Candy vs. Angie, Part II

So far, we have only looked at Angie's initial comment and Candy's response. Let's pick up with Angie's reply.

Candy

The quote you gave from St. Germanus isn't complete, so I can't understand the context, but I will tell you that I don't believe and don't know any other Catholic that says we receive our salvation through Mary. We receive that through Jesus Christ alone. I just can't help but believe that Jesus would be heartbroken by people thinking of his dear mother as only a "vessel." I think of her with great love and respect as I would my best friend's mother.

I wasn't trying to stir up an argument- I know we differ big-time on how we view the Catholic Church (which is not a cult by the way). I have been pretty offended by some of your claims, but I have continued to read your blog because I admire the way you joyfully live out your vocation of motherhood. I am a mother of five and am always looking for ways I can do my job better because I still have so much to learn. Surrounding myself with the right people and good information helps a lot.

Differences aside, I believe the Lord loves all of us, and I hope it's ok with you if I continue to visit your blog.

Angie

Good job, Angie, on catching that incomplete quote! A very gracious response.


Angie, if you believe that you receive salvation through faith in Christ alone, than by your own church writings (such as the council of Trent) you are anathema.

It sounds to me like you should try out a Christian church instead of a Roman Catholic one. You may find that you have more in common there.

Candy

I noticed that Angie didn't actually say she believed her salvation was through faith in Christ alone, but through Christ alone.

Candy brings up the idea of anathema, which always seems to get people riled up. An anathema is a form of what we would call today, excommunication. This is based on Scripture, specifically what St. Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22.

I would again, point you to This Rock, which has a very informative article on anathema, and explains why Angie would not be anathema for her views.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

Angie replies to the news that she is anathema in the Catholic Church:

An anathema- I had to look that up in the dictionary, LOL. Spitting venom at me is really unbecoming of you. I was honestly not trying to taunt you Candy. After reviewing my statement, yes, I believe I am saved through Jesus. However, I do also believe that we are to do good works. (James 2:14-26, Romans 6:16-23) Faith and works really go hand in hand. I do also believe that the sacraments bring me closer to God. You don't believe that, but I'm not going to shove my beliefs down your throat. These are my beliefs. Yes, there are a lot of Catholics that are Catholic because they were raised Catholic and haven't learned what they believe. Many are easily swayed into leaving the Church by people such as yourself. But take note, you will NEVER walk into a Catholic Church and hear Protestant-bashing. I make it a point to be educated in what I believe, and I embrace it. If that makes me evil in your eyes, so be it.

Angie


Angie, don't get mad at me because I know more of your church teachings than you do. :-(

Umm, yeah . . . Not quite up to date on current canon law, though, is she?

"Spitting venom?" When and where did I do such things?

Notice that I only quoted what YOUR own church says in their holy writings, and compared it to the Bible. If that is spitting venom, then what is love? I didn't call you anathema, YOUR church's own writings refer to you as such, for your faith in Christ alone. They are the ones spitting venom in their writings, not me.

Candy has given only partial quotes, and they came from a rather obscure saint, and a well respected, but not recent, Church council. I have yet to see any quotes from the Catechism, which is generally the standard for theological debates regarding Catholic doctrine.

You would have been killed for your current beliefs by your very own church in England during the middle ages.

And, as I've written before, non-Catholic Christians never killed any Catholics? Killing heretics was a long standing practice on both sides for hundreds of years. I provided some examples in the Whore of Babylon post.

Henry Dunster, the first President of Harvard University, was fired from his position and banished from the colony because he came to believe that infant baptism was not Biblical. So Candy herself, would have been "anathema" to a group of Christians which she has mentioned previously as having similar spiritual principles to her own.

We are saved by faith through the spilt blood of Jesus, and not through Mary, sacraments, the un-biblical pope, the Catholic church, etc. There is no purgatory, either, BTW. That's not mentioned in the Bible once. Furthermore, there is no need for any purgatory.

You can find my post on purgatory, complete with Scripture citations, here. Notice how Candy is now piling on the issues, so that Angie cannot possibly make a reasoned defense of all these doctrines.

When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished!" COMPLETE. No need for purgatory, no intercessions to the saints or Mary to appease an angry God, no sacraments, rites, and rituals - It Is Finished. Priase God! :-D

I'm not spewing hate to you, I am telling you the truth, and I'm pointing out to you that the beliefs you've stated you have are more Christian than Catholic, except the whole sacraments thing.

Angie really hasn't said very much about her beliefs, that I could see.

The works of the saved person are their sanctification in the Lord, it's good works that happen ~automatically~ when a person is truly saved, as they get God's Holy Spirit literally indwelling them, and they are to walk by the Spirit, not by the flesh. Romans 8 and Galatians chapter 5 explains this beautifully.

As Catholics, we believe that if we truly have faith, we will do good works. Works and faith are inseparable. This seems to be what Candy believes as well. Would Candy not agree that if someone said they were saved, but did not change their lifestyle, and start reading the Bible, then they probably are not really saved?

Therefore, a sanctified Christian wouldn't have any church doctrine to follow in order to do their good works. They are to listen to God and walk in the Spirit, not follow a rote list, or repeat "hail Mary full of grace" while holding a rosary. None of that is in the Bible sweety, you've been duped. :-(

Actually, I think "hail Mary full of grace" IS in the Bible.

No, I have't bashed you, or spewed any venom at you whatsoever. I have simply laid out the truth on the table.

You are offended, that is your fault, not mine.

If I disliked you, I would keep my mouth shut, and laugh at you that you have been tricked. However, I love you as a Christian ought, so I'm trying to save your eternal life. Take it or leave it. One day you'll know the correct answer. I pray you embrace the truth before it's too late.

PS - You don't hear Catholic bashing in protestant churches either. At least, none that I've ever attended.

What you will hear is someone "telling the Truth." She does not define this as Catholic bashing, as Candy has said before.

As for your statement, I don't know how you can say NO Catholic church bashes protestants, unless you have somehow attended all Catholic churches? It has been historically proven that the RC church used to continually bash protestants during reformation and inquisitions.

Candy

I would guess that if Candy is bringing in inquisitions, her definition of protestant bashing is different from her idea of Catholic bashing. Poor Angie now must not only answer for every Catholic Church in existence today, but every sermon ever preached in a Catholic Church, and apparently, inquisitorial trials, too.

Thomas Madden has a very informative article on the Inquisition, in case anyone has any lingering questions about it.


My father in law regularly attends a Roman Catholic church. When my mother in law was alive, she attended with him - in submission to him, but she was not Catholic.

Once or twice a week she attended a Christian church for evening services or Bible study.

She also was KJV only, and had Bible studies with friends over the phone.

She was a saved woman who walked in the Spirit mightily.

Candy

Candy's views on the salvation of Catholics seem to evolve continually. For a long while, she felt that Catholics absolutely could not be saved. More lately, she has said that some Catholics may be saved, but they must "come out of her" in order to attain salvation.

Now she offers an example of a person she feels stayed within the Catholic Church, but was saved. Probably because she technically wasn't Catholic, read the King James Bible, and snuck out to Bible studies on occasion. This is really only of minor interest, but I thought the comment worth preserving in case she comes back to this in the future.

In the Ring: Candy vs. Angie

Those of you who read through comments on Candy's site may have noticed that she has been conversing with a Catholic named Angie on the reading list post.

Angie didn't leave (or Candy didn't publish) any contact info, so I can't invite her here to join us. But Angie, if you manage to find your way here, be sure to say hi in the comments. We appreciate your effort, as futile as it may be!

I'm going to publish the comments here, and intersperse comments on my own. For clarity, Angie's words are in blue, Candy's in red, and mine in black. Let's begin!

I heard a quote recently that I whole-heartedly agreed with - it went something like this, but I can't remember the exact words. "Less than a hundred hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate the misconceptions they have about the Catholic Church's beliefs." Here is a link to some information regarding Dave Hunt's book (and I pass this along in love and mean no disrespect to you). http://www.... Glad you are feeling better- tummy bugs are NO fun. Angie

Angie is very polite, and I'm curious as to which link she passed along.

Angie, thank you for being so kind. I edited out the link you gave me, because it was a cult, but I thank you kindly for showing it to me.

The link Angie provided was a cult? So, not only is the Catholic Church a cult, Catholic websites are cults, too?

I don't have "mis-conceptions" about the RC Church. I've gotten my information from priests, nuns, monks, and devout Catholics (some still practicing, others not).

Candy is a disingenuous here. When she says she got her information from priest, nuns, and monks, she means those who have left the Catholic Church, and written books with their "testimony," such as Richard Bennett. For a long time, she had a link to one such book at the top of her website.

I have also read through a lot of the writings of the Holy See and Catholic Catechism.

I suspect she has read through a lot of these writings because people such as myself keep trying to post them as comments. Certainly, she rarely quotes from the Catechism when she is "exposing errors."

St. Germanus said: "There is no one, O most holy Mary ... who can be saved or redeemed but through thee..."

Although she claims to have no misconceptions, Candy begins by assuming that St. Germanus can speak for entire Catholic Church. This is most likely a quote from one of many books refuting Catholicism, and may or may not be an true quote from a true saint.

Regardless, the title of saint means that a person has lived a life a virtue, that we are sure they are in heaven, and that their lives can serve as a model of Christianity. However, individual saints can err on doctrines. Even someone such as St. Augustine does not match up with Catholic doctrine 100%. Anytime you see a quote from a saint in isolation, it does not compare to quoting a source of Catholic doctrine such as the Catholic Catechism, or a Papal document (which also have varying degrees of authority).

A large portion of this quote is missing, so we really have no idea what St. Germanus said. However, usually comments that are similar to his are pointing to the miracle and wonder of the Incarnation. That our Saviour should have been contained in her womb, thus entering the world through Mary, who had free will and could have said 'no' to God, is truly an idea worthy of meditation.

That is not what the Bible says. The Bible is clear that we are saved by none other than Jesus Himself. Mary herself proclaimed herself a sinner, when she aknowledges Jesus as HER Saviour, as well as the Saviour of the world.

I wrote more on the topic of Mary's role in relation to Jesus here.

Romans 3:23 says that Mary is a sinner.

As Catholics, we believe that Mary was also redeemed by Jesus. For a good article explaining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which is really what Candy is referring to), visit Catholic Answers.

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

Or what about the RC Church's Council of Trent, 7, General, which says: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law [of the Roman Catholic Church] are not necessary for salvation but... that without then.... men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification... let him be anathema."

Again, another incomplete citation. While the Council of Trent is still, to my knowledge, binding, she is still not quoting the Catechism, or the most recent Church councils.

The words "faith alone" never appear together in the New Testament, except in James, where it says NOT by faith alone. The Catholic Church believes in salvation by God's grace, and sacraments are ways that God gives us grace.

Yet John 3:15-16, Romans 10:9-11, Galatians 2:8-9 and numerous other scriptures in both Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible make it clear that there is salvation in NONE other, but Jesus Christ,

Candy is changing the subject now, because the quote from Trent did not say anything about salvation coming from someone other than Jesus.

Here are some quotations from the Catholic Catechism which Candy might find informative:

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."

#1544: 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.

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

and that Mary was just a chosen vessel to carry the flesh of Jesus, until he was born.

I am truly surprised to see Candy say this, because I think it heresy on several levels.

First, if Mary "was just a chosen vessel" then she would not have free will.

Second, if she only carried the flesh of Jesus, then she did not carry his Divinity. The early church found the issue of whether Mary was "Christotokos" the Christ Bearer or "Theotokos" the God Bearer very important. Nestorius said, like Candy, that Mary only bore Jesus' humanity, but that God was not contained in her womb. This Rock has a good concise history of the controversy.

If Mary only bore the flesh of Jesus, then where was the Divinity? When did Jesus become both fully human and fully Divine?

Jesus holds believers more important that his mother - thankfully she is a believer also: "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked [blessed in Mary]. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." -Luke 11:27-28 Candy

I find this a very interesting quote. Notice that Jesus did not say "blessed are they that hear the word of God, and have faith alone." He said "and keep it," which sounds like works. While Catholics do not believe we are saved by works, the importance of works is reiterated time and time again in Scripture.

A verse which Candy did not quote:

Luke 1:28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Highly favoured? Blessed among women? I thought Candy said that believers were more important than Mary?

Luke 1:30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

Found favour with God? I thought she was just a chosen vessel, randomly plucked from the mass of humanity.

Luke 1:42: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

There's that blessed among women thing again.

Luke 1:48: For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

All generations will call Mary blessed. But Candy says she is not blessed, not at all. And in that, she is contradicting the Word of God.

Well, we've hardly even gotten started and I've written a huge amount. Part II to come!

Dave Hunt's A Woman Rides The Beast

Edit: As we've now had more of a Woman Rides The Beast post from Candy, I thought I'd bump this up the page.

I see that while Candy reports she has read a few more chapters of A Woman Rides The Beast, she hasn't posted specifically about it yet. Because there are many great Catholic resources available about this book, I thought I would include them all in a post, for future reference.

A Look At Dave Hunt, Leading Anti-Catholic Fundamentalist:

Rome is ever at the center of Hunt's thoughts. According to Hunt, the Catholic Church will play a crucially villainous role in uniting all the world's religions in the service of the anti-Jewish and totalitarian Antichrist. By that time, the true Christians will have been raptured into heaven; the Jews in Israel will then return to the center of the historical stage. The Antichrist will turn against the Whore of Babylon (the Catholic Church and her allies) and destroy her. Then the Jews will recognize Christ at last, and Christ will come on the clouds to establish His millennial Kingdom in Jerusalem. Such are the end times, according to Dave Hunt.

Strangely, Hunt is zealous in defending the Protestant Reformation but does not realize that his own emphasis on "deciding for Christ" inescapably implies the possibility of co-operating with the grace of justification — a possibility the Reformers constantly condemned but upon which the Catholic Church insists. Also, dispensationalism's radical distinction between Law and Grace, and its choice for the latter over the former, is implicitly an invitation to a lawless or antinomian spirit among Christians. Some dispensationalists even say that the Ten Commandments are not meant for gentile Christians in the present age. For this the dispensationalists are condemned as heretics by real Calvinists such as the late John Gerstner, who called dispensationalism "spurious Calvinism and dubious evangelicalism." Gerstner saw that the Church-Israel dichotomy caused dispensationalists to "retreat into a hyper-spiritual Gnosticism which spurns the structures of the visible church which God has graciously given His people."

A rebuttal of Mr. Hunt's statistics on the Spanish Inquisition:

James Hitchcock, a professor of history at St. Louis University, summarizes the conclusions of the best of modern Inquisition studies:

(1) The inquisitors tended to be professional legists and bureaucrats who adhered closely to rules and procedures rather than to whatever personal feelings they may have had on the subject.

(2) Those rules and procedures were not in themselves unjust. They required that evidence be presented, allowed the accused to defend themselves, and discarded dubious evidence.

(3) Thus in most cases the verdict was a "just" one in that it seemed to follow from the evidence.

(4) A number of cases were dismissed, or the proceedings terminated at some point, when the inquisitors became convinced that the evidence was not reliable.

(5) Torture was only used in a small minority of cases and was allowed only when there was strong evidence that the defendant was lying. In some instances there is no evidence of the use of torture.

(6) Only a small percentage of those convicted were executed -- at most one or two percent in a given region. Many more were sentenced to life in prison, but this was often commuted after a few years. The most common punishment was some form of public penance.

(7) The dreaded Spanish Inquisition in particular has been grossly exaggerated. It did not persecute millions of people, as is often claimed, but approximately 44,000 between 1540 and 1700, of whom less than two percent were executed.

Catholic Answer's Hunting The Whore of Babylon:

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

Apparently, Candy's claim that Vicar of Christ = Anti-Christ originates from A Woman Rides The Beast. Biblical Truths For Baptists takes apart the origins:

Recall that in New Testament Greek, the principle meaning of the prefix 'anti-' is "against". Hence, the Greek 'antichristos' is translated as "opposed to the messiah". There is a secondary meaning of the Greek 'anti-', which connotes "substitution" or "correspondence". If you think that this is the meaning implied in Antichrist as used in the Bible (in the Iohannine epistles), then you are probably an antichrist yourself, as the text makes it clear that an antichrist is "opposed" to Christ, not His equivalent.

The Latin equivalent for the Greek prefix 'anti-' is, in fact, 'anti-'. That is because the Latin prefix 'anti-' is a direct loan-word from the Greek. Thus, the Latin translation of 'antichristos' is 'antichristus'.

In Latin, however, 'vicarius' is an adjective meaning "that which supplies the place of." Hence, the noun 'vicarius' means "substitute, proxy, place-holder, vicar," etc.,. The root of this word is 'vicis', "alternate".

The Greek equivalent of the Latin 'vicis' is 'eiko'. Hence, the Latin phrase 'vicarius Christi' might be literally translated into Greek as 'eikon Christou', or "icon of Christ," though I suppose a more apt translation might be found.

A book called Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction To The Christian Countercult by Douglas E. Cowan has some interesting sections on Dave Hunt and his writings. I don't think I'm permitted to excerpt from there, so I'll refrain. Look around page 165 for the Hunt section.

I couldn't resist including a link to the conversion story of Mark Connell, who credits Dave Hunt with leading him to the Catholic Church:

Every evening, my grudge against the Church was edged toward full-blown hatred as I reveled in the writings of professional anti-Catholics such as Dave Hunt and James G. McCarthy. Many a dark night slipped by as I continually "let the sun go down on my anger." Woe to the unprepared Catholic that crossed my path at this time! Woe to my Catholic family members! McCarthy and Hunt’s books allowed me to build an air tight case against the Church, but it seems that I never considered that if air could not get in or out, neither could the Light. And so, in the darkness of my prejudice, I grew as a misshapen plant. I bore bitter fruit on twisted branches. . .

I started reading "A Woman Rides the Beast" for a second time, but this time something was different. Whereas in the past this book made me feel smug about my escape from the "Whore of Babylon," it now caused my case to collapse in ruins. This book is so internally inconsistent and mean spirited, that I could only shake when I read it again. If Hunt had written in the same manner about the Jewish people, he would be termed an anti-Semite and be featured on Nightline. Consider the following quote from his book, "Those conditioned to believe that wine had become Christ’s blood were able to believe Hitler’s myth of blood as well." How could I be so blind to his prejudice?

As I studied this book, something else became apparent. In his rush to pummel Catholics, Hunt also wounded Luther. With his assault on Luther’s ‘heretical’ belief in the Real Presence, he shook my trust in sola scriptura. Why? Because Luther and Hunt both believe that Scripture alone should be used to determine doctrine. Yet, while using Scripture, both men were at opposite ends of the spectrum on what seemed to be a key doctrinal question: Is Christ physically present in the Eucharist? Hunt said this belief was "a fantasy" and "a foolish heresy" and cited many Scripture verses to support his belief. Luther disagreed . . .

Enjoy the reading!

Missionaries to Catholics?

A sharp reader did a bit of extra Googling and found Candy's Church and was able to send an e-mail question to her pastor. The question was?

Why is it necessary to “preach” to the Roman Catholics in Peru? The Roman Catholics are Christian already.

Now truthfully, the Peruvian Catholic church is in the midst of struggle anyway, and it looks like Pope Benedict is on it!

Anyway here was the reply our reader received.

Roman Catholics believe in the same Jesus Christ and the same heavenly
Father that we do, but there is one great difference, and that is how you
get to saved and go to Heaven.

The Bible teaches it is not by works of righteousness which we have done but
by His mercy He hath saved us. Titus 3:5 and yet they teach there are seven
sacraments (good Works)that each person has to do in order to get into
heaven. But even after a person does those seven works there is still no
guarantee that he or she will get out of purgatory and go to heaven.

The Bible teaches that it is by Faith that we are saved.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

and Jn. 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.

It is recognizing that we as sinners can do nothing to get ourselves into
heaven, but to trust what Jesus Christ did for us on the cross by dying in
our place.
2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


If you make good works the basis for going to heaven then people who can't
do those good works have to go to hell, and Jesus came and died for nothing,
but if God makes it by Faith anyone can place their faith in Christ and
trust His good works and atoning blood. Then they can do the good works that
God puts in their heart.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old
things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

I hope this helps you understand why we also have missionaries to the Roman
Catholics.

Charley O'Daniel

Bro O'Daniel was very kind, but he also has many of the same misperceptions and misinformation that Candy has. We'll hit those next week.

Some thoughts on Candy un-etched

In case you missed it, Candy has an un-etched photo of herself (this time from the waist up!) on her blog. She might leave it or she might take it down, so see it while you can!

I mentioned it to my husband today and also how other than a few little anti-Catholic digs here and there (missionaries to the Catholics in Peru?) she has mostly been on topic for the past few weeks.

My husband said, "Maybe she's trying to move on. Maybe the homemaking articles and the picture are her way of finding a new focus and moving towards it. Is that Possible?"

You know, maybe it is. Candy and I have not been corresponding in e-mail anymore. Our exchanges were uncomfortable and a bit awkward. I felt as if I were walking on egg shells most of the time. That whole series of correspondence started when she posted an internet picture of my house and neighborhood on her blog. For a woman who values her privacy and anonymity so much, that was a momentous action to take. One of fear? One of hatred? Maybe a bit of both? But the result was an opportunity for us to correspond directly with one another and although it was short lived I think it was helpful for both of us to see the other side.

For what it's worth, I love pictures on blogs. I post my own. I love to see the photos of others. I think it can only help Candy's readership to put more lovely pictures of herself and her family on her blog.

And if she is truly moving on I respect that as well and would happily make this just a generic apologetics blog. Time will tell.

A Catholic Mom climbing the Pillars: Catholic Carnival #174

A Catholic Mom climbing the Pillars: Catholic Carnival #174

A Queen Mother

Apologies for light blogging last week - real life and all of that needed more of my attention. But as this is the last week of May, the month of Mary, I wanted to make one more point about Mary and why Catholics honor her. I think it is particularly important to get that in this week as I think we can be reasonably sure that an anti-Catholic post will be presented by Candy soon, at least if her reading material is any indication!

We have already seen how Mary has an honored position in the chart as the Christ bearer- the New Testament "ark of the covenant" in the flesh. We are now going to see her position as Queen Mother.

Beginning on page 78 of Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God Professor Hahn starts making the case for Mary in this very important position. I producing key sentences from page 78 onward. It really is worth obtaining the book to read the entire work.

The woman ordinarily honored as queen (in most near Eastern cultures) was not the wife of the king, but the mother of the king.

As wife of the former king and mother to the present king, the queen mother embodied the continuity of succession.

The Office of the queen mother was well established among the gentiles by the time the people of Israel began to clamor for a monarchy.

Historically this played out as the people looked around them for models of governance. Remember, they (Israel) wanted a king in order to be "like all the nations." Thus, following the models of the neighboring lands, they established a dynasty, a legal system, a royal court- and a queen mother. We find this in Israel at the beginning of the Davidic dynasty. David's first successor, Solomon reigns with his mother, Bathsheba, at his right hand. Israel's queen mother, or Gebirah ("Great lady") appears then, throughout the history of the monarchy to the very end.

So as we see God working out his plan, we see Him, setting the stage for the appearance of the messiah. We know that Jesus Himself will come from the line of kings, the line of King David. But secondarily we also see the establishment of position of Queen Mother and the historical and scriptural basis that Christians have had from the beginning for honoring Jesus' mother - Mary!

Continuing on page 80:

Gebirah ws more than a title; it was an office with real authority. Consider the following scene from early in Solomon's reign: "So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his thrown and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right" (1Kings 2:19)

First we see that the queen mother was approaching her son in order to speak on behalf of another person This confirms what we know about queen mothers in other Near Wastern cultures. We see in the epic of Gilgamesh for example that the queen mother in Mesopotamia was considered an intercessor or advocate for the people.

Next, we notice that Solomon rose from his throne when his mother entered the room. This makes the queen mother unique among the royal subjects. Anyone else would, following protocol, rise in Solomon's presence; even the king's wives were requred to bow before him (1 Kings 1:16). Yet Solomon rose to honor Bathsheba. Moreover he showed further respect by bowing before her and by seating her in the place of greatest honor, at his right hand.

I think this argument is key to understanding Mary's position. Jesus is Lord. He is King of Kings. All Christians profess this, although some parts of Christendom place more emphasis I suppose on the other roles of Jesus as savior, comforter, best buddy. But scripturally and historically it is that of King and the roots of that kingship were set up by God himself through the line of King David. It is then no small matter that the role of Mary, as mother of the king should be one of honor and respect. As Catholics we believe that Jesus does honor his mother (as any good Jewish boy would!) and as we imitate Christ we imitate Him in honoring his Queen Mother as well. When I first read Hahn's book I found this to be a most compelling and persuasive of evidence from scripture for the role of Mary in the church.

Further I would submit that regardless of what we see in the future regarding "A Woman Rides the Beast", unless it addresses this role of Mary it will be incomplete at best!

Post about your church tomorrow!

Candy writes:
In the comments of tomorrow's post, either share your church with us, or write about it on your blog, and leave me a link. :-)

I think this will be neat. I often wonder what other people's churches are like, and some of you may wonder what my church is like - so tomorrow we find out. :-)


A year ago Candy wrote this in reply to whether she had 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)."

Well it seems tomorrow she is inviting folks to share their church experience. I hope the Catholics who participate will be included. Tomorrow is the Feast of Corpus Christi or the Body of Christ, so that should make for interesting reading!

However, since we can't really be sure if Candy will post everyone's comments, feel free to leave a copy in the comment box below -just in case!

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition is, of course, a favorite topic among anti-Catholics. Regardless of how well you are defending doctrine Biblically, in the end it will come out--"But what about the Inquisition?!"

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition by Thomas F. Madden is a great article which clears up a lot of misinformation about the Inquisition.

One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics. When the people of a village rounded up a suspected heretic and brought him before the local lord, how was he to be judged? How could an illiterate layman determine if the accused's beliefs were heretical or not? And how were witnesses to be heard and examined?

The medieval Inquisition began in 1184 when Pope Lucius III sent a list of heresies to Europe's bishops and commanded them to take an active role in determining whether those accused of heresy were, in fact, guilty. Rather than relying on secular courts, local lords, or just mobs, bishops were to see to it that accused heretics in their dioceses were examined by knowledgeable churchmen using Roman laws of evidence. In other words, they were to "inquire" -- thus, the term "inquisition."

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep that had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

Most people accused of heresy by the medieval Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentence suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely departed out of hostility to the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to the secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Church did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

:: The Catholic Mass...Revealed ::

:: The Catholic Mass...Revealed :: A beautiful website that answers questions non-Catholics (and Catholics!) have about the church and about the Catholic Mass. Very informative!








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

John Hagee's apology letter (PDF)

John Hagee's apology letter to The Catholic League.

Some highlights:

In addition, I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the "apostate church" and the "great whore" described in the Book of Revelation is a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary.

I hope you recognize that I have repeatedly stated that my interpretation of Revelation leads me to conclude that the "apostate church" and the "great whore" appear only during the seven years of tribulation after all true believers - Catholic and Protestant- have been taken up to heaven. Therefore, neither of these phrases are synonymous with the Catholic Church.

It's really a great letter and Bill Donahue says the matter is now closed.

Some thoughts - Mr. Hagee said these anti-Catholic things because he really didn't know any better. He read anti-Catholic literature, and he merely repeated what he read. That folks, is exactly what Candy and her readers do! They know not, and they know not that they know not! It is very gratifying then to read that when a gentleman like Mr. Hagee was open to actually "listening" to the other side he was humble and gracious enough to see the error of his logic and gaps in his knowledge base, and change accordingly. It takes a big person to do that, and I applaud him for it.

Michael Medved on John Hagee

I caught part of Michael Medved's radio program yesterday and he did an assessment of John Hagee's apology. You can check it out here.

I do think that Mr. Hagee was simply uneducated about Catholicism and I think his apology is sincere. It's an interesting segment.








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

Whore No More!

Take note Candy!

WASHINGTON - John Hagee, an influential Texas televangelist who endorsed John McCain, apologized to Catholics Tuesday for his stinging criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and for having "emphasized the darkest chapters in the history of Catholic and Protestant relations with the Jews."

Hagee's support for McCain has drawn cries of outrage from some Catholic leaders who have called on McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement. The likely Republican nominee has said he does not agree with some of Hagee's past comments, but did not reject his support.

In a letter to William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, Hagee wrote: "Out of a desire to advance a greater unity among Catholics and evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful."

Thanks Tracy for the heads up!

Congratulations, Barbara!

Congratulations to commenter Barbara, from Box of Chocolates, on the birth of her new baby girl!

Be sure to drop by and leave her your congratulations!

Mary as the Ark

On page 60 of Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God Professor Hahn brings the analogy of Mary and the Ark to its natural conclusion.

We know that although the ark was beautiful and majestic what made it important and holy was the fact that it contained the covenant - "The Word of God inscribed by the finger of God."

So if the ark was holy and special for carrying the Old Covenant, Mary was even holier, for she contained within her body "The Word of God enfleshed."

If the first ark contained miraculous bread from heaven, Mary's body contained the very Bread of Life that conquers death forever. If the first ark contained the rod of the long-ago ancestral priest, Mary's body contained the divine person of the eternal priest, Jesus Christ.

What John was in the heavenly temple was far greater than the ark of the old covenant- the ark that had radiated the glory cloud before the menorah at the heart of the temple of ancient Israel. John saw the ark of the new covenant, the vessel chosen to bear God's covenant into the world once and for all.

And that vessel was Mary.

I hope that readers who are unfamiliar with why Catholics venerate the Blessed Mother so much are starting to come to some understanding of how First Century Christians and really all of Christianity up until modern times viewed Mary. Understanding Mary in relationship to the Ark of the Covenant is the first part in understanding Mary's role in the life of the church.

Starting tomorrow we will start to look at Mary's rightful place as Queen Mother.

The Riches of the Church

I've been having a discussion with someone regarding the riches of the Catholic Church, and care for the poor. I think we've all had this discussion before, and as Candy has brought up the riches of the Church on more than one occasion, I thought it would fit well on this blog.

The other person said:
On countries with a large Catholic population - absolutely these countries have vast degrees of corruption in their government but the church came first and has done little to nothing to alleviate poverty. Instead these people are raised to respect and fear their religion, to avoid using contraception to limit family size lest they burn in hell for comitting mortal sin. They have large families they can't adequately support and educate beyond their experience and the cycle continues and corrupt government reigns supreme.


I replied:
I just wanted to point out that while I hear that the Catholic Church is the richest church in the world thrown around a lot, it really doesn't work out to be as simple as that. The Catholic Church does not have a lot of "liquid" assets. They have a lot of big old churches, which aren't filled with enough people to pay for the upkeep and heat and AC. The Vatican itself has a lot of assets in things such as art works and tapestries, which also require a lot of upkeep, and don't pay their own rent. Having the Sistine Chapel restored was not cheap.

The local churches are financially independent based on their diocese. We don't send all of the money to the Vatican, and then they dole it out. If a local church runs a food pantry, it is all done based on what the parishioners donate. A very small amount is sent the Vatican, and most of that is for a charity called Peter's Pence.

The Vatican's state budget is less than the operating budget of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and has run on a deficit the past few years. Some have noticed that Pope Benedict is wearing more "old style" vestments, and assume this is because he prefers the style. It may be, but he declined to have a whole bunch of new vestments sewed up for himself, and has worn things from the closet instead, to save a bit of money.

In addition, I looked up the poorest countries in the world. Burundi is the only one which is even close to predominately Catholic. The Solomon Islands are predominately Anglican, and you certainly can't say they are anti-contraception!

1. Malawi
2. Somalia
3. Comoros
4. Solomon Islands
5. Congo
6. Burundi
7. East Timor
8. Tanzania
9. Afghanistan
10. Yemen

I wonder why you don't point a finger at the Muslim religion? They also generally do not encourage birth control but have the added population booster of polygamy, and their governments also tend to be more corrupted. Most of the countries on the full list of the 50 poorest countries were in Africa, where Islam holds a large part of the population. On the other hand, Uganda is an African country which is predominately Catholic and they are far from being poor, and their HIV rate has dropped dramatically after adopting an abstinence based approach.


She replied:
This is pretty much what I was touching on when I said that despite the Catholic church being the richest in the world, nations where Catholicism are among the poorest. The Vatican holds an immense array of goods that would fetch billions if sold. Is it fair that tens of millions of dollars are spent on restoring the Sistine chapel when many Catholics are literally starving? Why is it ok to continue to spend money on a priceless cache of tapestries and artworks (most of which are never even seen by the public) when people who as a nation subscribe to Catholicism as their faith, cannot afford the basics?



My response:
First, I have already pointed out that the countries which are majority Catholic are NOT among the poorest in the world. Not even in the top 50.

Judas once suggested that Mary Magdalene was wrong to spend a large sum of money for oil to anoint the head of Jesus. He said the money would be better spent on the poor. Jesus said, the poor will be with you always.

To me, what you have just written is a very communistic view. Suppose the Catholic Church sold absolutely everything and fed every poor person in the world for, what, two or three weeks? Then what?

The Catholic Church holds these works of art on behalf of every person on the planet. Most of them are available to be viewed for free, just by walking into a church. A trip to the Vatican Museum will cost you about $20. A day at Disneyland will cost you $300. The Vatican Museum is open to the public for free at least two days every month. If the Catholic Church sold Michaelangelo's Pieta to Donald Trump, I wouldn't be able to view it in his house. But if the Catholic Church keeps it, I can walk into St. Peter's any day I want to, and view it, without paying a cent.

By all means, let us have a world without beauty. That would certainly be great, wouldn't it? Let's all wear the same gray clothes, so that we can spend more money on the poor and less on fashion. Let us all eat off of industrial white dishes and live in government block apartment buildings. As long as everyone is fed and clothed, then we can easily give up beauty. Only, it doesn't really work that way. A world without beauty robs you of your soul. Even the poor find ways to add beauty to their homes. All of the great cathedrals of the world were built by the poor, who willingly gave much from their little to be a part of building something greater than the individual, something beautiful that can be viewed by rich and poor alike, and something that will last much longer than a bowl of rice.

Does this mean that the Church should focus on beauty and ignore the poor? Absolutely not. As has already been pointed out, the Catholic Church is the single largest charitable institution in the world. The Catholic Church provides 25% of all the HIV/AIDS relief in the world. While what you wrote seems to imply that the Catholic Church should be feeding those in the Catholic nations, we provide relief regardless of religion, all over the world.



Although I didn't mention it in the discussion, I was reminded of St. Laurence.

As deacon in Rome, Lawrence was charged with the responsibility for the material goods of the Church, and the distribution of alms to the poor. When Lawrence knew he would be arrested like the pope, he sought out the poor, widows and orphans of Rome and gave them all the money he had on hand, selling even the sacred vessels to increase the sum.

When the prefect of Rome heard of this, he imagined that the Christians must have considerable treasure. He sent for Lawrence and said, “You Christians say we are cruel to you, but that is not what I have in mind. I am told that your priests offer in gold, that the sacred blood is received in silver cups, that you have golden candlesticks at your evening services. Now, your doctrine says you must render to Caesar what is his. Bring these treasures—the emperor needs them to maintain his forces. God does not cause money to be counted: He brought none of it into the world with him—only words. Give me the money, therefore, and be rich in words.”

Lawrence replied that the Church was indeed rich. “I will show you a valuable part. But give me time to set everything in order and make an inventory.” After three days he gathered a great number of blind, lame, maimed, leprous, orphaned and widowed persons and put them in rows.

When the prefect arrived, Lawrence simply said, “These are the treasure of the Church.”

Pentecost

Candy et al (some of whom have stated that they don't even consider Catholics to be Christians) might be surprised to find out that Catholics not only BELIEVE in the Holy Spirit, we actually celebrate His coming at Pentecost! Our entire liturgical mass today will be centered on the coming of the Holy Spirit and we will remember how the apostles AND MARY were assembled when the tongues of fire appeared.

When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Batholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.... (there was a group of about 120 persons in the one place).
(Acts 1:13-15)

Acts 2:1-11

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled,
they were all in one place together.
And suddenly there came from the sky
a noise like a strong driving wind,
and it filled the entire house in which they were.
Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire,
which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit
and began to speak in different tongues,
as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem.
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd,
but they were confused
because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
They were astounded, and in amazement they asked,
“Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?
Then how does each of us hear them in his native language?
We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites,
inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia,
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia,
Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene,
as well as travelers from Rome,
both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs,
yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues
of the mighty acts of God

More Fun with Nuns

Knowing how much Candy loves nuns (We love them too!) I thought everyone would get a smile out of this!

John, the Ark, and Mary

Continuing from my last post on this topic - following Professor Hahn's book - starting on page 58:

John describes the struggles surrounding the birth and mission of the Messiah? He shows symbolically, the roles that Satan, the Caesars, and the Herods would play. Yet the centerpiece of Revelation12, the most prominent element, is the woman who is the ark of the covenant. If she is more than an embodied idea, who is she?

Tradition tells us that she is the same person whom Jesus calls "woman" in John's Gospel, the reprise of the person Adam, calls "woman" in the garden of Eden. Like the beginning of John's gospel, this episode of the Apocalypse repeatedly evokes the Protoevangelium of Genesis. The first clue is that John, here as in the gospel, never reveals this person's name; he refers to her only by the name Adam gave to Eve in the garden: she is "woman." Later in the same chapter of the Apocalypse, e learn also that like Eve who was the "mother of all the living" the woman of John's vision is the mother, not only to the "male child" but also to the "rest of her offspring," further identified as "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev 12:17)

This is one of the reasons that Catholics honor Mary as their spiritual mother. Later we will look at her role as Queen Mother, in relationship to Jesus' role as king.

At the very least, I am hoping that an examination of these passages will show that this particular teaching on Mary is scriptural.

moving on:

Revelation's most explicit reference to the Protoevangelium, however, is the figure of the dragon, whom John clearly identifies with the "ancient serpent" of Genesis, "the deceiver of the world" (Rev 12:9; see Gen 3:13) The conflict that follows, then between the dragon and the child clearly fulfills the promise of Genesis 3:15, when God swore to place "enmity" between the serpent" and the woman; between your seed and her seed' And the anguish of the woman's delivery seems also to come in fulfillment of God's words to Eve: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children" (Gen 3:16).

John clearly intends for the woman of the Apocalypse to evoke Eve, the mother of all the living, and the New Eve, the person he identifies as "woman" in the gospel.

For further reading on this topic see here.

Catholic Answers.

The Lost Ark

Continuing Scott Hahn's Build up of the Lost Arc in Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God

If you did your homework yesterday then you know the prophet Jeremiah hid the ark of the covenant to protect it from the Babylonian raiders! He did a pretty good job of it as other than Harrison Ford, no one has seen it since!

On pages 52 and 53 Professor Hahn tells us about the ark in depth. It's pretty fascinating stuff.

Yet the first Jewish readers of the Apocalypse knew the details only from history and tradition. Since Jeremiah's hiding place had never been found, the rebuilt temple had no ark in its holies, no shekinah, no manna in the ark, and no cherubim or mercy seat. Then along came John claiming to have seen the shekinah (the "glory of God," Rev 21:10-11, 23) and most remarkable of all, the ark of the covenant.

John prepares his reader in many ways for the appearance of the ark and Professor Hahn goes through them:
* after the blare of the seventh trumpet of the seventh avenging angel
*echoes of the battle of Jericho in Rev 11:15.
* thunder and lightening, an earthquake and a heavy hail (Rev 11:19)

Imagine that you are a first-century reader, raised as a Jew. You have never seen the ark, but all of your religious and cultural upbringing has taught you to long for its restoration in the temple. John builds the anticipation so that he almost seems to be teasing such readers by describing the sound and the fury accompanying the arc. The dramatic tension becomes nearly unbearable. The reader wants to see the ark as John sees it.

What fallows then is jarring. In our contemporary Bibles, after all that buildup, the passage suddenly comes to a screeching halt as chapter 11 concludes.

and then chapter 12

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His convenant was seen...A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery (Rev 11: 19-12:2) John has shown us the ark of the covenant - and it is a woman!

Building the Ark

Building the Ark








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

Amazon.com: A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days: Dave Hunt: Books

Blondie just gave us a heads up that Candy is doing her homework! She apparently has this on her night stand:

Amazon.com: A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days: Dave Hunt: Books

Here are two of the reviews:

I have had a copy of Dave Hunt's book for a number of years. As a Church historian I was shocked by his poor understanding of history, Church documents and outright dishonesty in his handling of sources. When Hunt can find a source he can't simply twist, he simply makes things up to suit his purposes.

Want proof?

On page 339 (paperback), Hunt wrote: "The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine bluntly declares:"

And then he lists this indented quote with brackets in the original:

"Man can obtain a knowledge of God's Word [only] from the Catholic Church and through its duty constituted channels."

"When he has once mastered this principle of divine authority [residing in the Church], the inquirer is prepared to accept whatever the divine Church teaches on faith, morals and the means of grace."

So what's wrong with that two paragraph quote? No such thing exists - at least not the way he listed it. Let me explain. Yes, there really is a Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, but you won't find that quote in it as he listed it. First, check Hunt's own footnotes. You'll discover that the pages on which this quote appears is pages 25-27. I have a copy of the catechism from the same publisher. The quote does not appear on the pages listed. Maybe that was a simple error. Look through the catechism, however, and this is what you'll discover. The second paragraph of the quote is on page roman numeral vi. In other words, it's on the second page of the catechism. The first part of the quote is on page 36!!!!! That's right. Hunt transposed the two quotes, pretended they were one contiguous quote (after listing them in the wrong order) and then got the pages wrong or simply falsified the page humbers. Hunt's book is filled with rank dishonesty. To say that Hunt took the quotes out of context is a gross over-simplification.

Another example shows up on page 95. Here Hunt cited Henry Chadwick, the author of Early Christian History, as proof that "Pope Leo I (440-61) boasted that St. Peter and St. Paul had 'replaced Romulus and Remus as the city's [Rome's] protecting patrons." Hunt's intention is clear. He wants his reader to believe that Catholicism is merely paganism with a veneer of Christianity pulled tautly over it. The problem is that his example doesn't work for him. If you actually read Chadwick's book, however, page 243, you'll discover that Chadwick made it clear that Leo was a champion of Christianity, told his fellow Christians to not mix their Christian beliefs with paganism and unearthed and stopped a Manichee infiltration of the Church. Chadwick is clear. Hunt tries to falsify Chadwick's opinion of Leo. Such handling of sources is not only dishonest but thoroughly unchristian. Such dishonesty, however, is par for the course for Hunt.

A friend of mine, also a Church historian, was given this book by an anti-Catholic when he was considering becoming a Catholic. He saw through it instantly and was saddened to see that people believed these sorts of things. We were fortunate. He had a master's degree in church history and so did I. Most other people lack that sort of education, don't read much, won't bother to check Hunt's sources and will be fooled. Sad.

72 of 138 people found the following review helpful: There should be a "no-star" option. . ., December 4, 2001 By Thomas Becket (11th century Canterbury, England) - See all my reviews . . .for a work as inaccurate as this one is. Mr. Hunt, in his desire to understand and underpin his reliance on the pre-millenial dispensationalism promulgated by Darby and popularized by Schofield in his Reference Bible, has neglected to understand very basic historical and geographical facts. 1) The "Whore" which, according to Hunt, is the Catholic Church, is said to sit upon a seven-headed beast. Hunt assumes that this refers to the Catholic Church, since the Church is headquartered in Rome and ancient Rome was built on seven hills. Assuming that the intelligent reader would even consider such an analogy to be reasonable, it must be pointed out that geographically, the Vatican is not located on ANY of the hills of ancient Rome. 2) Hunt assumes that since the city of Rome is referred to in Scripture as "Babylon" the "Whore" must be the Catholic Church. Again, he misses the rather obvious point that Scripturally other cities are also referred to as "Babylon", namely Sodom and Jerusalem. He further misses the point that when Rome is referred to as "Babylon" the context refers to the pagan empire which persecuted Christians (including John, the author of Revelation) for centuries. 3) Hunt bases much of his eisegesis on certain nativist interpretations of "history" made popular in Great Britain and the United States over 100 years ago. Unfortunately, these views of history bear no resemblence to reality -- as a simple check of basic history texts, Catholic, Protestant, or secular -- will demonstrate. 4) Finally, Hunt bases much on the oft repeated lies and distortions popular since the 1960's blaming Hitler, the Holocaust, and (especially) Pope Pius XII for World War II. All in all, the book is couched in offensively sanctimonius language, obstensibly suggesting that the author really loves Catholics and hopes to rescue them, etc. This reviewer finds that sort of language insulting and condescending at best. The informed reader will quickly see through this volume, regardless of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, Mr. Hunt is saying things that some want to hear and will continue to repeat and propogate, regardless of truth and meri

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

Mary in Revelation

The next few posts are going to be pretty "meaty" reading. We are going to be digging deeper into scripture and into imagery and symbolism. Candy said once that Catholics don't read or understand the bible. Sam Gipp, one of Candy's favorite authors said that the bible is a book for the common man - anyone can read and understand it. I think these next few posts, as we read through Scott Hahn's Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God will prove that neither of those claims is entirely true.

Granted, this isn't necessarily light reading, but this needs to be posted to give an entire picture of how the Catholic church views Mary.

So starting on page 49, we will be reading about the Apostle John and his book of Revelation. Stick with me this week and hopefully we can make it out of the chapter! Today is just a prelude!

Revelation is the usual English rendering of the Greek Apokalypsis; but the Greek word is richer than that. It is more accurately translated as "unveiling" and was used by Greek-speaking Jews to describe the moment when the bride was unveiled before her husband, just before the couple consummated their marriage.

So once again, as in Cana, we find ourselves with John at a wedding feast. John writes in Revelation: "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Rev 19:9). Now throughout the Apocalypse, John uses "the Lamb" to denote Jesus. But who is the bride at this wedding?

Most interpreters, both ancient and modern, believe that the holy city is the Church, depicted by John as the New Jersusalem; for St. Paul also speaks of the Church in the bridal relationship with Christ (Eph 5:31-32).

I would like to focus on one of its (book of Revelation's) culminating scenes, its first "unveiling" which takes place midway through the book.

To Jews of the first century, the shocker in the Apocalypse was surely John's disclosure at the end of chapter 11. It is then that even hearing seven trumpet blasts, John sees the heavenly temple opened and within it a miracle- the ark of the covenant.

Homework- read 2 Maccabees 2: 5-8