Visits to Candyland

Why I am Catholic

2012-01-26T07:01:00.001-08:00

The Why I AM Catholic Blog has testimonies of people from all denominations who have converted to Catholicism. This one by Katie Plato has a lot of similarities to Candy.

A Blessed Good Friday

2011-04-22T08:02:00.000-07:00

It is during the Blessed Triduum after the long Lent that I am very grateful to be a Christian that follows the Liturgical Year. I do not think that I could truly appreciate the beauty of Easter without the penance, sacrifice, and grief of Good Friday and the somber season of Lent that leads up to it. Perhaps Candy follows these things as well. She doesn't blog about them, just about how she celebrates Resurrection Sunday and about how evil the Catholic church is.

As I am very busy now with homeschooling one kid doing college level work all the way down to a kindergartner teaching herself to read, I find that I don't have the interest in keeping two blogs going. I know that Kelly is very busy as well.

I will leave this blog up because it has a lot of work in it and a lot of good information. I will, for now, respond to Candy's anti-Catholic shenanigans over on my usual blog, at mydomesticchurch.com. If Candy gets to be more into Catholic bashing instead of homemaking, that may change, but for now that is easiest. I'll link over here when I do.

Have a Blessed Easter Sunday and Easter Season!

Candy and Easter

2011-04-18T14:44:00.003-07:00

Some thoughts on Candy, the Catholic Faith and Easter
Today is Holy Thursday in the Catholic Church and many other Christian Traditions. Today we remember Christ in the Last Supper, His betrayal by Judas, and His arrest. We will have special masses in all the Catholic churches today. Most diocese will have a mass of chrism where all of the oils are blessed for the coming year, and then this evening we will have the Supper of the Lord. All of this is very, very scriptural.

Tomorrow we will commemorate the Lord's Passion and Death on the Cross with Good Friday. We will have the Blessing of the Food on Holy Saturday and then the Great Vigil mass that evening with masses of celebration on Easter Sunday. Again all of this is very scriptural.

Candy goes to great lengths to try to portray the Catholic church as a counterfeit or false Christian church but she has yet to make any comment at all about these holy days on her blog. I find that curious.

Interestingly, she will also make a big deal about celebrating Resurrection Sunday this weekend instead of Easter Sunday. Apparently it's all about whatever type of dinner they have that day and reading the scriptures. And that will be it. Easter, much like Christmas, in the Candy household, is a one day thing instead of a Season as it is for many other Christians.

What puzzles me however is why Candy will choose this particular Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. After all, she refuses to call it "Easter" because she says that isn't scriptural and because she thinks the term smacks of Paganism. However, the date for choosing Easter (which is a movable Feast) also has Pagan and Catholic roots!

Pagans after all had celebrations in association with the Spring equinox! The Council of Nicaea decreed that Easter should be celebrated the first Sunday that occurs after the first full moon. It is always between March 22 and April 25. But if Candy doesn't hold to any of that, how come that's when she celebrates Easter... er Resurrection Sunday?

Candy Bashes Easter - Again

2011-04-18T14:38:00.000-07:00

A reprint from 2008

Candy says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candy's two Babylons ...again

2011-04-18T14:25:00.000-07:00

A reprint from 2009

Candy's reading list now has her reading one of her favorite books, The Two Babylons. She references it often enough in her posts that I thought we had already written about it, but I found that we don't have anything in a single post. Here are some resources on this important book, which is the foundation for many anti-Catholic claims.

Many Bible Christians consider The Two Babylons as very authoritative on the pagan roots of Catholicism. Christians such as Ralph Woodrow, who has his own evangelistic association. Mr. Woodrow found The Two Babylons so compelling, he wrote his own book about the pagan origins of Cathoicism. But then, he started actually checking Hislop's citations, and they were not what they were purported to be. So Mr. Woodrow recanted his book, and wrote a different book called The Babylon Connection? debunking The Two Babylons. You can read a summary of his arguments in The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Research Methodology.

Does Catholicism mix in pagan practices? Perhaps, but I think Candy can defend Catholicism in her own words here, from a blog post in November 2007, which is no longer available:

Moving on to the decorating of the evergreen or other green deciduous trees, we do find in history pagans celebrating winter solstice, long before Christ was born. This tree decorating was also done by other heathen and pagan peoples in the past. Does this mean that a Christian having a Christmas tree is pagan? Not at all.

The pagans had feasts. Does this mean then, that Christians should not eat? The pagans sang and danced unto their false gods. Does this mean then that it was pagan of King David to dance unto the Lord when he was celebrating the returning of the ark of the covenant?

Janice Moore writes a review from the non-Catholic perspective pointing out some of the many errors in The Two Babylons:

Before going further, let me state clearly now that I am not about to repudiate all of The Two Babylons as fruitless. However, as this website has grown it has come to my attention, that perhaps this book has been put on an undeserved pedestal. There are questions that should be and need to be answered. Again to clarify myself, I feel strongly that many of the formal doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church are not Biblical. But, the question addressed here; was Hislop right about every point he so vehemently argued?

More and more it is coming to my attention that it is time for the subject of the origins of religions and beliefs as they have come down to the present to be reexamined from a more Biblical perspective. The Two Babylons is not the exhaustive work on the subject that many have for decades been so willing to believe. At best it is but the starting ground. At worst, because Hislop's language and the press his book has received over the years have given it more influence than it merits, it has served as a stumbling block to those who found comfort in its authoritarian air and looked no further.

One of the points that Candy makes in most of her articles on Catholicism is that when Catholics allegedly worship Mary, they are really worshiping the Babylonian goddess Semaris. Janice Moore has this to say on that claim:

Also, the author of The Babylon Connection?, points out that the identity of a woman named Semiramis being the wife of Nimrod is questionable; as I have found out in my own research of ancient history and legend to develop the story lines of my own fictional stories. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (Knight), Sammuramat was the wife of Adad-nirari III (812 to 783 B.C) who reigned during the time Jehoahaz was king of Israel. According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary:

In this entry Sammuramat is named as the wife of the father of Adad-nirari III, the earlier reference claims her as the wife of his son. Either way the dates involved are much too late for her to have been the wife of the Biblical Nimrod. And here lies the crux of the problem, for much of Hislop's notions on ancient Babel hinges on this one point, as witnessed by the full title of the book, The Two Babylons Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife.
There is speculation that perhaps there was an earlier Semiramis, but at this point I have not been able to even establish if Sammuramat and Semiramis are indeed the same name, one being the Assyrian form and the latter being the Greek equivalent. The truth seems to be that the name Sammuramat "…is the only Assyrian or Babylonian name discovered so far having any phonetic resemblance to that of the famous legendary queen, Semiramis." Therefore, though the two names are often cited as being interchangeable (Ann, 347; Foryan; Self), that would not seem to constitute solid proof.
"Semiramis in history was Sammu-ramat, wife of Shamshi-Adad V of *Assyria, mother of Adad-nirari III, with whom she campaigned against *Commagene in 805 BC. Her inscribed stelae of kings and high officials in Assur. In Greek legend, she was the daughter of the Syrian goddess Derceto at Ascalon, wife of Onnes (probably the first Sumerian sage Oannes) and then of Ninos, eponymous king of *Nineveh; she conquered '*Bactria' and built' '*Babylon' ( *Berossus denied this). In Armenian legend, she conquered *Armenia (ancient *Uratu), built a palace and waterworks, and left inscriptions."

W. Schramm. Historia 1972, 513-21; F.W. Konig, Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos, Archiv fur Orientforschung Beiheft 18 (1972), 37-40; V. Donbaz, Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project (1990), 5-10; Moses Khorenats'I, History of the Armenians, ed, R.W. Thomson (1978), 93-104; (Hornblower, 1383)

For a Catholic rebuttal of The Two Babylons, try Catholicism and Paganism:

I came across a review of Hislop's book, written by a non-Catholic author shortly after the second edition was published, and I think it provides a good summary of things. It is from The Saturday Review, September 17, 1859:
"In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it.
"Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblance in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.
"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted ... into something totally different.
"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system...
"We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable."

Jimmy Akin also wrote an article about The Two Babylons in This Rock magazine:

Recently one of my coworkers asked me how to respond to a couple of panels from a Hislop-influenced tract by vehement anti-Catholic Jack Chick. The tract is titled Are Roman Catholics Christians? (You can guess his answer.) The first panel bears the image of a grim-faced Egyptian with a mascara problem (see above left). The text reads, "In ancient Babylon, they worshipped the sun god, 'Baal.' Then this religion moved into Egypt using different names."

I couldn't keep from grinning as I explained the problems with this panel. In ancient Babylon, the sun god they worshiped was Shamash. Baal was neither a Babylonian deity nor the sun god. In fact, he was the Canaanite storm god. Further, the idea that the religion of Babylon started off in Mesopotamia, crossed the Levant, where Palestine is, and then became the Egyptian religion is simply absurd. Egypt, like Mesopotamia, was one of the cradles of civilization, with its own history and its own religion.

Another of Candy's favorite characters from The Two Babylons is Dagon, the fish god. Take The Long Way Home wrote about him a while back:

Here’s the main problem with researching Dagon. There’s just not much out there! Not much is known. I couldn’t find anything, nothing at all, that described the worship of Dagon. The reason for this is that his worship died out so long ago. The very latest dates I could find for anyone worshiping Dagon was in 402 AD (and this is only if you buy the idea that the Greeks were worshiping Dagon as Marnas. And did you notice who sent the worshipers of Marnas packing? It was the Christians who destroyed the last vestiges of Marnas worship. It’s hard for me to believe they destroyed the temple, then incorporated the religion into Christianity, without any historical evidence to back it up!). Most of his followers were gone by the advent of Jesus!Sooooo. Essentially, what I learned was, nobody (at least nobody in the historical world) knows much about Dagon. Historians can’t even decide what he was the god of, much less how he was depicted. Depending on which city you lived in, you probably worshiped him differently. His religion died out in the BC years for the most part, although it’s possible there were a few hangers on as late as 402 AD. But the mitre doesn’t appear until the mid 10^th century. And then there’s the problem that the mitre itself has gone through many stages, most of which don’t look anything like the representation that the anti Catholics claim to be identical to the fish head of Dagon’s priests. And then there is the fact that an entire sect of Catholicism (the Eastern Rite Catholics) don’t wear the Western style mitre to this day. So to believe what the anti Catholics have to say you have to believe that Western Christians resurrected a long dead religion (one that they themselves helped to stamp out the last vestiges of) sometime in the 15^th century (that’s when the mitre most closely resembles the one today). This would be after the Protestant Reformation, by the way. Who would believe this???

Hislop's Two Babylons was a big influence on Jack Chick and Dave Hunt, two more of Candy's favorite authors. We have already written about both of them. Just click on their names to see those articles.

Vatican vs. God - back on Candy's side bar

2011-03-13T17:20:00.000-07:00

Well it took a little while for her to venture forward, but Candy has returned her infamous and highly flawed and inaccurate article, Vatican vs. God.

Back when she first published that garbage, Kelly and I took it apart point by point. Candy never, ever offered a rebuttal. Nor did she offer an apology.

Nonetheless, when "Vatican vs. God" is Googled, the first three results come from this blog, my Diigo account and my other blog, http://mydomesticchurch.com. Candy's is a distant 6th.

She probably won't offer any rebuttals this time, at least not over here, but if she does I'm sure we'll handle them.

Any bets on how long we're going to have before she puts out her first anti-Catholic rant on her resurrected blog?

and just like that, it's over...

2011-03-11T21:44:00.000-08:00

Candy sends this via e-mail.

I really enjoyed having the member's area with you all, but I had to close it. It was taking up too much of my time, was a lot of work, and a lot of responsibility. It was wonderful to reconnect with you all.

I found myself chatting in the Member's Area today, while my kitchen was a mess. I was on the computer, instead of doing my homemaking duties, and I can't allow that to become a habit for me.

My responsibilities come first.

I must say, though, it was amazing running a forum and such - I never thought I would get to do that. Meanwhile, I want to let you all know that the comments on my blog are open again, at least for the time being, so you can still chat a bit there.

Also, if any of you would like to run a member's area that is a community like the one I had, here's how to do it (it's very simple to set up):

1) Go to http://www.webs.com and sign up for a free website.

2) Inside the Manage Pages section, just click on the applications button/link, and choose which apps you would like your page to have - members, forum, blog, video, photo, and even more. There are a LOT of apps you can use - I only used a few.

It's very user friendly. If any of you decide to run a community like the one I had, let me know, and I'll help get the word out.

Well, it was fun, but I need to get off of the computer, LOL.

God bless you,

-Candy

What I suspect is that a good percentage of her 300 some members were... uh... not there for the fellowship and housekeeping tips.

It wasn't that hard to get on.
Sign up for free e-mail at gmail, yahoo, hotmail etc.
set up your anonymous identity.
Lay low- because one sniff of dissension in the ranks and you were out of there.

But she has now opened up comments on her blog. We'll see.

Limited Member

2011-02-27T17:26:00.000-08:00

Candy did let me on her forum.

Then she allowed me only limited access.

Now I am still a member but I'm not listed amongst the members.

This is how I look at it. The 200 or so that she has are a captive audience. She does not have a sweeping readership or influence. And, if she does post something outside of the heavily moderated membership area, we have this blog to set the record straight.

So it's all good! She's boxed and contained.

This isn't a home tour but...

2011-02-21T11:19:00.000-08:00

here's what half of my living room looks like now that I have teenagers!

(since it's a little slow I didn't think ya'll would mind too much if I posted this!)

Thoughts on the return of Candy

2011-02-17T11:35:00.000-08:00

Thanks Kelli for the update. I had no clue she was back, nor was I looking for her.

Candy said some things on the other site that I found interesting. She apologizes to me there later on in the comments. Why not just come directly here? She knows that would have put a comment in my e-mail that I would have seen. Why take a chance I would miss it hidden in comments over there?

She also brings up the house thing and it's a lot different than the way I remember it. As I recall she even named my street. But whatever.

She's also trying to convince people that her name isn't Candy Brauer. I still have the e-mail where she specifically asked me not to use her real name. So that's all heading into head scratching, puzzling behavior.

But since she never meant to cause hurt or anxiety and she wants to be accepted on those terms, I'm wondering why she never ever ONCE acknowledged the work we put into answering her points about Catholicism. She would say something about the church, we would prove it wrong with references, and she would just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over totally ignoring evidence to the contrary.

But I'm willing to play nice. I just asked to join her forum and if I'm allowed (Fat chance) I'm going to ask her about the things we have in our Vatican Vs. God rebuttals we have in the side bar.

Candy's back!

2011-02-16T10:26:00.000-08:00

It has been quite a while since our last blog post, but I thought I should at least mention that Candy is back. Hopefully she will be sticking with homemaking and uplifting Christian content and not dipping back into "enlightening" Catholics, but we've already got responses to her articles written, so we're set either way.

I find it kind of ironic that Elena and I have tried to make a real effort to keep this blog focused only on the theological content of Candy's blog and not make personal comments, but that other blog is the one which gets the written apology from Candy. I'm sure Elena appreciates the apology, even if it was left on the wrong blog.

The Resurrection of the Body

2010-11-07T11:15:00.000-08:00

Today's reading touched on a topic that I have been thinking more about lately. Have you noticed that the Christian idea that there will be a bodily resurrection is dying out among mainstream Christians? It is more popular now to think that we will be leaving our inferior bodies behind, to become be joined with God in spirit or as "pure energy."

The resurrection of the dead was a hot topic in the time of Jesus. It has become an accepted tradition that we don't really think about much today, but at the time your view of the resurrection depending on what you accepted as Scripture and your view of tradition versus a literal interpretation of that Scripture.

Luke 20:27-38
Some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, came forward and put this question to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us, If someone's brother dies leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother. Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman but died childless. Then the second and the third married her, and likewise all the seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. Now at the resurrection whose wife will that woman be? For all seven had been married to her."

Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.
They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God because they are the ones who will rise. That the dead will rise even Moses made known in the passage about the bush,
when he called out 'Lord, ' the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

The Sadducees were trying to ask Jesus a trick question here. Who were the Sadducees? They were the Jewish group whose worship centered around the Temple, rather than the synagogues. Like the fundamentalists of today, they rejected oral tradition and insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture. This is why they did not believe in a bodily resurrection, because it did not appear in the Torah. Yes, you read that correctly, the idea of a bodily resurrection does not appear in the Torah. Because Jesus is replying to the Sadducees, who do not accept anything but the Torah, his restrains his answer to the Torah in reply.

Not to criticize Jesus or anything, but I always found his reply a little lacking in proof for the resurrection of the dead. I always thought God was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob because he was the God that they worshiped. Still, this verse is one that we Catholics reach to as proof that the dead are not unaware of us. If "his is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive" then we can pray for the dead, and they can pray for us, because they are alive with God.

The Jewish belief in a bodily resurrection was only gradually developed. Scholar N.T. Wright writes, "When we turn to ancient Judaism the picture is both very similar and very different. The Hebrew Sheol, the place of the dead, is not very different from Homer’s Hades. People are asleep there; they can sometimes be woken up, as with Saul and Samuel, but to do so is dangerous, and forbidden. That is the picture we get from most of the Old Testament. . . The Sadducees deny the world to come altogether, reminding us that resurrection was and remained an explicitly political doctrine, about God turning the present world and its power structures upside down. Thus the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection was part of their generally revolutionary ideology: as in Daniel and Maccabees, resurrection was an incentive to martyrdom."

N.T. Wright references the books of Maccabees, which is one of the books which was removed from the protestant canon because it contained references to praying for the dead. Yet removing Maccabees also removes some of the most explicit references to a coming bodily resurrection.

2 Maccabees 7:1-2, 9-14

It happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king, to force them to eat pork in violation of God's law. One of the brothers, speaking for the others, said: "What do you expect to achieve by questioning us? We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors."

At the point of death he said: "You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the world will raise us up to live again forever. It is for his laws that we are dying." After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put out his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely held out his hands, as he spoke these noble words: "It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disdain them; from him I hope to receive them again."

Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man's courage, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing. After he had died, they tortured and maltreated the fourth brother in the same way. When he was near death, he said, "It is my choice to die at the hands of men with the hope God gives of being raised up by him; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life."

Clearly, Christians today believe in a bodily resurrection because it is explicit in the New Testament scriptures. But the belief in a bodily resurrection by Jesus and the Pharisees was based on their acceptance of oral tradition, and of the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books such as the books of Maccabees.

Pope Benedict XVI: "We were made to give love"

2010-09-18T13:52:00.000-07:00

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

The State of the Blog

2010-09-16T10:16:00.000-07:00

This blog was originally started as a place for me to test my templates for my main blog! A blogging friend of mine named Alexa was helping me work on my template - so now you know why the URL for this blog is so strange... MDC (My Domestic Church)-Alexatestblog .blogspot. com.

Meeting Candy was a complete fluke as well. She was nominated for a homeschool blog award and her link was on their site as one of the nominees. In trying to make my choice of who to vote for, I clicked on her link. The rest is history!

It was never our intention to bash Candy's lifestyle or her family and I think we did a good job of keeping away from those topics. We have naysayers who continue to say that we did, but they haven't produced any clear examples of when we did. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as bashing them.

There is a lot of very good information on this blog that Kelly and I worked very hard on so I intend to leave the blog up. Feel free to refer to our posts at anytime.

At this point with Candy gone, we probably won't be as active. I am homeschooling five kids from Kindergarten through 12th grade, plus giving occasional support (food and laundry!) to my oldest. Kelly is homeschooling her kidlets and continuing her education as well. Life is full and busy.

Which is not to say that we won't ever post here. Definitely if something in the news or our lives pops up that we want to share, it will happen here. Kelly's post below was a good example.

I do get an e-mail for every reply that is left in the com boxes. I will enforce the commenting guidelines a lot more strictly than I have in the last two weeks - on topic, no adhominems being the biggest to be enforced. Feel free to leave comments, send me an e-mail or visit my main blog.

Peace Out!

Hell As Motivation

2010-09-15T08:52:00.000-07:00

Katie Allison Granju posts on her blog today how some Baptist missionaries tried to "save" her by exploiting her son's death:

They shook their heads sadly and explained in so many words that given where I go to church, it’s possible that Henry is actually burning in hell right now. They then went on to suggest that “now would be a good time” to ensure that my remaining children do not meet a similar, fiery fate by bringing the kids to THEIR church, which God and Jesus apparently favor over my own.

Then they handed me some church-produced literature about the dangers of gay marriage and abortion and whatnot, and went on to the next house on our street.

I stood there, watching them walk away, bemused by the unmitigated gall of these women.
Did two Baptist missionaries just come into my yard and tell me that my recently deceased child is likely FRYING IN HELL? Why yes, yes they did.

Compare this to some of what Candy has written:

This means being willing to talk about God outside of church, and not
wimping out by saying that you will witness simply by being an
example. What kind of Christian stands by and says nothing as their
family and friends head towards hell? If they reject the Gospel that
is one thing, but did you give them the chance to reject it? Every
Christian is commanded to spread the gospel.

Those who are headed for hell won't like you anyway, but being a
strong witness to the truth, you can help save those who recognize
Christ's call.

I'm sure these Baptists did not intend to offend Katie, and Katie seems good-natured about it. But I have to wonder what this method of conversion says about their view of God.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Is accepting Jesus as your Savior out of fear of punishment what God wants? We should desire to follow God out of love, not out of fear. We should respect God, yes. Fear of the Lord is a virtue. But just as God gave his only begotten Son out of love for us, so he wants our love in the same way.

If you are going to suggest exploiting the death of a loved one to try and convert someone, I would suggest trying this dialog instead. "Do you know how much you love Henry? Well, that's how much God loves you. And do you know how you would have given anything to have been able to save his life, even give up your own? God loves you so much, that he became human and gave up his own life to save yours." Maybe you could then read the parable of the lost sheep.

How do you guys feel about this? What do you suggest would be the best thing to say?

Where did Candy's Blog Go?

2010-09-07T19:59:00.000-07:00

If you click on the link to Candy's blog over in the right hand sidebar, it says the blog doesn't exist!! Did she delete it? Did she forget to pay for her domain name? Did we finally wear her down? or was she simply too busy or bored with it to continue?

Professional Catholic Apologetics

2010-09-06T18:48:00.000-07:00

I just put up a new link in the left side bar to a Catholic apologetics site - Called to Communion.
It is run by a group of gentleman, all converts to the Catholic faith. Very intellectual, very well-run and the discussion is respectful and challenging. Check it out!

Archives of interest

2010-09-04T08:03:00.000-07:00

I don't particularly like going over the same ground again so for those of you you playing at home:

Our posts on
The Whore of Babylon Part 1

Whore of Babylon Part 2

Mega Whoring link list!

John, Mary and the Ark

Mary in in the book of Rev.

Cue theme from X-files here...

2010-09-02T20:29:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to out the blogger that wrote this. It wasn't Candy.
I'm stunned real people in 2010 really have thoughts like this.

If the Church is teaching things that are contrary to scripture, persecuting God's people, and uniting itself with governments, then it is acting as the harlot of Babylon, which the reformers and earlier dissenters recognized. She is called that because she leaves the protection of her husband and unites herself with other protectors (states), seduces people by a false gospel, and kills those who do not comply. This is the picture in Revelation 17. This is what the reformers and other earlier bible christians saw and testified to. Thousands and thousands were killed for not bowing to this 'church'. This was happening for hundreds of years, up until the late 1800's. The papacy lost temporal power then, but still influenced states by concordats and other treaties in the last century and this one. I believe it will happen again, and be united with other 'church' hierarchies to persecute those who hold to the word of Christ. So I am here to give this perspective as a warning to watch for the signs of the times.

Genesis 6, Giants, and Counterfeit Christianity

2010-09-02T09:41:00.000-07:00

It's hard to get excited over these recycled Candy posts. Here is a recycled one of our own, which relates to some of the information in Candy's article.

A Rebuttal of Hislop's The Two Babylons

Candy's reading list now has her reading one of her favorite books, The Two Babylons. She references it often enough in her posts that I thought we had already written about it, but I found that we don't have anything in a single post. Here are some resources on this important book, which is the foundation for many anti-Catholic claims.

Many Bible Christians consider The Two Babylons as very authoritative on the pagan roots of Catholicism. Christians such as Ralph Woodrow, who has his own evangelistic association. Mr. Woodrow found The Two Babylons so compelling, he wrote his own book about the pagan origins of Cathoicism. But then, he started actually checking Hislop's citations, and they were not what they were purported to be. So Mr. Woodrow recanted his book, and wrote a different book called The Babylon Connection? debunking The Two Babylons. You can read a summary of his arguments in The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Research Methodology.

Does Catholicism mix in pagan practices? Perhaps, but I think Candy can defend Catholicism in her own words here, from a blog post in November 2007, which is no longer available:

Moving on to the decorating of the evergreen or other green deciduous trees, we do find in history pagans celebrating winter solstice, long before Christ was born. This tree decorating was also done by other heathen and pagan peoples in the past. Does this mean that a Christian having a Christmas tree is pagan? Not at all.

The pagans had feasts. Does this mean then, that Christians should not eat? The pagans sang and danced unto their false gods. Does this mean then that it was pagan of King David to dance unto the Lord when he was celebrating the returning of the ark of the covenant?

Janice Moore writes a review from the non-Catholic perspective pointing out some of the many errors in The Two Babylons:

Before going further, let me state clearly now that I am not about to repudiate all of The Two Babylons as fruitless. However, as this website has grown it has come to my attention, that perhaps this book has been put on an undeserved pedestal. There are questions that should be and need to be answered. Again to clarify myself, I feel strongly that many of the formal doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church are not Biblical. But, the question addressed here; was Hislop right about every point he so vehemently argued?

More and more it is coming to my attention that it is time for the subject of the origins of religions and beliefs as they have come down to the present to be reexamined from a more Biblical perspective. The Two Babylons is not the exhaustive work on the subject that many have for decades been so willing to believe. At best it is but the starting ground. At worst, because Hislop's language and the press his book has received over the years have given it more influence than it merits, it has served as a stumbling block to those who found comfort in its authoritarian air and looked no further.

Also, the author of The Babylon Connection?, points out that the identity of a woman named Semiramis being the wife of Nimrod is questionable; as I have found out in my own research of ancient history and legend to develop the story lines of my own fictional stories. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (Knight), Sammuramat was the wife of Adad-nirari III (812 to 783 B.C) who reigned during the time Jehoahaz was king of Israel. According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary:

"Semiramis in history was Sammu-ramat, wife of Shamshi-Adad V of *Assyria, mother of Adad-nirari III, with whom she campaigned against *Commagene in 805 BC. Her inscribed stelae of kings and high officials in Assur. In Greek legend, she was the daughter of the Syrian goddess Derceto at Ascalon, wife of Onnes (probably the first Sumerian sage Oannes) and then of Ninos, eponymous king of *Nineveh; she conquered '*Bactria' and built' '*Babylon' ( *Berossus denied this). In Armenian legend, she conquered *Armenia (ancient *Uratu), built a palace and waterworks, and left inscriptions."

W. Schramm. Historia 1972, 513-21; F.W. Konig, Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos, Archiv fur Orientforschung Beiheft 18 (1972), 37-40; V. Donbaz, Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project (1990), 5-10; Moses Khorenats'I, History of the Armenians, ed, R.W. Thomson (1978), 93-104; (Hornblower, 1383)
In this entry Sammuramat is named as the wife of the father of Adad-nirari III, the earlier reference claims her as the wife of his son. Either way the dates involved are much too late for her to have been the wife of the Biblical Nimrod. And here lies the crux of the problem, for much of Hislop's notions on ancient Babel hinges on this one point, as witnessed by the full title of the book, The Two Babylons Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife.
There is speculation that perhaps there was an earlier Semiramis, but at this point I have not been able to even establish if Sammuramat and Semiramis are indeed the same name, one being the Assyrian form and the latter being the Greek equivalent. The truth seems to be that the name Sammuramat "…is the only Assyrian or Babylonian name discovered so far having any phonetic resemblance to that of the famous legendary queen, Semiramis." Therefore, though the two names are often cited as being interchangeable (Ann, 347; Foryan; Self), that would not seem to constitute solid proof.

For a Catholic rebuttal of The Two Babylons, try Catholicism and Paganism:

I came across a review of Hislop's book, written by a non-Catholic author shortly after the second edition was published, and I think it provides a good summary of things. It is from The Saturday Review, September 17, 1859:
"In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it.
"Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblance in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.
"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted ... into something totally different.
"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system...
"We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable."

Jimmy Akin also wrote an article about The Two Babylons in This Rock magazine:

Recently one of my coworkers asked me how to respond to a couple of panels from a Hislop-influenced tract by vehement anti-Catholic Jack Chick. The tract is titled Are Roman Catholics Christians? (You can guess his answer.) The first panel bears the image of a grim-faced Egyptian with a mascara problem (see above left). The text reads, "In ancient Babylon, they worshipped the sun god, 'Baal.' Then this religion moved into Egypt using different names."

I couldn't keep from grinning as I explained the problems with this panel. In ancient Babylon, the sun god they worshiped was Shamash. Baal was neither a Babylonian deity nor the sun god. In fact, he was the Canaanite storm god. Further, the idea that the religion of Babylon started off in Mesopotamia, crossed the Levant, where Palestine is, and then became the Egyptian religion is simply absurd. Egypt, like Mesopotamia, was one of the cradles of civilization, with its own history and its own religion.

Another of Candy's favorite characters from The Two Babylons is Dagon, the fish god. Take The Long Way Home wrote about him a while back:

Here’s the main problem with researching Dagon. There’s just not much out there! Not much is known. I couldn’t find anything, nothing at all, that described the worship of Dagon. The reason for this is that his worship died out so long ago. The very latest dates I could find for anyone worshiping Dagon was in 402 AD (and this is only if you buy the idea that the Greeks were worshiping Dagon as Marnas. And did you notice who sent the worshipers of Marnas packing? It was the Christians who destroyed the last vestiges of Marnas worship. It’s hard for me to believe they destroyed the temple, then incorporated the religion into Christianity, without any historical evidence to back it up!). Most of his followers were gone by the advent of Jesus!
Sooooo. Essentially, what I learned was, nobody (at least nobody in the historical world) knows much about Dagon. Historians can’t even decide what he was the god of, much less how he was depicted. Depending on which city you lived in, you probably worshiped him differently. His religion died out in the BC years for the most part, although it’s possible there were a few hangers on as late as 402 AD. But the mitre doesn’t appear until the mid 10^th century. And then there’s the problem that the mitre itself has gone through many stages, most of which don’t look anything like the representation that the anti Catholics claim to be identical to the fish head of Dagon’s priests. And then there is the fact that an entire sect of Catholicism (the Eastern Rite Catholics) don’t wear the Western style mitre to this day. So to believe what the anti Catholics have to say you have to believe that Western Christians resurrected a long dead religion (one that they themselves helped to stamp out the last vestiges of) sometime in the 15^th century (that’s when the mitre most closely resembles the one today). This would be after the Protestant Reformation, by the way. Who would believe this???

Visits to Candyland: Catholic Atrocities

2010-08-19T10:45:00.000-07:00

A commenter named Joe reaches back into the archives to make this comment. Discussion?

Visits to Candyland: Catholic Atrocities: "It is so typical of people with religion to create or find a site that caters to what they want to hear. This groupthink mentality gives comfort to you who like to rewrite or ameliorate the atrocities of faith years after they were perpetrated. Fortunately, there were witnesses, pictures, films, and documents corroborating the events as they unfolded. You can sanitize and sugar-coat and minimalize all you wish. Thank goodness unbiased people know better. Fifty years from now another generation of religious fanatics as you are will find a way to excuse the horrific pedophilia and abuse of children by Catholic priests in recent years. That is how religion survives. It excuses and rewrites the past in order to concentrate on the present. We really were not that bad then and we are much better now. It is comforting to know the legions of those who see through this smokescreen is growing. Infallible my eye.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

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

2010-08-15T00:27:00.000-07:00

Feast of the Assumption

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

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

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

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

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

We have written several times about the parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. If the Ark, which contained God, was hidden until the end of the time, then why should Mary's body, which also contained God, be left on Earth to decay?
2 Mac 2:5-7

: When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it.
: When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: "The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy.

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

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.
On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.
At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption. . .
Soon the name was changed to the "Assumption of Mary," since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.
That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

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

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

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).
"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).
"It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

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

It looks as if previous comments have been lost due to the change in comments provider, but we had quite a discussion on the Assumption last year. Some of that discussion is available in this post.

Arlington Catholic Herald - In tragedy, sisters find compassion - catholicherald.com

2010-08-11T05:53:00.000-07:00

An illustration of nuns dealing with tragedy. A sharp contrast to the way Candy has portrayed the good sisters on her blog.

Arlington Catholic Herald - In tragedy, sisters find compassion - catholicherald.com

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

Candy and the Catholic Church

2010-08-03T08:14:00.000-07:00

Today Candy writes:

I firmly believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, spoken of in Revelation 17. I believe all religions, with the exception of Biblical Christianity, have a part in the Whore.

She then links to Counterfeit Christianity, which is really a rehash of old posts especially Vatican Vs. God which we thoroughly rebutted in the past and linked to in the side bar.

Candy says she arrives at her views by doing careful research. So do I. Yet she never ever was able to rebut any of the defenses Kelly and I made with regard to her research. She could not rebut a single one.

The rest of the post today sounds like a lot of excuses and justifications for the way she has handled her blog readers in the past and present.

Haircovering versus Headcovering

2010-07-29T13:10:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I've written a post, and I found Candy's latest post on the topic of "haircovering" to be interesting. Candy writes:

It is said that a woman should cover her glory, and that it should be for her husband to see only. Some even say that if a woman shows her hair, she is being immodest.

I disagree with this. If a woman wants to cover all of her hair, then that is her prerogative, and I really don't care. I may, perhaps, think she looks like a gypsy, or chemo patient, but that is of no importance.

However, I do have a problem when a woman who covers all of her hair tells me I'm "doing it wrong," by letting my hair show. While haircoverers like to state that a woman should cover her hair, I use the same Scripture to state otherwise.

Of course, there is the irony of Candy writing a post about how haircoverers are wrong because she doesn't like it when they tell her that she is wrong. It is also typically Candy to so cluelessly use "chemo patient" as an insult.

Candy goes on to discuss 1 Corinthians 11, which she has dissected time and time again, first to prove that a headcovering was not required, and now to prove that it IS required.

3) Verse 15 says a woman's hair is her glory - should we cover it? This is where there is a disconnect. It says that a woman's hair is given her for A covering. The woman has two coverings - her hair, in which verse 15's word for "covering" is a different word from all other occurrences of "covering" in the chapter. In verse 15, covering comes from a Greek word, which means 'veil, to wrap around.'

If we are to cover our hair, then what happened to our first covering, which is supposed be like a veil, and wrap around? Hair that is pinned up is not a veiling - it neither hangs as a veil, nor wraps around - it is simply up. A woman can have a covering ON her hair - covering her glory, and covering her husband's glory, but still have hair showing. Remember, the context of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is the HEAD covering, never the HAIR covering.

So then, is Candy saying that it would be wrong to ever wear your hair pinned up because it would then not be a veiling?

Again, if women are not allowed to show any hair, and are to cover it all, then why does 1 Corinthians 11 always talk of covering the HEAD, and not of the hair?

Are we restricted to 1 Corinthians 11 for this topic? Orthodox Jewish women who are married always cover their hair, either with a wig, scarf or hat. How did this practice come about? From Numbers 5:18 ^"And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse."

As the priest is commanded to uncover the woman's head as a part of this judgement ritual, it is assumed that her head is normally covered. Now how this has become the requirement of married Jewish women to cover all of their hair is a study of Judaism leans on tradition for the interpretation of Scripture. There is a good article with quotes from the relevant Halakha here.

I especially liked this story. "The Talmud tells of a woman named Kimhit who had seven sons, all of whom eventually served as High Priests. The sages asked her: "What have you done to merit thus?" She replied: "Throughout the days of my life the beams of my house have not seen the plaits of my hair." They responded to her in a somewhat unexpected and ambiguous way: "There were many who did likewise and did not succeed" (BT Yoma 47a)."

Candy often seems to feel that she is additionally blessed because of her actions. She does not identify herself as merely a Christian, but a dresses-only headcovering KJV Christian.

In Greek-speak, the woman has her veil covering - which is her long hair, and her head covering, which is a covering on top of the head.

Where do we find the definition that a head covering only covers the top of the woman's head? I appreciate that for many headcovering women, the covering is merely symbolic. But when I see someone with a small doily or headband type covering, then I would really never think that it is supposed to actually cover their head. It would need to much larger than that to literally cover their head.

Going back to the article, Candy makes another point:

Another point to consider - If Christian women are to cover ALL of their hair, then why does the Bible speak on wearing modest hair styles? . . . Why even mention woman's hairstyles, if no one can see it, because it's all under a covering?

I can think of several options for this. Many Christians interpret the 1 Corinthians verses to imply an obligation to cover during corporate worship. That is why Catholic women used to cover their hair during Mass, but not at other time.

Also, Muslim women cover their hair outside of the home or when they are around men, but if women are gathering without men present, then they usually remove their hair covering. The verses could apply to that sort of situation.

One point which Candy does not discuss is the sort of witness which having a head or hair covering gives. This is usually a strong reason for her. In her dresses only article she writes:

First off, Jesus tells us that Christians are not supposed to blend in with the world. Some people would say that that's just in the heart, but that can't be completely correct.

If I walked around dressed as everyone else is, then how would people know I'm different, unless they spoke to me? Why would they want to speak with me, if I look just like them? What would be different or interesting, to peak their curiosity?

In her headcovering article, she writes:

I lean toward the side that the women can choose which covering she wants, just as long as it's on top of the head, and it can be seen as a headcover, and not just as some cute hair accessory.

I think one could make the argument that completely covering the hair would make you a better witness, because there is no way it could be mistaken for a cute hair accessory. Candy's bandana style coverings do not look like a distinctive covering to me. Paired with the dress, yes, I would assume that she is a covering Christian, but I've seen many women wearing pants who wear bandanas on their head as well.

I think that contrary to what she says, the real reason for Candy to "head" cover as opposed to "hair" cover is found at the beginning of the article. She just doesn't want to look silly, or like a chemo patient.

Scripture and Tradition Discussion with Jennie

2010-07-28T14:30:00.000-07:00

Jennie Writes:

I don't know if that's true, but there is not a single verse in the Bible that says that tradition is different or separate from the written doctrines.
There are verses where the Jews are criticized for blindly following Jewish traditions that are separate from scripture and that made scripture of no effect in their lives.

Newman's Argument
Scripture and Tradition: "He wrote: 'It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

'Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.'

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: 'But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus' (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to 'stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter' (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me' (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations' (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: 'So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ' (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit 'Christ’s word' to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. '’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you' (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been 'preached'—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: '[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also' (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Latest apologetics debate

2010-07-27T18:35:00.000-07:00

Over here at Pilgrims' Daughter: Mary Vitamin?: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

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

It's a little too late for this...

2010-07-24T08:00:00.000-07:00

If you're a long time reader here, then you know I DON'T share family names, nor am I telling you if my name is really Candy.

Hard to put the genie back in the bottle for this Candy!

Divine Office and this and that

2010-07-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago I attended a homeschool conference that was primarily for Evangelical Protestant Christians. It was a great conference and I enjoyed it very much. I talked about this on my other blog here.

One of the speakers spoke a lot about family devotions and what family devotions should look like. And as he spoke it occurred to me that what he was really talking about was the Divine Office - the ancient Liturgy of the Hours.

A few weeks later, my priest gave a homily about a Protestant Christian that made an appointment to talk to him because he wanted to be more scheduled, regular and disciplined in his prayer life and he wanted to start praying the Divine Office.

So it occurred to me that this ancient prayer of the church might be something that other Christians are interested in, even if they are not Catholic. I think the best way to get started might be to use this wonderful web site. It gives the prayers and the readings for every day and it is also relatively easy to download to an MP3 format. I just put this up here for those that might be interested.

Secondly, I am SOOOO tired of just getting comments from Asian pornographers and none from actual readers!! So I changed our commenting system up and we'll see what happens.

Have a great weekend.

Franciscan University Youth Conferences 2010, "The Word Became Flesh"

2010-07-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

The future of the Catholic Church - the Catholic Youth!!!

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

How to Argue for Mary's Assumption (This Rock: May-June 2001)

2010-07-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

Excellent article for the apologetics of that topic!

How to Argue for Mary's Assumption (This Rock: May-June 2001): "When this question is posed, the Catholic might be tempted first to offer the scriptural evidence for the Assumption. But the person is not questioning the biblical evidence, he's questioning the authority of the Church. So you must first address the authority of the Church and the role of Sacred Tradition in God's plan of revelation.

If you asked a hundred Evangelical Christians, 'What is the sure norm by which Christians know the teachings of Christ?' the unanimous answers would be to look only to the Bible. However, Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul spoke to him (1 Tim. 1:13). Timothy knew that even if a particular teaching was not written down, Christians were still expected to abide by it (2 Thess. 2:15) and to defer to the authority of Church leaders (Heb. 13:17). The only way a person could know what these unwritten binding traditions were was to keep their ear to the mouth of the Church. If the Church were merely a collection of saved individuals-none with any real authority over the others-then Scripture would not tout her as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) whom we must listen to or be cut off (Matt: 18:17).

Nothing in scripture indicates what the canon of the New Testament should be, but this silence in no way hindered the Church from exercising the authority given to her by Christ (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:17-18) to decide the canon. Just as the fourth-century Church had authority to determine that twenty-seven books belonged in the New Testament, the nineteenth-century Church had the authority to dogmatically define Mary's Assumption into heaven.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

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

A little bit of this and that

2010-07-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

1. We had a FUNNY Asian Porn comment! The commenter wrote under one of the threads,

"Very moving, thanks for sharing ______________"

and of course the long line was really a link to an Asian porn site! I'll say one thing for those folks - they are persistent.

2.

If one disagrees with the doctrines of justification and regeneration as taught by the reformed churches, as Cardinal John Henry Newman did, why does that make it necessary to run to Rome and swallow all the errors of Roman doctrine and practice, such as the Papacy, transubstantiation, Mary worship, etc.? Why not study the Bible and fellowship in a local church that teaches Biblical doctrine? No one has everything completely correct, but committing spiritual adultery with the Papal system is not an option. Their history is full of violence against God's people, and their so-called 'history' is full of outright forgeries, quotes from the Fathers taken out of context, and dependence upon the uninspired writings of mere men, rather than dependence upon the inspired scriptures interpreted by the Holy Spirit. And it seems that it is very important to some Catholics for you to admit that Mary is the 'Blessed Virgin' and 'The Mother of God' and to try praying to her. Why is that, I wonder? Because their religion is at heart a religion that places Mary between people and God, or in some cases replaces God with Mary. Again, why swallow poison mixed with a little goodness? Why do we have to choose between two corrupt institutions, when there are true churches right down the road from all of us?

That's Jennie- distorting Catholicism, one post at a time. Seems like she's moved out of the "wanting to know more about the Catholic Church" phase and is solidly anti-Catholic. Most of her charges we've covered in our archives so I would encourage checking those out

3. A post I wrote last week on my other blog about the similarities of Protestant and Catholic homeschoolers.

Visits to Candyland: Sister Charlotte Collection

2010-07-04T06:54:00.000-07:00

Visits to Candyland: Sister Charlotte Collection

So one of the things I got in comments recently was this from a commenter who refers to her/himself as "Great."

Replying to Elena's commentary about Sister Charlotte testimonial, I find it absolutely absurd that Elena can't grasp the possibility that the testimonial might be true. If you compare the findings of this case to the evidence found in the monastery of South America, you'll see how accurate Charlotte story really is.

I'm sure Elena will deny the photograph evidence of the Pope kissing the Koran, kneeling down to the statue of mother Mary as well as the evidence of sexual abuse scandals in the United States of it's bishops and priests.

There is only One mediator between man and God and that is Jesus Christ, not the Pope, not St Peter neither Mother Mary (Isis)or the Vatican.

I would grasp the possibility of it being true if it weren't so shrouded in mystery. Look, if Sister Charlotte had a real charge to level, then why all the secrecy? Especially now in this day and age when it's pretty much the sport of the day to bash the Catholic Church. Don't believe everything you read "Great."

Asian posters and Visits to Candyland

2010-07-04T06:48:00.000-07:00

For some reason, this blog has attracted quite a few Asian Pornographers to post in the comment section with links to Asian sites. Of course the language isn't English but the pictures pretty much say it all. I tried requiring identification and also spam control, but I guess those folks felt it was worth the effort to put their message here anyway. And surprisingly when I added comment moderation, I still had one send in a comment!

So I guess until we get a really big topic going again I am leaving comment moderation on. It's a little easier to deny a comment than to go back and remove one!

Catholic Clips (weekly)

2010-06-26T17:34:00.001-07:00

St. John the Baptist « Family in Feast and Feria
tags: catholic, saints, feast, stjohnthebaptist

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Mark Kurowski's conversion story

2010-06-15T07:57:00.001-07:00

I heard this gentleman today on Ave Maria radio and was very impressed, so I wanted to share his conversion story here.

A Nun’s Life Live Podcast Shows — A Nun's Life

2010-06-11T16:10:00.000-07:00

Candy Brauer really has a messed up idea about nuns and the convent. Of course, being the open-minded person that she is, she has never commented on some of the positive examples of sisters and nuns that we have put up on this blog. Well today I found this gem over at A Nun’s Life Live Podcast Shows — A Nun's Life.

Not only can you listen to the podcast, but you can INTERACT LIVE with the sisters. So feel free to get on there and ask them about their real lives and what it's like to be a nun!

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

Setting Aside Misrepresentations

2010-06-03T10:46:00.000-07:00

On today's Daily Register, there is an interview with Paul McCusker, who is a recent Catholic convert. McCusker has worked for Focus on the Family for 25 years, most notably on their Adventures in Odyssey series. The interview focuses on his religious background and conversion. This section caught my eye.

I attended a C.S. Lewis conference in Austin, Texas. There, I met Peter Kreeft, who was speaking about 10 things to learn about evil from The Lord of the Rings. I spoke to him during a break. There, all of my bigotry about Catholicism came to play. My thought was: Here is an incredibly articulate and intelligent man who became a Catholic while he was attending Calvin College. Why would he do that?

That conversation triggered the question, and I realized at that moment that I needed to put aside all of the cultural Catholics whom I had met, who were misrepresenting Catholicism to me. I also had to put aside all of the misinterpretations of Catholicism that I had learned from Protestants — people who thought they knew what Catholicism was, but didn’t. I had to put both groups aside and simply study what the ancient Church believed and what it didn’t, and let the Church speak for itself. That put me on a five-year gentle journey of study and prayer and talking to priests and others who could articulate the essence of what the Church is.

I thought that really summed up what Candy and so many others believe. Erik has made a lot of his background as a Catholic, but really, he was a "cultural Catholic." Candy and the Jack Chick contingent think they know what Catholicism is, but they are wrong, and worse, they are misrepresenting.

Welcome home to Mr. McCusker.

This is intense?

2010-05-19T15:25:00.000-07:00

Apparently Candy had enough time to throw a little video together with the usual stuff in it. The comments that managed to get through are in awe and amazement. The folks at STC aren't as impressed. We've talked about most of her issues including the bishop's had, KJV, and Mary in the past and I've installed a new Google Search Widget on the blog to make those easier to find (because we're not afraid to be open about our past postings here!)

Incidentally, I came across Barbara Curtis's

Amazon store here and she gives some very sage advice:

I've found that most who judge Catholics as "less than" or "not at all" Christians are misinformed.

My suggestion if this applies to you is to stop reading Evangelical/Protestant attacks on Catholicism and go to the source material itself before you judge.

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

Catholic Clips (weekly)

2010-05-15T17:35:00.001-07:00

Catholic Fire: St. Isidore
tags: stisidore, Stisadore, catholic, saints, feast

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Facebook | Erik Brauer

2010-05-15T14:03:00.000-07:00

To followup with Kelly's post, Candy's husband Erik, has this to say on his Facebook page:

God given trouble shooting talent. Somewhat of a hermit.

Was a typical Roman Catholic traveling the wide road towards destruction/hell like most other people in this world, as warned against by Jesus Christ:
Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Then I got saved by the only one who can save anybody, Jesus Christ - God.
I now give thanks to God for giving me the choice to believe on Him, be washed of every sin, showing me the narrow path by His word the KJV Bible, and have the security of knowing that I am heaven bound.

Incidentally, Candy has a page as well and is using her last name quite prominently. I don't think it's such a big deal any more if we use it here.

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

Called To Share the Good News

2010-05-15T09:44:00.000-07:00

A snippet of Erik's testimoney, which he shared on Candy's blog in July of 2008:

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.

Of course, Erik and Candy drew the conclusion that this reflected on the Catholic Church rather than Erik's family. Certainly, there are mediocre Christians in every church.

You can read the importance of evangelization in this recent address which the Pope gave in Portugal.

From its origins, the Christian people has clearly recognized the importance of communicating the Good News of Jesus to those who did not yet know him. In recent years the anthropological, cultural, social and religious framework of humanity has changed; today the Church is called to face new challenges and is ready to dialogue with different cultures and religions, in the search for ways of building, along with all people of good will, the peaceful coexistence of peoples. The field of the mission ad gentes appears much broader today, and no longer to be defined on the basis of geographic considerations alone; in effect, not only non-Christian peoples and those who are far distant await us, but so do social and cultural milieux, and above all human hearts, which are the real goal of the missionary activity of the People of God.

This is the mandate whose faithful fulfillment “must follow the road Christ himself walked, a way of poverty and obedience, of service and of self-sacrifice even unto death, a death from which he emerged victorious by his resurrection” (Ad Gentes, 5). Yes! We are called to serve the humanity of our own time, trusting in Jesus alone, letting ourselves be enlightened by his word: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide” (Jn 15:16). How much time we have lost, how must work has been set back, on account of our lack of attention to this point! Everything is to be defined starting with Christ, as far as the origins and effectiveness of mission is concerned: we receive mission always from Christ, who has made known to us what he has heard from his Father, and we are appointed to mission through the Spirit, in the Church. Like the Church herself, which is the work of Christ and his Spirit, it is a question of renewing the face of the earth starting from God, God always and alone.

Look, he even said "trusting in Jesus alone," not "trusting in Jesus and Mary." Sounds downright Christian of him.

How To Study the Bible

2010-05-12T12:36:00.000-07:00

Candy has a post today on how to study the Bible. Previously, she has recommended some study Bibles, but at this moment, she seems to be taking a break from them.

When I come across something I don't understand, or wish to study further, then I refer to the center column references in my Bible. I'm not currently using a study Bible - just a simple reference Bible. Often I understand the Scripture in question just by looking at its references. If not, then I may look up some of the key words from that Scripture in the concordance at the back of my Bible, and see if I can find related verses that way.

At other times she has recommended the Dake, despite his views on the Trinity, and the Scofield. Of course, we know that she ONLY uses the King James Version.

But here is the passage which really caught my eye:

Before I look up references and other related Scriptures, I first read further. There have been so many times when I had a question while I was reading, but reading further cleared it up for me. I had one of those moments just a few days ago. Right now, I'm studying in Genesis and Matthew. I was in Genesis chapter 19, where the angels were visiting Lot, to warn him of the coming judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. Before they could get down to business, a group of perverted sodomites were banging at Lot's door, wanting to sodomize the two angels that were Lot's guests.

Here's what used to boggle me... Lot offers his two daughters instead, and tells the sodomites that they can do what they want with his two daughters. Well, the Sodomites refused, and the angels came over and blinded the perverts.

I kept on reading, and then I saw it - Lot said that his two daughters were virgins, and that the Sodomites could do with them as they pleased. Lot was lying. In fact, it was not likely that his daughters were even in the house with him. Later in the same chapter, we read that his daughters are married. We read of this when we see that the daughters' husbands refused to leave Sodom, so only Lot, his wife, and his two daughters escaped before the town was destroyed.

However, the family was not left untouched from being in such a perverted, sinful environment. The wife disobeyed the angels, and turned to look at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, so she was turned to a pillar of salt. Meanwhile, the two daughters got their father drunk, and committed incest with him, so that they could have children to carry on the family name - NOT a good thing.

All of this study occurred in about 2 minutes or less, as I read the chapter and "saw" it, LOL.

Candy says that Lot was lying about his daughters being virgins. She says that they are, in fact, married, and probably not even in the house.

Genesis 19:14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
¹⁵And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

We can see that the daughters were at home, because of verse 15. Verse 14 speaks of his daughters being married, but since they were not living with their husbands and Lot referred to them as virgins, then it is likely that they were betrothed. Betrothal was as serious as marriage.

You can see this illustrated with Mary and Joseph, who were betrothed but not married:

Matthew 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Betrothal was so serious, that it needed a divorce to be broken.

It seems to me that Candy is trying to find a way to say that Lot wasn't REALLY going to let his daughters be raped by a mob. But I find that surprising, since Candy prides herself on her knowledge of the Bible. As she wrong in October of 2008:

I would like to let you know a little about me. I learned about proper doctrine from none other but the Bible. I've read through the Bible over 18 times (KJV).

If Candy is so familiar with the Bible, then it seems to me that she would remember a similar instance from the book of Judges where the Father certainly was not lying. From Judges, chapter 19:

²⁰And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
²¹So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
²²Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
²³And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
²⁴Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
²⁵But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
²⁶Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.
²⁷And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
²⁸And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered.

In the end, it was the concubine and not the virgin daughter who was gang-raped to death. But there was no indication that the master would not have turned over his daughter.

The codes of hospitality in the Middle East were so important, that a man would turn over his daughters, or pay anything from his household, rather than have any harm come to come to someone who had sought shelter under his roof.

They are both sad stories. But I do not think Lot was lying.

Whoa, Candy posted my comment. I wish I knew in advance if she was going to do that so I would spend a little more time composing them. Anyway, here is the conversation so far:

I wrote: There is a similar story in Judges 19. In the Middle East, a man would certainly offer his daughters rather than have harm befall someone who was taking shelter under his roof.

You know that the daughters were there, because of verse 14. I believe they were "betrothed" rather than married. Notice that Joseph was going to seek a divorce from Mary, although they were not married. Lot's daughters would have still been virgins living under his roof if they were betrothed.

She replied: Where does it say that Lot's daughters were there with him? Also, the chapter is clear that they were married.

I also don't buy into that "middle east custom."

When referring to the daughters being there, the context was in the city, not in that very house. The angels told Lot that if he had anyone else in Sodom, besides his wife, daughters, and sons in law, that he should warn them as well.

There is nothing in that chapter that tells us that his daughters were with him, from what I can find, and there is nothing in this chapter that tells me they weren't married - on the contrary, it literally says there were married.

Kelly, I understand that that is what you believe, but that's not what the Scriptures say. They say "marriED." :-)

I wrote: Oops, I meant verse 15:
And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Yes, I know it clearly says that they were married.

But again, what about Judges 19? No one was lying in that case.

She doesn't buy into that middle eastern custom, huh? Well, I think it's pretty horrific, too, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

EDIT- Since Candy deleted the comments on her post, here are some of the others:

Debio-Candy,
Upon first examination I am thinking Lot's daughters may have not been married but promised or enguaged because it says they were with him. He went to his sons in law and they wouldnt listen but he took his daughters who were with him out of the city. I will have to study it further.

Debio- Gen19:15 thy two daughters, which are here ( this verse implies that he only had two daughters and they were both still at home)

The angels told Lot to Arise, take thy wife and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
vs 14 Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get ye out of this place; for the Lord will destry this city. Be he seemed as one that was mocked to his son in law.( this verse implies that they were not actually married yet.

There are many instances in the bible where an enguaged couple is called married. For instance, Joseph was going to divorce Mary and everyone knows they werent married yet. The angel told him not to get a divorced.

It could be that Lot had daughters who were actually married and other daughters who were virgins who were still at home.
vs 30 sounds like there were just two daughters, the elder and the younger.

They didnt think they would have anyone to mate with so they got Lot drunk and laid with him each one. So they each got pregnant.

Candy replied- "which are here" calls us back to an earlier verse in the chapter:

"And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place"

"Here" clearly refers to in the city, not specifically in the house only.

Also, verse 15 "are here" also refers to in the city. In fact, the KJV translators were divided over how to best convey this in English, so they put the alternate Hebrew translation on the side, which says:

"And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are found; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city."

Even if "are here" did refer to in the house at that time, it doesn't mean that the daughters lived in that very house.

When Joseph and Mary were espoused, it said "espoused:"

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." -Matthew 1:18

So what did we learn?

2010-05-12T06:33:00.000-07:00

I spent some time looking over the discussions here for the past couple of weeks on the sex abuse scandal and I wondered, did we learn anything?

The biggest shock waves for me happened back in 2002 and 2003 when the story broke, and revelation after revelation kept popping up in the newspaper, radio and t.v. Digging deeper and reading books like What Went Wrong With Vatican II: The Catholic Crisis Explained and Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church were certainly educational and cleared up a lot of the mystery of the scandal and also things I had experienced as a young Catholic coming of age in the 70s and 80s. Nothing that has happened in these past few weeks of discussions has equaled those experiences.

I'm also not surprised when the scandal keeps popping up in different parts of the world, and I am always expecting to hear a new variation on the theme at Easter and Christmas. It's almost predictable.

I'm not surprised to have it come up during discussions and debates as a little ad hominem surprise or a poisoning the well fallacy. This has happened so many times that sometimes I won't even mention that I am Catholic, just so that the discussion will concentrate on the topic at hand instead of giving opponents ammunition to shoot me down.

Perhaps what was surprising, but not unique, was inability or unwillingness of the other side to take a fact or an apology or a new program or an investigation or policy change at face value as evidence that the church is sorry, is repentant and is trying to "sin no more." Those are, after all, very biblical concepts - to recognize sin, be sorry for the sin, repent and then build from there. And perhaps what was the most surprising for me at least, was to see that somehow, to point out the growth that has come, or to mention the apologies, or to speak to specific facts of the case was to somehow oppress, condemn, or victimize the victims. As I said in a comment yesterday, it seemed as if nothing short of calling for the prosecution, persecution and execution of everyone in the hierarchy from the pope down was acceptable. And indeed it seemed from the discussions that there is disbelief and perhaps even disgust that loyal devout Catholics aren't willing to do just that - and because of that, we must be as bad as the 4% of priests who decades ago, (when I was a kid and Kelly wasn't even alive!) performed unspeakable sexual acts against impressionable youth.

What I learned, I guess, is to save my breath. Those with an ax to grind against the church will not be appeased, and I'm not sure that it is my role, as a Catholic lay wife and mother to even try to explain and defend. Not against that. And that is hurtful. The best I can do is explain it to my own kids and have a ready answer for sincere inquiries.

This is an example of how the sins of a few have consequences that hurt many, and that injury will continue for decades to come.

A New Jack Chick Classic | The Mirth Canal | Cracked.com Forums

2010-05-03T19:53:00.000-07:00

This is a totally secular, probably R-rated forum that makes fun of lots of stuff! Imagine my delight in finding this thread!

A New Jack Chick Classic | The Mirth Canal | Cracked.com Forums

(Don't come back here and complain about the content or vulgarities - enter at your own risk.)

A homily on the sex scandal

2010-05-02T17:44:00.000-07:00

My pastor gave this talk at the Easter Vigil. I've been waiting and waiting for them to add it to the web site. It speaks to much of what we have said here and I think it is very well done.

Secular Sex Abuse

2010-05-01T10:44:00.000-07:00

Great article in the New York Times about legislation which *finally* targets not only the Catholic Church, but any institution which has hidden abuse.

Should it be possible to sue the city of New York for sexual abuse by public school teachers that happened decades ago? How about doctors or hospital attendants? Police officers? Welfare workers? Playground attendants?

For nearly a year, the city has tiptoed around that question, but in the coming months, there may be no ducking it. Legislation in Albany would force public officials to answer for the crimes of earlier generations, just as Catholic bishops have.
What began as an effort by legislators to expand judicial accountability for sexual abuse by Catholic clergy has grown to cover people in every walk of life. One bill would temporarily suspend the statute of limitations, and allow people who say they were abused as children to file lawsuits up to age 58 — that is, 40 years after they turned 18.

In states which have debated changing the statue of limitations, is the object really to help the victims, or persecute the Catholic Church? If you are really concerned about victims, wouldn't you want to help all of them, and not just those who had abuse related to the Catholic Church?

Suddenly, lobbyists and advocates for school boards, counties and small towns spoke out.
“Statutes of limitation exist for a reason,” said Bob Lowry, the deputy director of the New York State Council of School Superintendents. “How can anyone go back 40 years and ascertain what happened? Witnesses, responsible authorities, even the perpetrator himself or herself, may have passed away.”

Suddenly, indeed. So you say that you were abused by Father O'Malley back 40 years ago. Well, he's been dead for 10 years, and the parish housekeeper died even longer ago. Maybe Bob who was also an altar boy could be a witness, but no one has heard from him in years. When the Catholic Church says that lifting the statute of limitations poses problems as to how to get a fair trail for both victim AND accused, are they just making excuses, or is this a valid point? We need to remember that in our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty, and are entitled to a fair trial.

Currently in the state of New York, if you are a child who is abused by a teacher, you have only NINETY DAYS to file a report. How fair is that? Surely, we can come to a number which is fair for both public and religious institutions.

And the New York State School Boards Association said the costs of old misdeeds would be borne by people who had nothing to do with them, and “provide no corresponding protection” to children. The bill ultimately was not voted on last year. It is back again, and no doubt will get fresh life from the continuing stream of revelations about high church officials who covered up abuse.

No one denies that the victims deserve compensation. But closing down schools and parishes hurts everyone, as well as denying the poor opportunities for aid which they might have otherwise received.

New York is certainly not the first state to consider such a bill. Colorado debated this several years ago.

But many opponents of the bill testified that because sovereign immunity protects public institutions, the bill unfairly targets Catholic and other nonpublic entities. L. Martin Nussbaum, an attorney with Rothberger, Johnson and Lyons Religious Institution Group, said many people believe "that Catholic institutions have a more severe [sexual abuse] problem than others. They do not."

Testifying on behalf of CCPAC, Mr. Nussbaum cited several well-documented cases involving public school teachers, juvenile detention facilities, foster care providers and correctional facilities employees.

"This data shows that there is a substantial, current problem of childhood sexual abuse in Connecticut governmental settings," he said. "It is a much larger, and much more current problem than the problem Catholic institutions largely resolved by 1992. The Catholic Conference can see no reason why the law of Connecticut should discriminate between childhood sexual abuse claimants based upon whether they were injured in a governmental setting or a Catholic setting," he said.

Candy and Mary in the book of Revelation

2010-04-29T09:54:00.000-07:00

As in most things Candy, she is rerunning through her theology. Today she writes:

Let's take a closer look at Revelation chapter 12:

Verses 1-2 are NOT depicting Mary and the virgin birth as Roman Catholics teach via their writings and idols/statues/pictures of Mary stepping on a small moon, with stars around her head.

And as usual, we've got it covered. Check out this post from almost two years ago on John, the Ark, and Mary

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

Catholic Sex Scandals, Part III

2010-04-25T15:06:00.000-07:00

In part three of "Catholic Sex Scandals" I am addressing the "talk is cheap, when are they going to DO something about it" criticism.

Efforts To Combat Clergy Sexual Abuse Against Minors: A Chronology [USA]
U. S. Bishops Approve Charter to Protect Children and Young People
Restructured Committee on Sexual Abuse Announced
Sex Abuse Committee Releases Preliminary Survey Results
Mixed Commission Ends Work In Rome on Sexual Abuse Charter
Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons
Guidelines for Implementation of Safe Environment Programs
Training Held on 'Essential Norms'; Vatican Official Took Part
The John Jay Study results [comprehensive study commissioned by the USCCB]
Vatican Report on U.S. Seminaries
Pope blasts Irish bishops, orders Vatican probe
Vatican urges psychological tests on future priests
Guidelines for the use of psychology in the admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood
After an Accusation, Here is What Happens at the Vatican
A Papal Conversion [Article on changing procedures under Cardinal Benedict]
Vatican Publishes Procedures for Sex Abuse Cases
Vatican shows new transparency with online guide

Catholic Sex Scandals, Part II

2010-04-25T13:12:00.000-07:00

My first entry on this topic concerned the common idea that the root cause of the Catholic sexual abuse problem is celibacy. This entry is to focus on "Why is it so hard for the church and church members to acknowledge the guilt of the priests and repudiate them?"

Pope apologizes to Irish abuse victims, orders Vatican investigation
Irish bishops apologize for 'depravity of abuse' described in Dublin
Catholic Order Apologizes to Abuse Victims
Catholic Bishops Apologize for Sex Abuse
German Bishops Apologize to Child Sex Abuse Victims
Chile's Catholic Church Apologizes for Child Abuse
Swiss bishops apologize, saying they underestimated abuse problem
Catholic bishops deliver full apology for child sex abuse [England and Wales]
U.S. Bishops Apologize for Scandal
Pope Meets Maltese Abuse Victims
Pope Meets With Victims of Sex Abuse By Clergy, Apologizes [USA]
Australia: Pope apologizes for church's sex crimes [bishops]
Pope says sorry to Australian victims of clerical sex abuse
Pope's brother apologizes to abuse victims at his former school
Paedophile priests must own up to their sins, says Vatican [Cardinal Bertone]
Papal preacher apologizes for anti-Semitic remarks

So, how much apologizing is enough? I know, the next remark is "Well, they aren't sincere. They're just apologizing because they got caught." Unfortunately, there is no way to prove sincerity. But to anyone asking the Catholic Church to acknowledge that there is a problem, you got it.

Catholic Sex Scandals

2010-04-24T15:58:00.001-07:00

With the new deluge of news articles about the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, I thought it would be important for me to put forth some resources for putting this in perspective.

First, there are not new cases being reported every day. The news articles which are being written are about cases which happened several decades previously.

Second, it is easy to point the finger at the Catholic rule of celibacy for clergy. If this were the case, then there wouldn't be any cases in other churches. However, this is not true at all. Abusers often take positions of authority, and a clergy member has a lot of respect and trust.
You can find cases of abuse in almost all denominations.

Lutheran
Presbyterian
Baptist
Methodist
Pentecostal
Episcopalian

Some question when other churches are going to institute similar policies as the Catholic Church for handling abuse. How soon policies have been adopted vary by denomination.

Most of the abuse in the Catholic cases tended to be of teenage males, which is not actually pedophilia, although most people think of the abuse as being of small children. Most pedophiles are married, not single.

In fact, Catholic priests are no more likely to be abusers than those of other denominations. What about other professions? Several studies have found the rate of abuse by teachers are much higher than that of clergy.

This article from Psychology Today reaffirms the same points that I wanted to make.

Candy on the bible.

2010-04-16T05:30:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Keeping The Home: "I love to read my Bible. I love to learn more of the Lord. It boggles my mind that not all Christians feel the same way. I don't get it. :-( If you are trusting your church, or the 'professionals' with your eternal life, then you are in error. God gave us His written Word, so that we can read the Gospel for ourselves. Why would we not read it?"

This reminds me of a talk I heard years ago where the speaker said something like, "If the King James Version was good enough for St. Paul, it's good enough for me!"

I get a similar smile on my face when I read Candy's words - it's as if Jesus ascended into heaven and as he was going up the leather bound, gold gilded pages of the KJV dropped gently from the heavens to the feet of the apostles!! Of course that didn't happen, regardless of how much folks like Candy would like to think it did!

Jesus entrusted the apostles, or as Candy likes to call them "the professionals" with spreading the Gospel and passing along his teachings. It's a pretty good system too! It lasted over the next several centuries until the books of the bible could be collected and the canon closed, and it continued to work during most of history when the common folk could not read! And of course as a Catholic, I believe it continues to work as the "professionals" i.e. the Pope, bishops and magesterium continue to help us determine the way to go on issues that are not specifically addressed in scripture - like birth control, abortion, infertility treatments, just war and end of life issues.

Which of course is not to say that Catholics don't read the bible! There are Daily readings, and Psalms inserted into daily prayer as well as bible studies and scripture tools to help us read scripture! But it's not an either/or situation. It's not "listen to your church" vs. "read the bible." In fact doing both is not only encouraged but helpful.

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

Good Friday

2010-04-02T06:51:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on Candy, the Catholic Faith and Easter

2010-04-01T05:06:00.000-07:00

Today is Holy Thursday in the Catholic Church and many other Christian Traditions. Today we remember Christ in the Last Supper, His betrayal by Judas, and His arrest. We will have special masses in all the Catholic churches today. Most diocese will have a mass of chrism where all of the oils are blessed for the coming year, and then this evening we will have the Supper of the Lord. All of this is very, very scriptural.

Tomorrow we will commemorate the Lord's Passion and Death on the Cross with Good Friday. We will have the Blessing of the Food on Holy Saturday and then the Great Vigil mass that evening with masses of celebration on Easter Sunday. Again all of this is very scriptural.

Candy goes to great lengths to try to portray the Catholic church as a counterfeit or false Christian church but she has yet to make any comment at all about these holy days on her blog. I find that curious.

Interestingly, she will also make a big deal about celebrating Resurrection Sunday this weekend instead of Easter Sunday. Apparently it's all about whatever type of dinner they have that day and reading the scriptures. And that will be it. Easter, much like Christmas, in the Candy household, is a one day thing instead of a Season as it is for many other Christians.

What puzzles me however is why Candy will choose this particular Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. After all, she refuses to call it "Easter" because she says that isn't scriptural and because she thinks the term smacks of Paganism. However, the date for choosing Easter (which is a movable Feast) also has Pagan and Catholic roots!

Pagans after all had celebrations in association with the Spring equinox! The Council of Nicaea decreed that Easter should be celebrated the first Sunday that occurs after the first full moon. It is always between March 22 and April 25. But if Candy doesn't hold to any of that, how come that's when she celebrates Easter... er Resurrection Sunday?

Candy and "lint"

2010-03-27T17:31:00.000-07:00

Clearly, I still haven't gotten around to addressing Candy's hilarious "lint" comment. Maybe tomorrow. In the mean time, while preparing my Confirmation class lesson, I ran across this very relevant blog post. Alive and Young is a new favorite blog!

Confused Teen Interviews Local Bishop on the Season of Lint

Teen: Bishop, As Catholics we are about to enter the Season of Lint. Would you mind telling us something about the Linten Season?

Bishop: Well, I don't know much about the season of Lint. If I remember correctly, Lint is the stuff you find in your pockets after drying your clothes. Personally, I don't see a theological reasoning to have an entire season devoted to Lint. But as Christians and Catholics we have an entire season devoted to Lent. In as few words as possible, Lent is a season of preparation for Easter Sunday, the resurrection of our Lord. Lent is a time of penance, prayer, fasting, and alms giving. It is considered one of the most holiest times of the year, and because of that we too should engage in deepening our relationship with Christ. As Christ went to the desert for 40 days so we too enter into a period of 40 days of spiritual exercise.

Update

2010-03-27T06:58:00.000-07:00

I added more links to news coverage on Pope Benedict and the sex scandals, in case anyone is wanting to keep up with the latest news.

Pope Shelters Pedophiles?

2010-03-21T18:52:00.000-07:00

I'm a little behind, but there was a round of news articles recently which proclaimed that the Pope had sheltered a pedophile.

The UK Times headlines "Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry."

The case in question involves a man who was sent to the diocese of then Cardinal Ratzinger for therapy after he had been convicted of abusing a minor. According to the article "The archdiocese confirmed that the Pope, who was then a cardinal, had approved a decision to accommodate the priest in a rectory while the therapy took place . . . The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising said that there had been no complaints against the priest during the therapy at a church community in Munich."

So, the man was convicted, and according to the protocol of the time, was sent for therapy. Cardinal Ratzinger said it was allowable for him to come to this therapy program. After therapy, he was sent back to pastoral ministry. Was this the decision of Cardinal Ratzinger? According to the same article "the decision to let him continue working in Grafing was taken by Gerhard Gruber, now 81, who was vicar general of the archdiocese . . . Mgr Gruber said that the Pope, who was made a cardinal in 1977, had not been not aware of his decision because there were 1,000 priests in the diocese at the time and he had left many decisions to lower-level officials."

The New York Times had a better version of the story, but basically contains the same information. "The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement."

I think it is important not to forget that as Pope, Joseph Ratzinger reopened the case against Fr. Marcial Marciel who founded the Legionnaries of Christ. The LA Times reported "Pope Benedict XVI disgraced one of the most powerful priests in the Roman Catholic Church, Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the ultraconservative Legion of Christ. Benedict's decision to publicly discipline the priest came after an investigation into allegations that Maciel had sexually abused "more than 20 and less than 100 victims" in seminary, according to the National Catholic Reporter."

The Pope has spoken out repeated against abuse. I think we all agree that mistakes were made in the past. Let's try to focus on the new abuse guidelines that are being implemented all over the world in the Catholic Church. Hopefully other churches will learn from our mistakes.

I'm adding a few more links to balanced articles if you want to keep up with the new developments.

Keeping the record straight on Benedict and the crisis- John Allen, National Catholic Reporter

Yet as always, the first casualty of any crisis is perspective. There are at least three aspects of Benedict's record on the sexual abuse crisis which are being misconstrued, or at least sloppily characterized, in today's discussion. Bringing clarity to these points is not a matter of excusing the pope, but rather of trying to understand accurately how we got where we are. . .

To suggest, however, that Ratzinger was the Vatican's "point man" on sex abuse for almost twenty-five years, and to fault him for the mishandling of every case that arose between 1981 and 2001, is misleading. Prior to 2001, Ratzinger had nothing personally to do with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, even the small percentage which wound up in Rome.

Will Ratzinger's past trump Benedict's present?- John Allen, National Catholic Reporter

By all accounts, Ratzinger was punctilious about studying the files, making him one of the few churchmen anywhere in the world to have read the documentation on virtually every Catholic priest ever credibly accused of sexual abuse. As a result, he acquired a familiarity with the contours of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic church can claim.

Driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as "filth" in the church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a "conversion experience" throughout 2003-04. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess.

Of the 500-plus cases that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with prior to Benedict's election to the papacy, the substantial majority were returned to the local bishop authorizing immediate action against the accused priest -- no canonical trial, no lengthy process, just swift removal from ministry and, often, expulsion from the priesthood. In a more limited number of cases, the congregation asked for a canonical trial, and in a few cases the congregation ordered the priest reinstated.

That marked a stark reversal from the initial insistence of Vatican officials, Ratzinger included, that in almost every instance the accused priest deserved the right to canonical trial. Having sifted through the evidence, Ratzinger and Scicluna apparently drew the conclusion that in many instances the proof was so overwhelming that immediate action was required.

Jack is back!

2010-03-05T12:38:00.000-08:00

A priest in Tennessee has discovered Jack Chick tracts:

Father Jay Flaherty, of Holy Cross Catholic Church, said he first learned about the pamphlets when one of his youth brought one to him.

"There's two of them that really upset me because I knew it would upset the children," Father Flaherty said. "One's called the 'Death Cookie,' which claims that our communion is from the devil."
The other pamphlet, titled "Last Rites," shows cartoon drawings of a Roman Catholic man who isn't saved because he didn't accept Christ.

I think Fr. Flaherty goes just a wee bit overboard later in the article in suggesting that distributing Chick tracts might lead to another Columbine. His bishop makes a much better statement:

In a statement release Friday by the Diocese of Knoxville, Bishop Richard F. Stika called the pamphlets "reprehensible acts of prejudice and hatred of a few souls."

"The rationale one Baptist pastor gave in support of distributing these reprehensible, discriminatory, and bigoted tracts was that he was trying to point out the primary difference his church has with Catholics: the belief that a person does not and cannot work his or her way to salvation," Bishop Stika said in the statement. "Unfortunately, this pastor does not have a correct understanding of what the Catholic faith teaches in this regard."

New info--

I found another news article which gives more information about the situation. I hadn't realized these pamphlets had been passed out at a local public high school. I think the article indicates that it was students from this Baptist church passing them out. Some choice quotes from the article.

Despite admitting he knew little about the Catholic Faith, Conner Heighs Baptist Pastor Jonathan Hatcher felt confident that publisher Chick Publications was spreading the gospel . . .
Pastor Hatcher says he's not trying to target Catholics specifically, just the belief that the eucharist will save one's soul.

In fact, he says he doesn't even really know much about the Catholic faith.

"I'm obviously not schooled in the Catholic religion, I've not read the Catholic canons. I study the King James Bible and that's what I preach from, what I study from," Pastor Hatcher said.

When asked if he's concerned about passing out literature targetting a religion about which he admits he doesn't know much, Pastor Hatcher says he trusts the publishers of the material.

"The people who distribute these tracts, or put them on the market, say they are schooled in it," Pastor Hatcher said. "Our goal is not to spread not to start violence, not to spread hatred, but to share the Gospel."

Yes, let us trust Jack Chick on the subject of Catholicism.

Purgatory Primer

2010-03-03T12:42:00.000-08:00

No new material here, but this is my handout for my class tonight.

Before Christ’s death and resurrection, souls waited redemption in Sheol: Zech 9:11, Eph 4:8-10, 1 Pet 3:19-20

References to those “under the Earth” who are neither in Heaven nor Hell, after Christ’s death and resurrection: Phil 2:10-11, Rev 5:3, 13.

Catholic Catechism #1031 “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire.”

This punishment isn't in Hell because you can't be saved through hellfire. Also, there's no punishment in Heaven: 1 Corinthians 3:10-16, 2 Corinthians 5:9-11, Hebrews 12:6, 11

#1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin.

#1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.

Temporal punishment is that which is due to sin, even after the sin has been pardoned by God.
CCC #1741 “By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage.”

Christ promised there was punishment that exacted what was due but wasn't endless. (And Paul supported this teaching.)
Matt 5: 20-26, Matt 12:32, Matt 18:21-35, Matt 25:31-46, Luke 12:58-59, Heb 9:27, Psalm 99:8

We must be spotless and pure in God's presence: Rev 21:27, Matt 5:8, 2 Cor 7:1

Those who are alive can pray for those who are dead (and vice versa): 1 John 5:16-17, Luke 16:19-31, 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, Sirach 7:33

Books, books, and more books

2010-03-02T11:11:00.000-08:00

I promise this isn't going to turn into a homemaking blog, but I couldn't resist posting in response to Candy's "How I organize books" post. No offense intended toward Candy, but if you happen to have a large amount of books, then you need to organize a little more than wherever they happen to land on the shelf.

I've already shown you our main bookcase:

To the left is non-fiction. Over the window seat are triple stacked science fiction paperbacks. The set of shelves on the left have classics and antique books on the higher shelves, and picture books on the lower shelves.

Now, I just love children's literature. I also happen to have four children, so have more books for children than you see on those shelves. Bookshelves can get expensive quickly, so whenever I see a small bookshelf at a yard sale, I buy it.

This is the bookshelf in my daughter's room:

She has more advanced chapter books on the top shelf, and mostly fairy tale books on the other two. My children listen to audiobooks while they're falling asleep, so that is why she has speakers on top of the bookshelf. The photo is of the child she helps to sponsor through the Christian Foundation for Children and Aging. The books sitting out on the right are waiting a trip to the used book store.

The two middle boys also have a bookshelf in their room:

They have smaller beginner chapter books such as The Magic Treehouse series, and boy books such as Henry Huggins, Peter Pan, etc.

We keep children's non-fiction and reference books in the homeschooling area:

I always have a messy pile of books next to where I sit on the couch. If I'm writing an intensive blog entry, this stack is usually over on the computer desk:

We've lived in this house for 3 years, and while I'm unpacked most of the books, there are still a few boxes in the basement. Notice that I labeled the boxes with a black marker, as Candy recommends:

Now, I skipped pictures of small stacks of books. We keep all of the children's magazines in one bin, have a basket of good bedtime stories, a big container of Christmas books in the basement, etc. But I think that gives you the general idea.

Works aren't evil

2010-02-24T07:35:00.000-08:00

In Candy's last post in her series on the Law, she writes that Born Again Christians are not under the Law.

Candy writes: Remember what we saw in the above Scripture - "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." When we walk in the spirit, we produce good FRUITS. Meanwhile, walking in the flesh produces WORKS. Notice in the above Scripture, I bolded fruits and works so that you could more clearly see the distinction. When we walk in the spirit we keep and fulfill the law, but not of ourselves. It is a fruit - it happens automatically. An apple tree does not need to work to produce apples - it happens naturally.

For Candy a work=works of the flesh, which is always bad.
A fruit=fruit of the Holy Spirit, which is always good.

However, not all works are works of the flesh.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: ill we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ

James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith. Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?

Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.

Molly left a comment which I think gets right to the point. She wrote: Works are things that do
not involve staying at homne to KEEP the home as you teach, and I'm sorry too but the word 'works' always reminds me of catholicism too.

I think Candy's main concern in stressing fruits over works, is that works are what Catholics do.

I have asked Candy very politely on more than one occasion how she sees producing good fruits automatically as fitting in with free will. She has not yet posted my question (I guess she feels it is a "foolish and unlearned question" per her comment policy), much less answered it.

I'm not sure Paul found it so easy, as he wrote in Romans 7:15 "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."

Related posts:
Fruits of the Spirit
The Famous Fruit Test

Mini Home Tour

2010-02-21T19:09:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend, I decided to clean out my pantry. It was a huge mess. You know, buy baking soda because you're out and then find three boxes of it behind some expired marshmallows kind of mess. Anyway, while I was organizing my pantry, I was thinking of how much Candy loves organizing her pantry, and how much fun she's having in her lovely new home. She is always asking readers of her blog to share home tours, but neither Elena nor I ever have.

So, while I'm not going to post a whole home tour, I thought I'd post pictures of the areas that Candy and I have in common. First, the newly cleaned pantry. You can see aprons hanging on the back of the door.

In the kitchen, laundry room, or other areas, I have little bits of religious artwork here and there. The idea is that it reminds me to pray and offer my work to God, but it doesn't always work out that way. I got this tile of Our Lady of Guadalupe when I traveled out West to visit my Aunt.

I haven't noticed that Candy likes to dry her clothing outside, but maybe she will start at this new house. I love hanging the clothing outside to dry because I get a few minutes of quiet outside by myself. I often forget to go outdoors and enjoy the beautiful day otherwise. I miss that during the winter.

Candy hopes to homestead, and while we don't dream of animals, we are doing some suburban gardening. I will have three teenage boys someday, so the first thing we did when we moved in was plant several apple trees and some kiwi vines.

Even when you aren't homesteading, you have to watch out or the animals will take over.

Here is our little homeschooling corner. My oldest child uses the larger desk, and the two middle children use the smaller table.

Candy loves her library, and so do I!

I also have a large bathtub, but I can't say that I'm the sort to go soak in the tub.

Hope you enjoyed the mini-tour!

Dominican Sisters on Oprah

2010-02-19T15:33:00.000-08:00

Aggie Catholics: Video of Dominican Sisters on Oprah

Don't take Candy's view of the sisterhood- here are some real nuns and their voices!

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

Catholic Clips (weekly)

2010-02-13T16:35:00.001-08:00

St. Bernadette
tags: Catholic, Saints, feast, St.Bernadette
- Eventually six brothers and two sisters arrived as gifts from God. Only three
  lived beyond the age of ten. Justin died when he was nine, four others died as
  infants. Such comings and goings from Heaven to earth, and earth to Heaven
  welded our family together in fortitude and love. I never heard my parents
  quarrel. They were always at peace.
- A golden cloud came out of the cave and flooded the niche with radiance. Then
  a lady, young and beautiful, exceedingly beautiful, the like of whom I had never
  seen, stood on the edge of the niche. She smiled and smiled at me, beckoning me
  to come closer as though she were my mother, and she gave me to understand in my
  soul that I was not mistaken.
  
  The Lady was dressed in white, with a white veil on her head, and a blue sash
  at her waist. A Rosary of white beads on a golden chain was on her right arm. On
  that cold winter's day, her feet were bare, but on each foot was a golden rose
  radiant with the warmth of summer.
  
  I went upon my knees and took my Rosary from my pocket The Lady took the
  Rosary from her arm and I began to cross myself. My arm could not move until the
  Lady herself made a beautiful Sign of the Cross.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

The Noble Bereans

2010-02-07T11:17:00.001-08:00

We're getting a bit long in the comments on the prior post, so I thought I would post a new one up for continuing discussion.

Jennie wrote: The Lord didn't GIVE us the church, we ARE the church. He gave us the Holy Spirit and His word and the Spirit gifts each of us in different ways, including men who can teach and lead others. We all have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us, however, and have the responsibility to compare teachings to scripture, as those often cited Bereans did.

Barbara replied: Never mind that in the context of Acts 17 the Bereans were obviously comparing Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Scriptures (not the NT). Secondly the Bereans are being held up as nice guys because they are willing to listen to give Paul's story a fair chance instead of rising up against him like those in Thessalonica. Third, no where does it say that to be a like a Berean one must compare teachings to scripture on a regular basis to make sure they are true or that everyone should be like the Bereans to be a Christian.

If anything, the Berean story reflects fair-minded tolerance for listening to another's viewpoint and giving it fair consideration instead of just striking out at those who say things you don't want to hear.

I understand that "being a Berean" has become some sort of rallying cry for some sola scriptura Christians, but I think it has been blown way out of Biblical context.

Barbara reminded me privately of an article written by Steve Ray for Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock, back in 1997. It is available online here.

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

Sanctified for the Lord

2010-02-03T11:12:00.001-08:00

Candy wishes to assure us that she is not preoccupied with outward appearances because she feels they are important, but because she wishes to be sanctified for the Lord.

As for me, I am going to continue to sanctify myself for the Lord, in
whatever manner He sees fit. It's all written in His precious Word.
All Glory goes to God.

Is this a slip, or does she really believe this? Sounds like works salvation to me. I did submit a comment asking her about this, but she neither printed the comment, nor changed the wording so I will assume it is what she meant to say.

While Jesus did sanctify himself (John 17:19) I was under the impression that it is God who sanctifies us, through the Holy Spirit.

Romans 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Candy also writes: Such Scriptures are to be followed as well, such as
Ephesians 5, where it tells wives to submit to their husbands, and 1
Timothy 2, where it discusses how women should dress and wear their
hair, in addition to their heart and behavior, and then there's 1 Cor.
11, where the head covering is discussed.

1 Tim 2:9-10 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

1 Timothy says that we should be dressed modestly, and not be so concerned with our outward appearances, such as spending a lot of time doing our hair, wearing expensive jewelry, or designer clothing. Instead, we should be dressed with good deeds. Our actions speak of our faith more than our clothing.

Which is what I said in the post below where I was concerned that breaking with family would send a loud negative message about Christianity.

The Feast of Candlemas

2010-02-01T17:22:00.001-08:00

Nature Table Candles Lit
Originally uploaded by Pictures by Ann

Candy's week in family, temperment, and appearances

2010-01-31T12:03:00.000-08:00

Candy has written some interesting blog posts this week. None directly about Catholicism, but several which are ripe for discussion on how Christians should live their life. I am in the middle of several big projects right now, but I'd like to toss up a post so that you guys can discuss if you are interested.

She started off by discussing what to do when your family can't stand your Christianity. Well, I think she said Erik wrote this.

For instance; if some of the lost members of a saved person's family could not accept the saved person's rejection of the Pagan Roman Catholic Religion, non-messianic Judaism, New Age, or Human secularism etc., the lost family members might make themselves into the saved person's enemy. They might blame the spouse and persecute them both, it might be time to part ways. If so, the saved Christian would be honoring their father and mother by standing tall for God's truth and by defending their spouse.

I understand that it is sometimes necessary to separate oneself from one's family. There are some toxic relationships out there, and especially if you have children, you should not let yourselves be subject to verbal abuse. But as Candy posted comment after comment from women who said that after becoming born again, they no longer had any contact with their families, I was so sad at this worldview. I thought of it again this morning, as I listened to this reading from 1 Corinthians at Mass:

¹If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ²If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
⁸Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
¹³And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

If you have become a Christian, then you should be patient with your family, even if they do not understand. If they seem to attack your beliefs, you should remember that longsuffering, gentleness, and meekness are fruits of the Holy Spirit.

Erik says that Christians will be persecuted by their families, and for this reason they should walk away.

Paul writes in 2 Cor 12:10 that "That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." He didn't say he left, he said he delighted in it.

Similarly, going back to the Beatitudes, Matthew 5 tells us that ¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. ¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Erik actually quotes from Matthew 5:

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." -Matthew 5:14-16

This means being willing to talk about God outside of church, and not wimping out by saying that you will witness simply by being an example. What kind of Christian stands by and says nothing as their family and friends head towards hell? If they reject the Gospel that is one thing, but did you give them the chance to reject it? Every Christian is commanded to spread the gospel.

How is it "wimping out" by setting an example? How can you let your light shine to your unsaved family if they never see you?

I truly do not understand the belief that he and Candy have, that they should run down the list of Bible verses they usually give, "Dad, did you know that Christ died for your sins? All you have to do is believe and have eternal life, etc." Do that once, then leave, knocking the dust from your sandals, and saying "Well, we told them the gospel, and it isn't our fault that they are staying on their path to hell."

How is that going to attract anyone to Christianity? It is when your family sees that you are loving and happy, becoming a better person through striving to live a virtuous life, and most of all, but having opportunities to have low-key conversations about what Christianity means, that their heart will be softened. Giving them a lecture, demanding they make a decision, and then leaving is only going to leave them with a bad taste in their mouth.

Again, I realize that many of these situations are more complex than what I am writing. I am just giving my reaction to what Erik wrote, which seems oversimplified in itself. I am afraid that by he and Candy will give more women the excuse they are looking for by jumping right to separation from their family, rather than seeking the council of their pastor, sitting down and having a heart to heart with their family, or trying to set reasonable boundaries.

Towards the end of the week, Candy took a look at Asperger's Syndrome. She wrote:

1) I'm BLUNT

2) I've hurt people's feelings probably more times than I can count, and most of the time I have no idea what I did or said

She characterized these traits as positives, saying, "Here's more bluntness - I think Aspergers have more of a chance of being saved than non-Aspergers."

Is bluntness really such a positive, especially if it is to the point where she hurts people's feelings, and has lost "countless" friendships?

From the Beatitudes in Matt 5, we find:
⁵Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
⁹Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.

From 1 Cor 13, we learn that Love is patient and kind. It is not rude.

In Galatians 5:22-23, we see that bluntness is not a gift of the Holy Spirit. Gentleness and meekness are, however.

We all have good and bad aspects to our personalities. I have no doubt that Candy is blunt, and does not intent to offend by what she says. I disagree that this should be considered a positive thing. I think that we should be prepared to work to improve our characters, and this is probably something which she should strive to improve through prayer.

Finally, today Candy wrote: The Lord called me to be dresses only in January of 2005, and He has recently called me to cover my head as of December 2009. I have found multitudes of other ladies walking the same path as I.

Wearing dresses only seems to be a big point of pride to Candy. It is something that she writes about frequently, and, as in the case of her most recent e-book, she seems to judge the Christianity of women by whether or not they are dresses only, cooking from scratch, stay-at-home moms. I think that God might call some to dress in this manner, and it is certainly good that Candy is obedient if this is the case with her.

However, I think that focuses too much on the outward appearance to judge the interior.

1 Sam 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

In John 7:24, Jesus warns us to "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

Finally, consider 2 Cor 10:7: "Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's."

Do not define yourself as "A dresses only, head covering Christian." Just be Christ's alone.

Luke 18:9-14
9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. I'll stop in as I have time.

Anti-Catholic Apologists who don't listen

2010-01-29T05:41:00.000-08:00

Kelly and I have felt this way too - frequently!

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Proof That Anti-Catholic Apologist Jason Engwer Ignores an Average of 80% of Catholic Opponents"s Arguments (Four Exchanges With Bryan Cross and Dave Armstrong)

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

And for folks who would rather watch something more uplifting...

2010-01-25T10:59:00.001-08:00

The debate video

2010-01-25T10:58:00.000-08:00

Between homeschooling, homemaking, cooking from scratch and exercising for a solid 60 minutes in the middle of the day, I have to wonder when Candy found the time to watch this long video. I fully intend to watch it and will probably have lots to say.

I did watch the first few minutes of actual talk after the opening music dragged on. My first impression is that this is not in any way, shape or form a "neutral" debate. The moderator is not "Moderate" in fact he very clearly has a bias. He also spends a great deal of time "poisoning the well" before the debate even starts, inference being that Catholicism is a "cult" and comparing it to Mormonism etc.

I only got to see a little bit of the Catholic opening statement, and to my mind the professor gets right to it- Sola Scriptura isn't scriptural. Game over. But I have to watch the rest and see the Protestant response.

To save you from going over to Candy's and having to live through the noise of her "channel", the link to youtube directly is here.

*************Update*******

I couldn't find much on Larry Wessels. I did come across this:

Whatever anti-Catholicism leads to, it isn't inner peace. Consider the case of Larry Wessels. He used to work with Robert Morey, who has a ministry and radio program based in Austin, Texas. Morey considers himself something of an expert on the errors of "Romanism," and he has debated such defenders of the Catholic Church as Robert Fastiggi, who teaches in the religious studies department at St. Edward's University.

It seems that Wessels and Morey had a falling out. Wessels has been distributing a small-print newsletter that devotes several thousand words (plus photocopies of checks, ledgers, and letters) to the proposition that Morey is a crook. Wessels refers to his "unenviable position of being slandered by national bulk mailouts, threatened with lawsuits, and vilified by telephone by a man determined to assassinate my character and destroy my ministry." His ministry--and we take this as a compliment--is called Christian Answers.

Morey once.aspired to be heir to the late Walter Martin on the "Bible Answer Man" radio program, but Hank Hanegraaff, under Martin the president of the Christian Research Institute, got the job instead. Ever since then it's been one disappointment after another for Morey as his anti-Catholic ministry implodes-- and, apparently, as Wessels takes his own anti-Catholic operation down with Morey's.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. I'm guessing this debate is at least 10 years old and I would never have watched it all had Candy not posted it.

Nonetheless, if the purpose of this "debate" was to learn the truth, then it failed miserably. I didn't learn anything about Protestantism (other than Larry Wessels seems to think it has a lot to do with disagreeing with Catholicism) and none of the Catholic points were made in a presentable clear fashion.

Also the entire forum was slanted towards the Protestant view. I would give the moderator an F. He did nothing to clarify or moderate the discussion and consequently the two men were all over the map. The entire thing lacked focus.

Here are my notes:

Moderator is not moderate. He is clearly poisoning the well before the discussion even starts.

Interestingly when Dr. Fastiggi opens with prayer the other men don’t pray as well or even nod their heads .They look at him as if he is doing something totally foreign to them!

Fastiggi opens strong: Jesus would have to make it clear that he intended for scripture alone to be the only authority- this is not clear in the scriptures – he commissions the apostoles to preach.

Bible itself does not give itself the authority.

2 Thessalonians vs. 2 15. ¹⁵So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings^[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

More than just scripture alone.

7:50 Who decided what was scripture?

If he holds to only 4 gospels then he holds to a tradition that is not in scripture.

2^nd century church tradition.

8:32 Protestant opening statement.

Theme is on the Gospel message found in

1 Corinthians 15

Faith alone

9:44 What is a consequence in not believing the true gospel

1 Galations- chart – lame Hasn’t proved that the Catholics are cursed or that the Evangelical gospel is the true one.

Anathema eternally dammed? Larry clearly doesn't know what Anathema really means?

Acts 16:30

Per Larry The RCC believes "Keep 7 sacraments and other decrees of the church ordained by the lord Jesus Christ and perhaps I will be saved". – Interestingly that's not in the Catechism. More interestingly, neither men has a copy of the catechism on their tables that I can see. They sure don't ever quote from it.

11:40 – Moderator keeps putting in his 2 cents and continues to poison the well.

12:36 Nothing that Larry says that Catholics deny.

Faith alone Romans 3:28 (Larry admits that alone is implied)

James 2:24 inspired word of God? See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Only time faith is with alone.

We are not saved by our works. Larry denies it and then Dr. Fastiggi gets out Trent (I think fondly of Paul and how much he would love Dr. Fastiggi simply because he refers to Trent all the time!)

If anyone says that without divine grace man can be justified by his own works let him anathema sit.

14:48 Vatican II from Larry - no wait - they aren't ready for that yet. Dr. Fastiggi says:If the bible alone is the only source of authority you have to prove it from the bible and secondly you have to be able to convince me that your interpretation is correct. Luther and Zwingli disagreed on how to understand This is my Body and This is My Blood.

Reformers divided on only the elect saved.

16:31 Saved Protestants vs. Lost Protestants on essentials they Protestants agree on apparently.

Not an essential whether JC died for the sins of all mankind. – still equal brothers in Christ per Larry.

17:29 They're all over the place now. Larry brings upNew Jerome Commentary bible contains bibles, fictions myths and evolutions.

18:35 Dr. Fastiggi explains imprimatur. Matters still open for discussion.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DESTBIB.TXT

20:32 Not absolutely necessary to believe that moses wrote the whole 5 books.

21:42 Dr. Fastiggi asks, "Msut every part be interpreted literally?: Some agreement that not every word is literal. So Larry has agreed that some may be symbolic.

23:19 Larry says that according to his sources only 7 verses authoritatively interpreted by the Catholic Churc and seems to delight in only 2 ex cathedra doctrines although I don't think he knows what that means either.

23:28 Spirit of truth guides the tradition

Dr. Fastiggi gets to show off his Greek..

Acts 26 verse 22

24:44- Larry keeps baiting the Dr.Fastiggi and it's annoying and distracting. Why the moderator doesn't stop it is beyond me.

Larry doesn’t even know the name of the Vatican II document he quotes from. He says he knows Catholicism but if he did he would know that most Catholics refer to Vatican II by the specific documents, not by some conveniently published volumes with page numbers. But he switches gears now from traditions and scripture to Vatican II and good works.

25:10 From the most ancient times in the church good works were always offered to God

25:56 Jumping oer to merits Prot boy is all over the place .

26:15 RC built on works

26:33 Dr. Fastiggi " to help one achieve salvation is scriptural.".

Letter of James calls for the conversion of sinners james 5:19. My brothers if any among you should stray from the truth whoever brings back a sinner will save his soule from death and cover a multitude of sins.

29:03- switching topics. We’re simply saying that our prayers and good works contribute.

29:35 by understanding biblical theology.

Dr. Fastiggi challenges Larry to tell him how he knows that his interpretation is the right one. Larry won’t answer how his interpretration is right.

31:02 Dr. Fastiggi mentions 2 Thessalonians 1:11 and reiterates that no where does it say that our good works are the foundation for our salvation. Trent says that faith is the foundation.

The moderator continues to suck.

Discussion is dissolving into rhetoric about deserived merit and fitting merit. I'm sure Protestants and many Catholics don't even know what the heck they're talkinga about!

34:07 Let’s center on the central issue the Catholic Church - gosh, wish the moderator had said that!

Dr. Fastiggi: "If you are saying that the Catholics believes that the foundation is our own works then you are wrong:

34:48- Classic as taught by the letter of James.

WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PREVIOUS DEBATES!!!!!

PEEING CONTEST AT 35:57 but I persevere to the end of this stupid debate and I'm almost postive that Candy didn't even get this far!

Where is this stupid moderator.

Oh no he didn't!! ROFLOL Larry brings up Raymond Brown and Hahns Kuhn as credible Catholic authorities... – what a moron.

37:01 those words are to be understood in the sense namely that we are said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of man’s salvation. The foundation and root of all justification without which it is notpossible to please God and tocome into the fellowship of sons

We are said to be nothing that preceeds justification neither fiath or works merits the works of Justification for if it is by grace Grace would no longer be grace.

38:06= word games according to Larry.

Well he may think he understands it, but he sure as heck can’d pronounce it.For sheer scholarship Dr. Fastiggi is making Larry look like a novice.

41:15 I hate Larry

42:28 Paul indicates that we need to grow in righteousness, we need to grow holy

Rev nothing unclean can enter heaven. The distinction between the guilt of the sin and what was call the wound of the sin that needs to be healed by God’s grace. God’s grace working through us heals us.

43:51 where does it teach everyone has to go to purgatory? Clue- it doesn't.

44:47- Doctor loses it when Prot Boy brings up transsubstatiation. Push aside scriptures that don’t suit you.

OH GOD WHY DOESN”T THE MODERATOR HELP!!!

46:27

46:55 Defines anathema.

47:18 muslims can be saved.

48:18 inscrutable God God if he wishes could exempt because of ignorance.

49:21 whore of Babylon comes up – knew it would eventually.Yawn.

50:12 Dr. Fastiggi: "All you are doing is giving slurs and distortions and if you are really interested in what the church teaches you would listen."

50:32 Carl Rahner Luther wrote a lot of books. eye roll

I started listening to the closing remarks but Larry is bringing in all kinds of things that weren't in the debate and by this time I don't care about what either of them have to say. But if you are so interested it starts around 52;40 - where the moderator makes it look like he ws really just the time keeper.

Oh heck - let's listen to what Larry brings up

Mary like God

Mass

Pope

Necromancy occultism

Universalism

Merit

Super irrigation! (a farming term no doubt ha ha ha)

Changes in the word of God

Jehovah witness= Catholic Church

55:39 Mr. Fastiggi- very calmly "If the essence of the gospel is that we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ and this grace alone, this is what the CC teaches. Mr. Wessel has to show you that his church or his belief system is consistent with what the NT teaches, but he appeals to phrases as dogmas which are contracted by statements in the ible. but then says that is not what it means, that's not what it means...

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

FYI - Some Catholic Books of note

2010-01-21T20:53:00.000-08:00

Scott Hahn's Ignatius Catholic Study Bible is ready for pre-orders at Amazon. Here's the description:

The only Catholic Study Bible based on the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament brings together all of the books of the New Testament and the penetrating study tools developed by renowned Bible teachers Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.

This volume presents the written Word of God in a highly readable, accurate translation, excellent for personal and group study. Extensive study notes, topical essays and word studies provide fresh and faithful insights informed by time-tested, authentically Catholic interpretations from the Fathers of the Church and other scholars. Commentaries include the best insights of ancient, medieval and modern scholarship, and follow the Church s guidelines for biblical interpretation. Plus, each New Testament book is outlined and introduced with an essay covering questions of authorship, date of composition, intended audience and general themes. The Ignatius Study Bible also includes handy reference materials such as a doctrinal index, a concise concordance, a helpful cross-reference system, and various maps and charts.

''With copious historical and theological notes, incisive commentary and tools for study, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament is outstanding for private devotion, personal study and Bible study groups. It is excellent for evangelization and apologetics as well!''
Stephen Ray, Host of The Footprints of God series; Author of Upon This Rock

Also Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love
debuted at #6 on the NYT Best Sellers list last fall and is still ranking well on Amazon.

The Hail Mary

2010-01-19T10:30:00.000-08:00

This was first posted back in May 2008.

The word "pray" and all of its various forms has a number of different meanings. Of course when we pray to God, our prayer can have several different forms - prayers of worship and praise, prayers of petition, prayers of thanksgiving to name a few.

When Catholics talk about "praying" to Mary or the saints, THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PRAYERS OF WORSHIP. And although I suppose one could point out that many prayers praise Mary or the saints, those prayers are always in reference to God i.e. Mary the obedient, Mary the humble servant, Mary mother of God. We praise the saints and Mary because they give more perfect examples of being a child of God and overcoming their sins, than we do.

The Hail Mary is actually very scriptural.

Hail Mary, Full of Grace the Lord is with you
Blessed art thou amongst women
And Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus

The account of the angel Gabriel announcing to Mary that she is to be the mother of our Savior is familiar to all Christians. We find here the first elements of the Ave Maria. The angel’s words are "Hail, O favored one," (Luke 1:28 RSV), or as Jerome translated it in his 4th century Latin edition, "full of grace."

What does it mean to be greeted as one "full of grace"? At the very least, Mary is highly favored by having been chosen to bear the Son of the Most High. The Latin translation using "full" points to the overflowing abundance and perfection involved. God Himself will dwell in her womb, the Creator will come into the world. The Holy Spirit will overshadow and dwell in her. It is all of grace. By this grace, Mary is special and blessed. The Church’s reflections over the centuries have their root in these words of the angel Gabriel, sent from God. She teaches us to look to Mary for our model of what we ourselves hope to become by God’s fullness of grace.

Mary, and we too, have the next words of the angel to assure us of His help in this. "The Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). How many times in salvation history have servants of God heard these words? In Genesis 26:24, the Lord appears to Isaac, saying, "Fear not, for I am with you". The Lord God promises to be with Jacob (Gen. 31:3), with Moses (Exod. 3:12), with Joshua (Joshua 1:5), and with Gideon (Judges 6:16). Jesus Himself tells his accusers, "He who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him"(John 8:29). The Lord will be with Paul in the city where He has many people (Acts 18:10). This is His promise to the Church in Matthew 28:20, "I am with you always." And in Revelation 21:3, a great voice tells us, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them and they shall be his people and God himself will be with them." The Lord is with Mary, according to the angel, and we know He is with us. His assistance in the Old Testament has been brought to great fulfillment by His very presence with Mary in her womb. "The Lord is with you," has been a pregnant phrase throughout salvation history. And now in the Church, His real presence is with us in His Eucharist.

"Blessed art thou among women," says the prayer, in the words of Elizabeth (Luke 1:42). All the promises of blessing in the Old Testament are fulfilled with the coming of the Savior. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, continues, "and blessed is the fruit of your womb". Mary is blessed because of her child, Son of the Most High. Elizabeth recognizes this, saying in astonishment, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). Both Mary and Elizabeth are pregnant miraculously, by the grace of God, emphasizing to us that our life in God is all of grace, all by His willing and doing. We, too, are totally dependent on His grace, His mighty acts, his fulfilling of promises. In the Incarnation, Mary is blessed to have the God of the universe dwell in her womb. In the Church, we are graced to receive in the Eucharist His presence, His very body, the fruit of Mary’s womb.

The scriptural first half of the prayer ends with the name of Jesus (Luke 1:31). We are told in Acts that "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Mary rejoices in God her Savior, and all generations shall call her blessed. Like Mary, we are to rejoice in God’s salvation through Jesus. Like Mary, we are blessed in the Son of the Most High. And like her, we are to be conformed to his image. "For those whom He foreknew, He also pre destined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). Catholics believe that Mary’s sinlessness is due only and completely to the grace of her Savior, her Son. She did not earn this great privilege, but was prepared by His saving grace to shine as a promise of what we will be, when "we shall be like Him" (1John 3:2).

The second part of the prayer is a prayer of petition.

To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.

Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners,
Now and at the hour of our death, Amen

Catholics strongly believe in the community of saints, that those who died in Christ are alive in Christ (who died for us, so that whether we wake or sleep, we might live with Him" (1 Th. 5:10) so we ask for their prayers, just like we ask each other for prayer. In the second half of the Hail Mary, we address Mary as the Mother of God, for indeed she is. We ask her to pray for us, admitting our sinfulness, and asking for those prayers now as we live our lives but particularly at the end of our life when most likely we will need prayer the most!

For more on the Hail Mary see
Hail Mary
EWTN's explanation.

The Crucified Rabbi

2010-01-15T18:15:00.000-08:00

Musings From A Catholic Bookstore has an interview with Taylor Marshall, author of The Crucified Rabbi. Sounds as if it will be a very interesting book.

In 2007, I delivered twelve lectures at the Catholic Information Center in Washington, DC on Judaism from a Catholic perspective. The themes examined how Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, how the Messianic kingdom relates to the Church, the papacy, the Blessed Virgin, the priesthood, sacraments, liturgy, vestments, architecture…you name it . . .

When I was an Episcopalian priest doing a hospital visit, I met a Jewish rabbi who informed me that when a fellow Jew is suffering, they often invoke the name of that person’s mother in prayer with the belief that it provokes God’s mercy. This intrigued me, especially as to how it might relate to the Catholic practice of invoking the name of Mary—since she is the mother of the suffering servant Jesus Christ. This breakthrough led to many others. Eventually I was convinced that only Catholicism could truly account for the Jewish heritage of Christ and the Apostles. I renounced my Episcopalian ministry and became Catholic.

Catholic Relief Services Blog

2010-01-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

Catholic Relief Services Blog - place to donate for Haiti Earthquake relief.

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

Catholic Bible Student

2010-01-13T16:44:00.000-08:00

You might want to add this one too!

Catholic Bible Student

Catholic Bibles

2010-01-13T16:43:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting blog you might want to add to your Bloglines or Google Reader!
Catholic Bibles

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

Intro to Catholicism

2010-01-10T08:58:00.000-08:00

New Reader Sarah has asked for some help in learning just what the Catholic church teaches and knowing a bit about the Catholic church.

I don't think I would send someone first looking into Catholicism directly to the Catechism of the Catholic church because some of the language, rhetoric and footnotes can be a bit daunting. That is a good resource though that every Catholic should have and certainly someone who claims to be doing a deep study of Catholicism ( ahem - Jennie) should have a copy.

Nonetheless a list of good books and resources to refer people too would be quite helpful.

For my high school students I found Introduction To Catholicism: A Complete Course to be very helpful and I learned form it as well!

David Armstrong's e-books in the sidebar are good.

Jeff Cavin's Catholicism 101 is good although I have only heard part of it.

Why Do Catholics Do That? is also a good read.

Suggest some more in the comments and I'll add them to the list.

More nun fun!

2010-01-09T08:13:00.000-08:00

Long time readers will remember how Candy loves to post stories about nuns being raped and tortured, even with no documentation to back it up. So from time to time we like to show the bright side of the sisterhood. Over at Overheard in the Sacristy is reporting that four young women entered the convent recently, complete with beautiful pictures.

Salvation by Merit

2010-01-08T12:09:00.000-08:00

Defining the terms is very important when you are discussing theology. Do not be scared, just because a word such as "merit" appears in the Catechism. You should not leap to the assumption that it means Catholics believe we earn our salvation. What you should do is see what Catholics mean when they use the term.

The word 'pray' is another example of this. It has come to imply worship, although the older original meaning was to make a request, or to entreat. When you look up the definition of a word in an unabridged dictionary, it lists the Catholic meaning as either "eccl" or "R. Cath" in the definition. The Catholic Church is so old, that it uses vocabulary which is now a bit antiquated.

What does the Catechism have to say about merit?

III. MERIT

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life." The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.

What this is saying, if you remove the offensive word "merit" is that it is God who initializes that moment where we accept Jesus as our Saviour, thereby obtaining (or meriting) salvation. Read #2007 carefully. It says that everything we merit originates from God.

What is necessary for salvation? God gives us the grace necessary for salvation. Then we turn to Him. Does He do everything? How much of our acceptance is work and how much is God? Can man initiate (semi-Pelagian) or is it only God? Are we co-operating with God, or not?

When we get to justification, is it imputed or infused? What type of grace are we talking here, sanctifying or actual?

To say that faith is simple is to oversimplify. There are a lot of possible variations, that that is why it seems complicated, and why we end up with so many beliefs among Christians.

To read the full section on justification in the Catechism, look here. But I will excerpt a few selections which show that we believed we are saved by God's grace.

#1992

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.

#1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

#1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

#2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"

Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.

#2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.

#2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit." Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.

That was the section immediately before the Catechism begins to discuss merit. So we are back to that topic. There are two kinds of merit in Catholic doctrine, condign merit and congruous merit.

See Catholic Encyclopedia for more information, but here is what I feel is the important part:

Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity.

Christian faith teaches us that the Incarnate Son of God by His death on the cross has in our stead fully satisfied God's anger at our sins, and thereby effected a reconciliation between the world and its Creator. Not, however, as though nothing were now left to be done by man, or as though he were now restored to the state of original innocence, whether he wills it or not; on the contrary, God and Christ demand of him that he make the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross his own by personal exertion and co-operation with grace, by justifying faith and the reception of baptism. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that man before, in, and after justification derives his whole capability of meriting and satisfying, as well as his actual merits and satisfactions, solely from the infinite treasure of merits which Christ gained for us on the Cross.

So, to the best of my understanding, God gives us the grace that we need to turn to him, and cooperate. It is through this free response that we might say we merit our salvation, which is due entirely to Christ. To avoid the prohibited word "merit" we might instead say "accept the free gift of salvation by our faith."

As I said before, this is about vocabulary.

Works are bad, but bearing fruits is good.

Accepting/believing is not an action, despite being a verb, because actions are works, which are bad.

Meriting salvation is bad, but obtaining or being giving a salvation after an action is good.

I believe we are expressing the same idea, but in different words.

Conversation with a Catholic friend

2010-01-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

I'm bumping this up to the top because I have added a record of Candy's comments section.

Who knew Candy had a Catholic friend? Perhaps he is more of an acquaintance. At any rate, Candy posts about their conversation today:

Good News Ahead

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend who is Roman Catholic.
He said some things that I'd like to address on this blog, in case
anyone else thinks or says the same thing. That conversation was
great, and I think we both walked away having enjoyed a thorough
theological conversation. :-)

My Catholic friend said that he believes that if a person thinks they
are "saved," then they must not sin, because if they sin, they are not
"saved."

I submitted the following comment, which was approved by Candy:

Did this friend actually use the phrase "earn my salvation"? Because I have never heard a Catholic use that phrase.

Many Catholics mistakenly believe that in order to go to heaven you must "be a good person." So do many Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. It is a very common idea floating around among lukewarm Christians at the moment.

Candy responded:
My friend knows I'm a Bible believing Christian, so he used terms I'm familiar with, I'm sure. :-)

I think the problem with this comes down to defining the terms. Catholics and Baptists look at things very differently. Bear with me while I repeat a story for the 100th time.

I grew up in a predominately Baptist area. I went to school with many people who told me that they were "saved" and were sure that they were going to heaven. I, being a Catholic, was surely hellbound. These people were often the who lied, cheated, stole, and slept around. From my point of view, how could these people think they were going to heaven living a life like that?

It wasn't necessarily that I believed they were failing to earn their salvation. Rather, I thought that they were lacking faith because of their actions. Faith without works is dead, and all that. We discussed this in depth when Candy was studying John 5.

My friend also said that he believes that one has to earn salvation
via good works, and that the person must work hard, every single day,
to be a good person, and do good works, or they have not earned their
salvation.

It sounds to me as if her friend was familiar with the importance of perseverance in Scripture.

Heb 3:13-14 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end

1 Tim 19-20 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Heb 10:36 For ye have need of endurance, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

1 Cor 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

And one of my favorite verses in the Bible, 2 Tim 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished
the race, I have kept the faith.

Candy certainly feels that works are important in the life of a Christian.

I don't know anything about Candy's Catholic friend. Odds are that he doesn't know much about his faith. However, I think that they were probably having a conversation where neither one really understood what the other meant.

I submitted a follow-up comment:

I don't know anything about your Catholic friend, how much he knows
about what you believe, or his own faith. However, it is very
possible that you were both reading in your own understanding to what
the other was saying.

I grew up in a predominately Baptist area. I went to school with many
people who told me that they were "saved" and were sure that they were
going to heaven. I, being a Catholic, was surely hellbound. These
people were often the who lied, cheated, stole, and slept around. From
my point of view, how could these people think they were going to
heaven living a life like that?

It wasn't necessarily that I believed they were failing to earn their
salvation. Rather, I thought that they were lacking faith because of
their actions. Faith without works is dead, and all that.

According to the Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church affirms the
necessity of faith. (see above quotes)

Also, working hard every single day is very Scriptural. (see above quotes)

Candy replies:
Kelly - I've seen it from the other angle. I've seen some people, professing to be Catholic, go out drinking, breaking the law, and living a riotious life, but then they go to confession and mass, and they think that makes it alright.

A saved Christian, regardless if they're Baptist or something else, is only truly saved, if they put their trust for salvation in Christ, and in Him alone. We don't have to follow traditions of man or "church." We only need to follow Christ, and Him alone.

I've heard that the Catholic church professes faith in Christ,but then that begs the question as to why the unbliblical doctrine of purgatory? If Christ paid it ALL, then there is no need of purgatory.

The closest thing to purgatory you'll find in the Bible, is that there was a holding place where all the dead went, and after Christ died and rose again, those who were saved went to heaven. That holding place no longer holds any Christians.

It would take too much to get into it, but there are three heavens - the third being where God dwells - the heaven. There are also three compartments of hell - the holding cell, which is now empty, the outer darkness, and the lake of fire, which no one is in yet. All who go to hell are currently in outer darkness, and all who are saved, go straight to heaven, as the Bible says - "absent from the body, present with the Lord." Amen.

I reply:
Kelly - I've seen it from the other angle. I've seen some people, professing to be Catholic, go out drinking, breaking the law, and living a riotious life, but then they go to confession and mass, and they think that makes it alright.

Certainly, there are a lot of Catholics who are lukewarm just as there are in any group of Christians. My point was that Catholics tend to focus on the works which show our faith, as well as the importance of perseverance, while you tend to focus on the moment of profession of faith. They are two sides of the same coin.

You often write of the importance of bearing good fruit if you are truly saved. You wouldn't say that this is earning your salvation. We are all saved by God's grace.

Purgatory is too much of a topic to get sidetracked on in your comments section. I will only say that the Catholic Church affirms that Jesus paid all of our debt.

CCC #613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".

#614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.

#615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

Candy did post this comment, but has so far not replied. How nice that she has posted all of my comments, and with Catechism quotes and all!

An Anonymous commentor said Kathy--Why don't you show support for your argument from the Bible, the one true word of God? That, in my estimation, is the problem with the Catholic religion (in general, mind you)...reliance on man's "interpretations." While I understand the Catholic belief in the infallability of a pope, I don't believe it. There is only ONE way to the Father, and that is through Jesus Christ, his Son. Man does not need an intercessor (which is the purpose of the pope). Therefore, your continued referal to the catechism in an argument about faith is not sound.

My response:
Well, we have two Anons, a Kathy, and a Kelly. One Anon, referring to
Kathy, wrote Therefore, your continued referal to the catechism in
an argument about faith is not sound.

As Kathy had not yet written on this thread, I think you must be
referring to me, Anon. I don't see that there is any argument about
faith taking place. I agreed with Candy that there is only ONE
Mediator, and that is Jesus. I can certainly provide Scripture verses
for that if you like, although Candy has already provided several.

Candy feels that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works, and
that more than one Mediator is needed for salvation. I quoted from
the Catholic Catechism, which is the statement of faith for the
Catholic Church, to show that we are in agreement on these matters.
Most churches have a statement of faith, and it is helpful to refer to
it to clear up exactly what a particular church teaches.

Sorry, but I'm not what the Pope has to do with the discussion.

Candy has now replied to my previous comment.

Kelly, if you are trusting in Christ alone, then why be a Catholic? Why not just be a Christian, as the first Christians in Antioch called themselves?

According to the Roman Catholic church, Mary is the mediator:

"Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."

The above is quoted from the Vatican's Holy See, here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

The Bible says that there is only ONE mediator, and that mediator is not Mary:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -1 Timothy 2:5

I reply:
Candy, my husband needs the computer for the evening, so I won't be able to post a response after this one until tomorrow. But I'd like to say that I appreciate that you have let me post comments.

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. Because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated). To deny that she cooperated with God would be to deny Mary free will.

The word Catholic means "universal." I am a Catholic Christian because I am a part of the one church of all believers.

As a last note, a search on the online Catechism shows that it refers in 12 places to Jesus as being "the Mediator," "the unique Mediator" or "the only Mediator."

Defining the terms is so very important in discussion such as these.

In the quote you posted from the Vatican website, it states "that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."

This is not Mary occupying the place of Jesus, but an affirmation of the miracle of the Incarnation. God took flesh through the body of Mary. She mediated the event of the Incarnation.

Candy's reply:
Kelly, I have been enjoying our conversation. :-)

The original "Catholic," or Universal church was not Roman Catholic. That came years later. The first place where the Catholic church veered from the Scriptures, was when they started placing bishops in charge of large groups of churches, however the Scriptures say that there is supposed to be one Bishop per church, or what non RC Christians refer to as Pastors, which is also a Scriptural term.

Some people stayed with the Universal/Catholic church, even though they veered a bit with the Bishops. But some groups decided to splinter off. Little by little more dogma was picked up by the Catholic church, which was not Scriptural, and more groups splintered off.

Fast forward many years, and you have the New Testament church, who were originally in the Universal/Catholic church, and you have the Roman Catholic church, which hardly resembled the original Universal/Catholic church.

We agree that Jesus is the only way to heaven, yes? You and I agree also, that salvation is through faith in Christ, and in Christ alone, correct?

Then why does the Catholic church teach Catholics to pray to Mary:

"The members of the Rosary Sodality, therefore, do exceedingly well in weaving together, as in a crown, so many salutations and prayers to Mary."

The above is quoted from the Vatican Holy See, at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091897_augustissimae-virginis-mariae_en.html

To pray to Mary brings the assumption that she can actually hear and be an aide in your prayers getting answered. Yet, nowhere in the Bible are we told that Mary had the omnipresence, omniscience, etc of God. She would have to have these properties, or she 1) wouldn't hear a single prayer, but if she somehow did, 2) she wouldn't be able to hear millions of people, all over the world, praying to her at the same time.

The Bible tells us that we are to direct our prayers straight to God. We now go to God through Christ.

Some Catholics teach that Mary is the mediator between Catholics and Christ. This is adding to the Word of God.

I posit the strong possibility (which I believe to be an actuality) that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Word of God via the traditions of man:

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." -Mark 7:8

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." -Mark 7:13

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -Colossians 2:8

If the Roman Catholic church believes that Christ is the only way, and that Christ paid it all, then why have unScriptural doctrines of purgatory? Why have a pope? Why elevate Mary higher than the Bible does?

I think I'm going to let the conversation rest for now. She's at the point where she's throwing the full list of Mary/Pope/purgatory at me, so there is no short response available. Plus, I don't want to press my luck. I'm very happy with the conversation.

Candy's Catholic "Friend"

2010-01-07T10:32:00.000-08:00

Today Candy Writes:

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend who is Roman Catholic. He said some things that I'd like to address on this blog, in case anyone else thinks or says the same thing. That conversation was great, and I think we both walked away having enjoyed a thorough theological conversation. :-)

My Catholic friend said that he believes that if a person thinks they are "saved," then they must not sin, because if they sin, they are not "saved." I would like to show the error in this belief via Scripture:

1 John 1:

"7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

My friend also said that he believes that one has to earn salvation via good works, and that the person must work hard, every single day, to be a good person, and do good works, or they have not earned their salvation. I would like to show Scripture that shows that that doctrine is also in error:

Ephesians 2:

"8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast."

It doesn't matter what church you attend. Attending, or being the member of a certain church will not get you into heaven. Neither will doing good works. Doing good works does not erase the sin we've committed. This is like a person who murdered his best friend, and then decided that they were going to be good, from then on out.

Should they then not be punished for the crime they committed, or should it be forgotten, because now he's a "good guy?" Obviously, no matter how good the person has become, they still need to pay for the sins they committed.

Being good, and doing good works will not and cannot cleans or cover our sins. We still need to pay for what we did wrong, or justice has not been served.

You are probably not a murderer, but lying is a sin, as well as impure thoughts. You are probably guilty of those, at the least. The Bible tells us that everyone is a sinner. The Bible also tells us what has to be done to pay for those sins:

I personally do not believe that Candy has a Catholic "friend." She's not tolerant enough for that. I also think that her "friend" was either messing with her or was another uncatechized Catholic.

We have tackled Salvation on this blog before.
October 6, 2009
September 19, 2009
February 10, 2009

For a complete listing see here.

Here is what the Catechism (which Candy apparently still ignores - which is odd for someone who thinks she knows so much on the topic) says: (Please note the catechism citations also reference scripture!)

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16).

620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

623 By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

1697 - a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95

The Christmas letter

2009-12-24T06:12:00.000-08:00

Eegads! Candy actually sent out a letter to her family and friends that said:

"
There are no rituals or hard things we have to do to have a relationship with Jesus. That’s all you need to do is believe on Him, in Him, and believe what He says. He died for you – it’s a free gift of salvation, if you choose to accept it.

Morality may keep you out of jail, but it takes the blood of Jesus Christ to keep you out of hell. –Charles Spurgeon"

Which makes me wonder how many of her yearly letters end up in the garbage can unopened, particularly on the Catholic side of the family.

Here is a web site with tips on how to write an interesting Christmas letter. Note that reminding them they are sprinting to hell isn't in there. Not sure how effective that would be any how!

Candy's Christmas Sermon

2009-12-23T11:31:00.000-08:00

My thoughts on Candy's Christmas Sermon!

Welcome to Keeping The Home: "It sure is windy. It always is. It always has been, since the fall of man. Those winds of false doctrine blow about us constantly. Some are so incredibly convincing, that we are tempted to fall for them.

As we get closer and closer to the end of this dispensation, the false doctrines will get worse and worse, and become increasingly convincing:

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. -Matthew 24:24

Just as an historical note, the book of Matthew was written approximately 2000 years ago. The Reformation was about 500 years ago. The word "arise" in this context means "Come into being, originate." Which begs the question who the "false Christs" that have arisen are?

For Bible believing Christians, the false doctrines can blow across the Bible, and create misunderstandings of the Word that can astonish. Have you ever read cult material? I read some material, a while back, by Mr. Herbert Armstrong, and in his book, he blatantly stated that we could not understand the Bible, unless we grab certain key verses, and put them together in a specific order. Without that certain order of certain key Scriptures, many do not understand the Bible. - says Mr. Herbert.

Interestingly Candy has grown beyond just attacking Catholics. Other Protestants are also apparently now fair game.

The above is how 'Christian' cults work. They take Scripture out of context, and put it together with often-unrelated Scriptures and create a false doctrine. But oh sisters, if we do not know what God's Word says, we can be fooled. The art of Scripture twisting is crafty, and takes many in.

The phrase, takes one to know one comes to mind as illustrated recently by the whole hair covering thing.

Furthermore, most professing Christians have not read the Word of God. I have met very few people who have read the Bible through. Bringing this further, reading the Bible through just once is not enough. There is so much there to learn, that we can read the Bible through every year for the rest of our lives, and never grasp all of the wonderful knowledge laid therein.

Apparently what is needed for salvation - is the ability to read? Literacy is the road to salvation - so sayeth the gospel of Candy.

Candy and the Jesse Tree

2009-12-21T05:59:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Candy wrote:

We finished our Christmas shopping today. The kids and I also finished putting up our Scripture Wall. We don't put up Christmas trees. We do a Scripture Wall instead. We enjoy this, as we make it as a family, and we make it look however we want. This year's says "Happy Birthday Jesus" in big colorful letters, and has several pages of decorated Scriptures and pictures on it. This time we made the Scripture wall on a movable foam board, so that if we have Christmas in the new house, we can pick up the Scripture wall, and bring it to the new house. :-)

Many Catholic Christians and others have been decorating with Scripture all Advent Long. This resource on the Domestic Church Site has symbols and scriptures for every week of advent.

The Under Her Starry Mantle Blog has a beautiful example of the type of "scripture wall" Candy describes.

Fisheaters has a great description of the Jesse Tree and the symbols and scriptures that go with it.

My family also does a Jessee Tree and this year we even hung ornaments for the O Antiphons. (I'll try to get pictures up later). In this way, despite our differences, Candy and I have something in common!

"Deeper Study" - and some observations

2009-12-18T07:52:00.000-08:00

I note that yesterday Candy wrote that with "deeper study" she can possibly be persuaded to change her mind about certain things. This week it's head coverings.

Welcome to Keeping The Home: "I just spent the last three hours - straight - studying this deeper. The topic I didn't want to study - I studied it. The conclusion I have so far come to, is not the one I was hoping for, LOL."

It begs the question, if Candy were to do a deeper study of , oh let's say the Eucharist, could she possibly come to a different conclusion on that too? Hope springs eternal.

I also note that Candy dropped Halo scan commenting. Halo scanning was bought out by JS-Kit and they have this entire new platform but you have to pay about $10 per year for it and to keep your old comments. So Candy dumped it and went with Blogger comments. That doesn't mean that disagreeable comments will make it on her blog - but it does mean she has to work a little harder to edit them and probably comments have a better chance of being read.

Lastly, you won't see Candy blogging about Christmas much. In years past they'll exchange gifts, have a nice dinner and then she'll have the "Christmas was fun" post, and then it will be over. This is all fine and good.

I do want to point out however that other Christians, including the Catholic, Orthodox probably Anglicans and Lutherans and even some other Protestant Christians whose blogs I have been reading have been celebrating Advent. For weeks we have been reading the old testament in preparation for the birth of our Savior. These last few days before Christmas some Christians including Catholics have been reading the O Antiphon prayers in preparation. For us also, December 25 will be the first day of Christmas, not the last. I mention all of these things merely to point out that some Christian churches not only "read" the bible, but actually read it as a way to bring a deeper meaning into what we call the "Liturgical year" of which Christmas is a big feast and celebration. I personally love this scriptural and prayerful journey to Bethlehem every year.

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

Is Priestly Celibacy Biblical?

2009-12-12T17:21:00.000-08:00

I first posted this article in 2007. In Candy's latest post on the role of women, she writes about marriage and singleness in the comments. I have interspersed her comments within the article.

Most people are well aware that in the Catholic Church, priests do not marry. (For the record, celibate means "unmarried" in Catholic terminology.)

However, many are unaware that this is not considered a matter of doctrine, but of tradition (with a little t). The Church finds this the best practice for now, but it could change. Although there were both married and celibate (unmarried) priests in the early centuries, the church adopted celibacy as the practice because it made certain things easier at the time, mostly due to inheritance issues. We keep it because we still find it convenient for other reasons.

Actually, there are already married priests within the church. In what is known as the Eastern Rites (think Orthodox, but in union with Rome) if men are married when they are ordained, they will be married priests. If they are unmarried when they are ordained, then they must remain so. Also, former Orthodox or Anglican priests who convert, can request to be priests in the Roman Rite. These men, such as Dwight Longenecker, pictured above with his family, will also be married Catholic priests.

Protestants often point to this practice and say that it isn't Biblical. Some might point out the importance of marriage in the Old Testament. The figures of the Old Testament were very much concerned with building the Israelites as God's Chosen People. The New Testament is concerned with building the Kingdom of God.

Who is the central figure who precedes Jesus in the New Testament? John the Baptist, who appears to have been the first monk in the desert. There are many verses in the New Testament which point favorably to remaining unmarried:

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

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

1 Cor 7:1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

And you might notice that Paul then goes on to say that everyone should marry, to avoid fornication.

Candy specifically points this out, saying "1 Corinthians 7:1 is referring to the unmarried state. When a man is single, he is not to touch a woman - not to have sexual relations. This is why the next verse begins talking about avoiding fornication. When a man marries, then not only is he to touch his woman - he is commanded to "render due benevolence."

But the line after that is:

1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself.

He is giving permission for verses 2 though 5. It is not a commandment, because it is better to be as he is, himself. Further down, he writes:

1 Cor 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

One of the advantages for a celibate priest, is that he can devote himself full time to prayer and ministry, without caring for things of the world, and pleasing his wife.

1 Cor 7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

Candy writes, "Paul cannot be saying that it's better for men to stay single, else he would be contradiction God, when God commanded us to "be fruitful and multiply." We cannot do that unless we marry.

If Paul meant that it is better for men to stay single, then he would also be contradicting himself, for Paul also said the following:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." -1 Timothy 4:1-3"

I think that the second paragraph is what is leading Candy's interpretation of Paul. She doesn't want to concede that Paul wrote favorably of celibacy, because it could be used to justify the Catholic celibate priesthood. However, the Catholic Church does not forbid anyone from marrying. Those who are ordained priests are usually (though not always, as I wrote above) chosen from single men, who choose to take a vow of celibacy. The Shakers forbade marriage; the Catholic Church does not.

Candy adds further verses to prove her point: Pastors/deacons/bishops (biblically, bishop and pastor are the same office, and deacons are likely elders in the church, BTW) are told to
marry, as well:

"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

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children
and their own houses well." -1 Timothy 3:12

These verses are not commanding bishops and deacons to marry. It is saying that they should not be polygamous. I wonder if Candy would infer that men who are married, but have not been able to have children should not be ordained deacons, since they cannot demonstrate "ruling their children" well.

I don't think that we need to stack the verses speaking favorably of marriage and those speaking favorably of celibacy and measure the two. I think that the New Testament makes it clear that there is now a new choice available. Now some will be called to give themselves entirely to God, and this is a valid choice.

If you look at the history of the Church, it is clear that from the very first years of the Church, people listened to the parable of the rich young man, and took it to apply to themselves. Young widows gathered together in a house and devoted themselves to prayer instead of marrying again. Young men sold all of their possessions and went to pray in the desert. This all happened immediately, not starting in the Middle Ages.

From my point of view, it is the protestant churches which do not allow a person to chose this as an option. If a young man who had graduated from seminary openly said that he had no intention of marrying because he wanted to devote himself to prayer and his work for the church, would he really be able to find a job? On the other hand, the Catholic church has a position of deacon, which is an ordained position available for married men.

Candy actually seems to agree with my position here, as she says "It is great if a person can devote their whole life to God, and not desire a spouse. However, if one desires a spouse, they should not forbid to marry, but should in fact start their own family unit. The unmarried life, devoted completely to God are for those who don't have the desire to marry, and is never biblically forced on anyone."

Candy, who likes to read testimonies about women being held prisoner in convents, clearly views priests as being forced to remain single. They are forbidden from marrying. However, we do not see it that way.

Our seminary process is long, and with ample opportunity for the men to discern if this is truly their calling. I know someone who got married recently, who spent two years in a Catholic seminary. He discerned that he was not called to the priesthood after all. That is not looked down upon at all in our church, but on the other hand, an indication that the process works.

Priests are certainly not unhappy with the state of affairs.

"Job satisfaction is not a problem for U.S. priests, nearly 100 percent of whom either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" with the statement: "Overall, I am satisfied with my life as a priest." That was among the findings of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, CARA, in a telephone poll of 1,212 priests released Sept. 9."

A 2007 University of Chicago job satisfaction survey found eighty-seven percent of clergy said they were "very satisfied" with their work. This was all clergy lumped together, which suggests that while protestant clergy are very satisfied with their jobs, that Catholic clergy might be a little happier.

So again, while this is a tradition of the church, there are verses that speak approvingly of celibacy, indicating that it is a Biblically based practice.

The Catholic church isn't the only church with this practice, either. The Orthodox churches ordain both married and unmarried men, but if they are unmarried when ordained, then they must remain so. Bishops are chosen only from the celibate priests.

Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic churches all have a monastic traditions, as well, where monks and nun devote themselves full time to prayer.

The Hater Blog

2009-12-10T14:47:00.000-08:00

Candy wrote a post about the people who are always picking her apart and spreading gossip. As usually happens when she does one of these people, we have had an upswing in visitors.

I know what you all want to ask, how do you have the time to devote a whole blog to tearing down one person? Well, clearly we don't, or I would have posted this two days ago!

People specifically take issue with calling Candy out by name. Mentioning Candy by name is part of acting with integrity. We could write about "a blogger who will remained unnamed" with a wink, while everyone knows who we are talking about. But I want people to be able to go and see that we are not editing Candy's words, or misrepresenting Candy's theology or positions.

A lot of damage can be done when someone posts a response to a comment without posting the comment. It is easy to misunderstand, mischaracterize, and mislead. We don't want to do that here.

Our mission is not to gossip about Candy or spread rumors. We focus on what Candy blogs about the Catholic Church. Candy rarely allows comments from Catholics when she writes about the Catholic Church, so this blog is a place for us to present our side, and for free discussion of theological issues which are related.

Candy's supportive comments are pointing the finger at women who claim to be Christians, or people claim to be only defending their faith while they are really gossiping. As I have said previously, I find it dishonest of Candy to not correct the assumption of these women that this is some sort of Catholic crusade against her.

They're probably getting all sorts of feedback and sympathy from from all kinds of people who "think" they know the truth.

Says the woman who is giving Candy feedback and sympathy.

I don't understand these people and quite honestly think they are either mentally disturbed (I am not kidding, I had some run ins with them myself...but I enjoy "banter" and debate LOL) or having some serious spirtual problems.

Indeed. Words which are not gossip if ever I have read them.

The part that angers me is that they CLAIM they are doing this as some sort of Christian service to others. GIVE ME A BREAK! They need to go back and read Romans again about the "judge not" bit. It says if you are going around judging someone for something YOU ARE DOING then you are going to be in serious trouble with God. It doesn't say not to judge and it does not say to mock, belittle or harass those you don't agree with.

There are two main blogs related to Candy (at this time, as far as I am aware). One is ours, which has really dropped off in traffic since the other one got going. Ours is focused on theology, and we do not discuss Candy's home, homesteading, lack thereof, dress size, etc. The other blog is Sweeping the Cobwebs, which is not specifically focused on Candy, but does focus on contradictions in what she writes. Sweeping the Cobwebs does not claim to be a Christian blog.