Reasonable Resources

Well, the new (recycled) series is at an end, and the big reveal was no surprise. The same ol' list of comic books and frauds is what Candy provides for her deep historical research:



Here at Visits To Candyland, we have spent quite a lot of time researching Candy's research. We provide a defense against her accusations, and we take the time to provide respected resources, often non-Catholic ones. This list provides a platform for a Greatest Hits of our Anti-Catholic Writers label.

Candy's Vatican vs. God- No less than 15 posts touched on this one, with seven in the VVG label

Answers To My Catholic Friends/Babylon Religion (Jack Chick)

Mystery Babylon the Great

Bible Study Charts

50 Years In the Church of Rome (Charles Chiniquy)

A Woman Rides the Beast- Must be an annual May event for Candy, we posted this in May of 2008 and 2009!

Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?- Another stellar illustrated history. I think my idea of a good illustrated Biblical read is a bit different.


So, if anyone was wanting more information on Candy's resources, now you have plenty to get you started. And if you'd like a sneak peek of what she might run next, check out the Anti-Catholic Writers label. Perhaps she's veer back into female territory with Sister Charlotte or Mary Anne Collins!

Separated Brethern Versus Anathematized

Turretinfan wrote:

"Separated brethren" sounds like the people are still going to heaven - "Anathema" has a different sound. The former is the more ecumenical and inclusive post-Vatican-II approach, whereas the latter is the more austere approach the preceded it. Or so it appears.

Is it your position that either Trent didn't mean to condemn folks to hell by using the word "anathema" or that "separated brethren" doesn't mean that we are able to be saved without the removal of that separation?

Well, "sounding like" can sometimes lead one astray. "C0-Mediatrix" sounds like it means Mary is equal to Jesus, whereas the title does not actually have that meaning.

The Council of Trent took place at a time when the Reformation was fresh, and not considered an established fact. The council reformed areas in the Church, agreeing that reform was needed. In other areas, it held the line. The anathemas drew attention to how serious this was, and what was at stake. You were not in communion with the Church, and in danger of hell, if you did not repent. This was a time when going to war to solve a theological issue made perfect sense.

At the time in which Vatican II took place, the Reformation is now an established fact. There are people who left the Catholic Church generations ago, and have no sense of having protested against it. Many of them are in denominations that are off-shoots of off-shoots, for example, the Methodists descend from the Anglicans.

We are no longer living in the time where a king will wait barefoot in the snow for three days in order to have his excommunication lifted. Anathemas, and excommunications of those who are already outside the Church will only push people away, not draw them in. Therefore, the change in vocabulary reflects that.

I do not see that the actual Church doctrine has changed. From the Catechism:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."³²⁰

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"³²¹

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."³²² Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Dominus Iesus was written after the compilation of the Catechism, and states this more clearly:

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),⁴⁷ which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).⁴⁸ And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.⁴⁹ This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).⁵⁰

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.⁵¹ Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.⁵²

So, Christ established only one Church. We cannot all be lumped together as a single Christian entity under the heading of a spiritual Church of Christ.

Then, a little further down:

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.⁵⁸ The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.⁵⁹ Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.⁶⁰

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,⁶¹ are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.⁶² Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.⁶³

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.⁶⁴ In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.⁶⁵ “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.⁶⁶

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.⁶⁷

What I understand this to be saying, and again, I want to caution that I am no theologian, this is just my personal understanding, is that you still need to be a part of the Catholic Church in order to attain salvation. Our separated brethren are still joined to the Catholic Church because the efficacy of their baptism is derived from the Catholic Church, in some way.

The anathemas of Trent were warning a group of people who were leaving the Church that they were in danger of hell by separating themselves from the fullness of Truth. The separated brethren of Vatican II is reminding people who see themselves as having never been a part of the Catholic Church, that they are, in a sense, joined in communion with the Church, and hopes that they will draw ever nearer.

I feel that asking "Can you be saved without joining the Catholic Church" is sort like asking "Can you be saved and never read the Bible?" Sure, you can, but you're missing out on a lot.

Catholic Necromancy

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer [necromancy - the black art of speaking to the dead]. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Deuteronomy 8:10-12

Is necromancy just speaking to the dead, as per Candy's definition?

Merriam Webster says 1 : conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events

Dictionary.com says 1.a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art.

Catholic Encyclopedia says "a special mode of divination by the evocation of the dead.

Clearly there is more to necromancy than just speaking to the dead. How many times do people go to a cemetery and speak to someone at their grave site? Is that necromancy?

Necromancy would include summoning or communicating with the dead for manipulation in some way, usually for information. As a Biblical example, in 1 Samuel 28, Saul has a witch summon the soul of Samuel in order to get information on how to win the war with the Philistines.

Any sort of occult activity is prohibited by the Catholic Church:

CCC #2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.⁴⁸ Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

When Catholics ask for the prayers of Mary, or any other saint, we are not expecting them to appear before us. We are not asking for information. We are simply asking them to join their prayers to ours, in the same way that we ask our friends and family to pray for us.

Yes, but they're dead, you might reply. But, Luke 20:38 says "For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him."

Well, they aren't aware of us in heaven, you insist. However, Hebrews 12:1 says that "we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses."

Additional reading at Catholic Answers and Scripture Catholic.




Stumble It!

Candy versus the Vatican

In case we are having non-Catholic visitors because of Candy's latest post, I thought I would address some of the points that she raised, and give some additional resources.

First issue, the salvation of Muslims:
Vatican says - "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;

Candy's link takes you to the appropriate section of the Catechism, and that is worth reading. Another good read is the document Dominus Iesus.

Some relevant excerpts:

In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith.

It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.

To summarize on that point, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation always comes through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator. If Muslims are saved, it will be because God somehow saved them through Jesus.

Next point: Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself.

This is true. I have written about Sacred Tradition here.

Vatican says - That the Catholic Church canonizes saints.

I see no contradiction with the verses which Candy quotes, and in the Vatican position here. Candy mentioned in another article that the Catholic church creates saints. This is not true.

Canonization is an official recognition that a person is a saint. A saint is a Christian, who is in heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that we are all called to be saints, and also that those who are officially recognized (i.e., canonized) are only a small number of the many, many saints that have existed.

Vatican says - The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."

Catholic Answers has a good rebuttal to this charge here.

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Also, you can go to the Scripture Catholic website for many references to calling someone "father" in Scripture. A few excerpts:

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don't Protestants call their pastors "father?"

1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."

Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.

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

I'm surprised that we haven't covered the communion of saints, and intercessory prayer yet. I'll save that for another post.

Vatican says - "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 Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.

Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website.

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

I covered vain repetition here.

Vatican says - [Catholics have a different set of 10 commandments than the ones God gave us in the Bible]

Elena talked about why protestants and Catholics differ on the 10 commandments here.

Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

From the New American Bible, the official Catholic Bible of the American Conference of Bishops Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The footnote reads "the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

For a discussion of the Douay-Rheims translation difference, see This Rock.

Now, see, the difference between the Vatican and God isn't so great as it first appears, is it?

Thank You, Candy!

I thought it would be a good idea for me to take a moment and say that I think Candy's most recent article, which is one that she had posted previously, is really her best article on Catholicism. Candy usually does not do a lot of research on her Catholicism posts, but cut-and-pastes articles from other resources. Clearly, it took some time for Candy to write this article, and for her to use a Catholic resource such as the Vatican website is a first for her. I really appreciate that she took the suggestion of many who left comments, and went to the Vatican website. She even posted links, so that people could read the information for themselves.

However, reading through the comments both on her site, and on this one, I despair that we can ever truly discuss what is involved. On her site, you read about "gossip" and "a website devoted to bashing one person" while here you read about "anti-Catholicism" and "hatred." On this post, I would like to put us on the same page.

First, this blog does not exist to bash Candy. It exists to refute her claims about Catholicism, because she does not allow Catholics to post comments at her page, no matter how polite or well-reasoned. If Candy has concerns about Catholic doctrine, we would like to be able to address them.

Well, you might say, why not just stop going to her page? Why create this page at all? To answer that, let us look at some of the claims of Candy about Catholicism.

In various posts, she has said that the Catholic Church:

* Murders people to keep its secrets and stay in power, even today, and including babies.

* Does not worship God alone, but Mary, the saints, statues, etc.

* Promotes the worship of Satan, and in fact, a Satanic black Mass is more reverent to God than a Catholic Mass

* Knowingly leads millions of souls to Hell

If this is true of Catholicism, then truly, who would not hate such an institution? That is why there is talk of hatred on this site. Candy may not hate Catholics as individuals, but surely, as a Christian, she must hate Catholicism as an institution.

If some told you those things about YOUR church, read it over again and insert Baptist, Lutheran, etc, go ahead . . . if someone told you those things about your church, would you not have a moral obligation to correct them? Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by God, and if you say those things about the Catholic Church, then you are saying them about God himself. It would be a sin for us to remain silent in face of such accusations. THAT is why we get so upset, not because it is true, but because it is such a serious falsehood.

On the other hand, we as Catholics must understand Candy's reasons for posting as she does. If we take her at her word, she REALLY thinks this is true. Our souls are in danger, and she is trying to save us. If Catholics really did believe that about a particular church, then I think we would have the same obligation to try and help them to understand their error. Our methods might differ, but we would have to try.

That is why so many of the non-Catholic visitors to her site do not see Candy as full of hatred, because they focus on her intention of saving. Likewise, they do not see her as "anti-Catholic" because that, to them, would mean that she hates Catholics as individuals.

Has there been "gossip" or personal attacks on Candy at this site? At times, yes. We do apologize for that. When something as near and dear to your heart as your religion is being discussed, people tend to lose their temper. Catholics are only human, too. But we can only discourage personal comments, apologize, and move on. Because what we are really here to discuss is Catholicism. The concerns and the glory, depending on your perspective.

Everyone is welcome to comment here, provided you are respectful. Please let the discussion begin.

Conventional Wisdom and Logic

Kelly's take on Mr. Erik's essay here,

This essay reminded me strongly of the class on Logic which I took in college. It was full of math problems disguised as "If A, then B" sentences. Mr. Erik made several points in his essay, but I'm not sure that his conclusion matches his premises.

"13 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:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

It looks like Conventional Wisdom (the way the majority thinks) is the path to hell.

His premise here seems to be that whatever the majority Christian denomination is, must be wrong, because few will find salvation.

I think the question to ask there is, how will Jesus crunch his numbers at the final judgement? According to a 2002 Pew Research Council survey, in the United States the population is 52% Protestant and 24% Catholic. If Jesus divides us into "anything but those horrible Papists" and "Papists" then I guess the Catholics are going to heaven, because we're the minority.

On the other hand, if Jesus is sensitive to various non-Catholic Christian denominations and counts them all separately, then we are left with 24% Catholic and a bunch of other numbers such as 16% Baptist, 2% Pentecostal, etc. In that case, he is correct that Catholics would be bound for hell.

All of this begs the question as to why Candy and Erik are trying to convert as many people as possible to being born again Christians. Surely, if they become the majority, then their salvation is in danger.

Still, the thought that Jesus will judge Christians by whoever is the minority seems odd. Let's examine Scripture further.

Matt. 25:31-46 is a long passage where Jesus tells of dividing goats from sheep and judging them. Skipping to the end, we read that the dividing criteria were the works of the people.

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

A similar parable is given in Luke 12:43-48:

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Or see 2 Cor. 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

I could continue, but three examples are enough for now.

I am not saying that we are saved by our works. We are saved by God's grace, though our faith, BUT, our faith is manifest by our works. As those who are critical of the Catholic Church are fond of pointing out, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter heaven. If we say we have faith, but that faith is not to be seen in our actions, then it is a false faith. When judgement comes, it is our deeds which will show whether our faith was true or false.

Mr. Erik goes on with his next premise.

There is only ONE way to Jesus, and that is through faith in Him, in his dying on the cross to pay for your sins, and His raising from the dead three days later. Believing this in your heart and confessing this with your mouth is how you get saved and receive Jesus (Romans 10:9-11)

Fair enough. The Catholic Catechism paragraph #183 states "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)."

But Mr. Erik, after supplying his "if" forgets his "then." He does not show where the Catholic Church denies the necessity of faith for salvation, because the Catholic Church does NOT deny it. Instead, he says:

The Roman Catholic Church today also proclaims that their traditions are equal with God's word, the Holy Bible.

and

Sincerity will not get you in, nor will traditions, or conventional wisdom.

So, faith is necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church teaches that tradition is equal to the Bible. Therefore, Catholics will not be saved. That doesn't follow, logically.

Perhaps he means to say that faith is necessary for salvation AND you must believe that the Bible alone is our sole authority. This seems to be what he believes, although it isn't what he says.

If you believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, then Catholics are saved. If you believe that faith in Jesus AND belief in the Bible alone as sole authority is necessary, then Catholics aren't saved, but then you are pointing to something other than faith and/or God's grace as being critical to being saved.

You can't have it both ways, Candy and Erik.

Vain repetition?

On Candy's God versus the Vatican page, she criticizes a number of issues with the Catholic church. The issue of "vain repetition" is very familiar to Catholics.

Vatican says - After a short pause for reflection, recite the "Our Father", ten "Hail Marys" and the "Glory be to the Father".

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

If you read the entire chapter of Matthew 6, you can see in context that it is opposing men who seek to make themselves look superior in piety through their prayer practices. Focusing on the "repetitious" in verse 7 overlooks the word "vain" which is the true point.

I don't think that repetitious prayer in and of itself is forbidden or bad. We know from Revelation 4:8 that the angels in heaven "rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." I think praying the same words eternally is definitely repetitious!

Matthew 26:44 tells us that Jesus prayed three times in the garden, using the same words each time.

In Luke 18:13 the tax collector kept beating his breast and praying "God be merciful to me, a sinner." This prayer was pleasing to God, though he said the same words over and over.

Have you only prayed the Lord's Prayer once in your life, because the words would become meaningless if you said them again?

Another good example is Psalm 136, where "or his mercy endureth for ever" acts as a refrain. This is the Word of God, and it is very similar to the rosary in its repetition.

Often, the rosary is held up as the example of vain repetition. Praying the rosary, which is a devotion which is not required for Catholics, is a particular kind of prayer technique. The repetition of the "Hail Mary" prayer is supposed to keep one side of your brain busy, so that you can meditation on a Biblical "mystery" such as the crucifixion of Our Lord, without distraction. The repetition of the words is supposed to keep your mind from wandering, so that you can more fully meditate on the event from scripture.

Not only Catholics, and our familiar friends the Lutherans and Anglicans pray the rosary. The practice can be found among Methodists. John Wesley himself prayed the rosary, and one of his rosaries can be viewed at The Leys School, Cambridge. There are also several websites which feature protestant versions of the rosary.

A Defense of Sacred Tradition

I originally wrote this for Amy at Blessed Motherhood, but it seems to be a good time to post it here.

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We believe that the Bible is authoritative, but that Sacred Tradition is also authoritative, and can help us to interpret (not contradict) scripture, in cases where the words of scripture may be able to have more than one meaning.

Let us journey back to the first time God gave his Word to his people. God gave the Law to Moses. But God gave Moses the Law in two forms, both written and oral. The oral Law was eventually written down, as the Talmud, in the two parts of the Mishna and Gemara.

Jews consider both the oral and the written Law as authoritative. From Judaism 101:
"When did the Jewish People receive the "Oral Torah?" They received it at Sinai, along with the Written Torah. What else do you think Moshe Rabbeinu, Moses our Teacher, was doing up there for forty days and forty nights, neither "eating bread nor drinking water" according to the testimony of the Bible. If not studying the "Oral" Part of the Torah from the Master Teacher, G-d Himself? The Oral Torah is required because without it, its counterpart, the Written Torah, would be incomprehensible."

This is why Jews interpret a prohibition on cooking a calf in its mother's milk to refer to a prohibition on any mixing of meat and dairy products.

Jesus studied the Talmud with the Rabbis in the Temple. The Jews of his time, as the Jews today, would have considered Sacred Tradition as authoritative as the written Scripture. To say that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) was authoritative is a serious breech with Judaism.

Now, Christianity departs from Judaism in many ways. But we see in the New Testament that any serious changes are discussed. We read in the New Testament that we are no longer bound to obey the Law, including the dietary restrictions. Men are no longer bound to be circumcised. But no where in the New Testament is it written that ONLY the written Scripture is to be considered authoritative.

On the contrary Paul writes in 2 Thess. 2:15 that we are to stand firm and hold to the traditions which we were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. If Paul wants us to stand fast to traditions which we have been taught, then clearly not all traditions are "traditions of men."

If Jesus meant to build a foundation on Scripture alone, then why did he not command his apostles to immediately write down his Word, as Moses did upon leaving the mountain? Over and over you read in the New Testament that Jesus commanded his apostles to preach, and preach they did. Only three apostles wrote any scripture. Most were written by disciples of the apostles, which means that they were writing down oral tradition, not the words that they heard from Jesus himself.

Thus, the authority of the written New Testament is based on oral tradition. Sacred Tradition is not reliance on the words of others or the traditions of men, but on the Word of God, and the traditions left to us by the apostles, who certainly did not leave an abundance of written words behind.

The New Testament does not claim to be complete of itself. John 20:30; 21:25 writes that Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is complete, and that every man can interpret scripture for himself. There is to be no other authority, including oral tradition, to help in interpreting scripture. If that were the case, then why would you have so many books published to help you to understand scripture? Why do you have sermons at Church to help you to interpret scripture? Shouldn't Church then consist of one person reading aloud from scripture, then everyone adjoining to share a meal because everyone exactly agrees on what that scripture meant?

If the Holy Spirit will help us all to interpret Scripture correctly, then why is there not one united protestant church against the Catholic and Orthodox churches? The early reformers could not even achieve unity, but quickly broke into groups, which have broken into more and more groups with each generation.

Acts 8:30-31: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Why didn't Philip explain to the Eunuch that all he had to do was pray to the Holy Spirit to help him interpret the Bible, and he would receive the correct meaning?

1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth," not scripture.

Col. 4:16 shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon.

There are many, many places in the New Testament that show that Sacred Tradition exists, and that we should not rely on the Bible alone. I have quoted several, but I strongly suggest you go to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ and read through the sections on Scripture Alone and Oral Tradition to read them all.

Another great resource for understanding that the Catholic Church really teaches about Sacred Tradition is Mark Shea's What is Sacred Tradition?

Of course, Catholic Answers is always a good read, too.