The Journey Home

I know we have some loyal Journey Home viewers here. I am running a week behind, so I sat down tonight and watched last week's program. Imagine my surprise when it was someone that I knew!

The episode was with Dr. John Bergsma, and he mentioned that living in graduate student housing with many devout Catholic families was a what got him started on the journey to Catholicism. I was friends with his wife, Dawn, there in the graduate housing complex, and we still exchange Christmas cards. They were already Catholic when I met them, so I wasn't aware of their long journey. I only heard in passing that John was a former minister!

I couldn't help sharing, since I know some of you probably watched it as well.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the program, The Journey Home is a show on EWTN which features converts to Catholicism sharing their conversion stories. You can see the show schedule and upcoming people here. Don't get EWTN? You can watch online, or listen to the audio of previous shows from the beginning, or the most recent.





Stumble It!

Call No Man “Father”? « Home2Rome: Exploring the Catholic Church

Vatican says - The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."

God says - And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9

This was Candy's entire case on this point. Frankly, if I were a Protestant apologist I would NEVER use this argument as it is so EASILY refuted. Rather than re-invent the wheel, may I direct the reader to these well written and wonderful articles that easily dispel the notion that on using the term "Father" the Vatican is against God!

Call No Man “Father”? « Home2Rome: Exploring the Catholic Church


Kiwi Catholic

This is a good example of rejecting a perfectly biblical Catholic practice by taking Scripture out of context. Jesus was simply using his customary hyperbole to emphasise the fact that no man is to take the place of God in our lives. The exaggeration is reminiscent of his exhortation to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin (Matt 5:29-30), or his saying that mountains can be moved with just a little faith (Matt 17:20) or his statement that one must hate one's father and mother to be his disciple (Luke 14:26).

Call no Man "Father" Catholic Answers
Father Richard Bellew
But is Christ's saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel".2 Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians--"Father Paul", if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers".3 And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged".4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to mean only One was to be called "father", that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and addressed him as "Father Abraham", Abraham's response was not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember..".5 Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be "fathers".


Father Mitch Pacwa -This Rock Magazine.


AN EXAMINATION of the New Testament shows "father" is a title applied to God, to the ancestors of Israel, to fathers of families, to Jewish leaders, to Christian leaders, and even to the Devil (the Father of Lies). Every New Testament book except 3 John uses the word "father" at least once.

As the table illustrates, the New Testament usually (63% of the time) uses "father" as a reference to God the Father. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and 1 John account for 189 out of 252 occurrences with this meaning. The second most common use refers to human fathers, both from Israel's past and contemporary parents.

(Certainly Christians agree that Jesus' prohibition against calling anyone "father" does not preclude the honor due to natural parents, living or dead, even though that could be taken as the literal meaning of his command, though not even the most literalistic Fundamentalist takes it that way.)

Those Christians who are troubled by the title "father" being given to Catholic priests say it is an honorific that belongs only to human parents or to God, not to religious leaders. This objection can be answered from the Bible: We have six New Testament books which show us that Jewish or Christian leaders may be addressed by this title.

Nearly half the uses of "father" in the Acts of the Apostles appear in Stephen's speech in chapter 7 (17 out of 36 uses). He refers to the ancestors as fathers, both individually and collectively (16 times), and once he addresses his audience as "brothers and fathers." Paul addressed a crowd of angry Jews in the Temple as "brothers and fathers" (Acts 22:1). These are places in which "father" is given to Jewish religious leaders. The title is also given to Christian religious leaders.

THE FIRST New Testament book ever written, 1 Thessalonians, refers to Paul "as a father exhorting his own children" (1 Thess. 2:11). By this usage Paul places himself in the role of a spiritual father. In fact, he insists on being called the spiritual father of the Corinthians when he says, "You have in Christ ten thousand teachers, but not many fathers, because in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through announcing the gospel. Therefore I exhort you to become imitators of me" (1 Cor. 4:15).

Preaching the good news constituted Paul's fatherly begetting of children, making him their spiritual father. He requests they imitate him, not only in good behavior but in bringing others to spiritual rebirth.

In 1 John a group of Christian men are addressed as fathers: "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning" (1 John 2:13-14). By themselves these verses give us warrant to address Church leaders as "father."

WE HAVE, then, a clear authorization from Scripture to call our parents and religious leaders father or mother. It is true Christ gives us an admonition not to let any human being become as important as God the Father or Christ our teacher and rabbi, yet neither should we deny that certain people in the Christian community are our spiritual parents.











Stumble It!

We are now part of St. Blog's Parish!

I am happy to announce that Visits to Candyland is now a proud member of St. Blog's Parish!









Stumble It!

Poll in the side bar - should the boycott stay or go?

Feel free to vote and then let us know why you voted the way you did in the comment section!






Stumble It!

Bringing Joy in Peace

"Time is precious - use it for something that makes a difference. Use your time for something that brings joy and peace to people, not something that feeds fleshly desires, which results in conflict." CB

With that in mind, as well as the encouragement and support of our readers, the enthusiasm of Tracy and Erika, and Kelly - who is always pushing me to make the blog better, I have entered this blog into the
Saint Blog's Parish Directory , we will be entering one of Kelly's articles into the Catholic Carnival and I have updated the links section and the blog roll.








Stumble It!

KitKat, I haven't put anything false about the Roman Catholic church up. All of the information I gathered, was straight from The Roman Catholic Catechism, writings of the Vatican, and from personal interviews with current practicing, non-practicing, and ex- Roman Catholics. Specifically, take a look at my "Vatican vs. God" article under the 'Deceptions Revealed' section in the left hand side bar. That's all I did there, was show that what the Vatican teaches is often the very opposite of what God teaches in the Bible. I took quotes (most of them direct) from the "Holy See" Vatican website, and compared them to scripture.

I hope that discerning readers would take the time to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church for themselves without just taking Candy's word for it. While it is true that Candy did consult the Catechism, just as with scripture, she cherry picks the parts that meet her agenda, and leaves out parts that do not. For example, Candy writes: Vatican says - "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." Reference - Catechism of the Catholic Church #841 God says - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. -John 14:6 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. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -John3:16-18 I'm not sure why Candy thinks this disagrees with even HER version of Christianity. Afterall, Candy believes that she is supposed to go out and make believers and bring them to Christ. Why would she do that if she didn't believe that everyone is included in the plan of the Creator? Don't all Christians believe that to some extent or the other, all are called to believe and that our purpose is to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ so that they can believe? And if that is true, wouldn't that also include the Muslims? So I don't understand why this paragraph of the catechism is being set up as being against the scripture when it seems to me it merely compliments it! Not so surprisingly then, she left out these paragraphs: 845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334 2822 Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."95 He "is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish."96 His commandment is "that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."97 This commandment summarizes all the others and expresses his entire will. 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). 849 The missionary mandate. "Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men":339 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."340 We debunked Candy's article "Vatican vs. God" in several places, all of which are saved on our side bar and archived here.

Stumble It!

Our New Look

I thought it would be nice to change our look a little bit and this template seemed to fit the bill!


I also want to readdress this comment from Candy last week in her com boxes:

There are several websites out on the net, whose sole existence is to be a blog, or rumor mill about this blog. :-?

That may or may not be but this blog isn't one of them! Never has been. Kelly suggested that to totally dispel that notion that I should change the picture in the side bar and she brought this lovely painting by Vermeer to my attention. I think it is perfect for this blog!

The woman stands between a depiction of the Last Judgment hung in a heavy black frame, and a table covered with jewelry representing material possessions. The empty scale stresses that she is balancing spiritual rather than material considerations. Vermeer's portrayal does not impart a sense of tension or conflict, rather the woman exudes serenity. Her self-knowledge is reflected in the mirror on the wall. Therefore, the painting suggests the importance of moderation, self-awareness, and a full understanding of the implications of a final judgment, and what it would be to be the woman who gave birth to it.

That's all we really have ever tried to do - provide a balance to the misinformation Candy provides, so that inquiring readers can discern for themselves about Catholicism.

Now, there were comments in the com boxes that more directly related to Candy as a person. I e-mailed her last week and said:

You are invited to go through our archives and and have me delete anything that you consider to be untrue or gossipy about you. I think we have tried very hard to stay on topic and NOT malign you as a person, wife, mother, woman and only keep focused on our theological differences. But if you find a post that you feel is offensive in that regard, let me know and I will remove it.

Candy declined. Nonetheless the offer still holds. However, I don't find any posts that specifically fall into that category. There may be comments in the come boxes and the other bloggers and I try to catch these. I am not inclined to take the time to go look at past archives to dig these up as I think the comments show a nice balance of us getting our butts kicked in the comment boxes as well (a fact that Candy never mentions). No one can accuse us of taking down comments whole sale simply because we don't like them or they don't agree with us!







Stumble It!

Candyland Compilation

As we've had another 150 or so new visitors since I posted this two days ago, I thought I would bump it up.

If you are now joining us, here are some previous blog entries addressing common questions about the Catholic Church.

Why did the Catholic Church ADD books to the Bible?

We didn't. Non-Catholics removed books from the Bible. Read more about the Catholic Bible.

Why does the Catholic Church believe in salvation by works when that is contradicted by Scripture. Why do you believe that Mary is a mediatrix when scripture says that Jesus is the ONE Mediator?

We don't, and we don't.

Why do you worship statues? Don't you know that's idolatry?

We might be kneeling in prayer, but we aren't worshiping.

Why do you pray the rosary with its vain repetition?

Because it isn't repetition that is the problem, it's the vain part.

But you have to admit that the word purgatory isn't found anywhere in Scripture!

The word might not be, but the concept is.

Requiring celibacy for priests isn't biblical. Even Peter was married!

Actually, we have married priests within the Catholic Church today. A picture of a priest with his family is the top picture of this post, explaining the tradition (with a small 't') of priestly celibacy.

Why confess to a sinful priest, when you can confess your sins directly to God?

Read the Biblical basis for Confession.

Plus, the ever-popular Tradition versus Scripture topic. Read here, here, and here for previous posts.


If anyone has any follow-up questions, please post them in the comments of this post. That's what we're here for!




Stumble It!

One Last Convert

This has been covered pretty exhaustively by the mainstream news, but I thought I'd still post it here as a postscript of my list of converts from this past year. Here is the interview from Zenit:

Yesterday evening I converted to the Christian Catholic religion, renouncing my previous Islamic faith. Thus, I finally saw the light, by divine grace -- the healthy fruit of a long, matured gestation, lived in suffering and joy, together with intimate reflection and conscious and manifest expression. I am especially grateful to his holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who imparted the sacraments of Christian initiation to me, baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, in the Basilica of St. Peter’s during the course of the solemn celebration of the Easter Vigil. And I took the simplest and most explicit Christian name: “Cristiano.” Since yesterday evening therefore my name is Magdi Crisitano Allam. . .

On my first Easter as a Christian I not only discovered Jesus, I discovered for the first time the face of the true and only God, who is the God of faith and reason. My conversion to Catholicism is the touching down of a gradual and profound interior meditation from which I could not pull myself away, given that for five years I have been confined to a life under guard, with permanent surveillance at home and a police escort for my every movement, because of death threats and death sentences from Islamic extremists and terrorists, both those in and outside of Italy.

(I just had to use the Yahoo! article because they called him "iconoclastic" without a hint of irony. I guess he had to use a lot of self restraint to keep from smashing all those statues in the Vatican!)





Stumble It!

Worldview Differences

Fr. Dwight Longenecker has written a really excellent article for Inside Catholic called Symbols and Systems: Why Catholics and Protestants Don't See Eye To Eye.

To put it simply, Catholics use things they know to try to understand the things they don't. Catholics seek to know God and His work in the world through material things: water, wine, bread, oil, incense, candles, images, and so on. For Catholics, some of these things are more than just symbols -- they are sacraments. They not only point to God, they convey His power and grace to us through the mystery of the Church.

For Catholics, this way of understanding the world, God, the cosmos, and everything is rich and multilayered. The Church is not only a symbol of the Body of Christ -- it is the Body of Christ. The bread brought forward by the members of the Body of Christ becomes itself the Body of Christ to feed the Body of Christ the Church. . .

Protestant theologians, rather than seeing how physical things and human culture connect us to God, emphasize the radical separation between God and the physical world. The Protestant focuses primarily on man's alienation from God, the fact of sin, the need for redemption, and the need for man's response. . .

Therefore, the idea that a visible church, a historic apostolic succession, a priesthood, and sacraments are necessary is -- at the very root of Protestant thinking -- alien and dangerous. For the typical Protestant, the Catholic Church is, by definition, worldly. Its very nature is materialistic and compromising with the world, the flesh, and the devil. For the Protestant there is therefore no relationship between Christ and culture. The faith is set up in dialectical opposition to the wisdom of man and the ways of the world.

It's great, go read it!



Stumble It!

Answering comments

From the Candy com boxes:

Oh wow, the lady above has a blog *about* this blog LOL (I'm not laughing AT you, Elena - everyone's entitled to have a blog about whatever they like - it's the blog-about-a-blog concept that tickled me)

Yea. Tickled me too. I never really set out to have this other blog. My main blog and the homeschool blog I'm supposed to be keeping are more than enough! Anyone can check the archives for our humble beginnings.

But much good has come out of it! We have met some wonderful people and of course the collaboration with my co-bloggers has really been a blessing to me!


Now Candy's comment:

Gravatar molytail, I must be doing something right for the Lord, because the enemy is mad.

Note the inference that if we are "against" something Candy writes, then we must be the demonic ones! (insert eye roll here)

But I rather think that this blog and the Coffee with Candy Blog are the result of divine inspiration - creative people with something to say looking for a way to say it and have it read... having a voice where a their voice was silenced.


There are several websites out on the net, whose sole existence is to be a blog, or rumor mill about this blog. :-?

Well we don't do "rumor." We do use Candy's topics as spring boards for posts over here. But I think we're even growing past that a bit over here. This is becoming a Catholic Woman's Apologetics Blog!


I don't waste my time on such foolishness, and I suggest you don't either. The Bible says to think upon those things that are pure and lovely, and I can honestly say that when I did visit above mentioned site, it was NOT pure or lovely.

Oh... you mean like infering another group of people worship the devil, have soul less eyes and are part of a cult? WE don't do that. I think someone is projecting?

The sheer amount of lies and gossip about me (much of it in the comments) was physically sickening to me.

A challenge, if anyone finds something on this blog or in the comments that is dishonest or gossip, let me know and I'll delete it. We tried to calm down the comments before and I did try to weed out some things but I might have missed something. Also since this blog is all about ALLOW COMMENTS and letting people have their say, we tried to edit lightly, but I certainly would remove lies and gossip if you guys care to point it out. Just e-mail me.

I have removed the link to said website in above comment, because many find it an offensive website, and I don't blame them.

Human nature being what it is, I bet our hits go up!










Stumble It!

A Christian Woman

Also, to Sara, I am astounded that feel like Candy "defies" the meaning of a Christian. How so? I'm sure Candy doesn't desire a rousing debate in her comment section but your comment really raises my hackles. I do not know Candy personally and have only visited her blog for a short time but she appears to be a genuine Christian who desires to be a godly mother and wife. Her site is a blessing to those of us who seek encouragement in these areas.

On this blog, when we have something good to say about Candy, we say it. While I STRONGLY disagree with Candy on many areas of her theology, I really truly believe that she is trying to be a Godly wife and mother and that she desires to flow Christ a closely as possible. I think her homemaking articles are inspiring, encouraging and educational and mirror what Proverbs 31 wife is meant to be. So while I think she is way off track on some things, I just wanted to acknowledge the stuff I feel she has really gotten right.










Stumble It!

Why I'm Catholic

Why I'm Catholic.










Stumble It!

"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" Microsoft Word 2000 hyper-linked version, by Dave Armstrong eBooks Download

I just purchased Dave Armstrong's e-book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism at the sale price of $5.00. It has a forward written by the late great Father John Hardon, S.J.

I thought this part was particularly appropriate for our recent discussions with Ashley (where are you Ashley?) regarding sola scriptura.

Catholicism and Protestantism differ fundamentally with regard to the relationship of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition: the Bible on the one hand, and the historical doctrines and dogmas of the Christian Church on the other. Protestantism tends to see a certain dichotomy, or divide, between the pure Word of God in the Bible and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which is considered to be too often corrupted by "arbitrary traditions of men" (in this vein Matthew 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-13, and Colossians 2:8 are cited).
For Protestants, Scripture alone (or, sola Scriptura, as the Reformers cried) is the source and rule of the Christian faith. As such, it is superior to, and judges all Tradition. It is sufficient in and of itself for a full exposition of Christianity and for the attainment of salvation.
The concept of sola Scriptura, it must be noted, is not in principle opposed to the importance and validity of Church history, Tradition, ecumenical Councils, or the authority of Church Fathers and prominent theologians. The difference lies in the relative position of authority held by Scripture and Church institutions and proclamations. In theory, the Bible judges all of these, since, for the evangelical Protestant, it alone is infallible and the Church and popes and Councils are not.
In actuality, however, this belief has not led to doctrinal uniformity, as the history of Protestant sectarianism abundantly testifies. The prevalence of sola Scriptura, according to Catholic thinking, has facilitated a widespread ignorance and disregard of Church history among the Protestants in the pews. Protestantism is clearly much less historically-oriented than Catholicism, largely for the above reasons. Recently, several evangelical scholars have frankly critiqued the weakness of either sola Scriptura itself, or else the extreme version of it which might be called Bible Only (a virtually total exclusion of Church history and authority).

Anyway, it looks like a fascinating read. You can get it here.
"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" Microsoft Word 2000 hyper-linked version, by Dave Armstrong eBooks Download

Is there enough interest perhaps to do a weekly study of this book?

Let me know!







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








Stumble It!

Stress relief

I suggest that if the apologetics gets too heated, or if we ever get too exasperated with Candy, that we visit here!!

bubblewrap.swf (application/x-shockwave-flash Object)








Stumble It!

Answering Ashley

Ashley posted some comments in the article on Sexuality that I thought should have a separate posting. I handled some of them in that section and here are the rest of them.

Is there a place for church traditions? Yes, but they must be weighed against the teaching of the Bible. We know that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 2:23. Peter was rebuked by Paul for his sin. The teachings of men are dangerous if left unchecked against God's book. Purgatory is a perfect example of the church adding to and contradicting God's Word. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that purgatory cannot be found in the Bible. Yet, the teaching essentially says that Christ has not finished the work of salvation on the cross. We must personally suffer. However, while he is hanging on that cruel cross, where he received God's wrath for all of humanities sin, he professes that it is finished. It's either finished, or we need to go to purgatory. It can't be both. I put my faith in the words of my Lord and Savior, not it the teaching of fallen men.

Intereting tidbit, some of Jesus last words were "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is being interpreted My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" Mark 15:34b Jesus is quoting scripture, Psalm 22, which if you read it, will give you goosebumps. The Bible is unlike any other book in the way prophesy is fulfilled. It is God's Word to us.

Just because the catholic church teaches something, doesn't mean it is wrong (I agree with you on perverted forms of sexual expression in marriage. The Bible speaks very clearly of what the union is to be - procreative.) I do believe that we should be like the Bereans who were called noble because they searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul was teaching was so (Acts 17:11).

Also, smoking is not a fundamental of Christianity, but the Bible teaches that our bodies are the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16). Smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, an unhealty lifestyle, etc. are all hurting the temple of God. No book (the bible, catechism, quaran, watchtower magazine) can cover every single situation that you're faced with - that's where the Holy Spirit convicts us.

Elena, as well as other bloggers, have been very gracious in taking the time to answer my questions - I know how hard that is with all the blessed responsibilities of keeping the home...er...homemaking :) I am thankful for the dialogue and prayerfully submit this post in hopes that it stands for the teachings of Christ Jesus, my Lord.

Let me close with this... God's gift of salvation is a free one but it does require trusting in Christ, and Christ alone.

In Christ,
Ashley

We have handled the Tradition topic here and more generally here.






Stumble It!

Sexuality in Marriage

I think the summary in the comment boxes on the Marriage Bed Undefiled could be summarized this way:

The bible does not say anywhere specifically that oral sex is bad.
The bible says that we are not to deny our spouses.
So whenever our spouse wants sex, even if we can't have intercourse (menstruating, ill, recovering from childbirth, surgery, actual place for intercourse not available etc.) a wife not only can but MUST give them satisfaction.

I have some problems with that. First of all, I find it fascinating when sola scriptura Christians (a doctrine not in the bible) demand that something has to be specifically mentioned in the bible! I found this link from Christian Answers (submitted in the comment boxes) to be very simplistic and also contained some false dilemma logical fallacies.

So for the sake of completeness and to represent the Catholic thought on the issue, I present the following links for educational and informational purposes.



Theology of the Body

I have a question - Catholic Answers Forums

Catholic Writings

Notre Dame Seminary








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








Stumble It!

Thousands in U.S. to Join (Catholic) Church - Many Feel They Have Found a Home

Thousands in U.S. to Join (Catholic) Church - Many Feel They Have Found a Home: "Thousands in U.S. to Join (Catholic) Church - Many Feel They Have Found a Home
Zenit News Agency ^ | March 12, 2008

Posted on 03/12/2008 3:52:30 PM PDT by NYer

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Tens of thousands of Americans will join the Catholic Church this Holy Saturday through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.

Many of those in the RCIA program participated in the Rite of Election with their bishops at the beginning of Lent and will be baptized, confirmed and receive Communion for the first time this Saturday. More, who already have been baptized, will embrace full membership in the Catholic Church.

The numbers vary across dioceses. The Diocese of Orange, California, for example, will baptize more than 650 people and welcome more than 500 others into full communion at the Easter Vigil.

The Archdiocese of Detroit registers some of the largest numbers with 589 catechumens receiving full initiation and 497 candidates from other Christian traditions being received into full communion. Although technically not part of the RCIA, 289 baptized Catholics will also receive confirmation and Eucharist.

In Ohio, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati will welcome during the Easter Vigil 437 catechumens and 541 candidates for a total of 978 people; another 65 candid"








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








Stumble It!

Catholic Blog Awards 2008

Last year I wrote:

"I think a more accurate name for this competition would be The Professional Catholic Writer's Blog Awards. That's my opinion and so far nothing has convinced me that I'm wrong on that."

Well, the Professional Catholic Awards anyway. This year the big winner was the What Does The Prayer Really Say? blog, authored by Father Z, moderator for Catholic Online Forum and Ask Father Question Box

Father Z's blog was like the movie Titanic - it won just about everything.
Best Apologetic Blog
Best Blog by Clergy
Best Individual Blog
Best Insider News Blog
Best Overall Catholic Blog
Best Written
Most Insightful and Informative
Most Spiritual
Smartest

The other categories it seemed to come in 2nd or 3rd.

So I guess I should start reading it!








Stumble It!

C.S. Lewis and Catholic Church

"I got all of the major works of C.S. Lewis in one volume, which I've wanted to get for decades." CB



C.S. Lewis and Catholic Church

C.S> Lewis and the Catholic Church on Google books.








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








Stumble It!

Main dish or sides?

Just a quick post on the sex in marriage post currently up. From reading in the comment section it appears that Candy is condoning possibly oral sex and masturbation. I could be misreading her comment:

Happymommy, if you're thinking what I think your thinking of what I'm thinking, then, no, I haven't seen any problem with it, and have never felt it was a sin.

I have also found no indication in the Bible that it is. There is more to physical intimacy with one's spouse, besides just the main course.

I did LOTS of research on an example of "seed spilling" aka Onan on my blog. My Domestic Church: Search results for Onan. Feel free to read those over.








Stumble It!

Easter?

Do you celebrate with Easter baskets, egg coloring, egg hunts, the Easter Bunny, etc.? Then I presume you are unknowingly celebrating part of an ancient pagan fertility festival. The name "Easter" comes from 'Ishtar,' which is a derivative from Ashtoreth. Among many things, Ashtoreth was a fertility goddess. Bunnies and eggs are serious pagan fertility symbols, and have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus' resurrection. Have you ever wondered why the easter bunnies lay eggs? The answer of the easter bunny laying the egg lies in the sybmology of fertility cults.

The Bible has nothing nice to say about Ashtoreth. Ashtoreth, Baal, Bel, Dagon, Moloch, etc. are just a few of the many false gods that Israel committed spiritual adultery with, on leaving the one true God. CB

In one of Candy's comments today she is not shy about her religious training and background - which is pretty much nil before 1995 and all self-taught since then.

"As for Bible reading, I had no religious instruction whatsoever, before I got saved either. In fact, I didn't know that 'Easter' had anything to do with Jesus. I truly thought it was some gimmic about a fake Easter Bunny as an excuse to have a springtime holiday. :-?"

It is not surprising then that along with her anti-Catholic leanings, she has picked up a lot of other misinformation. Easter appears to be one of them.

The original language of the New Testament is Greek.

From New Advent- Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Greek term for Easter, pascha, has nothing in common with the verb paschein, "to suffer," although by the later symbolic writers it was connected with it; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew pesach (transitus, passover). The Greeks called Easter the pascha anastasimon; Good Friday the pascha staurosimon. The respective terms used by the Latins are Pascha resurrectionis and Pascha crucifixionis.

Pascha- Passover. A more careful study of the Old and New Testament reveals that Passover is the precursor to the new Passover. Jesus Christ replaces the passover lamb and thus is know as the Lamb of God. I can't possibly do justice to that mystery in this space today, but that is the connection. Christians who are so far removed from the authority of the church seem to me to be floundering. They try so hard on their own to do what is "pleasing to God" that they start questioning everything and once they arrive at what they think are the correct answers, pontificating to others about what is or is not pleasing to God. The condemnation of Easter Egg hunts etc., is a good example.

Join me this Resurrection Sunday in celebrating Jesus' resurrection from the dead - the most joyous day of the year. Leave Easter baskets, Easter eggs, and egg hunts out. Do give each of your children a gift in the morning, but it should be from YOU, not from "the Easter Bunny." It should not be a basket full of candy fertility symbols that have nothing to do with Jesus. I suggest the gifts be a nice little toy, and/or some books. This year I'm hoping to get each of my children their own piggy banks. When you give them their gifts, read scripture to them about Jesus' dying and raising from the dead. Emphasize how this is a gift from God to us, and you are now giving your children a gift, in remembrance of God's gift to us.

Let's take it a step further. When your church holds it's annual Easter Egg hunt, don't let your children participate. Instead, have something special (maybe another surprise gift) to give to your children while the others are on the pagan hunt. Explain to your children ahead of time why you will not be participating in the hunt, and how you want your children and yourself to be true to God, and not to compromise/confuse the true meaning of Resurrection Sunday by partaking in a pagan fertility event. Just because the event is hosted by a church, does not make it okay to participate in. Go ahead and let the others see you and your children not participating. When they ask why, lovingly explain it to them. Maybe you can be instrumental in helping to open hearts, and this could begin a revival.Stand for the truth. Even in "small" matters like church sponsored Easter Egg Hunts. Easter Egg Hunts are what the world does. We are called to be separate. Sometimes the world tries to invade even our churches. When that happens, then our separation from the world needs to occur right there in church.

This of course is ridiculous. Pagans didn't hold exclusive rights to eggs! In the passover seder meal eggs symbolize new life! Our celebration of Easter is also a celebration of new life.

Phillipians 4:8
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

I don't think we should try to scare new Christians that they are somehow displeasing God whenever they look at a Peep!




Instead remember that this is a celebration of Christ's Resurrection (which incidentally Candy is joining the universal church for, not the other way around!) after the long 40 days of self-denial and penance. Coloring eggs, egg hunts, new dresses, baskets, all of it, are our ways of celebrating that and an excellent way for churches to build community, fellowship and have a little fun!

Tonight is the great Easter vigil and my family will be heavily participating in that as musicians and servers. May all of my fellow bloggers, and readers have a very Blessed and Holy Easter Sunday!














Stumble It!

Welcome Home!

Holy Saturday is the time when most converts will enter the Church. I was thinking that this was a big year for converts, and I thought I'd make a list of prominent conversions to Catholicism from this year.

Episcopalian Bishop Dan Herzog of Albany, March 2007.

Dr. Francis Beckwith, now former President of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2007.

Bishop Jeffrey Steenson of the Episcopal Church, September 2007.

Allen Hunt, who was pastor of the third largest Methodist church in the world, and radio personality, Jan 2008.

Evangelical author, Barbara Curtis along with her husband, Tripp, March 2008.

And to end, there is poor, confused Bishop Pope, who has been both Episcopalian and Catholic, several times this year. I don't think we're winning at the moment.

What is really notable is that most of these people are reverting to their baptismal faith.

You can keep up with all of the latest converts at the Catholic Converts blog. Who knows what 2008 will bring?

Let's remember to keep those entering the church in our prayers this Easter.




Stumble It!

Yet more baptism . . .

Although the original post is falling a bit down on the page, due to Candy apparently having a lot of free time to post today, I saw a new comment of interest was added:

1 Peter 3:21 says:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filfth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

We are saved by baptism only because we have first been saved by faith through grace by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. If a person then does NOT get baptized, then they may not really be saved.

Jesus said "if you love me, keep my commandments." Jesus commands that we get baptized after we get saved. If someone doesn't follow Jesus' commands, then do they really love Jesus? And if one doesn't really love Jesus, then they are not saved.

Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, and that is why those who never got a chance to be baptized before they died still go to heaven. However, if one doesn't get baptized after being saved (assuming they don't die soon after salvation) then their not getting baptized is a sign that they probably don't have the Spirit of God indwelling them.

I got saved on November 18, 1995 at 10pm at night, sitting around the kitchen table, with my hubby (then boyfriend) and two of my Christian friends showing me salvation from John chapter 3.

I knew early on that I wanted to get baptized. It kept gnawing at me stronger and stronger, until I knew I HAD to do it. I got baptized on April 7, 1996 on Resurrection Sunday.

At that baptism, the pastor received a word of prophecy over me. That prophecy is personal, but I can tell you that this blog is a surprising part of that prophecy.

Since that day in 1995 I have continued to grow in my Christian walk. The Lord speaks with me every day, and teaches me new things.

I think I may just be too different theologically from Candy to really understand her answer. It looks to me as if she said that when Peter says that we're saved by baptism, he's saying that baptism is a work (or fruit, if you will) that we produce which proves our faith. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Joy, I think Candy might be reading your blog, after your recent comment. This looks like a clear reply to your post.




Stumble It!

Crucifixion Wednesday?

As if Christians didn't have enough to divide them already, now we have to quibble about whether Jesus was crucified on Wednesday or Friday! Candy, a self-taught bible literalist would feel more comfortable with the Wednesday date. But is that right? Have all of the church fathers, saints, teachers popes, and other holy men and women of God been wrong and Candy (saved and self-taught since 1995) gulp... right?

Well...no. But I admire her tenacity. You may be interested in reading this link:Day of Crucifixion and Resurrection of our Lord -- Proved to be Friday and Sunday (not Wednesday and Saturday)
"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH...." (Mark 15:42 RSV) or in KJVeese:

Mark:15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

I cover the day of Christ's death and burial first, since once this is established, it is easy to demonstrate that Sunday is the day of Christ's Resurrection, called "the third day" in the New Testament.

The above text (Mk 15:42) is the key text as I read the accounts of the crucifixion and subsequent burial of Jesus (Mt 27:57-64; Mk 15:42-47; Lk 23:50-56; Jn 19:31-42), since the phrase "day of Preparation" is clearly DEFINED by the Gospel of Mark as "the day BEFORE the Sabbath." It is agreed by every commentator and scholar I have checked on the subject that the Jewish Sabbath mentioned here is the Seventh-day or SATURDAY Sabbath, and therefore the "day before the Sabbath" can only mean FRIDAY. Further, St. Matthew calls the very next day (SATURDAY) the day AFTER the Preparation (Mt 27:62).

The technical term "Preparation" (Greek Paraskeue / Latin Parasceve) is used for FRIDAY as well in the deuterocanonical books of Judith (8:6) and Second Maccabees (8:26), in the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 16:163), and in the early non-canonical Christian documents, Didache (8:1) and the Martyrdom of Polycarp (7:1).

"The day on which Christ died is called 'the Preparation' in Mark 15:42 and John 19:31...The same day is in view in Matt 27:62 where the events recorded took place on 'the day after the Preparation' (RV). The reference would be to the 6th day of the week [or FRIDAY]. The title arose from the need of preparing food etc. for the Sabbath." (Vine, page 483)

No other day has ever been suggested by the term "Preparation" or "the day BEFORE the Sabbath" (Mark 15:42) other than FRIDAY. Conclusion: Jesus was crucified and buried on a FRIDAY.

The New Living Translation, the most recent in scholarly Evangelical Bible versions, even translates the key text as follows:

"THIS ALL HAPPENED ON FRIDAY, the day of preparation, the day before the Sabbath..." (Mark 15:42 NLT)

This is interesting, because this is what Candy talks about in her post today. Candy wrote:

A misconception is that the term "high Sabbath" means a weekly Sabbath and a holiday Sabbath falling on the same day. If one follows this misconception, then they could be led to the conclusion that Jesus must have been crucified on Friday. Jesus was crucified on Passover, as our Passover lamb, so we know it was a holiday Sabbath that He was crucified on. If we take the incorrect meaning of High Sabbath to mean that a holiday Sabbath and weekly Sabbath landed on the same day, then that would have to mean that Jesus was crucified on Friday after sundown - the Jewish weekly Sabbath, and the Jewish Passover. Yet, this is not the case. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was crucified, and then was the Jewish day of weekly Sabbath preparation (Thursday sundown to Friday Sundown), and then the weekly Sabbath (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown). Thus, the Jewish Sabbath and Jewish Passover could not have fallen on the same day. A high Sabbath simply means a holiday Sabbath, instead of a regular weekly Sabbath. If Jesus had died on Friday, then He would have spent only one day in the tomb - Saturday. But the scriptures are clear that he spent a full three days in the tomb, not one.

Here is a rebuttal to that argument:

Now Tony Lee, who believes Jesus was crucified on Wednesday (to allow for "three days and three nights" which he insists means 72 hours) and arose on Saturday, appeals to what I call the "two-Sabbath theory" -- there were actually TWO Sabbaths talked about during the events.

From a previous post of Tony Lee (7/21/98) --

TL> But it is sufficient to say THIS explains the two Sabbaths required by the "spices" of Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56. There were TWO Sabbaths within the week we are covering in the New Testament. >>

No, two Sabbaths are not required -- they are not even hinted at in the text. But with this theory in mind, I am assuming Tony would probably argue the "day before the Sabbath" means the day before the FIRST Sabbath (Thursday), but not the day before the SECOND Sabbath, which we agree is Saturday. However, again I submit there is not one shred of evidence for this two-Sabbath theory (the meaning of "high day" Sabbath will be explained below cf. John 19:31) in the Gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus, and no commentary I have checked has ever mentioned anything but ONE Sabbath in the parallel accounts.

Tony also tries to assert a contradiction in the Gospels on the spices, and that will be answered below. If the Sabbath mentioned in Luke 23:56 and Mark 16:1 (cf. Mt 28:1; Jn 19:31,42; 20:1) is the one and only SAME Sabbath -- the Seventh-day or SATURDAY Sabbath -- there is no evidence of this "two-Sabbath theory" and the FRIDAY crucifixion and burial of Jesus must be accepted as it has been for nearly 2,000 years.

"...all four Gospels are unanimous, as is the entire tradition of the Church, that Christ died on a Friday." (Warren Carroll, The Founding of Christendom [1985], p 366)

"The latter word 'preparation', can mean 'day of preparation' (Mk 15:42; Mt 27:62; Jn 19:14,31,42). It refers to the day of the Jewish week immediately preceding the Sabbath (i.e. Thursday evening to Friday evening)....Here Friday must be meant, as the next clause makes clear [Lk 23:54]." (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke [1978], p 881)

"The fact must be faced that no example of the use of [Preparation Day in Greek] is cited for any day other than Friday. The use for Friday is cited, both by linking the term with the Sabbath (Josephus, Ant 16.163), and, from the second century, absolutely (Didache 8.1; Martyrdom of Polycarp 7.1). The evidence that the term was used for Friday must be accepted." (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John [1995], p 687)

"Almost all scholars agree -- and the Gospels are quite clear -- that the Crucifixion took place on a Friday; Jesus lay in the tomb on Saturday (the Sabbath); and he rose from the dead on the third day, Sunday." (William Proctor, The Resurrection Report [1998], p 163)

I just wonder why a bible literalist like Candy would subscribe to the two-sabbath theory when it's not literally in the bible? Anyway...

The Catholic Knight had an interesting article too!:
The Catholic Knight: Exact Date of Christ's Crucifixion

The evidence is plentiful, once we're ready to start looking into what non-Biblical sources say about the astronomical events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Phlegon was a Greek historian who wrote an extensive chronology around AD 137:

In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.’

- Phlegon, 137 AD

Phlegon identifies the year and the exact time of day. In addition, he writes of an earthquake accompanying the darkness, which is specifically recorded in Matthew’s Gospel.

Pontius Pilate no less, who wrote in a report to Tiberius Caesar the following account...

Now when he was crucified darkness came over all the world; the sun was altogether hidden, and the sky appeared dark while it was yet day, so that the stars were seen, though still they had their luster obscured, wherefore, I suppose your excellency is not unaware that in all the world they lighted their lamps from the sixth hour until evening. And the moon, which was like blood, did not shine all night long, although it was at the full, and the stars and Orion made lamentation over the Jews because of the transgression committed by them.

- Pontius Pilate, 33 AD

The occurrence of a blood red moon is actually much more easy to explain. Pilate's account to the red moon also helps us confirm not only the year, but the actual day. NASA has already accounted for the only kind of eclipse that can happen in a full moon phase, which is a lunar eclipse, frequently known to give the moon a "blood red" appearance, particularly when they are seen only partially. NASA pinpoints this event to April 3rd, 33 AD. The following chart is their report, which can be viewed on NASA's actual website here...

Finally, we must look to the Jewish calender to verify that a Passover did occur on this date. Indeed it did. Nissan 15, the customary day for Passover, would have fallen on Saturday the 4th of April in 33 AD. That would have made this particular Saturday a "high sabbath" which is mentioned in the gospel accounts, and it would have made Friday the 3rd of April the day of preparation, when the lamb sacrifice was slaughtered in the Temple. This would have put Jesus crucifixion at exactly the time when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered, just hours before sunset, when Nissan 15 began on the Jewish calendar. (Remember, the Jewish calendar begins each day at sundown not midnight.) Typically, the Passover meal would have been eaten that Friday evening in 33 AD. However, the gospels tell us that Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples the night before -- Thursday. This may be accounted for by the probability that Jesus was using the Essene calendar for the calculation of Passover.

The whole article is good so stop by and read it.

I think it's pretty clear though that the traditional commemoration of Christ's death on Good Friday is appropriate, historically based, and scriptural!







Stumble It!

Good Friday

(Or, belated Crucifixion Wednesday.)

St. Thomas Aquinas on the seamless garment:

He says, also his tunic, that is, they took that along with his other garments. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom. He says that it was without a seam to indicate its unity. Some say this shows how valuable it was. On the other hand, Chrysostom says that the Evangelist says this to suggest that it was common and ordinary; for in Palestine the poor wear clothing made from many pieces of cloth, one sewn over another: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor" (2 Cor 8:9).

As for the mystical interpretation, this passage can be referred to the mystical body of Christ. Then Christ's garments are divided into four parts because the Church is spread over the four parts of the world: "As I live, says the Lord, you shall put them all on as an ornament, you shall bind them on as a bride does" (Is 49:18). The tunic without seam, which was not divided, indicates charity, because the other virtues are not united by themselves, but by another, because all of them are directed to the ultimate end, and it is charity alone which unites us to this end. While it is faith which makes known our ultimate end, and by hope we tend toward it, only charity unites us to it: "And above all these put on love, which binds everything together" (Col 3:14).

The tunic is said to be woven from the top because charity is above, at the top, of all the other virtues: "I will show you a still more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31); "To know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph 3:19). Or, it is woven from the top because our charity does not come from ourselves, but from the Holy Spirit: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). The tunic woven from the top can also signify the real body of Christ, because the body of Christ was formed by a higher power, one from the top, by the Holy Spirit "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20).

St. Augustine writes on the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus:

"Then came the soldiers, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they broke not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear laid open His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."

A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but "opened;" that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking.

This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, Genesis 6:16 whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, Genesis 2:22 and was called Life, and the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20 Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). This second Adam bowed His head and fell asleep on the cross, that a spouse might be formed for Him from that which flowed from the sleeper's side.

O death, whereby the dead are raised anew to life! What can be purer than such blood? What more health-giving than such a wound?

John Chrysostom meditates on the death of Jesus:

But do thou consider, I pray, how even on the cross He did everything without being troubled, speaking with the disciple concerning His mother, fulfilling prophecies, holding forth good hopes to the thief.

Yet before He was crucified He appears sweating, agonized, fearing. What then can this mean? Nothing difficult, nothing doubtful. There indeed the weakness of nature had been shown, here was being shown the excess of Power.

Besides, by these two things He teaches us, even if before things terrible we be troubled, not on that account to shrink from things terrible, but when we have embarked in the contest to deem all things possible and easy. Let us then not tremble at death.

Stumble It!

Is Baptism Necessary?

We just covered baptism last month, in this post.

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

Stumble It!

Baptism

FYI- comment moderation is back up at Candy's.

I just want to make a quick comment on this quote from Candy in her comment box:

"Also, the Bible doesn't say that we have to be baptized to be saved." CB

"Whoever believes and is baptized(will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Jesus Christ Mark 16:16









Stumble It!

Good Friday

Holy Thursday

St. Augustine:

"Who would not shrink back in dismay from having his feet washed by the Son of God . . . You? Me? Words to be pondered on rather than spoken about, lest words fail to express their true meaning."

"But what is this? what does it mean? and what is there in it we need to examine? The Lord says, The Truth declares that even he who has been washed has need still to wash his feet. What, my brethren, what think you of it, save that in holy baptism a man has all of him washed, not all save his feet, but every whit; and yet, while thereafter living in this human state, he cannot fail to tread on the ground with his feet.

And thus our human feelings themselves, which are inseparable from our mortal life on earth, are like feet wherewith we are brought into sensible contact with human affairs; and are so in such a way, that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And every day, therefore, is He who intercedes for us, washing our feet: and that we, too have daily need to be washing our feet, that is ordering aright the path of our spiritual footsteps, we acknowledge even in the Lord's prayer, when we say, "Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors." For "if," as it is written, "we confess our sins," then verily is He, who washed His disciples' feet, "faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," that is, even to our feet wherewith we walk on the earth."

John Chrysostom:

"Let us see also what He doeth now towards the disciples, or rather what actions He now exhibiteth towards the traitor. The man whom most of all there was reason to hate, because being a disciple, having shared the table and the salt, having seen the miracles and been deemed worthy of such great things, he acted more grievously than any, not stoning indeed, nor insulting Him, but betraying and giving Him up, observe in how friendly sort He receiveth this man, washing his feet; for even in this way He desired to restrain him from that wickedness.

Yet it was in His power, had He willed it, to have withered him like the fig-tree, to have cut him in two as He rent the rocks, to have cleft him asunder like the veil; but He would not lead him away from his design by compulsion, but by choice. Wherefore He washed his feet; and not even by this was that wretched and miserable man shamed."

St. Josemaria Escriva:

"'I have given you an example', he tells his disciples after washing their feet, on the night of the Last Supper. Let us reject from our hearts any pride, any ambition, any desire to dominate; and peace and joy will reign around us and within us, as a consequence of our personal sacrifice."

Although, I suppose this might give more proof of the tendency of the Catholic Church to read more into the text than is there. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. Good, now they're nice and clean, and ready for supper . . .








Stumble It!

Succession and Tradition

One of the reasons I haven't really tackled Richard Bennett, is that I have been having a discussion about some points of Catholic doctrine on another blog. This blogger generally prefers not to be identified on this blog, but I wanted to share some of the things which I have written.

This person feels that there is no Biblical basis for apostolic succession. The apostles were commissioned by God to preach the Word and write Scripture, but that passed away with them.

The best scripture for apostolic succession is Acts 1:15-26, where Peter (*ahem*) tells the other apostles that they should ordain another apostle, and they then proceed to ordain Matthais.

Further, why are Luke and Mark's writings in the Bible? They were not commissioned by Jesus, either before his death, or after, in the way that Paul was. By this logic, they should not have authority, because authority passed away with the apostles and they were not apostles.

She countered that Luke and Mark were apostles, and were commissioned by the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this, is that this is not stated anywhere in the Bible. While Paul claims in his writings that he was commissioned by Jesus, neither Luke nor Mark make such a claim. Actually, the author of the Gospel of Luke says that he is compiling a narrative which he got from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. He is claiming no inspiration or revelation.

Why did I say "the author of the Gospel of Luke"? Because neither Luke nor Mark actually claim any authorship. No authorship is given at all in these texts. You have to rely on Tradition to put a name with the text.

We also covered Tradition in a different context, when she pointed to the Arians as proof that Sola Scriptura existed before the Reformation. Just to be clear, I don't think that she was claiming that the Arians were correct in doctrine, just that the idea of Sola Scriptura existed before Martin Luther, and that there were scriptures available at that early time.

I replied:

I think that most of the early heresies were rooted in a denial of Tradition, because it is so easy to make Scripture say anything your want it to. Most heresies either deny Tradition, or have a prophet leader who correctly interprets Scripture, or selectively edits the Bible canon, as Luther was tempted to do.

What I have said previously, is that there was no one continuous non-Catholic group of Christians, which had a unified set of beliefs.

Yes, the Arians were Sola Scriptura. That's because Tradition refuted their beliefs. I was all set to write out the beliefs of Arians, and how they relate to sola scriptura, but then I remembered that Mark Shea had that handled in his book By What Authority, so I borrowed this from him:

Arians were principally concerned to preserve the Oneness of God from pagan polytheism. They argued from Scripture. They were well-trained theologians who could read Scripture in the original tongues. The only problem was that they had the idea that Jesus was not truly God but only a sort of superior created being.

In defense of this idea, the Arians rejected tradition and pointed to texts like "the Father is greater than I" (Jn. 14:28) and "Why do you call me good?... No one is good-except God alone" (Mk. 10:18). They could come up with plausible explanations for terms and expressions which we Evangelicals think could only point to Christ's divinity. For example, Arians said the statement, "I and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30) refers to oneness of purpose, not oneness of being. They pointed out that Scripture refers to supernatural created beings as "sons of God" (Job 38:7 NAB) without intending they are one in being with the Father. They observed that even mere humans were called "gods" (Ps. 8:2-6; Jn. 10:34-36), without the implication that they are God. Therefore they inferred that the Son, supernatural though he may be (as angels, principalities, and powers are supernatural), is neither co-eternal with the Father nor one in being with him.

How would you argue against Arianism using Scripture alone? We'd say that John speaks of the "only begotten" and says of him that he "was God" and was "with God in the beginning" (Jn. 1:1-2, 18; 3:16). We would reply that, although the "Trinity" is not in Scripture, nonetheless the concept of Trinity is there.

But a good Arian would be quick to point out that God plainly says, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" (Heb. 1:5), which implies that there was a time before the Son was begotten. In other words, the Arian can argue that there was a time when the Son was not. But there was never a time when the Father was not. He is without beginning. Therefore, according to the Arian, the Son does not share God's eternal, beginningless essence. This amounts to a denial of the deity of Christ. Great and supernatural as he may be compared to the rest of creation (and Paul implies he is a creature when he calls him the first-loom over all creation [Col. 1:15], doesn't he?), nonetheless he is only a creature, says the Arian.

The Arian heresy arose in the early 4th century, so, yes, they would have a pretty complete New Testament Bible canon by that time.

We also have early affirmation in belief in Tradition:

Irenaeus wrote around 120 AD (keeping in mind, this is hardly after the NT was written):
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).

Tertullian wrote around 180 AD:

"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).

"[The Apostles] next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery"

Your main question is, doesn't Scripture have everything we need to attain salvation? We had the commissioned Apostles spreading the word orally, they wrote it down, died, and then we had the New Testament.

My question is, what about those people who lived in that gray time before the NT canon was complete in all areas of the known world?

At the time that Irenaeus wrote, you could hear all four Gospels and two letters from Paul read in church. Plus the Martyrdom of Polycarp and Letters of Clement, while the letters of Peter and John were not considered canonical, nor was Hebrews or Revelation.

When Tertullian wrote (he was actually one of the first to use the phrase "New Testament"), you could hear the Gospels, Acts, most of the letters of Paul, one letter from Peter, one from John, Revelation and Jude, PLUS letters from Barnabas and Clement, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter (since John's was so popular?), and the Acts of Paul.

Hebrews and James were not even quoted in the Western church until after 350, while the letters of Pope Clement continued to be included in the Bible through the fifth century! Sure, we could probably live without Philemon, but how would ever get by without James or Hebrews?

Would a Christian in one of those churches have everything they need to attain salvation in one of those churches, hearing the Gospel of Mark, the Shepherd of Hermas, and not Hebrews?"

Stumble It!

Emergent Church and more

In regards to Candy's post on the Emergent Church

I let Kelly do the heavy lifting on this one and as usual she did a great job and reminded us that she has had this Richard Bennett on her radar for quite a while too!

Joy over at Coffee with Candy did a great contrast and comparison between Candy's theology and the emergent church theology. Go read it, but don't have anything in your hands. You'll need both of them for applause!










Stumble It!

Yes, I know

Yes, I know about that link to Richard Bennett's site, which Candy hid in her otherwise innocent post on the "emergent church cult."

The problem is, Richard Bennett is always really, really, wrong. And it takes time to write out a lengthly rebuttal of all that wrongness.

I mean, right on the first page of this three part article, he says "What McLaren never tells is that the authority of the Roman Papacy was not well established until near the end of the eleventh century, when by crusades and the Inquisition, the Papacy by coercion forced people to submit to her ecclesiastical dictates."

Pope Clement wrote in the 90's AD that The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."

Pope Damascus wrote in the late 300's "Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons."

There are lots more examples, but clearly, the papacy was well-established before the eleventh century.

So, just take my word for it, Richard Bennett is not a reliable source of information. You can read previous posts about him on this blog here and here.

You can also read the full text of the document which Bennett quotes from here.





Stumble It!

Aggie Catholics - aka "Mary's Aggies": A Holy Week Catholic Carnival - #164

Aggie Catholics - aka "Mary's Aggies": A Holy Week Catholic Carnival - #164








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








Stumble It!

Catholic Blog Awards |

I'm bumping this up to encourage everyone's painless participation in the voting process!

The Catholic Blog Awards are now accepting nominations! If any of our regular readers would care to do so, Visits To Candyland would be eligible for nomination as Best New Blog, Best Group Blog and/or Best Apologetics.

The awards site does require registration but it's very painless and once registered you can nominate as many blogs as you wish!











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








Stumble It!

"whatever the church teaches"

"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." CB




Today was the amazing first liturgy of Holy Week. The priest, deacon and members of the congregation entered the church while the choir and the instruments played Hosanna, Hosanna, Hosanna in the highest!

Then three very rich bible readings were read aloud, with the gospel reading actually being read in parts by the priest, narrator and the lecter with the congregation speaking a few lines as well. The full text of those readings can be found at the
USCCB - (NAB) - for March 16, 2008.

After these readings and Holy Communion the priest, deacon and the assembly left the church in solemn silence as a prelude to the holy events we will commemorate during this coming Holy Week.

This is what 'the church' taught 'them' this week.








Stumble It!

15 Ways to Observe Holy Week with Your Family

15 Ways to Observe Holy Week with Your Family








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








Stumble It!

Some Evangelicals discovering Lent, Confession and Penance.

Feeling Renewed By Ancient Traditions - washingtonpost.com  Annotated

tags: no_tag

Evangelicals observing Lent?

Fasting, and giving up chocolate and favorite pastimes like watching TV during the 40 days before Easter are practices many evangelical Protestants have long rejected as too Catholic and unbiblical.

But Lent -- a time of inner cleansing and reflection upon Jesus Christ's sufferings before his resurrection -- is one of many ancient church practices being embraced by an increasing number of evangelicals, sometimes with a modern twist. The National Community Church, which has three locations in the District and one in Arlington County, updated the Lenten fast by adding a Web component: a 40-day blog, where participants from as far away as Australia, Korea and Mexico discuss their spiritual cleansing.

This increasing connection with Christianity's classical traditions goes beyond Lent. Some evangelical churches offer confession and weekly communion. They distribute ashes on Ash Wednesday and light Advent calendars at Christmastime. Others have formed monastic communities, such as Casa Chirilagua in Alexandria, modeled on the monasteries that arose in Christianity's early years.

"Evangelicalism is coming to point where the early church has become the newest staple of its diet."

Experts say most who have taken on such practices have grown disillusioned with the contemporary, shopping-center feel of the megachurches embraced by baby boomers, with their casually dressed ministers and rock-band praise music.

Instead, evangelicals -- many of them young -- are adopting a trend that has come to be known as "worship renewal" or "ancient-future worship.

"It is the same style of meditation that is basically being performed by Eastern religion practitioners," said Deborah Dumbowski, who with her husband, Dave, started an Oregon publishing house, Web site and 25,000-name e-newsletter to oppose the incorporation of such elements into evangelical worship. "It's being presented as Christianity, and we're saying this isn't Christianity -- not according to what the Bible says. . . . We believe it really does deny the gospel message."

Defenders, however, refute that devotees of such practices are straying from bedrock evangelical beliefs.

Stations of the Cross

Stations of the cross is another popular Lenten devotion that I have seen some non-Catholics criticize. Here is some information about what the stations are, and how this practice developed. It should be said that participating in the stations of the cross is not a requirement for Catholics, but it is part of our catholic heritage and it is a very powerful and moving way to pray. My family participates a number of times through Lent.


Stations of the Cross: "The Stations of the Cross, also called The Way of the Cross, is a devotion to the passion of Christ consisting of prayers and meditations on fourteen occurrences that were experienced by Christ on His way to the crucifixion. During the time of the crusades (1095-1270), it became popular for pilgrims in the Holy Land to walk in the footsteps of Jesus to Calvary. After the Moslems recaptured the Holy Land pilgrimages were too dangerous. As a result, the Stations of the Cross became a popular substitute pilgrimage throughout Europe. The Stations represented critical events from Scripture or tradition of Jesus' journey to Calvary. Originally done only outdoors, the Stations were allowed inside churches in the mid-18th century. Eventually fixed at fourteen, the Stations soon became a familiar feature in all Catholic churches. The devotion may be conducted personally by the faithful, making their way from one station to another and saying the prayers, or by having an officiating celebrant move from cross to cross while the faithful make the responses. The stations themselves must consist of, at the very least, fourteen wooden crosses, pictures alone do not suffice, and they must be blessed by someone with the authority to erect stations."








Stumble It!

What is Lent?

I think a lot of the problems people have with the Catholic faith comes from misunderstandings and a lack of general information. I think one of the purposes this blog could have is to explain our Catholic faith, not always indefense, but as the catechism said, as a form of catechsis.

I found this article from Catholic Online - Lent: that explains lent and some of the lenten practices beautifully. Here are some excerpts:


"Why is Baptism so important in our Lenten understanding? Lent as a 40-day season developed in the fourth century from three merging sources. The first was the ancient paschal fast that began as a two-day observance before Easter but was gradually lengthened to 40 days. The second was the catechumenate as a process of preparation for Baptism, including an intense period of preparation for the Sacraments of Initiation to be celebrated at Easter. The third was the Order of Penitents, which was modeled on the catechumenate and sought a second conversion for those who had fallen back into serious sin after Baptism. As the catechumens (candidates for Baptism) entered their final period of preparation for Baptism, the penitents and the rest of the community accompanied them on their journey and prepared to renew their baptismal vows at Easter."

Lent is about conversion, turning our lives more completely over to Christ and his way of life. That always involves giving up sin in some form. The goal is not just to abstain from sin for the duration of Lent but to root sin out of our lives forever. Conversion means leaving behind an old way of living and acting in order to embrace new life in Christ. For catechumens, Lent is a period intended to bring their initial conversion to completion.

The three traditional pillars of Lenten observance are prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The key to renewed appropriation
of these practices is to see their link to baptismal renewal.

Prayer: More time given to prayer during Lent should draw us closer to the Lord. We might pray especially for the grace to live out our baptismal promises more fully. We might pray for the elect who will be baptized at Easter and support their conversion journey by our prayer. We might pray for all those who will celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation with us during Lent that they will be truly renewed in their baptismal commitment.

Fasting: Fasting is one of the most ancient practices linked to Lent. In fact, the paschal fast predates Lent as we know it. The early Church fasted intensely for two days before the celebration of the Easter Vigil. This fast was later extended and became a 40-day period of fasting leading up to Easter. Vatican II called us to renew the observance of the ancient paschal fast: "...let the paschal fast be kept sacred. Let it be celebrated everywhere on Good Friday and, where possible, prolonged throughout Holy Saturday, so that the joys of the Sunday of the Resurrection may be attained with uplifted and clear mind" (Liturgy, # 110).

Fasting is more than a means of developing self-control. It is often an aid to prayer, as the pangs of hunger remind us of our hunger for God. The first reading on the Friday after Ash Wednesday points out another important dimension
of fasting. The prophet Isaiah insists that fasting without changing our behavior is not pleasing to God. "This, rather, is the fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke; sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless; clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own" (Is 58:6-7).

Fasting should be linked to our concern for those who are forced to fast by their poverty, those who suffer from the
injustices of our economic and political structures, those who
are in need for any reason. Thus fasting, too, is linked to living out our baptismal promises. By our Baptism, we are charged
with the responsibility of showing Christ's love to the world, especially to those in need. Fasting can help us realize the suffering that so many people in our world experience every day, and it should lead us to greater efforts to alleviate that suffering.

Abstaining from meat traditionally also linked us to the poor, who could seldom afford meat for their meals. It can do the same today if we remember the purpose of abstinence and embrace it as a spiritual link to those whose diets are sparse and simple. That should be the goal we set for ourselves—a sparse and simple meal. Avoiding meat while eating lobster misses the whole point!

Almsgiving: It should be obvious at this point that almsgiving, the third traditional pillar, is linked to our baptismal commitment in the same way. It is a sign of our care for those in need and an expression of our gratitude for all that God has given to us. Works of charity and the promotion of justice are integral elements of the Christian way of life we began when we were baptized.

Stumble It!

Proclaim the Gospel to ALL people

One of the themes that came out with my discussions with Candy was the mandate to spread the Gospel to all people. I thought I'd share what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about that:

THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5

3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6

II. HANDING ON THE FAITH: CATECHESIS

4 Quite early on, the name catechesis was given to the totality of the Church's efforts to make disciples, to help men believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that believing they might have life in his name, and to educate and instruct them in this life, thus building up the body of Christ.7

5 "Catechesis is an education in the faith of children, young people and adults which includes especially the teaching of Christian doctrine imparted, generally speaking, in an organic and systematic way, with a view to initiating the hearers into the fullness of Christian life."8

6 While not being formally identified with them, catechesis is built on a certain number of elements of the Church's pastoral mission which have a catechetical aspect, that prepare for catechesis, or spring from it. They are: the initial proclamation of the Gospel or missionary preaching to arouse faith; examination of the reasons for belief; experience of Christian living; celebration of the sacraments; integration into the ecclesial community; and apostolic and missionary witness.9

7 "Catechesis is intimately bound up with the whole of the Church's life. Not only her geographical extension and numerical increase, but even more her inner growth and correspondence with God's plan depend essentially on catechesis."10


875 "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?"390 No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: "Faith comes from what is heard."391 No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty ("the sacred power") to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a "sacrament" by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.
390 Rom 10:14:15.
391 Rom 10:17.

1086 "Accordingly, just as Christ was sent by the Father so also he sent the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit. This he did so that they might preach the Gospel to every creature and proclaim that the Son of God by his death and resurrection had freed us from the power of Satan and from death and brought us into the Kingdom of his Father. But he also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves."9

1087 Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying:10 they became sacramental signs of Christ. By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This "apostolic succession" structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders.








Stumble It!

Some thawing in the cold war - and some blog tweaks.

Some of you might notice some subtle changes on this blog and on Candy's blog. Those came about because we actually started TALKING TO EACH OTHER via e-mail! And to her credit, Candy e-mailed me first to apologize about an incident on her blog last week.

I wrote her back to thank her and to accept her apology, and then we corresponded some more. While I can't say that we are the best of friends, or that there aren't some major issues between us, we did make some small compromises. I think you will find that you have full access to her blog and to her comment section. She also removed the link to Sister Charlotte and is also pulling things from her archives. We have removed her last name from our header and from all of the posts in 2008 so far and we will take efforts NOT to use it in the future. I also removed the boycott on the childbirth ebook.

We could not reach agreement on removing the last anti-Catholic link on her front page or changing it's inflammatory title. But hey, the cold war lasted 40 years, so I don't think we can expect to embrace each other fully in just a few days!

In the meantime I think this blog will continue as always, defending and explaining the Catholic faith as it relates to our life and times, with a special emphasis on issues as they come up on the Keeping the Home Blog. As the Vatican vs. God link remains up I'm going to keep links to our rebuttal in the side bar.









Stumble It!

Being against anti-Catholicism is not the same as being anti-Protestant

I've had some discussions via e-mail recently about this blog and my other blog that I'll share in bits and pieces later. One thing I did want to address today, is that Visits to Candyland is not an ANTI-PROTESTANT blog. We are an apologetics blog, an informational blog, and a defender of the faith blog, but I think we can do that without being ANTI Protestant.

So in that spirit I'd like to list 5 things that I think American Protestant Christians have right. Feel free to add to the list.

1. A deep love of scripture and knowledge of the bible. Most of the Christians that I know have many verses committed to memory and can find their way around the old and new testaments without breaking a sweat! We Catholics are getting there, but we have much to learn from our separated brethren when it comes to bible study.

2. Fellowship. One of the reasons my sister originally left the church was that she was made to feel so welcome at her local Protestant church. Folks came up and introduced themselves and included her into their church community right away. I think this is something that some local parishes do well, but a lot of us could improve in this area as well.

3. Singing. My Church of the Brethren relatives can sing any book in the hymnal from memory in four part harmony. It's awesome!

4. Spontaneous prayer. Being able to come up with a beautiful prayer on the spot that is appropriate and moving is a true talent.

5. Keeping Sunday special. Especially in the black community, folks REALLY dress for church, they are at church most of the day and then back at night! And Sunday dinner is really something special!










Stumble It!

Elizabeth, The Golden Age

On a lighter note, I see that Candy is venturing into movie reviews:

As for movies... We rented Elizabeth - The Golden Age the other day. If you haven't see it, - watch it! It's not too far off from the true history. The movie wonderfully protrays how God protected England from the Jesuits and the Spanish Armada/Roman Catholic Inquisition - a true miracle occured - in God's protecting His true Christian people. The movie was beautiful. :-)

I think "not too far off from the true history" might be a bit far off from the truth. Catholic film critic Steven Greydanus gives a much better review of the movie.

If someone says something like “God has spoken to me,” it’s a sure bet that (a) the speaker is a Catholic, and (b) whatever God had to say spells trouble for non-Catholics. Ditto any reference to “true believers,” “God’s work,” “legions of Christ,” you name it. In this world, God-talk is troubling Catholic behavior; Protestants don’t talk to, or about, God. Their religion is little more than a slogan for conscience, religious freedom, and of course heroic resistance to Catholic oppression.

“I will not punish my people for their beliefs — only for their deeds,” says Elizabeth, conveniently forgetting that in the last movie she rammed the Act of Uniformity through Parliament, outlawing the Catholic Mass and imposing compulsory attendance at Anglican services. In this version of history, the hosts of Catholics martyred under Elizabeth are all traitors and conspirators. “Every Catholic in England is a potential assassin,” Elizabeth’s advisors helpfully remind her in an early scene. Well, then, every Catholic in England is a potential political prisoner too.

The American Inquisition has a very amusing "myth-busting" biography of Queen Elizabeth available.

I think the three Tudors I have covered in this mini-series can be classified in the following manner:

King Henry VIII: a Bad Man and a Bad King.
Queen Mary I: a Good Woman and a Bad Queen.
Queen Elizabeth I: a Bad Woman and a Good Queen.

When people ask me why I have such admiration for a woman who executed Catholics, my response is generally that, while she was bad for the Church, she was, from an "objective" standpoint, a good ruler. It is undeniable that the country she inherited was shaky, bankrupt and in very bad shape, but the country she left behind was wealthy, powerful and unified.

The "myth-busting" of Elizabeth lies not so much in debunking myths about the things that she did, but in bringing to light the oft-neglected parts of her reign that are, shall we say, somewhat less than politically correct.

Stumble It!

Happy Birthday Tracy!

Hey, yesterday was Tracy's birthday!! Pop on over to Tracy’s Simple Life Blog and wish her a happy belated birthday and all the best! Thanks for being our friend Tracy!











Stumble It!

An Old-fashioned Church

I was amused to run across this article by Ingrid Schlueter posted on a protestant blog. It is full of nostalgia for an "Old-fashioned Church" and has a laundry list of items which would be found in true Scripture based worship. I was amused to see how the Catholic Church stacked up.

Catholic Mass:

Entire worship service founded on God's Word? Check.

Joining angels, archangels, and the church triumphant in heavenly worship? Check.

Entrance Psalm? Check.

Invoking God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the beginning, middle
and end? Check.

Corporate confession of sins? Check.

Corporate confession of faith? Check.

Singing of God's glory (the Gloria) and Holy, Holy, Holy? Check.

Reading of Scripture? Check.

More than three? Well, no.

Pastor with a deep prayer life? Check.

Elders with model marriages and children? Well, check with the
deacons, Eastern Rite priests, and Anglican option priests . . .

Time of serious prayer while kneeling? Check.

Benediction at the end of worship?
Check.

Evangelism and outreach? You bet!

Welcome to the Catholic Church, where old-fashioned began . . .




Stumble It!

The State of Candyland

A couple of weeks ago, I made the mistake of making a comment on Candy's blog and she was able to use my IP to block my ability to even read her blog. I overcame that problem today with this. It's a little pricey, but I used the free trial first to see if I liked it and then waited until I had some extra money. With Hide-My-IP I can read Candy's blog and I can also leave comments (though I doubt you'll ever see them published.)

If I do leave comments, I will print them here. This evening, in response to her posting about disgruntled Protestant ladies and Candy's stand on head coverings I wrote: "This is why Christ left us the magesterium and a Pope!" Yea, I doubt it will be posted but I wanted her to know I took the time to read her work.

BTW, Candy's blog is no longer publishing an RSS feed. This is actually good news. It means that she cannot be read in Bloglines or the Google Reader. If we can't get Candy to refrain from her errors or allow us to speak on her blog to correct them, then having her blog accessible only to those who are able to click through is a good thing.

I don't know if blogs like Visits to Candyland and Coffee with Candy had anything to do with it. Maybe when she found that we were up for an award she was afraid of all the Catholics who might be coming through her site. My theory is that once she discovered that blocked/banned folks could still read her RSS feed, she took the feed down. Whatever the reason, it's all good!








Stumble It!

Vote for Visits to Candyland

the Catholic Blog Awards are now closed to nominations and open to votes. Visits to Candyland was nominated in three categories: Best New Blog, Best Apologetics and Best Group Blot! Thanks for the recognition. Please check wonder over and vote for us and be sure to check out out all of the other wonderful Catholic blogs that are in the running this year!









Stumble It!

Head covering and Catholic women

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels....If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." (1 Corinthians 11:3-10,16)
In obedience to Sacred Scripture, many Catholic women wear some kind of veil or headcovering. Some wear a headcovering only at Mass. Others feel called to wear a headcovering at other times during the day, as well as at Mass. Many non-Catholic Christian women also wear a headcovering. These women are following the call of the Holy Spirit.
Society discourages women from wearing a headcovering and from doing anything else which shows submissiveness and obedience. Yet these women have found the light of truth in the midst of dark times. The moral law requires all women to wear the veil on their hearts. A woman should not wear the veil on her head, until she is wearing it first on her heart. A woman who wears the veil on her heart accepts the place that God gives to women in the Church, the family, and society. Women who wear the veil on their hearts are imitating the Virgin Mary in her humility, submissiveness, and obedience to Christ. The veil should cover her head, but not her face. It is first and foremost symbolic of humility, submissiveness and obedience. When Saint Veronica saw Jesus carrying His cross, she took off her veil and gave it to Him to wipe His face. He handed the veil back to her, and it had an image of His face on it. In this way, Christ gave a special blessing to the practice of wearing a veil. Even Veronica's name comes from this event. She is called vera icon because she had a true icon of Christ, her veil with His face on it. Nearly every Catholic Church has the stations of the Cross with this event at one of the stations. The Virgin Mary wore a veil or headcovering because she understood this symbol of the different roles given to men and women. Those women who wear the veil are imitating the Virgin Mary in her humility and submissiveness. Nearly every Catholic Church has a stature or image of Mary wearing a veil.

**While it is absolutely clear to me that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don't, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.






Stumble It!