Pages

Monday, February 25, 2008

Priestly Attire

I was reading Fr. Longenecker again, and he has written about why priests wear vestments. While his answer is really more of a commentary on bad liturgical vestments, he does get to the point of the matter.

If the Mass is the Royal Marriage Feast of the Lamb, then the priest should dress up for his entrance into the royal court. The robes should therefore be regal in their dignity, their simplicity and their style. As much as possible their beauty should be shown, not by cleverness of design or ornamentation, but through quality materials and fine workmanship.

Why should the priest dress like a king? Because he reminds the whole people of God that they serve Christ the King, and the priest is in persona Christi. Furthermore, they remind the people of God that they too are a chosen people, and a royal priesthood. The priest focuses in his own person and ministry the royal priesthood of the people of God. Furthermore, when the priest dresses in fine robes he symbolizes the riches of grace bestowed upon the people of God. Over the black cassock of his sinful human condition the priest wears the white alb--the symbol that he, (and his people) are clothed in the righteousness of Christ by virtue of their baptism. Over that he wears a splendid chasuble to show that the final state of the Christian is not just the white robes of Christ's righteousness, but a share in Christ's own royal priesthood. Each of the faithful are princes and princesses--adopted into the royal family.
It struck me that this is just the sort of topic that works well on this blog. Priestly vestments are one of those things that anti-Catholics like to bring up. Just read a little bit on Antichrist Truth and you will see that they quote Revelation 17:4 “the woman was arrayed in PURPLE and SCARLET colour, and decked with GOLD and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand” as proof of the Catholic Church being the anti-Christ.

In fact, Jesus-Is-Savior points to Baptist ministers wearing liturgical robes as one of several points of ungodly influence of Catholicism on the Baptist churches.

Fr. Longenecker's explanation was great, but if it peaked your interest, here is further reading:
The History and Use of Vestments
Catholic Encyclopedia on Vestments





AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Saturday, February 23, 2008

The Playground for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

The Playground for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

This is the trailer to Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled. It's a fascinating look at how scientists who believe in intelligent design and question Darwinism are losing jobs, not getting published, being denied tenure and basically being told to shut up. They are ridiculed, scorned and getting pushed aside, although there is no clear-cut evidence that they are necessarily wrong.

There was a line from the trailer by Ben Stein that immediately made me think of Candy.
" People confident in their opinions are not afraid of criticism."

Ironically, I believe Candy would support this film and probably all of the scientists who are being attacked for defending intelligent design. She would probably find the idea that these scientists are being censored abhorant. Yet, that is the MO that Candy herself operates under on her own blog.

Anyway, this is going to be a great film this spring. Be sure to check out the web site and the blog





Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!



Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!





AddThis Social Bookmark Button


StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Friday, February 22, 2008

Immune

Glad Candy is feeling better.

I thought this comment of hers is quite telling:

Up until the past few days, I honestly thought I was strangly immune to it. :-?


Candy is 30. That is still pretty young. At 30 I guess I thought I was still
"immune" from things too. At 30 old age, disease, death, seem far in the future. At least in the west, for most of us. It's easier to feel "immune" when we are isolated, insulated, and afraid to look at other possibilities or perspectives. That doesn't mean of course that one truly is "immune." It just simply means that it's easier to keep that illusion going. But someday, just like a nasty virus, we might just have to face some of those challenges and realize, perhaps our "immunity" isn't as strong as we thought it was.





AddThis Social Bookmark Button





StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Candy's illness

Despite what some of this blog's detractors think, I truly never wish any harm on anyone, including Candy! Reading her entries (on bloglines) I am very concerned about her fever and hope that she will consider getting some medical care. On the other hand, I totally understand why she hasn't. We have been without medical insurance before and we have even had only Major Medical that didn't cover much of anything. It can be a scary time. As a mom, I was always reluctant to spend that kind of money on myself and I'll bet Candy feels similarly.

I'm sure all of us here at Visits to Candyland will keep Candy in prayer this week, asking for a speedy recovery to full health!



AddThis Social Bookmark Button





Stumble It!

Thursday, February 14, 2008

A Catholic Mom climbing the Pillars: A Valentine's Daa... no a Lenten reflection Catholic Carnival

A Catholic Mom climbing the Pillars: A Valentine's Daa... no a Lenten reflection Catholic Carnival


AddThis Social Bookmark Button





Stumble It!

The Contradiction of Salvation

On Monday, Candy shared the happy news that her mother got saved. A few people found this curious, as Candy had previously mentioned that her mother was saved. Candy's reply:

I led mom through a salvation prayer over the phone about 10 or 12 years ago, but she never once attended church, or got baptized, and she never changed her drinking and partying. There was no visible change whatsoever.

Up until yesterday she had always questioned her salvation, and din't really know if she actually was saved. Yesterday is all "clicked," she got it, so she and I went up to the alter, where pastor spoke with her, then she got baptized. :-D

Now she says she KNOWS she's saved, and she's been different since.
Candy leads us through the salvation prayer process on this page:

If you are ready to be born again/saved, and you are ready to become a new creature in Christ, then pray the below prayer, or one similar... Just sit where you are, and say the below to God; He will hear you:

Dear Lord, Thank You so much for sending Your Son to pay for my sins, by dying in my place. I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, and I believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Thank You for Your free gift of salvation, I gladly accept it. Amen

Now, go out and tell people what you did, and remember, don't be ashamed. :-) You did the best thing in the universe, and there is a party going on in heaven in your honor. God and the angels are rejoicing:

So, Candy led her mother through this prayer, and her mother said that she was saved. Candy felt sure enough of this to tell people on her blog that her mother was saved. Apparently, the clue that she wasn't really saved was that she felt unsure. Candy writes:

If you think you're a Christian, do you KNOW for sure - 100%, no doubt about it, that you are going to heaven when you die? If you aren't positive, then chances are high that you are not a Christian.

Further down the same page is where she writes of her mother's conversion:
Well, God provided me with new friends - Christian ones. He helped me tell the Gospel message to my mom, and she got saved and read through the Bible right away.

Candy lists as proof of her mother's salvation, that she read through the Bible right away. Let's look at this more clearly.

Candy's list of what you need to attain salvation:
  1. Pray the Sinner's Prayer.
  2. Produce fruits of your faith, i.e., read the Bible, change your life.
  3. Have a "feeling" of assurance of salvation.
I'm not sure where any of this is in the Bible. But my real question is, did Candy's insistence that you cannot lose your salvation put her mother's soul in danger? If you operate on the theology that "once saved, always saved" then her mother's drinking or partying could not lose her salvation. Perhaps it was "backsliding."

I think the danger to having a theology which makes salvation a given, is that you might not feel that urgency to confront someone, and talk to them about their actions. We really know very little about Candy's relationship with her mother. Maybe this is something they discussed, or maybe it wasn't. But Candy felt certain enough that she wrote about it as a done deal on her blog. It is only how that the doubts are voiced.

If we remember Phil 2:12, " . . . continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," then we are more challenged to remember that salvation isn't a single emotional moment, which can fade over time. It is an ongoing carrying of the cross. A race to be run. A fight to be fought. We shouldn't be content to rest on assurance, or ourselves or for our loved ones.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Interpreting Scripture

Photobucket

Candy has put forth her principle for scripture interpretation:
The general principle adhered to throughout is that of literalizing instead of spiritualizing. Statements of fact and historical accounts are accepted as such. THE RULE OBSERVED IS: Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.

The Catholic Church places great importance on the literal sense of Scripture. Let us look to the Catholic Catechism:



115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.


While giving the literal sense the greatest importance, we would miss out on the "richness to the living reading of Scripture" if we limited ourselves to the literal meaning.

After giving us her principle, Candy then gives an example:
Some cults like to take John 2:5, which says - "His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." and try to turn that literal sentence into figures. They'll say things such as "we are the servants, and Mary is telling this to us. We must always listen to Mary." Is this a correct interpretation? Certainly not, as there are no cue words, or anything in the context to suggest that anything other that a literal interpretation is warranted. Mary simply told the servants at the wedding feast in Cana to do what Jesus told them to. That's it.

Certainly, Catholics would agree that the clearest meaning is that Mary told the servant to listen to Jesus. However, that doesn't rule out additional meanings which can be drawn from the text by reading it in ways other than the literal. Surely, there is nothing objectionable in remembering that we should always do whatever Jesus tells us.

I doubt if Candy would take such a strict interpretation to other verses. Take, for example, Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Jesus spoke to his disciples. There are no cue words, or anything in the context to suggest that anything other than a literal interpretation is warranted. Why should we conclude that if Jesus told his disciples to do something, that anyone other than his disciples should do it? Because it enriches our lives, and all of Christianity when we do so.

Scripture is not one-dimensional. Using Scripture as our cue to interpretation makes this clear. Jesus speaks in parables. Song of Songs is poetry. All Christians interpret it in such a way as to apply it to their own lives. Candy's principle is oversimplification.

Additional readings on Catholic Scriptural interpretation:

Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.
Jimmy Akin's The Limits of Scripture Interpretation
Biblical Exegesis from The Catholic Encyclopedia


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Today on Candy's
This is a great post about interpreting the Bible. I hear Catholics and Protestants say often that if just anyone was allowed to interpret the Bible you would have chaos, and point to the chaotic mix of denominations as proof. The only problem with that is, a.) it is unbiblical as the Bible is of no private interpretation; and b.) the chaos is caused by denominational politics and flawed men jockeying for position. Churches that believe the Bible as sole authority are very consistent in their basic beliefs, and have been ever since the Bible was written.


To which Candy replied
Sarah Joy, you are right, and you explained it quite clearly. :-)



So maybe you all can help me, but what does this sentence mean?
The only problem with that is, a.) it is unbiblical as the Bible is of no private interpretation;

"is of no private interpretation?" Does she mean that the bible is not to be privately interpreted? But if it means that why would Candy be for it? Her whole understanding is based on her private interpretation or someone else's private interpretation.


And then this part:
the chaos is caused by denominational politics and flawed men jockeying for position.


While I think many denominations split for political and personality reasons, I don't think you can say unequivocally that ALL splits were just for those reasons and that theology and biblical interpretation had nothing to do with it!

It sure doesn't sound like it from this article from Religious Tolerance



It seems to me that about the only think sola scriptura Christians agree on is sola scriptura!

And of course the last statement about "since the bible was written" is just foolish and betrays an ignorance of bible history!



AddThis Social Bookmark Button





Stumble It!

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Hello Ladies, I know that I have been MIA for a while now, sorry for that. I will not bore you with the details, but I am back for as long as I can be.
Well anyway, after noticing Candy's CopyScape Page Protection Banner on her blog I did some research on copyright laws and I found this:

United States Copyright Office
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So after reading this section of the copyright code of the United States can someone tell me why someone such as Candy would put that on her blog? The only answer that I can come up with is that Candy does not want us to copy her words and is trying to scare us into not copying her, but if you read the above section of the copyright law then you can plainly see that we are using her words for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching , scholarship, and research. Just my 2-cents but something that I was very curious about because I see this anti-copying thing popping up EVERYWHERE on blogs these days.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button








StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Coffee With Candy: January 2008

Here's a new blog I discovered. The blogger is Joy, and I found her checking us out from our site meter! Welcome to our blogroll Coffee with Candy!

Coffee With Candy: January 2008





Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!



Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!





AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Stumble It!

Friday, February 8, 2008

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The Blessed Eucharist is the Sacrament. Baptism exists for it, all the others are enriched by it. The whole being is nourished by it. It is precisely food, which explains why it is the one sacrament meant to be received daily. Without it, one petition in the Our Father-"Give us this day our daily bread"-lacks the fullness of its meaning.
Early in his ministry, as St. John tells us (ch 6), Our Lord gave the first promise of it. He had just worked what is probably the most famous of his miracles, the feeding of the five thousand. The next day, in the synagogue at Capernaum on the shore of the sea of Galilee, Our Lord made a speech which should be read and reread. Here we quote a few phrases: "I am the Bread of Life"; "I am the Living Bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world"; "He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him"; "He that eats me shall live by me."
He saw that many of his own disciples were horrified at what he was saying. He went on: "It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing." We know what he meant: in saying they must eat his flesh, he did not mean dead flesh but his body with the life in it, with the living soul in it. In some way he himself, living, was to be the food of their soul's life. Needless to say, all this meant nothing whatever to those who heard it first. For many, it was the end of discipleship. They simply left him, probably thinking that for a man to talk of giving them his flesh to eat was mere insanity. When he asked the Apostles if they would go too, Peter gave him one of the most moving answers in all man's history: "Lord, to whom shall we go?" He had not the faintest idea of what it all meant; but he had a total belief in the Master he had chosen and simply hoped that some day it would be made plain.
There is no hint that Our Lord ever raised the matter again until the Last Supper. Then his meaning was most marvellously made plain. What he said and did then is told us by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and St. Paul tells it to the Corinthians (1 Cor 10 and 11). St. John, who gives the longest account of the Last Supper, does not mention the institution of the Blessed Eucharist; his Gospel was written perhaps thirty years after the others, to be read in a church which had been receiving Our Lord's body and blood for some sixty years. What he had provided is the account we have just been considering of Our Lord's first promise.
Here is St. Matthew's account of the establishment: "Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said, Take ye and eat: This is my body. And taking the chalice he gave thanks: and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
Since they deal with the food of our life, we must examine these words closely. What we are about to say of "This is my body" will do for "This is my blood" too. The word is need not detain us. There are those, bent upon escaping the plain meaning of the words used, who say that the phrase really means "This represents my body." It sounds very close to desperation! No competent speaker would ever talk like that, least of all Our Lord, least of all then. The word this, deserves a closer look. Had he said, "Here is my body," he might have meant that, in some mysterious way, his body was there as well as, along with, the bread which seems so plainly to be there. But he said, "This is my body"-this which I am holding, this which looks like bread but is not, this which was bread before I blessed it, this is now my body. Similarly this, which was wine, which still looks like wine, is not wine. It is now my blood.
Every life is nourished by its own kind-the body by material food, the intellect by mental food. But the life we are now concerned with is Christ living in us; the only possible food for it is Christ. So much is this so that in our own day you will scarcely find grace held to be Christ's life in us unless the Eucharist is held to be Christ himself.
What Our Lord was giving us was a union with himself closer than the Apostles had in the three years of their companionship, than Mary Magdalen had when she clung to him after his Resurrection. Two of St. Paul's phrases, from 1 Corinthians 11 and 10, are specially worth noting:
"Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord"; and "We, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread"- a reminder that the Eucharist is not only for each man's soul but for the unity of the Mystical Body.
I can see why a Christian might be unable to bring himself to believe it, finding it beyond his power to accept the idea that a man can give us his flesh to eat. But why should anyone to escape the plain meaning of the words?
For the Catholic nothing could be simpler. Whether he understands or not, he feels safe with Peter in the assurance that he who said he would give us his body to eat had the words of eternal life. Return again to what he said. The bread is not changed into the whole Christ, but into his body; the wine is not changed into the whole Christ, but into his blood. But Christ lives, death has no more dominion over him. The bread becomes his body, but where his body is, there he is; the wine becomes his blood but is not thereby separated from his body, for that would mean death; where his blood is, he is. Where either body or blood is, there is Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity. That is the doctrine of the Real Presence.




AddThis Social Bookmark Button







StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

More info on Finnis Jennings Dake

More on Dake:
Finis Jennings Dake (1902-1987) - dispensational Pentecostal fundamentalist. A minister who rejected formal training and traditional theology for his own extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. Much of his labor in interpreting Scripture did not even involve reading the Bible, since, as he claimed, the Holy Spirit taught him hundreds of verses without his ever having to read or memorize them. He also credited the illumination of the Spirit for his special understanding of difficult texts. His Dake's Annotated Reference Bible is controversial for teaching the gap theory, adoptionism, racial segregation, and a view of the Trinity as three Jehovahs (three Gods), each with their own separate bodies, souls, and spirits

AddThis Social Bookmark Button





StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Now I'm sort of wondering if Candy discovered this new way to keep us out of her site and decided to try it out with her latest anti-Catholic screed. Here's the latest:

This is Candy's latest:

I love the Dake Annotated Reference Bible. One of the reasons I love it, is because Mr. Dake followed the same principle I do, in studying the scriptures.

This speaks volumes! Candy loves EVERY ONE who follows the same principles, way of thinking, point of view, perspective that she does! Even to the point of keeping folks who disagree with her out.

Here is info on Mr. Dake:
Finis Jennings Dake

This site was interesting - The Dake's Bible. This comes from Protestant Apologetics No one can say this is associated with a pro-Catholic page!

But here's the interesting part:

The "Dake's Bible"

& Confused Charismatic Theology

by Joseph Chambers

Many years ago, I became leery of the Dake's Bible, but never really understood why. The only thing I could identify was that those who became strong in their study of Dake also became arrogant and unteachable.


Remind you of anyone?

That entire article is worth the read to learn about the heresies in the Dake Bible.

Here's another Protestant article written by a Baptist Minister not very flattering to Dake.

I found that Jimmy Swaggart really loved Finis Dake's work. That didn't keep the Dake heirs from suing Swaggart!

In June, the heirs of the Rev. Finis Jennings Dake sued the evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, accusing him of using Mr. Dake's words without permission or attribution
And this is a VERY interesting article about Dake's heresies:

The fact is clearly seen that Mr. Dake put much work into this reference tool. However, there are severe problems with the theology contained in this work. For instance, heresies abound concerning subjects such as the nature and attributes of God, Soteriology, and Christology—just to name a few. Furthermore, many word-faith teachers, such as Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, have verifiably used Dake as a source of their quizzical doctrines. The scope of this paper, however, is not a complete, systematic analysis of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible, but an analysis of what it says about Jesus.

It must be stated that Finis Jennings Dake and those who follow his teaching are not yet considered a cult. However, much of the teaching in Dake's Bible is considered cultic because it falls far outside the walls of orthodox Christianity. To be sure, there are many heretical claims concerning Jesus found in this study Bible. And with about 30,000 Dake Bibles being sold each year, this is a subject that needs to be addressed. This exploration of Dake's teaching on Jesus will be subsumed under two broad topics: Dake and the Trinity, which will exegete Dake's teaching about the very nature of Jesus before He was Incarnated into a body of flesh, and Dake and the Incarnation, which will present Dake's teaching about the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity.

I can't find any information on line about Dake's education, other than he went to "bible college" and was a Pentacostal.

I think there are enough red flags here to make Dake's scholarship and exegesis with a gigantic grain of salt I do find this information quite helpful in understanding Mrs. Brauer's theology.








AddThis Social Bookmark Button





StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Thursday, February 7, 2008

So what IP hiders do you use?

I haven't attempted to post ANYTHING on Candy's blog for a long time, but today I asked a simple three-word question and she blocked my IP. That means that when I try to view her blog I see it for a brief second and then I get sent somewhere else.

Of course, I already have Candyland in my bloglines and Google reader, so I can continue to read what she writes, I just can't link to it directly (although I probably can via Feedburner) and I can't read comments.

I've been thinking about getting an IP hider anyway, but there always seem to be better ways to spend my money. But I might splurge with my refund.

So do any of you guys use IP hiders and if so, what would you recommend?



AddThis Social Bookmark Button





Stumble It!

John 3: Birth versus Baptism

Photobucket

The third chapter of the gospel of St. John brings us into a thorny theological question--is baptism required for salvation? Candy doesn't bring the question up specifically, but her interpretation of the verses leaves no doubts as to her position.

Let's look at the verses:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Candy notes: Jesus says point blank, that you have to be born again to see the kingdom of God. Thus, you must become a born again Christian in order to go to heaven.

I think she is jumping ahead a bit. Jesus says that a man must be born again, but He doesn't specify what "born again" means.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Nicodemus asks Jesus to clarify for us.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Candy notes: Born of the water is mentioned before born of the Spirit, because born of the water is our flesh birth - being physcially born. Being born of the Spirit is being born again, as a new Creature in Christ. Verse 6 supports that born of the water in verse 5 means born of the flesh, where verse 6 says "that which is born of flesh is flesh."

I think that if Candy takes such a literal interpretation of this verse, then she must rule out the possibility of salvation for those who are never physically born, i.e., those who are miscarried or aborted. Jesus does put being born of water as one of the two conditions for entering the kingdom of God.

It can also be a danger to put a significance on the order in which something is placed in scripture. One obvious case would be that Peter's name is always listed first in the lists of the apostles. Would Candy say that this is significant?

This verse supports that baptism and being born in Spirit through belief in Jesus is linked. This is found throughout the entire New Testament.

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts: 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The eunuch in Acts 8 needs to be baptized after believing in Jesus. Paul, who was made an apostle by Jesus Himself, was baptized immediately in Acts 9:18.

In Matt 28:19 Jesus commands "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" linking teaching and baptism.

Also, Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter was following Jesus' command in Mark 16: 16 where He says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

For a more in depth study of baptism in Scripture, I suggest (as always!) reading through the Scripture Catholic site.

We can also look to see how the early Christians interpreted these verses. Although many fundamentalists feel that the early Church fell into error, most people feel that this didn't occur until after the Council of Nicea in 325. All of the early Church Fathers interpret John 3:5 as referring to water baptism. You can read a sample of their words here.

In Candy's article on the Trinity, she pointed to Cyprian of Carthage as support for her point. On the point of baptism he wrote "[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Catholic Catechism paragraph 1257:
The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Perhaps some of our non-Catholic readers would like to share the view of their denomination on the relationship between baptism and salvation?


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Renaissance Fair of Catholic Home Education:: Issue #1 | Renaissance Academy

Renaissance Fair of Catholic Home Education:: Issue #1 | Renaissance Academy





Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!



Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!





AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Stumble It!

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Help us get the word out!

New visitors to this blog usually spend 20 minutes to hours reading the front page and the archives. Many of them are lucky enough to find us via the Google and Yahoo search engines. Goodness knows Candy isn't going to send readers to us!!

But there are ways that you guys can help make Visits To Candyland easier for folks to find.

1. If you have a blog, link to us!
2. If you have a blog, consider doing a little post on us with a link!
2. Click the little social bookmarking buttons now available at the bottom of posts and send our articles to del.icio.us, Stumble, Facebook and Technorati and others. The more this blog gets out there, the easier we will be to find.

Thanks for your support!





AddThis Social Bookmark Button





StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

just another day of Catholic pondering: Catholic Carnival 158: Giving Up, Giving In, and Giving Back

just another day of Catholic pondering: Catholic Carnival 158: Giving Up, Giving In, and Giving Back

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

John 2

Would anyone like to discuss the second chapter of the Gospel of St. John? There is so much packed into this chapter, that I was surprised that Candy didn't have more notes on it.

For example, the first miracle which Jesus works is not a physical healing, but the tranformation of water into wine, which prefigures the later transubstantiation of wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Paul Haffner, in his book The Sacramental Mystery, writes that the Last Supper is like the wedding feast celebrating the wedding of Christ to His Church.

Did Jesus perform the miracle only that His disciples would believe, or did He also perform it because His mother asked him to do so? The wedding at Cana shows us that Mary was at both the beginning of Jesus' ministry, as she will be at the end, when she stands at the foot of the cross at Calvary. As Mary provides a model of humanity to us, we should take her words to "Do whatever he tells you" to heart.

The Catholic Catechism #1335 states: The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist. The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus' glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father's kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.

Scroll down almost to the bottom of this page, and you can read Scott Hahn's remarks on John 2.

Of course, we should go to John 2. The first of the seven signs in the Book of Signs, the fourth gospel. The first of Jesus' miracles is to turn water into wine, just as the first miracle of Moses was to turn water into blood, so Jesus turns it into the blood of the grape as it is called in Genesis 49. Here we have, I believe, something that is fraught with all kinds of rich literary and theological symbolism. In John 1, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," says John the Baptist. In John 2, the Lamb goes up to a wedding feast. Now does that sound familiar? A wedding feast where a lamb attends? That's how John is going to climax his book of Revelation, by inviting all of us to the wedding supper of the Lamb. And then along with the wedding banquet of the Lamb, we are also going to be introduced to a Virgin Mother Queen's city, the new Jerusalem, which is both virginally pure but maternally fruitful.


It is also worth mentioning, that the Catholic Church considers the wedding at Cana to be the time when Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament.

CCC paragraph #1613: On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign—at his mother's request—during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Jumping Ahead

For those of you who can't wait six weeks to see what Candy's take on John 6 is, I'd like to point you to the archives. Candy answered that question as part of a Q and A a while back, and while I don't have a link to her actual post, you can read most of it in Elena's response post here.



AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!

Candy's Inspiration

If you google Candy's name, one of first items that pops up is a bulletin board message from Candy asking about the most effective way of marketing a website. The response contains the advice that "If you load up your personal page with free tools and how-to articles or a blog, you will be more respected and probably build a following. Repeat business and word-of-mouth referrals!"

Candy seems to have decided on the blog model, and she has built a following to help sell her product, which is her e-books. As she has followers, they like to ask lots of questions. People ask her questions as insignificant as which brand of candy thermometer she uses, or as theologically heavy as her interpretation of John 6. Candy may or may not have answers to these questions, but she is a woman who likes to do research, and she has a favorite resource to help with these questions. Namely, the Jesus-Is-Lord website, which she links to on her sidebar.

Candy's Vatican Versus the Bible.

Notice the section on the 10 commandments is similar to here, at Jesus Is Lord.

You can read Candy's article on the Trinity here.

Compare it with Jesus-Is-Lord's article on the Trinity here.

Candy's take on John 6, pieced together from Elena's post.
Jesus Is Lord on John 6, perhaps where Candy was inspired to refer to the Eucharist as the "IHS cracker".

Although Candy originally cut and pasted Sister Charlotte's testimony to her blog, she just links straight to the Jesus Is Lord site on her sidebar now. The anti-Christ slide show was a direct link there, too.

So, am I accusing Candy of plagiarism? Not at all. If you look over both links, it is clear that Candy gives her own interpretation of things. Some elements are similar, and the 10 commandments chart is the same, but she is clearly not copying word for word from Jesus is Lord.

Many Catholics can be blind-sided by the sort of information that Candy puts on her site, because most of us are unfamiliar with such extreme claims. Where is she getting this stuff, we wonder. It comes from sites like Jesus Is Lord, and others. If Candy has a slow day, she can go there, pick a topic, and write about it. She gets an instant landslide of hits to her page, as people go to read what outrageous thing she writes about next.

Up next, maybe a refutation of the Eucharist in verse?

Or just a nice series of articles on geocentricity . . .




AddThis Social Bookmark Button

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!