For Praisethelord

Praisethelord wrote:

Please define the difference between "Tradition" and "tradition" when you get a chance. Where would the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Assumption of Mary, and Co-Mediator teachings fall? Thank you!

Welcome to the blog, Praisethelord!

The Catholic Church does differentiate between "Tradition" and "tradition."

Tradition with a capitol 'T' refers to defined doctrines regarding faith and morals, which cannot be changed. It is made up of both Holy Scripture, and oral or written traditions which have been passed down through the centuries. For example, which books are in the Bible canon are Tradition, as they are not listed in the Bible. The vast majority of Tradition is composed of doctrines which almost all of Christianity agrees upon. For example, the Incarnation or the nature of the Trinity.

Usually, the Catholic Church only formally defines doctrines which they begin to be questioned. For example, the earliest doctrines were regarding the nature of the Trinity, because very early in Christianity, people questioned whether Jesus was equal to God, whether He had the same Divine nature.

Hence, the Nicene Creed, which states that Jesus was:

God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

That is Tradition, which is now formally defined.

Similarly, various Marian doctrines were not formally defined until after the Reformation, because they were accepted until then. Martin Luther believed both in Mary's Perpetual Virginity, and in her Immaculate Conception.

I think most non-Catholics think of Marian doctrines as add-ons from the Middle Ages, but really, most date from the earliest times, 100-300 years A.D. Catholic Answers has quotations from the Early Church Fathers on the titles Ever Virgin, Full of Grace, and Mother of God.

The Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and her Assumption have been formally defined, and thus would fall under Tradition. Mary has not been formally defined as "Co-Mediatrix," but I believe this would probably still fall under Tradition, as it is also a very ancient view, and so the Church would be extremely unlikely to say that she is not "Co-Mediatrix."

There is a movement within the Catholic Church to formally define this title, but personally, I think it better to leave it undefined because it is so often misunderstood. I'm going to cut-and-paste from a previous post, here.

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:

7) So, just as we are allowed the unfathomable privilege of participating in our own redemption, likewise God willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, the Immaculate one, the perpetual Virgin, the Second Eve, would play a part in the Redemption of all, by consenting to the Sacrifice on the Cross of her Son, who was God in the flesh. She doesn't (solely and sufficiently) cause the Redemption any more than we (solely and sufficiently) cause our own redemption. Her role is to freely assent and to bear the suffering in her immaculate heart that Jesus bore in His Sacred Heart (hence those two devotions in Catholic theology).

8) "Co" in Latin does not mean "equal"; it merely means "with" or "alongside." We see this even in English. If you have a "co-pay" with regard to health insurance, that doesn't mean that you always pay equally with your insurance provider (I sure hope not!). "Co-Pilot" sometimes means "equal" but usually not. Etc. But because the term Co-Redemptrix is so misunderstood, it has fallen out of use in the last 50 years or so. But nevertheless, Pope John Paul II has used it at least five times, as Dr. Miravelle notes.

9) This was God's marvelous plan - to involve a creature and a woman at every step of the way, so as to achieve a certain "balance" - if I may properly speak in such a way. Eve brought down the human race, acting with Adam; Mary helped to raise it, acting in concert with Jesus Christ, her Son, the second Adam (as Paul describes Him). If Satan could cause the fall of the human race through the frailty of Woman and Man, why is it not plausible that God could in turn bring about the Redemption of the human race in part through the Immaculate Mary, the Second Eve, the Theotokos? To me it all makes eminent sense. It is contrary neither to Scripture nor to common sense and reason.

Tradition with a small 't' are things which are customary in the Church, but can be changed. For example, requiring celibacy for priests is a tradition, while reserving ordination for men is a Tradition. Other traditions include fasting regulations, what sort of sacred vessels can be used for Mass, whether to sprinkle or dunk for Baptism.

For a really good explanation of Tradition, I suggest reading an article by Mark Shea, who is a convert to Catholicism. Here are a few excerpts.

This pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can "see" that Tradition implied in Paul's commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. But since Evangelicals have not received the contact lenses with the Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they are unable to see it reflect there. Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, "Let's see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let's say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!"

In reality, however, Catholics see the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reflected in Scripture in just the same way the Council of Jerusalem saw the Circumcision Exemption reflected in Amos and Evangelicals see the Closure of Public Revelation reflected in Paul's command to Timothy. The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

In this context, we discover not explicit, but implicit testimony to the doctrine, while those verses which appear to speak of Jesus' siblings or Mary's relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ can easily be understood in a way compatible with her perpetual virginity. We find, for instance, that mention of Jesus "brothers" can mean "cousins" in the first century Jewish milieu. We find that Matthew 1:25 need not necessarily imply anything about Mary's subsequent sexual relations with Joseph any more than "Michal had no children till the day of her death" implies that Michal had children after her death. We also find Mary-a woman betrothed-is astonished at Gabriel's proclamation that "You will bear a son." This is an odd thing for a betrothed woman to be astonished about. After all, a betrothed woman could expect and hope to bear many sons... unless she had already decided to remain a virgin even after marriage. Then she would be astonished at the prophecy.

We find also the New Testament subtly but clearly identifies Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, wherein dwelt the Presence of God. Luke 1:35 speaks of the power of the Most High "overshadowing" Mary just as the Shekinah glory overshadowed the Ark (Numbers 9:15). John does the same thing in Revelation, juxtaposing the Ark (Rev 11:19) with an image of a woman clothed with the sun who gives birth to a "male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." (Rev. 12:5). The connection between Mary and the Ark, once it is made by with the help of Sacred Tradition, is hard not to see. Knowing the identity of Mary's "male child" it would be an easy mental connection for any pious Jew to immediately think of her as a kind of Second Ark.

Well, one such pious Jew was a certain Joseph of Nazareth who, after his dream (Mt 1:23) did know the identity of Mary's "male child." He also knew, as a Jew steeped in the Old Testament, what happens to people who touch the Ark without authorization (2 Sm 6:6-8). So it becomes very psychologically probable that Joseph, knowing what he knew, also would have chosen celibacy in this rather unusual situation. And so, in short, the Sacred Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, like Sacred Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation, turns out to illuminate Scripture in an unexpected and yet satisfying way. Which is why the Church of the sixth century knows and defines (at the Second Council of Constantinople), that Mary is Ever-Virgin even though it is not written explicitly in the New Testament any more than the words "After the apostles die, there will be no new revelation." For the Second Council of Constantinople, knowing what the Council of Jerusalem knew, acts like the Council of Jerusalem did: operating in light of the apostolic Tradition that Mary was Ever-Virgin, the Church reads Scripture accordingly and sees its Tradition reflected there.

You can read my defense of Sacred Tradition here.

I hope this helped answer your questions, and let me know if you have any more.

Apparitions and other Marian issues

Jennie has another question:

I have question to ask about apparitions of Mary. I am curious to know what you as Catholicss think of this, and of what the pope did and said at Pompeii recently: giving an offering of a golden rose to the statue of Mary and repeating a prayer: "We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your heart,"
With the words of Bartolo Longo, the Pontiff turned to Mary, saying: "If you will not help us because we are ungrateful and unworthy children of your protection, we will not know to whom to turn."

Did this Pompeii visit get a lot of coverage on a fundamentalist website somewhere? You and Candy have both mentioned it, and it was a pretty minor visit. I get two Catholic periodicals and it was buried in the middle of one, and not mentioned at all in the other.

I assume the pope agrees with this prayer or he would not have repeated it. In that case why does he not know to turn to God and his savior Jesus Christ the only mediator between God and men?

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.

I have not been able to find the full text of Pope's message online, but from the two lines you quoted, he is asking Mary to pray for us. As I explained in a previous comment, we do not pray to Mary and the saints in the same way that we pray to God. We are asking them to pray for us, the same way that we ask our family and friends here on earth to pray for us.

We believe that God is the God of the living and not the dead, because the dead are alive to Him (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38) and that they are aware of us on earth, surrounding us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1). The saints present their prayers to God before His throne in heaven (Rev. 5:8).

You are probably referring to the Catholic title of Mary as mediatrix. 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.

Also the things the apparitions are quoted as saying are blasphemous, such as the Fatima
apparition that told the children that people should be willing to suffer to pay for the sins of the world, and that devotion to her immaculate heart would be the way to God. This is blasphemy: Jesus is the only way to God according to the Bible.
Other apparitions have said similar things. These things are leading many astray because of their devotion to Mary.

Apparitions of Mary are considered private revelation. The information they contain is intended only for the person or people who receive the message. Apparitions may be approved, meaning that there is nothing contrary to the faith in them. At that point, other people may read or study the message, but they are not required belief.

For more information on public versus private revelation, see this article which mentions Fatima specifically.

Regarding people being willing to suffer to pay for the sins of the world, this is what we call "redemptive suffering." It ties into Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh and I complete what is lacking in Christ's affliction for the sake of his body, that is, the church." Was Paul writing blasphemy there?

In essence, it goes back to the communion of saints, the idea that we are all tied together in Christ, in the Church.

It is similar to the very non-blasphemous ideas most people have about prayer. Suppose you pray for someone to convert. Only God can give someone the grace they need to find true faith. Do you think you are somehow giving someone faith by the action of your prayer? Do you feel that Jesus' death is not needed on the cross if you can just say a prayer and then they convert? Clearly not. It is in the same way that our prayers benefit others, that our sufferings can benefit others as well.

As far as the immaculate heart of Mary being the way to God, that relates to what I wrote above. It is through the Incarnation that we have our salvation, and as Jesus entered the world through Mary, it is, in a roundabout way, through Mary that we have found God.

And just in case you veer off into other Marian issues, you can read some of my previous articles about why Mary is not "just a vessel" here, the Assumption of Mary here, and discussion of other Marian doctrines, including what the early Church believed here.

Something About Mary

Let's finish off the Vatican Versus God series so we can get started on the new round of misinformation, shall we?

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

God says - [Note: It is undisputed in Christian circles that Genesis 3:15 is the first biblical Messianic prophecy.] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed of the woman] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

First, it is important to note that Candy quotes from the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is sort of the Catholic King James Bible. We even have Douay-Rheims-only-ists in the Catholic Church. Because we've got something for everyone!

At any rate, the Douay-Rheims Bible is not the currently favored translation. The US Conference of Bishops uses the New American Bible.

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.

Footnote: The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

The official Catholic Catechism uses the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV states "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."

The Catholic Church agrees that this verse is the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. See paragraph #70: Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

So, I guess if the question is which translation is correct, the Vatican has conceded the point. However the verse is translated, the meaning remains the same.

As an article James Akin wrote for This Rock on the topic of this verse explains, "Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, states, "The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head."

Back to Candy--

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." reference 6

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

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:

7) So, just as we are allowed the unfathomable privilege of participating in our own redemption, likewise God willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, the Immaculate one, the perpetual Virgin, the Second Eve, would play a part in the Redemption of all, by consenting to the Sacrifice on the Cross of her Son, who was God in the flesh. She doesn't (solely and sufficiently) cause the Redemption any more than we (solely and sufficiently) cause our own redemption. Her role is to freely assent and to bear the suffering in her immaculate heart that Jesus bore in His Sacred Heart (hence those two devotions in Catholic theology).

8) "Co" in Latin does not mean "equal"; it merely means "with" or "alongside." We see this even in English. If you have a "co-pay" with regard to health insurance, that doesn't mean that you always pay equally with your insurance provider (I sure hope not!). "Co-Pilot" sometimes means "equal" but usually not. Etc. But because the term Co-Redemptrix is so misunderstood, it has fallen out of use in the last 50 years or so. But nevertheless, Pope John Paul II has used it at least five times, as Dr. Miravelle notes.

9) This was God's marvelous plan - to involve a creature and a woman at every step of the way, so as to achieve a certain "balance" - if I may properly speak in such a way. Eve brought down the human race, acting with Adam; Mary helped to raise it, acting in concert with Jesus Christ, her Son, the second Adam (as Paul describes Him). If Satan could cause the fall of the human race through the frailty of Woman and Man, why is it not plausible that God could in turn bring about the Redemption of the human race in part through the Immaculate Mary, the Second Eve, the Theotokos? To me it all makes eminent sense. It is contrary neither to Scripture nor to common sense and reason.

From Candy's Q and A

However, if you are in agreement with the pope that you have to attend a Catholic church to be saved, or the common RC belief that you cannot be saved by faith alone, but must include works as well (I've had Catholics on both sides of this issue post here), then you may want to look into your spirit.

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

Also worth reading is #1697 (bold is my addition): Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the "newness of life" in him should be:

- a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;

- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;

- a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;

- a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;

- a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;

- a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;

- a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;

- an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of "spiritual goods" in the "communion of saints" that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.

You see, the Bible tells us that JESUS is our mediator between God and man.

Again, 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.

RC's go through Marry as what the Vatican Holy See website calls the "mediatrix."

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.

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?

Candy on end times and other stuff

First of all, kudos to Candy Brauer at www.keepingthehome for changing her blog motif to Advent purple!  Very seasonal, very liturgical and quite unexpected! Maybe lurking on our Catholic site is starting to rub off on her!

I often wonder what newbies think when they click on a link to Keeping the Home and then have to read about the Rapture?

Anyway Candy's newest is Keeping The Home: The Rapture. I don't think most people actually read everything she writes, (and also since she keeps removing stuff I think it is important to not only link to her posts, but also to copy and paste the important parts) so here is a sample of some of her most outrageous stuff. (Bolded emphasis mine)

This is a famine more serious than that of the lack of food and water, for this famine is of the Word of God. The word of God has been slowly being replaced through the years with counterfeit translations. I'm speaking about new version Bibles that are being translated by homosexuals, lesbians, occultists, witches, new agers, and other such people claiming that they are Bible scholars. Many of these translators have already received some judgment from God for their translation deceptions. Some of these so-called "scholars" have lost their voices for no apparent medical reason, for example. Some of the scholars thought they were doing a good thing, and have learned of their error, and have repented and turned to God, and now speak out against these counterfeit translations.

Back in Genesis 3:15, we find the first prophecy of Jesus Christ. Satan also heard that prophecy, and he understood it. He tried to counterfeit that prophecy, via Nimrod. In secular ancient history, we learn the name of Nimrod's wife: Semiramis. The Bible calls her Ashtoreth, Astarte, etc. She is also known as Ishtar, Easter, Diana, and many other names that you can learn from a well-read Wiccan. Meanwhile, Nimrod became known as Moloch, etc. Nimrod died, and Semiramis came up pregnant, claiming that she had not lain with a man. This child of Semiramis became known as Baal.

Even this very day, one can easily track down shrines to this "virgin" Semiramis and "savior" son Baal. You'll find her and her son under various different names, such as:

- Shing Moo
- Devaki and Crishna
- Diana
- Isis and Horus
- Aphrodite (The Mediatrix)
- Venus and Jupiter
- Ashtoreth and Baal
- The Queen of Heaven

I dare say that some religions worship Semiramis and Baal under the names Mary and Jesus. You can tell the false Mary and Jesus from the real ones, via the way the people worship them. Are they bowing down to statues and figurines of Mary and Jesus? Are these people praying to Mary as the "mediatrix," instead of to God, in Jesus' name?

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

Many people will fall into religions that worship the counterfeit Mary and Jesus. They will fall into these cults because of their ignorance of the Word of God, or because they are reading the new Bible versions that have been translated from extremely errant manuscripts translated by ignorant or ungodly people.

You see, just as Satan tried to create his own counterfeit savior of the world, he also is creating his own counterfeit Bibles. He'll put in just enough truth in these Bibles to draw many people in, but there will also be some deceptions interwoven in these translations. Jesus warns of this type of deception, when He told us that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." In other words, only some of the Bible needs to be corrupted, and the corruption will eventually work it's way through its reader's very spirit.

Therefore, the great deception and falling away will come in many forms, but will have one main goal: that of distracting, or turning people away from the One True God and His One Way to heaven.

This deception will be in various forms. After all, people are different, and it takes different vices to tickle their flesh. The Bible tells us that the delusions will be so strong, that even the very elect could be deceived, if God allows. God will protect his true elect, and, as you will see, the elect will not be here for the full 7-year tribulation. However, I believe that they will also not be raptured before the tribulation either…

We handled the statue thing here and here among other places. Kelly discussed bible translations here. We have the Mediatrix discussion many times on this blog.  See here.

Candy likes to brag about using the best translation.  Well, in her opinion anyway.  But we have used this article several times to rebut that.   Here is the gist of it:

KJV advocates weave together many fantastic stories about the origins of the Alexandrian texts and the reason why we must reject their use in light of the TR. However, there is no credible historical evidence remotely hinting at the claim these texts were doctored by unorthodox apostates to secretly introduce theological heresy into the Christian faith. On the contrary, what they do demonstrate is how our sovereign God preserves His Word through the means of human instruments. A family of manuscripts discovered in the 1800s dating to just 200 years after Christ, apart from the typical variants, reads almost the same as all the other NT documents copied over a period of nearly 1600 years. Instead of denying God's preservation, they establish it.

I always think the best way to rebutt Candy's claim that people are Catholic because they don't know scripture, is to show a Catholic convert who absolutely knows scripture and in fact converted to Catholicism because of that knowledge!  So for your reading pleasure, I present Musings of  Catholic Convert  the Blog of a fomer Southern Baptist Pastor who became Catholic. His conversion story is here.  Oh and to prove that this gentleman really understood his scripture sources, here is an excerpt of his story:

story, how to become catholic, how to join catholic, southern baptist to catholic

I’ve never been adept at learning foreign languages, but for some reason Greek came fairly easy to me. I became so fond of Greek that I minored in it and took as many classes as I could. Studying the language opened my eyes to the depths of Scripture. It showed me how easily tools like interlinear texts and language concordances (like Strong’s) can be misused, leading to egregious theological error. Without a proper understanding of Greek language, writer/audience culture, and the historical context in which something was written you can really get into trouble. By the way, if you haven’t studied Koine or Classical Greek, you’re missing out. Not only is this a great apologetics tool, but also a wonderful aid to understanding of God’s Word (In addition to most of the NT being written in Greek, the OT of Christ’s time was a greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint or LXX). It’s also a way to see what Aesop’s Fables REALLY say.
Studying Greek helped me to learn and apply sound hermeneutical principles so that I was not trying to interpret Scripture according to my own presuppositions (or at least admitting them up front). In fact, our professor would pick difficult passages in order to challenge our thinking, and then he would play devil’s advocate. This solidified good thinking, logical presentation/defense, and sound interpretation skills.
As a side note here, dispensational eschatology fell like a brick, and I realized that I had made critical errors in my assumptions about the end times. What a scary thing to be sitting in a pew and hear a minister (not just Baptists) telling you what “this word in the Greek” means, and then to hear him apply a meaning you know is nowhere near the word’s meaning or context. It didn’t happen often, but often enough to make me want to ALWAYS be sure I understood the passage in its context before I taught it. I took (and still take) the stricter judgement on teachers, as explained in the Bible, very seriously. As a result I read and studied everything as if my life depended on it. That doesn’t mean I didn’t make mistakes, but I knew what was required of me.
Greek did something else for me. In the advanced classes, we translated extra-biblical literature. We were sharpened in our language skills because nobody could fudge a translation simply because he/she had an english scripture memorized (and that is soooooooo easy to notice, and a bad practice to adopt). We translated Aesop, the Didache (teaching of the 12 Apostles), and even some of the Church Fathers. It was this step in my growth that made me want to know what the ancient Church REALLY looked like, especially after learning that the LXX contained the deuterocanonical books Protestants call “apocrypha”, and also after reading the practices and theology of the Church in writings like 1 Clement, and the Didache. They didn’t sound very Baptist to me and that made me uncomfortable. AND I found my hero, St. Polycarp (who is now my patron saint, along with St. Clement). What an awesome testimony to Jesus Christ! If you haven’t read about these guys, shame on you.

But more importantly, CANDY HAS NEVER REBUTTED OUR STRONG STATEMENTS THAT CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP STATUES!  Ever. She just engages in "yes you do," "no we don't."   She has claimed to love Catholics, but apparently not to the point of having a serious dialogue or discussion with us. Because frankly folks, if she had to take us on in a fair forum, she would fail.











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

Conversation with a Catholic friend

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

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

Good News Ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I submitted a follow-up comment:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Candy has now replied to my previous comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Back In The Saddle Again

New readers to Candy's blog (which is looking more like a blog and less like a website every day) might wonder why Candy didn't have time to elaborate on her Titus 2 Notebook idea yesterday, but has an extremely long article on the rapture up today. Which would be more of a help to a homemaker? However, long-time readers will recognize that this is a recycling of several of her previously written articles. She had done a little editing, though.

First, the disclaimer is quite new. Candy says:

DISCLAIMER: I most certainly am not inerrant. The following article is just what I've so far found from my personal Bible studies...

This is quite a departure from Candy's normal lack of humility on Biblical interpretation. For example, in a letter to the pastor of an IFB church, she wrote:

I learned about proper doctrine from none other but the Bible. I've read through the Bible over 18 times (KJV). I didn't learn doctrine from church, religious upbringing, or other forms of religious teaching. I never went to church until at the age of 17, when I got saved. I refuse to believe man, unless that man be Christ Himself. I fancy myself to be like a Berean; I test everything against scripture. Since I have no previous religious teaching, I have an advantage. I don't have specific doctrines taught to me by man, but only what I got from the Bible.

Kudos to Candy for the change. Half of our disagreements with Candy stem from her habit of insisting that everything she writes is FACT! and not her personal opinion.

Now, she does recycle this tired old bit of "truth":

I dare say that some religions worship Semiramis and Baal under the names Mary and Jesus. You can tell the false Mary and Jesus from the real ones, via the way the people worship. For example, are they bowing down to statues and figurines of Mary? Are these people praying to Mary as the "mediatrix," instead of to God, in Jesus' name? Jesus is the one and only Mediator - 1 Timothy 2:5.

I guess she still hasn't gotten around to reading our Something About Mary article which would clear up her confusion about Mary's role as mediatrix.

Further down, she discusses the Middle Eastern peace treaty, the abomination of desolation, and the antichrist. Notice the utter lack of reference to the Catholic Church (though it is alluded to in some of the previous paragraphs):

The "he" that will plant the tabernacle of his palace in the glorious holy mountain is the antichrist. This is mentioning the same thing as Daniel 9:27, which is called the "abomination of desolation," elsewhere in scripture. The "trouble" (AKA Jacob's Trouble) is mentioned as happening after the palace is planted in the glorious mountain. Hence, we see that the time being discussed in the above passage is again the middle of the tribulation/peace treaty.

Contrast this with some of her previous statements:

(October 2008)
Russia has laid out the introduction. They have made the way open for the Pope to step in and be the ecumenical, council of religions "hero."

And, of course, the Pope needs to get in on the action, because the Roman Catholic ecumenical church will likely be the head of the whore:

"The Pope's leading of the Supplication of the Blessed Virgin of the Rosary, a prayer written by Blessed Bartolo Longo (1841-1926) was one of the high points of this 12th pastoral trip in Italy.

'We implore you to have pity today on the nations that have gone astray, on all Europe, on the whole world, that they might repent and return to your [Mary's] heart,' the text of the prayer reads.

(April 2008)
I recently finished reading the Bible again. Every time through, I'm just shocked when I read Revelation chapter 17. Who/what could that chapter be discussing?

The Whore of Babylon sits over a city. That city sits atop 7 hills, and is under a strong religious influence. There is only one city that fits this description, and that is Rome.

We also read of the Whore (the religious system) being drunk on the blood of saints (the Bible tells us that another word for Christian is saint). Certainly many Christians have been killed from Muslims, but more so from the Roman Catholic Church. For example, Pope Innocent killed 70,000 Christians in one day, - that is more than all of the Caesars of Rome put together.

During the Inquisition and burnings, Christians were killed because they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism. This is not Christian or Christ like. Christ said that after you've told someone the Gospel message, if they don't accept it, you are to just shake the dust off of your feet and move on. To see an example of historical religious killings, by Roman Catholics killing Christians, watch the movie Elizabeth (the first one is the best). . .

This is another reason why Roman Catholicism sounds like it's the Whore of Babylon. What other religion out there is VERY big, has a foothold in most nations, proclaims itself to be Christian, yet teaches doctrines at enmity with the Bible, and has real Christians within it, that need to "come out of her?" I only know of one religion that fits the bill, and that is Roman Catholicism.

(July 2007)
The new Pope (Vicar of Christ - the Greek roots of 'vicar' is "ante", AKA Greek Vicar of Christ = antichrist) proclaimed the other day that you are saved ONLY by being a member of the Roman Catholic church. Of course, anyone who has read his or her Bible knows that that is not true.

Well, I could keep quoting Candy saying that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Antichrist all day, but my baby will be awake soon, so I'll stop there. My point is, she DIDN'T say that this time, and she easily could have. I could have seen this on any number of fundamentalist homemaker sites, and while it isn't correct, it isn't as over the top as Candy normally is.

Now that I've said that, she'll probably bring out her big guns, but Candy, don't take it as a personal challenge. It isn't. It's me saying, good job learning from your mistakes. I don't agree with your theology, but thanks for toning down the personal attacks.

Candyland Compilation

As we've had another 150 or so new visitors since I posted this two days ago, I thought I would bump it up.

If you are now joining us, here are some previous blog entries addressing common questions about the Catholic Church.

Why did the Catholic Church ADD books to the Bible?

We didn't. Non-Catholics removed books from the Bible. Read more about the Catholic Bible.

Why does the Catholic Church believe in salvation by works when that is contradicted by Scripture. Why do you believe that Mary is a mediatrix when scripture says that Jesus is the ONE Mediator?

We don't, and we don't.

Why do you worship statues? Don't you know that's idolatry?

We might be kneeling in prayer, but we aren't worshiping.

Why do you pray the rosary with its vain repetition?

Because it isn't repetition that is the problem, it's the vain part.

But you have to admit that the word purgatory isn't found anywhere in Scripture!

The word might not be, but the concept is.

Requiring celibacy for priests isn't biblical. Even Peter was married!

Actually, we have married priests within the Catholic Church today. A picture of a priest with his family is the top picture of this post, explaining the tradition (with a small 't') of priestly celibacy.

Why confess to a sinful priest, when you can confess your sins directly to God?

Read the Biblical basis for Confession.

Plus, the ever-popular Tradition versus Scripture topic. Read here, here, and here for previous posts.


If anyone has any follow-up questions, please post them in the comments of this post. That's what we're here for!




Stumble It!

Welcome!

I see that we have had 300 new visitors since yesterday, and Candy's latest "information" on Catholicism is generating a lot of conversation in our comments. So, let me welcome all of our new visitors.

Despite what Candy says, we are not here to criticize Candy personally, but to refute her information on Catholicism. Please review our commenting guidelines on the sideline before commenting. A lot of people who visit here are Catholics who are upset, so please take a deep breath before venting. You can contact Elena and myself privately by e-mail if you really want to want to discuss anything of a personal nature.

Perhaps some of you found your way here because you have questions about Catholicism, but you aren't quite sure you are ready to believe Candy's version of Catholicism. After all, it is difficult to believe that the more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide are playing nice, just waiting for the right opportunity to torture their non-Catholic neighbors.

So, you can find links to our articles refuting various posts by Candy on the right sidebar. We also have a search box up top, in case you'd like to find out what we have written about Jesus being the one Mediator, for example. Just type in "mediator" or "Pope" to find our posts on whatever you are curious about. You can also post questions in the comments section, and we will do our best to answer them.

Finally, here is a repost of some of my posts on the more common questions which Catholics get asked:

Why did the Catholic Church ADD books to the Bible?

We didn't. Non-Catholics removed books from the Bible. Read more about the Catholic Bible.

Why does the Catholic Church believe in salvation by works when that is contradicted by Scripture. Why do you believe that Mary is a mediatrix when scripture says that Jesus is the ONE Mediator?

We don't, and we don't.

Why do you worship statues? Don't you know that's idolatry?

We might be kneeling in prayer, but we aren't worshiping.

Why do you pray the rosary with its vain repetition?

Because it isn't repetition that is the problem, it's the vain part.

But you have to admit that the word purgatory isn't found anywhere in Scripture!

The word might not be, but the concept is.

Requiring celibacy for priests isn't biblical. Even Peter was married!

Actually, we have married priests within the Catholic Church today. A picture of a priest with his family is the top picture of this post, explaining the tradition (with a small 't') of priestly celibacy.

Why confess to a sinful priest, when you can confess your sins directly to God?

Read the Biblical basis for Confession.

Plus, the ever-popular Tradition versus Scripture topic. Read here, here, and here for previous posts. Confused about the difference between Tradition and tradition, try here.

Candy's lies and misrepresentations with the links correcting them.

1. Catholics worship statues. See also here.
2. Catholics are breaking the ten commandments.
3. Misrepresenting the Catholic and scriptural understanding of mediatrix.
4. Calling the rosary vain repetition and unbiblical. See also here and here
5. Pope titles Blasphemous Vicar, Holy Father
6. Luxurious digs of the Pope.
7. Inferring Catholics are not biblical Christians.

Welcome!

I see that we have some new visitors , so it's time to repost the welcome message.

Welcome, new visitors! I hope you will stay and read, though we are lacking in juicy gossip. Here are some past articles which you may find of interest instead.

Wondering why this blog is here? Why not just stop going to Candy's blog? I delve into our motivations here.

Where do we find the time? We get that a lot.

Got questions about Catholicism? We've got answers, and if you don't find what you're looking for, just ask in the comments.

Why did the Catholic Church ADD books to the Bible?

We didn't. Non-Catholics removed books from the Bible. Read more about the Catholic Bible.

Why does the Catholic Church believe in salvation by works when that is contradicted by Scripture. Why do you believe that Mary is a mediatrix when scripture says that Jesus is the ONE Mediator?

We don't, and we don't.

Why do you worship statues? Don't you know that's idolatry?

We might be kneeling in prayer, but we aren't worshiping.

Why do you pray the rosary with its vain repetition?

Because it isn't repetition that is the problem, it's the vain part.

But you have to admit that the word purgatory isn't found anywhere in Scripture!

The word might not be, but the concept is.

Requiring celibacy for priests isn't biblical. Even Peter was married!

Actually, we have married priests within the Catholic Church today. A picture of a priest with his family is the top picture of this post, explaining the tradition (with a small 't') of priestly celibacy.

Why confess to a sinful priest, when you can confess your sins directly to God?

Read the Biblical basis for Confession.

What about the Pope?

Your questions answered.

Plus, the ever-popular Tradition versus Scripture topic. Read here, here, and here for previous posts. Confused about the difference between Tradition and tradition, try here.

Finally, we have no problem with respectful disagreement with Catholic theology. I suppose you could say that we disagree with Candy on what constitutes accurate Catholic theology.

However, we found that Candy's series on the Gospel of John gave a great platform for discussing some differences in theology as we discuss infant baptism, sanctifying grace, and the Lord's Supper/Eucharist.

Let's Study The Bible!
John 2
John 3
John 4
John 6

Elena here - Do us a favor guys! Twitter, bookmark, Del.icio.us, facebook, Stumble us, whatever! Use your favorite social bookmarking to help get the word out about this site! Thanks!