In today's screed she tells the reader she is not a Calvinist, and then she delves into her belief in predestination! I'm not an expert on either, but it sounds to me that her view has much in common with the Calvinist view. Feel free to opine on that!
And as I was reading the post I thought maybe the Catholics had dodged a bullet - but nope - she managed to jump from predestination and Calvinism to this:
God knows man's heart, and that man craves power. To be able to speak for God, is too much power for man to handle. Therefore, He gaves us His Written Word, to keep man, and his tendency to change things over time, in check. The Roman Catholic Church, which ignored much of the Bible from their church's beginning, became even more and more corrupt through the years, because of their not adhering to the Word of God. When churches stray from the Bible, then they start introducing false doctrine. Some churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, claim that their teachings of man and traditions, hold equal validity to the Word of God. Yet, you'll find that where their traditions differ from the Bible, they choose to follow their traditions as the correct course. This is why such churches as the Methodist church now allow gay clergy, even though the Bible is crystal clear that that is not supposed to be. Traditions, or peer pressure, is taking presidence over the Word of God in many churches of various denominations.
Clearly somehow Candy never learned that the Methodists were never part of the Catholic Church. They were started in 1739 by John Wesley and came out of the Church of England. The Church of England of course broke with the Catholic Church when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and take a different queen! The Pope, adhering to you know, what the bible says, forbid the divorce and that was the beginning of the break up.
What Candy never gets back around to acknowledging is that the Catholic Church's true stand on homosexuality, which is very similar to her stand.
I found her post, and that paragraph in particular to be historically and theologically inaccurate and lacking focus. It is also misleading and rife with errors.
It's simply, more of the same.
