is from the Latin phrase that used to be stated at the end of the service, “Ite missa est.” Which means “Go, it (the church) is sent.” Our English word “dismiss” is derived from the Latin word “missa” so Mass is our dismissal, not our gathering.¹ This interesting little fact puts Mass in a whole new perspective for us.

Mass becomes our pre-game locker room meeting with the coach (Jesus); we get our encouragement, spiritual nourishment, and instruction; then we are “sent fourth” to win the game.

There is an old joke that states the most dangerous place on earth is the parish parking lot after Mass. So, are we rushing off because we feel we have met our weekly obligation to God, and are in a hurry to do our own thing? Or, are we rushing out on to the field to win the game for God and his people, to be a worthy Christian example to our neighbors, friends and, most importantly, complete strangers in need. I’m going to consciously strive for the latter. Pray for me.

1. Michael Dubruiel, The How-To Book of the Mass (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 2002), 21.

So why do we eat fish but not “meat”?

This practice goes all the way back to First Century Christians who chose not to spill warm blood on the ground in recognition of the blood that Christ spilled on the cross. With modern conveniences like meat packing plants, grocery stores, and refrigeration, it is easy for us to forget that in ancient times if you wanted meat, it more often than not had to be slaughtered just prior to preparation. So revered was the respect for Christ’s sacrifice, early Christians would not casually spill blood from a slaughter upon the ground since it might be seen as diminishing His sacrifice. That my friends is why we can have the surf but not the turf.

Let’s not keep this fact to ourselves. As our non-Catholic friends look at us making this small sacrifice in commemoration of Christ’s Great Sacrifice, let’s tell them why, and by following this practice show them how much that Great Sacrifice means to us.

 Try these:

• Get a check-up. Through prayer and reflection identify the areas in your life or your relationships that lead you away from God. Make a plan to remove those distractions. Write it down. Follow it!
• Simplify. Lent is when we demonstrate our detachment from the world by eliminating luxury or comfort. Try eating less than you normally eat at meals during Lent, or cut out spices and sauces so that the food is simpler and possibly less appealing to our taste.
• Add something back. Once we remove the “static” between us and God, we need to do something new that will bring us closer to him. If you don’t pray a daily Rosary, start now. If you can’t get to daily
• Mass, follow the readings from wherever you are. Find time for more prayer.
• Demonstrate a change of heart. This is the season to turn away from the world and back to God. Show more charity. Refuse to complain, gossip or lose your temper. Act only with love.

It’s almost as ancient as Christianity itself, it originated in the second century with Christians using just the thumb to cross ones forehead. (Sound familiar? We continue this gesture to this day just before the reading of the Gospel at Mass.) By the Fourth Century Christians were doing what I call the full-body-cross with the thumb, index and middle finger pointing upward to represent the Holy Trinity.¹

As time passed, the Latin Rite churches gradually started doing a left to right gesture to possibly mirror the gestures of the priest.² The Eastern Orthodox churches never picked up this technique, so to this day if you see someone cross themselves from right to left, they may be Eastern Orthodox.

Protestants never really picked up this practice of making the Sign of the Cross since, as even Tertullian points out, this practice is a Christian cultural tradition, and, quite frankly, they may have found it too Catholic.

So why do we do it? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states it best:

“The Christian begins his day, his prayers, and his activities with the Sign of the Cross: ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.’ The baptized person dedicates the day to the glory of God and calls on the Savior’s grace which lets him act in the Spirit as a child of the Father. The sign of the cross strengthens us in temptations and difficulties.” (CCC 2157) (The emphasis is mine.)

If you would like to invoke the Holy Trinity in Latin as you make the Sign of the Cross you would say, “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.” The Son, Filii, is pronounced like “feely” with and extra “e” sound at the end feely-ee. (And to think my family doubted that anyone would benefit from my Classical education.)

As Father Jack once told an RCIA class, “Feel free to make the sign of the cross, it’s like showing that you’re a member of the club.” Since non-Catholics can’t take communion with us during the Mass, making the sign of the cross is a nice way to encourage them to participate, to physically and to outwardly be participants in Christ’s Church.

If you would like to learn more, visit the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_Cross

² Ibid

8 And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; 11 for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

Linus concludes his speech by stating, “That’s what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown.” Amen.

If you would like to hear this Gospel reading as part of the Mass, You’ll need to go to the midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. Also, ironically enough, Linus is the name of our second Pope; he was Pope from 66 to 78 A.D..

By the time the Protestant revolt got a foothold, Christmas was condemned as “Popery” and was even banned in England in 1647 by its Puritan rulers. Riots ensued and by 1660 the ban was lifted. America suffered from this same anti-Catholic fervor, and Christmas was actually outlawed in some parts of New England.³

By the early 19^th Century sectarian violence was waning, and some writers, like Charles Dickens, worried that the old Christmas tradition was dying out. Dickens’s A Christmas Carol sparked a more universally palatable popularity in Christmas that continues to this day.⁴

Throughout all of this revolt and turmoil, the church founded by Jesus Christ continued to celebrate his birth on December 25^th. If not for the Catholic Church, Christmas could have been nothing more than a footnote of history. So next time someone wishes you a Merry Christmas, as a Roman Catholic, feel free to respond with a hardy, “You’re Welcome.”

 

¹Catholic Encyclopedia Online, s.v. “Christmas,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm(accessed December 11th, 2006)
² Wikipedia, s.v. “Christmas,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas(accessed December 11th, 2006)
³Ibid
⁴Ibid