To me, though, Chick is not just another anti-Catholic bigot. When I was a kid Jack Chick was the man who was responsible for more nightmares than the Twilight Zone and Kolchak: The Nightstalker combined. Chick not only scared the hell out of me, he made me afraid that hell was all around me.
A record of the comments I make on Candy Brauer's KeepingtheHome.com Blog - just in case! "There are not over a 100 people in the U.S. that hate the Catholic Church, there are millions however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church which is, of course, quite a different thing." Fulton Sheen
Friday, October 31, 2008
Jack Chick for Halloween
VTC Prayer for the Dead compilation
Elena writes about prayers to and for the dead.
Jimmy Akin gets me musing about what the point would be to NOT pray for the dead.
Candy accuses us of necromancy by saying that we are speaking to the dead.
Some parts of my post on purgatory are also relevant:
2 Tim. 1:16-18 is an example of Paul praying for the dead, in this case, a man named Onesiphorus.
Praying for the dead was common practice among the Jews at that time. It has been the practice at least as long as the time of the Maccabees. 2 Maccabees 12:43–45 states "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin." These verses are the primary reason that the deuterocanonical books were removed from the Old Testament. They justified praying for the dead.
Praying for the dead remains the Jewish practice today. Orthodox Jews recite the Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a parent, to pray for their purification. Judaism 101 says "According to Jewish tradition, the soul must spend some time purifying itself before it can enter the World to Come."
While many contend that purgatory and praying for the dead was a medieval Roman Catholic invention, there is ample evidence that this was a belief of the early Christians. Visit the catacombs, and you find prayers for the dead scrawled on the wall in examples of graffiti dating to the first three centuries of Christianity.
Other writings of that era such as Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity also attest to this belief.
The Early Church Fathers, who, being "early" predated Medieval times by quite a bit, also wrote on this topic. Tertullian, writes in the second century, "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]."
Thursday, October 30, 2008
John 7
Let's Study The Bible! (John 1)
John 2
John 3
John 4: Sanctifying Grace and Infant Baptism
John 5
John 6
Although Candy's notes start on verse 5, the note is initially a comment on Mat 1:23-35. We recently discussed this in the comments section here on our blog. "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."
From my Navarre Bible:
The word "donec" (until) of itself does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment, that is, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ by a unique intervention of God. We find the same word in John 9:18, where it says that the Pharisees did not believe in the miraculous cure of the man blind from birth "until" (donec) they called his parents. However, neither did they believe afterwards. Consequently, the word "until" does not refer to what happens later.
This is common in Biblical language. To read more into the word "until" is to apply English grammar to a non-English language. See also 2 Samuel 6:23 "As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death."
This is by no means a new interpretation.
"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).It is worth noting that St. John Chrysostom was cited positively in the preface to the King James Version of the Bible. "S. Chrysostom that lived in S. Jerome’s time, giveth evidence with him: “The doctrine of S. John [saith he] did not in such sort [as the Philosophers’ did] vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people translated it into their [mother] tongue, and have learned to be [true] Philosophers,” he meaneth Christians. [S. Chrysost. in Johan. cap.I. hom.I.]"
As to verse five in St. John's Gospel, it says "For even his brethren did not believe in him." The Jewish custom was for close relatives to be called "brothers."
Candy says "Christ has half siblings. Here, verse 5 tells us that Jesus' very brethren did not believe Him. Familiarity breeds contempt. Jesus' half brother James didn't believe on Him until after the resurrection."
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
There is more than one Mary in the New Testament. It is entirely likely that Mary, the mother of James and Joses is a relation of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Therefore, they would be his brethren, as close relations.
Skipping ahead to verse 15, Candy writes: Oh, how very like those religious people of Jesus' day, are so many of the large religious organizations of this day! They think that one can't have knowledge of God, unless that person has special training, such as going to seminary, or getting a college degree.
I am not aware of any branch of Christianity which teaches that one can't have knowledge of God without special training. If that were the case, only the clergy would be considered Christians. One can have knowledge of God without special training, but you can also learn a lot from your elders, and the wisdom of others. Candy, herself, often points to the notes in her Dake Bible as an authority. The King James Bible translators spoke highly of the Early Church Fathers.
In verse 16, Candy makes an allusion to her perceived persecutions: Christian, how many times have people attacked you, because they didn't like the Gospel message you spoke? Maybe they called
you such names as "hater," "naive," or worse. Remember, the world thinks the Gospel is foolish (1 Cor. 1:12). Yet, we Christians are not declaring that so and so is going to hell, we are simply being messengers of God, as God commanded us to do. We are spreading the Gospel message of salvation. Logically, if the world doesn't like that message, then the world should go after the originator of that message (God), and not shoot the messenger (Christians). However, this fallen world is quite illogical in many ways, isn't it?Candy says that Christians are not declaring that individuals are bound for hell. Candy once wrote "Angie, it's nice that you believe in Jesus Christ - whatever that means. I believe in Abraham Lincoln, but that's not getting me into heaven. Also, I already told you that I'm not condemning you, GOD has ALREADY done that, and I gave you scripture which proved it.
"
Candy also wrote "You can be the most sincere, devout person in the world, but if you haven't accepted God's free gift the way the BIBLE says to, then you are sincerely going to hell." and
"In fact, it is highly likely, and quite sad to say, but highly likely, that Mother Theresa is in hell right now. Good works will never get one into heaven."
As I've written many times before, we have no problem with Candy sharing the Gospel message. We just disagree that posting lies about the Catholic Church is the same as sharing the Gospel. Must you believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and a cult in order to attain salvation? Because she certainly posts more about the Catholic Church than about the Biblical message of salvation.
Verse 17: This is a warning against taking any religious authority's word without checking it against Scripture.
We don't disagree with that message. Fortunately, Catholicism is completely Scripture compatible.
Verse 38: Spiritual rivers of living water flow from my belly, because I believe on Christ. This is the living water of life which quenches my soul, as per John 4:14. After having partaken of this water, I have no more thirst. Christ fills my spiritual thirst. Verse 39 makes it clear that Christians won't literally have water splashing out of their bellies.
My Navarre note: Furthermore, when Jesus speaks of "rivers of living water" flowing out of his heart, he is probably referring to Ezekiel 36:25 where it is announced that in messianic times the people will be sprinkled with clean water and will be given a new spirit and their heart of stone will be changed for a heart of flesh. In other words, Jesus, once he has been exalted as befits his position as Son of God, will send at Pentecost the Holy Spirit, who will change the hearts of those who believe in him.
This is similar to John chapter 6, where the Bible is clear that Jesus is spiritually the Bread of Life as well as the drink of life, but not literally physical food and drink - "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." - John 6:35b. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit." - John 6:63b Just as Jesus doesn't literally turn into some Eucharist cracker upon communion, Christians do not literally have water spewing forth from their bellies. John 6 and John 7:38 are talking about how Jesus fulfills our soul's hunger and thirst.
I think we've covered this pretty extensively. And we don't believe Jesus turns into a cracker. The "cracker" is changed into Jesus.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Oh my soul!
From the Catholic Catechism:
II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE" 362-368
The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person. But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.
The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:
- Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.
The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.
Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.
The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God."HE DESCENDED INTO HELL. ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN" 632-635
The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection. This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
"The gospel was preached even to the dead." The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.
Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage." Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."
You can read quotes from the Early Church Fathers on hell.
Catholic Encyclopedia on the soul and spirit. You can also read about hell, and the harrowing of hell, which Candy alludes to when she says "When Jesus died, he preached to
and set free those in the paradise compartment, and they got to go to
heaven, to await their resurrection."
Candy mentions Sheol/Hades: As for hell, that's pretty cut and dry. Sheol/Hades is the holding compartment that the ungodly souls depart to upon death. After the
future judgment, those ungodly souls will be judged, and cast into
Gehenna - the Lake of Fire.
This is where Candy says that Catholics will go after death. She said once that there is a purgatory, but that Catholics will be surprised to learn that they will be dumped from there into hell, rather than go to heaven.
As an interesting side note, Candy refers to Dake and Gail Riplinger as helping her to come to her interpretation. While Catholics often hear that the Bible alone should be our soul authority, and we should cease relying on the interpretations of men, most Christians do rely on various Christian authorities in their interpretations. Candy is no different.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Apparitions and other Marian issues
I have question to ask about apparitions of Mary. I am curious to know what you as Catholicss think of this, and of what the pope did and said at Pompeii recently: giving an offering of a golden rose to the statue of Mary and repeating a prayer: "We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your heart,"
With the words of Bartolo Longo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn."
Did this Pompeii visit get a lot of coverage on a fundamentalist website somewhere? You and Candy have both mentioned it, and it was a pretty minor visit. I get two Catholic periodicals and it was buried in the middle of one, and not mentioned at all in the other.
I assume the pope agrees with this prayer or he would not have repeated it. In that case why does he not know to turn to God and his savior Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and men?
The Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.
I have not been able to find the full text of Pope's message online, but from the two lines you quoted, he is asking Mary to pray for us. As I explained in a previous comment, we do not pray to Mary and the saints in the same way that we pray to God. We are asking them to pray for us, the same way that we ask our family and friends here on earth to pray for us.
We believe that God is the God of the living and not the dead, because the dead are alive to Him (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38) and that they are aware of us on earth, surrounding us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1). The saints present their prayers to God before His throne in heaven (Rev. 5:8).
You are probably referring to the Catholic title of Mary as mediatrix. Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.
Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website.
Also the things the apparitions are quoted as saying are blasphemous, such as the Fatima
apparition that told the children that people should be willing to suffer to pay for the sins of the world, and that devotion to her immaculate heart would be the way to God. This is blasphemy: Jesus is the only way to God according to the Bible.
Other apparitions have said similar things. These things are leading many astray because of their devotion to Mary.
Apparitions of Mary are considered private revelation. The information they contain is intended only for the person or people who receive the message. Apparitions may be approved, meaning that there is nothing contrary to the faith in them. At that point, other people may read or study the message, but they are not required belief.
For more information on public versus private revelation, see this article which mentions Fatima specifically.
Regarding people being willing to suffer to pay for the sins of the world, this is what we call "redemptive suffering." It ties into Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh and I complete what is lacking in Christ's affliction for the sake of his body, that is, the church." Was Paul writing blasphemy there?
In essence, it goes back to the communion of saints, the idea that we are all tied together in Christ, in the Church.
It is similar to the very non-blasphemous ideas most people have about prayer. Suppose you pray for someone to convert. Only God can give someone the grace they need to find true faith. Do you think you are somehow giving someone faith by the action of your prayer? Do you feel that Jesus' death is not needed on the cross if you can just say a prayer and then they convert? Clearly not. It is in the same way that our prayers benefit others, that our sufferings can benefit others as well.
As far as the immaculate heart of Mary being the way to God, that relates to what I wrote above. It is through the Incarnation that we have our salvation, and as Jesus entered the world through Mary, it is, in a roundabout way, through Mary that we have found God.
And just in case you veer off into other Marian issues, you can read some of my previous articles about why Mary is not "just a vessel" here, the Assumption of Mary here, and discussion of other Marian doctrines, including what the early Church believed here.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Prayer Request
http://okinawanadventures.blogspot.com/
http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/tyedwards
AddThis Social Bookmark Button" src="http://s9.addthis.com/button2-bm.png" width=160 border=0>
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Eighth Beast
Milehimama has corrected me, pointing out that St. John Lateran is actually the official cathedral of the Pope. Well, I did say "most would consider," but hey, everyone is wrong sometime and I have no problems admitting it!
I guess Candy decided not to let the Homeschool Blog Awards keep her silent. Most of the conclusions she draws in her latest article seem to be quite a stretch to me, but you know . . .
Here is my half-effort at the Catholic bit:
Russia has laid out the introduction. They have made the way open for the Pope to step in and be the ecumenical, council of religions "hero."
Russia proposes council of religions to support AoC
If Javier Solana is the anti-Christ, how can the Pope be the anti-Christ? Or is he just the head of the Whore of Babylon? The Vatican is already a member of the UN, so I'm not sure this council of religions makes any great difference.
And, of course, the Pope needs to get in on the action, because the Roman Catholic ecumenical church will likely be the head of the whore:
"The Pope's leading of the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary, a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) was one of the high points of this 12th pastoral trip in Italy.
'We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your [Mary's] heart,' the text of the prayer reads.
What exactly does the Pope saying this prayer in Italy have to do with anything? I'm really not following her here. But here is where you can read our articles on why the Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon.
With the words of Bartolo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: 'If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn.'"
Well, here's a suggestion - instead of turning to a DEAD human, why not turn to GOD???
Here is an article about Mary, and another on prayers to and for the dead.
Pontiff puts world in Mary’s hands
What about the Pope's cathedral? It is St. John Lateran Cathedral.
Actually, most people would say that the Pope's cathedral is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. You know, the Vatican?
There is a curious Latin inscription on the columns, which says:
"SACROS(ANCTA) LATERAN(ENSIS) ECCLES(IA)
OMNIUM URBIS ET ORBIS
ECCLESIARUM MATER
ET CAPUT."
Translation in English = "Sacred Lateran Church, Universally for the City and the World, Supreme Mother of Churches", or "Holy Lateran Church, Mother and Head of all Churches in the City and the World"
St. John Lateran is the "Mother of all Churches" because it was the first major basilica in Rome.
This immediately brings to mind the below Scripture:
"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." -Revelation 17:5
I guess I'm missing it because I'm Catholic, but I don't see that either of these sentences has much in common besides the word Mother. Especially since, as I already explained, most would consider the "head of all churches of Rome" to be St. Peter's, and not St. John's.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
On Being Tired
Instead of actually writing anything today, I wanted to point you to a post by Jen of Conversion Diary (formerly Et Tu?) who always makes me want to shout "Amen!"
This one is for all of you Catholic moms out there in the middle of bearing children . . .
It occurred to me recently that I spend a large percentage of my time being tired -- often really, really tired. These past few months have been worse than usual, this pregnancy bringing with it a crushing exhaustion that I haven't been able to shake. Even before this pregnancy, though, long stretches of feeling well rested have been few and far between ever since my first child was born. A certain amount of weariness just comes with the territory of building a family. . .Go read the rest.
As I leaned against the wall, I thought it was interesting that this is the life I want for my children.
I thought about how counterintuitive it is to say, "Hey, kids, I'm really freaking tired all the time because of the duties of my vocation, and I pray that in twenty or so years this will be your life, too!" I can see why so many of the Baby Boomers and their parents adopted the mentality that the best life you could give your kids is one of physical ease and personal freedom to do whatever you feel like doing -- after all, that's a whole lot more comfortable. Surely a "good" life would involve more relaxation than work, more pleasure than sacrifice, more amusement than perseverance.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Prayer request


Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Let None Dare Call it Liberty: The Catholic Church in Colonial America by Dr. Marian T. Horvat @ TraditionInAction.org
Let None Dare Call it Liberty: The Catholic Church in Colonial America by Dr. Marian T. Horvat @ TraditionInAction.org: "American History
Tradition In Action
Let None Dare Call it Liberty:
The Catholic Church in Colonial America
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Relatively little attention has been paid to the relentless hostility toward the Catholics of our 13 English colonies in the period that preceded the American Revolution. Instead, historians have tended to concentrate only on the story of the expansion of the tiny Catholic community of 1785, which possessed no Bishop and hardly 25 priests, into the mighty organization we see today that spreads its branches from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
To show this progress of Catholicism is good and legitimate. But to avoid presenting the persecution the Church suffered in the pre-Revolution colonial period is to offer an incomplete or partial history. It ignores the early story of our Catholic ancestors. It would be like describing the History of the Church only after the Edict of Milan, when the Church emerged from the Catacombs, pretending there had never been a glorious but terrible period of martyrdom.
An optimistic view that conflicts with reality
It should not be surprising that this cloud of general omission concerning Catholicism in the colonial period (1600-1775) should have settled over the Catholic milieu given the optimistic accounts written by such notable Catholic historians as John Gilmary Shea, Thomas Maynard, Theodore Roemer, and Thomas McAvoy. (1) These historians, whose works provided the foundation for Catholic school history books up until recently (when a different kind of revisionist history is replacing them), only briefly acknowledge and downplay a period of repression and persecution of Catholics.
What they have stressed is what might be called the "positive" stage of Catholic colonial history that begins in the period of the American Revolution. This period has been glossed with an unrealistic interpretation that freedom of religion was unequivocally established and the bitter, deeply-entrenched anti-Catholicism miraculously dissolved in the new atmosphere of tolerance and liberty for all. This in fact did not happen.
Profaning The Eucharist At YouTube | NewsBusters.org
Photo of K. Daniel Glover.
By K. Daniel Glover (Bio | Archive)
October 6, 2008 - 15:29 ET
When interviewed by Eyeblast.tv last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that YouTube, the video-sharing site owned by his company, is 'pretty serious' about removing the 'strange' videos that keep popping up on the site, especially videos 'that can be used to incite bad outcomes.' Apparently videos designed to incite Catholics don't fall into that category.
A YouTube user who goes by the moniker 'fsmdude' has posted more than 30 videos under the title 'Eucharist Desecration.' Each video features an attack on a symbol that Catholics consider sacred -- by blow gun, nail gun, boiling, sword and cigarette in a few recent episodes.
The creator of the videos isn't subtle about his intent. He was angered by reports of a college student allegedly receiving e-mail threats from 'fanatical Catholics' after the student snatched a wafer at mass, so 'fsmdude' decided to repeatedly profane the Eucharist on camera for all to see"
Texas Catholic Bishops Make It Clear: Abortion The Number One Election Issue
Pope: financial crisis shows futility of money - USNews.com: Nation and World: AP Article
VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI says the global financial crisis show the futility of money and ambition.
Benedict says that "now with the collapse of big banks we see that money disappears, is nothing and all these things that appear real are in fact of secondary importance." He urges those who build their lives "only on things that are visible, such as success, career, money" to keep that in mind.
The pontiff was speaking Monday as he opened the works of a meeting of 253 bishops at the Vatican.
Benedict says "the only solid reality is the word of God."
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
A question to Jennie
Jennie,
You mentioned that there are Roman Catholic doctrines that are contrary to scripture. Would you mind telling us your personal "top five" list of RC doctrines that are contrary to scripture (rather than just unmentioned by scripture such as the Immaculate Conception)? If you have the time, would you provide supporting Bible verses as well?
Thank you,
Diana (already looked at the Berean website)
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Church is like the early church
One of my favorite saints is Justin Martyr.
Here is a description of the mass written by Justin Martyr around 155:
On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.169
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:
- the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
- the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.
The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship";170 the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.171
It seems that the Catholic Mass of today has A LOT in common with the worship of the early Christians.
Compare to what Justin wrote and compare it to cyber church.
www.keepingthehome.com: Today's Cyber Church
I think the early Christians would be surprised and I don't think think they would consider this to be the best or most complete way to worship in a community.


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

The tribulation, or the rapture are not topics which Catholics hear much about. Often one of Candy's posts on this topic will have Catholics scratching their heads, because they have no idea what she is talking about. Do Catholics believe this, or not?
We have done several posts on the end times here at VTC, mostly centering around the identity of the Whore of Babylon, for obvious reasons. Elena has these on the sidebar, or you can choose the "Whore of Babylon" tag at the bottom of this post.
This post gives several resources for how the early Christians interpreted Revelation.
Joy at Coffee With Candy has a series on the end times, as well.
As far as I have been able to tell, the Catholic Church is amillenial, meaning we do not believe that all of these things which Candy says are going to happen, will happen. There will be a time of tribulation, and then Jesus will return.
From Catholic Answers:
The amillennial view interprets Revelation 20 symbolically and sees the millennium not as an earthly golden age in which the world will be totally Christianized, but as the present period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on the earth through his Church. This was the view of the Protestant Reformers and is still the most common view among traditional Protestants, though not among most of the newer Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups.
Amillennialists also believe in the coexistence of good and evil on earth until the end. The tension that exists on earth between the righteous and the wicked will be resolved only by Christ’s return at the end of time. The golden age of the millennium is instead the heavenly reign of Christ with the saints, in which the Church on earth participates to some degree, though not in the glorious way it will at the Second Coming.
Amillennialists point out that the thrones of the saints who reign with Christ during the millennium appear to be set in heaven (Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4, 11:16) and that the text nowhere states that Christ is on earth during this reign with the saints.
They explain that, although the world will never be fully Christianized until the Second Coming, the millennium does have effects on earth in that Satan is bound in such a way that he cannot deceive the nations by hindering the preaching of the gospel (Rev. 20:3). They point out that Jesus spoke of the necessity of "binding the strong man" (Satan) in order to plunder his house by rescuing people from his grip (Matt. 12:29). When the disciples returned from a tour of preaching the gospel, rejoicing at how demons were subject to them, Jesus declared, "I saw Satan fall like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Thus for the gospel to move forward at all in the world, it is necessary for Satan to be bound in one sense, even if he may still be active in attacking individuals (1 Pet. 5:8).
This section of the Catechism deals with "From thence He shall come again to judge the living and the dead":
680 Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil.
681 On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.
682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.
To Jennie
Hello Jennie, I appreciate your very polite comments. I enjoy a good civil discussion! My comment was starting to get quite long, and I'm not great at putting links in comments, so I decided to make this its own post.
Like Elena, I was raised moderately Catholic, but did not really decide to claim my heritage, so to speak, until I was an adult. I have a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies, and much of what I learned in my secular university verified the truth of the "Catholic version" of history. I have never been to Catholic school, and did not even own a Catholic Bible translation until I was in my early 20's. You might not like the NIV any better, but it led me to the Catholic Church. Especially verses such as these. I am often struck, reading through the book of Acts, how much the early Church sounds like the Catholic Church. Ordination, forgiving sins, collecting relics, etc.
Regarding the 10 commandments, rest assured that the Catholic church does prohibit idolatry, regardless of how we break a segment of text into a group of ten.
The Bible was not available to the common people because the common people could not read. Literacy is still not 100% even in America, much less the entire world. Throughout the centuries, the Scriptures have been read during Mass, so the common people would be familiar with the Bible, even if they could not read it themselves.
The preface to the King James Bible tells of early vernacular versions of the Bible:
“Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men’s hearts the sooner, . . .”
The history of English Bible translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d.c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12th c.) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).
Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language). Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen translations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German. Raban Maur had translated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8th century. Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French translations, and also Bibles rendered in Belgian, Bohemian, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. 25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471.
I wrote about the Waldensians/Valdois here. I found information in an online Reformation museum that said the Waldensian Bibles to which you allude, included some of the deuterocanonical books, such as Tobit and Maccabees.That link also includes information on the idea that there were groups of underground born again Christians hidden throughout the centuries. I have not found any historical evidence for the existence of such hidden Christians.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Pope's New Commandments
As usual, a lot of incorrect information in the comments section.
How can the pope add more Commandments. That is very very scary. -X
It does seem that the catholic faith is pulling away more and more from the teachings of the Bible according to Gods word.
The Pope himself has also added more Commandments to bring their religion up to date with the world!!
Many Blessings to you Candy
Rose
Rose has commented here at VTC previously, but I don't know if she is a regular reader. Hopefully, she will read this.
I believe this "Pope adds more Commandments" thing comes from a number of news articles written last spring which generated big headlines blowing up a small interview in the Vatican newspaper.
So what happened?
Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti gave an interview in the Vatican paper. He said that humanity is always finding new ways to commit sin. He gave illustrations to make his point. This was not the Pope proclaiming a change to the Ten Commandments. It was an "overseer" having a teaching moment.
Now, Candy writes often about how we must be careful in the music we listen to, or the movies we watch. Is she adding to Scripture? She is interpreting Scripture in light of modern society. This is the same thing.
Remember, just because you read something in the news doesn't make it true. News is generated for ratings and newspaper sales, and journalists are notoriously bad at understanding theology. Get Religion is a great blog which is entirely devoted to pointing out the religious errors in news stories. They wrote about the "new seven deadly sins" story twice.
Rest assured, the Catholic Church has not changed the Ten Commandments. If you look at the table of contents in the Catholic Catechism, you will find an entire section devoted to the Ten Commandments.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Great Deception
But hey, it's a nice day. I'll be glad I don't have to spend a lot of my time writing out elaborate responses.
Many people, professing to be Christians, have left their Christian churches, to join the deceptive Roman Catholic Church.
I guess she missed all the news earlier in the summer about the latest Pew Forum Study. She really has no need to worry, because our "great deception" really isn't that convincing to most people.
Nearly one-third (31.4%) of U.S. adults say they were raised Catholic. Today, however, only 23.9% of adults say they are affiliated with the Catholic Church, a net loss of 7.5 percentage points. Overall, roughly one-third of those who were raised Catholic have left the church, and approximately one-in-ten American adults are former Catholics.Roman Catholic bishops are not allowed to marry, but the Bible commands that Christian bishops are supposed to marry.
The Landscape Survey finds that 2.6% of U.S. adults have switched their affiliation to Catholicism after being raised in another faith or in no faith at all. Nevertheless, former Catholics outnumber converts to Catholicism by roughly four-to-one.
Elena has already answered this one below. You can also read my defense of priestly celibacy for more information on the issue of celibacy in general.
If Candy feels this verse commands bishops to be married, then does she believe we must have a bishop in the church? The two churches Candy attends most often are an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church, and a Four-Square Gospel Baptist church.
According to this website, the IFB believes "The local pastor is the shepherd (bishop), overseer, or leader of the congregation."
Information on the Four-Square Gospel church was more scarce, but I couldn't see that they have any bishops, either.
We could look at this two ways. Either the Bible tells us that we must have bishops, and therefore, Candy's churches are in error. Or, the bishop is the pastor, in which case the Catholic Church should have married priests. We do have married priests in the Eastern Rites, and a growing number of married priests in the Latin Rite, therefore we are not in error.
Furthermore, RCs have certain days where they are not supposed to eat meat.
The verse which Candy quotes does not say "forbids meat on certain days." It says "commanding to abstain from meats." Catholics are not required to be vegetarians, unlike another church. I think we are fine on this point, too.
As pictures all over the internet show, hoards of Roman Catholics bow down to created statues of Mary, all over the world. Mary was the creature, Jesus was the Creator.
A picture doesn't explain theology. It doesn't explain why someone might kneel before a statue, or that the Catholic Church prohibits idolatry. I find it amusing that the way Candy worded those sentences implies that kneeling before a statue of Jesus would be acceptable.
The Roman Catholic Church's official stand is evolution.
Another one of Candy's assertions without any sort of citation. If it is our official stand, then where is that stated? The Catholic Catechism is silent on evolution.
Cardinal Shoenborn, editor of the Catechism, writes "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
Many fundamentalist bloggers are up in arms about the Catholic evolution issue because of stories that the Vatican will be holding a conference in honor of Darwin next March. However, this is actually a debate.
The debate, part of a Vatican-sponsored project called STOQ (Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest) which seeks to explore the relationship between science and ethical and moral questions, is said to have the full blessing of Pope Benedict, a fervent advocate of what he views as the compatibilty of faith with reason. The March conference is being jointly organised by the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, and Notre Dame University, Indiana.They have destroyed the foundations - "In the beginning GOD CREATED..."
If the Catholic Church ends up deciding that some theories of evolution are compatible with Christianity, it will begin from the point that there is a God, and He created the heavens and the earth. If He created it in such a way that included evolution, then that is His choice, and part of His plan.
Rather than destroying the foundation, we affirm it. You can read this in the Catholic Catechism. I'll get you started:
279 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Holy Scripture begins with these solemn words. The profession of faith takes them up when it confesses that God the Father almighty is "Creator of heaven and earth" (Apostles' Creed), "of all that is, seen and unseen" (Nicene Creed). We shall speak first of the Creator, then of creation and finally of the fall into sin from which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to raise us up again.
280 Creation is the foundation of "all God's saving plans," the "beginning of the history of salvation" that culminates in Christ. Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the end for which "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ.282 Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves: "Where do we come from?" "Where are we going?" "What is our origin?" "What is our end?" "Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?" The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."
284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?
285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.
286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."
287 The truth about creation is so important for all of human life that God in his tenderness wanted to reveal to his People everything that is salutary to know on the subject. Beyond the natural knowledge that every man can have of the Creator, God progressively revealed to Israel the mystery of creation. He who chose the patriarchs, who brought Israel out of Egypt, and who by choosing Israel created and formed it, this same God reveals himself as the One to whom belong all the peoples of the earth, and the whole earth itself; he is the One who alone "made heaven and earth".
288 Thus the revelation of creation is inseparable from the revelation and forging of the covenant of the one God with his People. Creation is revealed as the first step towards this covenant, the first and universal witness to God's all-powerful love. And so, the truth of creation is also expressed with growing vigor in the message of the prophets, the prayer of the psalms and the liturgy, and in the wisdom sayings of the Chosen People.
Catholic priests and celibacy
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" -1 Timothy 3:2
Roman Catholic bishops are not allowed to marry, but the Bible commands that Christian bishops are supposed to marry.
October 4, 2008 KTH
The folks at Catholic Answers directly answer Candy's common attack. I have some of the best excerpts below, but the entire article is a good read.
Fundamentalists are often surprised to learn that even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians.
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
As these variations and exceptions indicate, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule. The fact that Peter was married is no more contrary to the Catholic faith than the fact that the pastor of the nearest Maronite Catholic church is married.
All of this is false. Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).
It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it.
Another Fundamentalist argument, related to the last, is that marriage is mandatory for Church leaders. For Paul says a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4–5). This means, they argue, that only a man who has demonstrably looked after a family is fit to care for God’s Church; an unmarried man, it is implied, is somehow untried or unproven.
.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV: "Pope Benedict XVI will kick off a week-long reading of the Bible on Italian television starting Sunday, with readers to include three former presidents and Oscar-winning actor Roberto Benigni.
Some 2,000 people will take turns reading the Bible's 73 books, from the Old Testament's Genesis to the New Testament's Book of Revelations, at Rome's Holy Cross in Jerusalem basilica.
The pope will record the first reading at the Vatican.
Senator for life Giulio Andreotti, former presidents Francesco Cossiga, Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and Carlo Azeglio Ciampi as well as several ministers in the centre-right government of Silvio Berlusconi including his top aide Gianni Letta will be among the readers."
Someone please tell Candy so we don't have to read about how Catholics don't read the bible anymore!


Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Boycott!


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