Kelly Update

A few people have asked about my pregnancy, so I wanted to give an update. I am almost 22 weeks along now. I usually start getting infections around 20 weeks, and I'm finishing up medication for the first one. I expect to get an infection every 4-6 weeks through the end of pregnancy.

I found a great midwife, and a local doctor who is happy to treat my infections, supportive of my decision to birth at home. Our local hospital recently stopped allowing VBACs (vaginal birth after c-section), and this doctor had argued against that decision. My first child was by c-section, but the next two were vaginal births, so for me to schedule unnecessary surgery would subject me to higher risks than planning a vaginal birth.

Other than that, things are going well, and I expect the newest member of our family in late December or early January.


While I'm talking about my personal life, I thought I'd add a little bit more. Some of our longtime readers might remember that I moved to a different state last year, and my book collection was in storage for quite some time.

I love older homes, but the area where we moved did not have many for sale. People tend to live here for generations (I'm seventh generation, myself) and most of the older homes stay in families. When my husband and I were looking at houses, there was one I absolutely loved. It was a Queen Anne with a little round tower room containing floor to ceiling bookcases on two walls, and a window seat on the third. My husband pointed out that the house had structural problems, and we really couldn't buy it. He promised that if we bought a new house, he would build me a set of bookcases with a window seat. In the end, he hired my cousin to build them, but here is the end result (click through to see full image):





I'm so happy! I feel like I'm finally settled in, now that I have my books back.

Catholics are Duped

The first reading from Mass today was this:

You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped;
you were too strong for me, and you triumphed.
All the day I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.

Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage is my message;
the word of the LORD has brought me
derision and reproach all the day.

I say to myself, I will not mention him,
I will speak in his name no more.
But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it.
--Jer. 20:7-9

Sound familiar to anyone? Let's review one of Candy's previous efforts (April 2007) to save Catholics:

Truth Teller was walking down the street, and somehow gets into a conversation with a seemingly nice person. The topic of eternal salvation comes up. This seemingly nice person claims to be a fellow believer, yet he starts describing rituals and traditions that are not in the Bible, but are the opposite of what the Bible says in many places.

Truth Teller tries to alert this duped person to the fact that mere man is duping him, and shows him from the Bible what the truth is. Mr. Duped takes offence.
"How dare you be so hateful of me? You hater! You are putting down my religion, you horrible person you!"
Who's the real hater here? Truth Teller, who is trying to help Mr. Duped? No. Truth Teller is warning Mr. Duped, out of LOVE. But apparently Mr. Duped hates it. :-(

If you're a Roman Catholic, you may very well be duped. I'm going to warn you about it, and you can call me all the names you wish, but I'm going to shout out the truth anyhow.


Yes, we may be duped, but we are duped by the Lord. Although the Word of the Lord may bring us derision and reproach from Candy, though she may mock us by calling us duped, it is a fire burning in our hearts, and we will hold fast.

Harvey Springer and Catholicism

While Candy told us she read through the first seven chapter's in Chiniquy's book because she just couldn't put it down, it seems to have taken her a while to finish it. However, it is now marked off, and she has moved on to her next selection, an 18 page booket titled Why I Am Not A Catholic.

The author of this booklet is Harvey Springer, known as the "cowboy evangelist" from Colorado. You can see a picture of him here. He was a Baptist minister who helped to form the American Council of Christian Churches in 1941. He died in 1966.

When Kennedy was running for president, Springer said "I would oppose any Roman Catholic for President--the name doesn't make a difference. Let the Romanists move out of America . . . Did you see the coronation of Big John (Pope John XXIII)? Let's hope we never see the coronation of Little John. How many Catholics came over on the Mayflower? Not one . . . the Constitition is a Protestant Constitution."

As an alternative, I would suggest Why I Am a Catholic, by G. K. Chesterton.

More Candy Claims

Candy's latest post, Beauty and Glory, again shows her ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. She does refrain from mentioning the Catholic Church by name. Perhaps these things refer to a different church, with which I am unfamiliar.

You don't need to make confessions to priests, for the Bible says to make our confessions to God in 1 John 1:9.

1 John 1:9 says "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." It does not specifically say that we need to confess our sins to God. However, Catholics are confessing their sins to God, and it is God who forgives them. Please see our previous entry on confession here.

Celibacy is nowhere commanded in the Bible, but marriage is. The heretical teaching against marriage is what the Bible calls "doctrine of devils." See 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

1 Tim 4:3 says "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Luckily, the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. Anyone is free to choose to marry, or to remain single, and they feel called. Our priests are chosen from among those who are called to remain unmarried (celibate means unmarried).

Celibacy is not commanded in the Bible, but it is something which may be chosen:

Matt 19:12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matt 19:29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

You can read our defense of clerical celibacy here.

We don't have to religiously abstain from meats on certain occasions, as the Bible also calls that "doctrine of devils" in the same reference I gave above.

The Catholic Church requires its members to abstain from eating meat a few days a year. This is not forbidding the eating of meat at all times, as the Seventh-Day Adventists do. It is merely a form of fasting, which is spoken highly of in the Bible.

We don't have to go through Mary, or "saints," or anyone else as our mediatrix or mediator between us and God, for Jesus is our mediator, and the ONLY one, as the Bible shows us in 1 Timothy 2:5.

This is something that many people are confused about. Read through my Something About Mary post to clear up the confusion.

Infant Baptism Redux

If you were baptized as an infant, please understand that that did not save you. You have to be of an old enough age to understand that Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. If you didn't understand and believe on this before you were baptized, then your baptism was in truth, nothing more than your getting wet.

I have to second Elena on my appreciation for how repetitive Candy can be. We're three weeks into the homeschooling year at my house, and planning a big painting project this weekend. I'm glad to be able to say that we wrote about infant baptism previously here.

Still waiting for the promised article on where the Bible discusses the age of accountability. I see we have a few born again readers, if you can help me out on this, please leave a comment. I'm very curious about it.

www.keepingthehome.com

If you think we were saved via baptism, then you'd have to also believe that Jesus lied to the thief on the cross, but we know that Jesus is the TRUTH (John 14:6):

Here allusion can well be made to the case so often cited, that of the good thief to whom Christ said on Calvary, "This day you shall be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Since that thief had done no good works, how can we explain his salvation, if faith alone is not sufficient? To say that the good thief did no good works is to take far too narrow a view of what good works mean. We must not think only of being good to the poor or of other forms of humanitarianism. After all, the good thief publicly proclaimed the innocence of Christ and equally, with deep humility, acknowledged his own guilt. These were already good works.

In any case, that the good thief did not have time to do further good works after his conversion could not affect the principle that good works are necessary, good works which the good thief would certainly have the will to do, had he had the opportunity. Paul wrote to the Galatians, "In doing good let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore while we have time let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith" (Gal. 6:9-10).

It rests with God how much time each of us will have. But while we have it God expects us to do good, and our salvation depends upon our doing it. If we do it, Paul tells us that we shall reap our reward. And our Lord himself tells us, as we have seen, that our not doing it can result in the loss of our souls.

But even were we to grant that an exception was made in the case of the good thief, the exception proves the rule, and we cannot argue from the special dispensation in his case to what is normally required. But did not Paul expressly tell the Galatians that we are "justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?" (Gal. 2:16). He did. But with what was he concerned?

Paul was refuting the Judaizing Christians, those early converts to the Church who claimed that, in addition to their acceptance of the teachings of Christ and the fulfillment of his law, those baptized were obliged still to observe the prescriptions of the Jewish or Mosaic Law. Denouncing that, Paul insisted that Christ had abolished the Mosaic Law, fulfilling yet transcending it and making possible by his death on the cross and the power of grace a righteousness which observance of the Mosaic Law of itself could give man no power to attain. But he did not by that intend that Christians, emancipated from observance of Jewish obligations, are to be saved merely by faith in Christ without observing the law of Christ himself in our daily conduct. Paul teaches, of course, that even for Christians good works, while necessary, cannot of themselves be the cause of salvation. They need a value derived from Christ. Divine grace is indeed a communication of the very righteousness of Christ to our souls, giving a new value to all the good works we strive to do. It is this grace which enables us to fulfill the law, not according to the letter, but in the spirit. Thus Paul writes that "the justification of the law may be fulfilled in us who walk, not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit" (Rom. 8:4).

James, well aware of the mind of Paul, wrote most strongly on this subject. "Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" (Jas. 1:22). Again: "What shall it profit if a man if he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? . . . You believe that there is one God. You do well. But the devils also believe and tremble. But will you know, vain man, that faith without works is dead. . . . By works a man is justified and not by faith only. Even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:14, 19, 20, 26).

Rightly, then, the Catholic Church insists and has always insisted that both faith and good works are required for righteousness in the Christian sense of the word and for salvation. Right beliefs and right conduct are necessary.

From Catholic Answers

also from Catholic Answers

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).

The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).

Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

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

Ah, the Internet: Glory Land for Dispensers of Advice « adventures in mercy

Ah, the Internet: Glory Land for Dispensers of Advice « adventures in mercy: "But on the internet, you don’t see any of that. Nope, just typed words and carefully selected pictures, if and. It’s Advice-Giver’s Heaven for anyone with the gift of gab and the ability to type it out coherantly. The cooler his grammar (said that way just to bug you grammar geeks!), the headier his vocabulary, the more frequent his Bible verse referencing, the better his advice must be, no?

We’ve got a massive panel here of self-proclaimed “experts” preying on our ever-endemic-to-humanity levels of fear (baa). Most of the experts are well-intentioned people (endowed with, ahem, personal giftings in the area of advice-giving and leadership), but well-intentioned doesn’t mean right, and they are telling you and I what to do, how to live, what to think, and, usually, why everyone who disagrees with them is evil."

Well Said!







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

What Happened To A Simple Faith?

Candy still seems very enamored with this whole Meez thing. She started out just with chatting and praise parties, then went to church, and now she is doing Bible studies. Now, I've attended many non-Catholic Bible studies. People sit around in a circle and read from Scripture and discuss what it means. Right?

I was surprised to see that both of the topics she has covered really don't have much to do with the contents of Scripture. While I didn't watch either movie, I gather one covered the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon, and the other was why only the King James Version of the Bible is valid. How are these Bible studies? I guess you could say the Whore of Babylon is Biblical, but I know there is no discussion of valid translations in the Bible. If you are trying to reach new Christians, shouldn't you be reading in John or Romans?

Does anyone remember when Candy had an article called The Beautiful Simplicity of the Faith? Candy keeps saying that Christianity is easy, all you have to do is believe, and this free gift is yours for all eternity. I understand that is what she believes, but when I read her blog, I really don't see that in her actions. If all you need to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then all Christians should be saved. But in recent articles or studies, we have learned that:

Catholics must come out of the Catholic Church for salvation. Her husband says that it is almost impossible for Catholics to be saved.

Read only the King James Version of the Bible. According to comments, the movie actually says that Christians who don't read the KJV don't have joy. KJV only readers are a minority of Christians.

Be 100% sure that you are saved. Or you aren't. This clearly rules out most Christian denominations who do not share this theology.

Which is, I guess, why she has also blogged that she feels most Christians aren't true Christians. She refers to "the narrow gate" and "people who say Lord, Lord" as Scriptural support for her position.

But if it's that simple, shouldn't all Christians be saved, instead of most of them thinking that they are, but really are not?

Candy is entitled to her beliefs, and I try to respect them (at least, the non-Catholic parts). But this just doesn't make sense to me.

A Woman Rides the Beast - again

One of the things that is starting to make this blog so easy to maintain is that Candy has a very limited anti-Catholic repertoire and we have just about rebutted all of it. The Woman Rides the Beast video today is no different. We have a lot of research on that and you can easily find it at the following link!

Visits to Candyland: Search results for rides the beast







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

When Tradition Helps

I once had a strange conversation with a born again Christian at my college. We were discussing abortion, and he was telling me that the way to end abortion was to encourage the use of the "morning after pill." He went on to explain that the Bible was silent on when life began (what about "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" Jer 1:5?), and since science has determined that conception begins at implantation, that more Christians should support this form of birth control in order to reduce abortions.

While Catholic Tradition is often portrayed as being a sort of separate, and higher authority than the Bible, it is actually used in order to interpret the Bible. What do we do when the Bible does not explicitly state "abortion is wrong" or "life begins at conception, which is at fertilization and not implantation"? For the Catholic Christian, turning to Tradition can be a powerful tool in showing the Church's unchanging stance on this issue. Despite what some prominent politicians might say.

The not-quite-Catholic blogger at Catholidoxy has compiled a long list of affirmations on the Church's stance on abortion from our Fathers in the Church.

It's important to note that the Jewish and Christian attitudes toward pregnancy, contraception (it existed in the ancient world), abortion, infanticide, marriage, family and sex conflicted with Greco-Roman perspectives. Abortion and infanticide were common (remember the Spartan baby inspector in the movie 300 debating whether or not to throw the baby Leonidas down the cliff with the other discarded babies?). It is a great triumph of Christianity that we stamped these practices out of western society.

Until politicians like Nancy Pelosi came along, that is, mistaught by miscreant mediocre theologians who wanted to overthrow the tradition of the Church (Fr. Drinan comes to mind). On this issue and so many others, the West is slipping back into the brutality of paganism.

Ask Sister — A Nun's Life

I know Sister Charlotte and Mary Anne Collins want to speak for all Catholic nuns, but here's a real nun taking REAL questions about her life and the church. Ask Sister — A Nun's Life







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

Just a reminder

There are a lot of alternative homemaking and homeschooling sites on the web and I try to highlight some of the more beautiful and interesting ones I find in our Google Reader in the side bar.  There are some really good ones in there now.

One down, but two spring up.

The Candy Is A Liar and False Prophet Blog is closing up shop today. But interestingly This new blog moderated by The Greek Chorus and Heathen Fan is up and running, and of course the aforementioned Come Out of Her.

The World Is Watching

I'm a big fan of Jen over at Conversion Diary (former Et Tu?), and she has an article at InsideCatholic.com that is a must read. It is appropriate on so many levels to what we do here.

Certainly we're called to be kind and charitable in every area of our lives; but when we make public statements as Catholics it's all the more important to prayerfully consider every word we say and to speak in a way that not only defends the truths of our belief system, but shows its fruits as well. This is especially important to remember when controversial issues arise on Catholic Web sites. Ironically, we are probably most tempted to react in anger or sarcasm when discussing issues within Catholic circles, since those topics often verge into the territory of the sacred. (Anyone have any strong opinions about breastfeeding during Mass, the proper use of NFP, or what constitutes appropriate liturgical music?) When these kinds of discussions break out and all the people actively participating seem to be Catholic, it's easy to slip into thinking of it as a closed-door meeting at the local parish, a family spat among Catholics. Yet with the Internet, nothing could be further from the truth.

Every single one of our online discussions takes place in an open-air forum with people from all backgrounds all across the world as witnesses. Even the smallest blogs and the most obscure comment threads are at least occasionally read by people who know nothing of Catholicism outside of the discussion. When these people read our words, for better or worse they think, "This is what followers of Christ are like."

Come Out of Her

Ats Clare mentioned in the comment section, a blogger called Anymommy has started a blog called Come Out of Her and has even posted her own experience. It is breathtaking and thought provoking. Stop by and give her your stories and encouragement.







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

The difference between Protestant and Catholic Christians

I thought this article gave a very good summation of the two paradigms. Be sure to read the whole article!

Here is an excerpt.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Inside Catholic) - My niece's husband is a trainee Baptist pastor. Jimbo's hip, friendly, and fun to be with.

He's smart and theologically savvy. I like him. He loves Jesus and believes the Bible, and on most moral and doctrinal issues I can affirm what he affirms. We agree on a lot.

But even when we agree, we don't see eye to eye.

Somehow we seem to have reached our religious conclusions from different starting points and through different routes. A chapter in Mark Massa's book Anti-Catholicism in America illuminated the problem for me.

Massa quotes an important theological work by David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, in which he argues that, underneath our religious language, customs, liturgies, rules, and rubrics, there exist more fundamental ways of seeing.

Catholic Symbols

Tracy says that Catholics have a basic concept of religion that is analogical. 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.

The Catholic imagination and the Catholic soul are nurtured in a multitude of different sacraments, sacramentals, signs, and symbols. As a result, all physical things are part of God's plan of salvation.

Life in all its fullness abounds with the mystery of God's life and love working through the world. This analogical way of seeing is dependent on, and comes from, the basic fact of God's revelation -- the Incarnation of His son, Jesus Christ.

Protestant Systems

In contrast, my nephew-in-law Jimbo, as a good Baptist, shares a radically different perspective on the whole shooting match. Jimbo, like every Protestant, has grown up within a basic religious paradigm that is more systematic. Tracy calls this "dialectical language."

He says 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.

The linear thought process is like any other dialectic process: "Thesis = we sin; antithesis = God says 'no' to our attempts to save ourselves; synthesis = God saves us when we confess the truth and justice of God's 'no' to our sin."

The Protestant dialectical process means that Protestants emphasize the individual's existential inner response to God rather than the idea that God is "with us" working to save us in and through the physical and historical world.

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.

Original posting is here.
Since we've already been there, done that, comments on this one are closed.

Oh, and we have a Google page rank of 3/10

which means we've gained some clout in the last year.  To put it in perspective, most blogs on blogspot that have been around for a while have a page rank of 4.  Candy's has a page rank of 4.    Catholic writer Mark Shea has a 5.  Blogs like the Daily Kos have an 8/10.  I don't expect us to get much higher than a 4 but it really is encouraging to see the rank go up.

As always you can help with bookmarking, linking, Digging, Facebooking and all the other social linking stuff that helps page rank.  Thanks for being such faithful readers!

Is it personal? How can it not be? Long rant to follow -

I received an e-mail a few weeks back from a reader who wanted to chastise me for my "tone" here on VTC.  This reader said that she could tell within a few sentences which posts were from me and which were from Kelly and that mine had a more personal feel to them.  That's probably true.  Kelly and I have discussed this as well.

The thing is, I am neither a professional apologist or a professional writer.  I started blogging because I feel things and have strong opinions and I needed to have a place to express them because honestly - there are only so many hours in the day to bounce things off of my very patient husband!

I started this blog because I felt a strong sense of injustice and the need to be able to set the record straight about the truth of what the Catholic church teaches. That's just me.  If I can try to right a wrong or provide clarification, I'd like to try to do that.

Contrary to what I think many people think from reading Candy's side of it (providing they can even find anything in her well-hidden archives) the first ad hominem attacks were aimed at me, not vice versa.  Some might remember the "Elena and her minions" post.  I would also point out that it was she that posted a picture of my house and street name - not the other way around.

And despite this, VTC has been held to a higher standard.  One that we have certainly tried to aspire to and  Kelly's informative and well-written posts have certainly helped. However, at times I have felt that this imposed standard has acted as a gag, to the point that I haven't written things that should have been said for the sake of taking the high road.

But the truth is VTC is not an apologetics machine.  I never intended this to be solely a place to be able to spew out apologetics whenever Candy inserts her dime into her anti-Catholic propoganda machine.  And that's how it has felt at times.

So with that in mind I want to share some thoughts.  We have been going at it here for well over a year.  Some of you might remember that last year at this time I was even thinking of closing the blog because it looked Candy was going to settle down to her housekeeping topics and leave the Catholics alone.   When that didn't happen, we came back full strength, adding bloggers and articles and trying to educate and inform to the best of our ability.  But about, I don't know, probably by New Years, I started wondering why this wasn't having any effect or at least opening a dialogue.  How is it that a reasonable, logical, conscienteous Christian not at least look at our counters to some of these articles and not amend their position a bit, or at least come back reasonable counters themselves.  That just never happened.

And then a couple of other encounters with Candy have clarified things for me.  When she posted her curriculum recently I sent a short two word comment "art?  music?."    That enquiry got me banned and sent to some wild place called Zorba.com whenever I clicked on Candy's site.  Thereafter she has been sure to include art and music in her curriculum.  But interestingly this wasn't a criticism.  I was simply asking.  And to question is what got me into trouble.  It seems that as far as Candyland goes, there are facts, they are final and they are not to be questioned or criticized, although Candy reserves the right to alter her views quietly - as if they always were her views!

Then yesterday I politely e-mailed her regarding the removal of my Charlotte Mason link:

Candy, it's fine with me if you don't want to post a comment or if you didn't find the link I provided helpful. I would appreciate it however if you did not alter my comments. If you don't want to use it just don't include it. Thanks in advance.

After going back and forth a couple of times because Candy "wasn't sure what I was talking about" she said some things that absolutely floored me. She said she removed the link because she doesn't trust me.  She allowed anonymous to post it and then knew it was legit -but later said that she thought I was anonymous.  It made no sense.  Posting the comment without the link made no sense. She ended with:

Elena, I was trying to be nice to you, but not deleting all of your comment. I no longer have ANY interested in trying to deal with you. I am now shaking the dush off of my feet, and will not cast my pearls before swine.

If you continue to email me this garbage, then I will put your email into my filtering system, so that it automatically gets trashed, and I won't have to see it anymore.

So long. I'm sticking with what I said in our previous email conversations. I'M NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME. I don't go to your sick site, and I have NO INTEREST in conversing with you.

Remember when I said I'm done? Well, I haven't changed my mind. I'm still DONE. Just leave me alone, and go live your life. I won't upset you by publishing any more of your comments.

And that's when it hit me, although I guess I've really known it for some time.  This isn't a conversation.  This isn't two Christians trying to find a middle ground, trying to understand each other, even rejoicing in the parts we do agree with as sisters in Christ.  This is providing information to folks who are looking for it.  VTC is the alternative news so to speak.  This is the place to get the other side.  And the irony of all of this to me at least is that politically speaking, as Americans, Candy and I see pretty much eye to eye.  She values her freedom to write whatever she chooses.   I too support and defend freedom - but I value truth first.

And because we do have a no-bashing policy and I realize this could easily turn into one, I'm turning off the comments.  (my e-mail still works though)  Thanks for letting me vent.

sigh...

The neat thing that I thought Candy might find interesting was this link to the Charlotte Mason Homeschool Planning Bash - I thought since she likes CM too - she might appreciate it. I didn't talk about her topic at all but I figured she lets everyone else post off topic so it must be okay.

I have no idea why she edited out the link.

For more info on the CM Bash or for some other cool homeschooling ideas, I have some links up on my other blog.

The Council of Trent on Scripture

Candy has posted the first chapter from Charles Chiniquy's book. In this chapter, a short, scary priest accuses his father of reading the Bible in French, allowing his child to read the Bible, and then tries to take the Bible to burn it. The priest says that it is prohibited by the Council of Trent.

I'm not whether the Council of Trent supposedly prohibited one or all of these charges, but none of it is found in the actual council. On the contrary, the Council Fathers wrote that the Catholic Church "receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament."

The fourth session of the Council is the one which deals with Scripture. It does speak against false translations, people writing notes (for Bibles) which falsely interpret Scripture, and other measures which are aimed against the various reformers which were trying to use the Bible to back up their position. It is not prohibiting pious Catholics from reading the Bible.

As often as Candy writes against corrupt translations of Scripture, I would think that she can understand the position of the Church on this, even if she falls into the opposite side in matters of interpretation. She feels that people can be led astray by false interpretations of Scripture, and here, the Catholic Church agrees.

Exposing the Lie about Lincoln's Alleged Anti-Catholic Words

Also of interest!

Exposing the Lie about Lincoln's Alleged Anti-Catholic Words:

The following was posted by Michael(non-catholic) [mdroe@erinet.com] in the thread Where is hell:

Abraham Lincoln stated, "As long as God gives me a heart to feel, a brain to think, or a hand to execute my will, I will devote it against that power which has attempted to use the machinery of the courts to destroy the rights and character of an American citizen. But there is a thing which is very certain; it is, that if the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the generality of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them away, tomorrow, from among us, or would shoot them as traitors.... The history of the last thousand years tells us that wherever the Church of Rome is not a dagger to pierce the bosom of a free nation, she is a stone to her neck, and a ball to her feet, to paralyze her and prevent her advance in the ways of civilization, science, intelligence, happiness, and liberty.... I do not pretend to be a prophet. But though not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon. And that dark cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled with tears of blood. It will rise and increase, till its flanks will be torn by a flash of lightening, followed by a fearful peal of thunder. Then a cyclone such as the world has never seen, will pass over this country, spreading ruin and desolation from north to south. After it is over, there will be long days of peace and prosperity; for popery, with its Jesuits and merciless Inquisition, will have been forever swept away from our country. Neither I nor you, but our children, will see those things." The beloved Lincoln made the statement just given at the conclusion of the trial of Mr. Chiniquy, author of the book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome.

The accusation that Lincoln ever said such deplorable words is a shameless lie, a despicable smirch of the character of that great man, and a reprehensible defamation of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church which Christ Jesus our Lord founded on the Rock of Simon the Fisherman.

Here is the truth about the words falsely attributed to Lincoln and about his very public attitude towards Catholics in the USA, from They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions, by Paul F. Boller Jr. & John George (Oxford University Press, 1989), pages 79-80, emphasis added:

"These words, entitled 'Lincoln's Warning,' have circulated among Catholic-haters in this country since the late 19th century, but there is nothing of Lincoln in them. They were written by Charles Chiniquy, a Canadian-born priest who settled in Kankakee County, Illinois, in 1851, as head of a Catholic colony, and then abandoned his faith, began spewing out hatred for his former religion, and invented anti-Catholic utterances for Lincoln as part of his anti-Catholic campaign.

"But Chiniquy did know Lincoln, though not very well. In 1856, Lincoln and Leonard Swett handled a case for Chiniquy in Springfield, Illinois, and years later, after Lincoln had become famous, the recusant priest falsely claimed he had been an intimate friend of Honest Abe and that the latter had secretly confided to him his fear and hatred of Catholicism. The false quote appeared in Chiniquy's Fifty Years in the Church of Rome (Chicago, 1886), a lengthy and bitter attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

"Lincoln of course had nothing of the bigot in him, and the kind of views Chiniquy attributed to him were entirely foreign to his thinking. In June 1844, Lincoln wrote a resolution condemning the intolerance of the Know Nothing movement: 'The guarantee of the right of conscience as found in the Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic, than to the Protestant.' And in a much-quoted letter to his friend Joshua Speed on August 24, 1855, he expressed his dismay over the bigoted views of the Know Nothings and warned that if they triumphed the Declaration of Independence would be corrupted into reading: 'All men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.'"

Anti-Catholicism bigotry - alive and well!

Fortunately, I am not going to "drop everything" to read one of Candy's ridiculous online book selections. I wasted much of my summer last year doing that with the Samuel Gipp book. Besides I have real books by great authors to read and lessons to play for my own children who I want to expose to REAL literature and GREAT books.

Nonetheless, I wanted to add information to Kelly's great post and I came across this on the Catholic Answer's site. Let's just say Charles Chiniquy was a nut case conspiracy extremist in his day - and that no matter how things change, they always remain remarkably the same!

Those Conniving Jesuits!

Someone sent us a copy of "The Secret Terrorists," a thin paperback written by Bill Hughes. He runs a ministry called Truth Triumphant. It is based in Tangerine, Florida.

In anti-Catholic literature the Jesuits long have been scapegoats--worse, they have been conspirators. In the nineteenth century, for example, people such as Charles Chiniquy claimed that Jesuits were responsible for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The claim was believed by many who had a predisposition against the Catholic faith. Usually that predisposition was coupled with a deeply held belief that historical events were largely the result of conspiracies.

This thinking may have had roots in the widespread popularity of Masonic movements, which, with their secret handshakes and code words, were conspiratorial in structure. Nativist Americans participated in secret societies, and it made sense to them that people elsewhere in the world would operate on a similar basis.

"The Secret Terrorists" easily tops Chiniquy. Like Chiniquy, Hughes believes that Jesuits were behind Lincoln's death. He also believes they were responsible for much else.

Most people think that Timothy McVeigh was the mastermind of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. Not really, says Hughes. "The Oklahoma City bombing was planned, carried out, and fully known by the Jesuits"--with the acquiescence, by the way, of "the government of the United States [and] the President." (Hughes notes that "Bill Clinton was a Jesuit.")

Remember the "Waco massacre"? Another Jesuit plot, as it turns out. "Everyone who goes along with the Jesuit plan for the world will be allowed to live, and those who do not will experience Waco!"

Needless to say, Lincoln was not the only president assassinated by the Jesuits. Count John F. Kennedy too. But these killings were minor compared to the carnage of World War II, which the Jesuits also instigated.

They even were responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel. This was done not out of any sympathy for Jews but to advance papal power: "With the Jews' return to Israel in Palestine the Jesuits hoped to cause such bloodshed in that part of the world that the world would cry out for a peacemaker to come to the region. And who would be that peacemaker? The pope of Vatican City, of course."

Okay, okay. Hughes, who belongs to some variant of the Seventh Day Adventists (he complains about the day of worship being moved from Saturday to Sunday), is a screwball. He sees an unhappy event and "knows" that the Jesuits were responsible for it. (They even sank the Titanic, he says.) What to do about him? Answer: Nothing.

Some people are immune to common sense. No amount of logic will change their minds. No catalogue of facts will alter their stance. The Archangel Gabriel could come down to straighten them out, and they'd tell him to mind his own business.

I have no idea how widespread Bill Hughes' outreach may be, but his is not the only organization that spreads such claptrap. I saw similar books at World Youth Day in Denver in 1993, and in the years since comparable nonsense has been distributed in mass mailings from several groups. Most of these have some connection with Adventism, but some do not.

Low-brow anti-Catholicism, which can be traced as far back as the English Reformation, has never disappeared. Most of it has matured into the anti-Catholicism you find on television and in popular magazines and even on the floor of the Senate. But there remain some of the earlier strains. That they still exist indicates that there still is a constituency for the old-style attacks on the Church.

Charles Chiniquy: Fifty Years In the Church of Rome

Candy had Hints on Child Training by H. Clay Trumbull scheduled between Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?, and this one, but it seems to have been deleted from her list. I guess that means it's time for my post on Chiniquy.

Charles Chiniquy was a Canadian priest. He was excommunicated, following charges of immoral conduct and missing funds. He says that these charges were made up by the Church, to cover his escape. In fact, in his "truthful" account, he says that he was defended by Abraham Lincoln himself. Lincoln, according to Chiniquy, was assassinated by the Vatican because of this. For the remainder of this life, Chiniquy made his living from his anti-Catholic writings, and speaking against the Catholic Church.

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome was first published in 1886 and is still in print today. I believe the current version is actually abridged. It is available to read online. It was a typical genre of the time, following the pattern of the Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk. Christian escapes from Catholic Church, and is persecuted. At a time when Catholics were viewed with suspicion, these sorts of writings were popular, believed, and fanned the flames of anti-Catholic sentiment which led to church burnings, and fatal riots.

For more information on Chiniquy, try these websites:

Chiniquy: Facts vs. Falsehood
Pastor Chiniquy the Seducer
An Examination of Fifty Years In the Church of Rome (1908)
From a site affiliated with Christianity Today, Charles Chiniquy on the Christian Timeline of History

Speaking of Keralan Christians . . .

New Dehli, Mar 6, 2008 / 06:02 pm (CNA).- India will have its first saint on October 12 when Pope Benedict XVI canonizes Blessed Alfonsa of the Immaculate Conception, who is believed to have interceded in the miraculous cure of a child.

“One of the child’s legs was left motionless after a bomb exploded nearby and Alfonsa cured him. The exam by doctors confirmed it,” said Father Antony of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. He said the local church is elated, noting that she would be the first saint of India.

The full story includes a video.

Once Saved, Always Saved?

I see that Mile Hi Mama has an excellent look at the Catholic view of salvation, contrasted with the doctrine of "Once saved, always saved" over at her blog. It's really too short to excerpt, but that just means it won't take long for you to read it!

Jesus with accessories

If you are trusting in Jesus and _______ (fill in the blank - church, mass, rituals, sacraments, good works, etc.) then you are NOT saved. Jesus paid it ALL. Put all of your trust in Him and in Him alone, and He will direct your paths.

Sometimes the things that girl writes are so silly I wonder if they are even worth responding to at all. As Kelly has pointed out several times, Candy tends to mix and match in her theology what saves a person or not. You have to believe, but then you have to believe the way Candy believes, or your toast. But one thing is pretty clear, Candy believes that if you are Catholic - you pretty much are going to fry.

So I thought I'd take these one by one from the Catholic perspective.

Jesus and the Church. Catholics believe Jesus founded the Church. He founded it because he knew as human beings without structure and without earthly authorities we tend to wander around and flounder (witness the thousands of denominations on the Protestant branch of the Christian tree to see what I mean). Catholics don't obey and trust the church for the church's sake! We follow the teachings of the church because they were given to the church by Jesus himself. We follow the church because that's what Jesus wanted us to do.

Jesus and Mass - a complete, full, spiritual, Traditional, scriptural, physical, historical way of worshiping God. Every part of the mass has deep roots in the scriptures and in Christian history. Candy doesn't accept this because she doesn't know any better.

Jesus and rituals - Jesus as a good Jew followed the religious rituals of the time. As a matter of fact, most rituals have many of the components that Candy told us were important for worship last week!!

Jesus and sacraments - As Catholics we believe that Jesus instituted all 7 sacraments as a means of sharing God's grace.

Jesus and good works - like feeding the hungry? Clothing the naked? etc? All commandments of Jesus Christ himself, who even said that there would be goat and sheep separating time for the folks that didn't believe Him on this one!

So as per usual Candy's theology is a mess, and her presentation is even worse.

august 15

There has been so much poignant beauty expressed in my circle lately. It seems to me I have not been reading words but listening to the breathing of mothers - the deliberately calm exhalations in a needful moment, the silent inward breath sanctified by love, the consciousness of air coming in, flowing out, perilous and painful as one contemplates what ultimately motherhood will bring.

Every time I look at a picture of Mary, I see the joy and sorrow that intermingle always in her heart. Even in the sweet little illustration above, she seems to be holding on to something ephemeral, light rather than a child, and the loving tenderness she gives him is made all the more vital because she knows she can but do what she can do for as long as she is given that child, that light, in her hands.

Did she know that her mothering would make Him strong enough that he could leave her, strong enough that he could walk willingly into death? I'm sure she did, as do we all. And so the sorrowful joy. And so the moments when it's all pared down to breathing, as we watch them, or work for them, or go hungry for them, or wait for them to phone.

And if you look at the illustration, don't you think they look so alone - as if it is but the two of them in the whole world? And yet can you not also sense God there too, watching, trusting Mary with all the trust He has? So much relies on Mary. The whole fate of the world relies on her. But she always seems so serene. I'm sure she understood the secret of motherhood - that so long as you listen to your breathing, and consult your love, you will always be able to do what you can do. It might not stop them from tossing around tables and getting themselves killed, but that's ultimately not up to you.


This day last year Mary got me into Church for the first time since I was a child.

From Knitting the Wind

The Feast of the Assumption of Mary

Today is the feast day of the Assumption of Mary. This is the doctrine that, at the end of her life, Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven. The Catholic Church has not defined whether or not she actually died, but it is traditional to believe that she was assumed after her death. She did not ascend to Heaven by her own power, as Jesus did, but was assumed in another way.

I've often thought this should be one of the easier Catholic Marian doctrines. I've often heard "But it isn't in the Bible!" There are lots of things not recorded in the Bible that still happened. For example, tradition says that St. Thomas carried the Gospel to India, and there is evidence that it happened. The knowledge of what happened to Mary after her death is not necessary for salvation.

Also, there is biblical precedent for humans being assumed into heaven. Ever hear of Enoch and Elijah?

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

We have written several times about the parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. If the Ark, which contained God, was hidden until the end of the time, then why should Mary's body, which also contained God, be left on Earth to decay?

2 Mac 2:5-7

When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it.

When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: "The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy.

You can read a short history of the celebration of this feast.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.

At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption. . .

Soon the name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

This website contains the text of early Christian documents relating to the death and assumption of Mary.

Scripture Catholic has quotations from the early Church regarding this doctrine.

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

"It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

You can view photos of Mary's tomb and the church built over it at this website.

Hidden Christians

Candy has mentioned the Vaudois as an example of a group of early Christians, which were persecuted by the Catholic Church, and tried to remain hidden. Although there is no evidence that they existed prior to the 1100s at the earliest, she feels that they date to the apostolic age.

In one of my classes at a state university, I learned of two groups of Christians which preserved their culture while cut off from other groups of Christians. Although they were considered hidden or secret, there is still historic evidence that they existed. My source of information on this is the lecture of my professor, but I found a few links that have similar information.

There are Christians in Kerala India who claim, and have evidence, that they were converted by St. Thomas the apostle in the 1st century. At least, they were already practicing Christianity when Vasco de Gama found them in 1502, much to his surprise. I was friends with a young woman from Kerala several years ago, and she told me that she and her husband both came from very old Catholic families, and told me the story of how St. Thomas brought the gospel to India.

Here is a Kerala tourism website which matter of factly states their long Christian history.

For the native Christians, European missionaries and other post-medieval colonizers were late comers. Christianity in KERALA dates back from A.D. 52 when Apostle THOMAS arrived in KERALA (MALABAR Coast). St. THOMAS was one of the twelve apostles or disciples of JESUS CHRIST .

He is the founder of the Christian Church in INDIA . He was assassinated in MADRAS , where St. Thomas Mount and San Thomas Cathedral are located. He was buried in MADRAS. Apostle Thomas established 7½ churches (seven and a half) in KERALA and converted many Brahmins to Christianity.

In Japan, Catholicism was introduced by the Jesuits in the 1500's. Eventually, all of the priests were expelled, and the converts were martyred. When Catholics returned in the 1800's, they found that many Catholics were still there, secretly practicing the faith that they had handed down from generation to generation. There is again, ample historic evidence that this is true.

You can see many excellent pictures of artifacts from this time period on this webpage of an Asian Studies group from St. Olaf who traveled to Japan. Please note, one of the subtitles for a picture says that a statue was used to worship Mary. Remember, this professor teaches about Asia, not Catholic theology!

The museum mentioned on that site used to have a site of its own with many pictures, but it is no longer available. However, you can find another reference to the secret Christians in this description of Oura Catholic Church.

Based on this, I feel that if there were a secret group of Christians which practiced for centuries, there would be physical evidence of their existence.

Living Catholicism: Catholic Carnival 185: One of the Best

Living Catholicism: Catholic Carnival 185: One of the Best

The Elusive Vaudois

I see that Candy has given more information on the Vaudois:

The Vaudois lived in the Piedmont Valleys in the Alps of the northwest corner of Italy. Some of them got saved in around 120AD, and then went to Antioch, Syria, to make a copy of the Bible into Latin. By 157AD they had a full translation of the whole Bible, and were copying and spreading it all over the known world.

The Vaudois continued being missionaries, getting the Bible out to the common man, up through the dark ages. It was during this time that they hid the Bibles in the lining of their cloaks.

During this time, born again Christians were either killed by the RC church, or in hiding. Meahwhile, the Vaudois continued to secretly get Bibles out there, and spread the Gospel. They started in 120AD when some of the got saved, and continued on for YEARS, up to and through the Dark Ages.
Candy

She seems to have conceded the jacket/cloak issue.

First, Vaudois is the French form of Waldenses, the followers of Peter Waldo (Vaudo). If they existed in the apostolic age, I would guess that they had a different name, because Peter Waldo dates to the 1100s.

There is no historic evidence that this group of people existed prior to the 1100's, and most of the evidence which is still in existence dates to the 1400's. I think we are back to the Baptist Trail of Tears version of history, here. There was a secret faithful church, but all evidence of it was destroyed by Those Killer Catholics. Candy can not prove that they existed, nor can I disprove her belief. There is simply nothing there. Perhaps she is now considering oral tradition acceptable?

However, Candy did turn out to be correct about the small Bibles. I was able to track down Waldenses Bibles which are in the Cambridge University Library. I didn't find a picture, but this book gives accounts of small, partial Bibles which were around 3 by 4 inches.

However, it also says some of the books included were 2 Maccabees and Tobit, both of which Candy considers "false." Which brings me back to what I have written previously, which is that the Waldenses are really not a group of people which had a lot in common with born again Christians. They do share some similarities, but they have significant differences.

Phil Porvaznik has an article discussing the Waldenses and the idea that they were born again Christians. He say that this is found in A Woman Rides the Beast, as well, which is probably why Candy feels it is in keeping with her other "research."

The book by the Baptist historian McGoldrick that demolishes the above statements is titled Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994). McGoldrick examines many groups claimed as "early Baptists" (or early Evangelicals who are "baptistic") such as the Montanists, Novatians, Paulicians, Bogomils, Albigenses, Waldenses and other groups and individuals. None of these groups were in fact "early Evangelicals" but were either explicitly Catholic in doctrine or grossly heretical (such as the later Albigenses who denied the Incarnation). Baptists originate in the early 17th century in Holland and England.

"Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format. The present work is an effort to supply this need so that Baptists may have a thorough analysis of successionism, together with a reliable account of their origins as a Protestant religious body." (McGoldrick, preface page iv)

"It is the purpose of this book to show that, although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers." (ibid, page 2, emphasis mine)

Early Bibles

I had planned to write about the virtue of hope today, but it looks as if that might be put on the back burner. I had time to post a few comments at lunch, but now I need to get back to real life. Hopefully, I can write more this evening.

I'm putting my comments and Candy's here for reference, as comments are not archived on her site. Although Candy did not post all of my comments, she was very polite about it.

They hid their Bibles inside of the lining of their jackets.

They might have smuggled Bibles in wooden barrels, but the manuscripts for that time period were huge! It would be impossible to fit more than Philemon, Jude, or other short letters inside a cloak (jackets weren't worn at that time).

The common language of that time would have been either Latin or Greek, for those who could read. --Kelly


I also submitted this comment separately, because I was pretty sure she wouldn't post it:

The Catholic church didn't come into existence until about 300 years later.

I'm curious, if you don't think the Catholic Church came into existence until close to the year 400, then how do you explain the writings of the early Christians which had so many Catholic elements?

For example, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp both mention being part of the Catholic church, and they wrote in the 100s. They also write about Jesus being physically present in the Eucharist, actually using the word Eucharist, as well as priests and bishops, and other elements that you would consider Catholic.

It is easy to find these writings online. They are usually referred to as the Apostolic Fathers or Early Church Fathers.

I'm not actually aware of any early Christian writings which don't contain at least some Catholic elements, but if you have run across some references to them in your research, then please let me know so I can look them up. --Kelly


Candy replies to the first comment, and declines the second:

Kelly, they weren't carring around scrolls and stone tablets. They were carrying around the Bible, translated into Latin (NOT Jeromes' Vulgate, which came years later, and is seriously corrupted). Bibles were very small - the Latin was handwritten, and was in VERY small print.

Many of the common pre-wycliffe Bibles were so small, that once could almost fit it in the back pocket of a pair of Jeans.

The Bibles were made small, partially for the purpose of hiding them from those who wished to burn the Bibles.

pre-wycliffite Bibles are in several museums - some of those Bibles were TINY. Many Wycliffite Bibles were very small as well.

BTW, they didn't necessariy have both old and new testaments on these missionary journeys. Sometimes it was the Gospels and some of the writings of Paul. The O.T. was always available in the major Synagoges. Meanwhile, all of the Bible could be read from people who had it, and shared it, like the Vaudois and others.

Bible memorization was a major theme then as well. Whole books of the Bible were commited to heart, recited to crowds, and then those crowds commited it to heart.


I responded:

Kelly, they weren't carring around scrolls and stone tablets. . .Bibles were very small - the Latin was handwritten, and was in VERY small print.

I'm not sure what you mean by stone tablets, because that is an entirely different time period. But the Bible wasn't put into bound book form (called a codex) until the 400s. If the Bible was spread prior to that time, then it would have been in scrolls, and made of parchment or vellum.

The print may be small, and without spaces between words, but it still took up a lot of space. Vellum doesn't fold into a small book very easily, either.

pre-wycliffite Bibles are in several museums - some of those Bibles were TINY. Many Wycliffite Bibles were very small as well.

What exactly do you mean by pre-wycliffite Bible? Anything before the 14th century? Do you remember any of the museums offhand, because a lot of museums have their collections online now. I've just never seen anything from that time period, Bible or not, that wasn't enormous.

For example, the Codex Sinaiticus is available for online viewing here:
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx

I realize you feel that it is a corrupt manuscript, but other manuscripts would have used the same materials, and taken up approximately the same amount of space. --Kelly


Kelly, I don't have the time to get into a full discussion of Bible history here on my blog with you - as that would require that I answer you fairly quickly, instead of when I have time.

Therefore, I extend this invitation to you... If you truly with to discuss this, then let me know, and I'll email you, and we can discuss it via email, where we don't have to answer each other right away, but answer when we have the time.

My final response:
I really appreciate that Candy! Thank you so much for the answer. Please e-mail at your convenience. --Kelly

A time to be sad

A defeated Christian is a Christian with no joy. They are not blessing others, therefore they are receiving little blessing from on high. The Bible calls this the law of "sowing and reaping." Candy B.

My comment to Candy's latest post:

What would you say to Steven Curtis Chapman and his family right now?

Elena, I probably wouldn't say anyhing to he and his family, because I don't know who he is.

I guess if I saw him on the street, maybe I'd say "hi," or something.

Steven Curtis Chapman is a Grammy-winning, Christian singer-songwriter. I'm pretty sure if you saw him or heard one of his songs you would recognize him.

His little 5 year old daughter was accidentally struck and killed by the family car driven by her teenage brother in the driveway of their home.

Steven Curtis Chapman and his family have done some interviews on Good Morning America and Larry King to talk about how they are dealing with their grief and their faith during this difficult time.

The scriptures tell us that there is a time for everything, including a time to be sad.

Fruits of the Holy Spirit

I found Candy's most recent post to be a bit contradictory to some of her other recent writings. Previously she said:

On the other end of the spectrum, is one who does good works, but does not have saving faith. In other words, there are some people who call themselves Christian, but they do deeds/works in order to get them into heaven. They call Jesus Lord, but their lack of faith in the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice as evidenced by still trying to earn salvation, prevents them from being saved, and getting into heaven.

As I wrote then, the only difference between someone claiming to be Christian and someone who is Christian is their interior motivation for performing the good works. But today she writes that the fruit produced are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, which really aren't good works at all.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." -Galatians 5:22-23


She says that the unsaved produce different works:

The unsaved person produces works of the flesh, for they don't have the Spirit of God helping them:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." -Galatians 5:19-21

If this is the case, then would someone who is unsaved and trying to earn their salvation be producing this list, instead of the fruits of the Holy Spirit? I'm just confused on this one.


Going back to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I also find it odd that although she lists nine fruits of the Holy Spirit, the only one she really mentions in her blog regularly is JOY! Would a true Christian need to bear all of these different fruits, or is it okay to only bear joy?

I do not feel she is correctly defining "meek." She says:

meekness (don't be prideful or braggadocios)

Dictionary.com defines meekness as:

1.	humbly patient or docile, as under provocation from others.

2.	overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.

3.	Obsolete. gentle; kind.

—Synonyms 1. forbearing; yielding; unassuming; pacific, calm, soft.


Personally, I do not feel that statements such as "your prayers are meaningless," "God has already condemned you to hell," or even "I've never been known to sugar coat, so don't let my name fool you. If you like people who just tell it like it is, then you'll like my blog" to be compatible with meekness, gentleness, or kindness.


I looked up the fruits of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Catechism, and I noticed that the idea that the virtues are automatically produced, easily, by those who are saved is clearly not a Catholic theological idea. Notice the importance of grace, again.

1811 It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ's gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow his calls to love what is good and shun evil.

Regarding the fruits of the Holy Spirit in particular, the Catechism says:

III. THE GIFTS AND FRUITS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
1830 The moral life of Christians is sustained by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David.¹⁰⁹ They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.

Let your good spirit lead me on a level path.¹¹⁰

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God . . . If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.¹¹¹

1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity."¹¹²

The Catholic Encyclopedia elaborates on the difference between the fruits of the Spirit, and virtues:

Some writers extend this term to all the supernatural virtues, or rather to the acts of all these virtues, inasmuch as they are the results of the mysterious workings of the Holy Ghost in our souls by means of His grace. But, with St. Thomas, the word is ordinarily restricted to mean only those supernatural works that are done joyfully and with peace of soul.

Moreover, there is no doubt that this list of twelve -- three of the twelve are omitted in several Greek and Latin manuscripts -- is not to be taken in a strictly limited sense, but, according to the rules of Scriptural language, as capable of being extended to include all acts of a similar character. That is why the St. Thomas Aquinas says: "Every virtuous act which man performs with pleasure is a fruit." The fruits of the Holy Ghost are not habits, permanent qualities, but acts. They cannot, therefore, be confounded with the virtues and the gifts, from which they are distinguished as the effect is from its cause, or the stream from its source. The charity, patience, mildness, etc., of which the Apostle speaks in this passage, are not then the virtues themselves, but rather their acts or operations; for, however perfect the virtues may be, they cannot be considered as the ultimate effects of grace, being themselves intended, inasmuch as they are active principles, to produce something else, i.e. their acts.

Further, in order that these acts may fully justify their metaphorical name of fruits, they must belong to that class which are performed with ease and pleasure; in other words, the difficulty involved in performing them must disappear in presence of the delight and satisfaction resulting from the good accomplished.

Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?

According to Candy's sidebar, she is now reading Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? by David Daniels. As Jack Chick is the illustrator, I would venture to guess that the book will conclude that the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

As an alternative, I suggest reading Where We Got The Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church by Rev. Henry Graham. Available to read online.

You might also read through a series Elena did a while back, when Candy was reading a different history of the Bible.

Memorizing Bible Verses

In case Candy got everyone thinking about memorizing Bible verses, I thought I'd put together a little post of resources for you.

Christian Apologetics Society has a short history of format of the original Bible, and why memorizing verses is probably a relatively recent phenomenon.

The "books" of the New Testament were actually scrolls of very expensive parchment or papyrus. The scripture was written in scriptio continua style. That is, to save space and economize, the scripture was written without chapter and paragraph breaks. In fact, there were not even spaces between words and verses as in this paragraph itself. Can you imagine trying to read John 6:53 aloud, while looking at:

thenjesussaiduntothemverilyverilyisayuntoyouexceptyeeattheflesh
ofthesonofmananddrinkhisbloodyehavenolifeinyou

While New Testament scrolls existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there were few, if any, personal copies. Christians of the day did not arrive at "church" carrying their own copy of scripture. The modern Christian tradition of believers bringing their own personal Bible to church was not an early church practice. Instead the congregation assembled a library of scripture, some in the modern canon and many not found in the current canon. At their gathering, most, if not all, the scriptures were read aloud to the assembly. If an early Christian congregation had acquired a copy of Paul's epistle to the Romans, it likely would have been read in its entirety every Sunday, week after week. That's how New Testament scripture was initially memorized. The Christian tradition of reading scripture aloud in in repeating cycles is still observed in all 22 Catholic Churches and in all Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Kevin Vost has written a book titled Memorize the Faith! (And Most Anything Else) about a method of memorization devised by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Once you have memorization mastered, you can get started on Patrick Madrid's 150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know.

Or get to work immediately with this free list of verses.

The Famous Fruit Test

I'm packing for a trip out of town this weekend, but I wanted to at least make a short post on the new entry at Candy's blog.

Candy talks a lot on her blog about "passing the fruit test." She says that you can judge whether or not a person is a Christian based on the fruit which they produce. However, something really jumped out at me as she elaborated on this.

Because all saved Christians have the Holy Spirit indwelling and guiding them, meaning that they automatically do good works.

She then contrasts this with another group of people.

On the other end of the spectrum, is one who does good works, but does not have saving faith. In other words, there are some people who call themselves Christian, but they do deeds/works in order to get them into heaven. They call Jesus Lord, but their lack of faith in the sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice as evidenced by still trying to earn salvation, prevents them from being saved, and getting into heaven.

I think the problem with this, is that the only difference here is one of internal motivation. If two people are producing good works, then how do you tell which one is producing an "automatic" good work, and which one is doing good works to try and earn their salvation?

Unless someone specifically tells you that they are volunteering at a soup kitchen to earn their salvation, I don't think you can judge whether or not they are saved, by Candy's criteria. In the end, it is Jesus who will judge the living and the dead, not any of us.

We've written a lot already on faith versus works, and if you click on the tag at the bottom of the post, you can read through those previous posts. We have discussed most of Candy's points already.

Prayer For the Dead

Jimmy Akin discusses prayer for the dead over at his blog.

I therefore would question whether citing Maccabees is "not enough" as proof of prayer for the dead. It may not be enough for Protestants, because this book was removed from their Old Testament precisely in order to get rid of the passage dealing with prayer for the dead, but since this passage remains in the Catholic Bible, it should be enough for Catholics.

A Catholic thus might say to an Evangelical, "This passage is in my Bible. I accept it. So it is enough for me. It may not be enough for you because you do not find it in your Bible, but you should think about why that is: The reason is that your religious forebears took this passage out of the Protestant Old Testament precisely because they didn't like what it said."

A Catholic might continue by pointing out that prayer for the dead was a practice rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition even before the time of Christ, as witnessed by the passage in 2 Maccabees, that Jews still pray for the dead today, and that the vast majority of Christians (i.e., Catholic plus Orthodox and other Eastern Christians) pray for the dead. It is only Protestants who do not.

Therefore, one could argue that if we accept that the Judeo-Christian tradition represents the line of religious belief that, in its broad outlines, is true and that God has worked with to shape, and if a particular practice is acknowledged by the great majority of this tradition, then it would seem that it should be those who do not accept the practice in question should have to argue for why it should not be accepted.

He also goes into a question that I've always had:

Thus ask the Evangelical: "What is your biblical argument that we should not pray for the dead? In particular, in view of St. Paul's emphasis on Christian liberty, where is your biblical proof that Christians should not have the liberty to pray for their departed loved ones?"

What would the reason be to not pray for the dead? People have told me that there is just no point, because everything is already decided. Maybe it is, but there is no way to know that for sure. Don't we pray for a miraculous recovery for people in circumstances where there is no hope? With God, there is always hope.

Is God going to somehow punish us for praying for souls out of Christian love and concern? I know that God is a God of mercy, and even if our prayers for the dead are of no effect, then it is still the merciful thing to do, in case they do have an effect.

What Does Worship Look Like - one more thing

Sometimes I think in Candy's enthusiasm for her own beliefs she Misjudges, Mischaracterizes or just simply Misses other valid perspectives. Her post on How Christians Worship is one such time.

While I think everything on her list (lifting of hands, praying, Blessing the name of the Lord, Bowing, laying on of hands, singing praises, dancing etc.) can be part of worship, these are not the only ways to worship. How did Jesus worship?  Jesus was Jewish.  In a congregation he worshiped as traditional Jews did. But the bible also tells us of a number of times when Jesus retreated into private, quiet, personal, contemplative prayer and certainly He teaches us that there is a place for that as well.

So in other words while a high spirited, joyful, high energy type of worship is appropriate, there is also a place for the quiet and the sublime.  It is not an either/or situation.  Both have their place.

Lastly I'd like to share this narrative of what early worship looked like in the early church.  This was written in the 2nd century AD by St. Justin Martyr

No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

Catholicism: Unified or Not?

I'm a little late pointing you to this post, but Fr. Longenecker answers an argument on his blog, that I remember people bringing up before in our comments section. I'm giving you the cliff-notes version, but do stop by and read his full article.

Some critics of Catholicism like to point out that Catholics are also divided. "Look here!" they cry, "You Catholics also have liberals and conservatives. You have homosexual priests. You have women pushing for ordination. You have New Age theologians and the majority of Catholics ignore Humane Vitae, don't believe in transubstantiation etc etc." . . .

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church is not validated by the number of people who obey her laws any more than the validity of the Ten Commandments is validated by the number of people who keep them perfectly. In fact, the validity and need for the Ten Commandments is actually proved by the fact that they are disobeyed. When we see the chaos that results from our disobedience we see all the more how important the Ten Commandments are. When a person is killed by a car going 70 in a 30mph zone we realize why the 30 mph. speed limit is necessary. . .

The dis-unity of Protestant sects, on the other hand, is total. With the lack of any unified teaching or any universal pastor each individual must become his own pastor. "We will not have a Pope!" they cry. What they really mean is that they will not have a Pope, for when there is not one Pope every man becomes his own Pope. So either have one Pope or millions.

When challenged on this matter Protestants are notably without an answer. When asked by what authority they teach, interpret the Bible or announce the truth on some matter they have nothing--absolutely nothing to fall back on except their own opinions based on their religious experience.

A Eucharistic Dialogue

Julie left a comment on Candy's Biblical Worship post that I decided to try and respond to:

The only church that made me uncomfortable was a Catholic church I visited years ago with a friend of mine who was Catholic. It could have been that I did not understand a lot about that faith, but it seemed off for some reason. (Guess I got use to the singing and praising from my Methodist and Baptist experiences). Her church did not have any of that at all...very methodical and robotic if you asked me. I could not even take communion because I had not completed THEIR requirements though I had been saved for about 4 years at that point. I was still a sinner in their eyes.


Candy DID post my response, and she and I exchanged comments for the next hour or so. I thought it would be a good idea to save the exchange here, since Candy doesn't keep the comments even if she archives a post.


I wrote:

Julie, I am truly sorry that your friend either has such a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's theology on this matter, or, as is more likely, that she explained it so poorly.

The Catholic Church does accept non-Catholics as Christians, and also accepts the baptism of other churches, as long as it was a Trinitarian baptism.

As Freddy said, Communion at Catholic Churches is closed to non-Catholics, because by taking communion you are saying that you believe and accept the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation, that the bread and wine are changed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

There is Biblical support for this:

1 Cor 10:16:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor. 11:27-29:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

There are other churches besides the Catholic Church which practice closed communion. Candy has mentioned not being able to partake of the Lord's Supper at a church she regularly attended.


Candy replied:

Kelly, neither of those scriptures tell us to eat and drink Jesus literally. This is no more literal than when Jesus says that if we accept Him, then living waters will come forth from our bellies.

I still don't have water springing out of my belly, and I have never seen anyone who does. Have you?

Both scriptures are refering back to the Last Supper, where Jesus told us to partake of Communion in rememberance of Him, in remembering that his body was broken for us.

Eating and drinking Jesus isn't literal. It means that He is your All in All.


My response:

How do you sin against a symbol? Sinning against connotes blasphemy, as in, failing to recognize the presence of God.

I see nothing in these verses which indicates they should be taken in a spiritual manner. When discussing John 6, you said that there are key words, which indicate that verses are to be taken spiritually rather than literally.

However, I understand that we don't agree on this, and I can respect that.
My point in posting the verses was simply to explain the Catholic teaching to Julie, since she felt hurt and confused by her experience.


Candy said:

Kelly, how ~do~ you sin against a symbol? I certainly don't know either. I don't think it's possible.

Communion isn't a symbol. It's the breaking of bread among fellow believers in rememberance of Christ, just as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper. Certainly Jesus wasn't literally eating and drinking Himself.

Are we supposed to believe that with the exception of the Last Supper, communion is supposed to be literal?

BTW Kelly, thank you for your respectful comments. It's nice to see someone arguing the issue, instead of attacking the person.


I wrote:

Communion isn't a symbol. It's the breaking of bread among fellow believers in rememberance of Christ, just as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding what you mean here. Are you saying that when you celebrate the Lord's Supper, it is to remember the Last Supper, and has no symbolism to the body of Christ, who was broken for us on the cross?

1 Cor. 11:27 says "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

How is celebrating the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner sinning against the body of the Lord, if it is just a symbol. As I said, I don't think you can sin against a symbol.

If the Lord's Supper is just a commemoration of the Last Supper, then I'm not sure how the body and blood of the Lord would be relevant at all, or why Paul would bring them up.

And I appreciate that you have published my comments.

I often used to try and leave respectful comments, but they were not published. I assumed they fell under "having incorrect religious teachings that could lead new Christians astray."

So, I am happy that you are letting me post at the moment, for whatever the reason.


Candy explained:

This is why Jesus told us in John chapter 6 that He was speaking in the Spirit. It is not always easy to understand in the flesh, just as it's hard for unbelievers to understand how to get saved, until they actually do.

Jesus and His disciples broke bread and drank wine at the last supper. When Christians partake of Communion, they are breaking bread and drinking wine/grape juice just as Jesus and His disciples do. We do this in rememberance, as Jesus commands us to do. It really has nothing to do with John 6, where Jesus was telling us that his body is the bread of life, broken on the cross for us. His blood is the wine that spilt forth to cleans our sins. However, that was not communion, it was a spiritual picture.

Jesus often used these types of strong mental pictures, to weed out the false followers from the true ones. Jesus knew who was true, and who wasn't but He did these things to reveal this to others, and to reveal people own hearts to themselves. There is a specific Greek term for this, but I can't remember it. Sorry. :-(

Anyhow, these types of strong descriptions from Jesus are part of the reason why He is called a "stumbling stone." Even some of His discliples stumbled at some of the things He said.

Moving on to the scripture about being unworthy of partaking of Communion, earlier in that chapter, it gives us a list of who is unworthy:

- partaking because of physical hunger

- partaking while drunk

- not partaking in rememberance of Jesus

These are some of the reasons given in verses 17-25 as to why some were/are unworthy to partake of Communion.

Remember, Jesus said "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." - 1 Cor. 11:24b

Obviously it wasn't literally His body, for he partook as well, at the Last Supper.

Kelly, I'm letting your posts come through for two reasons:

1) they are respectful. You haven't once called me "ignorant," a "hater," etc. Nor have you put words into my mouth

2) Even though I believe you are providing incorrect teachings, I have the time to respond to your comments. When I have the time to respond to such comments, then I have no problems publishing them. When I don't have the time, I often save the comment, with the intention of publishing it and responding to it later. However, many times when I've done this, I was then attacked by the comment leavers, because they didn't immediatly see their comment published. At that point, I see no reason to try to reason with them, so neither comment ends up being published.



I appreciate how she implies that my previous comments didn't get posted because I attacked her for not immediately publishing my comment.

At this point, I'm not planning to post anymore comments on this thread. If you notice how much longer Candy's last comment was, I would also need to write a long response to give the Catholic view, and as the entire topic has nothing to do with Candy's actual post, I'm going to let Candy close the discussion. I'm happy that she let me make my points, and hopefully many people read them.

Biblical Worship

Candy's post today deals with her idea of what worship should look like, with some verses pulled from the Bible specifically to support those ideas. Although, she says it more like this:

The Bible says that we Christians are to worship our God - the one, true God.

How are Christians to worship? Does the Bible tell us how? Does the Bible give examples? What does worship in heaven look like? I hope to show you scriptures that answer each of these questions...

Candy feels worship should include the following elements:

As the above scriptures show, worshiping the Lord involves many things. Some are the following:

- The lifting of hands

- Praying

- Blessing the name of the Lord

- Bowing

- The laying on of hands

- Singing praises

- Dancing and leaping

While I think Candy is free to worship as pleases, I am confused as to how she can pull some verses out as proof, while ignoring others. For example, how could she leave out greet each other with a holy kiss (1 Thess 5:26) while putting in David dancing before the altar of the Lord? Do we know that everyone danced before the altar of the Lord, or was that something that only the Lord's anointed king did?

Here are some other elements of Biblical worship:

• Incense should be burned perpetually, throughout the generations. Ex 30:8
• Candlesticks and candles should be used. Ex 31:8
• Vestments should be worn. Ez 3:10
• God find repetitious prayer pleasing. Rev 4:8
• Includes communion of the body and blood of Christ through the bread and the cup. 1 Cor 10:16.
• Wine is used for this communion. 1 Cor 11:20-21
• Christians who are with God in Heaven also participate with us in this worship (Heb. 12:1, Rev 6:9-10, 8:3-4)
  

What about when some churches and Christians "lay hands" on someone for healing, or for agreement in prayer? Is that biblical? Yes it is. At my church (Foursquare) last Sunday, the elders anointed some people with oil, and prayed for healing. Is this in the Bible? YES!

I'm glad Candy recognizes that the sacrament of Annointing of the Sick is Biblical.


Did you know that the Bible has a built in song and praise book? It's called the book of Psalms.

Exactly! When religious communities chant the Liturgy of the Hours, it is a way of praying, without ceasing, in song.

The custom of reciting prayers at certain hours of the day or night goes back to the Jews, from whom Christians have borrowed it. In the Psalms we find expressions like: "I will meditate on thee in the morning"; "I rose at midnight to give praise to thee"; "Evening and morning, and at noon I will speak and declare: and he shall hear my voice"; "Seven times a day I have given praise to thee"; etc. (Cf. "Jewish Encyclopedia", X, 164-171, s. v. "Prayer"). The Apostles observed the Jewish custom of praying at midnight, terce, sext, none (Acts 10:3, 9; 16:25; etc.).

You can see a Carthusian monk praying the Psalms in the night in this clip.




Candy also subtly lets us know that she does not consider a Catholic Mass to be Biblical worship:

There is vain/meaningless worship, in which one is following after the traditions or commandments of men, instead of from God:

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -Matthew 15:9

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -Mark 7:7

However, the Bible does distinguish between traditions of men, and traditions which come from God.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


Candy once told us exactly how she felt about a Catholic Mass, which she attended (bold mine):

It was so sad and gut wrenching that it almost brought me to tears. I was the only one attending, that I could see, that brought a Bible, and even bothered looking up scriptures. The Bible ignorance in that crowd was astounding me as well. Most of them don't seem to read their Bible, they just follow what 'the church' teaches them. Everyone there looked to me like they were wearing masks with no eyes. :-( I suspect that there might have been more true reverence (as opposed to ritual) in a black mass (however they'd be worshiping the wrong guy, of course).


Candy concludes her article with verses from Revelation, showing Biblical worship in heaven.

Worship in Heaven also includes:

• an altar (Rev 6:9, 8:3, and others)
• the prayers of the saints being offered at the altar in the form of incense (Rev 8:3-4)
• The Lamb standing as if it had been slain (perpetual sacrifice) (Rev 5:1-7)
• Angels repetitiously praying Holy, Holy, Holy (Rev 4:8)

You can read verses which tell of the perpetual sacrifice of the Mass in heaven at the Scripture Catholic website.

You can read a talk by Scott Hahn on the same subject here. Hahn wrote an entire book on the subject, titled The Lamb's Supper. He later did a television series on EWTN based on the book, and you can listen to the audio files here.

(Saint) Columba

I find Doug Phillips over at the Vision Forum blog fun to read. This post recently caught my eye:

It was here that Columba built a Christian religious center and missionary outpost in 563 AD from which the light of the Gospel would shine throughout the world. Here the Bible was preserved, the famous Book of Kells penned, and missionaries were trained. . .And all of this came to pass through the work of a dragon-confronting, former warrior-turned preacher named Columba.

This "preacher" Columba, was the Catholic priest and missionary now known as St. Columba. The Bible was preserved through the same Celtic monks working in monasteries as the ones who actually penned the Book of Kells. Yet, reading Doug Phillips' article, you would get the distinct impression that Isle of Iona was an early bastion of Protestantism.

Phillips quotes from a church history:

It was the Holy Ghost, Columba maintained, that made a servant of God. When the youth of Caledonia assembled around the elders on these savage shores, or in their humble chapel, these ministers of the Lord would say to them: “The Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith. Throw aside all merit of works, and look for salvation to the grace of God alone. Beware of a religion which consists of outward observances: it is better to keep your heart pure before God than to abstain from meats. One alone is your head, Jesus Christ. Bishops and presbyters are equal; they should be the husbands of one wife, and have their children in subjection.”

Then he comments, "God used Columba’s passion to fan the flames of evangelism and Gospel reformation."

Columba may have believed that it was the Holy Spirit who makes a servant of God, but I would guess that the latter part of the paragraph refers to a later time period.

What we know about St. Columba comes from an ancient writing called the Life of Columba, by Adamnan. It is full of miracles, prophesies, priests, and sacraments. He was clearly no early reformer. St. Columba's final words to his followers were:

"These, O my children, are the last words I address to you that ye be at peace, and have unfeigned charity among yourselves; and if you thus follow the example of the holy fathers, God, the Comforter of the good, will be your Helper and I, abiding with Him, will intercede for you; and He will not only give you sufficient to supply the wants of this present life, but will also bestow on you the good and eternal rewards which are laid up for those that keep His commandments."

Somebody heard . . .

We keep saying that a lot of what Candy or other fundamentalists find objectionable about Catholicism is not distinctive to Catholicism, but is shared by other churches, especially the Orthodox.

Somebody else has discovered that.

and on that note...

I'm taking a little R&R this weekend. Doing some housework, homework and maybe a little camping. Everything is in great shape with Kelly in charge (thanks Kelly!!) I feel like Picard leaving Riker in charge of the Enterprise!

I am currently banned on Amanda's blog.  I think it was because I objected to Candy's sweeping generalization that it was the loving Catholics attacking her family and leaving "vile" comments in her com boxes.  I also tried to make a distinction between sarcasm and personal threats, but Amanda would have none of it.  So except for my little IP hider, I'm essentially banned.

I did get on there today to find this anonymous comment (all the best ad hominem comments are ALWAYS anonymous) - and I wanted to address it.

Why is it that the majority of people who encounter Elena end up coming to the conclusion that she's, er, "troubled"?

 This actually has some truth to it. I frequently find that the people I disagree with in great extent do come to the conclusion that I am the one that is nuts.

Now that could be (though I don't think so - I only encounter this type of thing on line and only with adversaries) or it could be that the type of people that I have deep disagreements with have similar thought patterns and all go for the same type of conclusion, i.e. "I'm right, she's wrong, she can' t see it, so she must be nuts."  I'm kind of leaning that way.

Does it ever occur to Elena that there is, at the very least, a small grain of truth to that conclusion? 

 No actually I am always surprised and now a bit bemused when it comes up.    For example with Amanda -
Me -there is sarcasm in the bible.
Amanda - no there's not - no use talking to you - you're nuts.

Me - Catholics didn't threaten Candy.
Amanda - You have no way of knowing all the people that threatened her and if they were Catholic or not - you must be nuts.

That's a synopsis of course but that's sort of how it goes. 

When so very many people are telling you the same thing about yourself and you refuse to hear them, that in and of itself is clear indication you are, at best, suffering from some kind of personality disorder,

 Yea, I think there has to be some kind of persecution disorder in engaging people of different faiths or political views and trying to logically present my side with the expectation of  least being heard.  I kind of learned that the hard way when discussing hot topics like abortion with ultra feminist lib types.  Then I found out the hard way that it's also impossible with liberal Christians and even worse with ultra conservatives.

But here's the kicker, there must be some type of homing system in my brain that draws me to these places! Show me a pretty little template with talk of home, family, homeschooling and God - and I'm pretty enthusiastic!  And yet these are the places I have gotten my butt kicked the most.  Hey come to think of it, maybe it's not a mental disorder, maybe I just don't have a very steep learning curve?!

or, at worst, suffering from a true clinical mental illness.

Well I am Catholic - while other generations of Catholics used flagellation I continue to try to engage such bloggers in logical discourse.  I should probably go for flagellation - it would be easier.

Elena has accosted, attacked, accused, berated, sneered at, lied about, etc., so many people during her tenure at Blogger (among other venues)

 There's a typo.  It should actually read "Elena has been accosted, attacked, accused, berated, sneered at and lied about etc."  that would be more accurate.  Come on anonymous get your story straight - only been on blogger for 4 years now and even with my own domain I'm still a blogger venue gal.

that she's earned herself the reputation of being a cold-hearted, unkind, unloving, mean-spirited, meglomaniacal loon.

Absolutely.  Because if I'm not crazy, then maybe I'm right.  And if I'm right... shudder...