More Nun Fun!

Russ and Deborah Rentler - Conversion to Catholicism.

Home: "Born and raised Catholic, Russ and Deborah left the Church and became devout evangelical Christians for many years. Their journey of faith has taken many dramatic twists and turns and culminated in their joyful reception back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on April 30, 2004.

'We have found a great treasure of truth in the faith of our childhood that has been life-changing. The Sacraments have helped us grow closer to Jesus and have given us a oneness and peace in our marriage that we never experienced before.'"







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

A Woman Rides The Beast

As I mentioned the last time Candy posted a link to this video, I don't really consider watching long movies on You Tube a good use of my time. I assume it is the same tired anti-Catholic arguments, and will direct you to our rebuttal of Dave Hunt's book A Woman Rides the Beast.

For a more edifying (and time friendly) video, try one of my favorites:

This That and the Other Thing: Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival

This That and the Other Thing: Sunday Snippets--A Catholic Carnival







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

Nun run for AIDS orphans

Here is a Video from MiamiHerald featuring Sister Mary Elizabeth. Sister will run the 100 miles in her habit to bring awareness to AIDs orphans.

Posting this here once more to show Candy et al that Catholic nuns are not only happy, alive and well, but also pro-active in their communities, doing the work of Christ in whatever ways that they can. Good luck sister!







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

More Nun Fun!

For Franciscan sisters, every day is prayer day - JSOnline

Sister Marie Leone LaCroix rises in the darkness of her room at St. Rose Convent.

The Franciscan sister, 91, slides into her bathrobe and slippers, takes her cane and slowly makes her way to the dimly-lighted chapel.

There, LaCroix sits before the marble altar where, in an ornate golden vessel, rests a consecrated host Catholics believe to be the body of Christ. And there, she takes her place in an unending chain of prayer that began long before she was born.

"It's so quiet. It's such a serene time to be with God," LaCroix said.

Her order, the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, has prayed before the Holy Eucharist in shifts around the clock since 1878.








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

Marian Images

Candy loves to post images of alleged Marian worship. She especially likes the image of Mary with the nail marks in her hands. She specifically points it out in the beginning of her article.

The thing is, that is not a Catholic image. I have only seen that image on fundamentalist sites such as Jesus Is Lord. If anyone can point me to a Catholic site using it, please post in the comments. I believe the stars on Mary's veil are closest to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but it is not the same image.



There are many images of Mary which a Catholic would recognize as common depictions. None of them include nail marks in the hands of Mary. This image is simply an exaggeration, intending to prove the point of Catholic Mary worship.




Mary has long been honored in the Catholic tradition for her sufferings, but her sufferings are not the same as those of Jesus. The sufferings of Mary are known as the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are not physical sorrows, but mental ones.

The Prophecy of Simeon
The Flight into Egypt
The Loss of Jesus in the Temple
The Meeting of Jesus and Mary on the Way of the Cross
The Crucifixion
The Taking Down of the Body of Jesus from the Cross
Jesus laid in the Tomb





Mary says that her soul magnifies the glory of the Lord, and the Seven Sorrows of Mary illustrate that. As in any Marian devotion, it draws us to Jesus. The sorrows of Mary take us through Jesus' life and death. Seeing them through the eyes of His mother give us new insight into His suffering and death. Who would want to be killed before their mother?

The Catholic Mary does not seek to replace Jesus, or to be another saviour. She only seeks to draw us to her Son. She wants us to "Do whatever He tells you."

UCAN: Cured Catholic cancer patient recalls miraculous intercession of 'praying nun' - Catholic Online

Since we all know how much Candy loves nuns, I thought this was of interest.

UCAN: Cured Catholic cancer patient recalls miraculous intercession of 'praying nun' - Catholic Online







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

John Chapter six.

Looks like after taking some criticism for rerunning the same ole stuff on her blog, Candy tried to spice up this latest post with more of her own "insights." But closer inspection shows that we've done most of this stuff with her before.



We handled Candy's view of the Eucharist and the Bible: John Chapter 6 back on October 5, 2007. This week Candy writes:

My Notes: I referenced John 6:63 here, because it is made clear that when Jesus was speaking about eating his flesh and drinking His blood in John 6, that many people left Him, because they thought He literally meant that they should cannibalize and vampirize Him. Jesus clarified that He wasn't speaking literally, when he said "It is the spirit that quickeneth' the flesh pofiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."




Candy makes the classic Fundamentalist error:

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

A final Protestant appeal is also made to St. John 6, 63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." We are told that these words mean that the eating of flesh is of no spiritual value, only faith can profit one unto eternal life. That being the case, Christ could not have meant to eat His flesh in order to have life. The Catholic response is that Christ was in reality making an appeal to His listeners to trust Him on faith rather than try and rationalize His words in order to find their true meaning. In the previous verse (v. 62) Christ infers that His listeners would have had no problem accepting His words if they had seen Him as He was before He came down from heaven, that is, as the Son of God equal to the Father, for then His words would obviously be the words of God rather than the words of man - words of "spirit and life."

To conclude it is also necessary to examine the words of St. Paul in chapters 10 and 11 of his first epistle to the Corinthians. In these chapters he sternly chastises the Corinthians for their idolatry and their poor attitude towards reception of the Eucharist. His language is remarkably literal and his warnings blunt:

"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ (10, 1-4)…Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols…The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (10, 14-17)…You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons (10, 21-22)…"

In verses 1-4 St. Paul is regarding the manna, the water and the rock as types of things to come. This ties in with the words of Christ in St. John outlined earlier, "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die" (vv. 48-50). The early Christians undoubtedly saw the Eucharist as a fulfillment of the promised manna, but unlike the manna he who eats the bread of the Eucharist will "live forever" (v. 51).

The language of verses 14-17 again is the type that excludes all sense of the figurative or symbolic. St. Paul speaks directly of "participation in the blood and body of Christ." If one is still prepared to argue the matter, St. Paul uses even more striking language in chapter 11:

"…For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (vv. 23-31).

According to most scholars this is the first written account of the institution of the Eucharist, predating even the Gospel accounts.² One ex-Protestant convert to Catholicism comments on vv. 23-31 as follows:

"Being guilty of someone’s ‘body and blood’ was to be guilty of murder. How could one be guilty of murder if the body (bread) was only a symbol? The Real Presence of Christ’s Body is necessary for an offense to be committed against it. How could one be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ by simply eating a little bread and drinking a little wine?…St. Paul’s words are meaningless without the dogma of the Real Presence." ³

John Chapter six.: "Vs 63*, Jesus said, 'It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.'
Did He say He was speaking figuratively or in parables? This is the second verse detractors use to try to 'prove' that Jesus spoke figuratively for the whole chapter. Did Jesus say 'My' flesh? No, He said 'the' flesh. What Jesus had said was, that we cannot accept this mystery if we accept it in too human a way, by having an earthly view of things. Those who can only think of cannibalism, are they not having an earthly view?
See John 3:6, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' Verse 63 means that we should not have a carnal human understanding of His words, but a spiritual understanding."

Vain Repetition

Candy has once again reposted her Vatican Versus God article. She has mentioned previously that she is very proud of this article because she sent a lot of time doing research for it. Certainly, she is to be commended for actually looking over the Vatican's website rather than just cutting and pasting from Jesus Is Lord, the way that she usually does.

As Elena has mentioned, we have really covered all of these points already. However, as I have time this week, I'd like to add my thoughts on a few of them.

What really stood out to me when I read this was Candy's note on vain repetition:

Vatican says - "After a short pause for reflection, recite the "Our Father", ten "Hail Mary’s" and the "Glory be to the Father". reference 7

God says - But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. -Matthew 6:7

My Notes: How would you like it, if your child came up to you, and said "you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy, you are a great mommy," over and over and over and over and over again? Now do you see why they are vain (AKA meaningless) repetitions?

What a reflection on her relationship with her children! Catholic apologists will often point out that you would NOT want your spouse or children to only tell you once that they love you, but you want to hear it over and over again.

This sort of repetition is very common for toddlers, and not at all meaningless. With each of my children, they have gone through a phase where we have the same conversation every morning that my husband goes to work. The child will ask over and over again, "Papa go to work? No, Papa not go to work, he stay home! Papa go to work? He be back later? He go to work but he be back after supper?" On and on, for about half an hour after my husband leaves, I will listen to this meaningful repetition and reassure the child that Papa loves him, and really will return.

In the same way, it is difficult for us humans, who see as though through a glass darkly, to full understand God. Repetition in the form of the Rosary is a way that we try to understand the "mysteries" of the Christian faith.

You can read our previous article on Vain Repetition here.

I would like to close by pointing you to a Psalm which reads very similar to Candy's example of meaningless repetition (King James Version, of course):

Psalm 136

¹O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

³O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁴To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁵To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁶To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

⁷To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:

⁸The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:

⁹The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹⁰To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹¹And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹²With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹³To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁴And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁵But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹⁶To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy endureth for ever.

¹⁷To him which smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁸And slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:

¹⁹Sihon king of the Amorites: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²⁰And Og the king of Bashan: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²¹And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²²Even an heritage unto Israel his servant: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²³Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever:

²⁴And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²⁵Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.

²⁶O give thanks unto the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Yawn - Mary, Salvation, the commandments and more

Proving once more that she doesn't have anything new to blog about, Candy has decided to rerun the Catholic stuff today.

We have the complete rebuttal to this nonsense Candy called "The Vatican Vs. God" complete with links here.


All the articles are also easily available here as del.icio. us links.

They are also in the side bar.

The elephant in the room is this. Candy went to a lot of time and trouble to write this a few years back, and we spent a lot of time rebutting them. I know that she is aware of that. Yet she has never EVER tried to respond to our rebuttals. She just keeps repeating her assertions. What discerning readers need to ask themselves is why? I believe it is because she cannot.


Oh and Candy, we can quote readers too:

Anyway, since it's here now, I will add that, even though I was completely infuriated at you guys when this blog opened (I was still in the church of Candy), you also figured greatly in my quest and decision--especially when your focus changed to proving her Catholic claims wrong with Scripture and history. So you guys keep doing what you're doing, too. It is working. 08/19/2008

A Catholic Kid, playing guitar - well.

I don't have any problem with digging treasures out of the trash, or Goodwill, or the value store. But if you're going to have an instrument for your kids, make sure they get at least some rudimentary training on the instrument so that they can learn to love making music. Getting a little OT here,(I'm a musician, all my kids play or sing something and DH repairs musical instruments for a living) but I think the latest post warranted it! That was awful.