Saturday, May 31, 2008

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.


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.


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.


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, 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.


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'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.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Tracy said...

Amazing!!! Standing up clapping right now... Excellent as always Kelly!!

motherofmany said...

Candy's views on the salvation of Catholics seem to evolve continually.

To be honest, the same is true for me. I think it is because the official teachings can change, so the evolving understanding of Catholic salvation stems from the evolving Catholic Catechism.

I think it is something we accuse each other of- for you, the differing beliefs of protestants show division and a lack of an 'unprevailed against' church as Christ promised it would be, but from the other side the teachings in the Catholic church are always changing as well, just from a top down manner rather than personal leading of the Holy Spirit.

I said before that the sum total of the catechism (not just the current official version) way surpass the scriptures, and that can give the impression not only that the church has changed a great deal (begging the question why) and that the church teachings outweight the scriptures in importance since even God did not have as much to say to us as the councils did.

Please don't shoot me. Just offering the view from the outside.

Elena said...

The teachings of the Catholic church evolve and develop, which is a little different than saying that they change completely. I have a science book that I love for my kids that was written in 2004. It talks about many of the space missions that were going on at the time of the book's printing or that were expected to happen in future years. Those discoveries of course add to our understanding of science and add to our depth of knowledge.

The current catechism is the first official catechism in over 400 years! There was definitely a need for it. The catechism quotes and references the councils of the past (i.e. Trent) in its current explanation of matters.It's not that the catechism overrides Trent, but rather we understand more completely and of course we have the benefit of perspective.

Here are Ten such references to Trent in the current catechism.

motherofmany said...

But certainly the Word of the God of the Universe is very different from a book written by man. Not only do the scriptures tell us God does not change, but also that he is omniscient. He knew what we would need from beginning to end, which is why there are references of the Messiah even beginning in Genesis. The plan was laid out all along, so what could be different now that we need writings that outweigh His own?

Elena said...

But certainly the Word of the God of the Universe is very different from a book written by man. Not only do the scriptures tell us God does not change, but also that he is omniscient.

No beef with you there Amy. The Catechism basically says the same thing:
212 Over the centuries, Israel's faith was able to manifest and deepen realization of the riches contained in the revelation of the divine name. God is unique; there are no other gods besides him. He transcends the world and history. He made heaven and earth: "They will perish, but you endure; they will all wear out like a garment. . . . but you are the same, and your years have no end." In God "there is no variation or shadow due to change." God is "HE WHO IS", from everlasting to everlasting, and as such remains ever faithful to himself and to his promises.

He knew what we would need from beginning to end, which is why there are references of the Messiah even beginning in Genesis.

Ayep! Catechism agrees with you there too!
122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men." "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional," the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."

The plan was laid out all along, so what could be different now that we need writings that outweigh His own?

False dilemma fallacy. The catechism doesn't outweigh scripture and in fact makes copious references to scripture throughout. The catechism is a reference book in a way.

Nancy Parode said...

Kelly, you are doing a great job. Your posts are informative and helpful.

I personally am so sick of Candy's I-love-you-but-you've-been-duped attitude that I am trying very, very hard not to read her blog at all. I just get too upset. It's sad, too, because she has so many great homemaking suggestions, recipes, etc.

The truth is that a LOT of Catholic-bashing goes on (look at the McCain-Hagee debacle) in Protestant churches. I don't know how Candy can ignore these news headlines in favor of dragging up the Inquisition, which I sure hope we can live down some day - it was only a few centuries ago.

On the flip side, we seldom hear news reports of Catholics dragging up the Salem Witch Trials, burning of Catholic priests in England, etc., as justification for anything that is said or done today.

We've been so blessed to have had wonderful, virtuous Popes for so many years in our Church's recent history. Why don't we hear about them? Many modern historians give Pope John Paul II at least partial credit for bringing down Communism (which prohibits ALL religions) in Europe. Today's missionaries of all denominations are openly bringing the Good News to places where they had to recruit college students to smuggle Bibles before (I know; my cousin did it). Isn't that worth mentioning?

I apologize for this rant, but I am going to post it on the off chance that some of Candy's friends (who obviously read this blog and comments therein) will tell her how her "you've been duped" attitude is driving away readers.

Thanks again, Kelly. You're far more patient that I would be.

motherofmany said...

My statement said the writings outweighed the scriptures in bulk, not in authority.

Elena said...

So when you said "outweigh" you meant pound for pound? Uh... okay. You're probably right. With a 2000 plus year history we have a lot of great thinkers, saints, doctors of the church that like to write and expound prolifically! I don't think anyone could accuse the Catholic church of brevity! LOL!!!

unknown anon said...

Have you been to a "Christian" bookstore lately? If your standard for 'outweigh' is the sheer number of volumes published on teaching from the Scriptures, then the 'weight' is on the Protestant side.

As for where Candy's quotes come from, she is lifting them from the fragments someone else snipped in their eisegesis, and suggesting that she has read the original documents themselves. Dave Hunt's books are full of them, and since that is the author du jour, I'm sure that's where this claim of "I've read the Church documents" has come from. I'll bet cold hard cash that she really hasn't read the source documents, or even a complete treatment of them in a secondary source.

Kelly said...

Candy's views on the salvation of Catholics seem to evolve continually.

To be honest, the same is true for me.

I didn't actually intend that to be a criticism, merely an observation. Certainly, Candy has said many times that her views change, and that is one of the reasons why she doesn't keep an archive.

Elena said...

I don't see anything wrong with a person growing in wisdom and knowledge over time. In fact, I think we're supposed to!!

The reason an archive is not kept is that sometimes statements are made in a dogmatic, authoritative fashion and sometimes later those words need to be retracted.

Kelly said...

Well, when new people ask her why there is no archive, she says that she is continually growing and changing, and she doesn't like people digging up things she wrote which no longer reflect her views, and asking her about them.

Which has always made me wonder why her original Genuine Profit blog is still available, though she doesn't link to it. (Look for it to disappear, now that I've mentioned it!)

Elena said...

Yea, I can't quite understand her perspective on that. One of the reasons I started a blog was so that I could look back on it later and see what it was like then! My blog is only four years old, but I can see things in my life and times that are different and it's kind of nice to remember.

Of course I think the subtext is actually something about having to eat words and there not being enough condiments around to make them palatable! Easier to just get rid/and or hide them!

Tracy said...

I have to say that Candy has made me really look at my faith and dig deep into it.. I have found the truth no matter where I turn and I am just more and more excited to keep learning such new and wonderful things about the Catholic faith; so in that.. thank you Candy.. thank you for showing me how much I love being Catholic... you have made me have to look even more closely at why I'm Catholic and that has been awesome for me and I know that this is the only place I can be!

motherofmany said...

Uknown anon,

I think you are referring to books in general written by protestants, and even at that I would have to disagree with your premise that the majority of books in all christian bookstores are written by protestants. I have found catholic bookstores where anything written by a non-catholic was not visible to my eye. But the sign said catholic bookstore, so it only made sense- and again that isn't what we're discussing here.

We are talking about the writing of the church councils and previous catchism teachings, and my point was that if you compile all the official writings of the catholic church they would far outweigh the Bible.

faithful catholic said...

In case anyone is interested, I'd be willing to bet that her partial quote from St. Germanus comes from one of his Marian prayers. He wrote several. I love the ellipses. Heaven forbid she ever provide the proper context. Oh well, at least she acknowledged his sainthood.

unknown anon said...

And my comment is that there is just as much written by Protestants as Catholics.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Certainly you access the wisdom and teaching of those who have come before in the form of expository writing, sermons committed to print, etc. Many Protestant traditions have official teachings, and even 'non-denominiational' believers read theological works to support their studies and beliefs.

Additionally, not every work written by a Catholic, nor sold in a Catholic bookstore is official teaching, just as every work written by a Protestant can be taken as an official statement of faith. There are devotional works, Bible studies, catechisms, etc. in all Christian traditions.

Certainly you would agree that while the basic principles of Christian belief and living are timeless, each age is presented with unique challenges, and looking to those principles in confronting those issues might take writings. Here's an example: artificial birth control was not the issue in the ancient Middle East in the same way it is in ours. Many trees have given their lives as we examine what God would have us do on this issue. Catholics have the advantage of an authoritative voice of interpretation, but Protestants have spilled just as much ink on it as we have.

I think the fundamental issue is that you see the studies of the ages as being in competition with God, when we look at them as authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures and faith passed down through the ages.

And, BTW, I have seen and purchased works by Protestant authors in Catholic bookstores.

motherofmany said...

You are still completely missing my point. It is not about the amount written by any side (or the trees used to provide that reading to others) but the fact that the official teachings of the Catholic church are subject to change. If they are changable, it is only fair to concede that an evolving understanding of those teachings is a result.

One of the best issues in which to apply this difference is the discussion of sola scriptura. While catholics may hold scripture and tradition equally, the tradition is changable. That is partly why fundamentalists feel it is a flawed approach, because there is variation from age to age in history.

Elena said...

An example of a changed Tradition would be?

And keep in mind Amy that for Catholics there is a difference between Tradition and tradition.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick note, as a former lwc member i can tell you that her blog cannot be deleted right now because that capablity is not currently available, though she could go in and delete every single post. They are slowly going through a revamp over their after a hacker nearly destroyed the whole site.

Elena said...

BrandyandJason, I don't know what you are speaking of either. But I'm a little slow (due to age - today's my BD!!) Anyway, what's lwc, whose site was nearly destroyed and what does that have to do with this post? Thanks for splanin to this old lady!!


Blondie said...

I am guessing LWC = life with christ, the provider for the old blog mentioned above.

Elena said...

Welcome Chris,

Just a note, please check out our commenting guidelines. We try to concentrate here just on the misrepresentations and untruths that Candy puts on her blog about Catholicism. Other than that we try to stay out of her personal life and we don't bash her as a person.

I know many people who find this blog are angry with her and we certainly think she has to own some of the hard feelings she has stirred up. However, the purpose of this blog is simply to address her attacks on Catholicism.


Tracy said...

Happy Birthday Elena!!!

Ketann said...

You do realize "chris" is Candy's stalker, right? I think "chris" could care less about your beliefs. He/She would just wants to feed off any hate or dislike towards Candy. If you really have any care or concern for Candy whatsoever you should block this sicko and pray fo them.

Kelly said...

I went ahead and removed Chris's comment, because I found it a little disturbing. Chris, you are welcome to post again, if it follows the commenting guidelines.

I doubt the truth of some of Candy's claims as well, but Candy does not deserve such verbal abuse, and I stand behind her right to block trolls from her site.

I hate the people used the alleged anonymity of the internet to say things to people that they never would say to their face. It is cowardly.

PraisetheLord said...

Please define the difference between "Tradition" and "tradition" when you get a chance. Where would the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Assumption of Mary, and Co-Mediator teachings fall? Thank you!

unknown anon said...

The teaching about the co-mediation of Mary is not official dogma. That said, the idea is often misunderstood.

It does not mean that Mary is co-equal with Christ in His work of redemption. It means that without Mary's fiat (her saying yes), God's will would not have been accomplished in that way at that time.

God gave us free will. And while He works outside of time and thus knows our hearts before even we do, he does not force us into 'being mere vessels.' He offers us the opportunity to seek and know His will, and to assent to it. This is true not only of Mary when the angel appeared to her, but of us.

So, again, the concept of co-mediatrix does NOT mean that we see Mary as equal to Christ, only that God's will for redemption included her and her fiat.

Flannery said...

I did a little checking on the St. Germanus quote and found this:

There is no one, O Most Holy Mary, who can know God except through thee; no one who can be saved or redeemed but through thee, O Mother of God; no one who can be delivered from dangers but through thee, O Virgin Mother; no one who obtains mercy but through thee, O Filled-With-All-Grace!

St. Germanus of Constantinople

I think what he is trying to say is that as the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven, Mary has a awful lot of "pull" with her Son and if we wish to obtain the Graces by which we are saved, we would do well to ask her to ask Him for us.

Anonymous said...

Hi Elena! That was my husband who posted the previous comment about lwC and candy's old blog. He's busy with our daughter right now, so I'll clarify.
Kelly made mention of Candy's old blog, her original Genuine Profit blog. That was hosted at a free Christian blog site called Life with Christ (LwC for short by those who frequent the site). Jason and I used to blog there too.

LwC was hacked quite awhile ago and there has been a complete upgrade to the entire site ... however, many features they used to have are no longer available: such as deleting your own blog. Candy can delete every post there, if she wanted to, but she can't delete the entire blog from LwC as of right now.

BTW, since when does she not keep an archive? Every time I've been over there, I've seen an archive ... it's located on the right sidebar, at the bottom of everything else that's there. There are times, I've noticed, that one can't access it though ... dunno if that's when she's tinkering with stuff or if she's deactivated it ... but more often than not, it's there. I even think she does have a link to her old LwC blog in that section as well.

~ Brandy

Unashamed said...

Kelly, I commend you for having the integrity to remove Chris' offensive comment.

Elena said...

Ketann, I don't know how Chris is. I don't frankly care. This blog is sticking to the business of defending and explaining the Catholic faith and NOT for bashing anybody!

Now a little lesson between Blogger and Haloscan. I've had both. With Halo scan it is possible to block IP addresses. You can't do that with Blogger (yet - maybe they're working on it) but you can put on moderation. We are for the most part open to comments although we'll remove them if they don't meet our very generous, liberal and logical guidelines (see the sidebar).

For other matters - that's what my e-mail address is for. But on this blog - we're gonna play nice.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of archives and the old blog, she had the archives and a link to the old blog up for a while before my interenet went down (a month ago) but since I came back on I notice they're gone and her old blog has had all the posts deleted.

Kelly said...

Thanks for pointing that out, saved sinner. Here I was all astounded that Brandy pointed out the archives, which I had never noticed before (I KNOW people used to ask her why she didn't have them) and now they're all gone.

Anonymous said...

You're welcome.