Wednesday, October 31, 2007
A Deleted Post
I deleted I post that I made in a moment of anger. If anyone read it please forgive me.
Candy versus the Vatican
In case we are having non-Catholic visitors because of Candy's latest post, I thought I would address some of the points that she raised, and give some additional resources.
First issue, the salvation of Muslims:
Vatican says - "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;
Candy's link takes you to the appropriate section of the Catechism, and that is worth reading. Another good read is the document Dominus Iesus.
Some relevant excerpts:
To summarize on that point, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation always comes through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator. If Muslims are saved, it will be because God somehow saved them through Jesus.
Next point: Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself.
This is true. I have written about Sacred Tradition here.
Vatican says - That the Catholic Church canonizes saints.
I see no contradiction with the verses which Candy quotes, and in the Vatican position here. Candy mentioned in another article that the Catholic church creates saints. This is not true.
Canonization is an official recognition that a person is a saint. A saint is a Christian, who is in heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that we are all called to be saints, and also that those who are officially recognized (i.e., canonized) are only a small number of the many, many saints that have existed.
Vatican says - The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."
Catholic Answers has a good rebuttal to this charge here.
Also, you can go to the Scripture Catholic website for many references to calling someone "father" in Scripture. A few excerpts:
Vatican says - "The members of the Rosary Sodality, therefore, do exceedingly well in weaving together, as in a crown, so many salutations and prayers to Mary."
I'm surprised that we haven't covered the communion of saints, and intercessory prayer yet. I'll save that for another post.
Vatican says - "Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."
The Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.
Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website.
God says - But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. -Matthew 6:7
I covered vain repetition here.
Vatican says - [Catholics have a different set of 10 commandments than the ones God gave us in the Bible]
Elena talked about why protestants and Catholics differ on the 10 commandments here.
Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible
From the New American Bible, the official Catholic Bible of the American Conference of Bishops Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."
The footnote reads "the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.
For a discussion of the Douay-Rheims translation difference, see This Rock.
Now, see, the difference between the Vatican and God isn't so great as it first appears, is it?
First issue, the salvation of Muslims:
Vatican says - "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;
Candy's link takes you to the appropriate section of the Catechism, and that is worth reading. Another good read is the document Dominus Iesus.
Some relevant excerpts:
In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith.
It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.
To summarize on that point, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation always comes through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator. If Muslims are saved, it will be because God somehow saved them through Jesus.
Next point: Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself.
This is true. I have written about Sacred Tradition here.
Vatican says - That the Catholic Church canonizes saints.
I see no contradiction with the verses which Candy quotes, and in the Vatican position here. Candy mentioned in another article that the Catholic church creates saints. This is not true.
Canonization is an official recognition that a person is a saint. A saint is a Christian, who is in heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that we are all called to be saints, and also that those who are officially recognized (i.e., canonized) are only a small number of the many, many saints that have existed.
Vatican says - The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."
Catholic Answers has a good rebuttal to this charge here.
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Also, you can go to the Scripture Catholic website for many references to calling someone "father" in Scripture. A few excerpts:
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don't Protestants call their pastors "father?"
1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."
Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.
Vatican says - "The members of the Rosary Sodality, therefore, do exceedingly well in weaving together, as in a crown, so many salutations and prayers to Mary."
I'm surprised that we haven't covered the communion of saints, and intercessory prayer yet. I'll save that for another post.
Vatican says - "Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."
The Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.
Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website.
God says - But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. -Matthew 6:7
I covered vain repetition here.
Vatican says - [Catholics have a different set of 10 commandments than the ones God gave us in the Bible]
Elena talked about why protestants and Catholics differ on the 10 commandments here.
Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible
From the New American Bible, the official Catholic Bible of the American Conference of Bishops Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."
The footnote reads "the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.
For a discussion of the Douay-Rheims translation difference, see This Rock.
Now, see, the difference between the Vatican and God isn't so great as it first appears, is it?
FYI
We got over 1000 hits today. I have never in four years of blogging gotten so many hits in one day!
Catholic Women's Book Club
We are going to be starting a book discussion group to read and discuss A Mother's Rule of Life by Holly Pierlot. If you would like to join our discussion group please buy the book and read chapter 1 by Friday Nov. 9th. If you would like to buy the companion workbook you can, I bought it last week and I really like it. It has been helping me get on track!
Happy Reading!
Erika
Happy Reading!
Erika
Ladies, don't put us in an awkward position
One of the reasons for this blog is that we aren't allowed to post on Candy's blog OR our posts were taken down or edited. So because we started from that kind of a background, we have been recalcitrant to take posts down here.
However, I think the reason we are getting a reputation as a "gossip" site instead of an "apologetics" site is that too many comments are containing personal comments about Candy's intelligence, ego, or other personality traits. I think we've done a decent job not attacking her physical appearance or the appearance of her home (both of which I think are good anyway). Comments about her children and husband are probably over the line too.
So help us out! Read the commenting guidelines in the side bar and try to conform to those guidelines. Hard on ideas, soft on people. If we have to start taking posts down big time, that is only going to work against us because then we're doing the same thing we accused her of. But I think you guys can police yourselves on this.
If you absolutely have to get something off of your chest, that's what e-mail is for! Mine is in my profile.
However, I think the reason we are getting a reputation as a "gossip" site instead of an "apologetics" site is that too many comments are containing personal comments about Candy's intelligence, ego, or other personality traits. I think we've done a decent job not attacking her physical appearance or the appearance of her home (both of which I think are good anyway). Comments about her children and husband are probably over the line too.
So help us out! Read the commenting guidelines in the side bar and try to conform to those guidelines. Hard on ideas, soft on people. If we have to start taking posts down big time, that is only going to work against us because then we're doing the same thing we accused her of. But I think you guys can police yourselves on this.
If you absolutely have to get something off of your chest, that's what e-mail is for! Mine is in my profile.
Thank You, Candy!
I thought it would be a good idea for me to take a moment and say that I think Candy's most recent article, which is one that she had posted previously, is really her best article on Catholicism. Candy usually does not do a lot of research on her Catholicism posts, but cut-and-pastes articles from other resources. Clearly, it took some time for Candy to write this article, and for her to use a Catholic resource such as the Vatican website is a first for her. I really appreciate that she took the suggestion of many who left comments, and went to the Vatican website. She even posted links, so that people could read the information for themselves.
However, reading through the comments both on her site, and on this one, I despair that we can ever truly discuss what is involved. On her site, you read about "gossip" and "a website devoted to bashing one person" while here you read about "anti-Catholicism" and "hatred." On this post, I would like to put us on the same page.
First, this blog does not exist to bash Candy. It exists to refute her claims about Catholicism, because she does not allow Catholics to post comments at her page, no matter how polite or well-reasoned. If Candy has concerns about Catholic doctrine, we would like to be able to address them.
Well, you might say, why not just stop going to her page? Why create this page at all? To answer that, let us look at some of the claims of Candy about Catholicism.
In various posts, she has said that the Catholic Church:
* Murders people to keep its secrets and stay in power, even today, and including babies.
* Does not worship God alone, but Mary, the saints, statues, etc.
* Promotes the worship of Satan, and in fact, a Satanic black Mass is more reverent to God than a Catholic Mass
* Knowingly leads millions of souls to Hell
If this is true of Catholicism, then truly, who would not hate such an institution? That is why there is talk of hatred on this site. Candy may not hate Catholics as individuals, but surely, as a Christian, she must hate Catholicism as an institution.
If some told you those things about YOUR church, read it over again and insert Baptist, Lutheran, etc, go ahead . . . if someone told you those things about your church, would you not have a moral obligation to correct them? Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by God, and if you say those things about the Catholic Church, then you are saying them about God himself. It would be a sin for us to remain silent in face of such accusations. THAT is why we get so upset, not because it is true, but because it is such a serious falsehood.
On the other hand, we as Catholics must understand Candy's reasons for posting as she does. If we take her at her word, she REALLY thinks this is true. Our souls are in danger, and she is trying to save us. If Catholics really did believe that about a particular church, then I think we would have the same obligation to try and help them to understand their error. Our methods might differ, but we would have to try.
That is why so many of the non-Catholic visitors to her site do not see Candy as full of hatred, because they focus on her intention of saving. Likewise, they do not see her as "anti-Catholic" because that, to them, would mean that she hates Catholics as individuals.
Has there been "gossip" or personal attacks on Candy at this site? At times, yes. We do apologize for that. When something as near and dear to your heart as your religion is being discussed, people tend to lose their temper. Catholics are only human, too. But we can only discourage personal comments, apologize, and move on. Because what we are really here to discuss is Catholicism. The concerns and the glory, depending on your perspective.
Everyone is welcome to comment here, provided you are respectful. Please let the discussion begin.
However, reading through the comments both on her site, and on this one, I despair that we can ever truly discuss what is involved. On her site, you read about "gossip" and "a website devoted to bashing one person" while here you read about "anti-Catholicism" and "hatred." On this post, I would like to put us on the same page.
First, this blog does not exist to bash Candy. It exists to refute her claims about Catholicism, because she does not allow Catholics to post comments at her page, no matter how polite or well-reasoned. If Candy has concerns about Catholic doctrine, we would like to be able to address them.
Well, you might say, why not just stop going to her page? Why create this page at all? To answer that, let us look at some of the claims of Candy about Catholicism.
In various posts, she has said that the Catholic Church:
* Murders people to keep its secrets and stay in power, even today, and including babies.
* Does not worship God alone, but Mary, the saints, statues, etc.
* Promotes the worship of Satan, and in fact, a Satanic black Mass is more reverent to God than a Catholic Mass
* Knowingly leads millions of souls to Hell
If this is true of Catholicism, then truly, who would not hate such an institution? That is why there is talk of hatred on this site. Candy may not hate Catholics as individuals, but surely, as a Christian, she must hate Catholicism as an institution.
If some told you those things about YOUR church, read it over again and insert Baptist, Lutheran, etc, go ahead . . . if someone told you those things about your church, would you not have a moral obligation to correct them? Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by God, and if you say those things about the Catholic Church, then you are saying them about God himself. It would be a sin for us to remain silent in face of such accusations. THAT is why we get so upset, not because it is true, but because it is such a serious falsehood.
On the other hand, we as Catholics must understand Candy's reasons for posting as she does. If we take her at her word, she REALLY thinks this is true. Our souls are in danger, and she is trying to save us. If Catholics really did believe that about a particular church, then I think we would have the same obligation to try and help them to understand their error. Our methods might differ, but we would have to try.
That is why so many of the non-Catholic visitors to her site do not see Candy as full of hatred, because they focus on her intention of saving. Likewise, they do not see her as "anti-Catholic" because that, to them, would mean that she hates Catholics as individuals.
Has there been "gossip" or personal attacks on Candy at this site? At times, yes. We do apologize for that. When something as near and dear to your heart as your religion is being discussed, people tend to lose their temper. Catholics are only human, too. But we can only discourage personal comments, apologize, and move on. Because what we are really here to discuss is Catholicism. The concerns and the glory, depending on your perspective.
Everyone is welcome to comment here, provided you are respectful. Please let the discussion begin.
Answering Kay
the differences between God's Word and Catholicism are quite many, only those born and raised in the Catholic Church are not aware of the differences (The Truth) because they are so blinded by the way they were raised and the things they were taught from little up.
When I was in my late 20s, my only sister left the Catholic Church and she started challenging me on what the church taught and why. It was pretty much like the stuff that goes on over on Candy's blog. I didn't know any of the answers to her questions, but even as fallen away and lukewarm as I was at the time, I reasoned that the Catholic church had to have an answer for the things they taught and I was determined to find out their side of it before I made a decision about whether it was true enough.
So do you have the picture? Cradle Catholic, questioning Catholicism, ready to reject it depending on the answers I found. I don't think anyone could accuse me of being blinded. If anything I was giving a bit more deference to the other side!
And I know Candy and friends don't want to hear it, but it was studying the scriptures that lead me right back to the Catholic faith, on fire and ready and anxious to learn more! Mine is not a unique story. Many Catholics have "re-verted" back to their Catholic faith after really studying all that she teaches.
But here's something that Candy will also never admit. May protestants and other non-Catholic Christians come to the Catholic church after studying the scriptures. Here's an entire web site full of them.
The other dirty little secret she doesn't want you to know is that many of them were trained Protestant ministers who had been trained in scriptures at Protestant colleges and universities. No one could argue that they were "blinded" by anything and yet they found the teachings of the church to be so compelling and verifiable by what they found in scriptures, that they converted.
So think whatever you please Kay, it's not backed up by anything, especially reality.
When I was in my late 20s, my only sister left the Catholic Church and she started challenging me on what the church taught and why. It was pretty much like the stuff that goes on over on Candy's blog. I didn't know any of the answers to her questions, but even as fallen away and lukewarm as I was at the time, I reasoned that the Catholic church had to have an answer for the things they taught and I was determined to find out their side of it before I made a decision about whether it was true enough.
So do you have the picture? Cradle Catholic, questioning Catholicism, ready to reject it depending on the answers I found. I don't think anyone could accuse me of being blinded. If anything I was giving a bit more deference to the other side!
And I know Candy and friends don't want to hear it, but it was studying the scriptures that lead me right back to the Catholic faith, on fire and ready and anxious to learn more! Mine is not a unique story. Many Catholics have "re-verted" back to their Catholic faith after really studying all that she teaches.
But here's something that Candy will also never admit. May protestants and other non-Catholic Christians come to the Catholic church after studying the scriptures. Here's an entire web site full of them.
The other dirty little secret she doesn't want you to know is that many of them were trained Protestant ministers who had been trained in scriptures at Protestant colleges and universities. No one could argue that they were "blinded" by anything and yet they found the teachings of the church to be so compelling and verifiable by what they found in scriptures, that they converted.
So think whatever you please Kay, it's not backed up by anything, especially reality.
Letter to Ana
I usually don't post but I wanted to say that I like your site. There are many good things about it and I have been inspired. As a Roman Catholic I may not agree with everything on the site but I believe I have been very respectful. I don't want others to believe that all Catholics are "bad" or rude. I know that we do have our differences but at the end of the day we all want to please our Lord. As sinners, we are weak and falter but get up and keep walking with Him. Many Catholics have fallen away from the true meaning of Catholic Christianity and have fallen prey to society and we can all see it with comments and actions as that person who has that gossip site. I believe you are doing what God has called you to do so I know you will get the strength from Him to continue this great job.
Blessings,
Ana
Dear Ana,
Some of us here agree that there are many good things on Candy's site! In fact that is how many of us found her site in the first place! I found it because she was nominated for a homeschooling award and I was checking out all of the nominees to decide who to vote for. I was very interested in her home management things. However she also had something about the late John Paul II on her site and when I left a comment (a very matter-of-fact type of comment which was very straight forward and not at all disrespectful. I believe it even had an FYI link to Jim Akin's site) it did not get published. I thought I had posted it wrong and tried again. By the third time I thought maybe there was something wrong with her commenting system and then it gradually occurred to me that she simply was not allowing any of my comments up. That was my very first experience with Candy.
This is not a "gossip site." We do not post articles about Mrs. Brauer's life or lifestyle. I have had e-mails from someone who knows her and I have not published anything of those either.
This is an apologetics site set up to defend the Catholic faith against the falsehood and misrepresentations Candy Brauer sets up on Keeping the Home that do not have an opportunity to be challenged.
SO Ana, you believe that Candy is "called" to bash your Catholic faith? Then I have to question whether you are really Catholic, or if you are aware of what your Catholic faith really teaches. Of course since you leave no e-mail address or blog address, I guess we'll just have to take your word that you are indeed a practicing Catholic, who fully follows the teaching of the Magisterium.
You are certainly welcome to comment here if you wish.
Elena
Blessings,
Ana
Dear Ana,
Some of us here agree that there are many good things on Candy's site! In fact that is how many of us found her site in the first place! I found it because she was nominated for a homeschooling award and I was checking out all of the nominees to decide who to vote for. I was very interested in her home management things. However she also had something about the late John Paul II on her site and when I left a comment (a very matter-of-fact type of comment which was very straight forward and not at all disrespectful. I believe it even had an FYI link to Jim Akin's site) it did not get published. I thought I had posted it wrong and tried again. By the third time I thought maybe there was something wrong with her commenting system and then it gradually occurred to me that she simply was not allowing any of my comments up. That was my very first experience with Candy.
This is not a "gossip site." We do not post articles about Mrs. Brauer's life or lifestyle. I have had e-mails from someone who knows her and I have not published anything of those either.
This is an apologetics site set up to defend the Catholic faith against the falsehood and misrepresentations Candy Brauer sets up on Keeping the Home that do not have an opportunity to be challenged.
SO Ana, you believe that Candy is "called" to bash your Catholic faith? Then I have to question whether you are really Catholic, or if you are aware of what your Catholic faith really teaches. Of course since you leave no e-mail address or blog address, I guess we'll just have to take your word that you are indeed a practicing Catholic, who fully follows the teaching of the Magisterium.
You are certainly welcome to comment here if you wish.
Elena
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added
I have yet again been kicked off the Island of Candy. All because I posted a comment inviting people to read the TRUTH about Catholicism. I did it in such a nice way. I didn't get snarky or accuse her of anything all I did was try to defend my Faith which she continually lies about. Now all her little acolytes are clamoring to pat her on the back, do they understand that condoning sin is a sin also. Tale bearing is the sin I am admonishing Candy for, because she tells extremely tall tales about the Catholic faith. She even resorts to out right deception by making my home page link to Chick Publications.
All this talk about threats- what was the threat? It was stop lying about the Catholic Faith or we here at this blog will continue to disprove your lies. WOW WHAT A SCARY THREAT!!!
I am also sick to death of this site being called GOSSIP. Please already, someone explain to me how defending your Faith is GOSSIP. The only time I have mentioned Candy is when she blogs lies first.
If anyone can explain to me what her problems is I would be happy to listen. I also would like to know why do they people who read her blog believe her lies about Catholics hook, line and sinker?
Isn't one of the commandments:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Just something to think about!
All this talk about threats- what was the threat? It was stop lying about the Catholic Faith or we here at this blog will continue to disprove your lies. WOW WHAT A SCARY THREAT!!!
I am also sick to death of this site being called GOSSIP. Please already, someone explain to me how defending your Faith is GOSSIP. The only time I have mentioned Candy is when she blogs lies first.
If anyone can explain to me what her problems is I would be happy to listen. I also would like to know why do they people who read her blog believe her lies about Catholics hook, line and sinker?
Isn't one of the commandments:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Just something to think about!
Well I wish she'd give credit where credit is due!!
"I was pretty much done blogging about Roman Catholicism, until I got threatened by someone who runs a gossip about Candy site. This person is a Catholic, and threatened me. She told me that if I ever posted about Catholicism again, then she'd keep her gossip page about me going for a whole year.
That was me. And it's no secret.
But just to recap, I actually took this blog DOWN around labor day. Candy had pretty much backed off and it seemed like she was turning a new leaf, so I didn't see the point of keeping it up. I blogged about that here.
But then in one of her infamous Q&A posts she said she had a big Catholic post that she was getting ready to put up on the blog. I warned her not to. She did it anyway. The rest is history.
Here is our comeback post.
And here is where I blogged about it on my other blog.
So her story about being "done" is a lie.
I not only brought the blog back, but it's bigger and better than ever! There are three or bloggers who have added A LOT to the blog. I also quit just posting my replies but instead have taken the blog into some real depth regarding Catholic apologetics. Since I started the blog we've had over 26,000 page hits and MOST OF THEM HAVE COME SINCE I PUT THE BLOG BACK UP.
I've always said that this blog is Candy's creation. She created it, and she kept it going. She only has herself to blame for its existence.
For the future, I expect us to continue to grow and I would like to get some more apologists and even a priest interested. Maybe we'll have an advisory board.
Way to go Candy!
Why Protestants and Catholics differ on the ten commandments.
This is an excellent article that explains the differences very well.
The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments?
Here is an excerpt.
<
You have to see the article for the graph that the author used to further explain this.
Now if Candy did even an itty bitty bit of research she wouldn't keep making such a fool out of herself by posting so many errors. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
III. "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"
2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.
Superstition
2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.[41]
Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."[42] God, however, is the "living God"[43] who gives life and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."[44] Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"[45] refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.[46]
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."[47]
Divination and magic
2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.
2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.[48] Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.
2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.
Irreligion
2118 God's first commandment condemns the main sins of irreligion: tempting God, in words or deeds, sacrilege, and simony.
2119 Tempting God consists in putting his goodness and almighty power to the test by word or deed. Thus Satan tried to induce Jesus to throw himself down from the Temple and, by this gesture, force God to act.[49] Jesus opposed Satan with the word of God: "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test."[50] The challenge contained in such tempting of God wounds the respect and trust we owe our Creator and Lord. It always harbors doubt about his love, his providence, and his power.[51]
2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.[52]
2121 Simony is defined as the buying or selling of spiritual things.[53] To Simon the magician, who wanted to buy the spiritual power he saw at work in the apostles, St. Peter responded: "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money!"[54] Peter thus held to the words of Jesus: "You received without pay, give without pay."[55] It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment.
2122 The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty."[56] The competent authority determines these "offerings" in accordance with the principle that the Christian people ought to contribute to the support of the Church's ministers. "The laborer deserves his food."[57]
Atheism
2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."[58]
2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."[59] Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."[60]
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.[61] The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."[62]
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.[63] Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God...."[64] "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."[65]
Agnosticism
2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.
IV. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ."
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...."[66] It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."[67] He is "the author of beauty."[68]
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.[69]
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[70] The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.[71]
The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments?
Here is an excerpt.
<
span style="font-style:italic;"> Um, no. The Old Testament was around long before the time of the Apostles, and the Decalogue, which is found in three different places in the Bible (Exodus 20 and Exodous 34 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21), has not been changed by the Catholic Church. Chapter and verse divisions are a medieval invention, however, and numbering systems of the Ten Words (Commandments), the manner in which they are grouped, and the "short-hand" used for them, vary among various religious groups. Exodus 20 is the version most often referred to when one speaks of the Ten Commandments, so it will be our reference point here. Here's how the relevant portion of Exodus 20 reads:
2
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill. 1
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
So we have 16 verses and Ten Commandments (this we know because of Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 which speak of the "Ten Words" of God). How to group these verses and Commands? Here's how different groups have handled this:
You have to see the article for the graph that the author used to further explain this.
When the Commandments are listed, they are often listed in short-hand form, such that, for ex., verses 8, 9, 10 and 11 concerning the Sabbath become simply "Remember the Sabbath and to keep it holy." Because Latin Catholics group 3, 4, 5 and 6 together as all pertaining to the concept "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," we are accused of having "dropped" the commandment against idols. That Eastern Catholics list the Commandments differently never enters the equation for people who think this way; they are simply against those they probably call the "Romish popers" and that's that (I hope it doesn't bother them that Jews would accuse them of totally forgetting the First Commandment, or that Latin Catholics could accuse some Protestants of skipping lightly over the commandments against lust. And why don't the Protestants who have a problem with our numbering system go after the Lutherans for the same thing, anyway?).
Bottom line:
*
chapter and verse numbering in the Bible came about in the Middle Ages
*
the Catholic Church (which includes Eastern Catholics, too) has two different numbering systems for the Commandments given, one agreeing with the most common Protestant enumeration;
*
the Latin Church's numbering is the most common in the Catholic Church and is the one referred to by Protestants who, ignoring Eastern Catholic Churches, accuse the Catholic Church of having dropped a Commandment;
*
no Commandment has been dropped, in any case, but the Latin Church's shorthand for the Commandments looks different than the typical Protestant version because of how the Commandments are grouped;
*
everyone knows how to find Exodus 20 in the Bible, anyway -- even us stoopid Latin Catholics; and
*
we don't care how they are grouped together; we only care that they are understood and obeyed -- not because we are under the Old Testament Moral and Ceremonial Law with its legalism and non-salvific ritual (we aren't!), but because we are to obey God as children of the New Covenant, whose moral law includes the Two Great Commandments (to love God and to love our neighbor) which surpass the Decalogue, and whose Sacraments surpass empty ritual, being media of grace.
Now if Candy did even an itty bitty bit of research she wouldn't keep making such a fool out of herself by posting so many errors. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
III. "YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME"
2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.
Superstition
2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.[41]
Idolatry
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."[42] God, however, is the "living God"[43] who gives life and intervenes in history.
2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."[44] Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"[45] refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.[46]
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."[47]
Divination and magic
2115 God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility.
2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.[48] Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.
2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.
Irreligion
2118 God's first commandment condemns the main sins of irreligion: tempting God, in words or deeds, sacrilege, and simony.
2119 Tempting God consists in putting his goodness and almighty power to the test by word or deed. Thus Satan tried to induce Jesus to throw himself down from the Temple and, by this gesture, force God to act.[49] Jesus opposed Satan with the word of God: "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test."[50] The challenge contained in such tempting of God wounds the respect and trust we owe our Creator and Lord. It always harbors doubt about his love, his providence, and his power.[51]
2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.[52]
2121 Simony is defined as the buying or selling of spiritual things.[53] To Simon the magician, who wanted to buy the spiritual power he saw at work in the apostles, St. Peter responded: "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money!"[54] Peter thus held to the words of Jesus: "You received without pay, give without pay."[55] It is impossible to appropriate to oneself spiritual goods and behave toward them as their owner or master, for they have their source in God. One can receive them only from him, without payment.
2122 The minister should ask nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by the competent authority, always being careful that the needy are not deprived of the help of the sacraments because of their poverty."[56] The competent authority determines these "offerings" in accordance with the principle that the Christian people ought to contribute to the support of the Church's ministers. "The laborer deserves his food."[57]
Atheism
2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."[58]
2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."[59] Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."[60]
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.[61] The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."[62]
2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.[63] Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God...."[64] "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."[65]
Agnosticism
2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.
IV. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ."
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...."[66] It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."[67] He is "the author of beauty."[68]
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.[69]
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[70] The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.[71]
My comment to Candy's Commenters
I have begun to leave this comment on the blogs of Candy's readers who make comments about the Catholic Church on Candy's blog. I am trying to approach them with love and get them to investigate the Catholic Church for themselves:
"I read your comments on Candy' Keeping the Home blog and would like to invite you to come to a blog that I write for http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/. At this blog we try to explain our Catholic Faith to Non-Catholics & Catholics alike. I would love for you to come and read it and then maybe you could re-evaluate your anti Catholic opinions.
May the Peace of Christ be with you,
Erika"
"I read your comments on Candy' Keeping the Home blog and would like to invite you to come to a blog that I write for http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/. At this blog we try to explain our Catholic Faith to Non-Catholics & Catholics alike. I would love for you to come and read it and then maybe you could re-evaluate your anti Catholic opinions.
May the Peace of Christ be with you,
Erika"
Halloween
From CatholicCulture.org
History of All Hallows' Eve:
The Solemnity of All Saints (Overview - Calendar) is celebrated on November 1. It is a holyday of obligation, and it is the day that the Church honors all of God's saints, even those who have not been canonized by the Church. It is a family day of celebration — we celebrate the memory of our family members (members of the Mystical Body, the communion of saints) now sharing eternal happiness in the presence of God. We rejoice that they have reached their eternal goal and ask their prayers on our behalf so that we, too, may join them in heaven and praise God through all eternity.
The honoring of all Christian martyrs of the Faith was originally celebrated on May 13, the date established by the fourth century. Pope Boniface IV in 615 established it as the "Feast of All Martyrs" commemorating the dedication of the Pantheon, an ancient Roman temple, into a Christian church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the martyrs. In 844, Pope Gregory IV transferred the feast to November 1st. Some scholars believe this was to substitute a feast for the pagan celebrations during that time of year.
By 741, the feast included not only martyrs, but all the saints in heaven as well, with the title changing to "Feast of All Saints" by 840. Pope Sixtus IV in 1484 established November 1 as a holyday of obligation and gave it both a vigil (known today as "All Hallows' Eve" or "Hallowe'en") and an eight-day period or octave to celebrate the feast. By 1955, the octave of All Saints was removed.
Since Vatican II, some liturgical observances have been altered, one example being "fast before the feast" is no longer required. Originally, the days preceding great solemnities, like Christmas and All Saints Day, had a penitential nature, requiring abstinence from meat and fasting and prayer. Although not required by the Church, it is a good practice to prepare before great feast days, spiritually and physically.
Feastday Customs
In England, saints or holy people are called "hallowed", hence the name "All Hallow's Day" or "Hallowmas". The evening, or "e'en" before the feast became popularly known as "All Hallows' Eve," or even shorter, "Hallowe'en."
Since the night before All Saints Day, "All Hallows Eve" (now known as Hallowe'en or Halloween), was the vigil and required fasting, many recipes and traditions have come down for this evening, such as pancakes, boxty bread and boxty pancakes (the boxty made from potatoes), barmbrack (Irish fruit bread with hidden charms), and colcannon (combination of cabbage and boiled potatoes). This was also known as "Nutcrack Night" in England, where the family gathered around the hearth to enjoy cider and nuts and apples. In England "soul cakes" are another traditional food. People would go begging for a "soul cake" and promise to pray for the donor's departed friends and family in exchange for the treat, an early version of today's "Trick or Treat."
November 2 was the date designated to pray for all the departed souls in Purgatory, the Feast of All Souls. In many countries this is an important day. Families cook special foods and make a special day's outing to cemeteries to tend to the graves, pray for the family dead.
The feasts of All Saints and All Souls fall back to back to express the Christian belief of the "Communion of Saints." The Communion of Saints is the union of all the faithful on earth (the Church Militant), the saints in Heaven (the Church Triumphant) and the Poor Souls in Purgatory (the Church Suffering), with Christ as the Head. They are bound together by a supernatural bond, and can help one another. The Church Militant (those on earth still engaged in the struggle to save their souls) can venerate the Church Triumphant, and those saints can intercede with God for those still on earth. Both the faithful on earth and the saints in heaven can pray for the souls in Purgatory.
On All Souls Day and throughout November, especially November 1-8, one can gain plenary indulgences for the Poor Souls. See Praying for the Dead and Gaining Indulgences for more details.
Exploring the Christian Roots of Halloween
Throughout the centuries man has struggled to keep his focus on the one true Faith and its practices. So many times, though, the pagan superstitions creep back into practice. Although now with a holier purpose, when preparing for the huge feast of All Saints some pagan "cult of the dead" practices seeped into the mainstream.
In our modern times it is getting harder to be "in" the world but not "of" the world. How are we to explain to our children about the top money-making over-commercialized "holiday" of the year after Christmas? We have an onslaught of Halloween witches, ghosts, ghouls, goblins, vampires, etc. everywhere we turn. How do we bring a message to our children to say that being a Christian does not mean that we cannot have fun? How do we convey that we must not constantly be negative and condemn everything?
To answer this, we must put on the mind of the Church. All through the centuries the Church has taken secular feasts and tried to "sanctify" or "Christianize" them. The feastday of All Saints itself came from the dedication of the Pantheon, a pagan temple, into a Christian church. This is undoubtedly another way of sanctifying the secular and pagan. Missionaries have to get to know the culture and religion of the country before they can convert the native people of that country. The missionaries have to be able to find some elements in their culture that can help these people identify and understand Christianity at their level. St. Paul tried it with the Greeks. Seeing their altar to the Unknown God, he saw that through their own pagan altar, he was going to bring them to Christianity!
Instead of just suppressing the whole celebration of Halloween and leaving a gaping hole, the Church gives a replacement focus. The Church has the mindset of "How can this be turned into good, with the focus on the one true God and His Church?" Since All Saints and All Souls feasts are together, we can shift the focus of Halloween to a focus on the Communion of Saints in action. We combine honoring the saints in heaven, remembering our loved ones and then directing the destiny of our own souls by prayer and actions. Through this we see the Mystical Body all in action.
There are many writings to help one explore the Christian roots of the Halloween festivities. In the activities section there are ideas for an All Hallows' Eve Party to present a fun atmosphere for children living a "Catholic culture." See also other ideas from Florence Berger's Cooking for Christ and Mary Reed Newland's The Year and Our Children. These ideas help use every opportunity as a moment of grace, and a teaching lesson, not a spirit of avoidance because of the pagan background of Halloween. To return to the "sanctified" traditions of Hallowe'en, one can use the opportunity to honor the saints, pray for the Poor Souls and prepare oneself spiritually for two great feastdays of the Catholic Church, All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day.
By Jennifer Gregory Miller, ©2003.
History of All Hallows' Eve:
The Solemnity of All Saints (Overview - Calendar) is celebrated on November 1. It is a holyday of obligation, and it is the day that the Church honors all of God's saints, even those who have not been canonized by the Church. It is a family day of celebration — we celebrate the memory of our family members (members of the Mystical Body, the communion of saints) now sharing eternal happiness in the presence of God. We rejoice that they have reached their eternal goal and ask their prayers on our behalf so that we, too, may join them in heaven and praise God through all eternity.
The honoring of all Christian martyrs of the Faith was originally celebrated on May 13, the date established by the fourth century. Pope Boniface IV in 615 established it as the "Feast of All Martyrs" commemorating the dedication of the Pantheon, an ancient Roman temple, into a Christian church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the martyrs. In 844, Pope Gregory IV transferred the feast to November 1st. Some scholars believe this was to substitute a feast for the pagan celebrations during that time of year.
By 741, the feast included not only martyrs, but all the saints in heaven as well, with the title changing to "Feast of All Saints" by 840. Pope Sixtus IV in 1484 established November 1 as a holyday of obligation and gave it both a vigil (known today as "All Hallows' Eve" or "Hallowe'en") and an eight-day period or octave to celebrate the feast. By 1955, the octave of All Saints was removed.
Since Vatican II, some liturgical observances have been altered, one example being "fast before the feast" is no longer required. Originally, the days preceding great solemnities, like Christmas and All Saints Day, had a penitential nature, requiring abstinence from meat and fasting and prayer. Although not required by the Church, it is a good practice to prepare before great feast days, spiritually and physically.
Feastday Customs
In England, saints or holy people are called "hallowed", hence the name "All Hallow's Day" or "Hallowmas". The evening, or "e'en" before the feast became popularly known as "All Hallows' Eve," or even shorter, "Hallowe'en."
Since the night before All Saints Day, "All Hallows Eve" (now known as Hallowe'en or Halloween), was the vigil and required fasting, many recipes and traditions have come down for this evening, such as pancakes, boxty bread and boxty pancakes (the boxty made from potatoes), barmbrack (Irish fruit bread with hidden charms), and colcannon (combination of cabbage and boiled potatoes). This was also known as "Nutcrack Night" in England, where the family gathered around the hearth to enjoy cider and nuts and apples. In England "soul cakes" are another traditional food. People would go begging for a "soul cake" and promise to pray for the donor's departed friends and family in exchange for the treat, an early version of today's "Trick or Treat."
November 2 was the date designated to pray for all the departed souls in Purgatory, the Feast of All Souls. In many countries this is an important day. Families cook special foods and make a special day's outing to cemeteries to tend to the graves, pray for the family dead.
The feasts of All Saints and All Souls fall back to back to express the Christian belief of the "Communion of Saints." The Communion of Saints is the union of all the faithful on earth (the Church Militant), the saints in Heaven (the Church Triumphant) and the Poor Souls in Purgatory (the Church Suffering), with Christ as the Head. They are bound together by a supernatural bond, and can help one another. The Church Militant (those on earth still engaged in the struggle to save their souls) can venerate the Church Triumphant, and those saints can intercede with God for those still on earth. Both the faithful on earth and the saints in heaven can pray for the souls in Purgatory.
On All Souls Day and throughout November, especially November 1-8, one can gain plenary indulgences for the Poor Souls. See Praying for the Dead and Gaining Indulgences for more details.
Exploring the Christian Roots of Halloween
Throughout the centuries man has struggled to keep his focus on the one true Faith and its practices. So many times, though, the pagan superstitions creep back into practice. Although now with a holier purpose, when preparing for the huge feast of All Saints some pagan "cult of the dead" practices seeped into the mainstream.
In our modern times it is getting harder to be "in" the world but not "of" the world. How are we to explain to our children about the top money-making over-commercialized "holiday" of the year after Christmas? We have an onslaught of Halloween witches, ghosts, ghouls, goblins, vampires, etc. everywhere we turn. How do we bring a message to our children to say that being a Christian does not mean that we cannot have fun? How do we convey that we must not constantly be negative and condemn everything?
To answer this, we must put on the mind of the Church. All through the centuries the Church has taken secular feasts and tried to "sanctify" or "Christianize" them. The feastday of All Saints itself came from the dedication of the Pantheon, a pagan temple, into a Christian church. This is undoubtedly another way of sanctifying the secular and pagan. Missionaries have to get to know the culture and religion of the country before they can convert the native people of that country. The missionaries have to be able to find some elements in their culture that can help these people identify and understand Christianity at their level. St. Paul tried it with the Greeks. Seeing their altar to the Unknown God, he saw that through their own pagan altar, he was going to bring them to Christianity!
Instead of just suppressing the whole celebration of Halloween and leaving a gaping hole, the Church gives a replacement focus. The Church has the mindset of "How can this be turned into good, with the focus on the one true God and His Church?" Since All Saints and All Souls feasts are together, we can shift the focus of Halloween to a focus on the Communion of Saints in action. We combine honoring the saints in heaven, remembering our loved ones and then directing the destiny of our own souls by prayer and actions. Through this we see the Mystical Body all in action.
There are many writings to help one explore the Christian roots of the Halloween festivities. In the activities section there are ideas for an All Hallows' Eve Party to present a fun atmosphere for children living a "Catholic culture." See also other ideas from Florence Berger's Cooking for Christ and Mary Reed Newland's The Year and Our Children. These ideas help use every opportunity as a moment of grace, and a teaching lesson, not a spirit of avoidance because of the pagan background of Halloween. To return to the "sanctified" traditions of Hallowe'en, one can use the opportunity to honor the saints, pray for the Poor Souls and prepare oneself spiritually for two great feastdays of the Catholic Church, All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day.
By Jennifer Gregory Miller, ©2003.
Vent
This is the post where ya'll post about Candy's latest until Kelly, Erika and I have a chance to digest, formulate and write something of substance.
My first reaction was to jump on this and start writing something out, but I have other things going on my other blog, it's a big week for my family and I had dinner, working out, cleaning, working yada yada yada to do. I refuse to let Candy control my thoughts or my life. The beauty of blogging is that I can comment on any of her posts at anytime and since I saved the link, it doesn't even matter if she doesn't have ready access to her archives.
But that doesn't mean YOU guys can't talk about it and you came to the right place. Talk amongst yourselves!
My first reaction was to jump on this and start writing something out, but I have other things going on my other blog, it's a big week for my family and I had dinner, working out, cleaning, working yada yada yada to do. I refuse to let Candy control my thoughts or my life. The beauty of blogging is that I can comment on any of her posts at anytime and since I saved the link, it doesn't even matter if she doesn't have ready access to her archives.
But that doesn't mean YOU guys can't talk about it and you came to the right place. Talk amongst yourselves!
Sunday, October 28, 2007
A Mother's Rule of Life
I was an overwhelmed new mother and I was searching for a Christian home management system, something to help me become more organized & inspired, something that helped me get my house in order so that I could serve God & my family in a much more productive way. Well I found Candy's Blog because of articles in a magazine which she wrote for but is no longer published. You all probably know the story by now, great home management posts not so Catholic friendly.
Well I have found a great book and blog resource. It is called a Mother's Rule of Life by Holly Peirlot. Her book is awesome and Catholic throughout. She even has a blog which can help you with your own Mother's Rule of Life.
I found the book very easy to read and am going to start setting up my own Mother's Rule this week. I encourage all Catholic mothers who are struggling to read this book.
Happy reading!
Well I have found a great book and blog resource. It is called a Mother's Rule of Life by Holly Peirlot. Her book is awesome and Catholic throughout. She even has a blog which can help you with your own Mother's Rule of Life.
I found the book very easy to read and am going to start setting up my own Mother's Rule this week. I encourage all Catholic mothers who are struggling to read this book.
Happy reading!
Another Confession Perspective
Confession is a topic that comes up often in discussions about the Catholic Church. I've even written about it myself, here.
Jenn, former atheist over at Et Tu?, shares a wonderful account of her first confession.
Go read it! And the previous post about why she found her way to the Catholic Church is worth staying for, too.
Jenn, former atheist over at Et Tu?, shares a wonderful account of her first confession.
When the time finally came for my first confession, I thought it would be redundant. Having gone so long without the sacrament available to me, I'd pretty much straightened everything out with God myself -- I'd offered a full and honest account of my sins asked sincerely for forgiveness. . .
Then, when I finally sat down in front of our priest, everything changed.
I'd thought about all these sins a million times within the safe confines of my head, but now I had to speak of them. I had to put them into words. I had to hear it, and so did someone else. Though I fully believed the Catholic teaching that I was confessing my sins to God, that the priest was only a conduit, there was still the fact that another person would hear my words. I started shaking. Then I started crying.
Go read it! And the previous post about why she found her way to the Catholic Church is worth staying for, too.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
A Study on Checking Citations
Stephanie/Mountain Mama, over at Sojourner in a Strange Land posted an article a few days ago that I wanted to discuss. First, I want to be clear that this is not intended to be criticism of Stephanie, who is always nice enough to let me comment on her blog, and to answer my questions.
This article wasn't written by her, and it only indirectly relates to Catholicism, so it isn't strictly on topic for this blog. However, a little clearing up of things Catholic never hurts. More directly, as we have just been discussing the trustworthiness of sources, I thought that it might be of general interest.
The article is called The Origin of Christianity, by A.B. Traina. Its purpose is generally to say that all branches of Christianity existing today are corruptions, and that Jesus intended those who follow him to keep the Law.
So, I'll get started now.
"The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one and only church of God, the true bride of Christ, and that all Protestant sects are heretics."
Reading Dominus Iesus will clear that up.
"Anyone may verify the above by referring to any religious encyclopedia on the life of Constantine. Thus began the Roman Catholic Church, from whence sprang the church daughters making up the sects of Christianity."
Elena discussed the myth that Constantine started the Catholic Church here.
Traina quotes from Eusebius to say that the Apostles "still preserved most of the ancient customs in a strictly Israelite manner."
However, the Eusebius translation I have online says "and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients."
I notice that the very important word "strictly" is missing, and either one says that they observed "most" of the customs, not all. I don't know if this was intentional manipulation, or just a different translation.
I actually tried to track this quote down further, because Eusebius was quoting Philo. Traina says that this quotation came from Philo's On A Contemplative Life of Supplicants, but I was unable to find it there. That text is pretty dense, so I could easily have missed it. I wonder if Traina quoted from Eusebius instead of Philo directly because he couldn't find the quote, either? Philo is a lot to read through to track it down to verify.
Traina then quotes from Hegisippus, who quotes from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical Histories again. I'm not sure why he doesn't just quote from Eusebius directly, but it is an accurate quote.
But when you read that quote in context, you see that Eusebius does not feel that Christianity became corrupted. Rather, he refers to a time when heresies became to arrive and be battled by the orthodox Christians. He relates several of these heresies, including the Menander the Sorcerer, Nicholas, Cerinthus, and the Ebionites.
The Ebionites are an interesting group in the context of this article, because Eusebius says that "In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life."
We'll come back to the Ebionites later.
Traina then quotes Dr. Jesse Lyman Hurlbut as saying "For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we vainly strive to look; and when it at last rises, about 120 years A. D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Paul and St. Peter."
There is no curtain during this time period. The people writing during this time are called the Apostolic Fathers because they spanned the time period during the lifetime of the apostles, and the later Early Church Fathers. Clement, a pupil of Peter write during this time, as did Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp, who were pupils of St. John, write during this time. They are but a few of the writings from this time period.
Traina then says that "A small section of the Judean Christians endured for two centuries, but with ever decreasing numbers . . . the Ebionites, a people by themselves, scarcely recognized by the general church and despised as apostates by their own race."
Wait, now Traina is asserting here that the Ebionites were the true followers of Jesus. I said that we would be back to them. The thing is, that Eusebius, who Traina has quoted as a reliable source, describes the beliefs of the Ebionites. In his third book, the 27th chaper is called The Heresy of the Ebionites. It's short, so I'm copying it in its entirety.
Just to summarize, there were some Ebionites denied the Virgin Birth and divinity of Jesus. Other groups did not, but deny the Virgin Birth, but did deny His divinity, as well as rejected all the letters of St. Paul.
Traina says "Not only was the Sabbath dropped from the new religion, and Sunday (a holiday of the pagans adopted" but Eusebius specifically says that the Ebionites celebrated the Sabbath AND the Sunday as the Lord's Day, as a memorial of the resurrection.
Traina also takes issue with sprinkling taking the place of full immersion baptism. He has implied that we don't know what the Christians before 120 A.D. did, so I assume that he feels sprinkling was a pagan innovation after that date. However, there is evidence to the contrary.
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is an early Christian document dating to around 100 A.D. It was considered authoritative enough that it was included by several people in the canon of the New Testament, although it did not make the cut in the end. Just to be clear, it is not in the Catholic New Testament canon, which does not differ from that of other denominations, nor is it considered authoritative in the same was as the New Testament. But, it is an important resource on occasions just such as these.
On baptism, the Didache says:
While sprinkling was not the rule among early Christians, they clearly considered it a valid form of baptism.
The Didache also speaks concerning observation of the Lord's Day. "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."
Next, Traina quotes a "Brothingham" writing about the pagan origins of what he has seen in St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I tracked down the quotation, and it is actually from a book called Atlantis, the Antediluvian World. It was written by Ignatius Donnelly in 1882, not by Brothingham. The quote is there, on page 211, but Donelly quotes a Frothingham, which I would guess just means a typo on Traina's part.
Because of the "depths of antiquity" is in the quote, I shall assume that this Frothingham is merely saying that the Catholic Mass has its origins in these ceremonies. That would fit in with the rest of Donnelly's book, which is about how all religion, even Judaism, has its roots in the religion of Atlantis, the first civilization. Traina is using this book to point to corruption in Christianity, but Atlantis says that Judaism is equally corrupt!
Another quotation that Traina provides for the pagan roots of Christianity has for its citation, Pike, Morals and Dogma. Pike was a Freemason, and is book is on the esoteric roots of Freemasonry. To give another few examples of Pike's writing, he says that the Hebrew word for queen comes from the word for the moon god, and that the bronze serpent which Israelites looked upon and lived was from the Phoenitian cosmogony. Again, if Christianity is corrupt by this account, then so is Judaism.
There are now many different resources available from various Christian groups which point to the pagan or Babylonian roots of Catholicism. Or Atlantan, if you read Mr. Donnelly's book. Many Christians have found these books very convincing because of the citations which they provide. Candy, herself, has a photo essay available which shows the sorts of information which has been disseminated. Candy directs you to a book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop for additional information.
Many Bible Christians consider The Two Babylons as very authoritative on this sort of thing. Christians such as Ralph Woodrow, who has his own evangelistic association. Mr. Woodrow found The Two Babylons so compelling, he wrote his own book about the pagan origins of Cathoicism. But then, he started actually checking Hislop's citations, much as I have done here for Mr. Traina's citations. And in the same way, they were not what they were purported to be. So Mr. Woodrow recanted his book, and wrote a different book called The Babylon Connection? debunking The Two Babylons.
So, what is my point in all of this? We are all busy, and often, just finding time to read a book is a challenge. We tend to take citations for granted, especially if we trust our source. I have put in a considerable amount of time checking the citations from this one small article, which had most of the sources available online. It certainly isn't practical to do this for every single thing that we read. But in the end, it is good to keep in mind that citations can lie, or be manipulated, even if they are telling us what we want to hear.
This article wasn't written by her, and it only indirectly relates to Catholicism, so it isn't strictly on topic for this blog. However, a little clearing up of things Catholic never hurts. More directly, as we have just been discussing the trustworthiness of sources, I thought that it might be of general interest.
The article is called The Origin of Christianity, by A.B. Traina. Its purpose is generally to say that all branches of Christianity existing today are corruptions, and that Jesus intended those who follow him to keep the Law.
So, I'll get started now.
"The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one and only church of God, the true bride of Christ, and that all Protestant sects are heretics."
Reading Dominus Iesus will clear that up.
"Anyone may verify the above by referring to any religious encyclopedia on the life of Constantine. Thus began the Roman Catholic Church, from whence sprang the church daughters making up the sects of Christianity."
Elena discussed the myth that Constantine started the Catholic Church here.
Traina quotes from Eusebius to say that the Apostles "still preserved most of the ancient customs in a strictly Israelite manner."
However, the Eusebius translation I have online says "and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients."
I notice that the very important word "strictly" is missing, and either one says that they observed "most" of the customs, not all. I don't know if this was intentional manipulation, or just a different translation.
I actually tried to track this quote down further, because Eusebius was quoting Philo. Traina says that this quotation came from Philo's On A Contemplative Life of Supplicants, but I was unable to find it there. That text is pretty dense, so I could easily have missed it. I wonder if Traina quoted from Eusebius instead of Philo directly because he couldn't find the quote, either? Philo is a lot to read through to track it down to verify.
Traina then quotes from Hegisippus, who quotes from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical Histories again. I'm not sure why he doesn't just quote from Eusebius directly, but it is an accurate quote.
"In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the knowledge which is falsely so-called."
But when you read that quote in context, you see that Eusebius does not feel that Christianity became corrupted. Rather, he refers to a time when heresies became to arrive and be battled by the orthodox Christians. He relates several of these heresies, including the Menander the Sorcerer, Nicholas, Cerinthus, and the Ebionites.
The Ebionites are an interesting group in the context of this article, because Eusebius says that "In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life."
We'll come back to the Ebionites later.
Traina then quotes Dr. Jesse Lyman Hurlbut as saying "For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we vainly strive to look; and when it at last rises, about 120 years A. D. with the writings of the earliest church fathers we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Paul and St. Peter."
There is no curtain during this time period. The people writing during this time are called the Apostolic Fathers because they spanned the time period during the lifetime of the apostles, and the later Early Church Fathers. Clement, a pupil of Peter write during this time, as did Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp, who were pupils of St. John, write during this time. They are but a few of the writings from this time period.
Traina then says that "A small section of the Judean Christians endured for two centuries, but with ever decreasing numbers . . . the Ebionites, a people by themselves, scarcely recognized by the general church and despised as apostates by their own race."
Wait, now Traina is asserting here that the Ebionites were the true followers of Jesus. I said that we would be back to them. The thing is, that Eusebius, who Traina has quoted as a reliable source, describes the beliefs of the Ebionites. In his third book, the 27th chaper is called The Heresy of the Ebionites. It's short, so I'm copying it in its entirety.
1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.
2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.
3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.
4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.
6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
Just to summarize, there were some Ebionites denied the Virgin Birth and divinity of Jesus. Other groups did not, but deny the Virgin Birth, but did deny His divinity, as well as rejected all the letters of St. Paul.
Traina says "Not only was the Sabbath dropped from the new religion, and Sunday (a holiday of the pagans adopted" but Eusebius specifically says that the Ebionites celebrated the Sabbath AND the Sunday as the Lord's Day, as a memorial of the resurrection.
Traina also takes issue with sprinkling taking the place of full immersion baptism. He has implied that we don't know what the Christians before 120 A.D. did, so I assume that he feels sprinkling was a pagan innovation after that date. However, there is evidence to the contrary.
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is an early Christian document dating to around 100 A.D. It was considered authoritative enough that it was included by several people in the canon of the New Testament, although it did not make the cut in the end. Just to be clear, it is not in the Catholic New Testament canon, which does not differ from that of other denominations, nor is it considered authoritative in the same was as the New Testament. But, it is an important resource on occasions just such as these.
On baptism, the Didache says:
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
While sprinkling was not the rule among early Christians, they clearly considered it a valid form of baptism.
The Didache also speaks concerning observation of the Lord's Day. "But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."
Next, Traina quotes a "Brothingham" writing about the pagan origins of what he has seen in St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I tracked down the quotation, and it is actually from a book called Atlantis, the Antediluvian World. It was written by Ignatius Donnelly in 1882, not by Brothingham. The quote is there, on page 211, but Donelly quotes a Frothingham, which I would guess just means a typo on Traina's part.
Brothingham says, speaking of St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome: "Into what depth of antiquity the ceremonies carried me back ! To the mysteries of Eleusis, to the sacrificial rites of Phoenicia. The boys swung the censors as censors had been swung in the adoration of Bacchus. . .I was not able to find that Donnelly provided any sources for Frothingham's quote. However, the original Cathedral of St. Peter's in Rome was not built until 1470. It is not even close to being the earliest church in Rome, although it is what we think of as the most important one there today. If this Frothingham quote is supposed to insinuate that a person who was familiar with pagan worship found the ceremonies found the ceremony similar, then it is obviously not true.
Because of the "depths of antiquity" is in the quote, I shall assume that this Frothingham is merely saying that the Catholic Mass has its origins in these ceremonies. That would fit in with the rest of Donnelly's book, which is about how all religion, even Judaism, has its roots in the religion of Atlantis, the first civilization. Traina is using this book to point to corruption in Christianity, but Atlantis says that Judaism is equally corrupt!
Another quotation that Traina provides for the pagan roots of Christianity has for its citation, Pike, Morals and Dogma. Pike was a Freemason, and is book is on the esoteric roots of Freemasonry. To give another few examples of Pike's writing, he says that the Hebrew word for queen comes from the word for the moon god, and that the bronze serpent which Israelites looked upon and lived was from the Phoenitian cosmogony. Again, if Christianity is corrupt by this account, then so is Judaism.
There are now many different resources available from various Christian groups which point to the pagan or Babylonian roots of Catholicism. Or Atlantan, if you read Mr. Donnelly's book. Many Christians have found these books very convincing because of the citations which they provide. Candy, herself, has a photo essay available which shows the sorts of information which has been disseminated. Candy directs you to a book called The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop for additional information.
Many Bible Christians consider The Two Babylons as very authoritative on this sort of thing. Christians such as Ralph Woodrow, who has his own evangelistic association. Mr. Woodrow found The Two Babylons so compelling, he wrote his own book about the pagan origins of Cathoicism. But then, he started actually checking Hislop's citations, much as I have done here for Mr. Traina's citations. And in the same way, they were not what they were purported to be. So Mr. Woodrow recanted his book, and wrote a different book called The Babylon Connection? debunking The Two Babylons.
So, what is my point in all of this? We are all busy, and often, just finding time to read a book is a challenge. We tend to take citations for granted, especially if we trust our source. I have put in a considerable amount of time checking the citations from this one small article, which had most of the sources available online. It certainly isn't practical to do this for every single thing that we read. But in the end, it is good to keep in mind that citations can lie, or be manipulated, even if they are telling us what we want to hear.
More on the apostolic Baptists
I did verify with Mr. Hyland that he is indeed the Sean Hyland that transcribed for Catholic Encylopedia.
Here is my e-mail:
Once again thank you Mr. Hyland for your reply. We are still discussing your article and we were wondering if you are the same Mr. Sean Hyland who transcribed for Catholic Encyclopedia and EWTN. (I have a son who might be interested transcribing as a career so I'm particularly interested!)
"fromsean hyland hide details 3:41 pm (16 minutes ago)
toElena LaVictoire dateOct 27, 2007 3:41 PM
subjectRE: We are discussing your article mailed-byhotmail.com
Dear Elena, yes that's me. I only transcribed for the Catholic Encyclopedia, EWTN copied the articles.
btw you can call me Sean in any future correspondence. God bless "
So yes, I think we can put to rest Mr. Hyland's credentials and whether or not his work is authoritative.
Next, Tracy has been doing a lot of homework and she has come up with these articles on the topic:
First there is this Trail of Blood PDF link. Here's an excerpt: (emphasis mine)
Also seen this article from Envoy Magazine on "Ancient Baptists and Other Myths."
Here is my e-mail:
Once again thank you Mr. Hyland for your reply. We are still discussing your article and we were wondering if you are the same Mr. Sean Hyland who transcribed for Catholic Encyclopedia and EWTN. (I have a son who might be interested transcribing as a career so I'm particularly interested!)
"fromsean hyland hide details 3:41 pm (16 minutes ago)
toElena LaVictoire dateOct 27, 2007 3:41 PM
subjectRE: We are discussing your article mailed-byhotmail.com
Dear Elena, yes that's me. I only transcribed for the Catholic Encyclopedia, EWTN copied the articles.
btw you can call me Sean in any future correspondence. God bless "
So yes, I think we can put to rest Mr. Hyland's credentials and whether or not his work is authoritative.
Next, Tracy has been doing a lot of homework and she has come up with these articles on the topic:
First there is this Trail of Blood PDF link. Here's an excerpt: (emphasis mine)
Edward T. Hiscox, author of the classic Baptist handbook,
Principles and Practices for
Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel
Publications, 1980) claims the Waldenses and the above mentioned groups held
to the principle points “which Baptists have always emphasized”. Hiscox, however, doesn’t inform his readers that the
Waldenses for the most part believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few. That Baptist successionists can claim the Waldenses as their ancestors-sharing a common belief and practice-is quite untenable, if
not disingenuous.
Baptist James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history at Cedarville College, summarizes the situation well. “Perhaps no other major body of professing Christians has had as much difficulty in discerning it historical roots as have the Baptists. A survey of conflicting opinions might lead a perceptive observer to conclude that Baptists suffer from an identity
crisis. . . . Many Baptists object vehemently and argue that their history can be traced across the centuries to New Testament times. Some Baptist deny categorically that they are Protestants and that the history of their churches is related to the success of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Those who reject the Protestant character and Reformation origins of the Baptists usually maintain a view of church history sometimes called ‘Baptist Successionism’ . . . enhanced enormously by a booklet entitled The Trail of Blood.”
After acknowledging his initial advocacy of “successionism”, McGoldrick explains,“Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however,convinced [me] that the view [I] once held so dear has
not been, and cannot be, verified.On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . .
. Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoteddoctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits
recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants,
heirs of the Reformers” (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [Metuchen, NJ: American Theological Library Assoc. and Scarecrow Press, 1994], 1−2). Baptist Successionists frequently claim that they are not
Protestants. To this, Leon McBeth, professor of Church History at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
writes, “Are Baptists Protestants? One sometimes hears the question whether Baptists are
to be identified as Protestants. Whether one takes the shortcut answer, or goes into lengthy explanation, the answer is the same: Yes. Such important Reformation doctrines as justification by faith, the authority of Scripture,
and the priesthood of believers show up prominently in Baptist theology. Further, the evidence shows that Baptists originated out of English Separatism, certainly a part of the Protestant Reformation. Even if one
assumes Anabaptist influence, the Anabaptists themselves were a Reformation people. The tendency to deny that Baptists are Protestants grows out of a faulty view of history, namely that Baptist churches have existed in every century and thus antedate the Reformation” (The Baptist Heritage
[Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987], pg. 62).
(See a longer excerpt
below.)
Also seen this article from Envoy Magazine on "Ancient Baptists and Other Myths."
Speaking of the Trail of Blood . . .
Pope: Understanding past conflicts helps Catholics, Mennonites heal
Published: 2007-10-19
Published: 2007-10-19
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Understanding the roots of past conflicts can help Catholics and Mennonites heal their relationship and move toward a common witness of faith in Jesus, Pope Benedict XVI said. "Since it is Christ himself who calls us to seek Christian unity, it is entirely right and fitting that Mennonites and Catholics have entered into dialogue in order to understand the reasons for the conflict that arose between us in the 16th century," the pope said during an Oct. 19 meeting with leaders of the Mennonite World Conference. "To understand is to take the first step toward healing," Pope Benedict said. The Mennonites are a branch of the Reformation movement known as Anabaptists because they rejected infant baptism and insisted adults be baptized as a public confession of faith. In the 16th century, thousands of Anabaptists were declared heretics and put to death by some European Catholic governments, such as the Habsburgs in the Netherlands and the Tirol region and the dukes of Bavaria, as well as by Protestant governments in Germany and Switzerland.
Friday, October 26, 2007
More on Apostolic Baptists
Vatican's claim of link to apostles has parallels in Baptist successionism: "ICHMOND, Va. (ABP) � The Vatican's recent reaffirmation that the �true church� lies in an unbroken line of succession all the way back to Christ and his apostles might resonate in an unlikely place � among conservative Baptists who trace the roots of their denomination back to Jesus and sometimes beyond, to John the Baptist. Baptist successionism � a theory which emerged on the 19th-century American frontier -- claims to find a line of historical continuity in doctrine and practice from Jesus himself to today�s Baptist churches. True Christian churches, so goes the theory, are marked by distinctive baptistic characteristics, such as autonomous government, closed (members-only) communion and baptism by immersion. Such churches have existed since New Testament times and can be traced through history in dissenting groups such as the Donatists, Albigenses, Cathari, Waldenses and Anabaptists. Though generally discredited by church historians, the theory still holds sway among some fundamentalist and conservative Baptists, including some affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. �Baptist Landmarkists � who were fighting Catholics, Cambellites and other denominations in the mid-19th century -- concocted the theory of a succession of churches from the New Testament that were Baptist in everything but name and"
Followup on the Sean Hyland article.
I did receive a gracious e-mail from Mr. Hyland this morning and he gave permission to post it.
Dear Elena,
peace of Christ be with you always, dearest sister. Sallie emailed me and below is my reply to her. Feel free to post this reply on your blog.
God be with you and yours always.
Sean Hyland.
btw you of course were quite in order as regards the copyright!!! I made all my stuff public domain for the sake of the Kingdom.
---------------------------
Dear Sallie,
may the peace of Christ be with you always. I researched the letters of Cardinal Hosius in the diocesan library ("Dombibliothek") of Hildesheim, Germany. They are of course in Latin but there is no restriction on any lay person visiting the library requesting the tome and sitting down to study it.
God bless you, precious sister.
Sean Hyland.
Dear Elena,
peace of Christ be with you always, dearest sister. Sallie emailed me and below is my reply to her. Feel free to post this reply on your blog.
God be with you and yours always.
Sean Hyland.
btw you of course were quite in order as regards the copyright!!! I made all my stuff public domain for the sake of the Kingdom.
---------------------------
Dear Sallie,
may the peace of Christ be with you always. I researched the letters of Cardinal Hosius in the diocesan library ("Dombibliothek") of Hildesheim, Germany. They are of course in Latin but there is no restriction on any lay person visiting the library requesting the tome and sitting down to study it.
God bless you, precious sister.
Sean Hyland.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
300 Anglicans defect to Rome after row over women priests - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie
300 Anglicans defect to Rome after row over women priests - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie: "By John Cooney Religion Correspondent Thursday October 25 2007 UP to 300 Irish Anglicans could soon be joining the Roman Catholic Church to the traditional hymn tune 'Faith of Our Fathers'. A report in today's 'Irish Catholic' newspaper claims that three Church of Ireland parishes are Romeward-bound, and may soon be received by Pope Benedict into full communion with the Catholic Church. This change of denominational allegiance is part of a long-standing doctrinal feud over the ordination of women."
To lift the spirits...
The Pope goes to New York. He is picked up at the airport by a limousine. He looks at the beautiful car and says to the driver, "You know, I hardly ever get to drive. Would you please let me?"
The driver is understandably hesistant and says, "I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm supposed to do that."
But the Pope persists, "Please?" The driver finally lets up. "Oh, all right, I can't really say no to the Pope."
So the Pope takes the wheel, and boy, is he a speed demon! He hits the gas and goes around 100 mph in a 45 zone. A policeman notices and pulls him over.
The cop walks up and asks the Pope to roll down the window. Startled and surprised, the young officer asks the Pope to wait a minute. He goes back to his patrol car and radios the chief.
Cop: Chief, I have a problem.
Chief: What sort of problem?
Cop: Well, you see, I pulled over this guy for driving way over the speed limit but it's someone really important.
Chief: Important like the mayor?
Cop: No, no, much more important than that.
Chief: Important like the governor?
Cop: Wayyyyyy more important than that.
Chief: Like the president?
Cop: More.
Chief: Who's more important than the president?
Cop: I don't know, but he's got the Pope driving for him!
The driver is understandably hesistant and says, "I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm supposed to do that."
But the Pope persists, "Please?" The driver finally lets up. "Oh, all right, I can't really say no to the Pope."
So the Pope takes the wheel, and boy, is he a speed demon! He hits the gas and goes around 100 mph in a 45 zone. A policeman notices and pulls him over.
The cop walks up and asks the Pope to roll down the window. Startled and surprised, the young officer asks the Pope to wait a minute. He goes back to his patrol car and radios the chief.
Cop: Chief, I have a problem.
Chief: What sort of problem?
Cop: Well, you see, I pulled over this guy for driving way over the speed limit but it's someone really important.
Chief: Important like the mayor?
Cop: No, no, much more important than that.
Chief: Important like the governor?
Cop: Wayyyyyy more important than that.
Chief: Like the president?
Cop: More.
Chief: Who's more important than the president?
Cop: I don't know, but he's got the Pope driving for him!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Apostolic Baptists
I recently had an exchange with a blogger, who cited a quote a Cardinal Hosius from the sixteenth century, which she felt proved that Baptists have been around as long as, well, John the Baptist.
In case anyone has run across this anywhere, you can read a good counter-argument on Sean's Faith website.
An excerpt of his research:
In case anyone has run across this anywhere, you can read a good counter-argument on Sean's Faith website.
An excerpt of his research:
Cardinal Hosius and that infamous "statement": Is it genuine?The statement reads as follows:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)" Quoted in the "Trail of Blood" by J. Carroll.
Does this statement exist in his complete works? No.
The complete works of Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius were published in two volumes in 1584 in Cologne, under the title "Opera Omnia". The complete title reads as follows:
D.STANISLAI HOSII, S R E CARDINALIS, MAIORIS POENITENTIARII; ET EPISCOPI VARMIENSIS
"Opera Omnia in Duos divisa tomos, quorum primus ab ipso auctore plurimus subinde in locis, integris & dimidijs paginis sic auctus & recognitus, ut novum opus fere censeri possit. Secundum autem totus novus, nuncque primus typis excusus."
Coloniae
Apud Maternum Cholinum
Anno M. D. L XXXIIIIThe purported statement is nowhere to be found in the letters of Cardinal Hosius
- There is no section titled "Apud Opera" among Hosius� complete works. And there is no letter of that name. So the reference "Letters, Apud Opera" is apparently meaningless. Similarly, I could find no publication of his with this title.
- I decided to check all of Cardinal Hosius� letters for references to the Anabaptists. The section in his "Opera Omnia" entitled "Liber Epistelarum" contains all of Cardinal Hosius� letters, 277 in total, written in Latin. I have read through all of these letters, and in only 12 of them (letters XXVIII, XLI, XLIII, CV, CXVI, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXIV, CL, CLVII, CLVIII, and CLX) is there any mention of the Anabaptists. In none of them is to be found the statement cited at the top. To all intents and purposes, this statement appears to be a fake.
- Nowhere in the letters of Hosius are the "reformers" referred to as such. Rather, they are referred to as "Lutherani", "Calvinisti", "Zuingliani" and, especially in his other works, "haeretici". The purported statement of Hosius uses language he never uses in his "Opera omnia", and so its authenticity must be called into question.
- The citation by various Baptist websites of two completely different purported statements by Cardian Hosuis, both given the same page reference, adds to the doubt about the genuineness of either. (The second purported statement is quoted in Note 1 below). The said statements are purported to be found on pages 112, 113 of "Apud Opera". However, only one statement can be found crossing over from page 112 to 113. How can you get two different statements, both starting on page 112 and both ending on page 113? (The only possibility would be if one statement were embedded in the other, but that is clearly not the case here.)
Saturday, October 20, 2007
From ScriptureCatholic.com
Ephesians 2:8-9 – grace versus works
Zack: Ephesians 2:8-9 says this (according to New American Bible "The Catholic Youth Bible" revised):
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is a gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast."
How can one be saved by good works if the Bible clearly says here that one is not saved by works but by faith alone?
I'd just like to know what you think.
Thank you,
Zack
J. Salza: Zack, many people don't understand Ephesians 2:8-9. In this passage, Paul says we are not saved by works. But James says that we ARE saved by works and not by faith alone in James 2:24. Is there a contradiction? No.
The difference is that Paul and James are talking about two different kinds of works. When Paul speaks of works, he is generally referring to "works of law" (read also Galatians) which refer to works done under the Mosaic law. The Jews believed that they still had to perform their ritual works to be saved (e.g., circumcision). In Acts 15, Peter declared that circumcision was no longer required for salvation. We are saved by grace, not works. When Paul refers to "works," he is also referring to any type of work where we attempt to obligate God and make him a debtor to us. The Jews were attempting to do this in their rigid system of law.
Paul is teaching that, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the Father has invited us into the system of grace where we now can have a gracious relationship with God. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, not works of law. However, once we transition from the condemnation of the law into the system of grace (Rom 5:1-5), we must add works to our faith. We are not justified or saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
Thus, there is a distinction between "works of law" and "good works." The former are done in a system of law which cannot save us, and the latter are performed in a system of grace by which we are saved. If we approach God with faith in Christ that He is our Father and will reward us not because He is obligated but out of His sheer benevolence, we please Him in a system of grace and He will save us. If we approach God impersonally and try to obligate him to reward us for our works, He will condemn us. The distinction is "law" versus "grace." This permeates Paul's teaching on justification.
I recently send this short analysis to another of my patrons:
Here is the critical issue that you must understand: there are works in a system of law, and works in a system of grace. When we do works in a system of law, we stand condemned. That is because in this system, we try to obligate God like an employer. But there is nothing we can do to merit any payment from God.
When we do works in a system of grace, they are profitable to our salvation. That is because in a system of grace, we approach God as a Father who loves us, not as an employer who owes us. We move from a system of law to a system of grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1-5).
That is why Paul says that we are not "justified by works of law." He is referring primarily to the Mosaic law (e.g., circumcision) or any work where we try to obligate God. This is to be distinguished from works performed under the auspices of grace. There is a difference between "works of law" and "good works." This is why James says that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
Paul's teaching that we are not justified by works of law and James' teaching that we ARE justified by works appear to be inconsistent with each other, until you recognize that they are talking about two different systems: law and grace.
Grace be with you.
John Salza
Zack: Thank you for your quick response. I'm a Catholic, but I attend a primarily Free Will Baptist school (though other denominations are present). They teach in their Bible studies that one must trust Christ with their life and believe in Him, and then after you've "been saved" you should have the desire to do good works and follow God's law but that they aren't required to get into heaven. They teach that good works are to lay up treasures in heaven for us to enjoy when we get there by believing in Christ.
They also suggest that people who believe that good works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God are hypocritical... and that they are like the Pharisees who Christ compared with a grave -- looks nice on the outside, but all that lies inside is a rotting corpse because they only do their works to impress the people watching them. That's what I've heard all the time at school, so that's why I was wondering what you thought.
They never bothered to mention James 2:24... I never knew the Bible said anything like that.
Thank you again for the info!
Zack ..........
................The Bible never says that we are saved by "faith alone" and that good works just automatically flow out of believers. It says just the opposite. The New Testament was written primarily for true, genuine believers who were being warned not to fall away from the faith. There is nothing about "once saved, always saved" anywhere in Scripture.
Neither faith nor works can save us outside of God's grace. But once we accept Christ with faith and move into a system of grace, we must add good works to our faith in order to be justified. James tells us so. So does Jesus. The good works are not automatic either. We must make a conscious effort to do them. We can also refuse to do them, even though we still believe in Jesus. Make sense? Faith and works are two different things, and they must be coupled together to procure justification. In fact, Jesus Himself said "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matt 12:37). Jesus is saying that even our words can justify us or condemn us. Jesus looks at our actions, not just our faith.
Regarding Romans 3, if you read that section and also read Paul's letter to the Galatians, you see how Paul is emphasizing "works of law" in reference to the Mosaic law or any type of work where we try to obligate God. These works have nothing to do with the good works that James requires in James 2:24.
God bless.
John Salza
Mr Salza goes on and describes more on his blog if you care to read it.
Again I must state that I am describing what the Catholic Church teaches and what I BELIEVE. If you do not agree with me or my faith I am sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. My mind will not be changed and I do not expect to change yours, what I do expect is so me understanding and less of being told that Catholics do not get the real truth. We do get it, the Truth that we have is just from a different interpretation of the Bible. That is why I am Catholic and stay Catholic, that is why when I had a crisis of faith and thought I might become Baptist I returned to the Catholic Faith , because I believe what the Church teaches! I believe in the Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture. I am not saying that Baptist are wrong or not saved I am just saying I do not believe what you believe about works & faith for salvation. I also believe through the GRACE OF GOD one is saved plain and simple without that Faith, Works and anything else is of no consequence.
Please read my quote from
Ephesians 2:8-9 – grace versus works
Zack: Ephesians 2:8-9 says this (according to New American Bible "The Catholic Youth Bible" revised):
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is a gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast."
How can one be saved by good works if the Bible clearly says here that one is not saved by works but by faith alone?
I'd just like to know what you think.
Thank you,
Zack
J. Salza: Zack, many people don't understand Ephesians 2:8-9. In this passage, Paul says we are not saved by works. But James says that we ARE saved by works and not by faith alone in James 2:24. Is there a contradiction? No.
The difference is that Paul and James are talking about two different kinds of works. When Paul speaks of works, he is generally referring to "works of law" (read also Galatians) which refer to works done under the Mosaic law. The Jews believed that they still had to perform their ritual works to be saved (e.g., circumcision). In Acts 15, Peter declared that circumcision was no longer required for salvation. We are saved by grace, not works. When Paul refers to "works," he is also referring to any type of work where we attempt to obligate God and make him a debtor to us. The Jews were attempting to do this in their rigid system of law.
Paul is teaching that, with the death and resurrection of Christ, the Father has invited us into the system of grace where we now can have a gracious relationship with God. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, not works of law. However, once we transition from the condemnation of the law into the system of grace (Rom 5:1-5), we must add works to our faith. We are not justified or saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
Thus, there is a distinction between "works of law" and "good works." The former are done in a system of law which cannot save us, and the latter are performed in a system of grace by which we are saved. If we approach God with faith in Christ that He is our Father and will reward us not because He is obligated but out of His sheer benevolence, we please Him in a system of grace and He will save us. If we approach God impersonally and try to obligate him to reward us for our works, He will condemn us. The distinction is "law" versus "grace." This permeates Paul's teaching on justification.
I recently send this short analysis to another of my patrons:
Here is the critical issue that you must understand: there are works in a system of law, and works in a system of grace. When we do works in a system of law, we stand condemned. That is because in this system, we try to obligate God like an employer. But there is nothing we can do to merit any payment from God.
When we do works in a system of grace, they are profitable to our salvation. That is because in a system of grace, we approach God as a Father who loves us, not as an employer who owes us. We move from a system of law to a system of grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1-5).
That is why Paul says that we are not "justified by works of law." He is referring primarily to the Mosaic law (e.g., circumcision) or any work where we try to obligate God. This is to be distinguished from works performed under the auspices of grace. There is a difference between "works of law" and "good works." This is why James says that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
Paul's teaching that we are not justified by works of law and James' teaching that we ARE justified by works appear to be inconsistent with each other, until you recognize that they are talking about two different systems: law and grace.
Grace be with you.
John Salza
Zack: Thank you for your quick response. I'm a Catholic, but I attend a primarily Free Will Baptist school (though other denominations are present). They teach in their Bible studies that one must trust Christ with their life and believe in Him, and then after you've "been saved" you should have the desire to do good works and follow God's law but that they aren't required to get into heaven. They teach that good works are to lay up treasures in heaven for us to enjoy when we get there by believing in Christ.
They also suggest that people who believe that good works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God are hypocritical... and that they are like the Pharisees who Christ compared with a grave -- looks nice on the outside, but all that lies inside is a rotting corpse because they only do their works to impress the people watching them. That's what I've heard all the time at school, so that's why I was wondering what you thought.
They never bothered to mention James 2:24... I never knew the Bible said anything like that.
Thank you again for the info!
Zack ..........
................The Bible never says that we are saved by "faith alone" and that good works just automatically flow out of believers. It says just the opposite. The New Testament was written primarily for true, genuine believers who were being warned not to fall away from the faith. There is nothing about "once saved, always saved" anywhere in Scripture.
Neither faith nor works can save us outside of God's grace. But once we accept Christ with faith and move into a system of grace, we must add good works to our faith in order to be justified. James tells us so. So does Jesus. The good works are not automatic either. We must make a conscious effort to do them. We can also refuse to do them, even though we still believe in Jesus. Make sense? Faith and works are two different things, and they must be coupled together to procure justification. In fact, Jesus Himself said "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matt 12:37). Jesus is saying that even our words can justify us or condemn us. Jesus looks at our actions, not just our faith.
Regarding Romans 3, if you read that section and also read Paul's letter to the Galatians, you see how Paul is emphasizing "works of law" in reference to the Mosaic law or any type of work where we try to obligate God. These works have nothing to do with the good works that James requires in James 2:24.
God bless.
John Salza
Mr Salza goes on and describes more on his blog if you care to read it.
Again I must state that I am describing what the Catholic Church teaches and what I BELIEVE. If you do not agree with me or my faith I am sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. My mind will not be changed and I do not expect to change yours, what I do expect is so me understanding and less of being told that Catholics do not get the real truth. We do get it, the Truth that we have is just from a different interpretation of the Bible. That is why I am Catholic and stay Catholic, that is why when I had a crisis of faith and thought I might become Baptist I returned to the Catholic Faith , because I believe what the Church teaches! I believe in the Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture. I am not saying that Baptist are wrong or not saved I am just saying I do not believe what you believe about works & faith for salvation. I also believe through the GRACE OF GOD one is saved plain and simple without that Faith, Works and anything else is of no consequence.
Please read my quote from
Friday, October 19, 2007
James 2:14-26
James 2:14-26What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
An Answer to Sara About Faith & Works
BIBLE SAYS FAITH AND WORKS NEEDED FOR SALVATION
Sal Ciresi
During the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s, a familiar term regarding salvation was "sola fide," Latin for "by faith alone." The reformers, at that time, accused the Catholic Church of departing from the "simple purity of the Gospel" of Jesus Christ. They stated it was faith alone, without works of any kind, that brought a believer to eternal life. They defined this faith as "the confidence of man, associated with the certainty of salvation, because the merciful Father will forgive sins because of Christ's sake."
This view of salvation is a crucial issue because it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches that we are not saved by faith alone. The Church has taught this since 30 A.D. as part of the Divine Revelation. The truth of the Catholic Church's teaching can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture alone.
All who claim the title "Christian" will be able to agree on the following two truths: salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). These biblical facts will be our foundation as we explain the teaching of the Catholic Church.
If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). The epistle of James only mentions it in the negative sense.
The Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). Yet is faith nothing more than believing and trusting? Searching the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God's truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6). These points appeared to be missed by the reformers, yet they are just as crucial as believing and trusting. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) should be heeded by all it's certainly an attention grabber.
Paul speaks of faith as a life-long process, never as a one-time experience (Philippians 2:12). He never assumes he has nothing to worry about. If he did, his words in (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) would be nonsensical. He reiterates the same point again in his second letter to Corinth (2 Corinthians 13:5). He takes nothing for granted, yet all would agree if anyone was "born again" it certainly was Paul. Our Lord and Savior spoke of the same thing by "remaining in Him" (John 15:1-11).
Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.
Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was "declared righteous" before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by "believing" faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith "working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Isn't this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by "works of law" (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He's condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn't justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham's life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God's providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he's "declared righteous" (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
The Catholic Church has never taught we "earn" our salvation. It is an inheritance (Galatians 5:21), freely given to anyone who becomes a child of God (1 John 3:1), so long as they remain that way (John 15:1-11). You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
The reformer's position cannot be reconciled with the Bible. That is why the Catholic Church has taught otherwise for over 1,960 years.
Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."
(Sal Ciresi has lectured on apologetics in the diocese of Arlington, VA and has resided in Northern Virginia since his discharge from the Marine Corps in 1991.)
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210
http://www.ewtn.com/
Grace, Faith, and Works
Catholic Bridge.com
Sal Ciresi
During the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s, a familiar term regarding salvation was "sola fide," Latin for "by faith alone." The reformers, at that time, accused the Catholic Church of departing from the "simple purity of the Gospel" of Jesus Christ. They stated it was faith alone, without works of any kind, that brought a believer to eternal life. They defined this faith as "the confidence of man, associated with the certainty of salvation, because the merciful Father will forgive sins because of Christ's sake."
This view of salvation is a crucial issue because it strikes at the very heart of the Gospel message eternal life. Roman Catholicism teaches that we are not saved by faith alone. The Church has taught this since 30 A.D. as part of the Divine Revelation. The truth of the Catholic Church's teaching can be demonstrated from Sacred Scripture alone.
All who claim the title "Christian" will be able to agree on the following two truths: salvation is by grace alone (Ephesians 2:8) and salvation is through Christ alone (Acts 4:12). These biblical facts will be our foundation as we explain the teaching of the Catholic Church.
If we take a concordance and look up every occurrence of the word "faith," we come up with an undeniable fact the only time the phrase "faith alone" is used in the entire Bible is when it is condemned (James 2:24). The epistle of James only mentions it in the negative sense.
The Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). Yet is faith nothing more than believing and trusting? Searching the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God's truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6). These points appeared to be missed by the reformers, yet they are just as crucial as believing and trusting. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3) should be heeded by all it's certainly an attention grabber.
Paul speaks of faith as a life-long process, never as a one-time experience (Philippians 2:12). He never assumes he has nothing to worry about. If he did, his words in (1 Corinthians 9:24-27) would be nonsensical. He reiterates the same point again in his second letter to Corinth (2 Corinthians 13:5). He takes nothing for granted, yet all would agree if anyone was "born again" it certainly was Paul. Our Lord and Savior spoke of the same thing by "remaining in Him" (John 15:1-11).
Paul tells us our faith is living and can go through many stages. It never stays permanently fixed after a single conversion experience no matter how genuine or sincere. Our faith can be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19), departed from (1 Timothy 4:1), disowned (1 Timothy 5:8) wandered from (1 Timothy 6:10), and missed (1 Timothy 6:21). Christians do not have a "waiver" that exempts them from these verses.
Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46). The people rewarded and punished are done so by their actions. And our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. These verses are just as much part of the Bible as Romans 10:8-13 and John 3:3-5.
Some will object by appealing to Romans 4:3 and stating Abraham was "declared righteous" before circumcision. Thus he was only saved by "believing" faith (Genesis 15:6), not by faith "working in love" (Galatians 5:6). Isn't this what Paul means when he says none will be justified by "works of law" (Romans 3:28)? No, this is not what he means. He's condemning the Old Covenant sacrifices and rituals which couldn't justify and pointing to better things now in Christ Jesus in the New Covenant (Hebrews 7-10). A close examination of Abraham's life revealed a man of God who did something. In Genesis 12-14 he makes two geographical moves, builds an altar and calls on the Lord, divides land with Lot to end quarrels, pays tithes, and refuses goods from the King of Sodom to rely instead on God's providence. He did all these works as an old man. It was certainly a struggle. After all these actions of faith, then he's "declared righteous" (Genesis 15:6). Did these works play a role in his justification? According to the Bible, yes.
The Catholic Church has never taught we "earn" our salvation. It is an inheritance (Galatians 5:21), freely given to anyone who becomes a child of God (1 John 3:1), so long as they remain that way (John 15:1-11). You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
The reformer's position cannot be reconciled with the Bible. That is why the Catholic Church has taught otherwise for over 1,960 years.
Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."
(Sal Ciresi has lectured on apologetics in the diocese of Arlington, VA and has resided in Northern Virginia since his discharge from the Marine Corps in 1991.)
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210
http://www.ewtn.com/
For Further Study:
Grace, Faith, and Works
Catholic Bridge.com
More Nun Fun
If you do visit over at Amy's today (linked in Kelly's posting) you'll find another nun story, this time by a Sandy Hooper. I found two articles by Ms. Hooper on the net and interestingly both of them give an e-mail address - one to AOL and one through Juno. Other than that I can't find any reference to her online and certainly no other references that she even exists.
Fake Nuns
Here's a real live nun happy nun who blogs regularly. Stop by an visitSister Edith!
Also see our archives for more nunsense!
The Former Nun
Nun Revelations Revealed
Nun Blogs
Just Another Urban Legend
More Young Women Entering the Convent
Former Priests and Nuns
Life of a Good Nun
I think I'm also linking this in the side bar since this seems to be one of the favorite fallacies of the anti-Catholic, lady homemaking blogosphere.
Fake Nuns
Here's a real live nun happy nun who blogs regularly. Stop by an visitSister Edith!
Also see our archives for more nunsense!
The Former Nun
Nun Revelations Revealed
Nun Blogs
Just Another Urban Legend
More Young Women Entering the Convent
Former Priests and Nuns
Life of a Good Nun
I think I'm also linking this in the side bar since this seems to be one of the favorite fallacies of the anti-Catholic, lady homemaking blogosphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)