Queen Isabella of Spain

In keeping with her Jr. High readability, Candy writes:

The RC king and queen of Spain were interested, because they were interested in cha-ching and power, so they decided to send Columbus, so that they could be the top dudes in spices and such from India.
I found this article on the spiritual life of Queen Isabella - it's written by a nun (Candy's favorite) so I'm sure she'll take it for what it's worth.  The rest of us might be humbled to read more about the life of this holy woman.

A Humble Daughter of the Church
A Model for Contemporary Catholics
By Sister Joan Gormley

Queen Isabel of Castile is ranked among the greatest and most influential figures in history. Even her critics agree on that. She supported Columbus in his voyages of discovery and evangelization, and together with her husband, Ferdinand, began the unification of modern Spain and completed the reconquest of the peninsula from Muslim domination.

This article, commemorating the fifth centenary of Isabel’s death (Nov. 26, 1504), will consider the queen as a Servant of God whose cause for beatification has been introduced. Having lived her Catholic faith with heroic fidelity at a time when that faith was under assault, Isabel is a model for contemporary Catholics in the depth of her faith, her sense of personal vocation to live her faith and her zeal to spread it to the ends of the earth.

Isabel begins her final testament by solemnly professing her faith. She declares herself a faithful Catholic, “believing and confessing firmly all that the Holy Catholic Church of Rome holds, believes and confesses, and preaches.” She mentions her faith in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, specifically the articles on the humanity and divinity of Christ and the seven sacraments.

In a personal addition to the formal profession, she declares that she is ready and willing to die for the Catholic faith and would consider martyrdom a great favor. In a time when the Church was weakened by corruption and heresy, Isabel’s faith never wavered. She professed it in its entirety from her childhood to the day of her death.

One of Isabel’s first teachers, Father Martin de Cordoba, wrote a handbook for her entitled Garden of Noble Maidens. In it, he instructed the princess that her noble birth was a vocation from God that required from her the greatest possible response of love. “Since God, who in her mother’s womb gave and predestined this one to be queen of such a noble kingdom as Spain,” he wrote, “she is more obligated to love him than any other woman.”

Isabel took this advice seriously. As queen, she led a devout Christian life and regularly sought the advice of a carefully chosen spiritual director. Her day included the Divine Office and Mass as well as reading and contemplation. Her obligations as wife and mother and her duties as queen were fused in such a way that she kept in view the good of her kingdom and of the Church. At a time when in other kingdoms offices and favors were for sale in Church and court, Isabel’s favor could not be bought. If a man was made a royal herald, it was because he had the best voice for the task. If a bishop was appointed to reform the monasteries, it was because he was living a holy life in accord with his vocation.

Contemporary chroniclers note the queen’s fortitude amid the great sufferings of her later life, especially the death of her oldest daughter, Isabel, and that of her son Juan, the heir to the throne. Another terrible blow was the “madness” of her daughter, Juana, the next in line to the throne. These sorrows, as well as the sufferings of her last illness, she accepted as coming from God.

In the codicil to her testament, Isabel declares that her principal intention in the discovery of the islands and lands in the “West Indies” was “the evangelization and conversion of the natives of those places to the Catholic Faith.” When many Europeans were debating whether indigenous peoples were full human beings, Isabel insisted that the natives of those lands were her subjects and should be treated justly. Certain of their humanity, she was eager to send missionaries to evangelize them. In a real sense, she anticipated the emphasis of the Second Vatican Council on the dignity of every human person. The extent of her contribution to carrying the Gospel to the ends of the earth must be measured in terms of the vibrant Christian faith and culture that sprang up in the lands evangelized by Spain.

Isabel’s last will and testament sums up her dispositions at the end of her life. She is aware of the judgment that awaits her as one who has wielded power: “If no one can be justified in his sight, how much less can those of us of great kingdoms and high estate.” But in humble faith, she recognizes her dependence on God’s mercy and begs that Christ’s passion stand between her soul and judgment. In short, this Catholic queen died as she had lived, a humble daughter of the Church.

Sister Joan Gormley is a professor of Scripture and homiletics at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md.

Christopher Columbus- a Practicing Catholic

No, I don't see how Columbus could have been Catholic. Columbus wanted to get to India to spread the Gospel message, and find a shorter route to India. This is gathered from his own writings.

From what I've read in Columbus' writings, he never mentioned Catholicism, Roman Catholic traditions or rites, Mary, or the patron saints.


Let me start by pointing out the obvious.  Columbus's boats were the Nina, the Pinta and THE SANTA MARIA!!  (St. Mary - named in honor of Mary!)

Well she apparently also missed this!

Letter from Christopher Columbus:

"I informed your Highnesses the Great Khan and its predecessors had sent to Rome many times to beg for men learned in our Holy Faith, so that his people might be instructed therein, and that the Holy Father had never furnished them, and therefore, many peoples believing in idolatries and receiving among themselves sects of perdition were lost.

Your highnesses, as Catholic Christians and Princes devoted to the Holy Christian faith and to the spreading of this faith, and as enemies of the Muslim sect and of all idolatries and heresies, ordered that I should go east, but not by land as is customary. I was to go by way of the west, whence until today we do not know with certainty that anyone has ever gone there. He sent me that I might bring the true faith to the Indians."

October 12, 1492

"The people here …are friendly and well-dispositioned… who bear no arms except for small spears and they have no iron.

I want the natives to develop a friendly attitude towards us because I know they are a people who can be made free and converted to our Holy Catholic Faith more by love than by force. I therefore gave red caps to some and glass beads to others. They hung the beads around their necks …And they took great pleasure in this and became so friendly that it was a marvel. They traded and gave everything they had with good will, but it seems to me they have very little and are poor in everything. I warned my men to take nothing from the people without giving something in exchange."

Case closed

I'm just saying

The CIAL blog had this up on their blog so I thought I would run it through for this one.

Movie Reviews

I ran Candy's blog through a few different ways, but I always come up with

Movie Reviews

Nothing wrong with that necessarily, most newspapers are written at a 5th grade reading level. But when it comes to research and historical proof, which blog do you think just might have a bit more substance and perhaps better fact checking (and spell checking!)? I'm just saying...


Happy Thanksgiving folks!

Catholic Columbus

Hey, at least she mentioned the Anglicans this time. Usually Catholics gets all the credit. I'm not sure how this fits in with wonderful Queen Elizabeth.

Years ago, the Separatist Puritans set off to find a land where they could escape Roman Catholic and Anglican persecution.

I'm not sure Columbus was really spreading the Gospel message to the unsaved. At least, I didn't think Candy thought Catholics did that.

(Christopher Columbus' driving force for getting to India was to spread the Gospel message to the unsaved. When Christopher Columbus instead discovered America, he said that he was led of God to find this new land - A Christian nation dedicated unto the Lord.

Christopher Columbus was a Catholic. Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door in 1517, making Columbus' voyage prior to the Reformation. Columbus started the Spanish colonization movement, spreading the Catholic faith to the islands on which he landed, such as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and many lesser known islands.

Many years after Columbus, the Puritan Christian Pilgrims arrived, and created beautiful Christian settlements.

Even in mainland America, the oldest continuing settlement is the Catholic settlement of St. Augustine Florida. In California, the Catholic missions are preserved as the earliest European settlements. Thus, beautiful Christian settlements were already created by the Catholic Church.

A Catholic Thanksgiving

While holidays are usually a time when Candy begins to post on the pagan-Catholic origins of various feasts, Thanksgiving is a time normally free of this sort of thing. After all, Thanksgiving is a Puritan as you get, right?

When on September 8, 1565 Pedro Menéndez de Avilés and his 800 Spanish settlers founded the settlement of St. Augustine in La Florida, the landing party celebrated a Mass of Thanksgiving, and, afterward, Menéndez laid out a meal to which he invited as guests the native Seloy tribe who occupied the site.

The celebrant of the Mass was St. Augustine’s first pastor, Father Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales, and the feast day in the church calendar was that of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. What exactly the Seloy natives thought of those strange liturgical proceedings we do not know, except that, in his personal chronicle, Father Lopez wrote that “the Indians imitated all they saw done.”

What is important historically about that liturgy and meal was stated by me in a 1965 book entitled The Cross in the Sand: “It was the first community act of religion and thanksgiving in the first permanent [European] settlement in the land.” The keyword in that sentence was “permanent.” Numerous thanksgivings for a safe voyage and landing had been made before in Florida, by such explorers as Juan Ponce de León, in 1513 and 1521, Pánfilo de Narváez in 1528, Hernando de Soto in 1529, Father Luis Cáncer de Barbastro in 1549, and Tristán de Luna in 1559. Indeed French Calvinists (Huguenots) who came to the St. Johns River with Jean Ribault in 1562 and René de Laudonnière in 1564 similarly offered prayers of thanksgiving for their safe arrivals. But all of those ventures, Catholic and Calvinist, failed to put down permanent roots.

St. Augustine’s ceremonies were important historically in that they took place in what would develop into a permanently occupied European city, North America’s first. They were important culturally as well in that the religious observance was accompanied by a communal meal, to which Spaniards and natives alike were invited. The thanksgiving at St. Augustine, celebrated 56 years before the Puritan-Pilgrim thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation (Massachusetts), did not, however, become the origin of a national annual tradition, as Plymouth would. The reason is that, as the maxim holds, it is the victors who write the histories.

You can read more about it here, or for a something on a non-Catholic site, here.

Perhaps Candy will catch on next year . . .

The Pope on Justification

More from the writings of St. Paul at the Pope's weekly audience. I'm calling this one "Newsflash: Pope says Luther was right!" in honor of all those out of context headlines the media likes to run.

From the English part of the address: In our continuing catechesis on St. Paul, we now consider his teaching on our justification. Paul’s experience of the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus led him to see that it is only by faith in Christ, and not by any merit of our own, that we are made righteous before God. Our justification in Christ is thus God’s gracious gift, revealed in the mystery of the Cross. Christ died in order to become our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption (cf. 1 Cor 1:30), and we in turn, justified by faith, have become in him the very righteousness of God (cf. 2 Cor 5:21). In the light of the Cross and its gifts of reconciliation and new life in the Spirit, Paul rejected a righteousness based on the Law and its works.

For the Apostle, the Mosaic Law, as an irrevocable gift of God to Israel, is not abrogated but relativized, since it is only by faith in God’s promises to Abraham, now fulfilled in Christ, that we receive the grace of justification and new life. The Law finds its end in Christ (cf. Rom 10:4) and its fulfilment in the new commandment of love. With Paul, then, let us make the Cross of Christ our only boast (cf. Gal 6:14), and give thanks for the grace which has made us members of Christ’s Body, which is the Church.

In the longer, Italian portion:

On the journey we have undertaken under the guidance of St. Paul, we now wish to reflect on a topic that is at the center of the controversies of the century of the Reformation: the issue of justification. How is a man just in the eyes of God? When Paul met the Risen One on the road to Damascus he was a fulfilled man: irreproachable in regard to justice derived from the law (cf. Philippians 3:6); he surpassed many of his contemporaries in the observance of the Mosaic prescriptions and was zealous in upholding the traditions of his forefathers (cf. Galatians 1:14). . .

The wall -- so says the Letter to the Ephesians -- between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.

That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).

The Pope and the End Times

What do Catholics believe about the end times is a popular question here. I found that the Pope, who has been speaking a lot about St. Paul for the Pauline Year, devoted his November 12th general audience to Paul's writings on the parusia, or return of Jesus. The entire audience is available here, but I'm quoting some relevant parts:

And now, after examining the various aspects of the expectation of Christ's parusia, let us ask ourselves: what are the basic convictions of Christians as regards the last things: death, the end of the world? Their first conviction is the certainty that Jesus is Risen and is with the Father and thus is with us forever. And no one is stronger than Christ, for he is with the Father, he is with us. We are consequently safe, free of fear. This was an essential effect of Christian preaching. Fear of spirits and divinities was widespread in the ancient world. Today too, missionaries alongside many good elements in natural religions encounter fear of the spirits, of evil powers that threaten us. Christ lives, he has overcome death, he has overcome all these powers. We live in this certainty, in this freedom, and in this joy. This is the first aspect of our living with regard to the future.

The second is the certainty that Christ is with me. And just as the future world in Christ has already begun, this also provides the certainty of hope. The future is not darkness in which no one can find his way. It is not like this. Without Christ, even today the world's future is dark, and fear of the future is so common. Christians know that Christ's light is stronger and therefore they live with a hope that is not vague, with a hope that gives them certainty and courage to face the future.

Lastly, their third conviction is that the Judge who returns at the same time as Judge and Saviour has left us the duty to live in this world in accordance with his way of living. He has entrusted his talents to us. Our third conviction, therefore, is responsibility before Christ for the world, for our brethren and at the same time also for the certainty of his mercy. Both these things are important. Since God can only be merciful we do not live as if good and evil were the same thing. This would be a deception. In reality, we live with a great responsibility. We have talents, and our responsibility is to work so that this world may be open to Christ, that it be renewed. Yet even as we work responsibly, we realize that God is the true Judge. We are also certain that this Judge is good; we know his Face, the Face of the Risen Christ, of Christ crucified for us. Therefore we can be certain of his goodness and advance with great courage.

Praying the Hail Mary

Edward Sri's "Praying the Hail Mary Like Never Before."

When asked by our protestant friends why Catholics worship Mary, we may quickly reply, "We don't worship her; we honor her." When asked why we pray to Mary, we might respond, "We don't pray to her; we ask her to pray for us."

Such "Apologetics 101" moves may express certain truths about Marian devotion and can be very helpful in initial conversations with our non-Catholic brethren. However, if we stop there, we may fail to communicate the full splendor of God's revelation about our Blessed Mother and the beautiful role she plays in our lives.

That was precisely my experience with the Hail Mary.

For many years, whenever I was asked about why Catholics pray the Hail Mary, I explained that it was a prayer in which we ask the mother of Jesus to pray for us. Since Mary is so close to her Son in heaven, she serves as an ideal intercessor whose prayers bring us closer to Jesus. And we seek Mary's intercession just like we ask each other here on earth for prayers, so it should be okay for a Christian to pray the Hail Mary, asking her to "pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death."

While all this is true, it's not the approach pope John Paul II took when explaining the Hail Mary in his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae (RVM). For John Paul II, the Hail Mary is not just an intercessory prayer that is permissible for Christians to recite; it's actually a Christ-centered prayer that gives Jesus great praise. If we truly love Jesus, we as Christians should want to pray this prayer!

Living Catholicism: Catholic Carnival 199: Life. And how to Live it.

Living Catholicism: Catholic Carnival 199: Life. And how to Live it.

Liberal churches join effort to overturn Prop. 8 (OneNewsNow.com)

Liberal churches join effort to overturn Prop. 8 (OneNewsNow.com)
No doubt these churches have differing "interpretation" issues from Candy too. But I'll bet she never considered them not to be Christian!







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

Repost: Erik's testimony

This is Elena's post from the last time Candy printed the article from Erik, back in July. This one has a lot of references to the Catechism, so I thought it worth a repost. --Kelly

The majority of the time, show me a former Catholic, and I'll show you one that was poorly catechized. Candy's husband Erik illustrates this point very well.


www.keepingthehome.com: "This article was written by my husband...

When I was growing up, going to church was something that you did for an hour on Sunday and then you got back to your 'Real Life'. Better yet, get church 'out of the way' on Saturday afternoon just before dinner so you can enjoy Sunday without interruption. I got the impression from my upbringing that it was impolite to talk about God outside of church. So much for spreading the gospel as Christ called every Christian to do.

That's sad. It sounds like Erik's parents didn't take their faith seriously so why should he be expected to. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about parental responsibility of raising their kids.

2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the "material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones." Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:

He who loves his son will not spare the rod. . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

2228 Parents' respect and affection are expressed by the care and attention they devote to bringing up their young children and providing for their physical and spiritual needs. As the children grow up, the same respect and devotion lead parents to educate them in the right use of their reason and freedom.

2226 Education in the faith by the parents should begin in the child's earliest years. This already happens when family members help one another to grow in faith by the witness of a Christian life in keeping with the Gospel. Family catechesis precedes, accompanies, and enriches other forms of instruction in the faith. Parents have the mission of teaching their children to pray and to discover their vocation as children of God. The parish is the Eucharistic community and the heart of the liturgical life of Christian families; it is a privileged place for the catechesis of children and parents.

In our family we go to mass every Sunday. Sometimes there is one of us at all the masses as servers and choir members! My husband also teaches Sunday School (PSR). We try to follow the liturgical year and we have special feast days that we like to commemorate. Life in the church permeates our home and fills our existence. It's so sad that Erik did not experience that! I invite all of you to write in the com boxes how your family lives out your Catholic faith!!

Actually reading the Bible was not encouraged, because neither I, nor anybody in my immediate family was 'expert enough' to really understand what it said anyway. The idea was that the experts in the church who studied the Bible 'professionally', would be the ones to tell us what it meant.

Without proper interpretation you get the whacked out crazy interpretations that we have read. There are tens of thousands of Christian churches all fractionated on bible interpretations. Obviously they can't all be right when they all disagree!

Again from the catechism:

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."⁷⁶
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."⁷⁷
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.⁷⁸
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.⁷⁹

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.⁸⁰

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"⁸¹).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.⁸² By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."⁸³
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.⁸⁴
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".⁸⁵
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.⁸⁶

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.⁸⁷

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."⁸⁸


The church encourages the faithful to know the scripture!!



131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."¹⁰⁹ Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."¹¹⁰
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."¹¹¹
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.¹¹²

Also, there are so many versions of the Bible, the fact that it could be translated in different ways was proof that the average person was wasting their time if they studied the Bible, but if they were going to try it, it better be done under the expert guidance of a 'professional'. If anybody quoted a part of the Bible to me in order to try and correct my lost spiritual condition, I could easily dismiss the Bible quote by thinking it was just 'their interpretation'. Also, since I was lost, I did not have the Holy Spirit to help me understand the Bible, the few times I did try to read part"

Poor kid. Probably didn't even know where to start.

Well for starters, if one really wants to understand scripture, some good bible studies are in order. How to know which ones are good.

The Fisheaters Site gives some good guidelines:

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine. Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."

Bottom line: When buying books on religious and spiritual matters, seek out those books written before Vatican II and which have the "Imprimatur," or those books which are known to be written by solidly orthodox traditional Catholics. Otherwise, be wary and take the book with a grain of salt. And, always, if you come across a book that says horrific things about the Church, Her teachings, or Her history, read the traditional Catholic point of view and dig up objective resources. There's a lot of lying going on out there, folks.

Aquinas and More has examples of acceptable Catholic bibles and explanation of the difference between the Catholic and Protestant bibles.

Also some bible studies available.

Kelly covered bible studies here.
Scott Hahn's Scripture Catholic.
Bible Study following the liturgical year.
Catholic Bible study Online Resources.

Erik's upbringing after Vatican II unfortunately was pretty typical. I think that after the council the bishops didn't know what to teach, and so they taught pretty much nothing and a couple of generations were lost.

I have theories about why people stayed too. My family was devout. We went to church every Sunday and we prayed every day. We prayed for people. I always felt that God was listening and that He was close. Our faith was part of the fabric of our lives and when I did explore other Christian faiths, I found nothing comparable. How do you replace the Eucharist?

Many thanks to Erik for illustrating the point that I have been making with a banana peel, beautifully.

The poor catechesis of Erik Brauer

I have never met an ex-Catholic who truly knew and understood their Catholic faith but chose to abandon it anyway.  Still haven't.  This article by Candy's husband is pretty typical of the types of folks I have met on line or in real life.  I think Erik is slightly younger than I am, but I don't think Catholic Catechesis  had improved that much during his formative years.  Here are some excerpts from Candy's post:

This article was written by my husband...

When I was growing up, going to church was something that you did for an hour on Sunday and then you got back to your "Real Life". Better yet, get church 'out of the way' on Saturday afternoon just before dinner so you can enjoy Sunday without interruption. I got the impression from my upbringing that it was impolite to talk about God outside of church. So much for spreading the gospel as Christ called every Christian to do.

Actually reading the Bible was not encouraged, because neither I, nor anybody in my immediate family was 'expert enough' to really understand what it said anyway. The idea was that the experts in the church who studied the Bible 'professionally', would be the ones to tell us what it meant. Also, there are so many versions of the Bible, the fact that it could be translated in different ways was proof that the average person was wasting their time if they studied the Bible, but if they were going to try it, it better be done under the expert guidance of a 'professional'. If anybody quoted a part of the Bible to me in order to try and correct my lost spiritual condition, I could easily dismiss the Bible quote by thinking it was just 'their interpretation'. Also, since I was lost, I did not have the Holy Spirit to help me understand the Bible, the few times I did try to read part of it, I did not understand it, So the 'needing a professional' idea seemed to be true.

As those of you who are saved can guess, my notions about God and the Bible were a recipe for a non-Spirit filled flesh based life, and that is exactly the life I had. I was headed to hell playing church in order to satisfy the curiosity of God that God gives to each person, and my notions about the Bible made it powerless in my life.

This actually sounds like my Catholic High School experience.  There were (and are) a lot of cultural Catholics.  On some blogs I have seen them referred to as CINO or Catholics in Name Only.  They go to mass, put their kids on the sacramental conveyor belt, but they are not living their Catholic faith outside of that.

In my experience, it was not so much that Catholics were discouraged from reading the bible in those days as the teaching of the had swung from solid grounding in Scripture and Tradition to an experiential, "feel-good" type of gobbledy gook - I am told the thought was that if kids felt good and all tingly about their Catholic Faith, they would eventually seek to learn more about it. The reality is that generations of us grew to adulthood seeking more of the "feel good" crap we had been fed as kids and adolescents and didn't seek the faith, any faith, until we hit a crisis point in our life.

When there's a void like this, folks will look for something to fill it.  Hobbies, sex, drugs, destructive behaviors are one way to go.  Other's look to Eastern religions of Paganism for enlightenment. Erik didn't feel fulfilled in the empty faith life of his parents, so of course he looked elsewhere for enlightenment.  It's a sad typical story.

Encouragingly, I think most of the moms who read this blog and other Catholic blogs want more than that for their children.  And if anything, Candy's constant persecutation of our Catholic faith has incouraged many to dig into study and learn about the faith Christ has given to us, and His church has protected and passed down.

Blind leading the blind

Candy gives her testimony - again at Keeping The Home: My Testimony

This part caught my eye:

I knew my husband (boyfriend at that time) was a Roman Catholic, and I thought that was what Christians were - I thought the names were interchangeable. Thus, I asked him "how do I get saved?" He shocked me, when he said "I don't know." Fortunatly, he was informed enough to know of people who would know. He brought me over to some mutual friends that we had, who were saved, and I asked them "how do I get saved?"

Candy's husband Erik was an uncatechized Catholic. He is her primary inspiration for hating the Catholic church, that he seemingly knew little or nothing about!

The rest of the testimony is interestingly, although she's printed this out before. She admits to being string willed, which I suppose explains how she can deliberately ignore the rebuttals we have put on this blog to many of her epic essays. It also explains why she is so comfortable following her own interpretations and leaning on her own understanding, skipping over the verses that tell her not to do just that.

I can't begin to understand where she's coming from, but these few revelations at least partially explain our encounters with Candy.







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

Candy comments that make me go huh?

Swylv, no the Protestant church cannot be the daughter, as the Protestant church was there before the Roman Catholic Church was.

Then what were the PROTESTant churches PROTESTing?

Visits to Candyland: Codifying the Vatican vs. God essay

Last spring we took Candy on point by point and addressed her issues.

Visits to Candyland: Codifying the Vatican vs. God essay


I just made this screen shot to show how we went down each issue point by point.



Incidentally, Candy has never addressed this rebuttal ever. She claim to "love" Catholics so much, shouldn't she be willing to confront some of the points we brought up over six months ago?

A Collection on "Rebuttals to "Vatican vs. God"" (VVG) | Diigo

It turns out that Candy's loyal readership neglected to nominate her for any of the categories in the Homeschool Blog Awards. That is apparently a blessing to her, as she is free to be herself and put all of her prior anti-Catholic nastiness right back on her blog!

So I guess now we know that Candy is on a loop of posts that apparently recycle every 7 months or so, give or take. The beauty of Candy's limited understanding is that she can't come up with new stuff! And since Kelly (with a new baby on the way) and I (dragging my second son through homeschool high school, one CLEP test at a time) have far better things to do with our time that rebut her, it's nice that we have covered all of this in our previous work!

We rebutted The Vatican vs. God earlier this year. It's in the side bar. Here is a link to the articles.
A Collection of Rebuttals to the Vatican vs. God (VVG) | Diigo

Living Catholicism: Catholic Carnival 198: Veterans, Life and Politics

Living Catholicism: Catholic Carnival 198: Veterans, Life and Politics







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

The Islam/Catholic Connection

While Candy seems quite addicted to YouTube, I admit that I skip over the videos that she posts. I stay busy, and I can't sit and watch TV on the computer for an hour simply to point out flaws in the video.

Candy says that the videos point out the connection between Catholicism and Islam. While I can't respond to whatever evidence the videos allegedly provide because I didn't watch them, I can point you to what we have already written. I assume that the videos are related to the claim of Jack Chick that the Catholic Church founded Islam as a way of drawing more Christians to Satan.

For more information see our previous entry on Jack Chick.

Mike Huckabee

I cam across this Youtube presentation by a conservative young black man. It's informative and entertaining. I think most of you will enjoy it.

This gentleman thinks we should have supported Mike Huckabee as the Republican Candidate instead of John McCain. In retrospect he might have been correct. Over the past couple of weeks I have had a chance to watch Mr. Huckabee's program on t.v. and he does seem like a good wordsmith, and a conservative gentleman. If he runs again I might give him another look.

I only mention it on this blog, because it was an anti-Catholic commenter who use to come here all the time that turned me off to Mike Huckabee. That reader misconstrued and deliberately distorted just about everything Kelly and I wrote, she was unfriendly and rude. When I visited her blog she had a big Huckabee sign in her side bar. And that turned me off to him. Probably wasn't fair or good judgment on my part (although in the long run it didn't matter because McCain was the candidate by the time the primary came to my state). But I think it's indicative of how divisive and hurtful this is - Christians turning against Christians.

It's pretty clear now that Catholics can't swing the vote alone. But neither can Conservative Protestant Christians. We need each other. And that's what made Candy's ridiculous article this week about the Jesuits plotting to put Obama in the White House even more hurtful. I mourned that election as much as she did. I sure didn't need her going off on one of her ridiculous tangents the day after. Of course, when has Candy ever cared about anyone else's feelings.

But maybe the rest of us can learn something from it. We've got a few years to decipher and analyze what just happened to us. Maybe we can pull it together before the congressional elections in 2010.

On the first commandment

"Sometimes our non-Catholic friends suspect us of sinning against the first commandment because of the honor we pay to the saints. This accusation would be true if we paid to the saints the divine worship that is due to God alone. But we do not, not if we are in our right minds. Even the honor which we pay to Mary, the Blessed Mother of God, surpassing as it does the reverence we pay to the angels and the other canonized saints, is still of an entirely different nature from the adoration which we give, and may give, only to God.

When we pray to our Blessed Mother and to the saints in heaven (as we should) and beg their help, we know that whatever they may do for us will not be done of their own power, as though they were divine. Whatever they may do for us will be done for us by God, through their intercession. If we value the prayers of our friends here upon earth and feel that their prayers will help us, then surely we have the right to feel that the prayers of our friends in heaven will be even more powerful. The saints are God's chosen friends, heroes in the spiritual combat. It pleases God to encouraage our imitation of them and to show his own love for them b dispensing his graces through their hands. Nor does the honor we show to the saints detract one whit from the honor that is due to God. The saints are God's masterpieces of grace. When we praise them, it is God--who made them what they are--whome we honor most. The highest honor that can be paid to an artist is to praise the work of his hands.

We honor the statues and the pictures of the saints, yes; and we venerate their relics. But we are not adoring these representations and relics. No more so than a hardheaded businessman is adoring the picture of his sainted mother before which he places a fresh flower every morning, or the lock of whose hair he carries reverently in his wallet. And when we pray before the crucifix or the image of a saint, in order to better fix our mind upon what we are doing, we are not so stupid (let us hope) as to suppose that the plaster or wooden image has in itself any power to help us. That would be a sin against the first commandment, which forbids the making of images in order to adore them. But we do not, of course, adore them."

--The Faith Explained, by Fr. Leo J. Trese

Keeping The Home- and comments

Candy and I briefly discussed her comments or lack thereof yesterday. So I would like to interject a few of my thoughts on her post from today.

Keeping The Home: "I strictly censor the comments on this blog. Comments trying to engage me in 'discussing' what I blogged about will not be published, unless I specifically mentioned that I wanted to discuss the issue. Discussion comments that do occasionally get published will often go unanswered by me. Why this rule? Because I don't have the time nor the commitment to keep up in discussions in my comments.

I submit it is because she does not have the interest. She does not care what her readers think, she doesn't want to know about their opinions. It's really that simple.

Mo dissenting views will be published, unless they are tastefully done, not anti-Christian or anti-Bible, and will not lead me to feel that I must respond.

In short, dissenting views just won't be published - don't even try.









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

Letter to Candy

There was a coup in our country last night.  We elected a socialist president, and gave him complete power with a blue congress and you want to blather on about how the Jesuits believe the second coming already happened?  For cryin out loud Candy - get yourself a Catechism of the Catholic Church and read it why don't you.  This makes you look like an absolute loon.

Well, we may have lost this election, but there's a much smaller blog vote coming up in a few weeks and I promise you, that I am going to give my full effort to making sure that we don't lose that one. 

Count on it.


FOLLOWUP  - We don't have to do Candy's Whore of Babylon nonsense- because we already did it.  See all of our rebuttals here.

Also the Catholic Church does not teach that Christ has already had his second coming.  From the catechism:
2612 In Jesus "the Kingdom of God is at hand." He calls his hearers to conversion and faith, but also to watchfulness. In prayer the disciple keeps watch, attentive to Him Who Is and Him Who Comes, in memory of his first coming in the lowliness of the flesh, and in the hope of his second coming in glory. In communion with their Master, the disciples' prayer is a battle; only by keeping watch in prayer can one avoid falling into temptation.

2859 By the second petition, the Church looks first to Christ's return and the final coming of the Reign of God. It also prays for the growth of the Kingdom of God in the "today" of our own lives.

There are others but that's the drift.  Every mass we say, "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again."

Also when I google Preterism and The Catholic Church - my only hits are from anti-Catholic sites (big surprise right?)  The term "preterism" does not appear in the Catechism.

Interestingly when I called Candy on the fact that Catholics don't believe this and the church doesn't teach it she replied:  

I didn't at all say "the Jesuits believe the second coming already happened."  Nor do I think they believe that.  This is the basis of your and other hate sites - to take my words, twist them, misunderstand them (often purposely, no doubt) and make a big hoopla over a totally non-existent issue.

But when I pointed out that her articles says:
Jesuits from the Roman Catholic Church came up with the severely errant Preterist view of the book of Revelation. Full Preterists believe that all of Revelation already happened, even Jesus' second coming!

Then she wrote back, "Exactly"


So whatever.  She is wrong.  She will not admit she was wrong.  Her entire article concerning Catholicism and Obama is science fiction at best.

Feast of All Souls and Indulgences

As I just posted about prayers for the dead, I thought the Feast of All Souls would be a good time to write about indulgences. We've had several requests for an article on that topic, but I have never gotten around to it previously.

According to popular mythology, indulgences are a way to "buy your way out of purgatory." Indulgences frequently come up in attacks on the Catholic Church.

The medieval church did not actually sell indulgences, but that was an abuse that went on, unofficially. Similar to church fundraisers that you might attend today where there is a "suggested donation" price tag on things, the indulgence was for almsgiving, but functioned in practice as having been sold. Certainly, there was abuse there, and it was reformed by the Council of Trent.

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

Indulgences were not abolished, however, and are still around in the church today. I would guess that the average Catholic thinks that they were done away with, like purgatory, after Vatican II. Obtaining an indulgence, like saying a Hail Mary, is not anything required of a Catholic, and you can be a good Catholic and never attempt to gain an indulgence.

I've found the best way to explain the doctrine behind indulgences is with a little story, so bear with me.

Suppose we have a family that is getting ready for a big Christmas feast. A little boy is dressed in his finest clothes, but there is still an hour before the guests arrive, and he begs his mother to go outside and play. His mother says he might, but makes him promise that he must NOT play in the mud! The boy promises, and out he goes. But, like my little 5 year old boy, he soon forgets, and when his mother comes to call him, she finds he is covered in mud. Now the boy is very sorry, and he begs forgiveness from his mother. And she immediately forgives him. But, because he is covered in mud, he needs to take a nice hot bath to be cleansed of the mud before he can join in the feast. The bath doesn't effect his forgiveness, because he was immediately forgiven. It just removes the results of his sin, so that he can enter into the feast purified.

So that is meant to explain purgatory, but it doesn't really tie indulgences in yet. Indulgences would be if the boy saw that he had done wrong, and tried to wash himself off with the garden hose, as a way of showing his mother how sorry he is. It doesn't effect his forgiveness, because he will be completely forgiven either way. But it might make for a shorter bath.

We call the bath, or purgatory, "temporal punishment." It isn't a punishment that is supposed to earn our salvation, because Jesus did all of that for us already. It is supposed to be part of a cleansing process that removes the stain of sin from our souls, because nothing impure can enter heaven.

The technical definition of an indulgences is "a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven." This shows that the Catholic Church is not teaching that "Christ was not enough." We recognize that our guilt has already been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Clear as mud? Let some better apologists than myself explain it.

A nice basic primer on indulgences
Catholic Answer's Myths About Indulgences
Dave Armstrong gives biblical evidence for indulgences

Feeling brave? Here's the official doctrine on indulgences from the Enchiridion.

The Homeschool Blog Awards Campaign

If you're a regular reader over at Candy's blog, you've probably noted that she has cleaned up her act! Apparently she has done a 180 and "backed down" on her anti-Catholic rhetoric. In fact, she has removed all of her anti-Catholic links in the side bar and disabled many of the ones we linked to.

I think she is trying to clean up her act for the upcoming Homeschool Blog Awards. This is just my opinion, but based on past experience I think she wants to look squeaky clean for that, as no doubt her followers have nominated her in some category (we don't know which one(s) yet).

I'd like to think she's turned over a new leaf. I'm willing to believe that maybe this is going to be a "new age" for Candy over at keepingthehome.com. But I have my doubts. However, as Kelly and I have discussed in the past, if she is able to clean up her act and not attack Catholics for, oh, let's say a full year, then we will gladly give this blog a different focus.

HOWEVER, over the last year she has been very vindictive in her ongoing assault on Catholics and the Catholic faith, and has attacked me and my family personally on her blog. For that reason, I do not support her for any award in the HSBA. I would be very interested in publicly supporting any other blog running in her category and will happily unite with any of the other bloggers on a united effort if they are so inclined.

The Feast of All Saints

Today the Catholic Church celebrates the feast of All Saints. I thought it would be a good chance to handle some of those saint related questions which we receive.

In her Vatican versus God essay, Candy takes issue with the canonization of saints. Elena writes about that here.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the only saints are those which are formally canonized. In fact, the Feast of All Saints came about as a way to remember all those saints whose name we don't know. This was the practice very early on in the church, because so many were martyred that it was impossible to keep track of them all. Both St. Ephrem (d. 373) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) attest to this feast day in their preaching.

Often, people question why we "pray to saints" when Jesus is the one Mediator. 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. This was the practice of the early Christians, as well.

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).

But what about the statues of saints we have in church? Isn't that kneeling before idols?

While Catholic churches often have statues, we don't pray to the statues. It is like a picture, to remind you of a loved one. Like a historical statue, to stand and contemplate who it represents.

When we kneel before a statue, it is not because we are worshiping the statue, it is because we are about to pray to God at a location that happens to be in front of a statue.

Perhaps you might kneel in prayer, with an illustrated Bible, and open to a page with a picture of the Holy Land to better contemplate Jesus. Are you worshiping the picture because you are kneeling?

It is merely an aid to prayer. The prayer is not directed to the object.

Some other resources:

Catholic Answers on Praying to the Saints
Scripture Catholic on the Saints
David MacDonald on the saints