Candy's week in family, temperment, and appearances

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.

John 7

Candy has the latest installment in her series on the Gospel of John. Here are our previous installments:


Let's Study The Bible! (John 1)
John 2
John 3
John 4: Sanctifying Grace and Infant Baptism
John 5
John 6

Although Candy's notes start on verse 5, the note is initially a comment on Mat 1:23-35. We recently discussed this in the comments section here on our blog. "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son."

From my Navarre Bible:

The word "donec" (until) of itself does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment, that is, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ by a unique intervention of God. We find the same word in John 9:18, where it says that the Pharisees did not believe in the miraculous cure of the man blind from birth "until" (donec) they called his parents. However, neither did they believe afterwards. Consequently, the word "until" does not refer to what happens later.

This is common in Biblical language. To read more into the word "until" is to apply English grammar to a non-English language. See also 2 Samuel 6:23 "As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death."

This is by no means a new interpretation.

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

It is worth noting that St. John Chrysostom was cited positively in the preface to the King James Version of the Bible. "S. Chrysostom that lived in S. Jerome’s time, giveth evidence with him: “The doctrine of S. John [saith he] did not in such sort [as the Philosophers’ did] vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people translated it into their [mother] tongue, and have learned to be [true] Philosophers,” he meaneth Christians. [S. Chrysost. in Johan. cap.I. hom.I.]"

As to verse five in St. John's Gospel, it says "For even his brethren did not believe in him." The Jewish custom was for close relatives to be called "brothers."

Candy says "Christ has half siblings. Here, verse 5 tells us that Jesus' very brethren did not believe Him. Familiarity breeds contempt. Jesus' half brother James didn't believe on Him until after the resurrection."

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

There is more than one Mary in the New Testament. It is entirely likely that Mary, the mother of James and Joses is a relation of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Therefore, they would be his brethren, as close relations.

Skipping ahead to verse 15, Candy writes: Oh, how very like those religious people of Jesus' day, are so many of the large religious organizations of this day! They think that one can't have knowledge of God, unless that person has special training, such as going to seminary, or getting a college degree.

I am not aware of any branch of Christianity which teaches that one can't have knowledge of God without special training. If that were the case, only the clergy would be considered Christians. One can have knowledge of God without special training, but you can also learn a lot from your elders, and the wisdom of others. Candy, herself, often points to the notes in her Dake Bible as an authority. The King James Bible translators spoke highly of the Early Church Fathers.

In verse 16, Candy makes an allusion to her perceived persecutions: Christian, how many times have people attacked you, because they didn't like the Gospel message you spoke? Maybe they called you such names as "hater," "naive," or worse. Remember, the world thinks the Gospel is foolish (1 Cor. 1:12). Yet, we Christians are not declaring that so and so is going to hell, we are simply being messengers of God, as God commanded us to do. We are spreading the Gospel message of salvation. Logically, if the world doesn't like that message, then the world should go after the originator of that message (God), and not shoot the messenger (Christians). However, this fallen world is quite illogical in many ways, isn't it?

Candy says that Christians are not declaring that individuals are bound for hell. Candy once wrote "Angie, it's nice that you believe in Jesus Christ - whatever that means. I believe in Abraham Lincoln, but that's not getting me into heaven. Also, I already told you that I'm not condemning you, GOD has ALREADY done that, and I gave you scripture which proved it.
"
Candy also wrote "You can be the most sincere, devout person in the world, but if you haven't accepted God's free gift the way the BIBLE says to, then you are sincerely going to hell." and
"In fact, it is highly likely, and quite sad to say, but highly likely, that Mother Theresa is in hell right now. Good works will never get one into heaven."

As I've written many times before, we have no problem with Candy sharing the Gospel message. We just disagree that posting lies about the Catholic Church is the same as sharing the Gospel. Must you believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and a cult in order to attain salvation? Because she certainly posts more about the Catholic Church than about the Biblical message of salvation.

Verse 17: This is a warning against taking any religious authority's word without checking it against Scripture.

We don't disagree with that message. Fortunately, Catholicism is completely Scripture compatible.

Verse 38: Spiritual rivers of living water flow from my belly, because I believe on Christ. This is the living water of life which quenches my soul, as per John 4:14. After having partaken of this water, I have no more thirst. Christ fills my spiritual thirst. Verse 39 makes it clear that Christians won't literally have water splashing out of their bellies.

My Navarre note: Furthermore, when Jesus speaks of "rivers of living water" flowing out of his heart, he is probably referring to Ezekiel 36:25 where it is announced that in messianic times the people will be sprinkled with clean water and will be given a new spirit and their heart of stone will be changed for a heart of flesh. In other words, Jesus, once he has been exalted as befits his position as Son of God, will send at Pentecost the Holy Spirit, who will change the hearts of those who believe in him.

This is similar to John chapter 6, where the Bible is clear that Jesus is spiritually the Bread of Life as well as the drink of life, but not literally physical food and drink - "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." - John 6:35b. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit." - John 6:63b Just as Jesus doesn't literally turn into some Eucharist cracker upon communion, Christians do not literally have water spewing forth from their bellies. John 6 and John 7:38 are talking about how Jesus fulfills our soul's hunger and thirst.

I think we've covered this pretty extensively. And we don't believe Jesus turns into a cracker. The "cracker" is changed into Jesus.

Another Catholic Study Bible

Well, it isn't exactly a study Bible, but a comparative Bible. Rich Leonardi from Ten Reasons gives a review:

We recently purchased The Catholic Comparative New Testament, a book containing comparative translations from eight Bibles: Douay-Rheims Bible, Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Revised Standard Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, and New Jerusalem Bible. It's a useful resource, allowing readers to examine the handiwork of translators in a side-by-side format.

I'd like to have a comparative Bible with the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and New International Version. The RSV is the one I use most often personally, but people I speak with online often use the KJV, and in real life, the NIV. It would be nice to have them all on the same page for reference, instead of dragging them all out.

I listed some Catholic study Bibles in this previous post.

Apologies to anyone hoping to see the yearbook Kelly. My real yearbook pictures are embarrassing enough, I'm not going to get a new collection of embarrassing photos!

Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?

According to Candy's sidebar, she is now reading Did the Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? by David Daniels. As Jack Chick is the illustrator, I would venture to guess that the book will conclude that the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible.

As an alternative, I suggest reading Where We Got The Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church by Rev. Henry Graham. Available to read online.

You might also read through a series Elena did a while back, when Candy was reading a different history of the Bible.

Memorizing Bible Verses

In case Candy got everyone thinking about memorizing Bible verses, I thought I'd put together a little post of resources for you.

Christian Apologetics Society has a short history of format of the original Bible, and why memorizing verses is probably a relatively recent phenomenon.

The "books" of the New Testament were actually scrolls of very expensive parchment or papyrus. The scripture was written in scriptio continua style. That is, to save space and economize, the scripture was written without chapter and paragraph breaks. In fact, there were not even spaces between words and verses as in this paragraph itself. Can you imagine trying to read John 6:53 aloud, while looking at:

thenjesussaiduntothemverilyverilyisayuntoyouexceptyeeattheflesh
ofthesonofmananddrinkhisbloodyehavenolifeinyou

While New Testament scrolls existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there were few, if any, personal copies. Christians of the day did not arrive at "church" carrying their own copy of scripture. The modern Christian tradition of believers bringing their own personal Bible to church was not an early church practice. Instead the congregation assembled a library of scripture, some in the modern canon and many not found in the current canon. At their gathering, most, if not all, the scriptures were read aloud to the assembly. If an early Christian congregation had acquired a copy of Paul's epistle to the Romans, it likely would have been read in its entirety every Sunday, week after week. That's how New Testament scripture was initially memorized. The Christian tradition of reading scripture aloud in in repeating cycles is still observed in all 22 Catholic Churches and in all Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Kevin Vost has written a book titled Memorize the Faith! (And Most Anything Else) about a method of memorization devised by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Once you have memorization mastered, you can get started on Patrick Madrid's 150 Bible Verses Every Catholic Should Know.

Or get to work immediately with this free list of verses.

The Dake Bible, and Catholic Editions

The Dake Annotated Reference Bible, which Candy recommends, is considered controversial. Dake was a rather shady character, with some unorthodox view. Elena has previous written two posts with the background information, which you can read here and here.

Candy does address Dake's views:
I believe Dake to be wrong about "planet heaven," his view of the trinity (3 Gods, instead of 3 in 1), and the gap theory.

Candy's highest criteria in a Bible is whether or not it can cause one to question the authenticity of the Bible. The last time Candy wrote on this topic, I asked her what she meant by that. She replied that it was in reference to those footnotes you often find in Bibles which say "This verse not found in the earliest manuscripts." She said that she felt, especially for new Christians, that this could cause one to doubt the authenticity of the Bible.

Personally, I think if you are recommending a Bible with the new Christian in mind, that Dake's heretical views on the Trinity alone would be enough to rule it out. I understand this isn't a problem for Candy, but I worry that her glowing review could lead others into believing that Dake is a trustworthy source. She did address that this time, with the above comment, but in previous editions of this article, she didn't add the disclaimer.

Her second choice Bible, the Scofield, comes from a similarly controversial choice. Scofield is primarily associated with the dispensationalist movement, and unlike Candy, he is a premillenialist.

It is fitting that Candy prefers the Dake and Scofield, because both lacked formal theological training. Candy has said before that she feels that theological study can hinder one from truly interpreting Scripture, because you bring preconceived notions to your study of Scripture.

I read the Bible through several times before I had any type of real Doctrinal Teaching. That is a blessing, because that means I was able to read the Bible several times on my own, without anyone else’s interpretations getting in the way. The first several to dozen times through the Bible, I used text only, or reference Bibles,- no study Bibles.

For those who may be interested, let's look over some Catholic study Bibles.

Personally, I think the gold standard is the Navarre Study Bible. The notes are so extensive, that the full edition runs to a 12 volume New Testament! The commentary is taken mostly from the Doctors of the Church, and Early Church Fathers, so you are really getting an education in history by reading through the notes. I have the medium edition, which is a 3 volume New Testament. I'd like to start chipping away at the Old Testament on my Christmas list.

A similarly well received project is the Ignatius Study Bible, which is primarily written by prominent Catholic apologist Scott Hahn, with several co-authors. However, it is still being written, and currently only available in a series of paperbacks, as far as I am aware. I use an inexpensive Ignatius Bible for when I want to read the Bible without the in depth study of the Navarre, because I prefer the Revised Standard Version.

The Catholic Answer Bible is written geared towards apologetics, but I have not actually looked through it personally.

The Oxford Catholic Study Bible also looks promising, but again, I have no personal experience with it.

For those of you with a King James Version bent, be sure to try out the Douay Rheims Study Bible. It's pricey, but look that list of contributors to the commentary!

Please chime in with your favorite Bible versions in the comments, especially if you've seen some of these that I haven't.

A review of John 6 and the Eucharist for Candy.

In light of Candy's look at John 6 today, Kelly and I thought it was important to bring this article forward from last fall.  

John 6:51-55

A There is good news here. I don't have to have a "take" on it, I just need to read the Bible, and see what it says about said passage. Roman Catholics take these verses and try to use them to prove that their IHS cracker in each mass is Jesus Christ Himself. However, that is NOT at all what said passage says. RCs are stopping at verse 55 or earlier, and are therefore interpreting the scripture incorrectly. Lets follow the biblical principle of scripture interpreting scripture, shall we? Is it okay to drink blood? NO:

Well let's look at the entire passage then.


Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Remember this is where Candy says we Catholics stop and therefore misinterpret the passage.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

I find this quite stunning. The disciples reject Christ's teaching of the Eucharist at John 6:66. 666!

"
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."
70



Now back to Candy Brauer's comments.

"Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." -Leviticus 7:27

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood." -Acts 15:29a

It is clear that it is a both Old and New Testament command that we are not to drink or eat blood. God is consistent, and He does not contradict Himself.

Since the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot contradict itself, thus, Jesus can't literally mean that we are going to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and he didn't mean that. He explains to the disciples that what he said was not literal. Read further in the same chapter:

If Candy has such a love for the Old Testament, she might learn something THE EUCHARIST’S LONG SHADOW ACROSS THE BIBLE (This Rock: January 1999)"from this article.

In the sacrifice of Isaac and the offering of Melchizedek there is a Eucharistic imprint that deserves serious consideration and prayerful meditation. In fact, the Eucharist is present in the three distinct stages of salvation history: In the Old Testament it is present as a type; with the arrival of the Messiah it is present as the event; and in the age of the Church it is present as a sacrament. The purpose of the figure or type was to prepare for the event, and the purpose of the sacrament is to continue the event by actualizing it in Jesus’ mystical body, the Church.

From the marital-covenantal theme that the Holy Spirit inaugurates in Genesis and develops in the succeeding books of the Bible until its culmination in the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rev. 21), the Eucharist is seen as the sublime consummation of Christ’s marital oneness with his bride. This union is anticipated in the covenants God established with the human race through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Esra, and Nehemiah, all of which find their fulfillment in the marital covenant that Christ established with his church: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Lk. 22:20).

In a profound sense, as Raniero Cantalamessa points out in his book The Eucharist, Our Sanctification, the "entire Old Testament was a preparation for the Lord’s Supper" (p. 6). In Matthew’s Gospel Jesus proclaims the parable of the "king who gave a marriage feast for his son and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast" (Mt. 22:2–3). In this light, those servants can be seen as the Old Testament prophets.

The first of these was Melchizedek. St. Paul declares that Jesus is "a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6:20) who, in offering bread and wine, is clearly a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1 ff; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). John’s Gospel (6:31) makes the connection between the Eucharist and the manna Yahweh sent to feed the Israelites in the desert (Ex. 16:4 ff), but it is Jesus who shows that the manna is a mere foreshadowing of the "true bread from heaven" (Jn. 6:32–33).

The greatest Old Testament figure of the Eucharist is the Passover (Ex. 12:23). That night when God smote all the first-born of the Egyptians, he spared the first-born of Israel. Why? "The blood shall be a sign for you upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you (Ex. 12:13). But was it the blood of the Passover lamb alone, into which a hyssop was dipped to sprinkle blood on their doorposts, that saved the Israelites? No. This was a type: What God foreshadowed by it was the blood of the Lamb of God—the Eucharist.

Catholics understand that we are not eating Christ's earthly mortal body the same as when he lived on earth 2000 years ago. We instead are partaking of his mystical body that, the resurrected body.

The word "mystery" is commonly used to refer to something that escapes the full comprehension of the human mind. In the Bible, however, the word has a deeper and more specific meaning, for it refers to aspects of God's plan of salvation for humanity, which has already begun but will be completed only with the end of time. The Eucharist is a mystery because it participates in the mystery of Jesus Christ and God's plan to save humanity through Christ. We should not be surprised if there are aspects of the Eucharist that are not easy to understand, for God's plan for the world has repeatedly surpassed human expectations and human understanding. For example, even the disciples did not at first understand that it was necessary for the Messiah to be put to death and then to rise from the dead. Furthermore, any time that we are speaking of God we need to keep in mind that our human concepts never entirely grasp God. We must not try to limit God to our understanding, but allow our understanding to be stretched beyond its normal limitations by God's revelation.

By his real presence in the Eucharist Christ fulfills his promise to be with us "always, until the end of the age" (Mt. 28:20). St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "It is the law of friendship that friends should live together...Christ has not left us without his bodily presence in this our pilgrimage, but he joins us to himself in this sacrament in the reality of his body and blood". With this gift of Christ's presence in our midst, the church is truly blessed. As Jesus told his disciples, referring to his presence among them, "Amen, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it" (Mt. 13:17). In the Eucharist the church both receives the gift of Jesus Christ and gives grateful thanks to God for such a blessing. This thanksgiving is the only proper response, for through this gift of himself in the celebration of the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine Christ gives us the gift of eternal life.

We refer to this as the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, in the host.

Back to Candy Brauer:

"When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (The disciples made the same mistake Roman Catholics do. They thought Jesus literally meant that he should be cannibalized and vamparized)

Catholics don't make that mistake at all. We understand that we are partaking of Jesus Christ's true presence in the Eucharist in a divine in a holy mystical way. We understand that we are not cannibals or vampires.

But Candy is missing the point. What the disciples did not understand was that Jesus was speaking of his mystical body/true presence in the Eucharist, but he was very clear that it was himself that would be consumed and because the disciples did not understand it, they left.

And Jesus did not change his story.

Here is what This Rock Magazine had to say on this part of the chapter:
This Is a Hard Teaching (This Rock: September 1999): "Eucharist: Forceful Repetitions To many non-Catholics, the Eucharist is a thing to do occasionally as a remembrance of the Last Supper, but it is not the body and blood of Christ. They argue that passages such as John 6 are to be read symbolically.

So when Christ said, 'Eat my flesh,' he did not really mean, 'Eat my flesh' but 'Believe in me.' In defending the Eucharist to a Protestant, we can ask the same question we used in defending Christianity to a non-Christian: What did the people who saw and spoke with Jesus think he was saying? Did they think he was using symbolic language? If they misunderstood him, why didn't he correct them? Christ repeats himself to three different groups to emphasize his point. He does not withdraw it. When Jesus first made his claim, his hearers began to argue with one another. 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' They thought he was saying to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. And so they rejected this teaching and left. Did Christ change his teaching? Did he tell his hearers, 'No, no, you've misunderstood, here is what I really meant'? He did not. Many of the disciples who followed Christ-like many people of today-had this to say about the Eucharist: 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' When they left Christ, did he try to correct their thinking? It is unlikely that he would have allowed them to remain in error. Unlike the Jewish leaders he would later stand before, these were his followers, the ones favorably disposed to him. But even to them he repeated rather than retracted this hard teaching (John 6:60-66).

Next, he challenged the Twelve Apostles on the issue: "Do you also wish to go away?" He did not correct the "misconception" of his audience or the Twelve. Why? Because their understanding was true. They had not heard him wrong. There was no misconception. Just like he didn't correct the members of the Sanhedrain when confronted over his Messiah-ship, he did not correct even the thinking of those who loved him most because there was nothing to correct. There was no misunderstanding; the teaching was true and to be accepted. The disciples responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:67-69). They were saying in essence, "Yes, this is a hard teaching, but we will take it on faith, for you are the Christ."

When we look at how his audience, disciples, and the Twelve interpreted the teaching of Christ, we soon discover that there was no other option left open to them other than the literal teaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The merely symbolic reading wasn't left open to them, and it isn't left open to us.

And why did they leave?

Christ in the Eucharist: "He continues: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me' (John 6:57). The Greek word used for 'eats' (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of 'chewing' or 'gnawing.' This is not the language of metaphor.

Mrs. Brauer:

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: (Here Jesus is giving us a distinction between spirit and flesh) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit Jesus just said here that we are not to literally eat his flesh and blood, but spiritually), and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not." -John 6:61-64a

Candy makes the classic Fundamentalist error:

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

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

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

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

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

Read ALL of chapter 6, and you'll see that there is no way that Jesus is saying that we are to literally eat and drink Him.

Yes, do read all of Chapter 6 and I think it's clear that Candy Brauer's take on the Eucharist is severely flawed. She may live to regret all the disrespectful times she referred to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament as a "cracker."

I could not believe my good fortune then for Candy calling on the early church as testimony for her stand!!

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Jesus clearly tells us that to "spiritually" eat His flesh and drink His blood is to BELIEVE ON HIM. Hence, saved by grace through faith (see Ephesians 2:8-9), you do not receive Christ by physically eating and drinking something or someone. Believe to Receive. See Romans 10:9-11 and Mark 16:16.

Meanwhile, in regards to communion...

The IHS cracker is not Jesus Himself. The Bible nowhere states this. Communion is done in remembrance of Jesus, and is modeled off of the Last Supper. Did the disciples cannibalize and vampirize Jesus at the Last Supper? Certainly not.

What Did the First Christians Say?

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).



I think it's clear that there is a little bit more to the Catholic Eucharist that Candy Brauer's assessment. Candy's readers would do well to remember that she is no way a bible authority or scholar.

John 5

Previous installments in this series:


Let's Study The Bible! (John 1)
John 2
John 3
John 4: Sanctifying Grace and Infant Baptism
John 6

The fifth chapter of John begins with Jesus traveling to Jerusalem for a Jewish feast. The notes in my Bible say that it was probably the feast of Passover, but possibly Pentecost. In Jerusalem, Jesus heals a paralytic next to the pool with five porticoes.

The John Chrysostom, in his homilies, sees this healing as a symbol of baptism:

A Baptism was about to be given, possessing much power, and the greatest of gifts, a Baptism purging all sins, and making men alive instead of dead. These things then are foreshown as in a picture by the pool, and by many other circumstances. And first is given a water whichpurges the stains of our bodies, and those defilements which are not, but seem to be, as those from touching the dead, those from leprosy, and other similar causes; under the old covenant one may see many things done by water on this account.

Candy has a note explaining the relevance of this healing:
verse 17 The Lord does not rest on the Sabbath. He rested on the seventh day of creation. Nowhere does the Bible say that God rested on any other seventh day after that. Jesus here affirms that God works on the Sabbath day, and therefore He does as well.

Though I don't think Candy has studied St.Thomas Aquinas, but she agrees with his interpretation:

The Jews, however, did not do any work on the Sabbath, as a symbol that there were certain things pertaining to the Sabbath which were to be accomplished, but which the law could not do. This is clear in the four things which God ordained for the Sabbath: for he sanctified the Sabbath day, blessed it, completed his work on it, and then rested. These things the law was not able to do. It could not sanctify; so we read: “Save me, O Lord, for there are no holy people left” (Ps 11:1). Nor could it bless; rather, “Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse” (Gal 3:10). Neither could it, complete and perfect, because “the law brought nothing to perfection” (Heb 7:19). Nor could it bring perfect rest: “If Joshua had given them rest, God would not be speaking after of another day” (Heb 4:8).

These things, which the law could not do, Christ did. For he sanctified the people by his passion: “Jesus, in order to sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate” (Heb 13:12). He blessed them by an inpouring of grace: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing of heaven, in Christ” (Eph 1:3). He brought the people to perfection by instructing them in the ways of perfect justice: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). He also led them to true rest: “We who have believed will find rest,” as is said in Hebrews (4:3). Therefore, it is proper for him to work on the Sabbath, who is able to make perfect those things that pertain to the Sabbath, from which an impotent law rested.

Verse 24: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Candy writes: THAT is how to get saved. God made it simple, because He desires that all come unto Him. How does one hear "the word?" By the spreading of the Gospel. Each Christian is given the job, by God, to spread the Gospel, so that more will hear, and believe, and get saved. Time is short - spread the truth of the Gospel of Christ while there is still time!

This is a clear difference in our theology. The note in my Navarre Bible explains the Catholic interpretation:

There is also a close connexion between hearing the word of Christ and believing in him who has sent him, that is, in the Father. Whatever Jesus Christ says is divine revelation; therefore, accepting Jesus' words is equivalent to believing in God the Father (Jn 12:44, 49).

A person with faith is on the way to eternal life, because even in this earthly life he is sharing in divine life, which is eternal; but he has not yet attained eternal life in a definitive way (for he can lose it), nor in a full way: "Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him " (1 Jn 3:2). If a person stays firm in the faith and lives up to its demands, God's judgment will not condemn him but save him. Therefore, it makes sense to strive, with the help of grace, to live a life consistent with the faith.

Again, the difference in our theology boils down to salvation resting on the action of our faith, our acceptance, or on God's grace. Catholicism puts the emphasis on God's grace, while not discounting the importance of faith in salvation.

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#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)."


In verses 31-39, Jesus is answering the objections of the Jews by appeals to four witnesses that what he is saying is true. Beginning in verse 39 through the end of the chapter, his fourth witness is the Scriptures.

In verse 39, Candy notes: Jesus is the word of God made flesh (see 1 John 5:7 and John 1:1). The Bible is the word of God in writing, for all to read, so that they will read of Jesus Christ, and be saved.

However, for verses 45-47, she says This is referring to the Old Testament, of which a large part was written by Moses. The Old Testament shows us that we are all guilty of sin, and that we cannot fully atone for our sins, without the shedding of blood. This is why Jesus came to this earth. This is why Jesus died on the cross. He shed His blood, so that we may have life eternal with the Heavenly Father.

I don't know if she intends to make it seem as if verse 39 is referring to the complete Bible, while verses 45-47 refer only to the Old Testament or if that is accidental.

However, it is worthwhile to note that all of this passage would have been referring to the Old Testament. Jesus may be found in the Old Testament, but not explicitly. Dei Verbum, a document of Vatican II, states it this way, "The economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so orientated that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ."

Jesus clearly could not have been referring to the complete Scriptures in verse 39, because the New Testament did not exist at this time. Nor did New Testaments fall from the heavens after Jesus ascended, so that everyone could "read of Jesus Christ, and be saved." The early Christians had to rely on the oral Word, passed from person to person, in order to hear the message of salvation. You can read my defense of sacred Tradition here.

This does not mean that we differ from Candy in other aspects, such that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

I thought to close, I would post a few selections from the Catholic Catechism on Sacred Scriptures.

#103-107

For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

and #131-133

"And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."

"Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."

The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.

More Year of St. Paul

The Pope normally gives a meditation during his Wednesday audiences, and for a while now, he has cycled through the Apostles, and then the Fathers of the Church. The former are available in book form, titled The Apostles, published by Our Sunday Visitor.

The Pope has announced that he will now turn to a series on St. Paul, in honor of the Year of St. Paul. See, this whole saints thing includes people who are in the Bible, too! And the beauty of the liturgical year, is that having a time to focus on a person or a topic can renew the interest of some people, who might not have taken notice before. How many Catholics will be prompted to dust off their Bibles and read through the letters of St. Paul because of this year in his honor?

“We must place ourselves,” said the Holy Father, “in the world of 2,000 years age. Under many aspects today’s socio-cultural context is not that much different from that of that time.”

First of all, Paul “comes from a culture that was certainly in the minority, that of the People of Israel.” In the ancient world in Rome, Jews were at best 3 per cent of the population.

“Like today their beliefs and lifestyle clearly set them apart from their environment. This can lead to mockery or admiration, something which Paul experienced as well.” For instance, the Pope noted that “Cicero despised their religion and even the city of Jerusalem,” whereas Nero’s wife Poppaea was considered as a “sympathiser. Even Julius Caesar had recognised their particularism.

Paul also lived immersed in the Hellenistic culture “which at the time was a shared heritage at least in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in a political situation in which the Roman Empire “guaranteed stability and peace from Britain to Egypt, and provided (a common fabric for super partes unification.”

And if the “universalistic vision that was typical of the Christian Paul owes its basic impulse to Jesus,” the cultural preparation provided by his environment must be remembered so much so that he was seen as man of three cultures: Jewish, Greek and Roman.”

The Pauline year has prompted not-quite-Catholic blogger at Catholidoxy to muse on how Biblical scholarship has influenced evangelical interpretations of the writings of St. Paul. Some good stuff, here. (Our Lutheran commenters might be interested in this one, along with the comments).

How does this bear on Ephesians? As follows: apart from issues of style, vocabulary, and the supposed difficulty of finding a Sitz im Leben in which Paul would have written Ephesians, a chief reason many scholars doubt Paul wrote Ephesians concerns the dominance of the church as the chief theme of Ephesians. Why? Supposedly the earliest church was a Spirit led, egalitarian, free-wheelin' movement. But then, late in the first century and in the second century, something called 'early Catholicism' [Frühkatholismus] develops: bishops, hierarchy, conservatism, the proto-orthodox/catholic Church. Thus, any document that takes the Church so seriously must not have come from Paul's quill (or one of his immediate understudy's).

And Ephesians does take the Church seriously. Consider what Paul writes in Eph 3:8-11 (NIV):

8 Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church[!], the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11 according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you see that? The Church is the locus of divine revelation to the cosmos. Or try this, Eph 1:22-23:

22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Wow! Jesus heads everything for the Church, his body, and the Church is his fullness. Cosmic, dude. Of course, Paul couldn't have written the letter, since it's got such a high view of the Church.

So, Ephesians: basically, latent anti-Catholicism is a chief reason many scholars reject Pauline authorship. Something for evangelicals to think about.

Personal Prophet

Candy's latest post is an elaboration on her views of prophesy and speaking in tongues. It doesn't directly relate to Catholicism in any way that I can see, nor is it something on which I have a strong opinion. But I read through Candy's post, and then I read through a translation of the Pope's Sunday homily, on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, and they seemed such a sharp contrast, that I wanted to share some of my thoughts.

I read the Bible through several times before I had any type of real Doctrinal Teaching. That is a blessing, because that means I was able to read the Bible several times on my own, without anyone else's interpretations getting in the way. The first several to dozen times through the Bible, I used text only, or reference Bibles,- no study Bibles.

I cannot claim to have read the Bible dozens of times, but I have noticed that it speaks over and over of the wisdom of the aged and learned, of the importance of being open to instruction.

Proverbs 1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Job 12:12: With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.

2 Peter 3:16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

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.

Titus 2:3-5: The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

The last one isn't strictly on topic, but I notice that it speaks of the older women instructing the younger, not the young women instructing everyone else.

Some people have been taught that we can no longer have the gift of prophecy, because "we are not to add to the Word of God." Certainly we are not to add to the Word of God. However, prophesying is not adding to the Bible, but confirming it. All true prophecy will always line up with the Bible

This seems to me, to be a good defense of Tradition, if we replace the word "prophecy" with "Tradition." Let's try it:

Some people have been taught that we can no longer have the gift of Tradition, because "we are not to add to the Word of God." Certainly we are not to add to the Word of God. However, Tradition is not adding to the Bible, but confirming it. All true Tradition will always line up with the Bible.

See? Sounds good to me.

1 Corinthians 12 tells us that each Christian is a different part of the Body of Christ, with different gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Where I think Candy's view is so very different from the Catholic view is her supreme view of the individual. It is up to her alone to correctly interpret Scripture, and her view is equal, or greater, than that of those who might be more learned in the subject. She clearly feels that learning can be a disadvantage when it comes to Scripture. But I'm not sure this fits in with ALL of 1 Corinthians 12.

14For the body is not one member, but many.

15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.

25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Rather than the importance of the individual, Paul emphasizes the unity of the body, that they all depend on each other. Jesus created a Church, and Paul indicates that it does have a hierarchy. So it isn't every man does his own thing independent of each other, and somehow, they are all collectively the body of Christ.

As I mentioned before, after I read Candy's post, I read the homily from the Pope. I immediately noticed how he seemed to stress unity and the Body of Christ as much as Candy stressed the individual.

Here are the excepts that stood out to me. At this Mass, the Pope bestowed the pallium on some Archbishops. For those of you reading along who aren't Catholic, you can find information on this topic here. It is a custom rich in Biblical symbolism.

But the pallium which you will receive ‘from’ the tomb of Peter has yet another significance, inseparably connected with the first. To understand this, a sentence from the First Letter of Peter may help us. In his exhortation to priests to pasture their flock in the correct way, he calls himself a synpresbýteros – co-priest (5,1). This formulation implicitly contains the principle of apostolic succession: the Pastors who follow are Pastors like him; together with him, they belong to the common ministry of the pastors of the Church of Jesus Christ, a ministry that continues in them.

But the prefix ‘con-’ has two other meanings. It also expresses the reality that we indicate today by the word ‘collegiality’ among bishops. We are all ‘con-presbiteri’. No one is a Pastor by himself. We are in the succession of the Apostles thanks only to being in communion with the college in which the College of Apostles finds its continuation. The communion - the ‘we’ - of Pastors is part of being a Pastor, because there is only one flock, the one Church of Christ.

It speaks to us of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, and of course, in linking us to Christ, it also tells us that the Church is holy, and that our work is in the service of this holiness. . .

“Peter”, the pope explained, “. . . left the leadership of the Christian-Jewish Church to James the Less, in order to dedicate himself to his true mission: to his ministry for the unity of the one Church of God formed from Jews and pagans. St Paul’s desire to go to Rome emphasises - as we have seen - among the characteristics of the Church, above all the word ‘catholic’. St Peter’s journey to Rome, as representative of the peoples of the world, falls above all under the word ‘one’: his task was that of creating the unity of the catholica, of the Church made up of Jews and pagans, of the Church of all peoples.

And this is the permanent mission of Peter: to make it so that the Church never be identified with a single nation, with a single culture or a single state. That it always be the Church of all. That it unite humanity beyond all boundaries, and, in the midst of the divisions of this world, make present the peace of God, the reconciling power of his love”.

Closed Canon

The interesting conversation in Candy's comments continued last night after I went to bed.

I would really be interested in hearing more on why you believe God gives 'special messages'to people now. The Bible warns not to 'add' to His Word nor take away from (Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19). --K

Candy replies: K, 1 Cor. 13:8 doesn't say the canon is closed, and that there is no more prophesying.


Now, this is an interesting development. If the Bible canon isn't closed, then why is the Catholic Church wrong for having "added" the apocryphal books to the Bible?

Other Cambridge Bibles have the apocrypha in it - apocrypha means "false."


Usually, when a person refers to "the canon" being closed, they mean that no new books can be added to the Bible. However, it is possible that in this case she is referring to "new revelation" in the sense of prophesy, which would make more sense in the context of the conversation.

On the other hand, the Scriptures quoted are the ones usually used to condemn the versions of the Bible which include the deuterocanonical books (the apocrypha).

I'm finding this an interesting conversation, and I hope Candy adds to the comments later. I've found that she sometimes lets the comments drop if she doesn't have any additional Scripture to add to her position. For example, about two months ago, the topic of infant baptism came up in the comments and she promised an article on the age of accountability, as she did two days ago, and she has yet to have gotten around to it.

If you're new to the conversation, and you're wondering about these "extra" books and the Catholic Bible, you can read an article I wrote on the subject here.

More Bible Catholics

Candy addresses "anti-Candy" websites in her post again today, but my interest was caught more by the comments.

Dawn writes: I perused their site awhile back just to get a feel for what was going on, so I wouldn't feel so out of the loop with what was going on.. and one of the commenters had said "this is making me read my chatecism more"..and I felt SO SAD!!! She or He was missing the WHOLE POINT!! That commentor should be READING HER BIBLE!!!!

Suzanne, who sometimes comments here at our site, wrote: It's really too bad there has to be anti-Candy sites. I really feel bad for those, and I am being general, that just can't use Scripture and the pure Word of God.

First, Dawn is probably unfamiliar with the Catechism, but it is chock full of cross references to Scripture. For example, in the first first section, #30 states: "Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice."⁵ Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, "an upright heart", as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

The quotation is from Psalm 105, verse 3.

It is very possible that there is a commenter who was inspired by our blog to read her Catechism more. That doesn't preclude Bible reading. There have also been a few commenters who wrote that they found their way to the Catholic Church through reading the Bible.

Very often, people demand from us "Where is that in Scripture?" and I am happy to oblige. Our posts are full of Scripture references, and I think that should be difficult to miss about our site. Here is a sampling of posts which rely on Biblical arguments for Catholic practices:

I Confess . . . That It's Biblical
Is Priestly Celibacy Biblical?
Candy versus St. Paul (on crucifixes)
Papal Ponderings
Interpreting Scripture

When Candy delved into the Gospel of John, we did too.
Let's Study The Bible!
John 2
John 3
John 6

I also shared a look into the strong history of Bible study within my own family. I can assure you, there's no dust on my Bible, and I haven't found anything contrary to Catholicism yet!

Even if you feel that Catholics look to the Pope more than we look to Scripture, rest assured that the Pope points us back to Scripture:

What can we learn from St. Jerome? Above all I think it is this: to love the word of God in sacred Scripture. St. Jerome said, "To ignore Scripture is to ignore Christ." That is why it is important that every Christian live in contact and in personal dialogue with the word of God, given to us in sacred Scripture.

This dialogue should be of two dimensions. On one hand, it should be truly personal, because God speaks to each of us through sacred Scripture and has a message for each of us. We shouldn't read sacred Scripture as a word from the past, but rather as the word of God addressed even to us, and we must try to understand what the Lord is telling us.

And if you think we've missed anything, you can head over to the Scripture Catholic website, which "provides over 2,000 Scripture citations from the Old and New Testament that explain and defend the teachings of the Catholic Church."

As for this:

I dedicate the below song to Elena and the other anti-Candy-ites:

The Lord has called me to do a very special job, to spread the Gospel of Christ, and I WON'T BACK DOWN... :-D

I would like to point out that we have no problem with Candy spreading the Gospel of Christ. I think, however, that she should be content to trust in the Gospel alone to bring people out of the Catholic Church, rather than posting false information about our beliefs.

If reading this post is all someone needs to do to get saved and receive the Holy Spirit, then she should trust that the Holy Spirit will reveal to that person that they should leave the Catholic Church. I think that sharing the Gospel builds up the Kingdom, but attacking particular branches of Christianity, even if you call it "revealing the TRUTH," tears it down.

So, keep preaching the Gospel, Candy, but trust in the Holy Spirit more. He won't let you down.