Pages

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Is Amy the New Candy?

You can read Amy's (Blessed Motherood) latest at the link below.

I'll do her a favor and send a little traffic that way for now, but I'm not going to pursue it because her traffic doesn't warrant it.


Blessed Motherhood: Be Not Deceived

Just to recap, last week she posted a piece comparing the Catholic church to Nazi Germany and now this.

38 comments:

Me said...

Mrs. K. here: Amy hasn't blogged anywhere NEAR the title of her blog for ages. She's not about children and the home. The two are not fulfilling to her (not a put down; merely a long time observation). She's no interest in sharing how God speaks TO HER through HER FOSTER CHILDREN...you know...the way He will humble and bless us moms through them. She mentions her family to complain, mostly. Her blog is pointedly "political" and the amounts of "sermons" she gives is exhaustive. This is the true desire of Amy. To PREACH. She'll throw any match on any possible 'fire' to do so. I wouldn't keep this post up...it's what she'd want.

Me said...

er...that should read "humble and bless us moms through our kids"...!

Faithful Catholic said...

Do any of you all recognize "all" of those quotes Amy has attributed to the Blessed Mother? I am wondering what is her source. I haven't studied Marian apparitions in any depth whatsoever but, some of the quotes she uses look to me like they might not be accurate or might be taken quite out of context. Any suggestions of websites I might use to research the specific quotes?

Do you think that Amy is under the impression that Marian apparitions and statements made thereof have become "scripture" to the Catholic Church? I keep reading things at various places about the Catholic Church trying to say Mary has been elevated to the level of the Divine. What's up with that?

Does anyone else feel this whole issue has become too tiresome to even bother to read about?

Kelly said...

Most of those quotes seem to be from Medjugorje, which is currently unapproved, and tends to be out of the normal pattern of apparitions, though I understand that many people have a strong devotion to it.

motherofmany said...

Faithful Catholic- I had thought by your previous posts that you were capable of respectful discussion, but you have since made me doubt that hope very much. All of the quotes are within the article linked with their sources cited, which you obviously didin't read. Also, I stated that it is not doctrine, but you obviously didn't read that either. You are so afraid, that your instantaneous reaction is to lash out when you don't even know what I am actually talking about.

Mrs. K- I am afraid you have fallen into that same trap you mentioned you have trobule with of assuming you are able to see into someone's thoughts. If I had to give my own account of you, I would say the only thing I have ever heard you post on any blog is an attack on other non-Catholics. But again, I don't know what you are thinking when you write these things, so I will never put up a post that says Mrs. K only likes to tear down fundamentalist doctrines because she wishes to live rebelliously to the Word.

I have also been asked by a contributor here to post my thoughts on the books she sent me at my blog as part of an ongoing (RESPECTFUL) parallel study, and in one of those books the ideaology of Protestants turning to Marian veneration is discussed in great detail as though it were the norm in non-Catholic churches. So I started to look and found this information which fit into the study we are doing on prophesy.

And, no, it is not my desire to have my posts put up here when they are goping to be misrepresented. Saying I am crazy but not popular enough to debate what I wrote is simply an ad homined. And I have lost interest in the discussion of this blog (which I was really starting to enjoy because people were being honest and considerate) because Elena has reverted back to attacking anything Candy says, regardless of whether it has anything to do with Catholicism or not. Her own 'people' have called her on it. I did not see anything in Candy's book that said that homebirth was the only way to have a Christian birth, nor did I see anything wreckless like telling all women that it was a matter of faith. She clearly stated that the reason she called it Christian is because many of the writings she found were humanistic. I would have to agree. I have read homebirth stories of women who found intercourse the most enjoyable in the midst of labor. I would not say thiat is something a Christian would share. Another point is that we are to gain our strength from God, no matter where we deliver our children. As a Christuian, EVERY THING WE DO ought to be different from the world's way. Even if it looks identical on the outside, the inside should be 100% different. But since I cannot find the fault in her words, I will be called one of her minions or part of her cult instead fo a woman who has a brain of her own and just cannot see the malice in the words.

Also, if you had been reading, I have posted about my kids many times lately. But you either don't read that, or you lose interest because there is nothing to fan your flame of contention. And I stated before that many of the things I write are either what we are studying together, or are the means by which I gain the Lord's wisdom in this journey. As a Christian, my point of reference for anythign is the Bible and understanding how it applies to current events, so what kind of a 'Christian' blog would fail to include truths gleaned from the scriptures?

And I currently have no foster children, so writing about that would have to be in the past tense or wait until we are in that situation again.

Elena- I noticed every time you need something to throw at someone and you just can't find it, you bring up blog traffic. You said you would 'give me' traffic before, as if that were why I felt so strongly about things, and yet there was no difference. You also look up your opponent's visit counter (rock star mommy?) and use that number as a reason why your argument is superior. Then I stated you were showing up on my tracker an awful lot in one day to say that you hadn't thought of me in months, and you claimed I was grasping for straws to make a point. You can do it but I can't? You are so hypocritical that you can't even see it- or maybe you can and you have gotten very good at denying it. If I have so little traffic that it is not worth your bother, why bother saying anything at all? If you are going to post something about how crazy what I posted was, why not tell people why? I don't think you can. You said you were going to leave Kelly to discuss things with me, but when she refused to rip apart anything I said, you jumped right back at it with your 'traffic cop' tactics.

I have made it no secret that I will call out what I believe to be false teachings, and the idea of Mary appearing in the clouds instead of Christ is one of them. I have also not concentrated solely on the Catholic church. I have in fact pointed out many things in Protestant denominations that are scary to me. You only remember the Catholic items because they seem personal to you.

I received an email from someone who happened upon your blog and felt it was wrong for anyone to say another's teachings were not scriptural. She wrote to confront me about what I said because she thought it was wrong, yet she decided to write it privately first as the Bible commands. After some correspondence, she realized that I was basing my opinion on the scriptures and not my own thinking, and also learned some things about the Catholic church from your posts that she never knew, and that made her realize that the two faiths are not compatable from a Biblical stand. You can get angry at that if you wish, but as you stated before, sola scriptura makes no sense to you and it is the only thing that makes sense to me, and that is too broad a chasm to cross and call us united. I have heard from others along the same lines, but as non-Catholics they had to agree that the Bible teaches against such things. So you can throw all the traffic numbers at me you wish- I was able to open the eyes of a few other people through your personal attacks, so it doesn't bother me.

And I noticed that when we had a great, respectful and meaty discussion going about the sola scriptura doctrine and why fundamentalism and evangelicalism are different, you shut it down with 'this was not the purpose of this blog'. Did it make you that mad to see Erika and Kelly and others able to discuss things with me without having to resort to personal attack? Because if your whole reasoning was that this blog is about correcting misconceptions about Catholicism, WHY are you discussing a homebirth e-book and 'mental gossip'? You have a great deal of influence here and there was some real learning and connecting going on, and you just had to go back and find someting, anything, from Candy's blog to tear apart.

motherofmany said...

PS- You forgot to post links to the articles I have put up recently which stated that the Catholic church and the Pope are not the Anti-Christ and that Rome is not the prophesied Babylon of the last days.

If you want to give people a portrayal of me, at least be fair and accurate.

Elena said...

Look Amy, most bloggers LIKE getting traffic. I've lobbed some attention to your blog here and on MDC. You're welcome. What you make of the extra viewers is up to you.

I'm not interested in pursuing every anti-Catholic rabbit hole you want to go down, but maybe some others will.

Faithful Catholic said...

Amy,

I clicked your link and discovered your source and skimmed the article quickly to determine what was the author's thesis. Like most everything I've read on that particular site, it is, however subtly, anti-Catholic. I would not rely on all the sources the author of the article used either. And, you chose it for your source because. . . . .?
I've said before and I'll say again, rather than lean on the work of non-Catholics for useful or valid information about the Catholic Church or Catholic doctrine or Catholic Tradition (big T) or Catholic traditions (little t), why not go to good, solid Catholic sites? Nobody ever answers that question and I wonder why? It's not like it's hard to find reliable information on Catholicism.
Yes, I did note that you stated that Marian apparitions are not "doctrine" (which begs the question why bother with that post anyway if you are already clear that it is not something that we believe to be doctrine?) but, then you turned right around in your response to a comment and used quotes (from where?) about the pope creating a holy day. What is a "holy day?" What does that mean to you?
All that aside, do you really and truly believe that Mary, in her appearances is trying to lead anyone to believe that she is or has become on the same level as God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Do you really believe that any Catholics actually believe that Mary has come to say that she, not God, will appear at the Second Coming? She is venerated by Catholics. She is not worshipped by Catholics. We are quite clear that she IS NOT GOD!
My issue with posts like yours and similar posts of others is that you all seem hell-bent on convincing others that Catholics believe that Mary is or will become Jesus Christ our Lord. And, you use the flimsiest of arguments to try to support your incredibly far-fetched suppositions. Those quotes you used do not in any way negate or diminish or substitute for the scriptures to which you have juxtaposed them.

Your methods, while you may not realize it, are quite transparent to a Catholic who has been subject to the blatant, dishonest bashing of our doctrine, our beliefs, our faith and yes, our claim to be Christian by other non-Catholic Christians for the past many centuries. What you refuse to admit but, cannot legitimately deny, is that all of Christianity is beholden to the Catholic Church which has been, is now and ever shall be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by none other than Jesus Christ, Himself.
So, no, Amy, I fear not! And, I will "Be Not Deceived!" I know what the Bible says. I know that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her and that He will be with us until the end of time. And that is straight out of the Good Book!

I would ask you to consider for a while what is your true intention of that post? If you honestly believe that those parallels can be drawn and have led anyone to conclude that the Blessed Mother will appear at the Second Coming in the place of Jesus Christ, I'd like you to name them or even just one of them. I'd like to meet such a person.

Here's another question for you. Why is it so important for you all to try to "debunk" Catholicism? If you are happy with your own faith, your own religion, your own beliefs, have at it. I am not criticizing your beliefs. In fact, I don't even know what your beliefs are. If I wanted or needed to know, I can assure you, I'd ask you rather than rely on the writings or opinions of Catholics as Catholics, quite obviously, don't share all of your beliefs, so they could not be considered a reliable source. Catholicism is complicated. I've been Catholic since the day I was conceived. I'm older than the hills and there's still lots to learn. It's important to choose sources wisely so as not to be led astray. The devil is talented but, I dare say that even he could not corrupt the magisterium of the Catholic Church because I have HIS WORD on that.

Amy, I am sorry that you now feel I am incapable of "respectful discussion." And, I will consider this, as you may well be right in this case. Two of my many faults are that I tend to be impatient in the extreme and sometimes have a sarcastic or even acerbic tone. However, do you really feel that your post on this issue is respectful of Catholics? What was your true intent with that post?

If I have offended you, please forgive me. It was not my intent. I would like nothing better than to discuss my religion with you and help you understand what we really believe as Catholics and why. You are always free to disagree. Please don't believe all you read about Catholicism from sources which are so obviously biased, misinformed and/or intentionally misrepresenting our doctrine. Recognize also that non-Catholic Christian denominations necessarily must attack the teachings of the Church in order to justify their very existence.

"HE will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and HIS kingdom will have no end."

May the love and peace of our Lord, Jesus Christ be with you now and always.

Me said...

Mrs. K. here: Gee Amy...why so mum? LOL!!!

Elena said...

I've got a bit more time now to address some of Amy's charges:

You also look up your opponent's visit counter (rock star mommy?) and use that number as a reason why your argument is superior.

As I recall RSM was arguing that Michee Duggar's uterus must need a wheel chair of its own to get around because she had been through 17 pregnancies. I called her on it. She was wrong, cruel mean and childish regardless of how many readers she has.



You can do it but I can't? You are so hypocritical that you can't even see it-

Yea, maybe. Sometimes it takes an objective (which doesn't mean hostile) outsider to point out flaws we can't see in ourselves. Nonetheless I note 99.9% of your comments remain up here. Neither you or CB can say the same. I think that says something.


If you are going to post something about how crazy what I posted was, why not tell people why?

I checked for this several times, but where did I use the term "crazy?"

I don't think you can. You said you were going to leave Kelly to discuss things with me, but when she refused to rip apart anything I said, you jumped right back at it with your 'traffic cop' tactics.

For the record I think Kelly does a great job. Her articles are interesting and her comments are always well thought out and worth the read.

All of the bloggers here are also moderators.

but as you stated before, sola scriptura makes no sense to you and it is the only thing that makes sense to me, and that is too broad a chasm to cross and call us united.

As far as you and I go Amy, I absolutely agree.

Nonetheless I enjoy wonderful relationships with other non-Catholic Christians including my girlfriend of 30 some years, and all of my maternal grandfather's relatives. Regardless of sola scriptura or magesterial doctrines, we can laugh, pray and break bread together.

And I noticed that when we had a great, respectful and meaty discussion going about the sola scriptura doctrine and why fundamentalism and evangelicalism are different, you shut it down with 'this was not the purpose of this blog'.

Comments are open on all of the postings. I have used my position of moderator to try to keep discussions on topic, but no one has been banned or deleted and all topics as far as I am aware are still open.

Did it make you that mad to see Erika and Kelly and others able to discuss things with me without having to resort to personal attack?

Nope. That's why I invited those ladies to join me as co-bloggers.


WHY are you discussing a homebirth e-book and 'mental gossip'?

I'm all about the boycott. Candy could write an e-book on cupcakes and I would discuss that as well.

The "mental gossip" whatever that is, I took as a poke at this blog and I responded to it. Others agreed.


you just had to go back and find someting, anything, from Candy's blog to tear apart.

Nonesense. I said nothing about some of her fashion choices!

Mrs. K. said...

you just had to go back and find someting, anything, from Candy's blog to tear apart.

Nonesense. I said nothing about some of her fashion choices!

*I wet myself.

motherofmany said...

I do vehemently deny that the Catholic Church is necessary for the very existence of other churches. I don't believe I have side stepped that statement ever. So I guess your pointing to the writing of the church founders as proof is to me what pointing to the scriptures is to you.

Also, Kelly posted that she does not believe in the apparitions and their message, so it was not an attempt to define Catholic beliefs. It is, however, a point again as to why allowing a man to determine God's will for you is dangerous, as the Pope has not declared the teachings to be wrong. He has, in fact, made a holy day (and yes, I understand it is not a high holy day) but how many people will believe whatever the pope says because he is the pope? My question is simpy this- if they are not to be adhered to as true, why would he celebrate them? Seriously. That is not a rhetorical question, it is a genuine one.

Like Candy, I believe there are those who can be saved from within any church and those who are lost in every denomination. It is not about a title. The reason I worry so much about Catholicism is that there is too much relying on man- man passed down a diffetrent tradition than what we have in the Bible, man determines the will of God for people even when the Bible says we can ask Him for wisdom and come to him freely, and when you depend on a man whose's teachings are considered inafallible, you run a very big risk of people buying into something false. There are a lot more sites that have the same information on them, including sites written by Catholics. I chose this because it had everything pretty well together and was concise. And the Vatican home page has many of these things IF you know what you are looking for. Just to go and read and try to make heads or tails of it is exhausting. But I see no problem with taking what someone else has posted and checking it against the information on that page (all the numbers get confusing). It is still verification from the church. And the sources the author cites on the page I linked can be traced back. I am a student: I am careful that something that is said to come from another source actually does.

Doctrine or not, I believe false beliefs are dangerous. If your neighbors believed the only way to get rid of mice was to pour gasiline in their floors, you would worry. Not only for them, but for yourself and the ones you love. As a mother, I want to both expose my children to as much learning as posssible and train them at the same time to determine if something is false. And comparing it only to the teachings of a particular church is not enough.

Do you really believe there is not a single person in the Catholic church with heretical beliefs? What about the priest who crucified a nun because she was possessed? Or the men who use their position to abuse women and children? Yeah, I know you don't want that to be what defines the church, but it is still a reality. So if you do not hold to these teachings, why are you arguing with me instead of saying "Yes, they are false, and most Catholics do not believe them."? And the article is accurate in the claim that there was a petition of Rome to officially give Mary the papal definition of all 5 titles, which was part of the claim of the apparition in Amesterdam. See:

http://www.ladyofallnations.org/akita.htm

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php/General-Mariology/Mary-Co-redemptrix-A-Dogmatic-Crowning-for-the-Queen.html

Annie C said...

OK, it may be off topic, but I just have to point out that I have yet to have anyone even suggest taking me up on my offer. The one I made in the comments here, under Catholic Mass on 9/30. It's a sincere offer, I'm willing to put my time in. If there is a large group out there who is sincerely trying to convert Catholics and not just bash them, and honestly belives reading an approved Bible will do the trick, well, here I am.

Anyone?

Faithful Catholic said...

Amy,

I'm glad you're back. Give me a minute to pull this telephone pole out of my eye and I'll respond to what you've written. I need to be able to do it with love so, I'll reread, consider, take a deep breath, say a quick prayer and wade back in.

Kelly said...

Also, Kelly posted that she does not believe in the apparitions and their message, so it was not an attempt to define Catholic beliefs.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that I didn't believe in them, but that I didn't follow them. I mean that I'm not a person, such as you will sometimes find, who spends a lot of time and effort tracking down that latest apparition and trying to figure out when the end of the earth will be.

I believe that many of the apparitions are true, but I am not familiar with more than the most famous ones, such as Guadalupe, Lourdes, or Fatima. I am currently reserving judgement on Medjugorje.

Faithful Catholic said...

Amy,

It's easier for me to respond coherently if I do it this way. I'll post what you've written and then I'll respond to that part, and so on. I don't know how to make your statements appear in italics so I'll use quotation marks.

You said,
"I do vehemently deny that the Catholic Church is necessary for the very existence of other churches. I don't believe I have side stepped that statement ever. So I guess your pointing to the writing of the church founders as proof is to me what pointing to the scriptures is to you."

When I say other Christians are beholden to Catholics, I mean that the Catholic Church is responsible for the compilation, if you will, of the Bible. There is no disputing that fact. Protestants have changed the Bible by removing books which they later reincorporated. Protestant translations are somewhat different.

When I said that non-Catholics necessarily must attack the teachings of the Catholic Church to justify their very existence, what I mean is that, if non-Catholics agreed that Catholic doctrine is infallible, that it contains the fullness of Truth, they could not justify not being Catholic. If you can believe that written Scripture is the inspired Word of God, why is it then such a leap to believe that He also has inspired Sacred Tradition? When you refer to me pointing to Church founders being like you pointing to Scripture, I have to disagree. Here's why: THE Founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. He established His Church. Many will debate that His Church is not really the Catholic Church but, I will respond with the four marks of His Church as He founded it: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. No other church can make the claim that it contains all four of these marks. Many say that because the word "pope" doesn't appear in the Bible, that Jesus Christ never intended for there to be a "pope." To this I respond that, Jesus Christ spoke of bishops, priests and deacons. He was, in fact, the first Catholic Priest. He appointed Peter as the first bishop of Rome. He gave His chosen apostles the power to bind and loose on earth. He ordained them with the power of the Holy Spirit. He instructed them to spread His teachings. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. He did that for a reason. Without this "heirarchy" who are inspired by the Holy Spirit, His teachings could not be handed on in tact. He trusted them to hand on His Word through oral tradition before He inspired the writers to commit written scripture to paper. Peter, the first "Bishop of Rome" was the predecessor of our current Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI. He is the current Bishop of Rome. He can trace his lineage all the way back in an unbroken line to Peter. Jesus wasn't kidding when He told Peter to "feed my sheep", "tend my sheep." He instituted a process by which future bishops, priests and deacons would be ordained in succession to ensure that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit remained intact when it comes to instructing the faithful on the doctrine of the Church. We have Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which go hand in hand. Sacred Tradition IS NOT man-made. Sacred Tradition is inspired by God just as is Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition is necessary to understanding the full meaning and truth of the Scripture. The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Pope in teaching the doctrine of the faith. That is what we mean when we say that the Pope, in matters of faith and morals, is infallible. It's not because we believe he is perfect or infallible but that he is inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach Truth in that regard. It is not due to anything about his human person but due to God, in the Holy Spirit, inspiring him to "feed my sheep" and "tend my sheep."

You said,
"Also, Kelly posted that she does not believe in the apparitions and their message, so it was not an attempt to define Catholic beliefs. It is, however, a point again as to why allowing a man to determine God's will for you is dangerous, as the Pope has not declared the teachings to be wrong. He has, in fact, made a holy day (and yes, I understand it is not a high holy day) but how many people will believe whatever the pope says because he is the pope? My question is simpy this- if they are not to be adhered to as true, why would he celebrate them? Seriously. That is not a rhetorical question, it is a genuine one."

Okay, I understand you weren't attempting to define Catholic beliefs with your post. And, I agree with you that "allowing a man to define God's will for you is dangerous." Understand that, as I stated above, Catholics do not believe that the pope or the other bishops or priests or deacons are defining God's will for us but, rather, that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Pope and creating the condition of infallibility with specific regard to teaching on faith and morals. That is how Jesus handed it down to Peter, that is how it continues to be made manifest to this day, and that is how it will continue to be. The Pope is only "infallible" in matters of faith and morals. In all other things, he is human, just as are we all. And, maybe you used a word you didn't intend but, again, some of the apparitions have been approved and incorporated and others have not. And, there have been quite strident statements by Pope's regarding apparitions that were not found to be approved with regard to the faithful's acceptance of such claims of witnesses. When claims of these apparitions are made, there is a process that the Church goes through to determine whether or not a claim bears investigation, and from there, may or may not eventually be investigated and a determination made as to the credibility, shall we say, of the claim. There are many, many Catholics, and people of other faiths as well who are all too willing to jump on the bandwagon before such claims have been investigated. In those instances, yes, the Pope can and has cautioned against jumping to conclusions. As an example, you might have read recently about the group of nuns in Arizona, I believe it was Arizona, who have been excommunicated by their bishop for persisting in their claims that their mother superior is in some way "channeling" the Virgin Mary. It's not often that people are publicly excommunicated. There's a reason for that as well. There is always the hope that the person or people will listen to and reflect upon the words of their bishop who is responsible for their teaching and formation and thus, their souls. When people fail to heed or persist in their actions or behaviors, they are sometimes excommunicated publicly. So, I guess one way of summing this part up is to say that, while the Church is very clear on the teachings, the doctrine, there will always be things that happen that require study, reflection, investigation. The Pope or a bishop may allow things to go pretty far before determining that enough is enough and that continuing to pursue certain lines of thinking could or will come to no good end. Before allowing such a situation to negatively impact the faithful, we trust that the bishops will step in and lead.

Many people will believe whatever the Pope says. This is not necessarily a bad thing, depending, of course, on what the Pope says. If he is speaking ex cathedra, you bet I'm going to believe what he says because it's being inspired by God. Other things, maybe not. It is undeniable that the Catholic Church has had some "bad" popes but, we trust that in the things that matter most, even the "bad" ones are inspired by the Holy Spirit and cannot therefore teach in error or contradiction of the teachings of Christ. Catholics who are well catechized will recognize when a pope is acting, not teaching but acting as his human self, in contradiction to doctrine. Believe you me, there have been many times, particularly in the aftermath of Vatican II, when I have wondered what was the Pope thinking, what were those bishops thinking. But, on further research, I've discovered that, it was I who was in error, who made assumptions, who was acting on my own feeling or understanding without regard to the actual teaching or doctrine. So, I believe that I can honestly say that, in my lifetime, there have not been any major, lasting concerns that I have not been able to overcome by simply becoming more educated on the facts of the matter and the teaching as it relates to the matter. I, being very hard headed, have had difficulty with "authority" on a number of occasions in my life. That said, I thank God daily for investing our heirarchy with the authority necessary to educate me and all Catholics. It's ever increasingly clear to me how magnificent His plan for His Church is.

You said,
"Like Candy, I believe there are those who can be saved from within any church and those who are lost in every denomination."

I agree with this. I will go farther and state that I don't believe that one can be assured of one's salvation until one is actually entering into the house of his Master. Here, I'll take the opportunity to say that this summer the Pope reiterated that there are other Christian churches who have the means to salvation although they do not posess the fullness of the Truth. It is not lost on me how that comes across to non-Catholics. I would not like to hear it if I were a non-Catholic, however, I believe it to be true for the reasons I stated earlier.

You said,
"It is not about a title. The reason I worry so much about Catholicism is that there is too much relying on man- man passed down a diffetrent tradition than what we have in the Bible, man determines the will of God for people even when the Bible says we can ask Him for wisdom and come to him freely, and when you depend on a man whose's teachings are considered inafallible, you run a very big risk of people buying into something false."

I respond, again, we don't believe our Tradition is man-made but, God inspired. And, we do go straight to Him for wisdom and to seek His will for us in our lives. We ask Him for the ability to comprehend his teachings and live them. We ask for His Divine Mercy, Grace and Love, we thank Him for His Sacrifice for our salvation.

You said,
"There are a lot more sites that have the same information on them, including sites written by Catholics. I chose this because it had everything pretty well together and was concise. And the Vatican home page has many of these things IF you know what you are looking for. Just to go and read and try to make heads or tails of it is exhausting. But I see no problem with taking what someone else has posted and checking it against the information on that page (all the numbers get confusing). It is still verification from the church. And the sources the author cites on the page I linked can be traced back. I am a student: I am careful that something that is said to come from another source actually does."

To this I say again, Catholic teaching is best learned from Catholics who are faithful to the magisterium. Yes, there are Catholics who present information that is contrary to doctrine. Yes, there are Catholics who like to define or interpret doctrine to meet their own needs. So, even when you are reading or researching from what appears to be a Catholic site, author, etc. you still need to be very careful. There are many Catholics, and I am among them, who have read things written by Catholics that, at first read, might seem credible in terms of being in line with our doctrine. I have learned to be very circumspect with regard to these sources or resources. "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are good indicators that what you are reading is "kosher." Of course, I don't believe it would ever be possible for those two designations to be used on the internet as anyone can publish anything at any time with out the approval of anyone else. And, yes, I know well that it is difficult, to say the least, to navigate the Vatican website. One must really know what one is looking for in order to find it useful. That can be quite difficult for non-Catholics. However, Amy, if you would like, I can suggest several sites which I find to be very credible in what the present as authentically Catholic. My point was that I often see people use, almost exclusively, Protestant websites as sources, and, more often than not, when read with a critical eye, it is quite obvious what their intent is. It is quite possible that you have been unaware of this. I would not lie to you about this issue. It is quite disturbing to me the volume of vitriol that is published about the Catholic Church that is patently untrue. And, that is very dangerous indeed. So, I rarely ever pass up the opportunity to point that out when I come across these sites and authors used as sources. I apologize to you for assuming that you were aware of this situation. You may have legitimately believed that all that you have read on sites such as these is absolutely true. I promise you that it is not. It is true that one can find multiple sources that say the same things about Catholicism. That does not validate any of the sites as accurate. It's a case of "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth" or words to that effect. I can't remember the direct quote but, I think you understand what I'm saying. So, if you truly want to understand the doctrine, and truly want to contrast and compare our beliefs with yours, please make sure that you are basing your comparisions on truths. When time permits, I will return to that site and read it again, paying careful attention to the author's use of quotes and his sources. That's only fair to you.

You said,
"Doctrine or not, I believe false beliefs are dangerous. If your neighbors believed the only way to get rid of mice was to pour gasiline in their floors, you would worry. Not only for them, but for yourself and the ones you love. As a mother, I want to both expose my children to as much learning as posssible and train them at the same time to determine if something is false. And comparing it only to the teachings of a particular church is not enough."

Well, I can certainly understand that. Amy, I will tell you in all honesty and candor, without meaning any criticism or ugliness at all, that there are many days when I think about the differences in the beliefs of Catholics and other Christians, and for the life of me, I cannot understand how any Christian, who fully understood the doctrine of the Catholic Church, could not believe it and embrace it with all their being. That is just how strongly I feel about it and how absolutely convinced I am that it is the one true church. You may feel the same way about the church with which you are affiliated. Another thing I truly do not understand is how people cannot seem to see and question how we ended up with all these different Christian denominations. I don't believe I could ever be convinced that what we have now, in terms of sheer numbers of Christian denominations, is what Jesus Christ intends for us who claim Him as our savior. Does it not make perfect sense that He created His Church in order for us all to be one in Christ? Are we really one body when there exists among and between us all so much divisiveness and enmity? Can you even imagine the wonders that would occur if we were truly one body?

You said,
"Do you really believe there is not a single person in the Catholic church with heretical beliefs? What about the priest who crucified a nun because she was possessed? Or the men who use their position to abuse women and children? Yeah, I know you don't want that to be what defines the church, but it is still a reality. So if you do not hold to these teachings, why are you arguing with me instead of saying "Yes, they are false, and most Catholics do not believe them."? And the article is accurate in the claim that there was a petition of Rome to officially give Mary the papal definition of all 5 titles, which was part of the claim of the apparition in Amesterdam. See:

http://www.ladyofallnations.org/akita.htm

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php/General-Mariology/Mary-Co-redemptrix-A-Dogmatic-Crowning-for-the-Queen.html"

No, I don't claim that there are no Catholics who hold to heretical beliefs. They exist. Yes, the Church has it's share of scandal. Yes, the Church has it's share of heretics, always has, always will. Why? Because the Church is made up of human beings, all of whom are sinners. However, you cannot judge the soundness of the doctrine by the actions of the humans who claim to know and understand the doctrine. It is quite clear that there are groups who are in scism with the Church who persist in their assertions and actions, whatever they may be. They are wrong, not the doctrine. And, of course, the recent scandals regarding the sexual abuse of children and others by priests is abhorrent. And, where cover ups took place, these bishops were in error. But, understand that this behavior is so contrary to the doctrine which makes it all that much more difficult to believe that it could happen and continue unabated in some cases. It's very, very painful to most Catholics, I dare say. I know it's painful to me. My gut reaction to these types of issues is anger, rage even, then sadness, then eventually and ultimately trust in the Lord that He will not allow His Church to crumble at the hands of sinners who have fallen prey to the work of the devil. Sometimes, it takes me a long time to get there, I hate to admit. And, I believe I know what you are talking about the request that Mary be named co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix, I'm not sure which without looking it up again. At first I thought, who is this crazy guy starting all this? Then, I read that the Pope, before he was pope, had already voiced an opinion on this request or petition in the negative. Now, at first, I thought, holy cow, Mary cannot possibly be named co-redemptrix! Then, someone explained that my understanding of the term was not the same as the intention of the petitioner. I don't know that the Pope has addressed this issue as pope, as yet. I catch myself being concerned about it, what he'll say or decide, then, I remember that all I need to do is trust that the Holy Spirit will guide him and I will reserve judgement until such time as the Pope addresses the matter. Then, I will do everything within my power to understand whatever he says in the context of our doctrine. I haven't yet had a chance to look up the sites from the links you posted. I'll do it as soon as I get a chance, and I'll go back to the sources where I first read about this particular issue and get back to you so that what I'm saying might actually make sense to both of us.

It's late and I've got a very early, busy day tomorrow so, I'll shut up now.

God bless you, Amy. Thanks for not giving up on me or my ability to discuss this respectfully just yet. I appreciate that.

motherofmany said...

I really appreciate you reading what I said and answering it respectfully. I do believe it is possible for everyone to converse with one another in such a way (assuming they want to, because the pride is strong!).

We are getting ready to leave for appointments, but I will return to your posting later and give more of an answer. I did want to say really quickly, though, that what you said about there being heretics in every church and people who will abuse the position they are in simply because they are human is a lot of the thinking behind the ideas that 1) Christ was establishing a church that would not be a specific denomination but rather the embodiment of all who would love and follow truth. The fact that you can find 'dirt' on any denomination is what says clearly to me that Christ was not establishing a denomination. His church is the collection of those who truly believe on him and follow his commands. Otherwise, I can make no sense of the statement that the Catholic church is THE true church, but others can be saved, though they lack fullness of truth. And 2)why non-Catholics often reject the oral traditions, because so many times in the history of the church people have come out declaring to have new revelations. How do you determine whether what they are saying is true? I know you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the pope in his decrees, but the same can be said about others who have had revelations. What is the determining factor (aside from the declaration of the pope after the bishop's examine it, etc.) for what is true and what is not? Why then is Joseph Smith considered wrong? Or Marcion?

I believe God inspired the apostles with the information and the inspiration stopped there. What they gave us is what we need. Why would the truth be given in 'snippets' rather than all at once? I agree with the interpetation that God is not still inspiring teachings because he has given us all we need already, and Christ finished it. He was the completion of the law (word made flesh), he was the completion of the instruction for salvation, he was the completion of the will of God. He chose his followers to pass on the message (because it made no sense until after his death, which was the completion). I see verses that say we ought to obey the teachings of the leaders in our churches, but I do not see where they will either be given new revelations or where they are permitted to teach beyond what the Bible says.

More later!

Kelly said...

Do you really believe there is not a single person in the Catholic church with heretical beliefs? What about the priest who crucified a nun because she was possessed? Or the men who use their position to abuse women and children?

A heretic is someone who has not completely abandoned the Christian faith, but rejects some of the dogmas of the Church.

The priest who crucified a nun is someone we would call "crazy" whereas a priest who abuses someone could be called both a "sinner" or a "criminal." Whether or not they are also a heretic would depend on their theological beliefs.

But yes, there are heretics in the Catholic Church. This would include people such as nuns who are teaching classes in eastern spirituality, or Jesuit priests who say that the resurrection of Jesus was a metaphor.

I did want to say really quickly, though, that what you said about there being heretics in every church and people who will abuse the position they are in simply because they are human is a lot of the thinking behind the ideas that 1) Christ was establishing a church that would not be a specific denomination but rather the embodiment of all who would love and follow truth.

Would you say that the Bible is corrupt because it was written by sinners? The Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by God, and protected from errors, regardless of the problems with the mere people who write it.

In the same way, the Church, which is visible, is protected from error, although it is composed of individual sinners. As I've said before, the fact that the Church has never gone off course in matters of doctrine despite have a few spectacular sinners leading it, is in itself, a good argument for divine guidance.

so many times in the history of the church people have come out declaring to have new revelations. How do you determine whether what they are saying is true? I know you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the pope in his decrees, but the same can be said about others who have had revelations. What is the determining factor (aside from the declaration of the pope after the bishop's examine it, etc.) for what is true and what is not? Why then is Joseph Smith considered wrong? Or Marcion?

One of the reasons we have the Church is to address these new heresies. Marcion taught that Jesus only appeared to have a physical body, which was made up of elements taken from the physical world. How do you go about defending that heretical belief using scripture? Any time you point to verses which reference Jesus having a body, he will say "It only looked as if he had a body. It deceived everyone who saw him."

Marcion is also an interesting choice, as he has some points of belief in common with "Bible only" Christians. He also said that the Bible alone should be the sole authority, and he gave himself the authority to interpret it. He removed books with which he disagreed (as Bible Christians do the deuterocanonical books) and selectively translated others, as Luther did.

The Apostles Creed was formulated specifically to refute Marcion's teachings. I thought that you wrote that one can be a Christian and not adhere to the early creeds of the Church, so I'm not sure how you would rule Marcion out as a Christian.

I believe that Joseph Smith himself, used John 10:26 to point out that his new religion was Bible based. What do you use to determine who is right when both sides point to the Bible as their authority?

The Church judges by testing it against both Scripture and Tradition. When the Fathers of the Church speak in union, then they guide us in our interpretations. It is Tradition which tells us that Jesus was both fully human, including His body, and fully divine, including His nature.

These beliefs are not explicitly stated in Scripture.

Perplexity said...

Can I ask a question? Knowing it's going to come out snarky, but not intended so? I just can't think of any other way to ask.

WHY? all this battling among religions? I realize Candy Catholic bashes. But, to be honest, she bashes everything she doesn't agree with, and that is a lot. She has issues. She scares me; her "followers" scare me even more. But, beyond defending the Catholic faith against her false postings, why all the bashing?

I liked that someone stepped up and contradicted the Candy insanity. Left unchecked, people like that can cause a lot of damage. But it seems it has gone way beyond that.

I am not Catholic. My religious affiliation is actually non-existent. And, one of the reasons for that is the conviction that most religions believe they are the "only true religion"; in doing so they alienate a lot of people, me among them. In the process of believing you are of the one true religion, it seems so many people who say they live their lives in love end up doing just the opposite; bashing others for their beliefs, religious and otherwise.

I've always believed God loved me and created me to be me. He made me who I am, so why would I have to try to become someone else to please him? Someone who attends a particular church or practices a particular lifestyle? By the same token, he made all of you to be you - not a religious defender, or basher.

Like I said I am not trying to be nasty or snarky. Really, I'm just trying to understand all of this.

Faithful Catholic said...

Amy,

Before I forget what I was thinking, I want to say that the doctrine does not change. It has been made more clear but, it doesn't change, only our understanding of it changes. So, we could look at specific parts of the doctrine, explore where they come from (Jesus), why we believe it is doctrine, how our understanding of it has changed through time, etc. Now that would be an exciting study, do you think? Would you like to do that?

Faithful Catholic said...

Kelly,

I just want to say that I admire and appreciate your ability to say so succinctly yet comprehensively all that I am thinking. Excellent comment, your last.

motherofmany said...

Before I get lost in everything else, i wanted to answer the question posed by perplexity.

Do you believe that God created you to chose sin? Would God desire that part of you to be brought out as well? If God is truly just, which he tells us he is, he has to punish sins. Even in the people whom he loves. That is why we have his words that he chastises us out of love as a father would.

As for afficliations, I don't disagree with you, whihc I why I will refuse to claim an affiliation (though there are some 'descriptive terms' that could fit me). As one who believe in the bible as our sole guide, I have found no scriptural declaration that we must belong to any certain church. The scriptures say the way to be saved is simply to believe on (not just in as a mental belief, but on as a heart belief) Jesus for who he said he was and what he said he did. It really is a simple plan. Where it gets confusing, and where I worry about being led astray, is when you add to that requirement. That is why I have continued to write here. My desire to see everyone follow truth is my motivation.

There are times the discussion has gotten mean, and that is a shame, because when we get personal the whole popint is lost. Satan desires to blind people, and he uses our sinful nature to compell us to do his bidding by being rude, deceitful, and catty.

Maybe Candy is not your 'flavor'. But you will find the same kinds of information everywhere. When it is a matter of life and death (and spiritual life and death are eternal, so it is even MORE pertinent) people get passionate. If there is nothing more important than our eternal status, we cannot live without discussing it.

Annie C-
I don't remember reading your post, but then I also despaired for a while and left the discussions because it became about things that are not what the titkle of the blog claims to be. Although I had a heads-up that I was copied here again, so I had to defend my words, because I know it can be hard to tell if someone is really asking a question (which I was) or just being sarcastic.

I'm not sure what you mean about reading. The only thing I would count as authoritative would be the Bible, but again, you already have presuppositions about what it says because of what you have been taught. I had the same, going on what I was raised to believe it meant. I finally reached a point where I had to start over form scratch and read it for myself. Except for a few definitions, the Bible pretty much interprets the Bible. I finally bought a Bible with cross-refernces and it helped me understand so much more. And it was hard. It was very hard to break away from what people I really loved were still believing and doing, but I had come to love truth more.

The two big obstacles I see to this approach you are discussing are 1)that you have Tradition already instilled in you, which will color your interpretations, and 2)in order to understand it the way we see it, you have to take the Bible at its word.

I'm not sure what else I can offer, because I guess I'm not really sure what you are asking. If you are truly interested in seeing what the differences are, I would certainly be happy to discuss it further.

Elena said...

he uses our sinful nature to compell us to do his bidding by being rude, deceitful, and catty.

I hope you're taking your ownership of part of that Amy.

The title of this blog is Visits to Candyland. Originally it was a record of the comments I sent to Candy that she never published, since she no longer even receives the comments, I post them here.

It's mainly, about defending the Catholic faith, but we are also having some informative and educational pieces as well and Kelly and Erika have done a great job with that.

But it's also about giving some options to the e-books I advocate boycotting.


That all said, Amy watch the not-so-subtle digs and snarky comments. I am a patient person, but you've just about reached the end of it. This is your notice (which again is a courtesy neither you or CB ever granted).

Faithful Catholic said...

Perplexity,

I have an uncle who is a Franciscan priest. As a young child I heard him discussing with my parents a specific situation where he had been being harrassed in public because he had on a clerical collar. I could tell that this man, my uncle, who I loved dearly and respected as an adult relative but, also on another level as I was taught to respect all clergy and religious, was distressed at this experience. I could also tell that the people he was talking about didn't like him specifically because he was a priest. That was my first experience in trying to understand that there were people in the world who would judge another based on religious beliefs. I was fortunate enough to be raised in an area of the country where Catholics were many. I had friends and neighbors of all different faiths. I experienced no direct intolerance because of my beliefs. I was raised to respect and appreciate people of all different faiths.

As I got older, and especially after I moved, as an adult, to the South, the Bible Belt, I began to experience intolerance first hand. I became aware of just how prevalent Catholic bashing is. I've heard people say that it is the "last acceptable prejudice." I think there is some truth to that statement. Maybe, because I'm a Catholic and not a Protestant, I am unaware or less aware that other Christian denominations are bashed as well. I try not to bash back. I truly feel that everyone is entitled to practice their own religion or none at all, if that's what they choose.

In a discussion with my uncle, Father Vincent, as a teenager, I asked him how I was to defend my faith. He replied that I should not defend but rather explain it because, he said, it requires no defense, only sometimes it does require explanations offered in charity.

I agree with you that people can do significant damage, intentionally and unintentionally, when they make statements and accusations which are false. I've seen it happen time and time again. So, when I feel compelled and when I feel I have something to say that might be helpful, I say it.

Regarding Candy specifically, it's not just her website where she expresses her hatred toward Catholics. She has been around the net, so to speak, spewing it all over the place. Her behavior is very provocative in my opinion. I understand that she is absolutely free to say anything she chooses. I also understand that actions have consequences and a consequence of her actions is that she has taken some heat on some of these blog sites. As Elena has stated numerous times, this particular website would not even exist if Candy was mature enough and secure enouugh to let people who disagree with her respond to her posts. She doesn't. She unceremoniously bans people from her site simply because they question the veracity of her statements or offer an alternative opinion. Very provocative. When people behave in that way, they invite scrutiny. It is not unusual that people would question more than just her statements about her "understanding" or lack thereof of Catholicism. She is, in my opinion, a dangerous person in that what she says on that blog breeds hate and contempt. That is not a very Christian principle. If one sets oneself up as an authority on anything, one need be prepared for and open to question and debate. She is clearly neither prepared nor open to either. I guess what I'm really trying to say in a very roundabout way is that she reaps what she sows. It is very difficult for me to respect her, or her opinions because she cannot or will not reciprocate.

Have you ever read her blog? Really read it? Does it not strike you as odd that someone would devote so much time and energy to such a narcissistic endeavor? It truly is all about her. Of course it's operated under the guise of her offering information to others out of "Christian" love and support and experience but, really, is it necessary for her to post what she posts in the manner in which she posts it? There's no real teaching going on. It's all about what she thinks and what she does. Was it really necessary for her to take pictures of herself for an entire week to post on the internet to demonstrate what she feels is an appropriate way for a "Christian" woman to dress modestly? Once, I read her to say that she wasn't raised in a Christian home so she never really learned how to keep house. Now, I thought to myself, does she assume that non-Christians are all slobs living in filth? I mean no offense to those who offer this type of advice, especially from an organizational perspective as I am organizationally challenged but, housekeeping is not rocket science. I think those issues could be covered exhaustively in four or five pages. Well, maybe not by me because it's quite obvious that I am a rambler. Also, I was quite amused by her posts regarding ADHD! It is, of course, oh so controversial an issue, and, as such, it has become divisive. She offers opinions with no research or data to support them; simply her own suppositions. Yes, she's entitled to her opinions and I'm entitled to disagree with her opinions but, not on her site. That puts her in a position of never having to consider other opinions. Hmm, how nice would the world be if everyone agreed with me and admired me all the time? It says quite alot about her underlying feelings of contempt for and superiority over those in her target audience. She really has set herself up on a nice, high pedestal with many, many people. We all know what happens in those situations, don't we?

Does this sound harsh? Maybe so. What I keep thinking back to is this, I've read two accounts of two separate incidents where her parenting methods have been seriously questioned. One of those accounts she wrote and I read on her website. The other account I read here on this blog. I assume (which can be dangerous) that it was written by someone who read Candy's account of the incident on her own website. Maybe her posts about her parenting abilities are her effort to recover her own damaged self-esteem at having other adults question her fitness as a parent. Maybe she is trying to prove something to herself by trying to prove it to others. Overcompensation, plain and simple. I know what I'm talking about on this issue. I've worked in this particular field for a number of years. One incident could be considered an anomaly. Two incidents leads one to suspect that where there's smoke, there could quite possibly be fire. It's dangerous to set oneself up as an expert on anything without the credentialing to back up the claim. I sure would hate to see the "mother of the year" being hauled out of the awards banquet by the police accompanied by CPS.

Oh, that was a horrible thing to say, wasn't it? I'm not going to delete it. So I've sinned, and persisted in that sin. Really, I hope that Candy would read this blog and see the comments and recognize she has summarily dismissed several initially well-intentioned people, who attempted to offer her some accurate information, and attempted to ask her to reflect on what she was saying and why she was saying it and what would be the possible ramifications of her statements.

Pride goeth before the fall. For someone so concerned with modest dress, she certainly lacks humility in other areas.

Darn, that telephone pole just lodged in my eye again!

Here's my disclaimer: I am not perfect. I am a sinner. I don't consider myself an expert on any subject. I am also full of pride, lack humility, act uncharitably toward others. I'm not proud of these things. I accept them as the reality of my human nature.

Kelly said...

Have you ever read her blog? Really read it? Does it not strike you as odd that someone would devote so much time and energy to such a narcissistic endeavor?

I think you could say this about blogs in general, though. Isn't blogging all about thinking other people will find your opinions worthwhile? There are countless "mommy" blogs where people tell what they did each day, how they homeschool, what they made for supper, etc.

Posting pictures of how you dress for a week is also pretty common. Ladies Against Feminism has a set on their website, and a group of Catholic moms from the 4RealLearning Forum did the same thing.

I prefer that no one attack Candy personally, or speculate on things which we cannot substantiate, for example, that she is living a fantasy life through her blog while she really lives in squalor.

My interest is only in correcting the misinformation which she steadily disseminates from her blog.

I do think it's cool that you have a Franciscan priest for an uncle that actually wears a collar! The only uniform I've seen in Franciscans is Birkenstocks. ;)

Faithful Catholic said...

Kelly,

Yikes! Did it really sound as if I thought Candy was living a fantasy life in squalor??? That was not what I was thinking. What I meant to convey was that her comment struck me as odd and that she might think people who weren't Christian didn't know how to keep house. I'll have to reread my post. I guess it's clear that I type faster than I think.

You are right about the number of sites similar to Candy's. I've visited many. I don't think I've run across others with the same tone as hers though. Maybe it's me being overly-critical of her because of my feeling response to her behavior. I've not run into that reaction before (being banned) from anyone else. It sticks in my craw! I have debated and argued with some pretty heavy handed anti-Catholics on the internet at many different types of sites. I've never run into anyone who wasn't more than willing to debate the issues. In fact, I've actually made "friends" with several people who are almost fanatical in their opposition to Catholic doctrine. I have found that if you are willing to talk to someone long enough, and they're willing to talk to you, you can usually find some common ground.

And, I'm not opposed to the pictures idea. I like to see people's heads though.

Useful information is always well-received as needed.

Of course, I could just stop visiting her site but, alas, I haven't tired of it as yet. It's the imp on my shoulder, egging me on to my own destruction.

Regarding my uncle. He's very old now. He is of a generation of Franciscans who wore more typical clerical garb back in the day when they still wore cassocks. In fact, back then, it was more unusual to see them in black clericals with no cassock. No Birks back then either. Nowadays, I've not seen a Franciscan who wasn't wearing a brown or gray tunic with a hood (is that what you call it?)

motherofmany said...

Eactly what did I say that was snarky?

Faithful Catholic said...

Amy,

I reread your last two long posts and they have raised some topics for discussion, in my mind at least. I'd like to pursue a couple of your ideas and beliefs, if you're willing. Right now though, I have something else I've been procrastinating over that I must attend to for a while.

It occurs to me that if you read my second to last post to perplexity, you might change your mind again about whether or not I can be respectful. It reads not so nice. But, here's the difference, you are willing to talk about these things thus far. I can discuss with you and we can disagree. I can't do that with Candy because she won't allow it. I guess I'm actually angry about that and I'm not over it so, I said some things that were ugly even if true. That's not nice. I'm sorry. To this point, I think I've only written about what she had to say about Catholicism and now I've crossed a line into her other topics. That was probably not a good idea because obviously my opinion about her has generalized to her other opinions as well. It's too bad she won't discuss. She and I both could learn things.

motherofmany said...

As I stated before, we are all sinners. Your willingness to admit it and try to change it is what counts!

I too have some camping gear to get finished cleaning ans stowed away for winter, so no problem. Take your time on the answers.

Kelly said...

Yikes! Did it really sound as if I thought Candy was living a fantasy life in squalor???

No, not at all. I was trying to give my general aims for comments.
I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that you said that. I was just giving an example.

A while back, someone said that they thought Candy's life must be miserable, and she makes all this super-mom stuff up to make herself feel important. Or, someone made a lot out of her living in a mobile home. That sort of thing.

Perplexity said...

Have you ever read her blog? Really read it? Does it not strike you as odd that someone would devote so much time and energy to such a narcissistic endeavor? It truly is all about her.

Trust me, I get that part. Unfortunately, I have really read her blog. For some narcissistic reason I even read the archives at her old site. It took days upon days because I couldn't tolerate it for long but I was forming such an opinion of her that I thought to be fair I needed to know where she was coming from.

That's when she started terrifying me rather than just irritating me.

I just wondered why it had to go both ways. I guess, to a degree, I understand it. Maybe it's just because I am not religious and don't need to defend my faith, or anyone's? Maybe?

I did say, and still say, that I think the fact that someone has reacted to her (this blog being started) is a good thing. She attempts to pass herself off as an expert, on everything, when she generally proves herself the exact opposite every time she puts fingers to keyboard. If any single person who once trusted her can be shown what she really is then this blog will have served an amazing purpose.

I just get a little uncomfortable when defense turns to offense.

I seriously meant no disrespect to anyone. I'd just hate to see this blog go the way of Candy - full of self righteousness and prejudice. I know it is hard to keep emotions out of things, especially topics such as this.

I am rambling, just trying to explain that I wasn't tossing out bait or intentionally trying to get a rise out of anyone or make anyone defend anything.

Understanding is usually all I'm after. Ya' know?

Annie C said...

Amy-

Just to make it easy, I'll reword what I offered under the post on the Catholic Mass here.

In that post, it was asked or commented on that it seemed like the Sola Scriptura Christians must not have been paying attention during any Catholic masses they visited, because scripture is read, aloud, in the Mass, and the people are following along in their missals/missalettes. Based off of that observation, I asked a number of times, both here and on Candy's blog: Does it count as "worship" if you are not holding and reading from and actual, physical Bible?

I had one person on Candy's blog actually answer me, and she said no, it does not. I am admittedly too lazy to go look up the actual wording of her reply, but it was something along the lines of how reproducing quotes from a textbook in a magazine does not teach you medicine, so reproducing quotes from the Bible in a magazine does not facilitate worshiping God. At least that's how I understood it. Based on that, and on the persistent opinion that one cannot worship God without a Bible, and an authorized Bible at that, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is the new golden calf. I think that you ladies are actually worshiping a deity with leather binding and gilt edge pages and not the Lord.

So I have thrown down a challenge. I am a cradle Catholic, I spent 12 years in convent school. I broke away from the church after college and spent three years studying theology with the Unitarian Universalists, before sitting through the RCIA program with my husband and returning to the Catholic church with him upon his confirmation two years ago. I will however, put all that aside and try to see this from your point of view. I will spend a week, Monday to Sunday, studying the Bible. I'll put a list of the Bibles I have on hand (since I don't wish to spend my husband's money on this) at the end of this post and whoever wishes to take me up on it can pick one and point me to any Bible study on the web they want. I'll give it my level best to get through it, restart my blog, and document what I learn as I go in words and pictures. I will even take that Bible to mass, read from it during the service, and ask my Priest to take a picture holding it. Can't promise he'll do it, but I will ask.

If you honestly believe that real exposure to a real Bible will save a Catholic, here's your chance.

In return for this you will go without a Bible for the same week. No reading from it, no being read from it, no audiobooks, no bible study. If at all possible have someone else (your husband, a parent, another mother) go over Bible lessons with your children that week. (I don't have kids, if you can't I understand, but do give it a try) Otherwise, nothing. Don't even take it to your worship service that week. Spend a week worshiping the Lord, not the book. And as I will, blog how you feel and what you are thinking on the matter.

One week. Any takers? If someone does, I'll leave my email here and we can hammer out the details.

Bibles on hand:

KJV (the old/authorized one)
St. Joseph’s New American
New Jerusalem
New American Standard
NIV
NRSV
The Living Bible.

Kelly said...

I just get a little uncomfortable when defense turns to offense.

I seriously meant no disrespect to anyone. I'd just hate to see this blog go the way of Candy - full of self righteousness and prejudice. I know it is hard to keep emotions out of things, especially topics such as this.


You know, we are all ladies (as far as I know, we haven't had any men) who believe that there is an objective Truth. We disagree about that Truth. People can get very heated when they discuss dearly held beliefs.

I think that, for the most part, people have done a very good job here of having peaceful discussions.

Mary said...

I am sorry to comment-jack, but I am so mad. SO mad. Candy has a new post up, actually her husband does, I can't put my thoughts into words right now. Ugh.

Elena said...

Let's just say they're a good match and leave it at that.

Blondie said...

I'm a little late in this discussion, but would just like to point out a verse from scripture:

Matthew 23:1-3: "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'"

Same goes for the pope, whether or not his behavior is commendable.

Kelly said...

Great verse, Blondie!

motherofmany said...

Blondie,

As confusing as exegesis can get, I've been thinking I ought to post some of the real meanings of these words we have been goiong over and over in order to clarify the statements.

The verse you reference does not imply a ceremonial chair and authority to rule along with it. It is refernceing the task of leading the people by reading to them from the law, as Moses did. So he is saying to do what they tell you when they read in the synagogs, but do not follow their own lives because they add traditions to the teachings, and they are heartless hypocrits.

My lexiconic dictionary say the words used here 'Moses' chair' mean " LN 37.44 be authority on Law of Moses (Mt 23:2+), see 2756"

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK2767). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

And I find no verse that says we follow any man regardless of his conduct. What I find are verses that say follow the teachings you received from the apostles (ONE set of teachings, whether you received them orally or written) and that every man's teachings should be scrutinized by the scriptures. There are verses, in fact, that say overseers (bishops, whatever you call them) must meet certain criteria, including their moral character, and that if someone is not following the scriptures, we are to use church discipline to bring him back.

In fact, we have a line-up here of verses that Protestants read against the teachings of following any man's words that are not in the scriptures. To get a better understanding of the definitions, I'll post it from the Comlpete Hebrew Bible.

"Then Yeshua addressed the crowds and his talmidim: "The Torah-teachers and the P'rushim," he said, "sit in the seat of Moshe.
So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don't do what they do, because they talk but don't act! They tie heavy loads onto people's shoulders but won't lift a finger to help carry them.
Everything they do is done to be seen by others; for they make their t'fillin broad and their tzitziyot long, they love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues,
and they love being greeted deferentially in the marketplaces and being called `Rabbi.' "But you are not to let yourselves be called `Rabbi'; because you have one Rabbi, and you are all each other's brothers. And do not call anyone on earth `Father.' because you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to let yourselves be called `leaders,' because you have one Leader, and he is the Messiah! The greatest among you must be your servant,
for whoever promotes himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be promoted." Matthew 23:1-12

The translatoers here capitalized the word Father, and with good reason. In this instance it means "5. LN 87.48 father (title for adj. high ranking person), (Mt 23:9)".

Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.) (GGK4252). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So the Catholic claim that we can throw this verse out because people call their parent 'father' or their teachers 'teacher' doesn't stand up because we are speaking of different inflections. It clearly references calling someone Father as in a high ranking position of leadership, which is exactly what the pope is.