I just have a few quick thoughts on Candy Brauer's new e-book about birth and childcare, "Christian Homebirth and Happy Babies: How I Did It Ages pre-birth to 4."
1. I wish she had not put Christian in the title. I think that is going to be off putting to women who choose hospital birth, birth centers, or midwives at home. There is nothing in the scriptures to say those choices are wrong and in fact midwives are mentioned throughout the scriptures!
2. I think a couple has to be very prepared to do an unassisted birth, particularly the husband! If the baby needs help and the mom needs help too (like baby struggling to breathe and mom bleeding out) the husband will have to handle both of these things. Another set of hands would certainly be useful. I had a cord prolapse at home. My skilled birth professional found it. I am not sure Mr. Pete would have known what he was feeling if he had to do a vaginal exam on his own. I also witnessed a very scary shoulder dystocia at home with a midwife. The midwife worked for several minutes to free the baby and she almost died. Couples attempting an unassisted birth I'm sure are aware of these things, but living through them myself, I would never opt for an unassisted home birth.
3. Candy has some breastfeeding issues. In fact she stated that it repulsed her to nurse an older baby and that she stops nursing when the standard 6-month-old nursing strike stuff starts to happen. I'm concerned that this will influence young inexperienced moms to wean their babies early, or not even attempt to nurse at all. I notice that in Candy's preview, she makes no mention of breastfeeding.
4. I wonder if her chapter on the strong-swilled child will include her brush with CPS last spring as she deleted all of that from her blog. She could do her readers a big service by including it and also mentioning the protection and services of the Home School Legal Defense Association. I am a member because someone threatened my family a year ago. It's money well spent every month in my opinion.
5. Candy uses 100 Easy Lessons to Teach Your Child to Read at age 4. She does reading readiness at age 3. I used the very same book for all of my five reading children. Three of them took to it like fish to water. Two of them did not and in fact had problems that made it very difficult for them to learn to read. My oldest did not read until he was 12 and that was after we started taking him to a reading specialist.
Learning to read is like learning to walk, talk, potty training, riding a bike and every other skill. Some kids get it, some don't right a way and there has to be some allowances for the variants. The late Raymond Moore suggested "wait until eight" for little boys because he did not think they were developmentally ready to learn to read until then.
Also while I enjoyed 100 Easy Lessons around Lesson 50 it starts to move a little too fast. None of my kids have finished that book. I usually put them into Pathway readers around that time. Those are delightful stories about kids in universal situations. My kids loved them. The new/old Dick and Jane books are a delight too!
Well that's it for me today. I am taking my cord-prolapse, 8-year-old daughter to an eyes pecialist today because she is a struggling reader. (she only made it to lesson 25 in 100 Easy Lessons. After that she will need to see the reading specialist again. Back later tonight.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Catholic Mass
Candy wrote here in one of her famous Q and A's:
Q Have you ever attended a Catholic mass?
A Yes. It was so sad and gut wrenching that it almost brought me to tears. I was the only one attending, that I could see, that brought a Bible, and even bothered looking up scriptures. The Bible ignorance in that crowd was astounding me as well. Most of them don't seem to read their Bible, they just follow what "the church" teaches them. Everyone there looked to me like they were wearing masks with no eyes. :-( I suspect that there might have been more true reverence (as opposed to ritual) in a black mass (however they'd be worshiping the wrong guy, of course). I also found it quite disturbing how everyone was basically handed a "script" as they walked in the door. - Kneel at this time, say this with the congregation at this time, sing this at that time, kneel again at this time, say such and such prayer at that time, repeat this phrase three times, etc. Where is the worship of God in that? No, I'd much prefer to follow the worship manual - The Bible.
I never had the opportunity to comment to this on Candy's blog and that was one of the main reasons I started the boycott of her e-book product(s).
So I'd like to take the opportunity here.
First of all, if you look over on the sidebar you will see a little box that says Catholic Content.com. This site gives all of the readings for the day that will be read at mass all over the world. (I might add also not in just Catholic churches but Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian etc.) So Catholics know what the readings are going to be at mass before we even attend. My family and I can prepare for mass by reading the readings ahead of time so that we are better prepared when we attend mass. I find that this works particularly well for school aged children so that they have a chance to really concentrate when they get to church.
Today's readings were from the book of Amos, 1 Timothy and the Gospel of Luke. If one were to carefully read these scriptures, I'm sure the central theme would come out.
Because the church knows years in advance what readings are going to be read, companies pre-print out missalettes for the worshipers to use when reading along with the lector or the priest. Some folks buy mass missals that also have the readings for that day's mass.
So although I suppose someone could bring a bible to church and flip back and forth through the pages to look at the scripture, there is really no need to do so because you can get all of the scripture for that day in one place.
Now, I wonder how Candy could possibly determine who was biblically ignorant and who was not from just being a member of the congregation. I imagine if she sat next to our family she would think we were dreadfully ignorant hicks what with two lanky teenage sons, a squirmy toddler, and three elementary kids in between with various stages of day dreams and thoughtless movement. My husband does not own a suit, so perhaps she would judge him to be uneducated. I try to look nice for church but I have a toddler. Sometimes I end up with food and/or snot smeared on places by a little funny face and chubby hands that I was not aware of. Sometimes I'm so busy trying to make her sit still or shooting glaring glances over to my older boys that it may seem that there's not a rock in my head either. And we're not the only ones. Our Catholic church is filled with all kinds of people who act like - well regular folks.
She might be surprised then that someone like my husband (I call him Mr. Pete when I'm blogging) has been teaching the Old Testament to sixth graders for six years now at Sunday School. She might be surprised that my kids and I read the readings for the day every morning before we start school, or that I teach them not only their bible stories, but how to look up a chapter and verse on their own, just like I suppose her kids do.
She might also be surprised that our 8th grade Sunday school teacher, who holds a day job as a Federal Prosecutor, starts his syllabus off right after the Resurrection through the Acts of the Apostles. I think she'd be surprised with how many regular daily mass goers in our church could quote scripture back to her. But how could you possibly know that by simply looking at them?
Everyone there looked to me like they were wearing masks with no eyes.
Well... if she attended a 6:00 a.m. mass, that could be. Or if it was a teen mass I could see it too. Teens seem to be perpetually missing enough sleep. Other than that I wonder what she means by that statement. In our parish we greet each other before mass, and of course the sign of peace is always a warm part ofthe mass to meet and connect with each other. Did anyone offer her the sign of peace at mass? I think at a usual Sunday mass you see all kinds of people. People who really want to be there, and people just going through the motions. I'll bet its the same at non-Catholic churches too. But other than that I truly do not understand that statement.
The reference to satan worship and black mass was a blatant ad homineum remark that betrays her true hatred for Catholics and the Catholic church and does not deserve comment. It speaks for itself.
As for worship postures, those are described in the GIRM, General Instructions of the Roman Missal.
The idea is that we come together as the body of Christ and when we worship, we worshop as one body. That is why prayers are said in unison and specific postures are given during certain parts of the mass.
Now Candy asks where in the bible is that? I would refer her to Professor Scott Hahn's book The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
Holy Spirit Interactive: The Explanatory Mass - The Holy Mass explained
Sample Pages from the Mass Explained to Children by Maria Montessori
Q Have you ever attended a Catholic mass?
A Yes. It was so sad and gut wrenching that it almost brought me to tears. I was the only one attending, that I could see, that brought a Bible, and even bothered looking up scriptures. The Bible ignorance in that crowd was astounding me as well. Most of them don't seem to read their Bible, they just follow what "the church" teaches them. Everyone there looked to me like they were wearing masks with no eyes. :-( I suspect that there might have been more true reverence (as opposed to ritual) in a black mass (however they'd be worshiping the wrong guy, of course). I also found it quite disturbing how everyone was basically handed a "script" as they walked in the door. - Kneel at this time, say this with the congregation at this time, sing this at that time, kneel again at this time, say such and such prayer at that time, repeat this phrase three times, etc. Where is the worship of God in that? No, I'd much prefer to follow the worship manual - The Bible.
I never had the opportunity to comment to this on Candy's blog and that was one of the main reasons I started the boycott of her e-book product(s).
So I'd like to take the opportunity here.
First of all, if you look over on the sidebar you will see a little box that says Catholic Content.com. This site gives all of the readings for the day that will be read at mass all over the world. (I might add also not in just Catholic churches but Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian etc.) So Catholics know what the readings are going to be at mass before we even attend. My family and I can prepare for mass by reading the readings ahead of time so that we are better prepared when we attend mass. I find that this works particularly well for school aged children so that they have a chance to really concentrate when they get to church.
Today's readings were from the book of Amos, 1 Timothy and the Gospel of Luke. If one were to carefully read these scriptures, I'm sure the central theme would come out.
Because the church knows years in advance what readings are going to be read, companies pre-print out missalettes for the worshipers to use when reading along with the lector or the priest. Some folks buy mass missals that also have the readings for that day's mass.
So although I suppose someone could bring a bible to church and flip back and forth through the pages to look at the scripture, there is really no need to do so because you can get all of the scripture for that day in one place.
Now, I wonder how Candy could possibly determine who was biblically ignorant and who was not from just being a member of the congregation. I imagine if she sat next to our family she would think we were dreadfully ignorant hicks what with two lanky teenage sons, a squirmy toddler, and three elementary kids in between with various stages of day dreams and thoughtless movement. My husband does not own a suit, so perhaps she would judge him to be uneducated. I try to look nice for church but I have a toddler. Sometimes I end up with food and/or snot smeared on places by a little funny face and chubby hands that I was not aware of. Sometimes I'm so busy trying to make her sit still or shooting glaring glances over to my older boys that it may seem that there's not a rock in my head either. And we're not the only ones. Our Catholic church is filled with all kinds of people who act like - well regular folks.
She might be surprised then that someone like my husband (I call him Mr. Pete when I'm blogging) has been teaching the Old Testament to sixth graders for six years now at Sunday School. She might be surprised that my kids and I read the readings for the day every morning before we start school, or that I teach them not only their bible stories, but how to look up a chapter and verse on their own, just like I suppose her kids do.
She might also be surprised that our 8th grade Sunday school teacher, who holds a day job as a Federal Prosecutor, starts his syllabus off right after the Resurrection through the Acts of the Apostles. I think she'd be surprised with how many regular daily mass goers in our church could quote scripture back to her. But how could you possibly know that by simply looking at them?
Everyone there looked to me like they were wearing masks with no eyes.
Well... if she attended a 6:00 a.m. mass, that could be. Or if it was a teen mass I could see it too. Teens seem to be perpetually missing enough sleep. Other than that I wonder what she means by that statement. In our parish we greet each other before mass, and of course the sign of peace is always a warm part ofthe mass to meet and connect with each other. Did anyone offer her the sign of peace at mass? I think at a usual Sunday mass you see all kinds of people. People who really want to be there, and people just going through the motions. I'll bet its the same at non-Catholic churches too. But other than that I truly do not understand that statement.
The reference to satan worship and black mass was a blatant ad homineum remark that betrays her true hatred for Catholics and the Catholic church and does not deserve comment. It speaks for itself.
As for worship postures, those are described in the GIRM, General Instructions of the Roman Missal.
The idea is that we come together as the body of Christ and when we worship, we worshop as one body. That is why prayers are said in unison and specific postures are given during certain parts of the mass.
Now Candy asks where in the bible is that? I would refer her to Professor Scott Hahn's book The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
Holy Spirit Interactive: The Explanatory Mass - The Holy Mass explained
Sample Pages from the Mass Explained to Children by Maria Montessori
Saturday, September 29, 2007
www.keepingthehome.com
Today Candy writes:
www.keepingthehome.com: "Mental Gossip - what is that? Do you ever spend your thinking time fuming over blogs that you read and disagree with? Do you spend your thinking time frustrated over how your neighbor smokes and cusses and looks at you strangely? Do you fume over menial things like that?"
I think we are getting into a new type of Candyland vernacular.
Gossip means:
What we are doing on this blog is not gossip, although I think Candy is trying to plant the seed that perhaps it is. There is nothing wrong with being indignant over mistreatment of others, or of our faith being misrepresented. In fact that's a good thing.
Psalm 33:5The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.
Psalm 106:3 Blessed are they who maintain justice
What we are attempting on this blog, is to keep the truth about the Catholic church available to anyone who comes here after reading Candy's information. We are attempting to present our faith through a time honored practice of apologetics.
Proverbs 9: 9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.
www.keepingthehome.com: "Mental Gossip - what is that? Do you ever spend your thinking time fuming over blogs that you read and disagree with? Do you spend your thinking time frustrated over how your neighbor smokes and cusses and looks at you strangely? Do you fume over menial things like that?"
I think we are getting into a new type of Candyland vernacular.
Gossip means:
- Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
- A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
What we are doing on this blog is not gossip, although I think Candy is trying to plant the seed that perhaps it is. There is nothing wrong with being indignant over mistreatment of others, or of our faith being misrepresented. In fact that's a good thing.
Psalm 33:5The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.
Psalm 106:3 Blessed are they who maintain justice
What we are attempting on this blog, is to keep the truth about the Catholic church available to anyone who comes here after reading Candy's information. We are attempting to present our faith through a time honored practice of apologetics.
Proverbs 9: 9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Home birth
www.keepingthehome.com: It's almost done!
Candy doesn't know this about me because, frankly, she never took the time to know anything about me. My first two very innocent comments on her blog she refused to publish at all. In fact the first communication she ever had with me were harsh words on the front page of her blog. I think that was the "Elena and her minions" post.
Not a very warm welcome.
Nonetheless I am quite experienced with home births. I had two very successful homebirths in my living room of two very healthy little baby boys. (They weren't really that little - one was over nine pounds and one was over ten pounds!) I also had a birth where I labored at home but at the last minute had to transfer to the hospital because of a cord prolapse. That is a true obstetrical emergency as the baby's air supply is pinched off when the cord presents before the baby in the birth canal. Lastly, almost five years ago my husband and I discovered that our fifth son had died in utero and we delivered him at home alone by ourselves.
In addition to my own personal experiences I have also attended four homebirths as a doula, one of which was a severe shoulder dystocia that also required a hospital transport.
Candy is preparing to publish and offer an e-book once more through her blog. I don't know if her home management binder business has felt the effects of the boycott or not, but with all of the free resources readily available it probably has.
I will have no qualms and no problems about gathering similar resources for homebirth and early child care as well as an alternative to Candy's book when it's available. In fact, I am working on it now.
Candy doesn't know this about me because, frankly, she never took the time to know anything about me. My first two very innocent comments on her blog she refused to publish at all. In fact the first communication she ever had with me were harsh words on the front page of her blog. I think that was the "Elena and her minions" post.
Not a very warm welcome.
Nonetheless I am quite experienced with home births. I had two very successful homebirths in my living room of two very healthy little baby boys. (They weren't really that little - one was over nine pounds and one was over ten pounds!) I also had a birth where I labored at home but at the last minute had to transfer to the hospital because of a cord prolapse. That is a true obstetrical emergency as the baby's air supply is pinched off when the cord presents before the baby in the birth canal. Lastly, almost five years ago my husband and I discovered that our fifth son had died in utero and we delivered him at home alone by ourselves.
In addition to my own personal experiences I have also attended four homebirths as a doula, one of which was a severe shoulder dystocia that also required a hospital transport.
Candy is preparing to publish and offer an e-book once more through her blog. I don't know if her home management binder business has felt the effects of the boycott or not, but with all of the free resources readily available it probably has.
I will have no qualms and no problems about gathering similar resources for homebirth and early child care as well as an alternative to Candy's book when it's available. In fact, I am working on it now.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tip #9 of how not to witness to Catholic Christians
Blessed Motherhood: "Let me also give a historical example. The German Nazi Party was responsible for the Holocaust. However this does not mean that all Germans were evil by nature. We do hear of testimonies which contain accounts of Germans who risked their lives to save thousands of Jews from the clutches of the Nazi Party. A more recent example is the underground Christian church in Afghanistan. These Afghan Christians have little choice but to practice their faith in secret, professing themselves to be Muslims in order to escape death. There are probably some more examples that I can highlight, which would showcase the disparity between the teachings of an organization or system and the actual beliefs of its people. Hence, it would be reasonable to conclude that not all who outwardly profess to be members of the Roman Catholic Church would automatically adhere to its teachings."
Motherofmany aka Amy has a post up now with this analogy - Catholics are to the Catholic church as good Germans were to the Nazi Party.
nice huh?
Tip #9, of how not to witness to Catholic Christians - don't compare our church to the Nazis!
Motherofmany aka Amy has a post up now with this analogy - Catholics are to the Catholic church as good Germans were to the Nazi Party.
nice huh?
Tip #9, of how not to witness to Catholic Christians - don't compare our church to the Nazis!
Welcome to new visitors
We've had a few new folks join us today.
First of all welcome. Please take a few minutes to tell us a bit about yourself here and how you found Visits to Candyland.
First of all welcome. Please take a few minutes to tell us a bit about yourself here and how you found Visits to Candyland.
The Practical problems with sola scriptura
I didn't think I was going to have to post this so soon, but it seems appropriate to this afternoon's discussions. This was first posted on My Domestic Church a few years ago.
I was going to present more problems with that pillar of Protestantism, but then I found this article by Jim Atkin and so no reason to re-invent the wheel!
Here are his 7 basic problems with it!
1. Requires ability to [print!)
Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.
2. Requires mass distribution of bibles!
Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.
3. Requires Christians be able to read!
Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.
4. Must have scholarly materials available.
He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession-not just the existence-of adequate support materials.
5.Need time to study!
Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays-as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.
6.Sola scriptura pre supposes universal adequate nutrition
7.Must be skilled in evaluating arguments
Christianity survived 1500 years without the doctrine of sola scriptura- 400 of those even without a bible as we know it today! So to my mind it's clear that historically sola scriptura is unsupported!
I was going to present more problems with that pillar of Protestantism, but then I found this article by Jim Atkin and so no reason to re-invent the wheel!
The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.
However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology.
Here are his 7 basic problems with it!
1. Requires ability to [print!)
Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.
2. Requires mass distribution of bibles!
Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.
3. Requires Christians be able to read!
Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.
4. Must have scholarly materials available.
He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession-not just the existence-of adequate support materials.
5.Need time to study!
Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays-as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.
6.Sola scriptura pre supposes universal adequate nutrition
7.Must be skilled in evaluating arguments
that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today).
Christianity survived 1500 years without the doctrine of sola scriptura- 400 of those even without a bible as we know it today! So to my mind it's clear that historically sola scriptura is unsupported!
Vain repetition?
On Candy's God versus the Vatican page, she criticizes a number of issues with the Catholic church. The issue of "vain repetition" is very familiar to Catholics.
Vatican says - After a short pause for reflection, recite the "Our Father", ten "Hail Marys" and the "Glory be to the Father".
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
If you read the entire chapter of Matthew 6, you can see in context that it is opposing men who seek to make themselves look superior in piety through their prayer practices. Focusing on the "repetitious" in verse 7 overlooks the word "vain" which is the true point.
I don't think that repetitious prayer in and of itself is forbidden or bad. We know from Revelation 4:8 that the angels in heaven "rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." I think praying the same words eternally is definitely repetitious!
Matthew 26:44 tells us that Jesus prayed three times in the garden, using the same words each time.
In Luke 18:13 the tax collector kept beating his breast and praying "God be merciful to me, a sinner." This prayer was pleasing to God, though he said the same words over and over.
Have you only prayed the Lord's Prayer once in your life, because the words would become meaningless if you said them again?
Another good example is Psalm 136, where "or his mercy endureth for ever" acts as a refrain. This is the Word of God, and it is very similar to the rosary in its repetition.
Often, the rosary is held up as the example of vain repetition. Praying the rosary, which is a devotion which is not required for Catholics, is a particular kind of prayer technique. The repetition of the "Hail Mary" prayer is supposed to keep one side of your brain busy, so that you can meditation on a Biblical "mystery" such as the crucifixion of Our Lord, without distraction. The repetition of the words is supposed to keep your mind from wandering, so that you can more fully meditate on the event from scripture.
Not only Catholics, and our familiar friends the Lutherans and Anglicans pray the rosary. The practice can be found among Methodists. John Wesley himself prayed the rosary, and one of his rosaries can be viewed at The Leys School, Cambridge. There are also several websites which feature protestant versions of the rosary.
6 tips on how not to to witness to Catholic Christians
now with two bonus tips!
(This is a repost from my other blog back in July)
As I travel about the Protestant Christian blogosphere certain phrases and ideas keep popping up from our separated bretheren that just are not helpful in furthering the discussion! Sure, it's easy to persuade and compel an almost-ex-Catholic-wanna-be who has one foot outside of the church and the other on a banana peel to leave the Catholic faith! But where's the fun in that!
So for all of you Christian apologists who wish to enter into discussion and debate with catechized Catholics, here are some tips that will help keep both sides in the discussion!
1. Don't use terms like "whore of Babylon" or "come out of her." "Papist is a word you should probably retire too. First of all, it tips your hand. When you use those buzz words, we catechized Catholics then know EXACTLY where you are coming from and that gives us the advantage.
2. Don't link to sites like this or this. Any catechized Catholic who has ever been challenged in his/her faith has seen these and they don't come across as compelling or persuasive. They come off as being ridiculous and melodramatic.
3. Don't dump all of your problems with Catholicism out there at one time. Yea, we know you have problems with Mary, and the priesthood, and the Eucharist, and purgatory and the saints. However, dumping it all out there at once is overwhelming for the novice and time consuming for the experienced. A much better approach is to take one objection at a time and deal with it.
4. Don't say something like, "If you would only read the bible for yourself, your eyes would be opened!!" First of all, that assumes that we have not read the bible for ourselves. For many Catholics, it is reading the scriptures that has kept us in the Catholic Church. Many of the great converts to Catholicism, have been scripture scholars. Secondly, it's not a reading thing; it's a paradigm shift. Catholics can read John chapter 6 and see the formation of the Eucharist, and many Protestants don't see that at all, even if we're reading the same translation and the same words. It's the reader's paradigm that guides the interpretation, not the reader's reading comprehension skills.
5. Don't expect the first answer to your objections to be totally satisfactory. For examples there are libraries full of books on Mary, The Blessed Mother. It's very difficult to boil all of that down into one page or paragraph that will be totally understandable and acceptable. Which leads me to my last point...
6. Expect to dialogue for a while. Nothing is more frustrating than spending time answering objections to Catholicism, posting them or sending them in, and then getting a reply like, "This isn't up for debate," or "I'm done with you!" The Reformation is over 500 years old. You're not going to solve it in five hours of 500 words or less.
and as a bonus tip! Lots of times during debates I get comments like, "Well, it's not very Christian for both of you to go back and forth like that. If that's Christianity, then count me out!"
My response to that is, "we'll miss you!!"
Because discussion and debate are very much a part of Christian history and tradition. Be sure to read the introduction of Dave Armstrong's new e-book- Bible Conversations!
The word dialogue appears in the Bible. The Greek dialegomai occurs 13 times in the New Testament, and refers to reason, rational argument, discussion, discourse, debate, dispute and so forth. Particularly, we often see it applied to the Apostle Paul as he reasoned and argued with Jews in the synagogues (Acts 17:2,17, 18:4,19, 19:8) and Greeks and other Gentiles in the marketplaces and academies of the time, where the exchange of ideas took place (Acts 17:17, 18:4, 19:9-10).
St. Paul’s evangelistic preaching wasn’t simply thrilling oratory and edifying, “homiletic” exposition; it involved in-depth reasoning; even – at times, such as on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34) --, literally philosophical discourse.
Our Lord Jesus, too, often engaged in vigorous, rational, scriptural argument, especially with the Pharisees, much in the spirit of the ancient rabbis. One example of this among many occurs in Mark 12:18-27, where He is said to be “disputing” (Greek, suzeteo) with the Sadducees (cf. Acts 9:29, where the same word is used).
Rational argument, thinking, or open-minded discourse and dialogue is altogether permissible; indeed, required of all Christians who wish to have a robust, confident, reasonable faith amidst the competing ideas and faiths of the world and academia. Our Lord instructs us to love God with our minds as well as with all our hearts, souls, and strength (Luke 10:27).
The word apologetics; that is, the defense of Christianity (or Catholicism in particular, in the present instance) is derived etymologically from the Greek apologia, which term was used by Plato as a title of one of his many classic dialogues, in description of the philosopher Socrates’ lengthy and elaborate defense or justification of himself against trumped-up, politically-motivated charges in Athens, in 399 B.C.
Apologia is also a biblical word, and appears much in the same sense as with Socrates, with regard to St. Paul’s defense of himself during his lengthy trial (Acts 22:1, 25:16). It is also used with reference to Paul’s defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16 -- rendered defense in the RSV in all four instances).
The use of apologia in the imperative verse 1 Peter 3:15, with regard to the explanation of the hope of the gospel which resides in the heart of every Christian believer, makes apologetics a duty of every Christian, to some extent. But of course, people have different God-granted gifts and abilities, and the Christian or Catholic apologist is specifically called to that task as a matter of vocation and life’s work.
I'll add a new bonus tip as well! Don't challenge a Catholic with, "where does it say..." We're NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA CHRISTIANS. I realize that if we are trying to convince non-Catholic, sola scriptura Christians we are limited to the scriptures themselves, but the reverse is not true for Catholics and Catholic apologists should refuse to be handcuffed that way. The scriptures are not solely authoritative and so we are not bound to only what is in scripture; therefore, being challenged to find it in scripture, i.e. "where does it say" doesn't work for us.
(This is a repost from my other blog back in July)
As I travel about the Protestant Christian blogosphere certain phrases and ideas keep popping up from our separated bretheren that just are not helpful in furthering the discussion! Sure, it's easy to persuade and compel an almost-ex-Catholic-wanna-be who has one foot outside of the church and the other on a banana peel to leave the Catholic faith! But where's the fun in that!
So for all of you Christian apologists who wish to enter into discussion and debate with catechized Catholics, here are some tips that will help keep both sides in the discussion!
1. Don't use terms like "whore of Babylon" or "come out of her." "Papist is a word you should probably retire too. First of all, it tips your hand. When you use those buzz words, we catechized Catholics then know EXACTLY where you are coming from and that gives us the advantage.
2. Don't link to sites like this or this. Any catechized Catholic who has ever been challenged in his/her faith has seen these and they don't come across as compelling or persuasive. They come off as being ridiculous and melodramatic.
3. Don't dump all of your problems with Catholicism out there at one time. Yea, we know you have problems with Mary, and the priesthood, and the Eucharist, and purgatory and the saints. However, dumping it all out there at once is overwhelming for the novice and time consuming for the experienced. A much better approach is to take one objection at a time and deal with it.
4. Don't say something like, "If you would only read the bible for yourself, your eyes would be opened!!" First of all, that assumes that we have not read the bible for ourselves. For many Catholics, it is reading the scriptures that has kept us in the Catholic Church. Many of the great converts to Catholicism, have been scripture scholars. Secondly, it's not a reading thing; it's a paradigm shift. Catholics can read John chapter 6 and see the formation of the Eucharist, and many Protestants don't see that at all, even if we're reading the same translation and the same words. It's the reader's paradigm that guides the interpretation, not the reader's reading comprehension skills.
5. Don't expect the first answer to your objections to be totally satisfactory. For examples there are libraries full of books on Mary, The Blessed Mother. It's very difficult to boil all of that down into one page or paragraph that will be totally understandable and acceptable. Which leads me to my last point...
6. Expect to dialogue for a while. Nothing is more frustrating than spending time answering objections to Catholicism, posting them or sending them in, and then getting a reply like, "This isn't up for debate," or "I'm done with you!" The Reformation is over 500 years old. You're not going to solve it in five hours of 500 words or less.
and as a bonus tip! Lots of times during debates I get comments like, "Well, it's not very Christian for both of you to go back and forth like that. If that's Christianity, then count me out!"
My response to that is, "we'll miss you!!"
Because discussion and debate are very much a part of Christian history and tradition. Be sure to read the introduction of Dave Armstrong's new e-book- Bible Conversations!
The word dialogue appears in the Bible. The Greek dialegomai occurs 13 times in the New Testament, and refers to reason, rational argument, discussion, discourse, debate, dispute and so forth. Particularly, we often see it applied to the Apostle Paul as he reasoned and argued with Jews in the synagogues (Acts 17:2,17, 18:4,19, 19:8) and Greeks and other Gentiles in the marketplaces and academies of the time, where the exchange of ideas took place (Acts 17:17, 18:4, 19:9-10).
St. Paul’s evangelistic preaching wasn’t simply thrilling oratory and edifying, “homiletic” exposition; it involved in-depth reasoning; even – at times, such as on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34) --, literally philosophical discourse.
Our Lord Jesus, too, often engaged in vigorous, rational, scriptural argument, especially with the Pharisees, much in the spirit of the ancient rabbis. One example of this among many occurs in Mark 12:18-27, where He is said to be “disputing” (Greek, suzeteo) with the Sadducees (cf. Acts 9:29, where the same word is used).
Rational argument, thinking, or open-minded discourse and dialogue is altogether permissible; indeed, required of all Christians who wish to have a robust, confident, reasonable faith amidst the competing ideas and faiths of the world and academia. Our Lord instructs us to love God with our minds as well as with all our hearts, souls, and strength (Luke 10:27).
The word apologetics; that is, the defense of Christianity (or Catholicism in particular, in the present instance) is derived etymologically from the Greek apologia, which term was used by Plato as a title of one of his many classic dialogues, in description of the philosopher Socrates’ lengthy and elaborate defense or justification of himself against trumped-up, politically-motivated charges in Athens, in 399 B.C.
Apologia is also a biblical word, and appears much in the same sense as with Socrates, with regard to St. Paul’s defense of himself during his lengthy trial (Acts 22:1, 25:16). It is also used with reference to Paul’s defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16 -- rendered defense in the RSV in all four instances).
The use of apologia in the imperative verse 1 Peter 3:15, with regard to the explanation of the hope of the gospel which resides in the heart of every Christian believer, makes apologetics a duty of every Christian, to some extent. But of course, people have different God-granted gifts and abilities, and the Christian or Catholic apologist is specifically called to that task as a matter of vocation and life’s work.
I'll add a new bonus tip as well! Don't challenge a Catholic with, "where does it say..." We're NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA CHRISTIANS. I realize that if we are trying to convince non-Catholic, sola scriptura Christians we are limited to the scriptures themselves, but the reverse is not true for Catholics and Catholic apologists should refuse to be handcuffed that way. The scriptures are not solely authoritative and so we are not bound to only what is in scripture; therefore, being challenged to find it in scripture, i.e. "where does it say" doesn't work for us.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Here's something all of us can agree on
although I'm sure there are some party poops out there who would disagree...but doesn't everyone like the Veggie Tales?!!!
So this week's Catholic Carnival is up at Domestic Vocation: Catholic Carnival 138 arranged around a Veggie Tale Theme! I post it here once more so that our non-Catholic friends can see how real Catholics live, love and pray throughout their real lives.
On another note, there are some great apologetics discussions going on this blog right now and I think that's great. Our gain is Candy's loss!
But I want to remind everyone that the purpose isn't for us to make converts to Catholicism, but rather to show that our faith is not a false, man made one, but that it has deep roots in the scriptures and in the history of the church. If we accomplish that, our mission will be accomplished!
So this week's Catholic Carnival is up at Domestic Vocation: Catholic Carnival 138 arranged around a Veggie Tale Theme! I post it here once more so that our non-Catholic friends can see how real Catholics live, love and pray throughout their real lives.
On another note, there are some great apologetics discussions going on this blog right now and I think that's great. Our gain is Candy's loss!
But I want to remind everyone that the purpose isn't for us to make converts to Catholicism, but rather to show that our faith is not a false, man made one, but that it has deep roots in the scriptures and in the history of the church. If we accomplish that, our mission will be accomplished!
Monday, September 24, 2007
A Defense of Sacred Tradition
I originally wrote this for Amy at Blessed Motherhood, but it seems to be a good time to post it here.
Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We believe that the Bible is authoritative, but that Sacred Tradition is also authoritative, and can help us to interpret (not contradict) scripture, in cases where the words of scripture may be able to have more than one meaning.
Let us journey back to the first time God gave his Word to his people. God gave the Law to Moses. But God gave Moses the Law in two forms, both written and oral. The oral Law was eventually written down, as the Talmud, in the two parts of the Mishna and Gemara.
Jews consider both the oral and the written Law as authoritative. From Judaism 101:
"When did the Jewish People receive the "Oral Torah?" They received it at Sinai, along with the Written Torah. What else do you think Moshe Rabbeinu, Moses our Teacher, was doing up there for forty days and forty nights, neither "eating bread nor drinking water" according to the testimony of the Bible. If not studying the "Oral" Part of the Torah from the Master Teacher, G-d Himself? The Oral Torah is required because without it, its counterpart, the Written Torah, would be incomprehensible."
This is why Jews interpret a prohibition on cooking a calf in its mother's milk to refer to a prohibition on any mixing of meat and dairy products.
Jesus studied the Talmud with the Rabbis in the Temple. The Jews of his time, as the Jews today, would have considered Sacred Tradition as authoritative as the written Scripture. To say that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) was authoritative is a serious breech with Judaism.
Now, Christianity departs from Judaism in many ways. But we see in the New Testament that any serious changes are discussed. We read in the New Testament that we are no longer bound to obey the Law, including the dietary restrictions. Men are no longer bound to be circumcised. But no where in the New Testament is it written that ONLY the written Scripture is to be considered authoritative.
On the contrary Paul writes in 2 Thess. 2:15 that we are to stand firm and hold to the traditions which we were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. If Paul wants us to stand fast to traditions which we have been taught, then clearly not all traditions are "traditions of men."
If Jesus meant to build a foundation on Scripture alone, then why did he not command his apostles to immediately write down his Word, as Moses did upon leaving the mountain? Over and over you read in the New Testament that Jesus commanded his apostles to preach, and preach they did. Only three apostles wrote any scripture. Most were written by disciples of the apostles, which means that they were writing down oral tradition, not the words that they heard from Jesus himself.
Thus, the authority of the written New Testament is based on oral tradition. Sacred Tradition is not reliance on the words of others or the traditions of men, but on the Word of God, and the traditions left to us by the apostles, who certainly did not leave an abundance of written words behind.
The New Testament does not claim to be complete of itself. John 20:30; 21:25 writes that Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures.
Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is complete, and that every man can interpret scripture for himself. There is to be no other authority, including oral tradition, to help in interpreting scripture. If that were the case, then why would you have so many books published to help you to understand scripture? Why do you have sermons at Church to help you to interpret scripture? Shouldn't Church then consist of one person reading aloud from scripture, then everyone adjoining to share a meal because everyone exactly agrees on what that scripture meant?
If the Holy Spirit will help us all to interpret Scripture correctly, then why is there not one united protestant church against the Catholic and Orthodox churches? The early reformers could not even achieve unity, but quickly broke into groups, which have broken into more and more groups with each generation.
Acts 8:30-31: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Why didn't Philip explain to the Eunuch that all he had to do was pray to the Holy Spirit to help him interpret the Bible, and he would receive the correct meaning?
1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth," not scripture.
Col. 4:16 shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon.
There are many, many places in the New Testament that show that Sacred Tradition exists, and that we should not rely on the Bible alone. I have quoted several, but I strongly suggest you go to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ and read through the sections on Scripture Alone and Oral Tradition to read them all.
Another great resource for understanding that the Catholic Church really teaches about Sacred Tradition is Mark Shea's What is Sacred Tradition?
Of course, Catholic Answers is always a good read, too.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Erika's Corner
I got this from Father Francis J. Peffley site. I thought it was very interesting and decided to share. Enjoy.
One last purgatory quote
"Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God [i.e., capable of full unity with Christ and God] and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy."
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
Erika's Corner
Here is a link to Scripture Catholic 's info about confession. It is a pretty good read. I feel that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is so important and am glad it see it will begin to be emphasized more.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Homemanagement binders can be simple and almost free!!
Large Family Mothering: REALLY frugal home binder:
"By the way, if you don't have the time or inclination to create anything like the binders that everyone is raving about, I will let you in on a little secret; my 'binder' for years has been nothing more than a spiral notebook (you can find these for as little as 10 cents) that I separated into sections by using mini-sticky notes as tabs. I have used this system successfully for many years, while I managed a houseful of children and homeschooled. I have stacks of these filled books in my file cabinet that I have saved for posterity--complete with my computations that I did at the grocery store as I was filling my cart with goods. With these little notebooks I have successfully kept an organized kitchen and my house is almost always clean and tidy. We have a system that we follow everyday, it just changes so often that it is a waste to type and print out something permanent. Writing down a few notes so that I don't forget from day-to-day is much more efficient."
Candy aka Prayzgod puts a comment in under this one.
"By the way, if you don't have the time or inclination to create anything like the binders that everyone is raving about, I will let you in on a little secret; my 'binder' for years has been nothing more than a spiral notebook (you can find these for as little as 10 cents) that I separated into sections by using mini-sticky notes as tabs. I have used this system successfully for many years, while I managed a houseful of children and homeschooled. I have stacks of these filled books in my file cabinet that I have saved for posterity--complete with my computations that I did at the grocery store as I was filling my cart with goods. With these little notebooks I have successfully kept an organized kitchen and my house is almost always clean and tidy. We have a system that we follow everyday, it just changes so often that it is a waste to type and print out something permanent. Writing down a few notes so that I don't forget from day-to-day is much more efficient."
Candy aka Prayzgod puts a comment in under this one.
Confession Makes a Comeback - WSJ.com
Confession Makes a Comeback - WSJ.com: "This February at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI instructed priests to make confession a top priority. U.S. bishops have begun promoting it in diocesan newspapers, mass mailings and even billboard ads. And in a dramatic turnaround, some Protestant churches are following suit. This summer, the second-largest North American branch of the Lutheran Church passed a resolution supporting the rite, which it had all but ignored for more than 100 years."
A Catholic Converts Story
Abigail at Abigail's Alcove writes: "How I became Pro-Life." It's the story of her journey into the Catholic Church but also her journey to embracing the Pro-Life/Openness to Life style of life. It brought me to tears!
Is Purgatory Biblical?
For many, whether purgatory is Biblical is something of a no-brainer. After all, the word "purgatory" appears nowhere in the Bible. Which puts it in the company of other words, such as "Trinity,""Incarnation," or even, that curious belief known as "the Rapture."
Although the word purgatory does not appear in the Bible, it refers to a concept that is Biblical. The Bible refers to a time where our works will be tested by fire. It is a time of purification, where our sins will be purged from our souls, so that we will enter heaven purified. Over time, this time of "purging" became known as "purgatory."
1 Cor 3:13-15: Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
This indicates that even though a man's work was burned and he suffered loss, he was saved. This is not the all or nothing of heaven or hell, but a purification before entering heaven.1 Peter 1:7: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ
Jude 23: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
So, if purgatory is Biblical, does it follow that our prayers make any difference to those are being purified?
2 Tim. 1:16-18 is an example of Paul praying for the dead, in this case, a man named Onesiphorus.
Praying for the dead was common practice among the Jews at that time. It has been the practice at least as long as the time of the Maccabees. 2 Maccabees 12:43–45 states "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin." These verses are the primary reason that the deuterocanonical books were removed from the Old Testament. They justified praying for the dead.
Praying for the dead remains the Jewish practice today. Orthodox Jews recite the Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a parent, to pray for their purification. Judaism 101 says "According to Jewish tradition, the soul must spend some time purifying itself before it can enter the World to Come."
While many contend that purgatory and praying for the dead was a medieval Roman Catholic invention, there is ample evidence that this was a belief of the early Christians. Visit the catacombs, and you find prayers for the dead scrawled on the wall in examples of graffiti dating to the first three centuries of Christianity.
Other writings of that era such as Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity also attest to this belief.
The Early Church Fathers, who, being "early" predated Medieval times by quite a bit, also wrote on this topic. Tertullian, writes in the second century, "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]."
Gregory of Nyssa, writing in the late third century, says ""If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire."
You can read more excerpts of these early Christian writers here.
So, to summarize Catholic teaching on purgatory in a Biblical way:
We must be spotless and pure in God's presence.
Rev 21:27
Matt 5:8
Christ promised there was punishment that exacted what was due but wasn't endless. (And Paul supported this teaching.)
Matt 5: 20-26
Matt 12:32
Matt 18:21-35
Matt 25:31-46
Luke 12:58-59
Heb 9:27
Psalm 99:8
This punishment isn't in Hell because you can't be saved through hellfire. Also, there's no punishment in Heaven.
1 Corinthians 3:10-16
2 Corinthians 5:9-11
Hebrews 12:6, 11
Those who are alive can pray for those who are dead (and vice versa).
1 John 5:16-17
Luke 16:19-31
2 Maccabees 12:38-46
Sirach 7:33
To end, I think a quotation from C.S. Lewis from Letters To Malcolm is in order.
"Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?
I believe in Purgatory.
Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the 'Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory' as that Romish doctrine had then become.....
The right view returns magnificently in Newman's DREAM. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light'. Religion has claimed Purgatory.
Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'
I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.
My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."
Tackling some Candyland Blasts from the past
In one of Candy's articles from this past summer entitled,Roman-catholic-or-christian.html she writes:
The new Pope (Vicar of Christ - the Greek roots of 'vicar' is "ante", AKA Greek Vicar of Christ = antichrist) proclaimed the other day that you are saved ONLY by being a member of the Roman Catholic church. Of course, anyone who has read his or her Bible knows that that is not true.
A couple of things. First of all, Catholics are Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. We say the Nicene Creed at mass.
If Candy still denies then that Catholics are Christians she probably has equal issues with Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and many other Christian groups. In other words, pretty much any group that does not conform to her particular flavor of Christianity.
Secondly a five minute search on Google was able to clarify the origins of the word "vicar."
vicar -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
(from Latin vicarius, “substitute”), an official acting in some special way for a superior, primarily an ecclesiastical title in the Christian Church.
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: vic·ar
Pronunciation: 'vi-k&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin vicarius, from vicarius vicarious
1 : one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy
2 : an ecclesiastical agent:
Candy doesn't mention where her definition comes from but I would guess probably the Jack Chick online dictionary. None of the sources I checked had a Greek root for Vicar.
Lastly, some have said that the Catholic Church is a false church because, "It is false teaching to place a man in the role of head of the church. Christ is head."
The Catholic church does indeed believe that Christ is the head of the church and because of that, the Catholic church is organized based on Christ's design for His church.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:
In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.389
875 "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?"390 No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: "Faith comes from what is heard."391 No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty ("the sacred power") to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a "sacrament" by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
To summarize, the Catholic Church is a Christian church, organized and run on a biblical model as indicated by Jesus Christ himself. The word "Vicar" merely means a substitute, who stands in as an earthly agent.
The new Pope (Vicar of Christ - the Greek roots of 'vicar' is "ante", AKA Greek Vicar of Christ = antichrist) proclaimed the other day that you are saved ONLY by being a member of the Roman Catholic church. Of course, anyone who has read his or her Bible knows that that is not true.
A couple of things. First of all, Catholics are Christians. We believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. We say the Nicene Creed at mass.
If Candy still denies then that Catholics are Christians she probably has equal issues with Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and many other Christian groups. In other words, pretty much any group that does not conform to her particular flavor of Christianity.
Secondly a five minute search on Google was able to clarify the origins of the word "vicar."
vicar -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
(from Latin vicarius, “substitute”), an official acting in some special way for a superior, primarily an ecclesiastical title in the Christian Church.
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: vic·ar
Pronunciation: 'vi-k&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin vicarius, from vicarius vicarious
1 : one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy
2 : an ecclesiastical agent:
Candy doesn't mention where her definition comes from but I would guess probably the Jack Chick online dictionary. None of the sources I checked had a Greek root for Vicar.
Lastly, some have said that the Catholic Church is a false church because, "It is false teaching to place a man in the role of head of the church. Christ is head."
The Catholic church does indeed believe that Christ is the head of the church and because of that, the Catholic church is organized based on Christ's design for His church.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:
In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.389
875 "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?"390 No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: "Faith comes from what is heard."391 No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty ("the sacred power") to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a "sacrament" by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.
880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403
To summarize, the Catholic Church is a Christian church, organized and run on a biblical model as indicated by Jesus Christ himself. The word "Vicar" merely means a substitute, who stands in as an earthly agent.
Friday, September 21, 2007
KitKat's Corner: My Favorite "Binder"
KitKat - a frequent commenter and member of the blog roll gives us another site that offers a home management binder - for FREE!
KitKat's Corner: My Favorite "Binder"
KitKat's Corner: My Favorite "Binder"
Visits to Candyland - is getting the word out!
A new commenter, Sue Bee wrote:
I think this comment is significant for a number of reasons:
1. To those nay sayers who think there were just a few Catholics lying about the way Candy handled her visitors in her comment section and on her blog, here is yet one more witness to say, "it happened to me to!"
2. And since Candy seems to favor the "abused victim coming forward" type of story when it suits her purposes, I enjoy it when they come out of the woodwork against her.
3. Candy wrote that she has me handled and she no longer has to be concerned with opposing thoughts on her blog. Yet the search engine is a powerful tool and in just a few clicks the other side of the story is easily accessible.
4. This blog really has grown to be more than just Elena vs. Candy. With the addition of new bloggers and a growing blog roll it's clear that Candy's tactics are offensive to a lot more people than you would ever guess by reading her heavily censored comments.
About a year ago I disagreed with Candy on a few things (KJV-only, comma Johanneum and the ten commandments) and found it frustrating that my well-thought-out comments (or diatribes) went unpublished or were edited to her advantage in Q&A sessions. I quit going to her site, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd stop by and see if she was still there. And wouldn't you know it, it was the day after the Sister Charlotte story. I wondered if the RCs were fighting back and a few mouse clicks later I found this site.
I think this comment is significant for a number of reasons:
1. To those nay sayers who think there were just a few Catholics lying about the way Candy handled her visitors in her comment section and on her blog, here is yet one more witness to say, "it happened to me to!"
2. And since Candy seems to favor the "abused victim coming forward" type of story when it suits her purposes, I enjoy it when they come out of the woodwork against her.
3. Candy wrote that she has me handled and she no longer has to be concerned with opposing thoughts on her blog. Yet the search engine is a powerful tool and in just a few clicks the other side of the story is easily accessible.
4. This blog really has grown to be more than just Elena vs. Candy. With the addition of new bloggers and a growing blog roll it's clear that Candy's tactics are offensive to a lot more people than you would ever guess by reading her heavily censored comments.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
An article on Catholic Indulgences
written by a convert to the Catholic Church written by a former Evangelical.
Historical Christian: For Daily Growth in Holiness, the Beautiful Spiritual Practice of . . . Indulgences
Historical Christian: For Daily Growth in Holiness, the Beautiful Spiritual Practice of . . . Indulgences
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
By Their Fruits You will know them.
I had this discussion on another friend-of-Candy blog. The blogger basically quoted Matthew 7:15-16 in her argument that the Catholic Church cannot be true.
I countered this by mentioning the Catholic Church was one of the largest providers of charity, medical care, education, disaster relief in the world, and was accused of introducing a strawman into the discussion!
It turns out that by "fruits" the blogger meant "fruits of the Holy Spirit." Now I think that's a stretch considering the context of this chapter. Nonetheless, for the sake of argument let's examine this.
The fruits of the Holy Spirit are:
The gist of the blogger's argument against the church was that since the Catholic Church teaches that people cannot truly know that they are saved and that they will have to be punished for their sins we Catholics cannot possibly have peace. Therefore, the Catholic church must be a false church.
I kid you not.
We could debate the theology of this position and we probably will; however, I am interested in hearing from Catholics about how much peace you feel in your lives as a practicing Catholic.
******
I guess then since I'm introducing the topic, I should go first. Personally I have found much peace and joy in my walk as a Catholic Christian. I find joy and peace in the sacraments, in the mass, in the prayers of the church, in the teachings of the church and the strength of the Magisterium and her teachings.
(My friend Joann- devout Catholic who died this month from stage 4 breast cancer - joyful to the end!)
I find joy in every day of the liturgical year and with our cycles of feasting and fasting. Whats more, in the fruits that I may be lacking, I find abundantly in other Catholic Christians who are older, wiser, or are just more mature in their walk with Christ as they practice their Catholic Faith.
Anyone else?
(St. Maximilian Kolbe- Catholic Priest who gave up his life for another in Nazi Concentration Camp)
Matthew 7:15-16 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
I countered this by mentioning the Catholic Church was one of the largest providers of charity, medical care, education, disaster relief in the world, and was accused of introducing a strawman into the discussion!
It turns out that by "fruits" the blogger meant "fruits of the Holy Spirit." Now I think that's a stretch considering the context of this chapter. Nonetheless, for the sake of argument let's examine this.
The fruits of the Holy Spirit are:
Gal 5:22-23 love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and, self-control.
The gist of the blogger's argument against the church was that since the Catholic Church teaches that people cannot truly know that they are saved and that they will have to be punished for their sins we Catholics cannot possibly have peace. Therefore, the Catholic church must be a false church.
I kid you not.
We could debate the theology of this position and we probably will; however, I am interested in hearing from Catholics about how much peace you feel in your lives as a practicing Catholic.
******
I guess then since I'm introducing the topic, I should go first. Personally I have found much peace and joy in my walk as a Catholic Christian. I find joy and peace in the sacraments, in the mass, in the prayers of the church, in the teachings of the church and the strength of the Magisterium and her teachings.
(My friend Joann- devout Catholic who died this month from stage 4 breast cancer - joyful to the end!)
I find joy in every day of the liturgical year and with our cycles of feasting and fasting. Whats more, in the fruits that I may be lacking, I find abundantly in other Catholic Christians who are older, wiser, or are just more mature in their walk with Christ as they practice their Catholic Faith.
Anyone else?
(St. Maximilian Kolbe- Catholic Priest who gave up his life for another in Nazi Concentration Camp)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Is Priestly Celibacy Biblical?
Most people are well aware that in the Catholic Church, priests do not marry. (For the record, celibate means "unmarried" in Catholic terminology.)
However, many are unaware that this is not considered a matter of doctrine, but of tradition (with a little t). The Church finds this the best practice for now, but it could change. Although there were both married and celibate (unmarried) priests in the early centuries, the church adopted celibacy as the practice because it made certain things easier at the time, mostly due to inheritance issues. We keep it because we still find it convenient for other reasons.
Actually, there are already married priests within the church. In what is known as the Eastern Rites (think Orthodox, but in union with Rome) if men are married when they are ordained, they will be married priests. If they are unmarried when they are ordained, then they must remain so. Also, former Orthodox or Anglican priests who convert, can request to be priests in the Roman Rite. These men, such as Dwight Longenecker, pictured above with his family, will also be married Catholic priests.
Protestants often point to this practice and say that it isn't Biblical. Yet, there are many verses which point favorably to remaining unmarried:
Matt 19:12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Matt 19:29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
1 Cor 7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
And you might notice that Paul then goes on to say that everyone should marry, to avoid fornication. But the line after that is:
1 Cor 7:6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7For I would that all men were even as I myself.
He is giving permission for verses 2 though 5. It is not a commandment, because it is better to be as he is, himself. Further down, he writes:
1 Cor 7:27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
One of the advantages for a celibate priest, is that he can devote himself full time to prayer and ministry, without caring for things of the world, and pleasing his wife.
1 Cor 7:38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
Some might point out the importance of marriage in the Old Testament. The figures of the Old Testament were very much concerned with building the Israelites as God's Chosen People. The New Testament is concerned with building the Kingdom of God.
Who is the central figure who precedes Jesus in the New Testament? John the Baptist, who appears to have been the first monk in the desert.
I don't think that we need to stack the verses speaking favorably of marriage and those speaking favorably of celibacy and measure the two. I think that the New Testament makes it clear that there is now a new choice available. Now some will be called to give themselves entirely to God, and this is a valid choice.
If you look at the history of the Church, it is clear that from the very first years of the Church, people listened to the parable of the rich young man, and took it to apply to themselves. Young widows gathered together in a house and devoted themselves to prayer instead of marrying again. Young men sold all of their possessions and went to pray in the desert. This all happened immediately, not starting in the Middle Ages.
From my point of view, it is the protestant churches which do not allow a person to chose this as an option. If a young man who had graduated from seminary openly said that he had no intention of marrying because he wanted to devote himself to prayer and his work for the church, would he really be able to find a job? On the other hand, the Catholic church has a position of deacon, which is an ordained position available for married men.
Our seminary process is long, and with ample opportunity for the men to discern if this is truly their calling. I know someone who got married recently, who spent two years in a Catholic seminary. He discerned that he was not called to the priesthood after all. That is not looked down upon at all in our church, but on the other hand, an indication that the process works.
Priests are certainly not unhappy with the state of affairs.
"Job satisfaction is not a problem for U.S. priests, nearly 100 percent of whom either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" with the statement: "Overall, I am satisfied with my life as a priest." That was among the findings of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, CARA, in a telephone poll of 1,212 priests released Sept. 9."
A 2007 University of Chicago job satisfaction survey found eighty-seven percent of clergy said they were "very satisfied" with their work. This was all clergy lumped together, which suggests that while protestant clergy are very satisfied with their jobs, that Catholic clergy might be a little happier.
So again, while this is a tradition of the church, there are verses that speak approvingly of celibacy, indicating that it is a Biblically based practice.
The Catholic church isn't the only church with this practice, either. The Orthodox churches ordain both married and unmarried men, but if they are unmarried when ordained, then they must remain so. Bishops are chosen only from the celibate priests.
Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic churches all have a monastic traditions, as well, where monks and nun devote themselves full time to prayer.
John 6, The Eucharist, and Protestant Objections
Rachel, (the aforementioned commenter on Candy's blog) further wrote:
I found a good defense for this article:
John 6, The Eucharist, and Protestant Objections
I thought this paragraph might be of particular interest to bible literalists who deny the Eucharist:
The mass is a Catholic blasphemy in which they pretend to turn a cracker into God on their altars. They bow, worship, and talk to their cracker before eating it. Then they lock the leftover God in a little house made to keep Him safe. The Lord Jesus Christ died once for His elect, and He has never been on the altar of any Catholic Church. He is coming soon to vaporize it with the breath of His mouth (II Thes 2:3-12; I Tim 2:5; Heb 10:10-14).
I found a good defense for this article:
John 6, The Eucharist, and Protestant Objections
I thought this paragraph might be of particular interest to bible literalists who deny the Eucharist:
Also, in regards to eating flesh and drinking blood the word used in v. 54 to eat (and three other places) is trogo. It is not the normal word used for eating. It literally means to gnaw or chew, thus emphasizing the literalness of the chewing. To those Protestants who mock the implications of us chewing Jesus I will throw out a challenge to those mocking Protestants. Show me one time where the word (to eat or chew, trogo) in the Greek is used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. If every time it is used in the bible and ancient literature it is used in a literal sense, we must use it that way in exegeting John 6. If it has never been used in the way that Protestants impose on John 6, then the figurative sense of eating flesh can not be possible.
A quick thought about blogging and commenting
It's great to see all of the discussions and exchange of ideas going back and forth on the different articles posted on the blog.
This really is one of the great things about blogging - posting ideas and getting to know and learn from other people all over the world! And I think that even though there are disagreements here, they are not disagreeable! What an opportunity would have been missed if this blog had been as heavily censored as others.
This really is one of the great things about blogging - posting ideas and getting to know and learn from other people all over the world! And I think that even though there are disagreements here, they are not disagreeable! What an opportunity would have been missed if this blog had been as heavily censored as others.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Former Priests and Nuns
Returning to what I began in an earlier post, I would like to give my thoughts on the two books I mentioned earlier. Between the two, they give the "testimony" as it is called, of fifty former priests, and twenty former nuns, who left their calling, eventually left the Catholic Church, and became born again Christians. The purpose of the books is to lead others out of the Catholic Church.
First, I will say that I think a few of these stories are fabricated. Probably not more than five, which is a small number out of 75 total stories. Those of you who are Catholic will see the red flags in statements such as these:
I was forty years old and the Bible had been the forbidden book which I had never opened in my life.
No seminarian could possess or read a Bible during his first eight years.
The Bible is not prohibited in any way in the Catholic Church, and reading it is strongly encouraged.
a woman . . . who would later be godmother to my first Mass . . .
Godmother is a position used during baptism, not as described here. I will say that this was from the testimony of a Spanish priest, so I suppose it is possible that they have an honorary position such as this as a Spanish cultural tradition.
I stopped saying the breviary (the Church's official prayer for the use of the clergy) and the rosary and began to pray using parts of the Bible itself.
The breviary IS parts of the Bible. It is a way of praying the Psalms.
I celebrated Mass, observed the Sacraments, recited the rosary, paid money for indulgences and practiced acts of self-denial, but at heart I felt that I was lost.
The selling of indulgences is prohibited by the Catholic Church.
Also, in one story there is a description of a priest hearing the confession of a man who was dying, and had been away from the Church, so his confession was very long. He says that he went back the next day, and asked if he wanted to confess his life of sins again, and the priest couldn't believe it when the man didn't want to confess again.
According to Catholic doctrine, once you have confessed a sin and received absolution, you do not need to confess it again. A priest might have asked if he wanted to discuss his life again, but he would not have asked if he wanted to confess those same sins again.
Now that I have cleared up those few points, I will move on to the next group. The second group of people were people who seem to have not really had a calling for religious life. Now, I realize that might seem like an easy way out, just as Bible Christians who become Catholic might be explained away as having "never really been saved."
However, the first years of seminary or religious life are for discernment. Not everyone who thinks that they are called to that life, really has a calling. Often, certain types of people are attracted to religious life. People who feel that they are not good enough, but that pursuing a religious vocation will turn them into a holy person. Other people might want the respect or perceived power that comes from being a priest or religious. One testimony said "I saw how much everyone respected the priest, and how much power he had. I decided I wanted that."
Those are the sorts of people who should be turned away, and helped to see that they do not have a vocation to religious life, but to another state in life. Most of people who gave testimonies were born between 1900 and 1950. They were part of the vocations boom of the time. Apparently, the vocations boom was partially because seminaries and convents were not being as selective as they should have been.
But most of the testimonies were from people who were real people, and who probably had a real vocation to religious life. For whatever reason, they began to question their calling and their religion. Often, it was during the upheaval of the 1960's. They all ended up deciding that they disagreed with the theology of the Catholic Church.
When I first received the books, I was very interested to see what theological arguments were so persuasive to priests and religious. I was disappointed that really, they were just like most anti-Catholic materials. They presented a mis-representation of Catholic doctrine, and then presented Bible verses which refuted the false doctrine. Many testimonies said something such as "I set about to store up works, so that I could earn my salvation."
I'm not sure that I think all of these people were being intentionally misleading. Most of them seem to have written their testimony ten to twenty years after having left the Church. I think that after so much time, they are probably looking back through their current theological lens. It would have been more accurate to say "I see now, that I was trying to earn my salvation."
To conclude, I thought I would offer some additional testimonies. Those of protestant pastors of various denominations who became Catholic. There are many at the Coming Home Network, which was established to help such ministers make the transition to Catholic life, which usually requires the loss of their job and congregation.
That isn't the case for all people, though. Dwight Longenecker, who shared his story at the link above, went from Bob Jones University, to Anglican priest, to married Catholic priest.
Longenecker says of his evangelical background "As a Catholic I regard my faith not as a negation of my Evangelical upbringing and my fifteen years within Anglicanism, but as a fulfillment of all that has gone before. I honestly and sincerely hope that I have not abandoned anything that was good, true, beautiful and loving within both of those great traditions. I try hard with Evangelicals and Anglicans to affirm what they affirm, while declining to deny what they deny."
Someone who didn't lose his congregation was Alex Jones, who brought much of his pentecostal congregation to the Catholic Church with him!
Whore of Babylon
One of Candy's more adamant Catholic -church bashers was Rachel who left this comment.
I got to thinking about the phrase "Whore of Babylon" and decided to do some reading. I found this information over at ETWN -Whore of Babylon written by Colin Donovan, STL
(Colin B. Donovan, STL is Vice President for Theology at EWTN. A layman, he has the Licentiate in Sacred Theology)
Roman Catholicism is the Great Whore. The Bible describes the church of Rome as a garishly dressed harlot with a chalice full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication, because she adopted many pagan customs to seduce her followers into spiritual adultery. This has been the near universal understanding of God's true saints for 2000 years. But she is not alone, for the churches of the Protestant Reformation are her harlot daughters by retaining many of her sacramental and liturgical corruptions (Dan 7:1-28; II Thess 2:3-12; I Tim 4:1-3; Rev 13:1-18; 17:1-18; 18:1-24; 19:1-4).
I got to thinking about the phrase "Whore of Babylon" and decided to do some reading. I found this information over at ETWN -Whore of Babylon written by Colin Donovan, STL
(Colin B. Donovan, STL is Vice President for Theology at EWTN. A layman, he has the Licentiate in Sacred Theology)
Judging by the criteria of biblical fundamentalism (literal words literally
understood) it is certain that there is no mention of the Catholic Church in the
book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon. By contortions of interpretation
(not biblical literalism) some groups and individuals equate the Whore in
Revelation 17:9 with the Catholic Church since Rome is the famous city of seven
hills and the Church's principal See is Rome. This position is untenable, both
factually and from the only words of Scripture which tell us of the actual
doctrine of the Antichrist, those of the apostle John in his letters.
There would seem to be two choices, either interpret Rev 17:9 absolutely
literally or according to some interpretive key that is metaphorical,
allegorical or otherwise non-literal. Lets look first at literal interpretation.
"The seven heads represent seven hills on which the woman sits." First
of all, no Pope has ever lived or had his "seat" (cathedra or cathedral) on any
of the seven hills of Rome. These hills are small hillocks (Capitoline,
Palatine, Esquiline, Aventine and three lesser "bumps" in central Rome) where
the religion and government of pagan Rome was situated. The Catholic Church's
headquarters at the Lateran (the cathedral) and at the Vatican (where the Pope
lives) does not coincide with them. At the time that John wrote Revelation the
Christians of Rome lived mostly in Trastevere (trans Tiber), a district "across
the Tiber" from the City and adjacent to the Vatican hill where St. Peter was
crucified and buried. The Vatican is on top of that burial site and is today its
own city-state distinct from Rome and Italy.
So, of what was St. John
speaking when he wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos around 96 AD?
Obviously of the pagan imperial system situated on the Seven Hills, especially
the Capitoline (the religious and political center) and the Palatine (the
imperial palace). This pagan power persecuted the Church of Rome in Nero's day
(64-67 AD), and in the mid-90s under Domitian was persecuting Christians
throughout the Roman world. Domitian was considered by the people a
re-incarnation of the evil, but well-liked, Nero (the head that lives again).
While the antichrist Nero persecuted only the Christians of Rome, Domitian
extended that persecution throughout the empire. Both are thus types of the
final persecutor, the Antichrist.
Why the cryptic name Babylon? First,
the historical Babylon was the pagan power which persecuted the People of God,
the Jews, between 610 and 538 BC, destroying the Temple and dispersing the
people. The Romans inherited that mantle of infamy when they destroyed the
Temple in 70 AD, and, more importantly, persecuted the new People of God, the
Church. Thus, St. Peter, writing from Rome refers to as "Babylon" (1 Pt. 5:13) -
a name any Jew or Christian familiar with the Old Testament would know.
How does this relate to the Antichrist? The future Antichrist will be a
world-wide power, essentially pagan, which will persecute the Catholic Church
(and orthodox Christians in general) everywhere, as the Babylonians persecuted
the Jews and 1st century Rome the Church. These are biblical types! The Babylon
of John's day, Rome, stands for the kingdom of the future Antichrist and is no
more likely to be situated in Italy than Rome needed to be situated in Babylonia
(modern Iraq). John was informing his readers of these prophetic types by
drawing their attention to the contemporary fulfillment they found in pagan
Rome. The Antichrist will come out of the Christian world (Greco-Roman
civilization) to be sure (1 John 2:19), but America is as much an inheritor of
that civilization as Europe and just as likely to be the source of the
Antichrist.
Finally, after distorting the text and history to read what
they want into the Bible, and thereby obtaining God's "blessing" on their hatred of the Catholic Church, some "Christians" ignore the only texts of Scripture which tells us about the religious leanings of the Antichrist. The Catholic faith being a religion you would think they would see what it teaches on the only criteria the Bible actually gives about the Antichrist. In St. John's
letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist
denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the
Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). This is the spirit of the Antichrist.
There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the
Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official
teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the
Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the
preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils
formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often
at the cost of martyrdom. The present pope, John Paul II, has written three
great encyclical (circular) letters on the Trinity, one for each Divine Person,
and he has without a doubt preached Jesus Christ to more people than any other
person in human history. The Catholic Church does not have the spirit of the
Antichrist but of God, since no one without the Spirit can say "Jesus is Lord"
(1 Cor. 12:3), something the Church and Catholics always have done and continue
to do!
Erika's Corner-
In my quest to understand salvation from a Catholic perspective better I have found that we Catholics believe God gives us the gift of salvation by grace, by or through justification. That justification begins in one moment in a persons life (they accept Jesus) but continues on their entire life through their FAITH & WORKS not by faith alone or by works alone. Grace is a gift from God as is faith but no where does the Bible state that it is by faith alone but it does say that works are necessary-
James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[b] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead
Matthew 7:24-27
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
Matthew 21:28-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
Matthew 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Romans 2:6-8
6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
Ephesians 2:8-10
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The above verse does not say by faith alone and I agree that we are not saved through any work that we do because with out the free gift of grace form God in Jesus salvation would not be possible but just because it is made possible and we accept it through faith doesn't mean we are then justified forever from that moment on. We continue through faith to be justified through FAITH & WORKS the rest of our lives.
Please see these links for more info:
Salvation
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502sbs.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/assurance_of_salvation.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302fea3.asp
Justification
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9501vbv.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109chap.asp
Grace
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9412vrs.asp
Works/Merit
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9510fea3.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901frs.asp
Good books to read about the Catholic Perspective:
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie
Confessions & City of God, St. Augustine
Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith, Scott Hahn
In my quest to understand salvation from a Catholic perspective better I have found that we Catholics believe God gives us the gift of salvation by grace, by or through justification. That justification begins in one moment in a persons life (they accept Jesus) but continues on their entire life through their FAITH & WORKS not by faith alone or by works alone. Grace is a gift from God as is faith but no where does the Bible state that it is by faith alone but it does say that works are necessary-
James 2:14-26
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[b] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead
Matthew 7:24-27
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
Matthew 21:28-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
Matthew 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Romans 2:6-8
6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
Ephesians 2:8-10
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The above verse does not say by faith alone and I agree that we are not saved through any work that we do because with out the free gift of grace form God in Jesus salvation would not be possible but just because it is made possible and we accept it through faith doesn't mean we are then justified forever from that moment on. We continue through faith to be justified through FAITH & WORKS the rest of our lives.
Please see these links for more info:
Salvation
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502sbs.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/assurance_of_salvation.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302fea3.asp
Justification
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9501vbv.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109chap.asp
Grace
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9412vrs.asp
Works/Merit
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9510fea3.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901frs.asp
Good books to read about the Catholic Perspective:
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie
Confessions & City of God, St. Augustine
Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith, Scott Hahn
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Welcome Erika!
Join me in welcoming Erika as co-blogger on Visits to Candyland! Thanks for accepting Erika!
Hello
Hello everyone, my name is Erika and I am going to be a new contributor to VTC. I am a "cradle" Catholic who was not taught the faith very well. I have spent the last 12 years trying to figure out what I believed and even had a crisis of faith. I have had periods of spiritual dryness and moments when I felt so close to God. I have studied the Catholic Faith for the past year in as much depth as time would allow. I enjoy apologetics and comparative religion as well as philosophy. I try as hard as I can to remain humble and pray that I come across that way when posting on this blog.
I did not join VTC to bash anyone or their faith. I have joined this team of articulate ladies to help spread the truth about the Catholic religion. I hope that I can contribute in a meaningful way while respecting everyone's faith and feelings.
Your Sister in Christ,
Erika
I did not join VTC to bash anyone or their faith. I have joined this team of articulate ladies to help spread the truth about the Catholic religion. I hope that I can contribute in a meaningful way while respecting everyone's faith and feelings.
Your Sister in Christ,
Erika
Friday, September 14, 2007
A Kelly Series
While Candy is back to writing about the domestic arts, a topic at which she excels, I also plan to write up some apologetics posts.
Amy from Blessed Motherhood, who comments here as motherofmany, was kind enough to send me two books written from the point of view of former Catholics. One is Far From Rome, Near To God and the other is The Truth Set Us Free, both published through Berean Beacon. Both books are compiled of testimonies, the former from men who used to be priests and the latter from former nuns. One would hope that priests and nuns would fully understand the Catholic faith, but apparently, that is not always the case.
In reading the stories, often they make the same points over and over. I would like to address the frequently occurring points, because they are also often the most mischaracterized aspects of the Catholic Church.
To deal with a first quick example, let's talk about paying to have a Mass said for someone who has died. People often claim that this is a reason why the Catholic Church is so rich.
First, no one is required to have a Mass said for the dead. The dead are not "held hostage" until their families can raise enough money. The Mass is a form of prayer, and so this is another form of prayer for the dead, which is a practice encouraged by the Church.
(For additional information on praying for the dead, I suggest looking here and here.)
Second, no one is required to pay for the Mass. We have what is a suggested offering, but if you can't pay, you will not be turned away.
If the Church is accumulating wealth by these Masses, how much do you think the suggested donation must be? A lot, huh? Nope. A mere $5 is the norm.
Let's do some math here. Say there is one Mass a day Monday through Friday, and two a each on Saturday and Sunday. At $5 a Mass, that would be $45 a week, or $2340 a year. I attend a small parish, and our operating budget is $5000 per WEEK. A whole year's worth of Masses at my church will pay for half of one week's budget.
In fact, it's pretty cold where I am, so we probably spend that much on heating alone. Let me tell you, those big stone churches are drafty and mighty expensive to heat. That is pretty typical of the supposed wealth of the Catholic Church. Most of it is held in things such are buildings and art, which bring in no income, but have a lot of upkeep. Restoring the Sistine Chapel was not cheap.
In fact, the operating budget of the Vatican is a mere $300 million dollars. Think that "mere" is misplaced? General Motors reported assets of $455 billion in 2003.
If anyone has any burning questions, feel free to post them in the comments section. Although there are certain topics that I definitely want to cover, I don't have a particular order in mind. So, if someone really wants to hear more about faith versus works, which is already being discussed in comments, I can start in on that.
Amy from Blessed Motherhood, who comments here as motherofmany, was kind enough to send me two books written from the point of view of former Catholics. One is Far From Rome, Near To God and the other is The Truth Set Us Free, both published through Berean Beacon. Both books are compiled of testimonies, the former from men who used to be priests and the latter from former nuns. One would hope that priests and nuns would fully understand the Catholic faith, but apparently, that is not always the case.
In reading the stories, often they make the same points over and over. I would like to address the frequently occurring points, because they are also often the most mischaracterized aspects of the Catholic Church.
To deal with a first quick example, let's talk about paying to have a Mass said for someone who has died. People often claim that this is a reason why the Catholic Church is so rich.
First, no one is required to have a Mass said for the dead. The dead are not "held hostage" until their families can raise enough money. The Mass is a form of prayer, and so this is another form of prayer for the dead, which is a practice encouraged by the Church.
(For additional information on praying for the dead, I suggest looking here and here.)
Second, no one is required to pay for the Mass. We have what is a suggested offering, but if you can't pay, you will not be turned away.
If the Church is accumulating wealth by these Masses, how much do you think the suggested donation must be? A lot, huh? Nope. A mere $5 is the norm.
Let's do some math here. Say there is one Mass a day Monday through Friday, and two a each on Saturday and Sunday. At $5 a Mass, that would be $45 a week, or $2340 a year. I attend a small parish, and our operating budget is $5000 per WEEK. A whole year's worth of Masses at my church will pay for half of one week's budget.
In fact, it's pretty cold where I am, so we probably spend that much on heating alone. Let me tell you, those big stone churches are drafty and mighty expensive to heat. That is pretty typical of the supposed wealth of the Catholic Church. Most of it is held in things such are buildings and art, which bring in no income, but have a lot of upkeep. Restoring the Sistine Chapel was not cheap.
In fact, the operating budget of the Vatican is a mere $300 million dollars. Think that "mere" is misplaced? General Motors reported assets of $455 billion in 2003.
If anyone has any burning questions, feel free to post them in the comments section. Although there are certain topics that I definitely want to cover, I don't have a particular order in mind. So, if someone really wants to hear more about faith versus works, which is already being discussed in comments, I can start in on that.
Taking a break
Ladies, I'm going to take a small break from this blog, possibly until next week. I did something to my back and it just hurts too much to sit here and type or read. As my real work requires that I sit and also my primary blog needs attention, I've got to keep my time online to a minimum.
I think you will be in very good hands with Kelly and Bethany and I have extended an invitation to one more lady. I hope she accepts! ;)
I'm off to down some more Aleve, ice, and stretch.
I think you will be in very good hands with Kelly and Bethany and I have extended an invitation to one more lady. I hope she accepts! ;)
I'm off to down some more Aleve, ice, and stretch.
The Sorrowful Mother
Just as today we remember the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, tomorrow we remember Mary as the Sorrowful Mother. Michaelangelo's Pieta is also a beautiful piece of sculpture that finds its home in the Vatican.
Some wonder why Catholics honor Mary so much.
For me as an adult, Mary as the Sorrowful mother really hit home when I suffered the loss of my own child. I found comfort in known that Mary understood that very sorrow because she had lived through much worse with her own son. So tomorrow is always a special day for me to remember.
A year or so ago I shared the date and it significance with a blogger who had lost babies at 25 weeks and was quite sad and grieving about it a year or so later. That touched her heart in a way and we have been blog friends ever since. We have totally nothing in common and are 180 degrees from each other on most other issues. But sorrow, motherhood and Mary were things we could agree and bond over.
Some wonder why Catholics honor Mary so much.
For me as an adult, Mary as the Sorrowful mother really hit home when I suffered the loss of my own child. I found comfort in known that Mary understood that very sorrow because she had lived through much worse with her own son. So tomorrow is always a special day for me to remember.
A year or so ago I shared the date and it significance with a blogger who had lost babies at 25 weeks and was quite sad and grieving about it a year or so later. That touched her heart in a way and we have been blog friends ever since. We have totally nothing in common and are 180 degrees from each other on most other issues. But sorrow, motherhood and Mary were things we could agree and bond over.
A public service announcement!
Since we have gotten so many hits this week, I think I want to use the bully pulpit to do some educating as well as defending! I will therefore from time to time share some of what Catholics really believe and/or practice since there seems to be a lot of curiosity about what Catholics really do believe. Feel free to share as well Kelly!
There are different feast days in the Catholic church to help us focus on Christ and our Christian Journey.
Today in the Catholic Church we celebrate the Exaltation of the Cross. We remember the rugged cross that Christ carried and died on and we contemplate on how we can add our own sufferings to His.
My children and I went out to Holy Cross Cemetery, which is where my father and infant son are buried. It's a beautiful park-like place. It is named for a giant Cross on top of the hill at the cemetery. Proceeding down from that hill are what we Catholics call the Stations of the Cross. This is a special way for Catholics to meditate on the sufferings of Christ during his passion and crucifixion. I thought this would be a good way to help the kids recognize this day in our liturgical year.
Michaelangelo's Chapel Ceiling
I wanted to give some other examples of beautiful art at the Vatican. This is Michaelangelo's famous Sistine Chapel
On 8 May 1508, the artist signed the contract which foresaw the painting of twelve apostles in the pendentives and ornamental motifs in the rest. Subsequently, at the request of Buonarotti himself, who considered the project to be a "poor thing", the Pope gave him a new commission in which he left the full planning of the programme to the artist. It is however quite likely that for his creation the artist availed of the cooperation of the theologians of the papal court. Michelangelo placed nine Central stories illustrating episodes of the Genesis within a powerful painted architecture, with at their sides figures of Nudes, holding medallions with texts taken from the Book of Kings. At the base of the architectural structure twelve Prophets and Sibyls seated on monumental thrones are countered lower down by Christ's forefathers, portrayed in the Webs and in the Lunettes (north wall, south wall, entrance wall). Finally, in the four corner Pendentives, the artist illustrated some episodes of the miraculous salvation of the people of Israel. Michelangelo completed the first half of the Ceiling, that is from the entrance wall to the Creation of Eve, in August 1510. The work must have been completed by 31 October 1512, as the Pope celebrated Mass in the Chapel on 1 November.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Candy Does it Right
I think it's necessary that, if we are going to have a blog which discusses the logical fallacies and errors used in Candy's blog, we also must focus some time on encouraging her when she does it right.
Yesterday, I was very pleasantly surprised to see this post by Candy (part of which Elena has already responded to):
Rachel had commented:
Q Dear Candy, I am a Catholic and I read your link on how to be saved. I have done all those things (accepting Christ, proclaiming it, believing it in my heart, not being ashamed, recognizing that I am a sinner). I have done those and am still Catholic. Do you think I am saved? -Rachel
Candy responded:
A It sounds like it. Next I suggest you grab a KJV Bible, and read it ALL the way through, beginning to end (NO jumping around). However, if you are in agreement with the pope that you have to attend a Catholic church to be saved, or the common RC belief that you cannot be saved by faith alone, but must include works as well (I've had Catholics on both sides of this issue post here), then you may want to look into your spirit. You see, the Bible tells us that JESUS is our mediator between God and man. RC's often make Jesus out to be one in whom man cannot approach, so Mary appeases him, and RC's go through Marry as what the Vatican Holy See website calls the "mediatrix." This is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that Jesus is gentle and all-loving. He says "come unto Me all ye... and I will give you rest." Hence, if you believe what you said, then why stay at the RC church? The belief you've professed is a Christian one, so why not attend a Bible believing, Bible preaching Christian church, and follow what the Bible teaches? I'll be more than glad to help you find a great Christian church in your area, if you'd like. :-)
Here are the things that I was impressed by.
#1: She admitted that Rachel could be in a Catholic Church, and still be saved.
#2: Candy posted the question in full, and responded in exactly the manner she was asked.
#3: Candy directed Rachel directly to the Bible, not to a site on the web, or a testimony.
#4: She did not make a blanket statement about ALL Catholics believing that works is necessary for Salvation...she expressed that she had heard many on either side of the issue. I felt this was fair.
#5: She went on to explain her opinion, and what she had learned, based on the Bible's teachings.
#6: She offered to help find Rachel a church like Candy's, but she said, "If you'd like", not "You must leave your church in order to be saved." (I understand that Candy most likely doesn't believe that the church you go to makes you saved, but sometimes it has come across that way, perhaps unintended by her, and that is why I am happy she got it across differently this time).
There is an exception, I realize that she did state that a Catholic church isn't Christian, with this statement:
Hence, if you believe what you said, then why stay at the RC church? The belief you've professed is a Christian one, so why not attend a Bible believing, Bible preaching Christian church, and follow what the Bible teaches?
But at the same time, remember that Rachel asked her opinion, and Candy gave it. So I am satisfied with it.
While the Catholics and Candy will never agree on certain points, at least with this type of post expressing her faith, none should be angered by things such as severe and harsh accusations which are unproven, deception, etc.
I just wanted to post this to explain to Candy that it isn't her beliefs that differ with Catholics that is a problem. It is the method in which she argues.
And yesterday, she got it right, in my opinion! :)
*********************************************************************
P.S. Rachel has responded, and I think she made a good point!
Thank you for your response to my questions. I DO believe what I've said, but I don't really see the need to leave the Catholic church. I find it to BE a Christian church. It is the church that led me to my beliefs! I've never been told that my works save me, nor that only going to a Catholic church would save me, nor that I needed to go through anyone but Jesus. We also read the Bible regularly. I think if I have been saved, I am fine where I am, don't you?
Yesterday, I was very pleasantly surprised to see this post by Candy (part of which Elena has already responded to):
Rachel had commented:
Q Dear Candy, I am a Catholic and I read your link on how to be saved. I have done all those things (accepting Christ, proclaiming it, believing it in my heart, not being ashamed, recognizing that I am a sinner). I have done those and am still Catholic. Do you think I am saved? -Rachel
Candy responded:
A It sounds like it. Next I suggest you grab a KJV Bible, and read it ALL the way through, beginning to end (NO jumping around). However, if you are in agreement with the pope that you have to attend a Catholic church to be saved, or the common RC belief that you cannot be saved by faith alone, but must include works as well (I've had Catholics on both sides of this issue post here), then you may want to look into your spirit. You see, the Bible tells us that JESUS is our mediator between God and man. RC's often make Jesus out to be one in whom man cannot approach, so Mary appeases him, and RC's go through Marry as what the Vatican Holy See website calls the "mediatrix." This is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that Jesus is gentle and all-loving. He says "come unto Me all ye... and I will give you rest." Hence, if you believe what you said, then why stay at the RC church? The belief you've professed is a Christian one, so why not attend a Bible believing, Bible preaching Christian church, and follow what the Bible teaches? I'll be more than glad to help you find a great Christian church in your area, if you'd like. :-)
Here are the things that I was impressed by.
#1: She admitted that Rachel could be in a Catholic Church, and still be saved.
#2: Candy posted the question in full, and responded in exactly the manner she was asked.
#3: Candy directed Rachel directly to the Bible, not to a site on the web, or a testimony.
#4: She did not make a blanket statement about ALL Catholics believing that works is necessary for Salvation...she expressed that she had heard many on either side of the issue. I felt this was fair.
#5: She went on to explain her opinion, and what she had learned, based on the Bible's teachings.
#6: She offered to help find Rachel a church like Candy's, but she said, "If you'd like", not "You must leave your church in order to be saved." (I understand that Candy most likely doesn't believe that the church you go to makes you saved, but sometimes it has come across that way, perhaps unintended by her, and that is why I am happy she got it across differently this time).
There is an exception, I realize that she did state that a Catholic church isn't Christian, with this statement:
Hence, if you believe what you said, then why stay at the RC church? The belief you've professed is a Christian one, so why not attend a Bible believing, Bible preaching Christian church, and follow what the Bible teaches?
But at the same time, remember that Rachel asked her opinion, and Candy gave it. So I am satisfied with it.
While the Catholics and Candy will never agree on certain points, at least with this type of post expressing her faith, none should be angered by things such as severe and harsh accusations which are unproven, deception, etc.
I just wanted to post this to explain to Candy that it isn't her beliefs that differ with Catholics that is a problem. It is the method in which she argues.
And yesterday, she got it right, in my opinion! :)
*********************************************************************
P.S. Rachel has responded, and I think she made a good point!
Thank you for your response to my questions. I DO believe what I've said, but I don't really see the need to leave the Catholic church. I find it to BE a Christian church. It is the church that led me to my beliefs! I've never been told that my works save me, nor that only going to a Catholic church would save me, nor that I needed to go through anyone but Jesus. We also read the Bible regularly. I think if I have been saved, I am fine where I am, don't you?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Some commenting guidelines
As the blog has grown and developed these past few weeks, I think we are big enough now to have some commenting guidelines. I want this to be an open forum for people to be able to discuss freely, but I don't want it to be like an unmoderated ACLU forum (if you've ever visited one of those you'll know what I am speaking of!)
I am going to put these in the side bar, but basically these are the guidelines written by the Harris Twins and I think they do an excellent job of explaining these guidelines. I urge everyone to read them through. I am giving the Reader's Digest Condensed version below.
In a nutshell:
NUMBER ONE: Understand the ‘classical’ view of tolerance.
Hard on ideas and opinions, soft on people!
NUMBER TWO: “No ‘ad hominem’ attacks, you moron!”
Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. Remember that the character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.
DO NOT stoop to name-calling (moron, idiot, etc.)
DO NOT imply negative monikers onto people simply because they disagree. (i.e. “Anyone who’s even slightly intelligent will believe that cows are people too.”)
NUMBER THREE: Eschew Obscenity & Prohibit Profanity
The use of inappropriate language and shocking statements is a sure sign that the author lacks the ability to communicate their position in a calm and reasonable manner. It shows tremendous disdain for others and will not be allowed on respectable blogs.(including this one!!)
NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.
This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that you carefully guard yourself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.
NUMBER FIVE: Respond to the argument, not to the spelling.
DO feel free to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim.
DO NOT point out errors solely for the purpose of embarrassing your opponent. And before someone jumps all over me for this one... my bad, mea culpa. That comment is history!
NUMBER SIX: Debating When Less Is More.
A common tactic adopted by inexperienced debaters is to ask a long series of questions that place an enormous burden on their opposition, without actually making any particular point. Such an approach is not only unfair to your opponent, but it really isn’t argumentation at all. These kinds of “question avalanches” can hardly be responded to in the confines of a comment section, but will often foster animosity. This has happened to me more than once this year alone by non-Catholic commenters flooding the arena with questions on Mary, indulgences, saints etc... one at a time folks, one at a time.
NUMBER SEVEN: Do your own research.
NUMBER EIGHT: The fallacy of the majority.
When the majority of participants in a discussion hold your position, it is common to start acting as if the last seven principles no longer apply to you. You feel you can destroy the dissenter, along with their position, since you have so many like-minded chums. This too has happened to men on non-Catholic blogs. Here at VTC there are many of us who are likeminded. We have to be very aware that we do not attack differing views like a pack of wolves. We need to remain gracious and open.
OK, that's pretty much it. I'm pretty lenient and open minded and like to manage with a light touch. However because I want the comments to be open to all, I will remove posts without explanation if I feel they are violating the above. I'll probably give a warning first except for the ad hominem - depending on how severe that offense is I could just remove it immediately and without explanation.
I am going to put these in the side bar, but basically these are the guidelines written by the Harris Twins and I think they do an excellent job of explaining these guidelines. I urge everyone to read them through. I am giving the Reader's Digest Condensed version below.
In a nutshell:
NUMBER ONE: Understand the ‘classical’ view of tolerance.
Hard on ideas and opinions, soft on people!
NUMBER TWO: “No ‘ad hominem’ attacks, you moron!”
Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. Remember that the character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.
DO NOT stoop to name-calling (moron, idiot, etc.)
DO NOT imply negative monikers onto people simply because they disagree. (i.e. “Anyone who’s even slightly intelligent will believe that cows are people too.”)
NUMBER THREE: Eschew Obscenity & Prohibit Profanity
The use of inappropriate language and shocking statements is a sure sign that the author lacks the ability to communicate their position in a calm and reasonable manner. It shows tremendous disdain for others and will not be allowed on respectable blogs.(including this one!!)
NUMBER FOUR: He who asserts must prove.
This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that you carefully guard yourself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.
NUMBER FIVE: Respond to the argument, not to the spelling.
DO feel free to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim.
DO NOT point out errors solely for the purpose of embarrassing your opponent. And before someone jumps all over me for this one... my bad, mea culpa. That comment is history!
NUMBER SIX: Debating When Less Is More.
A common tactic adopted by inexperienced debaters is to ask a long series of questions that place an enormous burden on their opposition, without actually making any particular point. Such an approach is not only unfair to your opponent, but it really isn’t argumentation at all. These kinds of “question avalanches” can hardly be responded to in the confines of a comment section, but will often foster animosity. This has happened to me more than once this year alone by non-Catholic commenters flooding the arena with questions on Mary, indulgences, saints etc... one at a time folks, one at a time.
NUMBER SEVEN: Do your own research.
NUMBER EIGHT: The fallacy of the majority.
When the majority of participants in a discussion hold your position, it is common to start acting as if the last seven principles no longer apply to you. You feel you can destroy the dissenter, along with their position, since you have so many like-minded chums. This too has happened to men on non-Catholic blogs. Here at VTC there are many of us who are likeminded. We have to be very aware that we do not attack differing views like a pack of wolves. We need to remain gracious and open.
OK, that's pretty much it. I'm pretty lenient and open minded and like to manage with a light touch. However because I want the comments to be open to all, I will remove posts without explanation if I feel they are violating the above. I'll probably give a warning first except for the ad hominem - depending on how severe that offense is I could just remove it immediately and without explanation.
just another day of Catholic pondering: Catholic Carnival 136: Game Day!
just another day of Catholic pondering: Catholic Carnival 136: Game Day!
I'm going to include the Catholic Carnival this week so that perhaps our nonCatholic friends can get a taste of what real authentic Catholic life is like.
I'm going to include the Catholic Carnival this week so that perhaps our nonCatholic friends can get a taste of what real authentic Catholic life is like.
From Candy's Q and A
However, if you are in agreement with the pope that you have to attend a Catholic church to be saved, or the common RC belief that you cannot be saved by faith alone, but must include works as well (I've had Catholics on both sides of this issue post here), then you may want to look into your spirit.
From the Catholic Catechism #2001: The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"
Also worth reading is #1697 (bold is my addition): Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the "newness of life" in him should be:
- a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;
- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;
- a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;
- a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;
- a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;
- a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;
- a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;
- an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of "spiritual goods" in the "communion of saints" that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.
You see, the Bible tells us that JESUS is our mediator between God and man.
Again, 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.
RC's go through Marry as what the Vatican Holy See website calls the "mediatrix."
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.
From the Catholic Catechism #2001: The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"
Also worth reading is #1697 (bold is my addition): Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the "newness of life" in him should be:
- a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;
- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;
- a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;
- a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;
- a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;
- a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;
- a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;
- an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of "spiritual goods" in the "communion of saints" that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.
You see, the Bible tells us that JESUS is our mediator between God and man.
Again, 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.
RC's go through Marry as what the Vatican Holy See website calls the "mediatrix."
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.
The Catholic Bible
Many people are unaware that there are differences among Bibles. Other people are extremely aware of the differences, and may say something like "Even if a Catholic reads the Bible, it doesn't count because they use a Catholic Bible."
Protestant Bibles contain fewer books in the Old Testament than Catholic Bibles. (They both pale in comparison to the Ethiopian Bible, which contains 81 books.) These Old Testament books are known most commonly as the apocrypha, but more correctly as the deuterocanonical books. The deuterocanonical books were remained in the protestant Bible until 1826, when the British and Foreign Bible Society stopped including them, and the practice spread from there. The original King James Version of the Bible included these books, as you can see here (scroll down a bit).
The Catholic Bible is based on the Greek language Old Testament, which was the most commonly used at the time of Jesus. The Greek version was read in the synagogue, and it is the most heavily quoted in the New Testament. This Greek language version is known as the Septuagint.
The Jewish Encyclopedia calls the Septuagint "the oldest and most important of all the versions" and admits that a major reason why it fell out of favor with Jews was a distrust "accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith." The Jews eventually adopted a version of the Old Testament text based on a manuscript written by Aaron Ben Moses Ben Asher in the early tenth century.
Some argue that the deuterocanonical books were not considered authoritative by the Jews. I would point out that hanukkah originates from the deuterocanonical books, and is celebrated by Jews today. More relevant for the Christian, Jesus quoted from the deuterocanonical books, showing that he considered them authoritative.
Protestant Bibles contain fewer books in the Old Testament than Catholic Bibles. (They both pale in comparison to the Ethiopian Bible, which contains 81 books.) These Old Testament books are known most commonly as the apocrypha, but more correctly as the deuterocanonical books. The deuterocanonical books were remained in the protestant Bible until 1826, when the British and Foreign Bible Society stopped including them, and the practice spread from there. The original King James Version of the Bible included these books, as you can see here (scroll down a bit).
The Catholic Bible is based on the Greek language Old Testament, which was the most commonly used at the time of Jesus. The Greek version was read in the synagogue, and it is the most heavily quoted in the New Testament. This Greek language version is known as the Septuagint.
The Jewish Encyclopedia calls the Septuagint "the oldest and most important of all the versions" and admits that a major reason why it fell out of favor with Jews was a distrust "accentuated by the fact that it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith." The Jews eventually adopted a version of the Old Testament text based on a manuscript written by Aaron Ben Moses Ben Asher in the early tenth century.
Some argue that the deuterocanonical books were not considered authoritative by the Jews. I would point out that hanukkah originates from the deuterocanonical books, and is celebrated by Jews today. More relevant for the Christian, Jesus quoted from the deuterocanonical books, showing that he considered them authoritative.
Bethany presented this link to correspondence between a journalist and a pastor who apparently is the son of a man who knew Sister Charlotte. An interesting read. And yes, I agree, Pastor Reckart sounds defensive right out of the gate.
Letters to Pastor Reckert.
Letters to Pastor Reckert.
New Response for Amy
Amy, you have had many, many opportunities to post your opinions and comments over on VTC. One little time that I take down a snarky little remark from you and you go ballistic!
How is it even possible to mangle your words and meanings when you have free access to correct and respond to anything I might write?
As for being reasonable, I am more than willing to listen, read and participate in any topic you want to discuss. I have even invited you to pick the topic. You already know that you will have free reign to comment (which is more than you have ever afforded me here BTW).
I would appreciate it if you'd quit acting as if you have been some sort of injured party. Just to be clear, you have removed my posts or prevented them from even being published (a la Candy style) and then went public in calling me a fool. So whatever Amy. Seems you like to dish it out, but can't seem to take it.
How is it even possible to mangle your words and meanings when you have free access to correct and respond to anything I might write?
As for being reasonable, I am more than willing to listen, read and participate in any topic you want to discuss. I have even invited you to pick the topic. You already know that you will have free reign to comment (which is more than you have ever afforded me here BTW).
I would appreciate it if you'd quit acting as if you have been some sort of injured party. Just to be clear, you have removed my posts or prevented them from even being published (a la Candy style) and then went public in calling me a fool. So whatever Amy. Seems you like to dish it out, but can't seem to take it.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Response to Carrie's Comments
These are from a lady named Carrie who responded on Candy's blog under the Sister Charlotte post. Her comments in italics.
Catholic services do not use the "Christian" Bible. They occasionally quote from a book they refer to as the "bible" and they don't actually use it.
Carrie displays her vast ignorance of the Catholic mass. Not only does the Sunday mass use readings directly from the old testament, the Psalms, the epistles and the Gospel, bits of scripture are incorporated throughout the remainder of the mass. Her remark is simply ignorant.
I was forced to sit through services for years and never once saw "A BIBLE" cracked open.
Well if she had actually watched she would have seen the Lectionary brought forward to the podium to be read by the priest for the Gospel reading. Further if she had looked around, she might have noted a misellette or two with the readings for the day right in front of her.
I think there is some historical ignorance here to. For centuries most of the common people COULD NOT READ! The Gospel was proclaimed and the emphasis was on HEARING the word, not reading it.
Also, and this is common sense here people, if you take some phrases from one book (say the Christian Bible) and they are used in the Catholic bible or in mass IT DOESNT MEAN YOU ARE USING THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE!Just like if I paraphrase a medical text say...explaining the transmission of AIDS (listed in the medical texts as through bodily secretions) and I say...add "and through skin to skin contact or eating raw foods" THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE MEDICAL TEXT I "copied" from says. Therefore, my "new" book IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL!
If it's the original she wants she best check out the Catholic version of the bible. The one she uses is missing a few books that were removed approximately 500 years ago.
I don't get this ongoing argument that the Catholics keep trying to make on this blog. If you are Catholic and believe your religious choice is correct, then what are you doing here?
Defending our faith against lies and misinformation.
Your welcome here, I am sure, but why are you so bent on trying to change Candy's mind.
At this point I'm not. I am more than satisfied to just get the truth out about what Catholics believe for for folks who are actually looking for it.
She gets to think and write whatever she wants.
See my previous post. Having the "right" to do something doesn't make it "right."
Why do you keep trying to claim that there are similarities? How would you even know, being you are so devoted to your religion?
I could reverse that question back to you Carrie.
According to the Christian Bible, the Lord specifically commands those who serve him to NEVER worship ANY OTHER GODS BEFORE HIM (for example the Pope, Mary and the tons of Saints worshiped by Catholics)
We don't worship the Pope, Mary or the saints. It's that simple.
and Jesus very specifically states that "NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!
That's what the Catholic church teaches as well.
The entire NT of the Bible is dedicated to educating the reader that they can DO NOTHING to DESERVE Salvation, but can ONLY BE GIVEN IT AS A GIFT!
Might want to take another tour through the book of James.
It might go against your interpretation of God's word Carrie - which is an entirely different matter all together.
Lastly, if you read this blog, for whatever reason and you don't agree. Do it like an adult. If you have a guestion, ask it NICELY.
I tried that. Nothing got through until Candy finally SCREAMED at me on the front page of her blog. A lot of people think I started this blog - the truth is Candy started it by the way she mishandled my sincere attempts to communicate with her.
Candy can write WHATEVER she wants to. If you don't want to read it or disagree...here is a novel idea DON'T READ IT!
Already handled that lame argument.
Catholic services do not use the "Christian" Bible. They occasionally quote from a book they refer to as the "bible" and they don't actually use it.
Carrie displays her vast ignorance of the Catholic mass. Not only does the Sunday mass use readings directly from the old testament, the Psalms, the epistles and the Gospel, bits of scripture are incorporated throughout the remainder of the mass. Her remark is simply ignorant.
I was forced to sit through services for years and never once saw "A BIBLE" cracked open.
Well if she had actually watched she would have seen the Lectionary brought forward to the podium to be read by the priest for the Gospel reading. Further if she had looked around, she might have noted a misellette or two with the readings for the day right in front of her.
I think there is some historical ignorance here to. For centuries most of the common people COULD NOT READ! The Gospel was proclaimed and the emphasis was on HEARING the word, not reading it.
Also, and this is common sense here people, if you take some phrases from one book (say the Christian Bible) and they are used in the Catholic bible or in mass IT DOESNT MEAN YOU ARE USING THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE!Just like if I paraphrase a medical text say...explaining the transmission of AIDS (listed in the medical texts as through bodily secretions) and I say...add "and through skin to skin contact or eating raw foods" THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE MEDICAL TEXT I "copied" from says. Therefore, my "new" book IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL!
If it's the original she wants she best check out the Catholic version of the bible. The one she uses is missing a few books that were removed approximately 500 years ago.
I don't get this ongoing argument that the Catholics keep trying to make on this blog. If you are Catholic and believe your religious choice is correct, then what are you doing here?
Defending our faith against lies and misinformation.
Your welcome here, I am sure, but why are you so bent on trying to change Candy's mind.
At this point I'm not. I am more than satisfied to just get the truth out about what Catholics believe for for folks who are actually looking for it.
She gets to think and write whatever she wants.
See my previous post. Having the "right" to do something doesn't make it "right."
Why do you keep trying to claim that there are similarities? How would you even know, being you are so devoted to your religion?
I could reverse that question back to you Carrie.
According to the Christian Bible, the Lord specifically commands those who serve him to NEVER worship ANY OTHER GODS BEFORE HIM (for example the Pope, Mary and the tons of Saints worshiped by Catholics)
We don't worship the Pope, Mary or the saints. It's that simple.
and Jesus very specifically states that "NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!
That's what the Catholic church teaches as well.
The entire NT of the Bible is dedicated to educating the reader that they can DO NOTHING to DESERVE Salvation, but can ONLY BE GIVEN IT AS A GIFT!
Might want to take another tour through the book of James.
Now in the last several months the pope recently proclaimed not only that the catholic church is the "only" true church and the only way to salvation AND that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
In other words, directly against the Word of the ONE TRUE GOD (Yes, I BELIEVE that the GOD I serve it the ONE TRUE GOD and I get to make that decision and I don't waste my time on trying to get other religions to ok it).
It might go against your interpretation of God's word Carrie - which is an entirely different matter all together.
Lastly, if you read this blog, for whatever reason and you don't agree. Do it like an adult. If you have a guestion, ask it NICELY.
I tried that. Nothing got through until Candy finally SCREAMED at me on the front page of her blog. A lot of people think I started this blog - the truth is Candy started it by the way she mishandled my sincere attempts to communicate with her.
Candy can write WHATEVER she wants to. If you don't want to read it or disagree...here is a novel idea DON'T READ IT!
Already handled that lame argument.
Monday, September 10, 2007
More Young Women Entering the Convent.
More young women are entering convents"
The following are excerpts from an article from the Nov. 13, 2006 Time Magazine issue, titled, "Today's Nun Has A Veil--And A Blog -more young women are entering convents. How they are changing the sisterhood", by TRACY SCHMIDT, LISA TAKEUCHI CULLEN:
"...Over the past five years, Roman Catholic communities around the country have experienced a curious phenomenon: more women, most in their 20s and 30s, are trying on that veil. Convents in Nashville, Tenn.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; and New York City all admitted at least 15 entrants over the past year and fielded hundreds of inquiries. One convent is hurriedly raising funds for a new building to house the inflow, and at another a rush of new blood has lowered the median age of its 225 sisters to 36. Catholic centers at universities, including Illinois and Texas A&M, report growing numbers of women entering discernment, or the official period of considering a vocation. Career women seeking more meaning in their lives and empty-nest moms are also finding their way to convent doors...
This is a welcome turnabout for the church. As opportunities opened for women in the 1960s and '70s, fewer of them viewed the asceticism and confinements of religious life as a tempting career choice. Since 1965, the number of Catholic nuns in the U.S. has declined from 179,954 to just 67,773, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. The average age of nuns today is 69. But over the past decade or so, expressing their religious beliefs openly has become hip for many young people, a trend intensified among Catholic women by the charismatic appeal of Pope John Paul II's youth rallies and his interpretation of modern feminism as a way for women to express Christian values...
As this so-called JP2 generation has come of age, religious orders have begun to reach out again to young people--and to do so in the language that young people speak. Convents conduct e-mail correspondence with interested women, blogs written by sisters give a peek into the habited life and websites offer online personality questionnaires to test vocations. One site, Vocation-network.org frames the choice much like a dating service, with Christ as the ultimate match. 'For a long time, we neglected to invite people to see what we are about,' says Sister Doris Gottemoeller of the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of America, a national order. 'I think we're more ready to do that now.'
And although the extreme conservatism of a nun's life may seem wholly countercultural for young American women today, that is exactly what attracts many of them, say experts and the women themselves. 'Religious life itself is a radical choice,' says Brother Paul Bednarczyk, executive director of the National Religious Vocation Conference in Chicago. 'In an age where our primary secular values are sex, power and money, for someone to choose chastity, obedience and poverty is a radical statement.'
At the Sisters of Life Formation House in the Bronx, N.Y., 16 young women are making their way through that journey. They include a former Marine, a professional opera singer, a United Nations aide and a recent Yale grad. They have left behind paychecks, apartments, even boyfriends. Sister Thérèse Saglimbeni, 27, a novice who joined the convent in 2005, recalls watching the sisters playing volleyball while she was a student at the nearby State University of New York Maritime College. 'I was with my boyfriend and had said how fun the sisters looked,' she says. 'He said, "Well, why don't you join them?" And I replied, "Well, maybe I will!"'
The other sisters chuckle when Saglimbeni recounts her saucy retort. But many of their loved ones feel less jovial about the women's decision to take the veil. 'For those who are called, there is a real falling in love. You are filled with a joy and desire to be with God,' says Sister Mary Gabriel Devlin, 32, vocation director at Sisters of Life. 'Their families are not experiencing this, so it can be hard for them to understand.' The sense of alienation can be even greater when women choose an order that isolates them from their families and others so that they can devote themselves to strict schedules of regimented prayer. Convents like Sisters of Life that combine contemplation with active ministry to the public are the most popular among young women...
Nuns of all ages at convents in the U.S. say modern technology is helping them give the world--and prospective applicants--a more realistic picture of their lives. 'There are people out there who wonder what being a nun is like,' says Sister Julie Vieira, 36. 'These are people who were exposed to stereotypes of nuns and don't understand how we really live.' So last summer Vieira began a blog titled A Nun's Life, in which she has chronicled her days as a sister of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and also a conventional-dressing, apartment-dwelling, master's degree--holding production coordinator at the Loyola Press, a Catholic publisher in Chicago. 'Being a nun has not always been my lifelong goal,' she writes in one entry. 'The whole "nun" thing kind of snuck up on me when I wasn't paying much attention ... I can't tell you how many times I've been called "Sister Julie" that it doesn't jolt me or make me look around and wonder who they are talking about.'
Sister Joseph Andrew Bogdanowicz, vocation director at the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist in Ann Arbor, credits e-mail to some extent with what can only be described as her order's astonishing growth. Founded in 1997 as an offshoot of a large convent, the Sisters now have 73 members with an average age of 24. In 2006, 15 women entered as postulants. Next August, more than 20 women are scheduled to join them. The order is fund raising for a new convent for them to live in. 'We cannot build fast enough. It's incredible,' says Bogdanowicz, 50..."
The following are excerpts from an article from the Nov. 13, 2006 Time Magazine issue, titled, "Today's Nun Has A Veil--And A Blog -more young women are entering convents. How they are changing the sisterhood", by TRACY SCHMIDT, LISA TAKEUCHI CULLEN:
"...Over the past five years, Roman Catholic communities around the country have experienced a curious phenomenon: more women, most in their 20s and 30s, are trying on that veil. Convents in Nashville, Tenn.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; and New York City all admitted at least 15 entrants over the past year and fielded hundreds of inquiries. One convent is hurriedly raising funds for a new building to house the inflow, and at another a rush of new blood has lowered the median age of its 225 sisters to 36. Catholic centers at universities, including Illinois and Texas A&M, report growing numbers of women entering discernment, or the official period of considering a vocation. Career women seeking more meaning in their lives and empty-nest moms are also finding their way to convent doors...
This is a welcome turnabout for the church. As opportunities opened for women in the 1960s and '70s, fewer of them viewed the asceticism and confinements of religious life as a tempting career choice. Since 1965, the number of Catholic nuns in the U.S. has declined from 179,954 to just 67,773, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University. The average age of nuns today is 69. But over the past decade or so, expressing their religious beliefs openly has become hip for many young people, a trend intensified among Catholic women by the charismatic appeal of Pope John Paul II's youth rallies and his interpretation of modern feminism as a way for women to express Christian values...
As this so-called JP2 generation has come of age, religious orders have begun to reach out again to young people--and to do so in the language that young people speak. Convents conduct e-mail correspondence with interested women, blogs written by sisters give a peek into the habited life and websites offer online personality questionnaires to test vocations. One site, Vocation-network.org frames the choice much like a dating service, with Christ as the ultimate match. 'For a long time, we neglected to invite people to see what we are about,' says Sister Doris Gottemoeller of the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of America, a national order. 'I think we're more ready to do that now.'
And although the extreme conservatism of a nun's life may seem wholly countercultural for young American women today, that is exactly what attracts many of them, say experts and the women themselves. 'Religious life itself is a radical choice,' says Brother Paul Bednarczyk, executive director of the National Religious Vocation Conference in Chicago. 'In an age where our primary secular values are sex, power and money, for someone to choose chastity, obedience and poverty is a radical statement.'
At the Sisters of Life Formation House in the Bronx, N.Y., 16 young women are making their way through that journey. They include a former Marine, a professional opera singer, a United Nations aide and a recent Yale grad. They have left behind paychecks, apartments, even boyfriends. Sister Thérèse Saglimbeni, 27, a novice who joined the convent in 2005, recalls watching the sisters playing volleyball while she was a student at the nearby State University of New York Maritime College. 'I was with my boyfriend and had said how fun the sisters looked,' she says. 'He said, "Well, why don't you join them?" And I replied, "Well, maybe I will!"'
The other sisters chuckle when Saglimbeni recounts her saucy retort. But many of their loved ones feel less jovial about the women's decision to take the veil. 'For those who are called, there is a real falling in love. You are filled with a joy and desire to be with God,' says Sister Mary Gabriel Devlin, 32, vocation director at Sisters of Life. 'Their families are not experiencing this, so it can be hard for them to understand.' The sense of alienation can be even greater when women choose an order that isolates them from their families and others so that they can devote themselves to strict schedules of regimented prayer. Convents like Sisters of Life that combine contemplation with active ministry to the public are the most popular among young women...
Nuns of all ages at convents in the U.S. say modern technology is helping them give the world--and prospective applicants--a more realistic picture of their lives. 'There are people out there who wonder what being a nun is like,' says Sister Julie Vieira, 36. 'These are people who were exposed to stereotypes of nuns and don't understand how we really live.' So last summer Vieira began a blog titled A Nun's Life, in which she has chronicled her days as a sister of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and also a conventional-dressing, apartment-dwelling, master's degree--holding production coordinator at the Loyola Press, a Catholic publisher in Chicago. 'Being a nun has not always been my lifelong goal,' she writes in one entry. 'The whole "nun" thing kind of snuck up on me when I wasn't paying much attention ... I can't tell you how many times I've been called "Sister Julie" that it doesn't jolt me or make me look around and wonder who they are talking about.'
Sister Joseph Andrew Bogdanowicz, vocation director at the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist in Ann Arbor, credits e-mail to some extent with what can only be described as her order's astonishing growth. Founded in 1997 as an offshoot of a large convent, the Sisters now have 73 members with an average age of 24. In 2006, 15 women entered as postulants. Next August, more than 20 women are scheduled to join them. The order is fund raising for a new convent for them to live in. 'We cannot build fast enough. It's incredible,' says Bogdanowicz, 50..."
CNS STORY: Religious communities notice more young women open to religious life
CNS STORY: Religious communities notice more young women open to religious life: "Sister Mary Gabriel, vocations director for the Sisters of Life, said the girls she talks with want more than what the society and culture have to offer and are drawn to the freedom they find in religious life through living the vocation to which they are called. 'It's not a kickback to the '50s. It's so different. Young women have seen it all,' she said. In answer to questions sent to them by CNS, young women shared the reasons they're open to and discerning religious life. 'I think it's my responsibility as a faithful young person to seriously discern whether or not God is calling me into direct service of the church through religious life,' said Lindsay Wilcox, a student at Boston College. 'I am considering religious life because God has placed that inclination on my heart -- to totally give my life back to him, who laid down his life for me,' said Stephanie Ray, who is preparing to enter the Sisters of Life."
"I've had my front teeth knocked out."
Kelly spotted this in the Sister Charlotte article. Well if sister had her teeth knocked out, these are the worst looking denture replacements I've ever seen! They look pretty natural to me!
The Possible Priest
While we are talking about people who may or may not have been in the Catholic Church as a priest or nun, it seems a good time to address a comment made on Candy's blog by Swylv.
Swylv wrote:
back when I first moved to the area I live in now, some family let me borrow some comic book style publication that told of a man's ordeal on becoming a priest....I googled it just now and some of the comics I read are here http://www.chick.com/catalog/com...g/ comiclist.asp
the one's about alberto...Now I didn't read all of them but am glad to have finally but a name to something I read over 10 years ago...and they too talk of tunnels linking the priest quarters and the nuns housing and many dead baby bodies in between....
This is in reference to Alberto Rivera, who is featured prominently in several of Jack Chick's comics. Rivera claimed to be a former Jesuit, and makes many incredible claims about the Catholic Church. Because of the popularity of Chick tracts, I would guess that more people are familiar with Rivera's story than with the Maria Monk/Sister Charlotte tale.
I admit, I haven't bothered to read the comics in question. Catholic Answers says that Rivera claims the Catholic Church is responsible for "Islam, Communism, the Masons, and the Klan; that it controls the Illuminati, the Mafia, and the New Age movement; that it created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and is databasing the name of every Protestant church member for a future inquisition."
But you don't have to take the word of a Catholic source that Rivera was never a Jesuit. A protestant named Gary Metz wrote wrote articles in both Cornerstone and Christianity Today in 1981 exposing Rivera as a fraud. Sadly, these articles are not online, but you can read excerpts at Dave Armstrong's site.
Gary Dale Cearley has written an entire book called Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness about the subject.
Swylv wrote:
back when I first moved to the area I live in now, some family let me borrow some comic book style publication that told of a man's ordeal on becoming a priest....I googled it just now and some of the comics I read are here http://www.chick.com/catalog/com...g/ comiclist.asp
the one's about alberto...Now I didn't read all of them but am glad to have finally but a name to something I read over 10 years ago...and they too talk of tunnels linking the priest quarters and the nuns housing and many dead baby bodies in between....
This is in reference to Alberto Rivera, who is featured prominently in several of Jack Chick's comics. Rivera claimed to be a former Jesuit, and makes many incredible claims about the Catholic Church. Because of the popularity of Chick tracts, I would guess that more people are familiar with Rivera's story than with the Maria Monk/Sister Charlotte tale.
I admit, I haven't bothered to read the comics in question. Catholic Answers says that Rivera claims the Catholic Church is responsible for "Islam, Communism, the Masons, and the Klan; that it controls the Illuminati, the Mafia, and the New Age movement; that it created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and is databasing the name of every Protestant church member for a future inquisition."
But you don't have to take the word of a Catholic source that Rivera was never a Jesuit. A protestant named Gary Metz wrote wrote articles in both Cornerstone and Christianity Today in 1981 exposing Rivera as a fraud. Sadly, these articles are not online, but you can read excerpts at Dave Armstrong's site.
Gary Dale Cearley has written an entire book called Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness about the subject.
A little place on the net
We're getting quite a few hits from this this little blog.:
The blogger writes:
I wonder if this is really true? Sure we have a constitutional right to free speech, but is it really "right" as in moral, just and proper to say whatever we want on a blog? What if we came across a white supremacy blog that advocated the murder of anyone of any ethnic decent. Or what about a blog that makes fun of the mentally retarded, or a blog that talks about how to do your own abortion (that last one really existed by the way. I remember reading it.) Of course there is a "legal right" to say these things but as Christians do we really believe that "each of us has a right to say whatever we want on our blogs" when those things suggest that another group of people worship Satan for example? Apologetics is fine of course, but apologetics suggests being open to a dialog and discussion. The reason Visits to Candyland exists is that the Catholic faith has been maligned and lied about without allowing Catholics to explain, educate and defend their faith. Of course it is Candy's "right" to do so, but is it "right?"
I think it is sad that someone would have to!
Gosh she makes it sound so warm and cozy doesn't she. Yet last weekend, we read about a nun who witnessed rapes and murders and "witnessed" about them as though this is the sate of the convent all over the world in the Catholic Church! Sure it was Candy's choice to post about such poison on her "little place on the net." But having that choice doesn't make it "right."
The blogger writes:
"I am NOT going to enter in to the debate over who is right and wrong about Catholicism, this is a debate that has been raging for centuries and I seriously doubt I could have an impact. However I will say that each of us has the right to say whatever we want on our blogs. They are that, OUR BLOGS they belong to each individual."
I wonder if this is really true? Sure we have a constitutional right to free speech, but is it really "right" as in moral, just and proper to say whatever we want on a blog? What if we came across a white supremacy blog that advocated the murder of anyone of any ethnic decent. Or what about a blog that makes fun of the mentally retarded, or a blog that talks about how to do your own abortion (that last one really existed by the way. I remember reading it.) Of course there is a "legal right" to say these things but as Christians do we really believe that "each of us has a right to say whatever we want on our blogs" when those things suggest that another group of people worship Satan for example? Apologetics is fine of course, but apologetics suggests being open to a dialog and discussion. The reason Visits to Candyland exists is that the Catholic faith has been maligned and lied about without allowing Catholics to explain, educate and defend their faith. Of course it is Candy's "right" to do so, but is it "right?"
I find it sad that someone would start a blog for the sole reason of refuting another.
I think it is sad that someone would have to!
If someone chooses not to post your comments or respond to your antagonism that is their choice because each blog is that woman's little place on the net."
Gosh she makes it sound so warm and cozy doesn't she. Yet last weekend, we read about a nun who witnessed rapes and murders and "witnessed" about them as though this is the sate of the convent all over the world in the Catholic Church! Sure it was Candy's choice to post about such poison on her "little place on the net." But having that choice doesn't make it "right."
Welcome Bethany
Please join me in welcoming Bethany as a co-blogger here at Visits to Candyland. I look forward to her posts and I appreciate the help!
Just Another Urban Legend
Tales of the horrifying secret life of nuns are now something of an urban legend. Mary Crow Dog, in her book, Lakota Woman, repeats a similar story. She attended a reservation convent boarding school, and says that "everyone" knew that the nuns were hypocrites because, and then repeated the "priest + nun=dead babies" story. Only her version involved a sewer instead of a lime pit.
Urban legends are good stories. They start out in a very believable way.
First of all I always like to tell folk I’m not giving this testimony because I have any ill feeling in my heart toward the Roman Catholic people. I couldn’t be a Christian if I still had bitterness in my heart. God delivered me from all bitterness and strife and delivered me out of all of that one day and made himself real to me, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Then, when you are caught up in the story, the more unbelievable elements are slipped into it. The average person listening isn't likely to know about the age you are able to enter a convent according to canon law, or the number of nuns allowed in a cloistered convent.
No, the best way to deal with any urban legend is to pepper to person telling the tale with questions, which poke holes in the story.
The priest will tell all over the whole United States and other countries that sisters, or nuns rather, can walk out of convents when they want to. I spent 22 years there. I did everything there was to do to get out. I’ve carried tablespoons with me into the dungeons and tried to dig down into that dirt, because there’s no floors in those places, but I’ve never yet found myself digging far enough to get out of a convent with a tablespoon and that’s about the only instrument.
So, the nuns are held prisoner and locked in the convents? Why did she even bother trying with a tablespoon? Did she really think she was going to dig a tunnel with a tablespoon? There are nun guards that will notice her digging with a spade, but they wouldn't notice a tunnel if it was dug by a tablespoon?
They can steal up to 40 dollars and they don’t have to tell the priest about it. They don’t have to say one word about it in the confessional box. They’re taught that. Every Roman Catholic knows it and every Roman Catholic (you’d be horrified if you know how many of them) steal up to that amount.
Why forty dollars? Is there any significance to the amount? Does is ever change for inflation? Is that $40 for your entire life, or just at any given time?
Later, she says: That's just a little idea or sample of what's going on in this country, and still there are thousands of mothers that will work their fingers to the bone to go over there and give the priest another five dollars to say a mass for loved one that is in purgatory, because that mother believes there is a purgatory.
Why do they have to work their fingers to the bone just to get five dollars? If you can steal up to forty dollars, then that's an easy way to get eight masses said, right? Or is there a rule that you have to earn money for purgatory masses?
I've had my front teeth knocked out.
I guess it's too late to ask Sister Charlotte to take out her bridge for us . . .
And most of the babies are premature. Many of them are abnormal. Very, very seldom do we ever see a normal baby.
Prematurity would certainly be consistent with starvation conditions. But why would they rarely have normal babies? These are healthy girls, with alcoholic but presumably healthy priests. Why would they have a higher than average incidence of birth defects?
You say, "Sister Charlotte, do you dare to say that?" I most definitely do dare to say it, and I intend to keep on saying it. Why? I've delivered those babies with these hands, and what I've seen with my eyes and I've done with my hands, I just challenge the whole world to say it isn't true. And the only way they can ever prove it isn't true, they'll have to open every convent door. If they ever serve a summons on me and call me into court, I'll assure you this one thing: convents are coming open and then the world will know what convents really are. And they'll have to open them to vindicate my testimony, because I know what I'll do if they ever serve a summons on me.
I think this is the crux of the whole story, here. Why didn't she go to the police? She says she's ready to testify in court. If she has traveled around, telling people this story, why didn't any of them demand an investigation as well? She's content to pray that the "little girls" escape the convent, but not actually do anything about it?
And almost equally ridiculous is the story of her escape.
And when something touched the garbage can that's a noise. Who in the world-? There's six of us and we're all together. Who is touching the garbage can? I wheeled around. They wheeled around, and we saw a man, and you know, that man was picking up the full can and leaving an empty one. I've never seen that before. I've been in that convent for years, and in the kitchen, but I never saw anything like that happen.
Okay, let me get this straight. They live in a cloistered convent. They never see anyone but priests. But the garbage man has a key, and walks into the kitchen to get the trash. Wow. How convenient for her. But I think if they were really serious about keeping the nuns prisoner, they would have at least left the trash outside the gate.
And I realized I'm on the outside. "Where am I going?" Where do you think you'd go? I'm not in the United States. I'm in another country and I don't know a thing about that country. When they took me over there I was so heavily veiled and they took me from that particular train to the convent, I was so heavily veiled I couldn't see anything.
Wait, how did she get in this other country? She said they took her a thousand miles away. How many other countries are there a thousand miles from any point in the United States? She would have either been in Canada or Mexico, right? And where did this heavy veil come from? She said she didn't get the white veil until after she had been at the convent for over a year. And since when do nuns wear veils over their faces?
Well, I've run out of time, but hopefully this gives you the general idea.
However, there is one last question to ask. If this is what is common in convent life, then why is it that The Truth Set Us Free: Twenty Former Nuns Tell Their Stories (as endorsed by Candy) contains absolutely nothing along the lines of Sister Charlotte's story?
Urban legends are good stories. They start out in a very believable way.
First of all I always like to tell folk I’m not giving this testimony because I have any ill feeling in my heart toward the Roman Catholic people. I couldn’t be a Christian if I still had bitterness in my heart. God delivered me from all bitterness and strife and delivered me out of all of that one day and made himself real to me, and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Then, when you are caught up in the story, the more unbelievable elements are slipped into it. The average person listening isn't likely to know about the age you are able to enter a convent according to canon law, or the number of nuns allowed in a cloistered convent.
No, the best way to deal with any urban legend is to pepper to person telling the tale with questions, which poke holes in the story.
The priest will tell all over the whole United States and other countries that sisters, or nuns rather, can walk out of convents when they want to. I spent 22 years there. I did everything there was to do to get out. I’ve carried tablespoons with me into the dungeons and tried to dig down into that dirt, because there’s no floors in those places, but I’ve never yet found myself digging far enough to get out of a convent with a tablespoon and that’s about the only instrument.
So, the nuns are held prisoner and locked in the convents? Why did she even bother trying with a tablespoon? Did she really think she was going to dig a tunnel with a tablespoon? There are nun guards that will notice her digging with a spade, but they wouldn't notice a tunnel if it was dug by a tablespoon?
They can steal up to 40 dollars and they don’t have to tell the priest about it. They don’t have to say one word about it in the confessional box. They’re taught that. Every Roman Catholic knows it and every Roman Catholic (you’d be horrified if you know how many of them) steal up to that amount.
Why forty dollars? Is there any significance to the amount? Does is ever change for inflation? Is that $40 for your entire life, or just at any given time?
Later, she says: That's just a little idea or sample of what's going on in this country, and still there are thousands of mothers that will work their fingers to the bone to go over there and give the priest another five dollars to say a mass for loved one that is in purgatory, because that mother believes there is a purgatory.
Why do they have to work their fingers to the bone just to get five dollars? If you can steal up to forty dollars, then that's an easy way to get eight masses said, right? Or is there a rule that you have to earn money for purgatory masses?
I've had my front teeth knocked out.
I guess it's too late to ask Sister Charlotte to take out her bridge for us . . .
And most of the babies are premature. Many of them are abnormal. Very, very seldom do we ever see a normal baby.
Prematurity would certainly be consistent with starvation conditions. But why would they rarely have normal babies? These are healthy girls, with alcoholic but presumably healthy priests. Why would they have a higher than average incidence of birth defects?
You say, "Sister Charlotte, do you dare to say that?" I most definitely do dare to say it, and I intend to keep on saying it. Why? I've delivered those babies with these hands, and what I've seen with my eyes and I've done with my hands, I just challenge the whole world to say it isn't true. And the only way they can ever prove it isn't true, they'll have to open every convent door. If they ever serve a summons on me and call me into court, I'll assure you this one thing: convents are coming open and then the world will know what convents really are. And they'll have to open them to vindicate my testimony, because I know what I'll do if they ever serve a summons on me.
I think this is the crux of the whole story, here. Why didn't she go to the police? She says she's ready to testify in court. If she has traveled around, telling people this story, why didn't any of them demand an investigation as well? She's content to pray that the "little girls" escape the convent, but not actually do anything about it?
And almost equally ridiculous is the story of her escape.
And when something touched the garbage can that's a noise. Who in the world-? There's six of us and we're all together. Who is touching the garbage can? I wheeled around. They wheeled around, and we saw a man, and you know, that man was picking up the full can and leaving an empty one. I've never seen that before. I've been in that convent for years, and in the kitchen, but I never saw anything like that happen.
Okay, let me get this straight. They live in a cloistered convent. They never see anyone but priests. But the garbage man has a key, and walks into the kitchen to get the trash. Wow. How convenient for her. But I think if they were really serious about keeping the nuns prisoner, they would have at least left the trash outside the gate.
And I realized I'm on the outside. "Where am I going?" Where do you think you'd go? I'm not in the United States. I'm in another country and I don't know a thing about that country. When they took me over there I was so heavily veiled and they took me from that particular train to the convent, I was so heavily veiled I couldn't see anything.
Wait, how did she get in this other country? She said they took her a thousand miles away. How many other countries are there a thousand miles from any point in the United States? She would have either been in Canada or Mexico, right? And where did this heavy veil come from? She said she didn't get the white veil until after she had been at the convent for over a year. And since when do nuns wear veils over their faces?
Well, I've run out of time, but hopefully this gives you the general idea.
However, there is one last question to ask. If this is what is common in convent life, then why is it that The Truth Set Us Free: Twenty Former Nuns Tell Their Stories (as endorsed by Candy) contains absolutely nothing along the lines of Sister Charlotte's story?
Getting Googled
When you do a google search for Candy Brauer my article on my main blog about the home managment series comes up #7.
If you Google "Candy home management binder" this comes up #7.
Google "Elena Candy Catholic" and this is #1
If you Google "Candy home management binder" this comes up #7.
Google "Elena Candy Catholic" and this is #1
How long are people staying to read?
37.9% is less than 5 seconds - which is common for blog surfing
39.1 for greater than an hour! That's extraordinary!!!
4.6 for 20 minutes
8 for 5 to 20 minutes
The rest is 5 minutes or less. So over 50% are coming to stay and actually do some in depth reading.
About 59% make return visits.
I'd also like to point out that last week for a few days we had absolutely no activity because I took this blog private. When Candy started in again, so did we and it's apparent that people want and need to see the other side of the argument in a place where they know they are seeing both sides of the story. This blog is succeeding beyond anything I planned.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Stats for this blog!
I am just amazed at how many hits this blog is getting since it came back! Over 600 today!! Amazing!
I this indicates more than just a curiosity. People really have a desire to see the other side of things. It also shows me that the search engines are picking up on this without a link of mine on Candy's blog.
I this indicates more than just a curiosity. People really have a desire to see the other side of things. It also shows me that the search engines are picking up on this without a link of mine on Candy's blog.
Nun Revelations Revealed!
When Sister Charlotte shared her testimony, she was following a template established years before. The scandalous tell-all began with a woman named Maria Monk. Maria wrote a book published in 1836, which told of her imprisonment, abuse. There was even the revelation that nuns had intercourse with priests and the resultant babies were baptized, killed, and buried in lime pits in the basement. Sound familiar?
Maria Monk's book was preceded by a similar book by Rebecca Reed, although her book is lesser known. Both books led to investigations, riots, and the burning of a convent. All investigations, tours of convents, etc., found absolutely no evidence that the stories were true. Maria Monk's own mother signed an affidavit denying that her daughter had ever been in a nunnery.
Because Sister Charlotte never revealed her true identity or that of her convent, we have no proof that she ever was a nun. It is very possible that she was, as some of what she describes is true, such as the wearing of a wedding dress for the profession of vows. Regardless of how her tale began, she seems to have discovered that by embellishing it a bit, she could make for a more thrilling tale, and make her a more popular speaker among those who would be interested to hear tales of depravity from a Catholic convent.
Maria Monk's book was preceded by a similar book by Rebecca Reed, although her book is lesser known. Both books led to investigations, riots, and the burning of a convent. All investigations, tours of convents, etc., found absolutely no evidence that the stories were true. Maria Monk's own mother signed an affidavit denying that her daughter had ever been in a nunnery.
Because Sister Charlotte never revealed her true identity or that of her convent, we have no proof that she ever was a nun. It is very possible that she was, as some of what she describes is true, such as the wearing of a wedding dress for the profession of vows. Regardless of how her tale began, she seems to have discovered that by embellishing it a bit, she could make for a more thrilling tale, and make her a more popular speaker among those who would be interested to hear tales of depravity from a Catholic convent.
Visiting Candyland Q&A
Q: I heard that you troll Candy's comment section looking for people to debate. Any response?
A: When people leave a comment in a comment box they have an option of making it possible for people to get in touch with them via e-mail or to visit their blog. I think there is an implication there that you WELCOME VISITORS AND COMMENTS! I have on occasion asked people about their support of Candy's anti-Catholicism on their blogs. Two such occasions ended pretty much in disaster, but one blogger ended up putting me on her blog roll and we remain friendly! and so it goes.
Q. I'm sure you have been persecuting Candy and her commenters for years now just to make yourself feel intellectually superior. Why don't you get a hobby?
A. I only discovered Candy's blog last spring during the Homeschool Blog awards. I've been very open about visiting her blog because it was one of the nominees, being very interested in her homemaking stuff and being surprised at the voracity of her anti-Catholic posts.
I enjoy blogging and commenting. I enjoy spirited, challenging and interesting debate. Some of the toughest debates I ever had were with a female Presbyterian cleric who had studied in France and Rome. I thoroughly enjoyed our discussions as they sent me scrambling to research on line and at the library many times.
Q. What's up with all of the logical fallacies?
A. I think it is important to compose logical and well thought out points. I do not think that just because this is just "blogging" or that we are primarily women that our standards for being thorough and logical should be lower do you?
Which doesn't mean that we can't have fun with our discussions. Some of the best debates are full of humor! I think it's okay to use a little levity when tackling deeper topics now and then.
Q. Do you delete comments?
A. I try not to. If comments are on topic, respectful and not full of ad hominem attacks I generally keep them up. You can peruse the archives here and see that there are many comments up from people objecting to this blog.
Q. You are cynical, sarcastic, and worst of all, hypocritical.
A. I've also been called "so many shades of stupid they don't make a Crayola box big enough to begin coloring her in." On the other hand some one once said of my comments : "Truth, love, charity, and, oh yeah, sensitivity, decorum, good taste and a dollop of wit." Someone also commented on the size of my "ham hocks" once but I'm not sure what that had to do with the validity of my comments.
Q. If Candy wanted to comment here would you let her?
A. Absolutely!
Q. Why do you keep personally attacking Candy when I can find no evidence where she has personally attacked you?
A. I don't feel that I have attacked Candy as a person. I have only been critical of the topics she has blogged on, primarily attacks and misinformation on Catholicism. You won't find attacks against me on Candy's blog because she has deleted them. I do have some of them saved on my other blog however for reference.
Q. Why do you keep reading if it bothers you so much.
A. First of all, I have to tell you I have been doing apologetics on line now for almost ten years. What I read now days rarely gets an elevation in my heart rate as I have read and debated most of it before. However, there are a lot of young Christians looking for guidance and role models in Christianity and are probably attracted to homemaking blogs like this. If they are searching them out via search engine, I want to be sure that they have uncensored access to the other side of the story as well.
Q. Why don't you attack other blogs like Stephanie's?
A. There are only so many hours in a day and I have limited time. I have posted comments on other blogs before correcting misconceptions regarding Catholicism. They aren't always published.
Q. But don't you think that everybody should be able to have their own little place on the web if they want to say whatever they want without being criticized.
A. I think if you are going to have a public blog you should expect to take some criticism for your opinions from time to time. There are plenty of options for having a PRIVATE blog and having only a few friends and readers looking at it. Candy's is not a private blog and she publishes anti-Catholic stuff for the purpose of "educating" and "warning" others to "come out" of the Catholic Church. This blog exists in response to that.
Of course I believe that everyone has the right to have a blog and say anything they want and run it anyway they wish. I also believe that I have the right to disagree publicly with anything that is written on that public blog, or with how it is managed. That's the problem with free speech. That's why most socialist countries don't allow it!
Q. But don't you think there will be as many different kinds of Christianity as there are Christians?
A. Where in the bible does it say that?
A: When people leave a comment in a comment box they have an option of making it possible for people to get in touch with them via e-mail or to visit their blog. I think there is an implication there that you WELCOME VISITORS AND COMMENTS! I have on occasion asked people about their support of Candy's anti-Catholicism on their blogs. Two such occasions ended pretty much in disaster, but one blogger ended up putting me on her blog roll and we remain friendly! and so it goes.
Q. I'm sure you have been persecuting Candy and her commenters for years now just to make yourself feel intellectually superior. Why don't you get a hobby?
A. I only discovered Candy's blog last spring during the Homeschool Blog awards. I've been very open about visiting her blog because it was one of the nominees, being very interested in her homemaking stuff and being surprised at the voracity of her anti-Catholic posts.
I enjoy blogging and commenting. I enjoy spirited, challenging and interesting debate. Some of the toughest debates I ever had were with a female Presbyterian cleric who had studied in France and Rome. I thoroughly enjoyed our discussions as they sent me scrambling to research on line and at the library many times.
Q. What's up with all of the logical fallacies?
A. I think it is important to compose logical and well thought out points. I do not think that just because this is just "blogging" or that we are primarily women that our standards for being thorough and logical should be lower do you?
Which doesn't mean that we can't have fun with our discussions. Some of the best debates are full of humor! I think it's okay to use a little levity when tackling deeper topics now and then.
Q. Do you delete comments?
A. I try not to. If comments are on topic, respectful and not full of ad hominem attacks I generally keep them up. You can peruse the archives here and see that there are many comments up from people objecting to this blog.
Q. You are cynical, sarcastic, and worst of all, hypocritical.
A. I've also been called "so many shades of stupid they don't make a Crayola box big enough to begin coloring her in." On the other hand some one once said of my comments : "Truth, love, charity, and, oh yeah, sensitivity, decorum, good taste and a dollop of wit." Someone also commented on the size of my "ham hocks" once but I'm not sure what that had to do with the validity of my comments.
Q. If Candy wanted to comment here would you let her?
A. Absolutely!
Q. Why do you keep personally attacking Candy when I can find no evidence where she has personally attacked you?
A. I don't feel that I have attacked Candy as a person. I have only been critical of the topics she has blogged on, primarily attacks and misinformation on Catholicism. You won't find attacks against me on Candy's blog because she has deleted them. I do have some of them saved on my other blog however for reference.
Q. Why do you keep reading if it bothers you so much.
A. First of all, I have to tell you I have been doing apologetics on line now for almost ten years. What I read now days rarely gets an elevation in my heart rate as I have read and debated most of it before. However, there are a lot of young Christians looking for guidance and role models in Christianity and are probably attracted to homemaking blogs like this. If they are searching them out via search engine, I want to be sure that they have uncensored access to the other side of the story as well.
Q. Why don't you attack other blogs like Stephanie's?
A. There are only so many hours in a day and I have limited time. I have posted comments on other blogs before correcting misconceptions regarding Catholicism. They aren't always published.
Q. But don't you think that everybody should be able to have their own little place on the web if they want to say whatever they want without being criticized.
A. I think if you are going to have a public blog you should expect to take some criticism for your opinions from time to time. There are plenty of options for having a PRIVATE blog and having only a few friends and readers looking at it. Candy's is not a private blog and she publishes anti-Catholic stuff for the purpose of "educating" and "warning" others to "come out" of the Catholic Church. This blog exists in response to that.
Of course I believe that everyone has the right to have a blog and say anything they want and run it anyway they wish. I also believe that I have the right to disagree publicly with anything that is written on that public blog, or with how it is managed. That's the problem with free speech. That's why most socialist countries don't allow it!
Q. But don't you think there will be as many different kinds of Christianity as there are Christians?
A. Where in the bible does it say that?
Saturday, September 8, 2007
A Day in the Life of the Poor Claires
At 5.30 each morning the sisters are summoned to consciousness by their alarm clocks. After a prayer and a wash we dress quickly and hurry to the chapel where the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is waiting for us. At a sign from Mother Abbess we begin the first part of the Divine Office. The day is given to us by God, so we ask Him to bless it that it may be entirely bright and holy. We join the whole creation in praising the Creator. The theme of joy and praise is strong in these morning prayers, echoing throughout the hymns, psalms and readings.
After breakfast, we prepare for Holy Mass with half an hour's silent prayer as this is the focal point of the day, for every time we celebrate Mass all the suffering and agony of mankind is present. Through that offering love, forgiveness and hope are in some way being given, not just to this community, but like the pebble cast into the pond, the ripples go on and on outwards. It is our earthly way of being involved in the great heavenly liturgy which is going on all the time. Morning Prayer and Terce follow, after which we go off to our appointed tasks remembering the words. "Go in the peace of Christ", which the priest bids us at the close of Mass.
Now the serious work begins, correspondance for the Mother Abbess, baking, cutting, packing and parcelling altar breads and cooking for the community, the chaplain and any guests who may be staying with us. Sister Portress is kept busy between door and telephone bells and Sister Procurator sees to the business affairs of the house and deals with unseen emergencies.
By 12 o'clock we are ready to send our next shaft of praise back up to heaven. Work is set aside as we gather to sing Midday Prayer. Then comes a short pause as we review the day so far and appraise our part in it by examining our consciences.
Dinner follows and we eat without speaking to each other while a sister reads aloud from a spiritual book. After dinner there is a semi-free time, a chance to write letters or do odd jobs for oneself. Many take the opportunity to go out and work in the large garden where we grow our own fruit, vegetables and flowers.
At 4 o'clock we return to the Chapel for meditation and the Rosary followed by the little Office of None. We then gather for a light supper and back to the Chapel again for Vespers or Even Song when we thank God for all His blessings. An hour's recreation is a happy time of relaxation together until 7.15 when the bell rings for night prayer when we ask God for protection and forgiveness at the end of the day. At 7.30 the Great Silence begins. Final tasks of the day are completed and at 9.30 all must be in their cells and lights are out by 10.30.
There is a certain pattern to each day yet they all differ from each other and every Sunday is something to celebrate for, "This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and exult for it." Another week in our life with God is beginning, we do well to rejoice.
After breakfast, we prepare for Holy Mass with half an hour's silent prayer as this is the focal point of the day, for every time we celebrate Mass all the suffering and agony of mankind is present. Through that offering love, forgiveness and hope are in some way being given, not just to this community, but like the pebble cast into the pond, the ripples go on and on outwards. It is our earthly way of being involved in the great heavenly liturgy which is going on all the time. Morning Prayer and Terce follow, after which we go off to our appointed tasks remembering the words. "Go in the peace of Christ", which the priest bids us at the close of Mass.
Now the serious work begins, correspondance for the Mother Abbess, baking, cutting, packing and parcelling altar breads and cooking for the community, the chaplain and any guests who may be staying with us. Sister Portress is kept busy between door and telephone bells and Sister Procurator sees to the business affairs of the house and deals with unseen emergencies.
By 12 o'clock we are ready to send our next shaft of praise back up to heaven. Work is set aside as we gather to sing Midday Prayer. Then comes a short pause as we review the day so far and appraise our part in it by examining our consciences.
Dinner follows and we eat without speaking to each other while a sister reads aloud from a spiritual book. After dinner there is a semi-free time, a chance to write letters or do odd jobs for oneself. Many take the opportunity to go out and work in the large garden where we grow our own fruit, vegetables and flowers.
At 4 o'clock we return to the Chapel for meditation and the Rosary followed by the little Office of None. We then gather for a light supper and back to the Chapel again for Vespers or Even Song when we thank God for all His blessings. An hour's recreation is a happy time of relaxation together until 7.15 when the bell rings for night prayer when we ask God for protection and forgiveness at the end of the day. At 7.30 the Great Silence begins. Final tasks of the day are completed and at 9.30 all must be in their cells and lights are out by 10.30.
There is a certain pattern to each day yet they all differ from each other and every Sunday is something to celebrate for, "This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and exult for it." Another week in our life with God is beginning, we do well to rejoice.
Mother Theresa's testimony
Mother Teresa: The Early Years by Renzo AllegriLeaving the Congregation of Our Lady of Loreto was the biggest sacrifice of my life," Mother Teresa told me. "I suffered a lot when I was 18, and left my family and country to go to the convent. But I suffered a lot more when I left the convent to begin the new experience that Jesus had proposed."
I had received my spiritual formation, become a nun and consecrated my life to God in the Congregation of Our Lady of Loreto. I loved the work to which the congregation had assigned me at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta. For this reason, I paid a tremendous price by taking the step of leaving forever what had become my second family.
When I closed the door of the convent behind me on Aug. 16, 1948, and found myself alone on the streets of Calcutta, I experienced a strong feeling of loss and almost of fear that was difficult to overcome."
The day before she left her convent, the Church had celebrated the feast of the Assumption, commemorating the Assumption into heaven, body and soul, of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The feast specifically exalts the ideals that Mother Teresa was striving to achieve in her new life.Mary, bodily assumed into heaven, showed us Christians the importance of our bodies. The Church teaches that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that they will be gloriously resurrected. Jesus redeemed our bodies and souls by His passion and death. Mother Teresa was about to begin serving the poorest of the poor, people whose bodies often were appalling in appearance. But even in these conditions, they were still children of God, whose bodies are destined to be resurrected. Mother Teresa wanted her last day in the convent to coincide with the feast of the Assumption as a way of giving deeper meaning to what she was about to do. She dedicated that day to prayer and meditation on the mission she was preparing to carry out, which would bring life and hope, as Mary's assumption into heaven did.T
hus, Mother Teresa left the convent on the morning of Aug. 16 for the first time in 18 years without her religious habit. She hardly made it to the middle of the street when she was overcome by anguish. Suddenly the reality of her new state in life became clear. She was completely alone, with no house, no savings and no work. She did not know what she would eat and where she would sleep. She found herself in that same terrible condition of those who have nothing- those whom she wanted to serve.She had to plan her own future. She was no longer part of a religious community, nor was she a layperson. She was still a nun, committed to God by vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. She had only obtained the Pope's permission to live temporarily outside the convent in order to found a new religious order.She already had a very clear idea of what she wanted to do.
The "command" that she received from Jesus was to "serve the poorest of the poor and to live among them and like them."This tremendous ideal included unimaginable sacrifices. But it was an expression of total love, and for it, Mother Teresa made a revolutionary change in her life.
First she had to choose a habit that would reflect her lifestyle, and that of her future companions. She chose a simple white sari and sandals, which was the most common form of dress in India, and the color most often worn by the common people.The poor that she would be serving were mostly sick people, covered with sores and often smitten with leprosy. They urgently needed medical care, so she took a nursing course.To do this, she moved to Patna, in the middle of the Ganges delta, where Mother Dengel and her Medical Missionary Sisters ran a hospital and offered nursing courses. "She was a good student," the sisters at Patna still remember. "She quickly learned in four months what is generally taught in a year."
Mother Teresa decided to live like the poor she would serve. The poor in Bengal ate rice and salt, so Mother Teresa tried to sustain herself for a while eating only a little rice seasoned with salt. However, such a diet did not provide enough nourishment. Mother Dengel's sisters intervened decisively. "If you continue to eat like that, in a short time you will waste away from consumption and die," she told her. "Then you won't be able to do anything for the poor."
Mother Teresa pondered their advice. She realized that she had been carried away by her enthusiasm and lack of experience and that her zeal could be fatal. She decided she and her future sisters would eat simply but sufficiently in order to remain in good health and totally dedicate themselves to serving the poor.After four months, she returned to Calcutta to the only slum with which she was acquainted, located just behind St. Mary's High School. She had heard many horrible stories about the misery in this slum.
While she was living at the convent, she had never wanted to step foot in this slum. Now she decided it would be her home.She went there on Christmas Day, visited with the women and children, and searched for a place she could fix her living quarters. A woman rented a miserable shack for five rupees a month. This was her first house.The next day, Mother Teresa's voice resounded in the shack, repeating the first letters of the Bengali alphabet.
She had already found five children to teach. There was not even a table, chair, basin or chalkboard in her room, and she used a stick to trace the letters of the alphabet on the dirt floor.A few months before, she had been the principal of the famous high school located just a few steps away and had taught the daughters of rich families. Now she was in a slum where people lived in misery among rats and cockroaches, teaching the children of people who were nobodies.The heat was suffocating in her shack: 115 degrees with humidity surpassing 95 percent. Mother Teresa's clothing was clinging to her sweating body; she felt as though she was being invaded by filth. Everything was dirty: the shacks, the paths between the shacks that also served as sewer drains, the people and the rags they wore. On the floor of her shack she saw insects, rats and cockroaches. The children's heads were full of lice.
Mother Teresa remembered her school, her nice bed, the fans that ventilated the rooms, and the clean mosquito nets. She felt as though she had passed from heaven to hell. But it was there in that hell that the poor were living, the beloved brothers and sisters of Jesus, the people whom she wanted to serve. As Mother Teresa told me:"The change was extremely difficult. In the convent I had lived without knowing what difficulties were. I had lacked nothing. Now everything was different. I slept where I happened to be, on the ground, often in hovels infested by rats. I ate what the people I was serving ate, and only when there was a little food."But I had chosen that lifestyle in order to literally live out the Gospel, especially where it says, 'I was hungry and you gave Me to eat, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was in prison and you came to find Me.' Among the poorest of the poor of Calcutta, I loved Jesus. When I love like that, I don't feel suffering or fatigue."
On the other hand, after the very beginning, I didn't have time to get bored. The five children that I had gathered on the first day increased. Three days later there were 25, and by the end of the year there were 41."Through the children, I began to penetrate those labyrinths of the most squalid misery in Calcutta. At that time, the number of homeless in the city was about 1 million. I went from hut to hut, trying to be useful. I helped those who slept on the sides of the street, who lived on garbage. I found the most atrocious suffering: the blind, the crippled, lepers, people with disfigured faces and deformed bodies, creatures who couldn't stand upright and who followed me on all fours asking for a little food."
One day, in a heap of rubbish, I found a woman who was half dead. Her body had been bitten by rats and by ants. I took her to a hospital, but they told me that they didn't want her because they couldn't do anything for her. I protested and said that I wouldn't leave unless they hospitalized her. They had a long meeting and they finally granted my request. That woman was saved. Afterwards, when thanking me for what I had done for her, she said, 'And to think that it was my son who threw me in the garbage.'"
On another occasion, I absolutely needed to find a hut where I could shelter some people who had been abandoned. To find one, I walked for hours and hours under the scorching sun. By evening I felt as if I were going to faint from fatigue. Only then did I understand the degree of exhaustion that poor people reach looking for a little food, a little medicine, or a roof for their heads."I gave my life completely to God, and He was the one who guided me. I felt His presence at every moment, and I saw His direct intervention.
One day, while I was walking along the streets of Calcutta, a priest came up to me, asking me to give a contribution for some worthy project. That morning I had left the house with all the money I had, five rupees, which amounted to about 30 cents. During the day, I had spent four on the poor. I had only one rupee to live on the next day and the following days if something didn't happen. Trusting in God, I gave my last rupee to that priest. In my mind I prayed, 'Lord, I don't have anything more, [but] I must think of You.'"That evening a person whom I didn't know came to my shack. He gave me an envelope and said, 'This is for your work.' I was surprised because I had started my apostolate only a few days before and nobody knew me yet. I opened the envelope and found 50 rupees. At that moment, I felt as though God wanted to give me a tangible sign of His approval for everything I was doing."
I had received my spiritual formation, become a nun and consecrated my life to God in the Congregation of Our Lady of Loreto. I loved the work to which the congregation had assigned me at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta. For this reason, I paid a tremendous price by taking the step of leaving forever what had become my second family.
When I closed the door of the convent behind me on Aug. 16, 1948, and found myself alone on the streets of Calcutta, I experienced a strong feeling of loss and almost of fear that was difficult to overcome."
The day before she left her convent, the Church had celebrated the feast of the Assumption, commemorating the Assumption into heaven, body and soul, of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The feast specifically exalts the ideals that Mother Teresa was striving to achieve in her new life.Mary, bodily assumed into heaven, showed us Christians the importance of our bodies. The Church teaches that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that they will be gloriously resurrected. Jesus redeemed our bodies and souls by His passion and death. Mother Teresa was about to begin serving the poorest of the poor, people whose bodies often were appalling in appearance. But even in these conditions, they were still children of God, whose bodies are destined to be resurrected. Mother Teresa wanted her last day in the convent to coincide with the feast of the Assumption as a way of giving deeper meaning to what she was about to do. She dedicated that day to prayer and meditation on the mission she was preparing to carry out, which would bring life and hope, as Mary's assumption into heaven did.T
hus, Mother Teresa left the convent on the morning of Aug. 16 for the first time in 18 years without her religious habit. She hardly made it to the middle of the street when she was overcome by anguish. Suddenly the reality of her new state in life became clear. She was completely alone, with no house, no savings and no work. She did not know what she would eat and where she would sleep. She found herself in that same terrible condition of those who have nothing- those whom she wanted to serve.She had to plan her own future. She was no longer part of a religious community, nor was she a layperson. She was still a nun, committed to God by vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. She had only obtained the Pope's permission to live temporarily outside the convent in order to found a new religious order.She already had a very clear idea of what she wanted to do.
The "command" that she received from Jesus was to "serve the poorest of the poor and to live among them and like them."This tremendous ideal included unimaginable sacrifices. But it was an expression of total love, and for it, Mother Teresa made a revolutionary change in her life.
First she had to choose a habit that would reflect her lifestyle, and that of her future companions. She chose a simple white sari and sandals, which was the most common form of dress in India, and the color most often worn by the common people.The poor that she would be serving were mostly sick people, covered with sores and often smitten with leprosy. They urgently needed medical care, so she took a nursing course.To do this, she moved to Patna, in the middle of the Ganges delta, where Mother Dengel and her Medical Missionary Sisters ran a hospital and offered nursing courses. "She was a good student," the sisters at Patna still remember. "She quickly learned in four months what is generally taught in a year."
Mother Teresa decided to live like the poor she would serve. The poor in Bengal ate rice and salt, so Mother Teresa tried to sustain herself for a while eating only a little rice seasoned with salt. However, such a diet did not provide enough nourishment. Mother Dengel's sisters intervened decisively. "If you continue to eat like that, in a short time you will waste away from consumption and die," she told her. "Then you won't be able to do anything for the poor."
Mother Teresa pondered their advice. She realized that she had been carried away by her enthusiasm and lack of experience and that her zeal could be fatal. She decided she and her future sisters would eat simply but sufficiently in order to remain in good health and totally dedicate themselves to serving the poor.After four months, she returned to Calcutta to the only slum with which she was acquainted, located just behind St. Mary's High School. She had heard many horrible stories about the misery in this slum.
While she was living at the convent, she had never wanted to step foot in this slum. Now she decided it would be her home.She went there on Christmas Day, visited with the women and children, and searched for a place she could fix her living quarters. A woman rented a miserable shack for five rupees a month. This was her first house.The next day, Mother Teresa's voice resounded in the shack, repeating the first letters of the Bengali alphabet.
She had already found five children to teach. There was not even a table, chair, basin or chalkboard in her room, and she used a stick to trace the letters of the alphabet on the dirt floor.A few months before, she had been the principal of the famous high school located just a few steps away and had taught the daughters of rich families. Now she was in a slum where people lived in misery among rats and cockroaches, teaching the children of people who were nobodies.The heat was suffocating in her shack: 115 degrees with humidity surpassing 95 percent. Mother Teresa's clothing was clinging to her sweating body; she felt as though she was being invaded by filth. Everything was dirty: the shacks, the paths between the shacks that also served as sewer drains, the people and the rags they wore. On the floor of her shack she saw insects, rats and cockroaches. The children's heads were full of lice.
Mother Teresa remembered her school, her nice bed, the fans that ventilated the rooms, and the clean mosquito nets. She felt as though she had passed from heaven to hell. But it was there in that hell that the poor were living, the beloved brothers and sisters of Jesus, the people whom she wanted to serve. As Mother Teresa told me:"The change was extremely difficult. In the convent I had lived without knowing what difficulties were. I had lacked nothing. Now everything was different. I slept where I happened to be, on the ground, often in hovels infested by rats. I ate what the people I was serving ate, and only when there was a little food."But I had chosen that lifestyle in order to literally live out the Gospel, especially where it says, 'I was hungry and you gave Me to eat, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was in prison and you came to find Me.' Among the poorest of the poor of Calcutta, I loved Jesus. When I love like that, I don't feel suffering or fatigue."
On the other hand, after the very beginning, I didn't have time to get bored. The five children that I had gathered on the first day increased. Three days later there were 25, and by the end of the year there were 41."Through the children, I began to penetrate those labyrinths of the most squalid misery in Calcutta. At that time, the number of homeless in the city was about 1 million. I went from hut to hut, trying to be useful. I helped those who slept on the sides of the street, who lived on garbage. I found the most atrocious suffering: the blind, the crippled, lepers, people with disfigured faces and deformed bodies, creatures who couldn't stand upright and who followed me on all fours asking for a little food."
One day, in a heap of rubbish, I found a woman who was half dead. Her body had been bitten by rats and by ants. I took her to a hospital, but they told me that they didn't want her because they couldn't do anything for her. I protested and said that I wouldn't leave unless they hospitalized her. They had a long meeting and they finally granted my request. That woman was saved. Afterwards, when thanking me for what I had done for her, she said, 'And to think that it was my son who threw me in the garbage.'"
On another occasion, I absolutely needed to find a hut where I could shelter some people who had been abandoned. To find one, I walked for hours and hours under the scorching sun. By evening I felt as if I were going to faint from fatigue. Only then did I understand the degree of exhaustion that poor people reach looking for a little food, a little medicine, or a roof for their heads."I gave my life completely to God, and He was the one who guided me. I felt His presence at every moment, and I saw His direct intervention.
One day, while I was walking along the streets of Calcutta, a priest came up to me, asking me to give a contribution for some worthy project. That morning I had left the house with all the money I had, five rupees, which amounted to about 30 cents. During the day, I had spent four on the poor. I had only one rupee to live on the next day and the following days if something didn't happen. Trusting in God, I gave my last rupee to that priest. In my mind I prayed, 'Lord, I don't have anything more, [but] I must think of You.'"That evening a person whom I didn't know came to my shack. He gave me an envelope and said, 'This is for your work.' I was surprised because I had started my apostolate only a few days before and nobody knew me yet. I opened the envelope and found 50 rupees. At that moment, I felt as though God wanted to give me a tangible sign of His approval for everything I was doing."
The former nun
Oh this might be worth a few comments:
First of all, as we slip into this testimony, having been born in Roman Catholicism, not knowing anything else, not knowing the word of God because we didn’t have a Bible in our home, we had never heard anything about this wonderful plan of salvation.
Well that's too bad. Hands up the number of Catholics here who didn't have a bible growing up!! We had several including a big one on our end table that had beautiful bible pictures in it that I loved to look at. Come to think of it, I had a children's bible with beautiful pictures in it too. Sounds like sister's family was nominally Catholic. It happens. There are Protestant families that only nominally practice their faith as well.
And so, naturally, I grew up in that Roman Catholic home as a child, knowing only the catechism, knowing only the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Well, if she had a Baltimore Catechism then I know she at least new about creation, Adam and Eve, the battle of the angels from Revelation, and about Jesus's crucifixion. I know these things because I have a Baltimore Catechism that I used with my older kids!
And, because I loved the Lord, and because I wanted to do something for Him, I wanted to give Him my life.
Well then her parents must have done something right! They raised her to love the Lord. This seems to be a contradiction. How is it tht sister didn't have a bible and yet she came to love the Lord anyway?! Could it be because her parents taught her the early Christians were taught - verbally! After all the bible didn't even exist in its current form for centuries. And maybe because our young future nun was going to mass regularly, she was hearing the gospel read every week!
I didn’t know of any other way for a Roman Catholic girl to give her life to God other than entering a convent, and to going to the confessional box where, naturally, I’m under the influence of my father-confessor, the Roman Catholic priest, his influence over my life.
One day I made up my mind through his influence and one of my teachers in the parochial school that I wanted to be a little sister. At that time I thought of being a sister of the open order, but as I went on into this, up until the time I took my white veil, sixteen and a half years of age, everything was beautiful. I really didn’t have any fear in my heart whatsoever. Everything that was taught to me was seemingly along the line that I had been taught in the church before I entered the convent. And so one day, after having been, uh, after making up my mind to enter a convent, I remember that particular day, two of the sisters came home with me from school. They were my teachers. And when we arrived at my father’s home that afternoon our Father-confessor was in the home likewise. I often say when I was a little girl children were seen and not heard. You didn’t talk when you was a child, at least in my family, in my home unless you were spoken to. And I remember I listened to them carry on a conversation, and then I moved over close enough to my father and I asked him if I could say something. And that was a bit out of the ordinary. And he permitted me to talk and I said, "Dad, I want to go into a convent." And I will tell you that priest took it up quickly. He had already been influencing me. My father broke down and began to cry, not because he’s sad, but he’s very happy. My mother came over and took me in her arms and she, too, wept tears. She’s very happy. Those were not tears of sadness because to think her little girl was giving her life to the convent to pray for lost humanity. And naturally my family were very thrilled about it, and I was too. But, anyway I didn’t go for a year after that and then the time come when I got myself ready and my mother prepared things for me. And so I entered the convent.
I know by modern standards that seems very young. I would point out though that in the early 20th century kids were married at 16. My husband's grandparents were married at 16 and 17. They had six children and were married for over 50 years. So if her point is that she made a committment too young, I'd have to say that it wasn't uncommon at that time, and that her peers made equally big choices in their vocation at that time and lived them out successfully. They didn't quit.
CONVENT SCHOOL
They took me and we didn’t have a place close enough to my father and mother’s home so I think they took me around a thousand miles away from home where I entered a convent boarding school. I lacked about 3 months being 13 years of age. Just a little girl. I look back on it now and I think, "My!" Homesick? I was so homesick, why my mother and daddy, they stayed three days with me and when they left I became so homesick! Naturally. And why shouldn’t I? Just a baby away from home. When I was a little girl, you know I never spent a night away from my mother, and I surely had never gone any place without my family. And naturally there was a close tie in our family and I was very lonely and very homesick. But I’ll never forget that after Mother told me good-bye and I knew they were travelling a long distance away from me, and I had never realized in my heart, "I’ll never see them again!" Naturally I hadn’t planned it like that because I had planned to be a sister of the open order. But, if you’ll listen carefully to this portion of the testimony, then you’ll understand just why I’m saying some of the things I say.
She got a good, free Catholic education. I'm having a hard time feeling a lot of pity here. My aunts left their home in New Mexico to travel to Indiana where they joined their order and remained nuns for the next 60 or so years. I don't think her story is that unusual. My aunts enjoyed their vocation.
Now oftentimes we say that the priest selects his material through the confessional box, because at seven years of age I went to confessional. Seven years of age I would always, when I came into the church, first I’d slip over to the feet of the crucifix, or rather to the Virgin Mary, and then over at the feet of the crucifix and I’d ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession, because I was a child and my heart was honest. And I knew the priest had taught us to always make a good confession. Keep nothing back. Tell everything if I expected absolution from any sin that I might have committed. And so I would ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession. I would ask then Jesus to help me make a good confession. And you know, I’ll assure you, after I’d lived in the convent for ,,,I had to go on with my schooling. I had just finished the eighth grade and they promised to give me a high school education and some college education.
Catholic kids make their first confessions in second grade. All of mine have so far. They enjoy going.
But, I didn’t get much college, I got mostly just high school training. And they gave that to me alright.
That might reflect on sister's ability to handle the course work more than anything else.
I took it under some terrible difficulties and strains and all of that. It was terribly difficult. But they gave it to me for which I appreciate very very much. But I’ll assure you that after they put me through the crucial training that we must go through just to become a little initiate entering a convent. The training is really, it’s outstanding as far as a nun is concerned and you know what it’s all about after you’ve been in there a little while.
So now I’ve entered the convent and for just a few minutes I want to tell you just how we lived, what we eat, how we sleep. If I take you into the convent and tell you those things you’ll understand a little bit more about my testimony. At first as I entered the convent as a small child I went on to school, but I was being trained. But the day came when I was fourteen and a half. The mother came to me and she began to tell me about the White Veil. And I didn’t know too much about it, but in taking the white veil they told me that I would be becoming the spouse or bride of Jesus Christ. There would be a ceremony and I would be dressed in a wedding garment. And on this particular morning they told me at nine o’clock they would dress me up in a wedding garment. Now you’re wondering where that come from and how they get the wedding clothes for the little nuns? The mother superior sits down and writes a letter to my father and tells him how much money she wants. And then whatever she asks, my father sends it. The little buying sister goes out and buys the material and the wedding gown is made by the nuns of the cloister. I’m still Open Order now. And of course whatever she asked, now you say, "Did they spend all the money for the wedding gown?" Well, of course we don’t know these things in the very beginning of our testimony, but after we live in a convent for a little while we learned to know they could ask my father for a hundred dollars and he’d send it. They wouldn’t but maybe a third of that for the wedding garment. They would keep the rest of it and my father would never know the difference. Neither did I until I lived in the convent for a period of time and I had to make some of the wedding clothes and then I knew the value of them and what they cost.
Who paid her tuition?
And I knew the of money that came in because I was one of the older nuns. Well, alright, the time came, of course, when I walked down that aisle and I was dressed in a wedding garment. Now you know in the convent I used to walk the fourteen stations of the cross- the fourteen steps that Jesus carried the cross to Calvary. But after I had made up my mind to take the white veil, never again did I walk. I wanted to be worthy. I wanted to be holy enough to become the spouse or the bride of Jesus Christ. And so I would get down on my knees and crawl the fourteen stations. Quite a distance, but I crawled them every Friday morning. I felt it would make me holy. I felt it would drawl me closer to God. It would make me worthy of the step that I was going to take.
I can't tell if this was a good memory or a bad one? Many religious and lay people do these types of disciplines all of the time, especially during Lent.
And that’s what I wanted more than anything else in the world. I would like to impress upon your heart, every little girl that enters the convent that I know anything about. That child has a desire to live for God. That child has a desire to give her heart, mind, and soul to God. Now many, many people make this remark and we hear it from various types of folk who say only bad women go into convents. That isn’t true. There are movie stars who go into convents. They’ve lived out in the world, and no doubt they are sinners and all of that. But they go in when they are women. They know what they are doing. And they go in only because the Roman Catholic Church is going to receive, not only thousands, but yea it will run up into the millions of dollars. They don’t mind who they take in if they can get a lot of money out of that individual.
Uh... they don't mind who they take in if they get no money out of the individual either. My two aunts come to mind and a cousin. None of my relatives had a lot of money. They all were in the religious life for 50 + years and loved their vocation as nuns.
A thinking reader would certainly recognize that this is a person with an ax to grind and she is not presenting any documentation to back up her claims. It would be better to have an accountant give this testimony if she wants to claim that the convents are just houses of thieves!
But the ordinary little girl that goes in as a child, she’s just a child and she goes in there with a heart and mind and soul just as clean as any child could be. I say that because sometimes you hear a lot of things that are really not true.
I think we're hearing a lot of things that aren't true now.
Now after we become the spouse of Jesus Christ, I want you to listen carefully to this and then you can follow me into the rest of the testimony. We are now looked upon as married women. We are looked upon as married women. We are the spouse or the bride of Jesus Christ. Now the priest teaches every little girl that will take the white veil, they’ll become the bride of Christ. He teaches her to believe that her family will be saved. It doesn’t make any difference how many banks they’ve robbed, how many stores they’ve robbed. It doesn’t make any difference how they drink and smoke and carouse and live out in this sinful world and do all the things that sinners do. It doesn’t make a bit of difference.
Well now I'm confused. Does she mean that the families becomed Protestant? Isn't that Protestant theology that as long as you are saved you can't lose your salvation? Sure sounds like it. Catholics believe we have to work out our salvation with fear, like St. Paul said. That's one of the reason Candy dislikes Catholics! So I'm very confused now by what sister is saying.
Still our family will be saved if we continue to live in the convent and give our lives to the convent or to the church we can rest assured that every member of our immediate family will be saved. And you know there are many little children that are influenced and enticed to go into convents because we realize it is the salvation for our families. And sometimes, even (in) Roman Catholic families, the children grow up and leave the Roman Catholic Church and go out into the deepest of sin. And so, every little girl that enters the convent is hoping by her sacrificing so much, home and loved ones, mother and daddy, everything that a child loves, her family will be saved regardless of what sins they commit.
I think what Sister is trying to say, is that she was taught as a nun she could pray for the salvation of her family. (You know, the prayers of the righteous availeth much!) She's got it a little twisted but I think that's what she is trying to get at.
And of course we are children and our minds are immature and we don’t know any better. And it’s so easy to instill things like this into the hearts and minds of little children and the priest is- he’s really good at it. And, of course, we look upon our priest, our father-confessor, I looked upon him as God. He’s the only God I knew anything about, and to me he was infallible. I didn’t think he could sin. I didn’t think that he would lie. I didn’t think that he ever made a mistake. I looked upon him as the holiest of holy because I didn’t know a God, but I did know the Roman Catholic Priest, and to me, I looked to him for everything that I asked of God, so to speak. I believed the priest could give it to me. And so the day comes when all of us now, as we’re going in (I want you to listen carefully) after taking the white veil things are beautiful. I’m sixteen and a half years of age. Everyone’s good to me and I’m living in the convent and I haven’t seen anything yet because no little girl, we’re not subject to a Roman Catholic Priest until we are 21 years of age, and as we give you this next vow then you’ll understand we don’t know about this. This is kept from the little sisters until we’ve taken our black veils and then it’s too late. I don’t carry the key to those double doors and there’s no way for me to come out. The priest will tell all over the whole United States and other countries that sisters, or nuns rather, can walk out of convents when they want to. I spent 22 years there. I did everything there was to do to get out. I’ve carried tablespoons with me into the dungeons and tried to dig down into that dirt, because there’s no floors in those places, but I’ve never yet found myself digging far enough to get out of a convent with a tablespoon and that’s about the only instrument. Because when we’re using the spade, and we do have to do hard heavy work, when we use a spade we’re being guarded.
As a Catholic who lived through the 60s and 70s, I think she's lying. Nuns left in droves. Habit one day, mini skirt the next. It didn't seem like it was too hard to leave to me.
First of all, as we slip into this testimony, having been born in Roman Catholicism, not knowing anything else, not knowing the word of God because we didn’t have a Bible in our home, we had never heard anything about this wonderful plan of salvation.
Well that's too bad. Hands up the number of Catholics here who didn't have a bible growing up!! We had several including a big one on our end table that had beautiful bible pictures in it that I loved to look at. Come to think of it, I had a children's bible with beautiful pictures in it too. Sounds like sister's family was nominally Catholic. It happens. There are Protestant families that only nominally practice their faith as well.
And so, naturally, I grew up in that Roman Catholic home as a child, knowing only the catechism, knowing only the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Well, if she had a Baltimore Catechism then I know she at least new about creation, Adam and Eve, the battle of the angels from Revelation, and about Jesus's crucifixion. I know these things because I have a Baltimore Catechism that I used with my older kids!
And, because I loved the Lord, and because I wanted to do something for Him, I wanted to give Him my life.
Well then her parents must have done something right! They raised her to love the Lord. This seems to be a contradiction. How is it tht sister didn't have a bible and yet she came to love the Lord anyway?! Could it be because her parents taught her the early Christians were taught - verbally! After all the bible didn't even exist in its current form for centuries. And maybe because our young future nun was going to mass regularly, she was hearing the gospel read every week!
I didn’t know of any other way for a Roman Catholic girl to give her life to God other than entering a convent, and to going to the confessional box where, naturally, I’m under the influence of my father-confessor, the Roman Catholic priest, his influence over my life.
One day I made up my mind through his influence and one of my teachers in the parochial school that I wanted to be a little sister. At that time I thought of being a sister of the open order, but as I went on into this, up until the time I took my white veil, sixteen and a half years of age, everything was beautiful. I really didn’t have any fear in my heart whatsoever. Everything that was taught to me was seemingly along the line that I had been taught in the church before I entered the convent. And so one day, after having been, uh, after making up my mind to enter a convent, I remember that particular day, two of the sisters came home with me from school. They were my teachers. And when we arrived at my father’s home that afternoon our Father-confessor was in the home likewise. I often say when I was a little girl children were seen and not heard. You didn’t talk when you was a child, at least in my family, in my home unless you were spoken to. And I remember I listened to them carry on a conversation, and then I moved over close enough to my father and I asked him if I could say something. And that was a bit out of the ordinary. And he permitted me to talk and I said, "Dad, I want to go into a convent." And I will tell you that priest took it up quickly. He had already been influencing me. My father broke down and began to cry, not because he’s sad, but he’s very happy. My mother came over and took me in her arms and she, too, wept tears. She’s very happy. Those were not tears of sadness because to think her little girl was giving her life to the convent to pray for lost humanity. And naturally my family were very thrilled about it, and I was too. But, anyway I didn’t go for a year after that and then the time come when I got myself ready and my mother prepared things for me. And so I entered the convent.
I know by modern standards that seems very young. I would point out though that in the early 20th century kids were married at 16. My husband's grandparents were married at 16 and 17. They had six children and were married for over 50 years. So if her point is that she made a committment too young, I'd have to say that it wasn't uncommon at that time, and that her peers made equally big choices in their vocation at that time and lived them out successfully. They didn't quit.
CONVENT SCHOOL
They took me and we didn’t have a place close enough to my father and mother’s home so I think they took me around a thousand miles away from home where I entered a convent boarding school. I lacked about 3 months being 13 years of age. Just a little girl. I look back on it now and I think, "My!" Homesick? I was so homesick, why my mother and daddy, they stayed three days with me and when they left I became so homesick! Naturally. And why shouldn’t I? Just a baby away from home. When I was a little girl, you know I never spent a night away from my mother, and I surely had never gone any place without my family. And naturally there was a close tie in our family and I was very lonely and very homesick. But I’ll never forget that after Mother told me good-bye and I knew they were travelling a long distance away from me, and I had never realized in my heart, "I’ll never see them again!" Naturally I hadn’t planned it like that because I had planned to be a sister of the open order. But, if you’ll listen carefully to this portion of the testimony, then you’ll understand just why I’m saying some of the things I say.
She got a good, free Catholic education. I'm having a hard time feeling a lot of pity here. My aunts left their home in New Mexico to travel to Indiana where they joined their order and remained nuns for the next 60 or so years. I don't think her story is that unusual. My aunts enjoyed their vocation.
Now oftentimes we say that the priest selects his material through the confessional box, because at seven years of age I went to confessional. Seven years of age I would always, when I came into the church, first I’d slip over to the feet of the crucifix, or rather to the Virgin Mary, and then over at the feet of the crucifix and I’d ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession, because I was a child and my heart was honest. And I knew the priest had taught us to always make a good confession. Keep nothing back. Tell everything if I expected absolution from any sin that I might have committed. And so I would ask the Virgin Mary to help me make a good confession. I would ask then Jesus to help me make a good confession. And you know, I’ll assure you, after I’d lived in the convent for ,,,I had to go on with my schooling. I had just finished the eighth grade and they promised to give me a high school education and some college education.
Catholic kids make their first confessions in second grade. All of mine have so far. They enjoy going.
But, I didn’t get much college, I got mostly just high school training. And they gave that to me alright.
That might reflect on sister's ability to handle the course work more than anything else.
I took it under some terrible difficulties and strains and all of that. It was terribly difficult. But they gave it to me for which I appreciate very very much. But I’ll assure you that after they put me through the crucial training that we must go through just to become a little initiate entering a convent. The training is really, it’s outstanding as far as a nun is concerned and you know what it’s all about after you’ve been in there a little while.
So now I’ve entered the convent and for just a few minutes I want to tell you just how we lived, what we eat, how we sleep. If I take you into the convent and tell you those things you’ll understand a little bit more about my testimony. At first as I entered the convent as a small child I went on to school, but I was being trained. But the day came when I was fourteen and a half. The mother came to me and she began to tell me about the White Veil. And I didn’t know too much about it, but in taking the white veil they told me that I would be becoming the spouse or bride of Jesus Christ. There would be a ceremony and I would be dressed in a wedding garment. And on this particular morning they told me at nine o’clock they would dress me up in a wedding garment. Now you’re wondering where that come from and how they get the wedding clothes for the little nuns? The mother superior sits down and writes a letter to my father and tells him how much money she wants. And then whatever she asks, my father sends it. The little buying sister goes out and buys the material and the wedding gown is made by the nuns of the cloister. I’m still Open Order now. And of course whatever she asked, now you say, "Did they spend all the money for the wedding gown?" Well, of course we don’t know these things in the very beginning of our testimony, but after we live in a convent for a little while we learned to know they could ask my father for a hundred dollars and he’d send it. They wouldn’t but maybe a third of that for the wedding garment. They would keep the rest of it and my father would never know the difference. Neither did I until I lived in the convent for a period of time and I had to make some of the wedding clothes and then I knew the value of them and what they cost.
Who paid her tuition?
And I knew the of money that came in because I was one of the older nuns. Well, alright, the time came, of course, when I walked down that aisle and I was dressed in a wedding garment. Now you know in the convent I used to walk the fourteen stations of the cross- the fourteen steps that Jesus carried the cross to Calvary. But after I had made up my mind to take the white veil, never again did I walk. I wanted to be worthy. I wanted to be holy enough to become the spouse or the bride of Jesus Christ. And so I would get down on my knees and crawl the fourteen stations. Quite a distance, but I crawled them every Friday morning. I felt it would make me holy. I felt it would drawl me closer to God. It would make me worthy of the step that I was going to take.
I can't tell if this was a good memory or a bad one? Many religious and lay people do these types of disciplines all of the time, especially during Lent.
And that’s what I wanted more than anything else in the world. I would like to impress upon your heart, every little girl that enters the convent that I know anything about. That child has a desire to live for God. That child has a desire to give her heart, mind, and soul to God. Now many, many people make this remark and we hear it from various types of folk who say only bad women go into convents. That isn’t true. There are movie stars who go into convents. They’ve lived out in the world, and no doubt they are sinners and all of that. But they go in when they are women. They know what they are doing. And they go in only because the Roman Catholic Church is going to receive, not only thousands, but yea it will run up into the millions of dollars. They don’t mind who they take in if they can get a lot of money out of that individual.
Uh... they don't mind who they take in if they get no money out of the individual either. My two aunts come to mind and a cousin. None of my relatives had a lot of money. They all were in the religious life for 50 + years and loved their vocation as nuns.
A thinking reader would certainly recognize that this is a person with an ax to grind and she is not presenting any documentation to back up her claims. It would be better to have an accountant give this testimony if she wants to claim that the convents are just houses of thieves!
But the ordinary little girl that goes in as a child, she’s just a child and she goes in there with a heart and mind and soul just as clean as any child could be. I say that because sometimes you hear a lot of things that are really not true.
I think we're hearing a lot of things that aren't true now.
Now after we become the spouse of Jesus Christ, I want you to listen carefully to this and then you can follow me into the rest of the testimony. We are now looked upon as married women. We are looked upon as married women. We are the spouse or the bride of Jesus Christ. Now the priest teaches every little girl that will take the white veil, they’ll become the bride of Christ. He teaches her to believe that her family will be saved. It doesn’t make any difference how many banks they’ve robbed, how many stores they’ve robbed. It doesn’t make any difference how they drink and smoke and carouse and live out in this sinful world and do all the things that sinners do. It doesn’t make a bit of difference.
Well now I'm confused. Does she mean that the families becomed Protestant? Isn't that Protestant theology that as long as you are saved you can't lose your salvation? Sure sounds like it. Catholics believe we have to work out our salvation with fear, like St. Paul said. That's one of the reason Candy dislikes Catholics! So I'm very confused now by what sister is saying.
Still our family will be saved if we continue to live in the convent and give our lives to the convent or to the church we can rest assured that every member of our immediate family will be saved. And you know there are many little children that are influenced and enticed to go into convents because we realize it is the salvation for our families. And sometimes, even (in) Roman Catholic families, the children grow up and leave the Roman Catholic Church and go out into the deepest of sin. And so, every little girl that enters the convent is hoping by her sacrificing so much, home and loved ones, mother and daddy, everything that a child loves, her family will be saved regardless of what sins they commit.
I think what Sister is trying to say, is that she was taught as a nun she could pray for the salvation of her family. (You know, the prayers of the righteous availeth much!) She's got it a little twisted but I think that's what she is trying to get at.
And of course we are children and our minds are immature and we don’t know any better. And it’s so easy to instill things like this into the hearts and minds of little children and the priest is- he’s really good at it. And, of course, we look upon our priest, our father-confessor, I looked upon him as God. He’s the only God I knew anything about, and to me he was infallible. I didn’t think he could sin. I didn’t think that he would lie. I didn’t think that he ever made a mistake. I looked upon him as the holiest of holy because I didn’t know a God, but I did know the Roman Catholic Priest, and to me, I looked to him for everything that I asked of God, so to speak. I believed the priest could give it to me. And so the day comes when all of us now, as we’re going in (I want you to listen carefully) after taking the white veil things are beautiful. I’m sixteen and a half years of age. Everyone’s good to me and I’m living in the convent and I haven’t seen anything yet because no little girl, we’re not subject to a Roman Catholic Priest until we are 21 years of age, and as we give you this next vow then you’ll understand we don’t know about this. This is kept from the little sisters until we’ve taken our black veils and then it’s too late. I don’t carry the key to those double doors and there’s no way for me to come out. The priest will tell all over the whole United States and other countries that sisters, or nuns rather, can walk out of convents when they want to. I spent 22 years there. I did everything there was to do to get out. I’ve carried tablespoons with me into the dungeons and tried to dig down into that dirt, because there’s no floors in those places, but I’ve never yet found myself digging far enough to get out of a convent with a tablespoon and that’s about the only instrument. Because when we’re using the spade, and we do have to do hard heavy work, when we use a spade we’re being guarded.
As a Catholic who lived through the 60s and 70s, I think she's lying. Nuns left in droves. Habit one day, mini skirt the next. It didn't seem like it was too hard to leave to me.
For Amy
For those of you who are fired up and taking up the defense of a certain blogger who likes to create strife and then play the wounded animal, don't waste your time. As much as she hollers about not being allowed to post her opinion, she has taken to deleting the comments of others as well. Here is the entirety of what I wrote in refernce (sic) to her response to a commenter that she was being childish:
Yea you know, I usually refrain from the personal remarks...
SINCE WHEN?!?!?
It seems we have a roll reversal! LOL! OK, I admit it Amy, I deleted your snarky remark. But if I had tried to make a similar remark on Candy's blog it never would have been published at all! Maybe for a little experiment I should just delete all of your comments, just so you can experience what many of us have been going through? There's a thought!
She has her very own brand of hypocrisy, and until that can be moved aside, there will be no intellectual, respectful discussion of the differences in our faiths.
Uh... "Since when" is intellectual, respectful discussion? Don't think so. That was just your way of poking a stick in the wound. I get it. I totally understand.
Hey Amy, I'm game. If you are up to an intellectual respectful apologetics discussion, let's do it. I'm game. You pick the topic, and I'll post it here.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Keeping the record straight
These are my thoughts on a comment Candy made in her comment section:
Bethany, I have allowed many Roman Catholics in the past to defend their faith. However, many comments I refused to publish, because many of them contained vulgarities aimed at my person, cuss words, and other such immaturities.
This is why I am so happy that I started this blog. All of the comments that I gave to Candy, I simply cut and pasted here so that the world could see that there were no vulgarities or cuss words. Immaturity I think is subjectives. I think the way Mrs. Candy Brauer handles herself is on the immature side.
I also often don't publish comments in which it's obvious that the person didn't read all of my post, because they'll say such and such and when I covered it in the very post they are commenting on.I have also had multiple occasions of people getting mad at me for not publishing their comments, but I never received them.
I have said numerous times that when I started commenting on Candy's blog I wondered if the comment section was messed up because she never published my comments. At the time she was using Blogger comments. So far I have not had any problems receiving comments on my blog (I am curently using Blogger comments) but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem in the past. However, I'm pretty sure that most if not all of my comments were not published simply because they disagreed with her. I haven't heard any widespread complaints about blogger comments not posting so I am somewhat skeptical of this explanation.
Hopefully this issued is now cleared up since I changed commenting systems.
I'm skeptical of this too. I think she switched to Haloscan to get IP addresses and the ban option. I loved Haloscan for that. Wish I could figure out how to get it on my main blog again.
Moving on... You are coming at me from a completely flawed premise. I have never said anything hateful to Roman Catholics, nor do I have any distaste for them whatsoever.
That's a crock.
My article at:http:// myblessedhome.blogspot.co...th.html#articleexplains this.I follow 2 Timoth 4:1-5, and preach the Word, in season and out of season (when it seems "right," and when it doesn't). I also focus on correct doctrine, as the above scripture emphasizes.I know MANY Roman Catholics pesonally, and I know several ex-Catholics, and I know too many people who were completely turned off of Christianity because they were brought up in a RC church, and think that that's what Biblical Christianity is.
There's a lot here to unpack. What she thinks is "correct doctrine" is based totally on her own interpretations. That is the nature of Christianity away from a magesterial form of leadership. Her last sentence "turned off of Christianity" means turned off from her interpretation of what Christianity is. That's not the same thing at all.
I have also spoken my thoughts on other Christian doctines, such as head covering, the sabbath, etc. I have also written about the Jehovah's Witnesses, the 12 Planet following, and other deceptions.When a Christian sees a brother fallen, is he not to offer a helping hand? I REFUSE to let RC's, JW's and others flail in an incorrect view of Christianity.
Fair enough. I do think that Candy's heart is in the right place and she means well. However, common sense would seem to say that if all this Catholics are objecting to your methods, you aren't opening minds to your POV. Secondly, if Candy thinks she is so correct, she should be able to withstand an intellectual challenge. I know that she cannot. And that is why she avoids it.
If the common person weren't so biblically ignorant, maybe this wouldn't be such a big issue.However, I believe we are in the Famine of the Word of God, as prophesied in the book of Amos.
I'd love to see her actually test this out in an actual apologetics discussion. But again I think the ignorance would be revealed, but not in the way she expects it to be.
People's spirits are starving and shriveling up, when their very food lies covered in dust on their coffee table. Unless a Christian is in the Word of God DAILY, they are quite vulnerable to falling for false doctrine.It's everywhere, not just in the RC church.
The church recommends bible readings from all parts of the bible EVERYDAY! In fact if you go to daily mass you hear would hear most of the bible in the course of a year. That Candy doesn't mention this shows that she is either ignorant of the fact, or too mule headed to acknowledge it.
Bethany, I have allowed many Roman Catholics in the past to defend their faith. However, many comments I refused to publish, because many of them contained vulgarities aimed at my person, cuss words, and other such immaturities.
This is why I am so happy that I started this blog. All of the comments that I gave to Candy, I simply cut and pasted here so that the world could see that there were no vulgarities or cuss words. Immaturity I think is subjectives. I think the way Mrs. Candy Brauer handles herself is on the immature side.
I also often don't publish comments in which it's obvious that the person didn't read all of my post, because they'll say such and such and when I covered it in the very post they are commenting on.I have also had multiple occasions of people getting mad at me for not publishing their comments, but I never received them.
I have said numerous times that when I started commenting on Candy's blog I wondered if the comment section was messed up because she never published my comments. At the time she was using Blogger comments. So far I have not had any problems receiving comments on my blog (I am curently using Blogger comments) but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem in the past. However, I'm pretty sure that most if not all of my comments were not published simply because they disagreed with her. I haven't heard any widespread complaints about blogger comments not posting so I am somewhat skeptical of this explanation.
Hopefully this issued is now cleared up since I changed commenting systems.
I'm skeptical of this too. I think she switched to Haloscan to get IP addresses and the ban option. I loved Haloscan for that. Wish I could figure out how to get it on my main blog again.
Moving on... You are coming at me from a completely flawed premise. I have never said anything hateful to Roman Catholics, nor do I have any distaste for them whatsoever.
That's a crock.
My article at:http:// myblessedhome.blogspot.co...th.html#articleexplains this.I follow 2 Timoth 4:1-5, and preach the Word, in season and out of season (when it seems "right," and when it doesn't). I also focus on correct doctrine, as the above scripture emphasizes.I know MANY Roman Catholics pesonally, and I know several ex-Catholics, and I know too many people who were completely turned off of Christianity because they were brought up in a RC church, and think that that's what Biblical Christianity is.
There's a lot here to unpack. What she thinks is "correct doctrine" is based totally on her own interpretations. That is the nature of Christianity away from a magesterial form of leadership. Her last sentence "turned off of Christianity" means turned off from her interpretation of what Christianity is. That's not the same thing at all.
I have also spoken my thoughts on other Christian doctines, such as head covering, the sabbath, etc. I have also written about the Jehovah's Witnesses, the 12 Planet following, and other deceptions.When a Christian sees a brother fallen, is he not to offer a helping hand? I REFUSE to let RC's, JW's and others flail in an incorrect view of Christianity.
Fair enough. I do think that Candy's heart is in the right place and she means well. However, common sense would seem to say that if all this Catholics are objecting to your methods, you aren't opening minds to your POV. Secondly, if Candy thinks she is so correct, she should be able to withstand an intellectual challenge. I know that she cannot. And that is why she avoids it.
If the common person weren't so biblically ignorant, maybe this wouldn't be such a big issue.However, I believe we are in the Famine of the Word of God, as prophesied in the book of Amos.
I'd love to see her actually test this out in an actual apologetics discussion. But again I think the ignorance would be revealed, but not in the way she expects it to be.
People's spirits are starving and shriveling up, when their very food lies covered in dust on their coffee table. Unless a Christian is in the Word of God DAILY, they are quite vulnerable to falling for false doctrine.It's everywhere, not just in the RC church.
The church recommends bible readings from all parts of the bible EVERYDAY! In fact if you go to daily mass you hear would hear most of the bible in the course of a year. That Candy doesn't mention this shows that she is either ignorant of the fact, or too mule headed to acknowledge it.
Handling Candyland commenters
Not being able to comment myself any more on Candy's blog, or even in a meaningful way so that she can read it, I guess I will just save time and put all of my commentary here to begin with. Candy merely saved me the step of giving her a courtesy comment.
Anyhoo, here are some of the comments that she is receiving and if I could reply, this is what I would ay.
I was taught by a friend in the ministry that the shape of a bishop's mitre was meant to symbolise the flames of the Fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Alison 09.07.07 - 7:50 am #
Interesting Alison. Some of my sources said that the two parts of the mitre represented the old testament and the new testament, both of which the bishop is supposed to preach and teach to the flock! Of course the apostles had to receive the Holy Spirit before they could do that, so it all seems to fit together! Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm reading the article titled xmess and lady-day and here is a line
The festivals of Rome are innumerable; but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation--viz., Christmas-day, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian.
What the heck is Lady day?
How is the birth of St. John Babylonian? I think Swylv (who generally gives me the impression that she hangs on every word Candy writes) means the dates are very similar to Babylonia feast dates? No clue and I have a feeling Swylv has no clue either.
Swylv Homepage 09.07.07 - 9:23 am #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that's astounding, I had no idea!
Shannon 09.07.07 - 9:28 am #
Well then Shannon you're in good company. Candy has no idea either!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I in no way disagree with this ... but it needs to be taken a step further.
Yes, Roman Catholicism IS The Resurrected Mystery Babylon Relgion, but when Protestantism began it wrongfully adopted some of the practices of "The Great Whore", probably to make their "new religion" more attractive to Catholics in order to get more converts. But it was no different than what the Catholics did to make Christianity more attractive to the pagans by adopting pagan traditions.
The observance of sun-day worship, easter and x-mess being the main carry overs from Catholicism, all of which find their root in Mystery Babylon.
Did you know that easter and x-mess were hardly celebrated in the USA before the 1870's? I didn't know that and it's something I recently learned...The Puritans who first settled our great country were suspicious of these "holi-days" because of their pagan origins. Before the 1870's these "holi-days" were celebrated by only a few states in the south, but not by the nation as a whole. I, personally, find that to be very interesting
God does indeed tell us to come out of her (Rev. 18:4)...and OUT means OUT, ALL the way OUT...
"Learn NOT the way of the heathen" (Jer.10:1)
"Whom ye obey, his servants ye are." (Rom. 6:16)stephanie Homepage 09.07.07 - 10:45 am #
I actually like Stephanie. She's out there, but I like her pioneering spirit.
One thing I note about Candy and a number of her readers is that there is a history of abuse in their past somewhere. In Stephanie's case it is her husband who suffered the abuse. It's simply an observation, but I think that once your life has been so out of your control, there is a strong need to take control back. What is more controlled than having a book with directions that you can follow to a T? Of course the bible is NOT written as a rule book, but I certainly understand why these folks have the need to use it that way. Stephanie's blog is a good example of what I mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt that you will publish this - but I think that your readers should at least be aware that the upside down cross seen behind the Pope is the symbol of the Papacy. St Peter, the first Pope, was crucified on an upside down cross and that event is remembered in the usage of the upside down cross.
Grace Marie 09.07.07 - 11:18 am #
Good point Grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To just expand a little on what Grace Marie said so beautifully, I was taught back in a Protestant grade school that it is a common practice of Satanists to take sacred symbols and attempt to make them profane. That is why you tend to see many parallels in the symbols of both Satanism and Christianity.
KitKat Homepage 09.07.07 - 11:30 am #
Exactly Kat!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder exactly Andrea this tutorial put together for you? That pine cones are evil? The sun is satanic? I'm not getting what the problem is for you people; however, it seems to me if you have ANY SYMBOLS of trees, plants, or animals in your home or books, you best be purging them because I'm sure some pagan somewhere, sometime, worshipped them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter was not "the first pope" there was never any pope in the Bible. That office is entirely man-made. The more I am learning as a Christian the more I am wondering about these holidays that we tend to hold so dear.
Tracy 09.07.07 - 1:14 pm #
Oy. It takes a certain level of unsophistication I guess to be a member of the Candyland cult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candy, I am a protestant (in fact, I go to the exact type of church you go to- independant fundamental baptist) and I have the same beliefs about how you obtain salvation. I am curious how you feel about the verses in the Bible which say that the way you can tell if someone is preaching from the spirit of God is whether they preach that Jesus came in the flesh...and that anyone who does not teach that is the anti-christ. Also, the fruit of the spirits are love, joy, peace, tenderness, gentleness, etc.... Do you know any Catholics? I do...and the ones I know are very loving, very devoted to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Candy, I know that they have a lot of rituals that we do not agree with. I do not agree with everything in the Catholic church, but there is one thing that we all do have in common- and that is that we all believe that God came down from Heaven as a man, Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to save us from our sins. We all believe that without His blood, we would have no remission of Sins.
And isn't this the most important thing of all? I just wonder why you seem to be so dead set at condemning these people to Hell? I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to be Catholic. I do not agree with many of their traditions but I do agree with the one thing that matters the most. The other issues are secondary. Don't you think?
bethany Homepage 09.07.07 - 1:59 pm #
Excellent comment Bethany! You'll probably be banned, but good effort!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany, I'm not "damning" anyone to hell. God is the judge of that.
Exactly! So until He appoints you to the job perhaps you should stick to your breadmaking and yogurt creations!
I'm surprised that you still read here, after the nasty things you've gossiped about me all about the net. (Google picks them up, you know).
LOL! Oh yes I do know. I've been telling you! I don't blog this stuff necessarily for your attention Candy - I blog to get picked up by the search engines!
I think you need to stop trying to please the world and Christ, and choose one - who's your real master?
Back attcha. You have a cultish following of unknowing, and uneducated young Christians who think you can walk on water (for 75 minutes aerobically while the kids are doing Algebra 1 happily in their rooms by themselves - puhlease) and you come down with an iron fist on any thoughtful, factual comment that might just dare to contradict whatever it is you posted. It seems to me Candy you're the one playing to the audience. Beam/ eye and all of that!
Anyhoo, here are some of the comments that she is receiving and if I could reply, this is what I would ay.
I was taught by a friend in the ministry that the shape of a bishop's mitre was meant to symbolise the flames of the Fire of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Alison 09.07.07 - 7:50 am #
Interesting Alison. Some of my sources said that the two parts of the mitre represented the old testament and the new testament, both of which the bishop is supposed to preach and teach to the flock! Of course the apostles had to receive the Holy Spirit before they could do that, so it all seems to fit together! Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm reading the article titled xmess and lady-day and here is a line
The festivals of Rome are innumerable; but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation--viz., Christmas-day, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian.
What the heck is Lady day?
How is the birth of St. John Babylonian? I think Swylv (who generally gives me the impression that she hangs on every word Candy writes) means the dates are very similar to Babylonia feast dates? No clue and I have a feeling Swylv has no clue either.
Swylv Homepage 09.07.07 - 9:23 am #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, that's astounding, I had no idea!
Shannon 09.07.07 - 9:28 am #
Well then Shannon you're in good company. Candy has no idea either!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I in no way disagree with this ... but it needs to be taken a step further.
Yes, Roman Catholicism IS The Resurrected Mystery Babylon Relgion, but when Protestantism began it wrongfully adopted some of the practices of "The Great Whore", probably to make their "new religion" more attractive to Catholics in order to get more converts. But it was no different than what the Catholics did to make Christianity more attractive to the pagans by adopting pagan traditions.
The observance of sun-day worship, easter and x-mess being the main carry overs from Catholicism, all of which find their root in Mystery Babylon.
Did you know that easter and x-mess were hardly celebrated in the USA before the 1870's? I didn't know that and it's something I recently learned...The Puritans who first settled our great country were suspicious of these "holi-days" because of their pagan origins. Before the 1870's these "holi-days" were celebrated by only a few states in the south, but not by the nation as a whole. I, personally, find that to be very interesting
God does indeed tell us to come out of her (Rev. 18:4)...and OUT means OUT, ALL the way OUT...
"Learn NOT the way of the heathen" (Jer.10:1)
"Whom ye obey, his servants ye are." (Rom. 6:16)stephanie Homepage 09.07.07 - 10:45 am #
I actually like Stephanie. She's out there, but I like her pioneering spirit.
One thing I note about Candy and a number of her readers is that there is a history of abuse in their past somewhere. In Stephanie's case it is her husband who suffered the abuse. It's simply an observation, but I think that once your life has been so out of your control, there is a strong need to take control back. What is more controlled than having a book with directions that you can follow to a T? Of course the bible is NOT written as a rule book, but I certainly understand why these folks have the need to use it that way. Stephanie's blog is a good example of what I mean.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt that you will publish this - but I think that your readers should at least be aware that the upside down cross seen behind the Pope is the symbol of the Papacy. St Peter, the first Pope, was crucified on an upside down cross and that event is remembered in the usage of the upside down cross.
Grace Marie 09.07.07 - 11:18 am #
Good point Grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To just expand a little on what Grace Marie said so beautifully, I was taught back in a Protestant grade school that it is a common practice of Satanists to take sacred symbols and attempt to make them profane. That is why you tend to see many parallels in the symbols of both Satanism and Christianity.
KitKat Homepage 09.07.07 - 11:30 am #
Exactly Kat!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have heard all this before but this picture tutorial has helped to put it all together! Thanks so much.
Andrea from Ohio Homepage 09.07.07 - 11:31 am #
I wonder exactly Andrea this tutorial put together for you? That pine cones are evil? The sun is satanic? I'm not getting what the problem is for you people; however, it seems to me if you have ANY SYMBOLS of trees, plants, or animals in your home or books, you best be purging them because I'm sure some pagan somewhere, sometime, worshipped them!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter was not "the first pope" there was never any pope in the Bible. That office is entirely man-made. The more I am learning as a Christian the more I am wondering about these holidays that we tend to hold so dear.
Tracy 09.07.07 - 1:14 pm #
Oy. It takes a certain level of unsophistication I guess to be a member of the Candyland cult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candy, I am a protestant (in fact, I go to the exact type of church you go to- independant fundamental baptist) and I have the same beliefs about how you obtain salvation. I am curious how you feel about the verses in the Bible which say that the way you can tell if someone is preaching from the spirit of God is whether they preach that Jesus came in the flesh...and that anyone who does not teach that is the anti-christ. Also, the fruit of the spirits are love, joy, peace, tenderness, gentleness, etc.... Do you know any Catholics? I do...and the ones I know are very loving, very devoted to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Candy, I know that they have a lot of rituals that we do not agree with. I do not agree with everything in the Catholic church, but there is one thing that we all do have in common- and that is that we all believe that God came down from Heaven as a man, Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to save us from our sins. We all believe that without His blood, we would have no remission of Sins.
And isn't this the most important thing of all? I just wonder why you seem to be so dead set at condemning these people to Hell? I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to be Catholic. I do not agree with many of their traditions but I do agree with the one thing that matters the most. The other issues are secondary. Don't you think?
bethany Homepage 09.07.07 - 1:59 pm #
Excellent comment Bethany! You'll probably be banned, but good effort!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany, I'm not "damning" anyone to hell. God is the judge of that.
Exactly! So until He appoints you to the job perhaps you should stick to your breadmaking and yogurt creations!
I'm surprised that you still read here, after the nasty things you've gossiped about me all about the net. (Google picks them up, you know).
LOL! Oh yes I do know. I've been telling you! I don't blog this stuff necessarily for your attention Candy - I blog to get picked up by the search engines!
I think you need to stop trying to please the world and Christ, and choose one - who's your real master?
Back attcha. You have a cultish following of unknowing, and uneducated young Christians who think you can walk on water (for 75 minutes aerobically while the kids are doing Algebra 1 happily in their rooms by themselves - puhlease) and you come down with an iron fist on any thoughtful, factual comment that might just dare to contradict whatever it is you posted. It seems to me Candy you're the one playing to the audience. Beam/ eye and all of that!
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added
Big surprise!
Hey Candy, let me clue ya... it isn't the eye makeup that makes you look mean.
Hey Candy, let me clue ya... it isn't the eye makeup that makes you look mean.
We're back
unfortunately.
Despite personally warning Candy that I would bring this site back up, she posted her anti-Catholic dribble again.
She also has switched her comments to Halo scanning (which is a much better commenting system in my opinion anyway) but she will probably ban me completely now. Which is fine. I will try to notify her that I will save the effort and just post here directly.
Anyway - I posted some links explaining the mitre and the pope's cross.
Here are some liks for Christian symbols if anyone is interested.
Cyber Catholics
Despite personally warning Candy that I would bring this site back up, she posted her anti-Catholic dribble again.
She also has switched her comments to Halo scanning (which is a much better commenting system in my opinion anyway) but she will probably ban me completely now. Which is fine. I will try to notify her that I will save the effort and just post here directly.
Anyway - I posted some links explaining the mitre and the pope's cross.
Here are some liks for Christian symbols if anyone is interested.
Cyber Catholics
The Mitre and the Crosier
In response to this.
The Mitre. This is the distinguishing mark of the episcopal office -- a tall double-pointed cap, probably of Oriental origin, which can be traced back to pagan times; at least, something very similar was worn by kings in Persia and Assyria long before the Christian era. As an ecclesiastical vestment it came into general use about the year 1100, although some form of tall and dignified headdress was worn considerably earlier. The present double or cleft form was evolved gradually; it was at first low and concave, and was subsequently increased in height and more richly ornamented. Its two points or horns symbolize the Old and New Testaments, which the bishop is supposed to explain to his people.
The Crosier. This, the bishop's pastoral staff, is, of course, not a vestment, but may be mentioned here. It typifies his duties as shepherd of the flock. It is a copy of the shepherd's crook, used for the guidance and restraining of the sheep, and has been looked upon as the special badge of the episcopal office since the fifth century at least, and is so mentioned in the ritual of a bishop's consecration. It signifies his power to sustain the weak, to confirm the wavering, and to lead back the erring. The upper part is often very beautifully molded and enriched with images and symbolic ornaments. [The opening image of St. Peter above shows him with a Crosier as well as a Mitre and chasuble.]
See here
Explanation of the vestments and their meanings.
Development of the Mitre
The Mitre. This is the distinguishing mark of the episcopal office -- a tall double-pointed cap, probably of Oriental origin, which can be traced back to pagan times; at least, something very similar was worn by kings in Persia and Assyria long before the Christian era. As an ecclesiastical vestment it came into general use about the year 1100, although some form of tall and dignified headdress was worn considerably earlier. The present double or cleft form was evolved gradually; it was at first low and concave, and was subsequently increased in height and more richly ornamented. Its two points or horns symbolize the Old and New Testaments, which the bishop is supposed to explain to his people.
The Crosier. This, the bishop's pastoral staff, is, of course, not a vestment, but may be mentioned here. It typifies his duties as shepherd of the flock. It is a copy of the shepherd's crook, used for the guidance and restraining of the sheep, and has been looked upon as the special badge of the episcopal office since the fifth century at least, and is so mentioned in the ritual of a bishop's consecration. It signifies his power to sustain the weak, to confirm the wavering, and to lead back the erring. The upper part is often very beautifully molded and enriched with images and symbolic ornaments. [The opening image of St. Peter above shows him with a Crosier as well as a Mitre and chasuble.]
See here
Explanation of the vestments and their meanings.
Development of the Mitre
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Rebuttals to the post 
