New Christendom

Capitalists don't like Distributism

2012-01-31T16:05:00.000-08:00

The following is a response by Bob to an audio clip about Distributism located here. I will intersperse my not-so brief [comments in red]. Also I read a great article by Ryan Grant titled Distributism in Popular Christmas Films that examines the 2 classic Christmas movies by Dickens and Capra A Christmas Carol and It's a Wonderful Life. I always knew there was something I loved about the way economics is presented in those movies. They manage to avoid the "phoney right-left paradigm" as Grant puts it.

Here is Bob:

...I'd also encourage you to re-listen to what he says, and read my comments at the same time. Of course, learning about Austrian economics might do you good too. [What makes you think I am not familiar with them?] To be honest, everything in this talk was easy to deflect / refute. [I am glad they made it easy for you.]

My comments on Donald Goodman III
Backyard RadTrad Interview

around the 8 minute mark talks about unions protecting the middle class. This is an un-founded assertion, and incorrect under an Austrian mindset. Of course, people should be free to join / create unions, but unions do not inherently protect anyone, and are (in fact) a coercive force themselves. [Yes, a coercive force meant to counteract the coercive force of capitalists]

11:30 - talks about 'paying what the worker is worth'. The idea is to pay a worker enough to keep a family. The idea is nice, but at some point the wage is not worth the employee... the correct thing to do is to lay-off the employee. There is no 'correct' wage, as minimum wage laws prove. [the wage is not "worth the employee"? this is the capitalist mindset... to treat people as tools or machines -as means to an end. People are not tools. And a system that encourages us to think of them as such (capitalism) is flawed.]

I agree with what they are saying at the 17 min mark about the banks and bail-outs from government. Libertarianism also "doesn't want" this. The root cause (in my opinion) is the federal reserve system (or euro system for our idiot friends overseas) [from a Distributist mindset, the size of these massive institutions makes them de-facto goverments in themselves. They are big enough to make the rules, and they do. Federal Reserve or not, when corporations get massive, they get what they want. ] - a return to hard currency would help out a lot. [Agreed, but that would not be good for capitalism, which thrives on greed]

I disagree with his remark at 19:50 about the difference between capitalism and socialism. His view on socialism might be correct, but his view on capitalism is jaded by Corporatism (which is what we have in America). This is a common mistake that turns capitalism into a boogy man, even though most people wouldn't recognize true capitalism if it hit them in the face. Socialism = bad, Corporatism = bad, Capitalism = good. He is doing the listener a disservice by not identifying them correctly. [The problem with capitalism is it will naturally concentrate the means of production in the hands of a very, very few people. When this continues to happen, then you get what i think you are calling corporatism, which I take you to mean a sort of 'rule by corporations'. (You must be using a more modern incarnation of that word, because I dont think you can be meaning what the main meaning is)]

at 23:30, he again identifies capitalism incorrectly, calling it "the system where very few own productive property". [Yeah, that's what it is. It may not be the description you would like, but it does fit what happens under capitalism. And yes, even under "unbridled" capitalism. In fact it might be even more concentrated in some situations] Capitalism doesn't care who owns how much, or what. Slapping the straw man! Capitalism is about the unfettered marketplace (something that hasn't been seen in several generations). The invisible hand of the market knows where to best invest capital - weather that is human action, money, property - any kind of capital. Again, who owns what doesn't matter. [But it does matter who owns what. One man or a small group of men "owning" Wall mart stores matters. The fact that they treat their employees like tools matters. The fact that that few men are that powerful matters. Once such a small group is so powerfull that matters to me. It is a unacceptable concentration of the means of production.] At the very least, you own your labor, and can trade that labor for other goods. [If that is the way we view our labor, then that is slavery. What you say here is the capitalist idea though. Instead of viewing our labor as being productive, we view our labor as a commodity to make another man productive. One way is the way of freedom, the other of slavery.]

at 25 min, he talks about tax subsidies for the big stores. He is correct - that is a problem. It isn't a problem with Capitalism, but a problem with Corporatism (where corporations own / influence government). [Which is the natural result of capitalism.] The playing field isn't level. Buying in bulk, however, is not an unfair advantage. Subsidies are.

28 min - your ability to grow (and expand) is limited by 'what does the guild say'!!! Guild, meet invisible hand of the market. Invisible hand, slap guild in face. [The invisible hand you mention is not all that invisible. It is a very few men controlling a very lot of the world. A guild just gives people a share of that power proportional to what one man can properly control. One man cannot properly control Monsanto, nor should he]. This guy just loves bureaucracy and additional layers of authority (I guess that is expected of Catholics). [Cheap shot] Lets say your an innovative tailor - do you have to pass your innovation to other tailors so they can become more productive too? He then advocates the state control the 'important' industries? I could spend hours on the danger of that, and how it kills innovation, destroys jobs, and is an all round horrible idea. [So who controls the roads and airwaves in your ideal then? Somebody is going to control them. And with large enough and important enough things, the ones who control them ARE the government! See it in action in our current 'corporatism' right? I agree if that is what you mean by corporatism. Once they have that much control, whether they are a corporation or a government doesnt matter. They are the one in charge. Distributism just levels out that control.]

at 34 min mark, he uses the anti-competitive practice of binding iphone to AT&T. I agree - morally wrong (done for money). However, that isn't a problem with capitalism. That is a problem with collusion. All phones should be able to be used on all networks (its my phone and my contract = property rights / contract issue). This is not a capitalism issue.

39 min mark - wage and price controls - excellent. This guy is doing a horrible job selling distributism to anyone who has studied Austrian economics. I'm guessing his market is the discontented masses who haven't studied economics at all. [imagine if every beef farmer in the counry was part of a beef guild Bob. Lets ay they vote to set the price of a # of ground beef for the next week/month/whatever. What happens next? Instead of beef being about price, it is about quality. So obviously there are immediately no more growth hormones being used, no more corn being shoved down half dead cows throats, and no more feed lots. Huge factory farms are no longer even desired because there are no more huge profit margins selling shitty meat to people. Instead quality is what becomes the reason I go to store A rather than B. Makes sense to me. The capitalist ideal is lower price=good. The Distributist ideal is Higher quality=good. You can see this in action when you buy your grass fed beef. You are getting a taste of Distributism: supporting a craftsman who is getting paid what his product is truly worth (grass fed beef farmers) rather than supporting a destructive capitalist system at wal-mart where wage slaves are used all the way from the farm to the cash register. ]

--thought--
distributism (as described in this podcast) doesn't have room for innovation. Take farming - larger tractors mean less people needed.[You are assuming that is inovative. It is not. Why is this a good idea? focus is off of quality and on profits and seeing people as tools] That frees up people to do other things - like inventing. Innovation happens because it isn't all 'at the local level'. Distributism also implies that there are certain percentages of people (determined by the guilds) who do certain things. If you want to do something else - go get permission. The invisible hand dictates that there is no 'right number' - rather the right number is the number that the market will bear. Permission isn't needed, just the will to change.
--end thought

44 min - distributism can't deal with the internet at all. It fails in the global economy too. Even basic questions of jurisdiction are avoided.

52 min - he just got done bashing on Tom Woods, then talks about commission being taken away. That's theft (breach of contract). [A mortgage is a contract too. Theft by contract. Why does a contract make treating people like animals ok?] He then complains that there weren't unions to back him up. I don't get it, the cure is worse than the problem. The solution is to stop stealing from your workers, not to hamper the work place with a union. Go to small claims and get your contract enforced! [The solution is not to think of peoe as "your" or "my" workers to be doled out goddies if they behave.]

Again just to clarify, Distributism is not Catholic dogma. There are many Catholic economic and social principals which it puts to the forefront however. Which is why I like it. The focus on the family being the highest unit in society and having the means to production in the hands of the family rather than the family BEING the means of production is what I like.

CBS News says "Dear Leader" finds cure for cancer!

2012-01-26T06:20:00.000-08:00

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

CBS news reporters must dwell in this strange land. How else could they report so inaccurately?

Title of CBS News story:
Activists Hold Annual March For Life On Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Really? Really CBS? Is that what happened really? 7 pictures of a handfull of pro-choice people and NONE of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pro-life people? Each and every picture also says "Activists on both sides of the abortion issue are rallying on the 39th anniversary of the landmark Roe vs Wade case." Yes, we get it you fricking nazis, there are people on both sides of the "issue" (if you can call murder an "issue" that is up for debate). But guess what? If you want to talk numbers, both sides WERENT there.

Comment I left on the CBS "news" site:

CBS reporting:

“In other news… North Korea just announced each of it’s citizens drives a BMW and has more food and luxury than they know what to do with. Also the Dear Leader has just found the cure to cancer. Film at 11. Back to you Ken!…”

Would CBS point the camera at the 2 neo-nazis at a Martin Luther King remembrance march? No. So why point the camera at a handful of pro-choice people when there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pro-life demonstrators?

Hat tip to the Crescat for this. She has a good post about this on her site.
Update: Even better post by the Bad Catholic Marc Barnes.

I don't like Libertarianism

2012-01-25T12:46:00.000-08:00

The following is my comments on an article forwarded to me. It is by a Libertarian who is explaining why he like Libertarianism.

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives"

By starting with this obviously false principle, Libertarians allow falseness to permeate the rest of their destructive philosophy. Of course we are not free to do evil, even to ourselves. And of course we all have the duty to obey the natural law and to honor and obey God. This is self evident.

Having said that, I would much, much, much rather have a Libertarian in office than many other alternative options, including our campainer in chief ~~Osama~~ Obama. I would group libertarianism in the "more of the same" category as all the post French Revolution government styles that talk big about the "rights" of man. Yawn.

They pick and choose from the natural law what they like and what they don't. They talk big about rights, but then choose who gets them. They claim that everyone should be free from coercion of any sort. But their worldview is what the coercion is based on. And yes, my worldview is what my brand of coercion is based on. Mine happens to be correct though.

To them, my family growing up in a godless and wicked Sodom is something that I should not care about because it is other people doing the sodomizing and baby killing. Wrong. No one has the right to do evil. When your neighbor does evil, it affects the community. If possible, he should be prevented from doing the evil. What could be more obvious than that fact?

Libertarians like the guy in the article agree that evil should be coercively stopped in the case of certain crimes (car theft) but not others (sodomy, child-murder). They do this because they define evil differently.

It is not that they do not look to religion to define evil, they just look to their false religion, where man is the highest being, to define evil. So when they point the finger at judgy old Archbishop Dolan, they are pointing at themselves too. Both them and Dolan have a set of rules they wish to coersively conform society to. From my perspective, the difference between them is that Dolan's rules are easy to look up (in Scripture and Tradition), they are consistent, and they conform to the natural law. The guy who wrote this article is just making up his rules as he goes it seems. He states all his opinions as if they are the gospel truth, yet where does he get his opinions from and what authority does he have to impose them on my family? Who knows. But he certainly would love to impose his ideas on my family, that is clear enough.

In his criticism of Dolan he said:

...but rather he is interested in restricting your liberty by attempting to declare various forms of family planning "immoral" and restricting their availability.

The moral law tells all humans regardless of religion that things like sterilization and murder are wrong. So there can be no "right" or "liberty" to do these things. That would not be liberty but license.

I repeat: That would not be liberty but license.

We have libery to do good. But there can be no liberty to do evil. It is not up to man to decide to grant license to do evil anymore than it is up to him to make the sky green. This is a universal law that does not need to be defended. It just is what it is. Yet this Libertarian is defending people who wish to use abortifacient means of contraception which kill children who are clearly protected by the constitution. So here we have the same old Orwelian situation of equality. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". "All people have equal rights, but some people (women of childbearing age) have more rights than other (unborn) peopl"e. One person is murdering another person with different heart, DNA, fingerprints, brain, and blood type, but somehow in the Libertarian world this is not pissing on another human beings rights to murder them.

He also judgingly criticizes Dolan for judging ...*gasp*... something as immoral. But like I said, it is not Dolan who can declare anything to be moral or immoral. Dolan is simply stating the fact that murder is wrong. "Restricting the availability" of abortifacient contraceptives is akin to a society "restricting the availability" of child porn. Both things are gave evils that have no good use. Unlike an evil like adultery, where the sex is not an evil in itself but the context is evil, pornography and abortifacient contraceptives are evil every time they are used. Unlike something like a gun, which can be used for good or evil, they have no good purpose. Murder is always wrong. Lust is always wrong. Government should protect people from evil regardless of how weak (unborn human life) or strong (wealthy businessman) they are. Instead, what I see from Libertarians is just more of the same "some animals are more equal than others" mentality.

Worst of all, they wrap themselves in the flag of "liberty" and pretend they are not forcing their will upon others. Nothing could be more wrong. Having a society where unborn humans are murdered affects me! Having a society where evil is an allowable option affects me! Even in situations where evil is done seemingly by and to only myself or other willing participants, it is still evil. Allowing it affects the rest of society. Also, in almost every case, Libertarians overlook the unwilling participants. In the case of divorce, they overlook the children and the spouses themselves who are damaged by the divorce. In the case of abortion, they overlook the murdering of innocent children.

A moral society based on the natural law and Distributism is the way to go. Then we can all be, not free to do evil, but truly free.

Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat

2012-01-25T07:23:00.000-08:00

"Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat"

William Sloane Coffin

Christmas and Contraception

2012-01-24T09:53:00.000-08:00

I just read a great article by Dale Ahlquist at the Distributist Review titled Christmas and Contraception. Lots of great quotes from Chesterton about contraception back in the day.

"Catholics are too mechanical"

2012-01-23T06:12:00.000-08:00

Here is a comment I left on a great post titled Salvation Pinball & the Devotional Life of Catholics (Part 4 of Becoming Catholic) by Taylor Marshal on Called to Communion.

Great analogies Taylor. You have a knack for explaining things briefly and well.

One on my pet peeves even when I became Reformed was the way low church evangelicals see liturgy/sacraments as mechanical, yet they choose to ignore the dozens of "mechanical" things they do at their Sunday service and during the week. How many times as a Pentecostal did I pray before a meal and not even have my mind on what I was saying? How many times does the worship band play the chorus to Our God is an Awsome God "one more time" in supposed free movement of the Spirit? When it happens every week, it is just as much a "mechanical" liturgical action as the most rigid liturgy. The altar call that happens every service is an obvious replacement for sacraments. It can seem very forced and mechanical after you’ve seen it hundreds of times. And the spontaneous prayers as opposed to the more formal liturgical ones? As far as the potential for being "mechanical", what is the difference between starting out each and every prayer with "Father we just thank you..." and winging it for 10 minutes, and with making the sign of the cross and saying a beautifully written formal prayer? Either way we can be engaged or not, either way we can touch the divine or not. It is up to us whether it is mechanical. And when a dark day comes when we simply don't have the words for prayer and feel empty, those memorized "mechanical" prayers like the Anima Christi or the Act of Contrition come in real handy. We can say the prayer and ask God for the grace to conform to the words. A spontaneous prayer in that dark moment can often simply fizzle for lack of clear vision.

The point of liturgy is not "if" but "which one". The point is for us to get involved with what is happening. Taylor's waltz example is a great one. We can sit back and mock the dancers for turning romance into something cold and informal, or we can learn how to waltz and take romance to the next level. This is why every woman in America loves Downton Abbey right now. They see that a high level of social "liturgy" can produce a higher level of human respect and romance.

Of course we can always decide to mechanically join the dance and not really enter into the experience at all. But I believe this can happen far easier for a non-Catholic low churchman than it can for a Catholic.

"Why I Hate Jesus, by Hating Religion"

2012-01-20T06:36:00.000-08:00

Lame lame lame.

There are lots of dumb statements in that new video about loving Jesus and hating religion, but the one that really put the cheese grater to my ear was this:

"Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook."

Er uh, you aint judgin? Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining dude! If there is one thing you are doing it is judging. Not that that is necessarily bad. If your attack on "religion" is valid, then preach on. But it isn't.

Why? Because you are one of the most religious people I have ever seen!

I would love to follow you to whatever you do on a weekly basis for involvement with "Jesus". I don't want to presume it is "going to church" on Sunday morning or anything so religious as that, I mean that would make you a hypocrite for doing something external, right? Riiiight. Perhaps it is a weekday bible study or prayer group with some of your Jesus loving, non-religious friends. If that is the case, what should we best call this experience of yours? ...That's right... R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N. What songs do you sing during "worship" at your gathering? Hmm, what to call that... oh yeah there's that "religion" word again. When the guy with the ripped t-shirt playing the guitar plays the slow song "one more time", what do we call that? It is liturgy, AKA religion. (Yes it is bad liturgy, but liturgy nonetheless)
Do you have the Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist once in a while where you (non-religiously of course) eat bread and drink ~~wine~~ grape juice with your non-religious fellows in remembrance of Jesus? How should we best describe this action? Once again, it is a RELIGIOUS action. Even what you believe is happening when you eat and drink is all about your religion dude. You do not get to follow Jesus and avoid religion. It is just sad that you have probably made your religion up yourself.

Sorry, but the fact that you are quite religious is...

...unavoidable. It is your destiny.

What about baptism? Are you paedo-baptist, credo-baptist, or no-baptist? What occurs during baptism? Is it a sacrament which gives grace and forgives sin or merely a outward sign of those things already having happened? Whatever you answer will be a description of your religion.

Even your video is a religious video. You are telling the world about your religion. Could it be you don't like religion because you see it is other people telling you what to do and believe? Could it be that you would much rather tell them what to do and believe in lame videos?
Also how do you know who Jesus even is? Oh wait, from a religious book collected by Catholic bishops in the 4th century, that's right.

And did Jesus hate religion?
You said in the video:

"What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion"

My answer: If you told me that I would call you a liar. This is hilarious because it is almost word for word the EXACT OPPOSITE of something Jesus said!-

Matt. 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

If there is one thing the law and prophets were it was religion. And Christ specifically said he did not come to abolish it. For a Protestant, this guy isn't too well read in scripture.

And that's not all! Jesus had plenty more to say about religion:

Matt. 28:18-20 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Just in this verse we have Jesus saying "go", "teach", baptize", He tells them how to do it, tells them what to teach: "observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." That is religion if I have ever seen it.

John 14:15 If you love me you will keep my commandments.

Again, that is religion. The guy in his poem says:

"religion says do, Jesus says done."

Jesus says "do" all the time! The problem he finds with the pharisees and scribes is that they do not "do"! They are all talk and no "do". It is not the doing that is the problem, but the not doing. It may sound corny, but it is true: Love is a verb. The "doing" of religion is exactly what Jesus wants us to do. He wants us to love Him and each other. When we do that, if we do that, it is going to look outwardly like we are holy people. But guess what? There are holy people! There are people that obey Christ by "doing" what he commanded most of the time and confessing their sins the rest of the time. Are these "religious" people part of the problem because they obey Christ? No way. Hypocrisy is bad. But there can be just as much hypocrisy in someone claiming not to be "religious" as someone who claims to be. Obeying Christ is the difference, not religion. Both hypocrites and non-hypocrites are religious. THAT is why they can be judged in terms of hypocrisy! Because they are measured by their professed religion.

Lastly, I find it sick how many hits this video has on Youtube. If the video was titled "Why I hate Hypocrisy, but love Jesus" do you think it would have more than a few hundred hits? No way. It just goes to show how anti-"religion" and antinomian American Evangelicalism is. The Reformed can complain all they want that there evangelicals just aren't getting it when it comes to understanding sola fide and sola scriptura, but guys like this seem to me to be taking BOTH to their logical conclusions: pitting works against faith and pitting organised religion (Apostolic Tradition) against the scripture.

For more Catholic responses (video and otherwise) look here.

For a great Reformed response look here.

UPDATE: I just watched the following video. Wow! I could have just avoided this post and shown this video. It says everything I wanted to say but much better. I Love it when the priest compares the incident with Judas whining about the purfume being poured on Jesus with the complaints about big churches.

Michael Voris at Argument of the Month

2012-01-17T06:40:00.000-08:00

Last Tuesday, I went to a local men's gathering called the Argument of the Month Club. It is a bit crowded, but it is quite fun. I was extra pumped last week because Michael Voris was there, and was surprised when he started shooting an episode of the Vortex, which is the daily 5 minute podcast of RealCatholicTV. Here I am at the meeting (about half the room is shown in this picture).

I love Voris because he says what needs to be said. There are a lot of people out there who need to hear straight talk and for whom innuendo and beating around the bush just will not get the message across. Voris is the guy for these people. Other people may find his approach to in-your-face, that is fine. I think the Church needs both approaches. Another thing I like about Voris is that he names names. To often we are content to talk about abuses in the Church in a nebulous way. But lets be honest, sometimes names need naming, even the names of Bishops. Not to be "jerky" and offend, but to protect the innocent. Some of RealCatholicTV's "CIA" (Catholic Investigative Agency) episodes have been very eye-opening for me. He manages to tread the line between staying faithful to the magisterium while pointing out the warts and open wounds on the body. Voris gets in a little hot water when he mistakenly says he is in Minneapolis in a roomful of mostly St. Paul men, I though he might be mobbed.

Watch the Vortex episode:

And at the end of the Vortex video, he gives a link to the actual talk he gave at the meeting. It was highly inspiring.

Archbishop Nienstedt, please do not spare the rod!

2012-01-17T05:56:00.000-08:00

Below is a comment I left on an article in the local liberal fishwrap the Star Tribune. It is titled "Priests told not to voice dissent". I love my Archbishop! My only complaint is that perhaps he goes to easy on these evil priests who dissent from the Church. To think there are priests in my own archdiocese who think abortion is acceptable and homosexuality is not a sin makes me so angry. We should all be angry. The priests who call these evils good, and teach their congregations to call evil good should be "relieved" of their duties right now. Not tomorrow. Not when the souls in their care are in the balance.

Rock-on Archbishop Nienstedt! He is doing what a CATHOLIC Bishop is supposed to do: defending the CATHOLIC faith. Why would a priest who does not hold to the Catholic faith even want to remain in the Church? Or laypeople for that matter? If you do not believe what the holy Catholic Church believes, then no one is stopping you from leaving. Disagree all you want, it is a free country, but don't pretend to be a Catholic if you dissent from clear Church teaching. Abortion is murder and Homosexuality is a grave sin on the same level as adultery... that is simply the faith of the Church. Disagree all you want, but don't call yourself a Catholic.

Alaskan Whaling Captains: Dont forget your deduction!

2012-01-14T12:18:00.000-08:00

So I am filling out my taxes using TaxAct online. I'm doing the itemized deductions section and come across this in the instructions. (my emphasis:)

Gifts to Charity
You can deduct contributions or gifts you gave to organizations that are religious, charitable, educational, scientific, or literary in purpose. You can also deduct what you gave to organizations that work to prevent cruelty to children or animals. Certain whaling captains may be able to deduct expenses paid in 2011 for Native Alaskan subsistence bowhead whale hunting activities. See Pub. 526 for details.

So to all you native Alaskan whaling captains out there who were like "crap, all these expenses paid in 2011 for Native Alaskan subsistence bowhead whale hunting activities are kind of depressing me."
Cheer up! Uncle Sam has got your back!
As a left handed person, I am still waiting for my deduction for all the pain and lonliness my condition causes. Come on Federal Government! What about me!? I want my fair share of all the loot! Isnt that what a Republic is all about? Sharing loot?

Reason # 528 the Catholic Church is a miracle: Contraception

2012-01-11T17:10:00.000-08:00

Her: "Hooray! This pill will enable me to become a piece of meat to be used by a man as a more realistic alternative to masturbation! Womankind is finally liberated!"
Him: "Can you hurry it up over there..."

I ran across a really great article on contraception and the Catholic Church called Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later. What an amazing story! The committee that studied the issue in the mid 60's recommended that it be allowed by the pope. So what does he do? He forbids it totally in his encyclical Humanae Vitae! Then came the most vocal dissent in the history of the Church from what this article says. People couldn't believe it! All the hippie priests were irate! Rock on Pope Paul VI!

The encyclical itself is a great read just on historical grounds for anyone to read, but for Catholics, it will make you cry at how miraculous our glorious Church is. She is truly divinely protected from teaching error! Starting with the Anglicans in 1930, who allowed contraceptives in "grave" circumstances and within marriage, every Protestant denom, and even the Eastern Orthodox have caved on this issue, but not the Catholic Church!

Along with upholding the moral law, the encyclical is highly prophetic in its predictions of the disillusion of society as a result of contraception.

Prophet Pope Paul VI

Personally what I find amazing is 2 things:

1. That the vast majority of "conservative" American Protestants are OK with contraception/in-vitro/masturbation etc. Not to toot my own horn, but as a Protestant I 100% knew it was evil even just going on the sola Scriptura principle. Similar to homosexuality, it is simply just evil, and even a child can tell you that it is evil. Ask one. They will tell you. I seriously don't get why it is so widely accepted by Protestants. They are so good on abortion and gay marriage issues, yet FAIL utterly on this! So sad.

2. That "conservative" American Protestants will try to justify the use of abortifacient contraceptives!
I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't heard it multiple times from family and friends. One female who shall remain nameless told me that she knows (she claims she can feel it) when her body releases an egg, so she is ok with using the IUD. For some background, the IUD is abortifacient, which means it will cause a fertilized egg (a human being) to not implant into the uterine lining. That is straight up murder, bizatch! Does your husband seriously need to not only use you like a whore (as St. Augustine would say) but also risk killing his own children just because he can't wait a few days to ... you know? Even if it were a 0.5% chance that a fertilized egg were aborted from using the IUD (and I bet it is way more), is it really worth that risk to murder someone?

This whole issue was yet another fact that pointed me to the Catholic Church. Only one claimant to the title "Church" has not allowed this grave evil. The barque of Peter alone has stayed afloat in the evil storm contraception. All others have caved like the wimpy pretenders they are. Viva il papa!

Solo Scriptura

2012-01-07T12:43:00.000-08:00

"All appeals to scripture are appeals to interpretations of scripture." -Keith Mathison

Protestants are rebels who became what they hated. They rejected papal authority and became popes of their own little outposts. They traded a Magisterium with at least a plausible claim to infallibility for their own sure fallibility of opinion.What they are left with is the "truth", as Obi-Wan would say "from a certain point of view".

WWLD (What Would Luther Do?) if he were alive today?

2012-01-03T09:48:00.000-08:00

The following is a comment I left on a blog of a local church here in the Twin Cities that I found on a list of churches thinking about joining the new Anglican ordinariate thing in the USA. HE asks an intruiging question:

"If Martin Luther was born today would he try to reform the Catholic or Lutheran faith?"

Here was my response which didnt immediately post on the site:

Luther would put on sackcloth and ashes, and crawl on his knees to St. Peter's in Rome to repent and submit to the magisterium of the Catholic Church if here were here today.

Both Luther and Calvin had a vision of a changed Church, but still their vision was of a SINGLE changed Church. They would be absolutlely horrified to see what has become of their reform. In no way would they stomach for a moment the thousands of sects that claim the authority of Scripture Alone. In the past few hundred years, Protestantism has largely ceased to even pretend that the Church needs to be one entity with one authoritative hierarchy. Luther would have had a fit at that idea! Seeing the reforms of the counter-reformation, the never ending division and discord of Protestantism, and the continuing unity and faithfulness of the Catholic Church, I truly believe Luther would not even hesitate to swim the Tiber. (Actually being a Catholic, he would just need to recant and go to confession to have his excommunication lifted). I also think he would be won over to Catholicism primarilly by the obvious and spectacular failure of his "pillar" Sola Scriptura. The division and heresy he may have seen in germ form (think anabaptists) which resulted from sola scriptura are now so blindingly clear after 500 years of ever increasing fragmentation that as for the first pillar, Luther would likely choose to read Sola Fide in a Catholic friendly way as Benedict XVI has suggested, but as for the other pillar, he would find no way of ignoring the evidence of history that Sola Scriptura has been anything but a spectacular implosion of failure.

I say all of this as someone who was a flaming Reformed Protestant 2 years ago. I have read Luther, and my heritage is LCMS. A year ago I discovered a site that took unity seriously and found my faith in Sola Scriptura had crumbled under the weight of the evidence and so I did the unthinkable.... I swam the Tiber. I felt Luther smiling down on me, and I feel he would have been crying right there with me as I submitted my heart and mind to Christ and His Church.

God bless any Christians who take the time to think about Christian unity in a serious way. I truly believe that the one option, Rome, will be the light at the end of that tunnel of questioning.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

A comment on Devin Rose's Frightening Article

2011-12-20T07:09:00.000-08:00

Frightening to me anyway. It is titled "Time for Catholic Praise and Worship?" Thank God for the question mark Devin. As one commentor put it:
"The Ring’s whisper is drawing you near… Do you need an intervention before you put it back on and turn invisible?"

Here is one of my comments in response to this comment:

Restless Pilgrim said:

"What has to be done to get Catholics to sing?! Traditional music or contemporary music, I don’t care which!"

That not caring is part of the problem. It cannot be both. It is not a choice between equals. It is not a matter of taste. If Catholics were actually given their traditional music, they eventually would begin to sing again. But they rarely are given the opportunity, and so they feel lost when the chance to sing chant comes.

Have you ever been to a modern art museum? Stinks right? Well that is not merely your opinion. It actually is objectively bad art. That is why it stinks. Compare the modern art to real art, and imagine nearly every parish in the nation having almost nothing but the modern stuff, and wondering why the people don’t seem to like their art. That is the current music situation. Most of our liturgies are absolutely dominated by 1970's show tunes style music. It is objectively bad music, and ironically it is often hard to sing in a group anyway.

Give them their Catholic music and they will sing! Just like Protestants have their Protestant music, and they sing. Btw, the reason you can go into a huge megachurch and hear everyone singing loudly/getting into it, is because they choose to be there and not the other 40 local Protestant liturgical options from Anglican to Pentecostal. Catholics do not have this option. We have ONE liturgy from which very specific music has grown, and unlike Protestants, who choose an ecclesial community whose liturgy produces the type of music they prefer, Catholics can either stick with what the Church has given them, or force the Protestant music onto the mass. The square Protestant peg will get shredded as it goes into the round Catholic hole, and then we wonder why Catholics don’t want to sing. It is not that they don’t want to sing, it is that they are Catholics at a mass and not Protestants at a Sunday service. Each style is suited to each liturgy, and has grown organically out of each liturgy. When I was a Presbyterian, we sang Wesley hymns in 4 part harmony on Sunday morning. It was beautiful. That is their heritage, rising naturally from their liturgy. The Church has given permission to use their songs, if we want, but it must be in THIRD PLACE behind chant and polyphony. (this is from Church documents, not my opinion)

Currently, even the nicer Protestant hymns are in third place behind 1.) Marty Haugan show tunes,
and 2.) "contemporary" folk or happy-clappy!

I assume we can all agree that the chant and polyphony that has grown out of the mass over thousands of years (and even traditional Protestant hymnody) is objectively better than “praise and worship music”? But perhaps someone will argue that some people like the P and W music, so let’s use that music to draw them/make them comfortable, etc. Now to Devin’s main thrust in the article, I know he must be thinking “Hey dude, I was not talking about music in the mass though.” Ok, fair enough. But why use a foreign tradition to introduce someone to your tradition?

Put another way, why use an inferior foreign tradition to draw someone to your tradition? Watch the above video of “Gather us in” by Haugan. That song has a place. It’s place is in a Protestant liturgy, or around a campfire! The words of the song, the music itself, and the instruments likely to be used (guitar) are totally inappropriate for mass according to the clear teaching of the Magisterium. So why have a service outside of mass that tells the participant “we are Catholics who really like this Protestant liturgical music, and we like to sing it outside of mass as opposed to our own liturgical music which is much richer and deeper and in the long run more emotional, but for some reason we would rather skip all that and sing this disposable stuff.” The clear implication is “this is the music we really like, and we want it at mass”. Otherwise why not sing from the vast storehouse of Catholic music that we have, that is specifically Catholic, ancient, and objectively beautiful? Shouldn’t we put our BEST foot forward when we are showcasing the Catholic faith to people? Why in the world would we use the scraps from the Protestant table to showcase Catholicism? Protestants have seen the scraps, they want the Church.

It is as if a great king wanted to show his wealth to a visitor, and instead of bringing him into the vault and blinding him with the huge mounds of bright gold and jewels as far as the eye can see, he meets him at the city gates and shows him a fancy carriage and some Russel Stover chocolates- gifts which a neighboring king gave him. “Really, believe me, I’m super rich, really I am, trust me!” The visitor can’t help but think “If he is so rich, why not just show me?” Catholicism is the rich king, and Protestant hymns are the gilded carriage. The sickly sweet chocolates are praise and worship songs. Why would we have a meeting at the city gate (in the basement of the Church) to hand out these chocolates when we can invite everyone to the storeroom (mass) to see the treasure?
One last point. Even if this idea of a service outside of mass was great, lets first get the music inside mass fixed before we start focusing on the outside.

Complaining about Bad "Music"

2011-12-19T11:24:00.000-08:00

This is a comment I left on Devin Rose's blog on a great article called the Parish is what you make of it:

I got schooled recently. Here is what happened.

I went to a local parish for the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, and was red faced at the awful music. It was the “Creation Mass” by Haugan, and I truly felt violated at the awfulness of the irreverent hippie music (this is why I drive 45 minutes to go to a reverent liturgy on Sundays).

Whoa man, this mass has really choice vibrations flowing dude...

I read online an article “how to start a garage schola”

http://www.ceciliaschola.org/pdf/garage.pdf

by Jefrey Tucker, and I felt a bit humbled. His #1 point was to stop complaining and start DOING something. He said to NEVER complain to the pastor until you have started your own schola that is willing to sing every Sunday. (!!!)

Point being, it is A LOT of work to change the bad situations at our parishes. Just the issue of music alone requires a lot of work. Not to mention catechesis and such.

Here is the problem though Devin, I will not go to my local parishes because they are bad enough it will take years to change them. I cant wait 5 years or more because I have lots of young children. I don't want them to be guinea pigs for years… being subjected to the “music” at these parishes during their formative years. Do you see my predicament? How will these impoverished parishes change if the people who care drive an hour to more faithful parishes in the city? I don’t see an answer.

One thing is for sure though, we need to not complain to our Priests PERIOD. We need to either shut up, or present fully formed solutions (like you did with your apologetics class, good for you bro).

Another point I want to make is where I think some complaining is perhaps in order. The bishops. Why cant they put a 6 month or even a year limit on the horrid music? That would be plenty of time for the current musicians and laypeople to learn the music that the Magisterium has said over and over is proper for mass: Chant.

I think this issue needs top down leadership to a degree. Laymen can only do so much, and small churches with limited musical resources cant be expected to do separate masses with chant at 9 and Haugan show tunes at 11, it is just to much. We need a hero to tell us how it is going to be! Benedict rescue us!

Catholic Motivational Posters

2011-12-14T11:58:00.000-08:00

I had a coffee-through-nose laugh at Patrick Vandapool's post yesterday. Particularly this picture of Tim Tebow as a holy card:

Saint Tebow, Play for us.

When I read the caption "Saint Tebow, play for us" was when the mouthful of coffee started peculating. Hilarious. And no, the haircut is not photoshoped. I have met a lot of jocks worthy of mockery in my day, but this guy is just begging for it.

Vandapool's post is titled Tim Tebow and Evangelicalism’s Altar of Entertainment and was well worth my time to read. I did not know who Tim Tebow was until a few weeks ago, and every time I hear more about him, I become more annoyed. Not just with him, but evangelicals in general. His dad is a "missionary" in the Philippines. No thanks papa Tebow, the Catholic Philippines don't need your help.

Anyway, I decided to try my hand at making some Catholic (de) motivational posters. I really enjoyed it! I think I will do this more often. Hope you enjoy them too!:

Catholic schools are not workable...

2011-12-13T06:35:00.000-08:00

...In their current form. Imo.

From Jimmy Akin:

But the cause [for Catholic schools needing to be closed] that Archbishop Chaput names in the interview is certainly a plausible one: the retreat of women and men religious from the Catholic education scene and the consequent effect on the faculty. Women and men religious, living communally and being under vows of poverty and being able to solicit donations for their order and even subsidizing Catholic schools directly, were able to operate for substantially less money than a faculty composed of lay people supporting families and trying to maintain a place in the middle class (i.e., avoid poverty). The exodus of religious from faculty and the consequent influx of ordinary lay people is certainly going to affect how much it costs to educate a student, and as tuition rises it can lead to a decrease in the number of students: a vicious cycle.
I don’t know how the finances of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia are structured or how specifically the schools might be affected by legal settlements, but Archbishop Chaput is certainly right that the change in the composition of the school workforce is going to impact the economics of the situation in a significant way.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/archbishop-chaput-answers-questions-about-his-stunning-letter/#ixzz1gQ1kOM4H

Archbishop Chaput is spot on. This is so sad, because educating our children is the most important thing in the world. And by "educating" I don't just mean preparing them to be good American consumers. I mean preparing them to serve God- no small task. And by "most important thing in the world", I mean exactly that.

The Catholic grade school near my town just recently was disbanded as well. By chance I met a young lady at my Church that had taught there. I felt bad for her. Her heart was in the right place, but with people like her as teachers, the situation will never be resolved. It's not her fault that she will probably get married and have a family and require a bigger paycheck, that's great. But that means higher tuition, and that is not just "not great", it is not do-able. Let's do the math together.

Lets take what is probably a typical Catholic family of 8 people with a single income of $45,000. Things are tight but possible on that income. Lets say they desire to send their 6 kids to the local Catholic school. Forget for a moment what the school wants to charge those parents and lets think of the actual cost of educating their kids. I checked out 2 different schools earlier this year and pricing differed, but lets give a low number of *$4000 per kid. Honestly, that seems really low, right? For a 20 kid classroom that would add up to $80,000 to spread out to the teacher, admin, supplies, and facilities. Tight budget.
So like I said, ignore what they charge the parent. Perhaps the parent gets grants and ends up only paying $2000 out of pocket for the whole crew, whatever. The point is, someone is paying. Whether in that parish or in the whole diocese. And for 6 kids at $4,000 a piece, that $24,000 is no small amount. One thing is for certain though, most parents simply can't pay that, and should not be expected to. Paying 24 grand out of a 45 grand a year salary?! Yeah right! That is not to mention if more kids come along. It is not at all impossible for a healthy family to have 8 or 9 kids in grades 2 through 12 at the same time. At that point, are only wealthy people allowed to have their kids in school? (keep in mind that I am not even considering public school an option, as that would be hatred of you children to send them there. A good Catholic would not do it unless forced to)
If a family with 8 in school cant come up with the $32,000 for their kids school that year does the parish pay it? The Archdiocese? Is it reasonable to expect them to? I don't think so.

I find it ironic that of the two schools I looked into sending my oldest daughter to, the close, rural one had to close it's doors by order of the archdiocese, and the really good, wealthy city one (many wealthy parents) was full! Either way I would have been out of luck this year. What sort of impression does this leave on the converts who has been homeshooling for 3 years? The Catholic school system is utterly broken. Thankfully we are very comfortable home schooling. But what about single parents? Are they just out of luck? And for me, what about when high school rolls around and I want my kids to be taking some advanced classes?

The problem here is evident. It is not possible to have a school charge $4000 or more per year. Governments get away with it because they collect their $10,000 per kid, per year at gunpoint (they dont pass a plate for property taxes).

The answer is one or a combination of two things: Get religious communities back in the schools, and homeschooling. The former is not currently possible, as there are simply not enough of them. The latter is possible for most families.

What I think would be a good preparation for the future is this:
Put funding currently going to Catholic schools into forming religious orders for teaching. Current teachers could either take vows or leave. The current schools could be turned into half living quarters for the religious/half schools. Restrict admittance for the time being to those who legitimately cannot homeshool (single parents, etc.) and make it free. Make the priority of the school the religious instruction and spiritual formation of the children. This way their instructors vows will have some payoff. After all, no one wants to sacrifice their life so a kid can be a better consumer of western culture and a better capitalist. But they will sacrifice their life for a child to grow up to be a saint.
If this were implemented nationwide, in a generation we could have thriving Catholic schools bursting at the seams with children who know and love their faith, and who are ready to take on the world for Christ.

Or we could just keep following the secular cultures example of treating schools like factories with expensive foremen. Unfortunately this is what will almost certainly happen in my children's lifetime, so homeschool will continue to be the best option for them.

*Update:
After writing I learned the real costs. Elementary was less than my estimate, secondary was way more. I think my points are still valid though.

"The average cost of tuition per pupil in a catholic elementary school is $3,383 while secondary education costs $8,182. Parents who choose to send their children to Catholic school still pay for a public school education with their state and local taxes. In 2010, the public education system spent approximately $10,614 per pupil."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/08/educating-children-catholic-schools-doing/#ixzz1gQQHgQI3

St. Thomas on No-fault Divorce

2011-12-09T12:32:00.000-08:00

The evil of divorce cannot be underestimated. The evil of a culture embracing no-fault divorce is exponentially worse.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
It seems obviously inappropriate for a woman to be able to put away her husband, because a wife is naturally subject to her husband as governor, and it is not within the power of a person subject to another to depart from his rule. So, it would be against the natural order if a wife were able to abandon her husband.
Therefore, if a husband were permitted to abandon his wife, the society of husband and wife would not be an association of equals but, instead, a sort of slavery on the part of the wife.
(Summa contra Gentiles III:124:[4]).

Our "advanced" culture:
No-fault divorce is a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage requires neither a showing of wrong-doing of either party nor any evidentiary proceedings at all. Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party to the marriage, without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the respondent has committed a breach of the marital contract. (From Wikepedia)

No fault divorce began in the US in the land of fruits and nuts (California) on January 1st 1970. In 1977, while living in San Fran-freako, my father left my mother destitute with their four children. You have to understand the situation though, he just didn't feel like having a family anymore. Needed to stretch his wings and not feel so cooped up. Yeah maaaan.

If divorce can be obtained by either party in a marriage without any regard to the marriage contract, then is does it even qualify as a contract? Which of the following are more important to a society than marriage:

Obeying speed limits
Using designated crosswalks
refraining from urinating in an alley
Refraining from drunk driving
Paying your taxes
Not smoking pot

Obviously none of them even come close to the foundational importance of marriage. Yet you will get in WAY MORE TROUBLE for violating any of these than for violating your marriage contract, which is hands down the most important contract anyone can enter into. Did men step up to the plate and defend marriage, womankind and children everywhere from the evil? Nope. Was there an outcry from feminists and women's and children's advocates about no-fault divorce? Quite the opposite actually.
Here is my point:
Compared to the lionesses of centuries past, the typical women from the modern, industrialized west is a subservient whore who has been dominated by the most grotesque mysogeny ever. And by the weakest generation of men ever as well! It is the worst ever because it is the women who willingly degrade themselves! They have silently given everything away for a greasy bowl of lentils. At least many a whore despises her own profession and her pimp*, but modern woman is eager to be pimped out for nothing more than money! (St. Augustine calls a wife a whore for using contraception, so take it up with him not me ;-) They have given up their God given, supremely fulfilling role of being help-meet to husband, mother, teacher, homemaker, for the bowl of foul lentils that is no-fault divorce and the broken homes that it leads to, abortion, contraception, childlessness, and taking a masculine posture by working outside of their calling: the home.

Remember the old saying "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world"?

It happens to be quite true. Modern industrialized women has stopped rocking the cradle (and even looks down her nose at those who do) in favor of blandly pointing at a flow chart in a conference room somewhere in a shoulder padded pant-suit. Congratulations ladies, you are the stupidest generation of women in the history of mankind!

*"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing]…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.” Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7 (A.D. 400).

Colbert clip

2011-12-08T04:40:00.000-08:00

Stephen Colbert after a "Catholic Bender". Coffee came out my nose when he pulls the relic out. This man is hilarious.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Hat tip to Bad Catholic. More clips on his most worthy blog.

Cool Hymnal

2011-12-01T05:26:00.000-08:00

As follow-up to my recent post about Tridentine vs. Vatican II masses, check out this new hymnal. I LOL'ed when she says it is the FIRST hymnal since Vatican II to contain the propers of the mass. 50 years?!

Please Lord, let beautiful music glorify you in your Churches once again.

By the way, the Corpus Christi Watershed website is incredible. There was a section on there where you can listen to different parts of chant. I'm not very musical, but I know what is reverent and what aint. And I like what I see from folks like this.

Special Announcement: VATICAN II HYMNAL from Corpus Christi Watershed on Vimeo.

I will throw in a video that I saw last year that I just love also. Imagine if every liturgist in the Catholic Church would implement a more reverent liturgy. You may saaaay that i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one...

Can you tell the difference?? from Corpus Christi Watershed on Vimeo.

Ordinary and Extraordinary Unite! someday :(

2011-11-30T05:35:00.000-08:00

Before I was a Catholic, I thought the mass was in Latin. The only thing I knew of a mass was what I had been taught by Protestant theologians, and much of that had to do with debates from the 16th century, when of course it was very much in Latin. One that stands out is when I read a biography of Martin Luther. When he was a priest, he had an intense moment at the altar as he said the words of consecration, "hoc est enim corpus meum" or "this is my body". (incidentally this is where "hocus pocus" and the "hokey pokey" come from, which both mock the Catholic mass.)

I have quickly learned that the mass is a bit different than in Martin Luther's day. There are actually many different masses from outward appearance. I know, I know, there is only one mass if we are talking about the one sacrifice of Christ, true. But as for how the liturgy unfolds, there is an incredible diversity. And diversity is exactly what there shouldn't be.

Even IF we could limit the liturgy to the two current options of the "ordinary form" and the "extraordinary form" there would still be a problem. The Church should have one liturgy. I should be able to walk in and know what is going on in any mass around the world. Just the fact of having two different forms of the mass is itself a major problem and makes the Church look bad. Why have 2? Is it for personal taste of the "congregation"? It better not be. Does one form glorify God more than the other? Then dump the other one. See what I mean? Why is there two now when one is how things have always been before the 1960's.

The answer appears to be that Vatican II was misinterpreted and implemented in the worst cultural meltdown in human history, and the "Novus Ordo" mass became something it was not intended to be. This makes a ton of sense considering the revolution of the 60's/70's. So should the Novus Ordo be dumped? Apparently not, because the V2 council did make changes. So just going back to the old pre-V2 mass would appear to not be the way to go either.

This leaves us with a tertium quid: Combine them. This has been my gut instinct since becoming Catholic, and I was SO HAPPY to hear that this is very likely what will eventually happen. In and article on Fr. Z's blog, Cardinal Burke says that combining the two into a "new form of the Roman rite" would be the natural result of the current situation of having two forms intermixing with each other, and he would welcome it. Yea! By the way, Cardinal Burke has the most awesome title of anyone ever:

Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

Isnt that intense? And his authority is intense also. Seriously, I am rooting for him to be the first American Pope.

Will this combining happen anytime soon? Unfortunately that is highly doubtful. I don't understand why the pope cant just make it happen. Snap his fingers and get it done. Who will say no to him? But apparently that is not how things work. Things go sloooow. That's ok, I will humbly submit to whatever happens whenever it happens. I am just glad to see that the guys in charge can see the problem. Perhaps my children will have a Church with a single mass.

May the Force be with You...

2011-11-28T05:05:00.000-08:00

And the savy Catholic responds...

... "And with your spirit."

I know, I know, it will take some getting used to, but overall your sci-fi discussions will be on a new level of accuracy and beauty if you start using this response.

Orthodox vs. Catholic: The Future Demographic Meltdown

2011-11-23T12:37:00.000-08:00

Eastern Orthodoxy is aging and dying, while Catholicism is set to increase.

In simple terms: as Russia goes, so goes Eastern Orthodoxy. The reason, in my view is diversity. Catholicism is diverse, covering all geography and people groups, and is immune to being decimated when one group or region is decimated. Not so for Orthodoxy.

First some raw stats.

The global fertility rate is 2.46 children per woman. (Global replacement rate is 2.3, developed nation replacement rate is 2.1)
Nearly every country has a declining fertility rate.
1,114 million Catholics with a fertility rate of 2.49.
230 million Orthodox with a fertility rate of 1.42.

Eastern Orthodoxy is a regional religion. This is often disputed by Orthodox apologists, but it is simple demographic reality. Zoom your mental camera in on the area of the globe comprising the following 6 countries:

Russia,
Ukraine,
Romania,
Greece,
Belarus and
Bulgaria.

These 6 countries make up 82% (190 Million) of Eastern Orthodoxy. But religion is not all they have in common. Not only are these countries geographically close and culturally similar, but these countries have the some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Combined, their fertility rate is a frigid 1.37 (Keep in mind that replacement rate is 2.1 for a developing country). 1.37 means a rapidly aging and shrinking population, which is currently happening. Russia is home to 48% of Orthodoxy. Out of 222 countries, Russia and Bulgaria place 196 and 195 in global fertility respectively and have the best fertility rates of the 6 countries with a horrific 1.42. Ukraine, which houses 16% of all Orthodox, has an abysmal fertility rate of 1.28. And those 6 countries make up 82% of Eastern Orthodoxy! The other 18% of Orthodoxy does not leave room for hope either. It is just as regionally isolated, and its fertility rate is barely higher at 1.67. There is no significant area of Orthodoxy that is growing.

Now let’s take a similar survey of the Catholic world. The top 27 countries which comprise 82% (906 Million) of Catholicism have a fertility rate of 2.45. That is a nice solid number that means growth. Another thing which becomes obvious is the diversification. Like a balanced financial portfolio, the Catholic population is scattered. By the time we get to #11 on the list of most populous Catholic countries, which is the 30 million Catholics in the Congo, we have gone from latin America to North America, over to the Philippines and then to Eastern and western Europe. There are developed industrial countries to 3rd world and everything in-between right up at the top of the list. There is an incredible diversity. There are 30 million Catholics in Congo with a fertility rate of 5.68. Wow. The 70 million Filipino Catholics have a fertility rate of 3.19. Even the United States bucks the global trend of developed nations with its replacement rate of 2.06. Ironically, the US is one of the most fertile places for the Orthodox. But, there are only 1.2 million Orthodox in the US.

Of course my numbers are assuming that the fertility rate of a nations Catholic or Orthodox population is at least as good as the national fertility rate (And yes, I also assume that a high fertility rate is good). In some cases, particularly less developed countries, I would think that the more devout subsets of the population would have a higher rate. In my own case, this is true. My 3 siblings and I (we are all serious about or religion) have a combined fertility rate of >6. And I know for a fact that high number has something to do with religious conviction in every case. Combine this reality with the fact that the Catholic Church is by all accounts growing more conservative, with more open teaching against contraception, and a more willing laity to obey those directives, and the future looks bright for Catholics. Is there a similar undercurrent in Orthodoxy? I cant say. I know they have dropped the ball on the contraception issue, that is a fact.

But one crucial thing the data tells us is that Orthodoxy is regional. As Russia goes, so goes Orthodoxy. And Russia aint going anywhere. It is actually shrinking, with that trend predicted to continue. There are simply no bright spots in the demographic future of Orthodoxy. The website where I obtained most of my data on Orthodoxy actually included ~22 million “Orthodox” in very fertile (6.02) Ethiopia. One problem, those are Oriental Orthodox, and are absolutely not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy. I doubt if any of our Greek or Russian Orthodox brothers would want to claim them as their own. The most populous country with a decent Orthodox population and a decent fertility rate is the US. Keep moving down the list looking for good fertility rates and the only ones you will find are such sparkling gems as Kyrgyzstan, Syria, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Israel, Tajikistan, Palestine, and Turkey. I think it is not a stretch to say that it is the Muslims in these countries that are pushing up the fertility rates, not the Christians. Combine this with the fact that half of Orthodoxy resides in Russia, which is on the bottom of the “religiosity” scale.

Basically, Russians as a whole simply don’t care about religion. Compare with Brazil, the Philippines and even the US, which are fundamentalists compared with Russia.
Another factor to consider is Islam. Orthodoxy and Islam often share the same territory, Whereas the majority of Catholicism does not. I don’t think it is controversial to say that in those countries where they coexist, in general Islam slowly dominates through intermarriage conversions and other factors.

So that leaves us with a very narrow, well defined, and fairly easily predicable outlook for Eastern Orthodoxy. Because it is so narrowly defined within certain nations which are imploding, it is fair to say that Orthodoxy is imploding. Will it disappear? No way. There are always subsets of a population which have higher than average fertility rates. I am sure there is a woman in Russia right now who has 7 kids. If that is something she passes on to her descendants, then the fertility rate in Russia will someday be higher. But the size of the population will have decreased dramatically. I think this is far less likely to happen in Catholic countries such as Brazil, Mexico, central Africa and the Philippines. They will maintain above replacement levels of fertility and skip the drastic decline that Russia and eastern Europe are experiencing.

What it means demographically:

I think that this data almost certainly means that the 230 million Eastern Orthodox in the world will be declining rather rapidly in the coming 2 generations. Those who are left will no doubt be more devout, which may or may not be good for the prospects of Catholic/Orthodox reunion, but they will be much fewer. I predict there will be a bit less than 100 million Eastern Orthodox by 2070. For the same time period I predict there will be over 2 billion Catholics.

What it means for the Church:

Of course I do not wish ill on anyone, and I sure do wish the Orthodox would start to out-breed their Muslim neighbors, or better yet... become Catholic. But I am a Catholic who sees the Catholic Church as THE kingdom of God, the rock that grows to fill the earth from Daniels vision, the mustard seed that grows to a huge tree, etc. Why would anyone not want to be a part of that? And I see in these demographics perhaps the working out of God’s plan. I can’t prove it, but it is interesting to think about. Here is a powerhouse comment by Bryan Cross on Called to Communion about the Catholic/Orthodox numbers game and other important considerations.

One thing I know, is that the scope and reach of the Catholic Church is well worth considering. It is the biggest organization on the planet. Stop. Re-read that. Yes, it is the biggest organization on the planet. It shouldn’t work, but it does. Watching the Catholic Church is like watching a perpetual motion machinerun or seeing a unicorn; it can’t be, but there it is. The only thing that comes close is Sunni Islam with its 940 million. But Sunni Islam can hardly be described as one group with one hierarchy. This aspect of the Catholic Church is to me miraculous. As stupid and evil humans can be, that one organization with such grand claims for itself could survive so improbably for 2000 years is… well, a miracle. It is one among many reasons to submit to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. And it was one of the reasons I did not submit to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Fertility rate by country: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=31

Wiki on # of adherents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church#Number_of_adherents

Global fertility: 2.46 children born/woman (2011 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

46 countries will lose population by 2050, many in eastern Europe. The population of Bulgaria will fall by 35%, Ukraine by 33%, and Belarus, Romania, the Russian Federation, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland by 20% to 30%.” http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nohumans.html

Defending St. Cyprian against David Wells

2011-11-17T09:36:00.000-08:00

From an article on Ligonier titled The Rise of the Papacy by David Wells (my emphasis):

Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops.

Compare with St. Cyprian (my emphasis):

And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."
Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)

Compare for yourself. Did Wells represent St. Cyprian properly? If that isn't a "charter for the papacy", then what is? Mr. Wells takes a truth and twists it into a lie. The truth -that St. Cyprian recognised the ultimate authority of all the bishops- is emphasized while ignoring the caveat Cyprian himself gives, that the Church was founded on Peter, and Christ "founded a single Chair". He makes mincemeat of St. Cyprian's words! It is men like David Wells at Ligonier that I trusted for years to give me the truth about Church history and theology. I now feel ashamed I did not dig deeper, sooner to learn that much of their claims were outright lies. Honestly, I think Ligonier is better than this sort of hack work. I tried to find an email for David, but couldn't. And of course the article does not allow comments.

Google Goof

2011-11-17T07:01:00.000-08:00

Search term: Interior Castle.
Search Engine: Google Images.
Result: Really only two good images. One from the cover of the book---

Ok, that is a cool image. I like the odd boats and the spiral shape. The only other pic that caught my eye was this one---

"Wow!" I think to myself, "cool interpretation of St. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle! I like how the glory of God is radiating out from the center castle to the other six, sort of drawing the seeker in, and... oh wait, it says Interior castle at Excalibur, Las Vegas."

My take-away from this embarrassing experience is that we need better imagery of St. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castle if these are the only two I could find.

Did Dale Ahlquist coin a phrase?

2011-11-16T11:40:00.000-08:00

In a great article titled Another Sin We Don't Want to Hear About, Dale Ahlquist laid down what I think is a very quoteable quote. Dale is one of my heros. I actually have been watching his Sunday night show on EWTN for years before even considering Catholicism an option. Chesterton makes so much sense, I was just drawn to Dale's weekly dose of him in a moth-to-flame sort of way. Although my wife will tell you that when the show was over, I would quickly turn the channel so as not to see the nuns praying the rosary. Scandalous! Ah, silly old me.

In true Chestertonian fashion, he has a one liner in here that made me: pause, chuckle, re-read, think, grin.
I actually googled the phrase and came up empty. Is it possible Dale coined it? Seems strange that he could be the first to coin it, because it is quite a simple statement, but perhaps. Anyhoo, i'll let you read the entire passage and see if you can pick it out for yourself.

I love what he has to say here. So what I though was a really good one liner was "It is hypocritical to criticize hypocrites". Perhaps Chesterton said it and Dale is repeating it here? Or is it not as profound as I think it is?

The Catholic Church is always condemned for condemning sins. Since we are all sinners, sin is the last thing we want to hear about. But of course, if we don’t confess our sins and flee from our sins, sin is the last thing we will hear about. That’s why the Church has a certain obligation to keep bringing these things up.

The Church has to do the hard and thankless work of condemning sins. There are few folks—well, more than a few—who do not consider the Church a trustworthy authority on the subject of sin. They are quick to point out that priests and bishops and even popes have turned out to be guilty of the same sins they have condemned. But this excuse for questioning the authority of the Church doesn’t wear well. It is hypocritical to criticize hypocrites. The more interesting challenge is this: do sins change? Or rather, does the Catholic Church condemn something as being a sin in one age, but excuse it as not being a sin in another age? This is an argument that is often used against the Church’s moral teaching.

In the 1960s many people in the Catholic Church were anticipating that Pope Paul VI would issue an encyclical that would permit contraception. Some argued that there was precedent for such a change in the Church’s teaching. After all, the Church once condemned usury as a sin, but no longer did.

But the encyclical Humane Vitae surprised and infuriated a lot of people: the Pope upheld the Church’s teachings instead of altering them. He also warned about what would happen if the world embraced a contraceptive mentality: it would lead to abortion, divorce, and sexual perversion. Turned out he was right.

Keep up the Chestertonizing Dale.

Catholicism Series Tonight!

2011-11-16T09:11:00.000-08:00

Tonight!

First, set aside 10 minutes to watch the preview below, then watch the series tonight!

Fr. Robert Barron’s Catholicism series starts on EWTN tonight and continues tomorrow and Friday (See show times below) It is on Saturday also if you miss any. These are only the first 5 episodes of a 10 episode series, so there will be more coming.

Some episodes have been playing on PBS nationwide, which I think shows the series has mass appeal at least. Let me tell you: This thing is polished! It is a high quality documentary that is visually stunning, intellectually stimulating in its history and theology, yet accessible to a general audience. As far as Orthodoxy, Fr. Barron is the guy we want being the tour guide to the Catholic faith! He is smart, personable, and can see deep into our culture to find what ails it. He is a believer which Catholics and non-Catholics alike can rally behind in the culture wars, while remaining Catholic to the core.

Stream it live on the web if (like me) you can’t watch it on TV. Starts at 8PM Central.

Here is a short preview (2 minute) of the series.

Below is when it will be playing this week: (From the EWTN schedule)

Enjoy!

CATHOLICISM (overview)
THE FIRE OF HIS LOVE –PRAYER AND THE LIFE OF THE SPIRIT
Wed 11/16/11 8PM Central
Father Barron explores Catholic spirituality, which is centered on prayer. On pilgrimage to the places where the great saints and spiritual masters lived, he explores the different types of prayer: contemplation; adoration; petition; and intercession.

CATHOLICISM: EP. 1
HAPPY ARE WE: THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS
Wed 11/16/11 9PM Central
Sat 11/19/11 12PM and 9PM Central
The revelation of Jesus as God is accompanied by a stunning invitation to a unique new way of life, explained in His teachings. These teachings are illuminated during Fr. Barron’s pilgrimages to Poland, Germany, Spain and New York City.

CATHOLICISM: EP. 2
A BODY BOTH SUFFERING AND GLORIOUS – THE MYSTICAL UNION OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH
Wed 11/16/11 10 PM
Sat 11/19/11 1PM and 10PM
Fr. Barron presents the reality of the Church as “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic, and explores the Catholic conviction that the life and presence of Christ continues to embrace humanity in all its joys and sorrows through the presence of the Church.

CATHOLICISM: EP. 3
WORD MADE FLESH, TRUE BREAD OF HEAVEN : THE MYSTERY OF THE LITURGY AND THE EUCHARIST
Thu 11/17/11 10 PM
Sat 11/19/11 3PM
Fr. Barron explores the ancient practices of the Church’s worship that endure to this very day, and shows how the Sacred Liturgy embodies the whole of the Faith in diverse places as Jerusalem, Rome, Chicago, Orvieto and Mexico City.

CATHOLICISM: EP. 4
A VAST COMPANY OF WITNESSES: THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS
Fri 11/18/11 9PM
Sat 11/19/11 4PM
Fr. Barron looks at some of the Church’s greatest heroes - Katharine Drexel, Therese of Lisieux, Edith Stein and Mother Teresa of Calcutta - showing how their extraordinary examples display both the passion and creative potential of the Catholic Church.

CATHOLICISM: EP. 5
WORLD WITHOUT END - THE LAST THINGS
Fri 11/18/11 10 PM
Sat 11/19/11 5PM
Fr. Barron presents the Catholic vision of death, judgment, heaven, hell and purgatory as he journeys to Florence, Ireland and Rome, exploring the Church’s conviction that life here and now is preparation for a supernatural destiny.

There is mortal sin, and it leads to Hell

2011-11-15T09:55:00.000-08:00

My friend wrote to me:

"Another example is of the prodigal son. Talk about a sinner! And yet, God (the father) did not require any pleading... the robe, the ring, the calf - that was just for coming home!"

Uh yeah, he CAME HOME. So he DID have to do something. If coming home with your tail between your legs like the prodigal did is not desperate pleading, I dont know what is. Yes, of course God met him from even a distance, before he even got there, but the attitude of the son was pleading humility.

"However, assurance doesn't end at "mortal" sin. Assurance ends at rejection of Christ. "

Mortal sin IS rejection of Christ! Mortal sin destroys the life of God in us.

"Christ isn't going to divorce you - just don't divorce him!"

Are you trying to lure me to hell? Christ says over and over that He will divorce us if we hate him. So yes, He WILL divorce us under certain circumstances. I still have confidence in His promises, but if I reject him, He will reject me. Dear Lord have you ever read the NT?

And, if he is guaranteed to not divorce me, and my future sins are all forgiven, why bother asking for forgiveness anymore then? Why pray the part in the Lords prayer "forgive us our sins as we..." ? Is that all just a game we play with God... we pretend to be asking for forgiveness, but really we know it is already forgiven? So even if we don't ask, all will be forgiven?

-Or-

Are those sins actually forgiven when we pray the prayer, or when we go to the Church to have them forgiven as Jesus specifically intends? John 20:22-23:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Which is it? It cant be both. Either we are already forgiven of all past present and future sins, or we are not. Which is it?

"I see how this works into the theology of the "last rights". The problem is I don't see this reflected in the Bible. There is no example of any holy person who is held in God's hand their entire life, only to sin at their death bed and be condemned to hell."

NO ONE is ever mentioned as being sent to hell in scripture dude. So no, I guess there is no biblical example. But if you can not think of dozens of stern warnings from Jesus and Paul TO BELIEVERS that they take care lest they fall away, then let me know and I will show you.

My favorite example is 1 Cor. 10.

Read the whole passage, it gives me chills.

Here is an excerpt (my emphasis):

We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. 12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Why would Paul give this warning if it were not possible to fall? And like I said, the biblical evidence is STAGGERING that we can, in fact, contrary to your claim, fall away from Christ and be thrown root and branch into hell.

And if it is possible to fall because of sin, which is clear from scripture, then of course, as St. John says there is mortal sin. It is right there in 1 John dude!

From 1 John chapter 5 (my emphasis):

16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

John is clearly saying that a brother can commit a sin that leads to death (that is what MORTAL means), and that there are two types of sins. Why is this not biblical? Methinks you are the one who is ignoring the bible. Not to mention the fact that the writers of the bible clearly point you to their oral teaching as well, and the Church, never once do they point you to Scripture as the only authority.
Not to mention the fact that Christ EXPLICITLY, EXPLICITLY, EXPLICITLY, gives the Church the power to forgive or retain sins. Something you will never see in a Protestant environment. For people who claim to listen to the Scripture, that's not very biblical if you ask me.

EENS Monday: St. Cyprian

2011-11-14T11:36:00.000-08:00

St. Cyprian (~210-258AD) is a hero of the Catholic faith. He is universally respected by Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestants alike as a great man, and a solid father of the Church. What baffles me is what Protestants do with some of the things he says about the Pope. He seems to be quite clear about who has the primacy in the Church. He is quite clear: if you desert the chair of Peter, you are not in the Church. Read him for yourself:

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)

Excellent article for further reading on St. Cyprian:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/

And here are a bazillion other Church Fathers saying things about the papacy that make Protestants blush and change the subject: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II

Good news fellow breeders!

2011-11-11T12:39:00.000-08:00

I stumbled upon this article in the Economist which uses straight line demographic extrapolations to predict the extinction of certain countries based on trends in fertility rates.

Primer on population demographics

Fertility rate is births per woman over her lifetime. Replacement rate is the fertility rate at which a population does not grow or shrink. The math tells us that rate should be 2, but factoring in infant mortality rates, it varies from 2.1 in developed countries to up to 3.3 in developing countries. The average worldwide replacement rate is 2.33.

They miss the point

There are a few problems of course, with their results, the biggest of which is pushing numbers out into the distant future based on current trends. I mean, who knows what fertility rates will look like in 20 years let alone 200. And some of these predictions go 500 to 1000 years into the future. Who knows what they will even look like after the current worldwide economic crisis. But still, it is interesting to speculate.

But another thing I noticed was they are simply taking fertility rate which are less than replacement (or those which are predicted to be going less than replacement) for large populations and extrapolating them into the future until they reach Zero population. This won't work in most countries because there are always subsets of the population with a much higher than average fertility rate. Perhaps in a more homogeneous culture like Japan, with it's imploding 1.39 fertility rate this will work, but not in places like the US or Europe. This is because I can foresee there always being certain groups of people that will always have well above replacement level.

I will use my own family as an example: My mother was born in the forties, one of 4 children. That is twice the replacement rate. She in turn had four children. From her four children she currently has 24 grand kids (8+6+5+5=24). And one of her children (moi) may well have more. And she is just getting started on great-grand kids with a measly 5 so far. Anyway, my point is that my extended family has an average fertility rate of 6. That is triple the replacement level folks. So lets say the United States fertility level drops below it's current fertility rate of 2.06 (which is just at or slightly below replacement for us). Does that mean our population is going to hit zero eventually?
No way!
What it means is 2 things are going to happen: One, for a few decades the total population numbers will begin to decline right along with the fertility rate. Two, once the population declines enough, the fertility rate will begin to exponentially increase. Why? Because the population will begin to be exponentially composed of breeders whose rate is 4+.

What we need to do is not see fertility rate delineated by national boundaries. We need to see it based on ideology. The fact that I am an American says not that much about me. The fact that I am a conservative Christian says a lot more. Being a conservative Catholic Christian also means that my offspring are more likely to stay Catholic and be breeders with a high fertility rate like their parents.

Now where it starts to get weird is when you look at the other groups with high fertility rates. Islam is at the top of the list. What the picture of the world 75 years from now begins to look like as it comes into focus is a a big cross and a big scimitar.

See you in the future! I know my 500 great-great-grand kids will be enjoying it!

Sci Fi scenario

2085. 17 Billion people on the Earth. Western culture has imploded through evil philosophy, their cities are filled with second and third generation immigrants from the global south, with the minority whites in Europe and America aging and still exponentially shrinking. European Cathedrals have been sold and are now mosques filled with young Muslims, while in Uganda, Catholics and Pentecostals are building 10 churches a week to keep up with the exploding Christian population. Vatican City remains the lone sovereign nation in Europe that is not a secular Islamic state (like Turkey is in 2011). The 1.2 billion Catholics of 2011 have exploded and are now 5 billion strong, with 85% of them being in South America, Asia, and most of all... Africa. Along with them have grown the Pentecostals (which now number 3 million) in the same areas, who have overtaken the rest of Protestantism which mostly died out in obscurity mid century, although there are minority pockets tolerated in the 90% Catholic USA. Europe is Muslim. Sunni Islam now numbers 6 billion and is centered in the Islamic Republic of France which is the founding member of the Islamic European Union (IEU, formerly the EU), Which has been at war with China and the Americas for the last 10 years. Atheism and non-religion is unheard of, having killed itself through lack of replication and genetic tampering. Most nations instituted laws against "irreligion" after the DNA War of 2047, in which 280 million people in industrialized western countries were killed by their own bio-mechanical cyborgs by either interbreeding with them or direct warfare.

EENS Monday: Lactantius (c.250 – c.325)

2011-11-07T06:29:00.000-08:00

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Lactantius (c.250 – c.325) says:

"...But some, enticed by the prediction of false prophets, concerning whom both the true prophets and he himself had foretold, fell away from the knowledge of God, and left the true tradition. But all of these, ensnared by frauds of demons, which they ought to have foreseen and guarded against, by their carelessness lost the name and worship of God. For when they are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or Arians, or by any other name, they have ceased to be Christians, who have lost the name of Christ, and assumed human and external names. Therefore it is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship.

This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation. No one ought to flatter himself with persevering strife. For the contest is respecting life and salvation, which, unless it is carefully and diligently kept in view, will be lost and extinguished. But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable."

Lactantius, (c.250 – c.325)

Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 30

MBTI Personality Type Tests and Quiz

2011-11-04T12:42:00.000-07:00

For a few months now I have been examining the four letter personality sorter called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). My INTJ friend from work got me into it. At first it is quite interesting, and even a little creepy how accurate it is. Then came the phase where it actually started to change my life in small ways. I don't want to get too sentimental (although I am an INFP, and we do sentimental better than anyone ;-) but understanding the 16 different types and how they see the world and relate to it and each other was simply mind blowing to me.

Here is a brief primer on the MBTI:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) is a self-report questionnaire designed to make Jung's theory of psychological types understandable and useful in everyday life. MBTI results describe valuable difference between normal, healthy people-difference that can be the source of much misunderstanding and miscommunication. The MBTI will help you identify your strengths and unique gifts. You can use the information to better understand yourself, your motivations, your strengths, and potential areas for growth. It will also help you to better understand and appreciate those who differ from you. Understanding MBTI type is self-affirming and enhances cooperation and productivity, plus it can be fun !!!

How we:

Get and use energy: Extraversion / Introversion (E/I - scale)
Gather & take in information: Sensing / iNtuition (S/N - scale)
Make decisions: Thinking / Feeling (T/F - scale)
Organize our lives: Judging / Perceiving (J/P - scale)

From Wikipedia:

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion). For instance:

ISTJ: introversion (I), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)
ENFP: extraversion (E), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)

And so on for all 16 possible type combinations.

At first, when I took the test and my result came up as INFP, and when I read the description, I was a bit doubtful. Sometimes the descriptions can sound a bit like horoscopes, it is true. BUT, when all the horoscopey stuff is filtered, and you get down to what really distinguishes the type from the others, you will blush, laugh, and shake your head. When I read the following about my type, I blushed, my wife laughed, and I knew this system of determining personality types was spot on accurate. My emphasis:

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause. When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they're interested in, it usually becomes a "cause" for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their "cause".

The difference between sensing and intuition (S and N respectively) is enough to make anyone laugh. If you are and S, a "sensor", you will say to yourself "so that's why there have been these weird people in the shadows around me all these years." If you are an N, an Intuitive, you will say to yourself (with 25% of the population that are also Intuitives) "Thank God I am not insane! There are people like me out there!"

Before I say to much and possibly skew your results, take the test for yourself! Then you can examine the different types objectively.

Below, I will give free places on line to take the test. I recommend taking it from a couple sources if the percentages of your score are low. What I mean is this: When I score I-N-F-P, each letter receives a % of its intensity. For me, they are always above 60%, and on most of the tests they are in the 80% range. So whenever I take the test the result is always a very solid INFP. If you score a low % on a letter or two, That is not bad, it just means you should take a few different tests and average them out to find to most accurate result.

Take the MBTI personality test!

I have sorted through lots of options for you. All the tests listed here are good, and free, but I will give you my preferred order.

Very short (1 min.) 24 word identification test from similarminds.com. This test is great because it is short and easy. Not much racking your brain or soul searching to find the answer, and it is super quick and accurate. Choose from a four point scale between two words such as “Tangible **** Conceptual”. Having taken all the MBTI tests on the site, I found the percentage results of this one to be surprisingly similar to the longer tests on the same website. Perhaps take this test first, then take a longer one later to compare the results.
Normal length (6-12 min) yes or no test from humanmetrics.com. A statement such as “You are strongly touched by the stories about people's troubles.” With a YES or NO option. This test gives me slightly different percentages than the humanmetrics.com tests referenced above. The F and P in my type (INFP) are in the ~60% range instead of the low 80% range on similarminds.com. Overall I like this test the best because it forces a binary choice and is long enough to get a lot of questions in.
Short (3-5 min.) scaled word test from similarminds.com. A single word such as “Talkative” is given and you then choose from a 5 point scale from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate” with the middle point being “50% accurate”.
Normal length (5-10 min.) ~50 question test from similarminds.com. A statement such as “I am far more casual than orderly” is given and you then choose from a 5 point scale from “very inaccurate” to “very accurate” with the middle point being “50% accurate”.
Rate 40 questions 1-20, a & b) from 1 to 5, with a and b not totaling more than 5. From The Ancona Family.Havent taken this one yet. Looks a bit "NT" for my taste though. But the site is a good resource other than Keirsey.com. Also this site has great statistics (My charts use the data from this site).

Good links for further study:

http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp

Keirsey.com has lots of articles specific to each type. It can be a bit too horoscope-ey at times, and is obviously made more for a business environment, but the info is interesting. I like how they group the types into 4 named subgroups also... SJ, SP, NF, NT.

The Ancona Family.
I am liking this site a lot. Great info, and a bit less horoscope-ey.

Once you get your type and read the description and have a laugh, and read a few articles on Keirsey about love life or family relations, you should look up some info on youtube about your type or someone you knows type. Here is a video of motivational posters of my type. My wife and I were rolling on the floor laughing at these videos. (She is an ISTJ, so we have lots of differences to enjoy!... vive la difference!)

Just google your four letter type and you will have a blast.

Stay tuned for another post with some nice graphics and charts with some very interesting stats on the types.

Teaser:
Nearly HALF of the population are SJ's! That's right, of the 16 possible types, only FOUR of the types make up half of the population! This means you are probably ARE an SJ, and if you are not, you are surrounded by them. When you are done with the test, don't forget to take this poll!

Enjoy!

Quizzes by Quibblo.com

SnapApp Quiz Apps

What do you see?

2011-11-04T04:55:00.000-07:00

So I am scrolling through my blog feed this morning and notice this picture from Father Z's blog.

My initial reaction:
"Why on earth does Fr. Z have a picture of a woman in a bikini on his blog? That doesnt seem like his style... uh oh wait... ha ha, wow I need another cup of coffee."

My fortune cookie should read "get your mind out of the gutter you idiot!"

Or better yet:

"if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

Some aspects of being a man can be tedious.

Herchurch?

2011-11-02T06:22:00.000-07:00

In a post aptly titled Paganianity on the awsome blog Bad Vestments, there is a sad photo. From the website of "Herchurch" comes this:

The Christian-Lutheran Feminist/Womanist/Mujerista Movements exist to celebrate the feminine persona of God/dess and dimensions of the sacred as expressed in faith, worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice.

Yeah, makes me want to vomit as well. Oh and the thing she is holding is called a "Goddess Rosary". Yuck.

Let's take a moment today, All Souls Day, when we visit a cemetery to pray for those who have died and are currently caught up in this and other forms of twisted modern idolatry. The world is hurting and yearning for Christ, and unfortunatley they try to find Him in some pretty weird ways.

It's O.K. to like zombie movies!

2011-10-31T11:50:00.000-07:00

Another blogger beat me to the punch on this one. This past weekend I watched some more of The Walking Dead and thought I might pontificate on my blog about zombie movies. I have been fascinated at myself for a few years that I like them so much, and wondered why. I hoped the answer was not “because you are a psycho, Dave” and as it turns out, I very likely am not a psycho! Hooray! It turns out that many normal people like horror and zombie movies and find them stimulating on a deeper or even spiritual level. The blogs author even identifies The Walking Dead as Southern Gothic horror in the vein of Flannery O'Connor. That makes me feel super smart for liking zombie movies! So go ahead and watch Shawn of the dead, The Walking Dead or Zombieland guilt free.

Here is my take: Like all good sci-fi, horror movies have the ability to distill the meaning of life into precious small spaces. What do you take from your giant house when you flee it from attacking zombies? Family pictures and guns to protect your loved ones, of course. What do you do when a little girl is alone in the woods with zombies? Risk everything to find her, of course. What these human instinctual responses in the viewer tell us is that we are human, and being human is more than eating and breathing. Being human is about what you love, and what you were created to do. And unfortunately, many people seem to think they were created to pursue personal peace and affluence instead of walk toward their creator. Zombie movies make these choices clear. The Walking Dead even makes a point of having a scientist show a film of the brain activity of someone dying and coming back as a zombie. We see that only the "instinct" part of the brain stem is active. There is never any doubt by anyone in the show that these people are not human. They are dispatched with bloody abandon and indifference by the dozens. There is more pity taken on animals in the show than the zombies.

The message is loud and clear.

So loud in fact that my guess is that many fans of the show never notice it because it is plain obvious to them, although in their daily lives they might easily deny it. The message is that human beings are a special creation of a loving creator, and that we are made in His image and likeness. We are not the sum of our parts, or merely a central nervous system to be pleasured. One human life is worth every single zombie life even though they are made of the exact same physical material. So lets think about it: if they are made of the same material and one can be slaughtered with less care than a pig, while the other is a precious life worth risking everything to save... what is the difference other than an eternal soul? And what does modern man scream to fulfill in all his depraved abuses of himself more than his soul? In this way, zombie movies are some of the most "christian" themed movies around. What other movie will the viewer always find himself making the correct choice with the characters-- to do the human thing. If only we all could pretend we lived in a zombie Apocalypse in our day to day lives, perhaps we would live the gospel each day.

Here is an excerpt of Red Cardigan's excellent thinking on this topic:

“It's almost as though in order for us even to begin to touch base with the reality of life for so many, with such a universal human experience of the uncertainty of existence and the constant presence of things like fear and pain, we have to wipe away all the material clutter we've accumulated; we have to envision a world so destroyed that our pretenses at safety and stability no longer mean anything; we have to recognize our glorified caves and technological voodoo for what it all really is, and what it's all really worth, against the brevity and coldness and harshness of life at its most basic level. In such a fictional setting, we can see and value the mere works of human hands for what they are—“

Here was my response in the comments:

“Bizarre. I just watched the episode you describe this past weekend, and was struck by it as well. I did laugh out loud at the crucifix in the Baptist church though.
I believe we like zombie movies because they show us what we know to be true: humans are more than animals. Our culture around us knows this too, though they continually try to deny it by degrading human life through abortion, porn, etc. But in the end, they love zombies, because when they look at a zombie, they get a reassurance that to be human is to be more than a walking meat bag. Strangely, watching zombie movies can bring them/us closer to God.”

Subsidiarity and Distributism

2011-10-24T12:22:00.000-07:00

A friend writes:

I'd like to get your opinion on the idea of a "one world government"? Evangelical people always associate it with evil / end time / anti-christ. What is your opinion (or what does the RCC teach) about it?

I don't think of things in terms of government "types". And I think in general the Catholic Church operates that way too. The "types" of governments we often compare with one another just seem to be different types of pickpocketing, or different types of cages to organize wage slaves (that is you and me). Choosing between anarchy, democracy, republic, or monarchy, is like choosing between brown eggs or white: Who cares what the shell looks like, what is inside? Is it rotten or yummy.

That yumminess increases the more a government lets families take more and more power. For example: familial ownership (not corporations) of the means of production. And decreases when the government tries to be the family by doing work given to families ( example: declaring sodomite marriage to be just fine).

If we ignore the types and focus on principle, the main, basic principle that will lead to a good government (whatever the "type") is the Catholic principle of Subsidiarity. As far as a "one world" government, of course the world has been-there-done-that in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, so we don't have to wonder about it, history can tell us about it. And history tells us it is a neutral thing. It aint good or bad to have a one world government. Jesus lived under a one world government and didn't seem too upset about it. Personally what form my government takes makes me want to yawn. As long as my family has freedom to be Catholic and freedom from the "tyranny of relativism" (as BXVI puts it), I don't much care what they do... as long as they leave my family the hell alone when we try to practice our religion. And if they dont, then I will practice it anyway, and when Obama's goons come for my family, and my case of 1000 armor peircing 7.62mm rounds are spent, they can come nail us to crosses. A one world government did that to Jesus, and very small governments can do it too. And that is why the ideal government will always be the same size... the size of a family. The King just builds the road out in front of the family's house, but the family uses it. The FAMILY is the kingdom, NOT the King. So to define that government as a "monarchy" is not useful, because it says nothing about what the family does in the monarchy. See what I mean?

The Catholic magisterium sees the family as the top form of government in any society, with all other levels being of far less importance, or subsidiary to the family. Understanding this will help one to understand why Catholics get so upset about changes to the way a society views marriage. When society redefines marriage, they are striking the root of the tree... the family. The ussurpation of the identity and rights of the family is truly a revolution of greater significance than the French or American ones. JP2 and many others condemned communism and fascism, because they tend to take the rights of families away.

Here is the CCC on the principle of subsidiarity:

"1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Subsidiarity is not followed very well by most governments, including the US of course. Socialist, banana republic weasels like Obama would not like it at all, and would hate Distributism even more.

The way the principle of subsidiarity "fleshes out" best is Distributism. Distributism was envisioned by G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Beloc, who are my favorite 20th century thinkers. Almost everyone dislikes Distributism, so it is still left untried and unheard of. Capitalists hate it, commies hate it. I love it.

Hehe, Evangelicals and the end times, I have been there done that too. What if we had a one-world government and it was a GREAT government? What if it wasn't a tyranny but was all smiles and roses? I suppose they would be expecting the antichrist even more. As for me, I already live under a one world government... Christendom. Christ is the King of Kings, and I don't think that is figurative. Any government that does not submit to that fact is just organized thuggery who are given power by the true King to make martyrs. They are mere pawns.

Man's "Attempt" at Playing Church

2011-10-14T07:23:00.000-07:00

Bob said:
"Let me see if I can explain what I mean about the church better. The church is 1 thing - the body of Christ (with Christ as its head). The church attempts to assemble itself here on earth... in multiple "churches". The final assembly of the church won't happen until death / Christ's return."

So the Church is "1 thing" yet is "multiple". Uh yeah, I think I see what you are trying to say. You failed to explain anything though. Again, what you describe is not a visible Church, which Scripture and Tradition say is something the Church MUST be! You just blithely waltz past those considerations however, and insist the Church is invisible, contrary to the Scripture you pretend to follow. Your conception of the Church is a product of the 16th century. Found nowhere in scripture or Tradition, and in fact the opposite is found in scripture. Yes, Christ is the head, and the Church is one, but I cant believe what you said next... "The church attempts to assemble itself here on earth." Huh? The Holy Spirit assembles the Church. And it assembles it so that it is one Church. God is not the author of disorder. The Church does not "attempt" anything, nor can it do ANYTHING without the animating life of the Holy Spirit, who is the "soul" of the Church. And just as two bodies cannot have one soul, there cannot be such a thing as "churches" which disagree with each other. Unless the Holy Spirit is the author of error.

"The final assembly of the church won't happen until death / Christ's return."

Where do you get that from? You are just making stuff up as you go man. You certainly didn't get that from scripture. In the scripture (which supposedly is your rule) the Church is described as being ONE and VISIBLE, binding and loosing, forgiving sins. Yeah, of course at the end of time after the resurrection, the Church will all be physically together, but that is not the point. The point is RIGHT NOW the Church (according to Scripture) needs to be ONE and VISIBLE. Again something you blithely are ignoring.

"If you find that belief insulting, I'm sorry. However, it is equally insulting to insist your "Pontiff" is the head of the church I am apart of."

What is insulting is not your conclusion, which many people come to, but your lack of good reasons for coming to it. And if you are insulted by having a pope, you are insulted by Christ then. He is the one who gave Peter the keys, and the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth. Jesus said to his apostles "he who hears you hears me".

"I have no use for them or the office they claim to hold."

Yeah I gathered that. But just a correction, there is no mere "claim", there is a historic fact. The current Bishop of Rome is descended in ordinations from St. Peter. That is rarely disputed by anyone except the most mental fundies. If you look at the book I lent you by Fortiscue, (which was written to Anglicans btw) you will see a very basic sketch of the evidence up till Chalcedon of the Papal role in the Church and the uncontroversial nature of the succession. That is IF you read it, which at this point I think is just beyond you. Your level of argument with me has never exceeded the level of the most surface level internet "shock" apologetics. Case in point was when you thought you had really struck gold finding out that the Catholic 10 commandments are different and claiming they changed them so they could commit idolatry. I pointed out that Luther numbered them the same way, and I get silence from you. You obviously want to just pick up whatever sloppy argument from the internet you can to prove what you want to be true: Rome is the Antichrist. Or need I bring up the example of the "low hanging fruit" you attempted to pick from the Catholic tree of errors. What was the lowest fruit you could find? The perpetual virginity of Mary! Again, something Luther and Calvin believed, as with many modern Protestants and Catholic such as Augustine. It is low hanging fruit for the already convinced, but not for anyone interested in reality.

Even James White and his crew at AOM at least make an attempt to reference the early Church, you seem to have no desire to do so. And unlike the clipped haired Lesbian Bishops of your future ecclesial community, Catholic Bishops are in communion with Rome, something the early Church considered necessary to be called the Church. But of course to you, all those men were idolatrous (bowing to images), necromancing (praying to the dead), anti-Christ (submitting to the pope) and legalistic (rejected sola fide). Yep, they all got it wrong but the Reformation and Bob got it right.

What I find most revealing at this point is that less than two months ago you had basically decided on Catholicism and were agreeing that it's claim to being the true Church was valid and saying thing like:

"I think the evidence points more towards God punishing the RC church with protestantism for failing to root out evil. At the same time, the protestants are wrong for schisming."

I couldn't agree more.

One month ago you said:

"My guess is we'll end up at the church of the sacred heart in Robinsdale."

Then a week later you were calling Rome the anti-christ! To me this says it all dude. You are being led by emotions or something to be that up and down in so short a time. And when I read your current critiques of Catholicism, which have included all the most trite red herrings and straw men available, I can't help but conclude you are not really looking into serious arguments on either side. You seemed very easily swayed towards Catholicism 2 months ago. I assumed you had been really looking into things. I am convinced that you have not however. Now that you are on the other bandwagon of hating the evil Romanists, you are still operating on the same emotional level. Homosexual Priests? Yes, remember you seriously gave that as an argument against Catholicism! The "changing the 10 commandments" straw man? You still have not conceded that you were duped (probably by some goofy website) on that one. Like I keep saying, go ahead and reject the Catholic Church, it's been done many times by better men than me and you. But either admit you just don't care to do the research to make an informed choice (which imo is quite obviously the case) OR be fair and do the research enough to find some real, solid Protestant objections. They are out there, I have heard them, but so far you have failed to find them or articulate them. If you truly think the "naughty popes" or "worshipping statues" arguments are good, solid arguments, then it is game over for the truth. You will be tossed about by whichever window-dressing argument you find.

THAT is what I find sad... not that you would reject Catholicism, but the poor reasons you are doing so.

Naughty Popes Argument

2011-10-13T11:45:00.000-07:00

From a comment on Shameless Popery, a Lutheran minister asks:

"Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope?"

My response:

The question implies an assumption that the pope is merely a man in all respects. But that is not what Catholics believe. We believe he is "protected" from teaching error when he determines to publicly teach the Church. That is a supernatural protection.

Personally I would not want Leo X as the next pope, but NOT because he might teach error, (that could never happen and HAS never happened) I would want someone like SAINT Pius X because he would be a better man and a better leader, and perhaps bring more people to Christ. Just remenber, a pope could murder and pillage and do all sorts of evil yet still be protected from teaching error. Think of the prophecy of Caiphas.

Women belong in the home. Men belong at work. Any questions femi-nazis?

2011-10-11T11:23:00.000-07:00

And yes, of course the exceptions prove the rule. I myself was raised by a single Mom who HAD to work. Key word: HAD. But lets not play games and pretend it is ok for a woman to choose that role unless it is a necessity/exception. Just having to give this caveat shows how far we have degenerated as a society.

Word on Fire contributer Dave Brenner made what I think are some common observations in an article today. All true and very sad. But I think he is way off the mark in his solution to the problem. The article is about how women are outpacing men in all areas of society now. His proposed solution is a sort of "let them eat cake" thing. My paraphrase would be something like "Do better, men". Well, it aint that easy. Men and women are different, and papering over the gross abuse of gender roles in our culture is not helpful. I tried commenting on the blog, but I dont know if it went through, so here was my comment, beginning with a quote from the author:

''Those statistics are not a problem by themselves—it’s a good thing that women have more opportunities and are striving to fulfill their calling in life. The issue is not that women are catching up but that men are falling behind. ''

I disagree and I think you have truly missed the point. And missed it badly. When women are prominent in any important endeavor, they take it over completely, leaving men in their dust. The men will invariably turn into Seth Rogan. This is at the heart of Eve's curse to "desire her husband". She desires the authority position proper to men. When women en masse become players in the workforce or acedemics, it will never be 50/50. The women will win, and men will drop out.

For me it is frustrating to see so many women at my workplace taking jobs/pay away from fathers trying to support our families who are unemployed. And for what? An extra car to be able to go to work in your pant-suit?

The vast majority of these women by and large should be at home fulfilling their role as wife and mother. Raising godly children to conquer the world for Christ is the most important job in the world! Yet many women throw that chance away to collect a paycheck doing things they have no business doing. Their job is to nurture children and being a HELPER to their husbands, not taking on his role.

There can be no parity.

There can be no 50/50 of men/women in the workplace and university. If women try to fill mens roles, then the curse of Eve takes effect and God will give them over to their arrogation. The result is that men WILL become disillusioned and WILL give up. Which is exactly what is happening. Make fun of them all day, but unless we call our women back to their proper role, dont expect men to take back theirs.

What we men need to do is yell this truth from the rooftops. Get our women back in the home and out of the workforce, and take charge of society again. Untill we reasert our role as the "garden tamers" God created men to be, women will continue to usurp our birthright, and to give up theirs at the same time. I the end, both sexes will not be fulfilled, and find only frustration. This is not sexist people, just true.

A Former Reformer is Coming Home

2011-10-11T06:05:00.000-07:00

My old friend Andre has decided to swim the Tiber. Any Catholic readers here please go ahead and subscribe to his new blog Former Reformer and give him some encouragement and advice in this strange and exciting time for him and his family. On a personal note, it is nice to have a local Reformed friend here in the Twin Cities on the Catholic side of the river now.

On a recent post he compared the Reformed and Catholic liturgies/theologies and said that unlike the Reformed system:
"...the true work and involvement is done at the Mass, where we meet Christ at Calvary and pray on our knees to break the power of the enemy. The fact that I was weary in my faith because I didn't feel like I was living up to the "Reformed theology standard of living" was because I was without the Eucharist. God's word did not return void,..."

I replied:

I just have to comment again! This past weekend, I went to confession and was totally renewed. I had some sins weighing on my mind and I let them go in the confessional, and Christ absolved me in the person of His priest. I then walked out of the confessional and kneeled down. It was the middle of the consecration, and as I joined my prayer with that of the silent group of people around me, I had a tangible sense of the "other-worldly" nature of what I was experiencing.
This was not about a sermon. It was not about tithing. It was not about being chummy with my buddies at church. It was about meeting God and destroying evil in myself and in the world. As RC Sproul would say, it was about being "coram deo". Before the face of God. When I looked up at the altar and saw Christ offering His body and blood to the Father, and thought of my former experience in Reformed churches, I thought how starved I had really been. Going from Reformed to Catholic is like going from an intravenous drip to thanksgiving dinner.

2011-10-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

Bad Catholic is my new favorite blog. How I have not stumbled on this before is beyond me. Hilarious stuff.

Here is an appetizer:

Our world is in the pitifully awkward position of informing us that our gravest sins are not sinful at all, while damning the most modest and the most innocent of our vices. Thus we have it that abortion and euthanasia are in and with-it, masturbation is healthy, pornography is good for your marriage, sodomy is an old-fashioned, oppressive term…and it is illegal to smoke in a bar. (I mean, my dear man! We do have standards, you know.) The daring and exciting – Kinky Sex OMG! – is toted as normal, while boring, old, human vice – smoking, drinking and punching other men – is outlawed, banned, damned for ever existing. There is no shame in killing babies, but you better be sure you follow the sign: ‘employees are legally required to wash their hands before returning to work.’

More on the site: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/10/serial-killers-are-boring/

It finally happened

2011-10-05T12:27:00.000-07:00

My two oldest were exposed to the reality of being the Catholic minority in a Protestant saturated culture. The little angels found themselves eating proverbial hamburgers in a Hindu cow shrine yesterday. Blissfully unaware of themselves.

First off, let me say that I love having other Christian kids on the block for my kids to play with. The alternative could be bad. There are two/three solid Evangelical households on the block, and having some of our values overlap is quite refreshing. But eventually the distinctives clash. As they did yesterday.

Near my house there is a roadside memorial for a lady who drove off the road and hit a phone pole. She was a young mother who had too much to drink and should have called a cab. Sad stuff. Every now and then someone puts up a fresh picture on the pole or ties a balloon to it or something. Yesterday I noticed a new balloon and suggested to my 6 and 8 year old daughters to ride down there on their bikes and say the Night Prayer in memory of her. They did, and a little while later they went back, but this time the Baptist and non-denom neighbor kids went with them.

Uh, yeah. lets just say these kids were not impressed about praying for dead people. My 8 year old comes back to her good ol' dad (who is enjoying his pipe and a vodka tonic on the porch), and says "I don't get it, they keep saying that there is no such thing as purgatory and we shouldn't pray for the dead lady." My response was "Annabel, you know Protestants don't believe in Purgatory right, and get upset about praying for dead people right? Remember?"

She gave me a puzzled look. "Really?!"

I guess the topic had never come up in any of my Reformed theological training with her from our Protestant past. "She is really getting the whole "Catholic thing" down as second nature" I thought to myself. "Cool!"

After further debriefing, I found out that the neighbor lady had said "she is long gone, so there is no point in praying for her." Her son also informed my girls that all they needed to do was say the "salvation prayer" and they could be guaranteed to go to heaven.

By the way, didn't Protestants used to call that the sinners prayer? I suppose that is to offensive now. The Jesus salvation slot machine cant have any words like SIN associated with it, goodness no! We just want to pull the lever once and hit the jackpot. Anyhoo...
The 12 year old neighbor girl also informed my daughter that purgatory is not real because it is not in the bible. (BS, it is in the bible) And then she informed Annabel that she only believed things that are in the bible. Her pre-teen description of sola scriptura of course... is not in the bible, but lets not look at the man behind the curtain kids, keep your heads down and repeat the mantra please. Repeat after me:

we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...

Will it become true if it is repeated a hundred more times? 500 years of Protestantism and counting. I think they will be repeating it for a while more. And if each denomination they have spawned only repeated it once, it would take another hundred years just to hear them.

So click your heals Dorothy, and repeat after me... there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home...

My daughter was a bit rattled by the forcefulness and preachiness of the other kids, but she is a trooper. And next time this happens, she can ask them why they don't confess sins to a priest like Jesus says to in the bible.

Or why they disregard Tradition contrary to the bible.

I love, love, love that she is getting some practice defending the faith. That's my girl!

"Sneaky" Catholic Ten Commandments

2011-10-03T09:10:00.000-07:00

Bob said:

I took your advice, and started reading the RCC Catechism. I'm pretty sure I found a place where the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error. It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it.

In particular, the issue is the teaching of the 10 commandments. I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17.

The RCC, however, in teaching their catechism does something quite sneaky. The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment, making it a footnote of the first and stripping it of any meaning. Instead of "You shall not make for yourself an image", the teaching is "images of saints are OK".

All the other commandments then get bumped up a number... which leaves you with 9. Not exactly convincing, since at the very least people know that God gave Moses 10. To make up for this discrepancy, they split the true 10th commandment into 2 commandments - effectively "don't covet" and "don't covet v. 2".

You can see this teaching quite clearly from the Vatican website - just scroll through the table of contents, it should jump out at you. The 10 commandments are in part 3 section 2.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols. At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them. I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.

Bob, you made it really far into the CCC! Or you are skipping around. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin. Either way, congrats for going to the source for your research. That makes choices easier.

Unfortunately you say:
"It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it."

Well, if it passed muster as being evidence, then I would consider it, but it just does not. Neither would Luther BTW, but I will get to that.
Here is what the INTRO to the section on the first commandment says:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."

The prohibition against making graven images is right there in the catechism Bob!

My daughter learned the 10 commandments last year in her religion class at Holy Family and she learned the part about graven images. We just number them differently, as do many PROTESTANTS who have zero love for Rome.

Get this Bob, my LUTHERAN mother learned the “graven images” as part of the FIRST commandment too! That is right, perhaps you don’t know this (perhaps because you grew up Reformed) but Lutherans use the same numbering as Catholics! So did many church fathers, among which Augustine stands out. And Orthodox (who venerate images like there is no tomorrow) use the Reformed numbering, go figure. (or I guess the Reformed use the Orthodox numbering… chicken/egg thing)

So are Lutherans “sneaky” too?

“I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17”

Uh, yeah, so do all Christians. No crap. But if you’ll notice, they are not numbered dude. They are also in Deuteronomy 5, but there again, no numbering.

“The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment…”

Huh? The second commandment for Catholics is to not take the Lord’s name in vain. Potentially a mortal sin because it is a serious matter. We don’t diminish it! You are using your numbering to correct their (and Luther’s and Augustines) numbering. Who cares about numbering. The point is what the commandments SAY. And Catholics still accept fully the command against graven images. As do you. We just understand it differently.

The point is though, the prohibition against graven images IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CATHOLIC FIRST COMMANDMENT! Nothing is ignored or deleted! For goodness sake Bob, even the Rabbis from the Jewish Talmidic tradition have traditionally held all the separate parts of the first commandment (Catholic one) to form one solid unit.

There are THREE parts of the same prohibition of idolatry, which I know you agree are all related: 1. Have no other gods before God, 2. Don’t make idols, 3. Don’t bow down to idols.

Catholics (and Lutherans) have ALL THREE in their first commandment. You have parts 2 and 3 as your second commandment. Both ways have them though.

Which begs the question, why isnt your third commandment Exodus 20:5/Deut 5:9 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them…”?

These Deuteronomy and Exodus verses are specifically about not bowing down, and are some of the more lengthy verses. Certainly longer than the “You shall not kill” ones. So WHY is that not one of your 10? Could it be because it is so similar to the other 2 parts of the commandment (no other gods, no graven images) that it is redundant to make it its own commandment?

Within the CCC section titled “the first commandment”, is a whole section about graven images. No sneakyness. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM

What you don’t like is your interpretation contradicting the other ¾ of Christendom of the past 2000 years.

The Orthodox have your numbering, yet venerate images!

The Holy Spirit, through the Church at the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) has spoken, and you want to do your own thing.

“The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols.”

Yeah, it is a big conspiracy. With the Orthodox as well. 2000 years of godly men are all deceived, but Bob is not. Yeah.

“At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them.”

It was tackled in 787AD! Been there done that! And the Orthodox have YOUR numbering but yet still venerate images! So there is no numbers game.

“ I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.”

The Word of God IS the Tradition AND the Scripture! You are making a false division of two inseperable things. And what you are calling the “Word of God” is really just your interpretation. Unless you want to show me where the numbering system is in the scripture. Even Luther would be looking at you with the squinty eyes right now man.

Veneration is not idolatry. Saying it is "obviously" idolatry is not convincing. Because MOST Christians of all ages have had zero problem with veneration of saints through images. Even ones who were angered by pagan images of false gods have venerated images of Christ and the saints! They saw a clear distinction between the two practices.

Peace

Reformed "Authority"

2011-10-03T06:07:00.000-07:00

This is a comment I left at the Reformed site Green Baggins:

I am glad they exonerated Lawrence, and my former pastor Josh Moon. The confession you all subscribe to says all disputes are to be resolved by scripture. That is what everyone here is doing, and you all are doing the best you can. When I read Rev. Dr. Moon, or TE Lawrence, or most of what has been written here in these comments, I think to myself “sounds fair enough”. You all have very good points, and take the scripture at its word as best you are able.

The obvious problem is you all disagree as to WHAT the scripture is saying.

That is problem one.

Problem two comes in when your own authorities decide a matter, and those who are supposedly in submission to that authority decide they will just ignore it in favor of their own! (Comment #36,)

And all those who disagree with their exegesis are “Christ’s enemies” (#100)!

Hmm, well, having been someone you would probably accuse of being an “FV” guy myself fro having believed in baptismal regen and paedocom, (although I would have just called myself a bible believing Reformed Christian) and having known Josh Moon and many men like him which you accuse of being FV, all I can say is have fun in your tiny denomination. If you are willing to turn on men like Moon and lawrence and refuse to even call them brothers, and call them “enemies of Christ”, and yet these men agree with you on so very much, much more than most evangelicals certainly, then you will just have to leave the PCA and start your own new micro-denomination I guess (gee that is a new concept). When will it end?

What do the worker bees in the pew do? I was one of those guys. No theological training beyond bedtime theology reading and R.C. Sproul videos. But I desperately loved Reformed theology. But when someone like me starts to agree with Wilson AND Sproul, Horton AND Leithart, both “sides” sounded biblical to me. Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? what do I do then?

You cannot answer that question. All you will say is “read the scriptures” or on a bad day you will say “listen to me read the scriptures”. But in the end, when I cannot choose who is right or wrong, and both sides sound scriptural, what do I do? Who do I listen to? Who is right and who is wrong? Where is the authority which is supposed to be so solid in the Reformed polity when the GA passes down a verdict and people choose to ignore it anyway? Doesn’t that prove who is really in charge? Doesn’t that prove that that person will only agree with the GA decision if it agrees with their opinion?

Instead of “semper reformanda” or “sola Scriptura”, I have a new suggestion for the 21st century Reformed motto:

“When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

Though I am now a Catholic, I still long for unity with you brothers. Ironically, some here would not consider me a brother as a Catholic OR an FVer. I can’t win.

Peace,

David Meyer

2011-09-30T18:54:00.000-07:00

True love. I love the part of the movie where Francis cuts her hair off. These two are in love with Christ.

Beautiful.

St. Francis and St. Claire, pray for us.

P.S. Thank you to my Mom, who introduced me to this movie. I still havent watched it as a Catholic, I cant wait. If you have not seen it, it is Brother Sun Sister Moon, By Franco Zeffirelli.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069824/

2011-09-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

I just found out that Yabby You (Vivian Jackson) died in January 12, 2010 at age 63. This means zero to anyone reading this. But it means something to me. This man has been a great encouragement to me in the faith. May he rest in peace, may he reach heavens joys. I can't wait to glory in God's presence with him in the beatific vision. Please say a Hail Mary for him.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HU7e3qfsPEs</a>" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Eternal rest, grant unto him O Lord,

and let perpetual light shine upon him.

May he rest in peace.

Amen.

Best. Argument. Ever: Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser

2011-09-28T10:11:00.000-07:00

Bob,
you said:

Defending Spain is Spain's problem. I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief.

England, France, Germany - their all currently "under siege" by the Muslims again. Are we to expect another Crusade? If the Crusades were a good idea, I would expect to see them done again. Perhaps this time good Roman Catholics should come to the aid of the Iraquis or Afghans against the imperialist USA and our evil god of Materialism.

Again - Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser (that jab will never get old :) ). Go google it, there are pictures and everything.

My response:
"I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief."

1. That is what the crusades were! The fact that the pope recognized who was on the right team is somehow bad to you though? When a dozen modern popes recognized the fact that communism was evil, does that mean they are stepping out of bounds? You really have not shown why that is wrong of them to take a stand. And you certainly have not shown that it disproves their claim of authority.
2. The term "Roman Catholic" did not exist until the Reformation in England. Google ANACHRONISM. Most of your complaints against the Church are dripping with it.

JP2 was dumb to kiss a Koran. Even the current pope has said as much. But what is dumber is that you think you have proven something by pointing it out. What does it prove? Just like your south African bishop example, it proves nothing I didn't already know: People are stupid and do stupid things. JP2 could have been a porn star and you could chuckle at pics all day, but in the end you have proven nothing. I take this stuff seriously dude, so meet Catholicism at its claims or don't bother. Pointing out a pope doing something scandalous is not the same as showing he taught error.

Also it proves that you like to get information from sensational sources on the internet. But again, if you reflect on what you are trying to prove by that example, you might find that you don't even know. I certainly don't. If you are trying to prove a pope can do stupid shit, then congrats, you win! But if this is the kind of thing that you are researching and think is important, then obviously you really don't care to investigate Catholicism honestly. Have you even read through the catechism?

I will tell you the answer: NO you have not.

It probably isn't sensational enough for your taste. You might as well find a site that describes Priests that have abused little kids. Get the graphic details and bring it up as an example for me of why the Catholic Church is bad. That seems to be your level of argument.

Actual Catholic Catachism... nah.

Sedevacantist websites... yeah!

I remember when I became a Calvinist a fundamentalist friend pointing out the whole Servetus thing in Geneva where Calvin killed a dude. I thought then and I still think now that that example simply does not prove whether Calvinism is correct or not. It proves (perhaps) that Calvin did something stupid, but it does not disprove any of the tenets of Calvinism. My friends argument was bad then, because he did not prove that Calvinism is inconsistent, and it is bad now. Just like your arguments.

If he would have proven to me at the time that Calvinism was internally inconsistent, (or even attempted to do so) I would have given an ear, but he did not do so.

Also his continued form of that type of argumentation made it clear to me he was simply not interested in the truth, but merely jacking off.

Oscar Wilde quote

2011-09-27T09:23:00.000-07:00

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.

Oscar Wilde

Reminds me of the "cowboy caviar" I saw in the grocery yesterday. As a typical American, I was strangely intrigued by the barbaric decadence of it. I bet it's yummy.

Saints, sola, and keys

2011-09-26T07:15:00.000-07:00

"Death is consistently described in the bible as "being asleep". Someone who is asleep doesn't communicate in either direction very well."

Saints are not dead, so your example is a straw man. If they were dead, then they could not hear us, but they are Not dead, they are in the beatific vision. They experience God immediately (no mediation) and experience what both Catholics and Orthodox call theosis. It goes without saying that in that state: they can hear us!

And the faith of the church from the beginning has been one that prays to saints and uses images (my catacomb example etc.). You place your opinion above the first Christians who knew the apostles personally, and 2000 years of a Church who has prayed to saints, and prayed for the departed.

You are placing yourself above a council of the Church. For you to accept Nicaea I but reject Nicaea II is arbitrary. And it shows that your acceptance of Nicaea I is based on your previous agreement with it. If you someday decide Nicaea I is not sufficiently biblical (like Arius did and many others did and do) then you will cease to agree with it as well. So you are not submitting to the Church in your acceptance of Nicaea I, but are accepting it because it happens to conform to what you like.

"At the very least, the justification (from the bible) for veneration of icons from these passages would only extend to cherubim..."

I will not even get into your exegesis, which can be debated back and forth, and many smarter people than us have done so. And IF Wikipedia is your first exposure to the councils reasons for their decision, you need to go back to the drawing board and study the issue more. You seem to me to be judging their decision making process using a post-16th century criteria (sola scriptura). That might make it easy for YOU to judge them as off base (if you disagree with their exegesis), but you are missing the way they saw what they were doing and how they were doing it. Their giving biblical citations is not a cue for you to accept or reject their judgement! It is to help you understand how they reached their decision, not to try to convince you!

The point I want to make is that you have an UNBIBLICAL assumption that something needs to be "justified from the bible" to be accepted. Where does the bible say that? Nowhere. In fact it says the opposite, in many places. I've given the texts before, and I am sure you know them. So you need to ask yourself why you believe such a self-contradictory rule. The Christian faith is not only about what is explicit in the bible, and even the bible affirms that fact. A brief example: Polygamy was done away with very early in Christian history. Try to find a prohibition in the bible though, ... you cant. It is wrong because the Church says it is wrong. Period. Even Martin Luther had to cave on the issue and allow polygamy. He could not prohibit it with sola scriptura only.

Also like I said before, the infallibility of the magisterium does not extend to exegesis, but only to the final teaching (unless they specifically define the exegesis as infallible) For instance: Masturbation is a grave sin (mortal) according to the magisterium. They use the passage with Onan spilling his seed (Gen. 38:8-10) for a biblical reference to that act being a sin. But we cannot and must not assume that if that passage is somehow shown to not be talking against masturbation, that therefore the Church's decision to condemn it is not valid. For one thing, there are many OTHER REASONS that they can and do give for it being a gravely disordered act. Their determination is bigger than "the bible says X, therefore Y".

I maintain that you hold to a rule (sola scriptura) that is totally unbiblical. Of course that is insanely ironic, because the rule itself claims all rules should be in the bible. You also hold to a cannon which is not in the bible. You can brush these concerns aside around Rich Gall or other Reformed types that just want to plug their ears, but I will not sit by and let you parade around like the emperor with no clothes.
I will point.
I will laugh.
(I am saying I will call your bluff, not assume your obviously false paradigm)

I think you deserve that honesty.

You can personally disagree all you want at the Catholic beliefs, but at least our basic claim of revelation is not contradictory. We might be wrong, but our paradigm is self consistent.

We claim only the successors of the apostles can decide shit. And lo and behold, they do decide shit. No contradiction.

You claim that ONLY your 66 book bible can decide shit. But your 66 book bible itself explicitly says that it is NOT THE ONLY thing that decides shit! AND your book points to the successors of the apostles to do so! Not to mention not even having a table of contents. Oops. Talk about no clothes, the bible cant even tell you what the bible is. Next time you sit in judgement of all the bishops of Christendom assembled in solemn council at the 7th Ecumenical of Nicaea II, check your paradigm before you scorn theirs. Check to see who is holding the keys Jesus handed out. You will find your hands empty, cold and clammy. Their hands however are holding the keys and the swords. I don't say this to mock or score points, but because I seriously think you have misread your position.

You have read the constitution and are casually knocking at the door of the White House, wanting to come in to let them know what they are doing wrong. You have misread your position.

If you stay in that mindset of believing sola Scriptura is workable, or even plausible, you will be stuck as your own personal denomination. The traditions of men are a dangerous place to try to find truth. And nothing is more of an ANTI-biblical tradition of men than sola scriptura.

Dave

Romish antichrist zombies want your brains!

2011-09-23T10:58:00.000-07:00

"If you will not be turned... then YOU WILL DIE!"

Bob,

If the pope can become the anti-christ, then the gates of hell can prevail against the Church... something Christ Himself promised SPECIFICALLY to Peter would not happen RIGHT AFTER He gave him the keys.

If you think that has happened or even that it can happen, then do not become Catholic. I am not sure what Protestant option is any better, but whatever.

As I have said a dozen times, a hundred naughty popes do not add up to the gates of hell prevailing against the Church unless they TEACH heresy. That is the ONLY way they are protected. They are not protected from being assholes! As far as bishops other than the pope, they are basically only protected from error corporately in ecumenical council. The goofball from Africa was not in council last time I checked, and the pope is not teaching doctrine by not immediately hammering him. Perhaps he was hammered, I don't even know. It happened 11 years ago, which is about 2 minutes worth of Rome time. The nickname is "Romanitas", because the Vatican moves so incredibly slow. Many heresies take a hundred years or more to resolve. The Reformation was already generations old by the time Rome finally got around to finishing the Council of Trent in 1563! And to some that was moving pretty fast! The Reformation was going full bore for 30 years before the council even started! And it took 18 years to conclude!

Was that stupid of the Catholic hierarchy to delay so long? YES!

Does it prove they are not the Church Christ founded? NO.

Your Hitler analogy works mainly in the fact that there have been some naughty popes. (some of the things you have brought up however are But Hitler was not divinely protected from teaching error, so obviously that is a big difference.
Show me where the magisterium has TAUGHT error.

"This is why I call it blinders. You Can't Leave. The anti-christ himself can sit on the chair of Peter, speak ex-cathedral,..."

No, a potential antichrist pope would not be able to speak falsehood ex cathedra. He could murder people, but he could not teach error with the full power of his office. At least not according to Catholic doctrine. Again, you are simply mistaken on a basic point.

Your "cant leave" thing is a huge fail. What it seems you want is the ability to overrule a judgement of the Church in favor of your own judgement. Once again, Catholicism is not for you then. I recommend being a Quaker or E. Free if that is how you want to roll. You get to decide every single thing for yourself.

If you think the Church can fail, what is the alternative? Making the Church in your own image somehow magically means it wont fail? Huh? Why will that prevent it from failing? Rejecting 2000 years of tradition for your own opinion is better than submitting to the magisterium established and maintained by Christ himself? If you believe that then stay E. Free or whatever. Just have church in your living room pastor Bob, then your family will BE SURE to be getting the straight dope on all these important topics ...right?

"...set up idols in its halls with people bowing down and wearing them away with their kisses - and you HAVE to stay in the church. "

That would be teaching error. If a pope were to teach people with the full authority of his office that they should bow down and worship an idol, that would be teaching error, which is not possible according to Catholic doctrine. Of course according to Protestant doctrine, any Protestant leader could potentially teach error at any time. At least Catholicism claims an ability to carry out what Jesus promised about hell not prevailing, Protestants will warn up front they might be all messed up in their doctrine.

I am starting to realize that you don't really have a problem with authority like I though you did, it is just any authority above your own that you don't like. Complete submission is demanded at that level however.

Unlike the bootstrapped Protestant churches, the Catholic Church does demand your complete obedience, just as Jesus demands your complete obedience, but somehow because you can think of Jesus as being in the "spiritual" realm, you can see yourself as being obedient to him when really it is YOU you are obeying. YOUR interpretations. Your likes and dislikes. If something rubs you wrong, your out of there. Your "Church" is hard to find because it is in the mirror. Let me say that again for emphasis:

You are having some difficulty finding a Church home because what you want is YOU.

Like a lone man on an island looking for human life, you are searching for something that subsists only within yourself, and therefore your search will be eternal. Because you will only be truly happy with a church that fits your whims EXACTLY. The Catholic Church will let itself be molded by you a bit, even letting you be an anarchist if you wanted probably, but it will not budge for you where you need it to. And it never will. When I realized that, I was drawn to it like a moth to a flame. My personal whims are exactly where I will not find the truth, I knew that more than anything else.

Unless you drop this way of thinking you should seriously just start a home church. (I honestly recommend this) I recently had an email exchange with a woman whose husband has been doing just that for the past few years. They were moving from church to church for years and he finally decided that they were all wrong and he started doing home church. Get this, she said to me that he was "tired of denominationalism". !!! Notice anything wrong there? He is now his own denomination! He has become the enemy he hated!

I think that if he is open to the Holy Spirit, he might eventually see this irony better in a home church than in a bigger denomination. And realize that submission to a plausible authority claiming to be THE Church is really the only logical answer. I hope the same for you. Take some time to be your own pastor, and see if you feel like you are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.
Do you really believe that when you find the Truth it will match up with what you though it would be? Personally I have "found" enough "truth" in my many searches to know FOR SURE the Truth cannot be what I think it is. Truth is something we submit to. You can do it with blinders if it scares you, or you can do it with both eyes wide open, but either way, it will rub you the wrong way.

Peace,

David

Catholicism: Satanic copy or the real Church.

2011-09-22T10:38:00.000-07:00

Bob,

You went from deciding between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, to leaning towards Catholicism, to having trouble discerning if it is satanic or true, to sounding as if you think it is obviously satanic and wondering why I am so misled, you went through all that in a matter of a few weeks. So what follows is my response I started yesterday to a letter of yours from the “deciding if it is satanic” time, and I will end with my response to your letter from the “it is satanic and Dave is a dupe” phase.

You said:

"I have been (and will continue) dwelling on the issue of the RCC. It is one of two things. It is either THE church that Christ instituted, or it is a most satanic copy designed to lead people astray. I find myself in a situation where I am having trouble discerning."

I agree it is either all or nothing. And you should take your time to discern. Here is something that might help. Find all the claimers to the title “Church founded by Jesus” and see how their evidence for the claim stacks up with the Catholic Church.

The hardest one to nail down is of course Protestantism. But if you take their standard idea of an invisible church comprised of all those who believe "the gospel", you will get their conception of what the “Church” is. OK, so put that on the list as exhibit “A”. Now throw on Eastern Orthodoxy as “B”, Catholicism “C”, etc.

Then do some research on what makes the Church the Church. Include everything. Holiness, the gospel, apostolic succession, the ability to authoritatively resolve disputes about theology, etc. Each of these criteria should be there, because each is part of the evidence. Make a chart or something and see who can plausibly claim to have all the points you come up with. For instance, the early Church fathers put a lot of stock in apostolic succession and obedience to ones bishop, and they claimed that was what had been passed down to them from the apostles, so those criteria should be there.

What happened when I did this was I was left with only a few claimants that even tried to meet all the criteria. Mormonism tries for instance. They claim apostolic succession. Obviously they weren’t on my list for long (never really). In the end I had the big 2. Catholic and Orthodox. And I must say, many of the issues you are working through would be the same in Orthodoxy.

But one thing is for sure, Protestantism is not in the running. They do not even claim to have succession! They do not (in general) even claim to have an living, infallible Magisterium!

If I approach the RCC from the standpoint of "authority" - they seem to have a very good argument, and really do appear to be correct. However, if I approach it from what they do and preach, then the parts of the argument only make sense if you buy the whole argument.

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3). (my emphasis)

Jesus told people to obey the Pharisees because they sat in the seat (cathedra) of Moses. He said to do what they said, not what they do. This is a key point. Like the rulers of ancient Israel, the Magisterium of the Church is to be obeyed because they have the authority from Christ, but we don’t always have to “do what they do”. Many of your examples fall into their “doing” not their “saying”. The distinction is everything, as Jesus points out. You need to look more into the distinction between what things are dogma, discipline, pius custom, precept, just farting around, canon law, abuse of a good thing, or none of the above. It seems that you are not making these distinctions precisely enough.

For example, the papal power to depose kings - it makes sense from the RCC structure, but flies in the face of Peter's command to obey earthly authorities.

I have not looked into that issue much. So I don’t know if that was mainly a medieval thing or just a temporary thing or what. But I honestly can’t see how it flies in the face of biblical commands to obey governing authorities. The bible says the authorities were put there by God, so obey everything they tell you that does not violate what one owes to God. If, -if- the Church has the power to depose governments, or to encourage disobedience to them (what it has traditionally done), then wouldn’t that just be another way God could get rid of governments He doesn’t like? So Peter says “obey earthly authorities” in one breath and in the next breath says “Don’t obey Stalin”. Well, I think that makes perfect sense! No contradiction at all. And honestly, that power is enjoyed by all the bishops, not just the pope. Our Archbishop Nienstedt could tell us to ignore Minnesota government attempts to force our children to attend contraceptive training classes for instance. That authority goes right on up to the ability to relieve our responsibility to obey them in anything if things got bad enough. The Apostles command (through the bible) to obey governments can’t be taken woodenly. And neither can the magisteriums statements. In Church history we have lots of examples of good disobedience to governments (from day 1).

Another example: When celibacy for the priests was instituted,

Whoa, wait. Last time I checked St. Paul was talking about how beneficial celibacy was in the New Testament. And as far as being “instituted”, in what way? Was the practice ever dogmatized? [No.] Is it a discipline that has grown over the years for many good reasons? [Yes.] Has the practice been abused at times? [probably, I don’t know… or care] Have there always been married priests in the Roman Rite? [yes] Are there right now? [yes] Even ones with 4 kids? [yes!].
http://www.dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Bio/

And in the Eastern Rite Catholic churches (and E. Orthodoxy) it is not even a discipline for priests! And like I have said before, this is something people sign up for. As a man with a growing family, do you seriously not see how being unmarried is a great help to someone in the ministry (Paul is clear about this)?

getting married as a priest was elevated to a sin that the pope himself had to pardon.

So if someone promises to not do something and then does that is ok with you? People do not become priests overnight, and they do not get married overnight. If a priest gets married after swearing not to, he is in disobedience to the Church (and thus to Christ).

However, having relations with anyone could be confessed to another priest.

Any sin of any kind can be confessed to a priest. Are you implying that that makes it ok to do the sin? Obviously a one time fling is different than a priests desire to settle down with a family. The situations are just not comparable.

This seems exactly backwards of biblical teaching.

Leaving aside what "seems" like biblical teaching to you and what does not, that celibacy is a good thing is totally biblical. I don’t agree with you at all. And no one is forced to be celibate! They sign up for it!

Not only that, but celibacy was instituted in an attempt to keep wealthy priests from giving their money to their descendants.

I think that is not true. Because you are implying that is the only reason. And I think you are implying some kind of ill will on the part of the Church to “rich priests” (cue the imperial march). The rule is in place to keep the cares of the world out of the church. Priests know what they are getting into. If they want a family, or wealth, or land to pass on to children, they shouldn’t become a priest. (or they could become a Byzantine Rite priest)

If you can't be married / can't have a family, then the church has the "right" to all your earthly possessions.

Should the church not own property? I don’t see why it shouldn’t. And if a Priest owns Church property then his sons will get it. That wont work for very many generations. Also, get real man, owning property orients one more towards business and the affairs of this world more than to what a priest should be concerned with. He should not be thinking of how to pay for college or braces or splitting up property between his kids.

Again, backwards of what one considers "biblical". Peter himself was married (unless you read the RCC bible, in which case his wife is refereed to as sister).

No, of what you consider biblical. Catholics know Peter was married, that fact is explicitly stated in tradition that Peter saw his wife martyred. I have read the account myself, it is beautiful. The "RCC bible" is not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I don't know where you are getting some of your info but it is way off.

Priest celibacy is a discipline! It is not dogma! It is like holy water, Catholics could stop doing it if they want, and that would be ok.

If you approach it from the RCC "explanation" then it all makes sense - and I get that,

I don't think you do get what the explaination is actually.

but what is the outcome of the rule? Satan has his way with unmarried priests who can't control their lusts. Homosexuals flock to the priesthood. Illegitimate children are born to all these men of God -but it is OK

It is ok? Can you give me a citation?
cause they confessed it to another priest. Pedophilia (the caboose in a long train of sexual sins) enters into the church -

Just the Catholic Church right? Not your Church? Uh huh...

Here is where you have completely gone off the deep end while swallowing a camel.

The incidence of pedophilia is absolutely not a bit higher in the Catholic Church than any other organization, including Protestant churches. And that is according to widely accepted data.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

In fact, my own research leads me to believe that the incidence in the Catholic Church is less once all the factors are balanced out.
thats [pedophilia] OK too cause they confessed it.

Can you give me a citation for this? Why do you think the fact someone can confess their sins means the sin is OK? This reminds me of people telling Calvinists “Well just go ahead and get a hooker, your elect right? So what does it matter?” The Calvinist is not impressed.

Or when Protestants in general are scorned for believing their sins (past, present, and future) are all gone because of Christ's finished work on the cross, so doesn’t that mean they can just sin with impunity?

For most Calvinists and most Protestants in general these examples fail. That is just not what they believe. And neither does the Catholic faith teach that evil becomes “ok too” because we confessed it.

In fact, the more I read and learn, the more it seems like the RCC believes the exact opposite of the protestant truths I recognize.

That is often the case. Is this news to you? You grew up Reformed right? Did you not realize what the “Reformed” thought they were reforming from? And if it is dependent on you “recognizing” a truth, will you ever get it right? How sure are of your abilities to “recognize” all the truths of the Christian faith? If you have changed your mind in the past, what makes you think you have it right now? Wouldn’t God know that we fail in this way and provide us with a sure guide?

Here is an example from the thread you pointed me to:

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (Lumen Gentium, 16)"

Brian applied that to protestants, but the words are clearly about heathens.

Wrong. They are about those who “do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church”. That includes “heathens”, but also unborn babies, Buddhists, frozen embryos, Muslims, retarded people, AND Protestants. AND it includes CATHOLICS who don’t understand their own faith. Of which ALL Catholics, including myself, are to some degree! We are all “heathens” Bob, needing God’s grace to lift us out of the muck. Lumen Gentium is merely pointing out that there are ordinary means by which people come to God. (the sacraments, Baptism, trust in Christ and His Church) God is not bound by the ordinary means. He can do what he wants. As a father of a miscarried baby who was most likely already dead when he was baptized, I take comfort in that.

The RCC teaches that heathens can be saved by good works without the church.

No one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church! PERIOD. Get it? So please learn what Catholics believe before you stuff a straw man and take him all the way to Emerald City! If heathens are saved it is through imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

And I bet you agree with the idea expressed in the document Bob. You yourself “strive to live a good life” in the way Catholics are meaning. They are not talking about the straw man of “good works” Protestants often have. What the document is saying is did they follow God the best they knew how? That is something you yourself do! When (by grace) the Holy Spirit prompted them, did they respond? Or did they reject? I assume you believe a tribesman who has never heard of the name of Jesus can go to heaven Bob. Assuming you believe that, doesn’t it make sense that he could go to hell also? If he sees someone hungry and does not feed him, that tribesman may go to hell for that. He rejected grace. If he feeds him, he is following Christ. He is responsible for what God reveals to him. This is basic Christianity Bob.

You yourself “strive to live a good life” just like Lumen Gentium says. You strive to obey Christ, you try to be contrite for your sins, you strive to trust Christ more each day. Why do you blame the RCC for teaching something that is false which you yourself practice?

I brought out a few things here - again they "make sense" with the extended RCC explanation machine working at full throttle.

Saying it is a “machine” implies there is no logic or emotion but only a desire to be right at all cost. If something “makes sense” then it should be because it is true, not because of sly arguments or rhetoric. Many aspects of Reformed theology “make sense” to me from within the Reformed paradigm. The reason I reject them is not because they do not make sense, but because they are not the faith of the Church which Christ founded and gave His authority to.

It seems that the RCC's interpretive authority expands not only to the Bible, but also to any statements that any pope through history makes. Why can't anyone just mean what they say and say what they mean?

I think you want everything tied up in a bow and tailor made for Bob in 21st century USA. You’re not going to get it. The scripture is FAR HARDER to interpret than any statements of popes. “Why can't [Jesus] just mean what [He] says and say what [He] means?” I sure wish all Christians could agree on what John 6 says, or any # of other passages of scripture. Oh well! They don’t. Magisterial statements nowhere near as misread. Time, place, intention, and language all matter. And those statements are not “inspired” like the scripture is, so in that sense they are easier to interpret, because they are only the words of men. Not the multivalent words of God. They are protected from error, but are still just the words of men in a certain time period, with their own foibles and such.

When Proverbs 26 says: “DO NOT answer a fool according to his folly” and in the VERY VEXT verse says “answer a fool according to his folly.” Is there a contradiction? Only to the jaundiced eye atheist reader of scripture. To God’s people, we (in general) know what is meant. We are not “explaining away” the text when we give reasons why there is no contradiction. We don’t have an agenda, and we TRUST proverbs. If the same attitude is had with the Magisterium, the contradictions and problems usually melt away. Your quote from Lumen Gentium is being interpreted by you in your own terms and definitions. Right down to the idea of “works”. If you read it in that light, with assumptions the writers did not intend, you will not understand what the writers meant.

(Now my response to your most recent email)

Bob,

First off, you didn’t answer my (bolded, italicized, and underlined) question concerning the African bishop in 2000.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/aprilweb-only/46.0a.html

What do you think you have proved by citing this bishops statement?
I think it is very pertinent. You seem to think naughty bishops disprove Catholicism or something. And I just don’t understand why you think that.

"I can articulate and reject the Roman Mass."

Well if you can, you certainly have not done so. Nothing you have said shows that you understand it.
For instance, I can explain what "imputation" means and why I reject it, you have not shown you understand what Catholics believe the mass to be. You just reject my cursory explanation as unbelievable.
What is more unbelievable: God saying someone does not have sin, when in reality they do (simul iustus et peccator/imputation), or Calvary taking place both in and outside of the temporal realm? I don’t think one is more believable than the other really, they both are hard concepts to fully grasp (at least for me), and in fact I think both can make sense to a reasonable mind. The reason I reject imputation now is primarily because that is not the faith of the Church, not because it doesn’t make sense. I guess for you the mass being Calvary and happening outside of time just stretches belief somehow, yet all the other impossible paradoxes of Christianity fit like a puzzle?

I don't know how seriously to take all of this and how much you even want a response. Whatever, I will keep responding as long as you show even just a bit of desire for one, or if you want to present real arguments of why I am led astray I will mull them over and talk about those ideas. I am trying my best to understand here you are coming from.

I do have responses to what you have to say, but I wonder if you even care. Normally if someone says I am stupid I cut off the conversation, because that really is the end of conversation. If in your eyes I am brainwashed and in a cult, and not "thinking for myself", there is absolutely NOTHING I can say that you will accept.

Honestly when you said "I would ask you to think for yourself. Blind obedience is a sign of a cult."

If you are trying to piss me off, you win.

Blind obedience? Wow you seem to know a lot about me. I do try to be obedient, but I like to think I am not a cool-aid drinking robot about it and just obey blindly. Perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps if you could show me an example of this "blind" obedience I could take the blinders off? One thing about "discussion" or "argument" Bob, is that it is much easier to cast aside a viewpoint you don't like if you use the "poisoned well" fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Cuz hey, if I am "blind", what is the point of trying to put forth effort to SHOW me something? (never mind the fact you haven’t seriously tried to show me anything)
But if I am blind, what else can you do but just quietly pity me and pray for me? *It is so sad that I choose to not talk about religion and never read books or discuss things. I really am just so blind.*

And the "cult" part? Puh-leese. Lets see...

• I guess 51% of Christians COULD be in a cult.
• I guess the church with the most extensive coverage of the planet COULD be a cult.
• All that praying to Jesus I do and seeking to follow what He did COULD be a tricky sign I am in a cult.
• Confessing sin and trying to root it out... cult.
• Thousands upon thousands of the most intelligent men the world has ever produced having no problem being Catholics... cultish.
• Brilliant men like G. K. Chesterton, Marshal MacLuhan, John Henry Newman and hundreds of others CONVERTING to the Catholic Church for reasons of conscience, intellect and principle (not simply marriage or something)... cultish.
• My Protestant sister thinks baptizing babies means it is a cult. She COULD be right. About you and me!
• Believing salvation begins, is carried out with, and ends with 100% unmerited, and unasked for grace... culty.

Anything you say about the Catholic Church being a cult I can turn right back onto you. I see all the same warning signs: A Charismatic leader who spurns all authority, the leaders insistence on his own interpretation of scripture, etc. The main difference is you are only ONE GUY with a congregation of 3.

Which is more likely to not be a cult? A 2000 year old 1.1 billion member multinational organization with a wide diversity of cultures, or .... Bob.

I researched the Catholic Church for months Bob. And before I even considered it, I spent a lot of my hard earned money on Amazon to buy books on sola Scriptura. THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE PROTESTANT BOOKS. And I read them all. And I gave them a fair hearing, trying to not be biased the best I could. I truly and honestly wanted them to disprove the Catholic authority claim. Some of them, like the shape of sola scriptura, I had already read back in ~'02, but I read it again, with a highlighter. I then had an email discussion with the author (it is on my blog). That book is the premier Reformed book on sola Scriptura. Recommended to me personally by R. C. Sproul Jr., Doug Wilson, and many other local Reformed guys. Have you read it? Have you even read the article on Called to Communion which refutes it?
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

I doubt you have read either one.

AFTER I read the sola Scriptura books, then I started on the apostolic succession and papacy books. Keep in mind that the books I gave you are some of the THIN ones that were on my shelf. The Fortescue one is the only one I bought before deciding on Catholicism, and even that one is thin and a brief overview of patristic writing on the topic of papal authority. I have 3 other much larger books on THAT TOPIC ALONE that I read also. One of them is just on Matt. 16! The whole book! Not to mention watching debates with the best Protestant apologists, reading many of their articles, interacting with them personally online.
Perhaps you are accusing me of “blind obedience” because you feel yourself being tempted toward blind obedience? I don't know, that is for you to decide. If that is the case, then don't do it. DO NOT become a Catholic for stupid reasons! I keep saying that over and over. If you think "The God of the Protestant church" (whatever that church believes) will "not let you down", and you think the truth is in Protestantism, then by all means stay there! But don't call me blind. I might be wrong, but I didn’t stumble blindly into it. If I am headedfor hell, it is with both hands on the wheel and foot to the floor. But with my eyes wide open. I guarantee I have researched Catholicism far more than you have, I can articulate the positions better than you can, and I was anything but "blind" when I made my decision.

"Crossing the Tiber could lead me closer, or to the pits of Hell. Closer would be nice, but is it worth the risk of my own salvation, and that of my children?"

If you think Catholicism is evil, then don't do it! If I make it, I will hopefully see you in heaven some day. If you are convicted that she could be who she says she is, then pray and research it, and pray some more. The main reason I started researching it was because of my children. I had the nagging feeling for years that I was responsible to teach them the truth of the faith, yet I could not be sure I was not leading them astray. Will the PCA, OPC, or CREC have lesbian pastors in 60 years? Perhaps. Is the federal Vision good or bad? I don't know. These are too important of questions to be left up to us layman. THE Church should be guiding us in these questions, but instead, Protestant churches leave it up to us as individuals to decide. Sorry, but that is not what the scripture says is supposed to happen. When I "take it to the Church" like Jesus says to, I want an answer. I should not have to ask "which church?" My children are looking to me to give them truth. I couldn’t honestly keep giving them my "best shot" at the truth any longer. I knew the true Church was something outside of "me".

And If you can't decide if Catholicism is evil or good, then you need more information. Have you prayed? Have you asked God NO.... BEGGED God for wisdom? Have you studied each topic in depth that you find crucially important? If not, then you need to go back to the drawing board. I suspect that you are being swayed from both sides, including by me, by quips from the internet and fallacious arguments like your paganism one. You need better resources, and you need to try to get under the skin of each side’s arguments- in their shoes. Even the Catholic Answers website can be deadly simplistic sometimes, with one page “just so” papers on very complex topics. When it comes to Protestant apologetic websites, it is a mixed bag too, some are similar to Catholic Answers, with just one page generalizations, some are fair and more in depth, and some are sensationalistic and outrageous, and they talk about obiliscs and funny hats. Ask each side what the best resource for a given topic is, and read each side. Read shape of sola scriptura, then read the CTC article. Decide for yourself, but do the research.
Take care you are not like Naaman, who didn’t like what he heard from the prophet and turned away.
http://www.childrenstory.info/biblestoryforchild/chdbblelishahelpsnaaman.html

Many times now you have said that it appears the Catholic Church is what she says she is... The Church. Well, if you suspect that might be true, then it is worth taking some time to explore. Don't let me or anyone else convince you with simple statements and personal anecdotes. Look at the evidence yourself. Read the Church fathers.

Read the 7 letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who died in the coliseum in 107AD.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/st-ignatius-of-antioch-on-the-church/

Read him for yourself here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

See if he sounds more Catholic or Protestant. Listen to what he says about the Eucharist, Church authority, Apostolic succession, etc.

Get arguments from many sources for the same topic. For instance, your view of the mass is simply not the faith of the Catholic Church. There is much more to it, and you have stated things in a simplistic way that makes it easy to dismiss the Catholic view. Read a couple Catholic books about that topic if it is a big deal to you, and a couple Protestant ones. Honestly, you even oversimplified the Protestant view of Calvary. You seem to imply the work of Christ on Calvary needs no applying, as if the fact that it was once for all means nothing happens to apply it after that. Well, both Protestants and Catholics say it needs applying to be effective to individuals.

" If you want to believe that somehow the elements are "outside of time" so that you are participating in Calvary of the 1st century then you have a much higher threshold for believability than I do."

Huh? So you believe in the Trinity, which is one AND three, AT THE SAME TIME, but believing something can occur outside of time is crazy? Even the Reformed liturgy of covenant renewal is often said by Reformed scholars to take place in heaven outside of time. Nothing unique about the mass in that sense. Even the Reformed believe it. I did/do. This was one of the easiest transitions for me: from covenant renewal to the mass. The parallels are amazing.

"The protestant position, as you know, is that purgatory doesn't exist..."

No. I don't know that. Cuz It aint true. There are prominent Protestants who say it could very well exist, so your info is incorrect. But here again, you show that you just simply need to research things more. This reminds me of when you though the perpetual virginity of Mary was “low hanging fruit” on the tree of Catholic retardedness. I informed you then that many Protestants, including Luther and Calvin, believed it. Augustine believed it too. It just is not as big of an issue as you make it out to be.
"...and that Christs death on the cross pays the penalties for sin."

Of course Catholics believe that. It is sad to have to even say it. So no one will ever go to hell then? Is that the "Protestant position?" Of course not. Because they too believe it needs applying. And there is no "Protestant position" on how it gets applied. There are a dozen Protestant positions on how that happens. And of course Catholics believe that "Christ’s death on the cross pays the penalties for sin" and have their theology of how it is applied as well. I assume you have heard of "sacraments" at some point in your Reformed upbringing?

Honestly Bob, I don’t personally care which way you decide to go. I want you to love Jesus, teach your kids about Him, and I want you to go where you think God is leading you. For me, that was the Catholic Church. For you it might be back to choosing a session you agree with and "submitting" to them, or it might be the Evangelical Free Church or whatever. That is all fine and good. If you make the decision in good conscience, God will be with you. But if you abandon a path you know in your heart could be where God is leading you, that would obviously be disobedient to Him. Only you know these heart matters.

If there are specific, single, issues you want to go into, please let me know if you desire my input. I do better one at a time.

Peace to you and yours,

-David

Response to David Hagopian's Romeward Bound

2011-09-20T09:33:00.000-07:00

Tiber river and the Vatican (the water is warm, dive on in!)

Dear anonymous potential convert,

You asked what I though of it, so this is my response to the article by David Hagopian on reasons people convert to Catholicism titled Romeward Bound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to Catholicism.

He rushes through lots of topics, some of which are obvious straw men. So I will skip some things. Overall he tries to be fair, but in the end misses the point of these conversions. The worst was his critique of the Catholic convert’s accusation of Protestant interpretive subjectivism. It is just a simple fact that there are many, many opinions of what scripture is saying among Protestants. It is just a fact! And yes, of course that does not consequently mean that they must all be wrong, Catholics are not implying that. But what is obvious to anyone who has ever been in the situation of interpreting scripture in order to find the truth or lead his family is this:

Godly, Holy Spirit filled men interpret the scripture differently.

That blows perspicuity out of the water! The only way to claim there is perspicuity AND Godly men disagreeing is to claim that *obviously* you are right and they are wrong. Or that the other guy has a devil. But that rightly strikes us as arbitrary and arrogant. If someone is content that their interpretation is correct, and is not bothered that men which are his betters in the faith in terms of learning, holiness, and wisdom have a different interpretation, then that is subjectivism, because his opponents feel the same way. He can complain all day that it is not “insipient subjectivism”, but it is. Hagopian says:

“[God] has given His people the means of understanding [the bible] such that the true believer has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him.”

Ohhh. A *true* believer eh? That reminds me of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and I believe Hagopian is using that fallacy here. Well I guess we will just ask David Hagopian who a *true* believer is next time we need to do some biblical interpreting. The obvious problem with his statement is it does not reflect reality. Protestants that are *true* believers find themselves disagreeing on interpretation with each other all the time! We have all had the experience of having a trusted teacher who is a *true* Christian as far as we can tell, yet we find another of our preferred teachers who disagrees with him on an important theological issue. Which one of them is not a *true* believer? If they both are, then Hagopian is wrong, they do need someone else to guide them in their interpretation. If only one is a true believer, how the hell will I ever be able to tell that unless they fail in some obvious way, like adultery or something? If they both appear to be faithful, solid, true believers, yet disagree on important issues of interpretation, what should the sola scriptura Protestant do? Hagopian does not answer the question, and my guess is he would want to know what issue was being interpreted and then he would think it was obvious I should agree with his (or his favorite teachers) interpretation. But that is just more of the same. I have often had the situation of bringing up the different interpretations among Protestants of, say… the Eucharist. I bring up the fact to show that there are *true* believers who disagree on interpretation. Often the Protestant who hears this will start trying to convince you of his view of the Eucharist! He will say “the other views are wrong, my view is the right one”. That completely misses the point. The point is that godly and smart men will disagree, and the bible cannot be pointed to as a unbiased judge by both of them to resolve the disagreement. Each becomes their own authority.

That subjective situation just might be how Christianity works. It might really be all up to our individual subjective judgment, with all those who disagree being seen by us as not true Christians, or that they are deceived. I grant that Christianity might be that kind of religion. But if it is, it is a joke and I certainly don’t want a part of it.

But I don’t think it is that kind of subjective religion. I think it makes sense that Christ would leave us a Church to guide us, but it is more than just it “making sense”, it is part of the Tradition (in Scripture and the Church fathers) that Christ gave us such a Church! Even in scripture we have tons of evidence that He DID leave us that kind of Church. He himself says “take it to the Church” when there is a problem. But didn’t Hagopian just say that a *true* believer “has no need of anyone else -- let alone a Magisterium or Pope on high -- to teach him”? If that is true, why would Jesus tell us to resolve a problem by “taking it to the Church?” And what Protestant Church could honestly resolve a problem? What if I want to know about infant baptism, if it is scriptural or not. Well depending on which Protestant Church I ask to “resolve” the problem, I will get the answer I want. That is not a resolution! It is subjectivity! If I submit to the Baptist church’s decision, it is because I agree with them. If I don’t, I will go to the Presbyterian church and agree with their decision. Can they BOTH be the Church which Christ was telling me to ask to resolve my issue? Protestants say yes. With a straight face!

But, if I only submit when I agree, the one to whom I submit is… me.

“Reichert erroneously assumes that a plurality of interpretations necessarily entails subjectivism…”

I doubt that is what Reichart believes. This is a really dry, overstuffed strawman. Of course there can be a plurality of opinion while having a single truth. The subjectivism comes in in the determination of what the truth is, not merely in the plurality of opinion. Protestants have no set way of determining the truth and therefore have many separated sects. Catholics do have such a way in the magisterium, and therefore are united in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Example: Did the Blessed Virgin Mary die before she was assumed into heaven? There is a variety of opinion among Catholics. The Church has no definitive belief about that issue. Yet there is only one right answer. So there is no “subjectivism” here for Catholics, because the Church has decided. It has decided to not decide. And that is an important decision.

The Catholic Church claims the authority of Christ to determine doctrine, and does so. Therefore the Catholic position is internally consistent, because it actually accomplishes what it claims it can accomplish.

Protestants on the other hand, disagree about all sorts of doctrines they consider to be crucial. Yet where is their authority to mediate the dispute? They say it is in a book they claim will lead them all to the same truth as long as they are a *true* believer. That does not work. Empirically, we can see that there are people who appear to be genuine believers, yet they disagree. Therefore, the Protestant system does not do in reality what they claim it will: resolve disputes and remove doubt about the truth. Right or wrong, the Catholic system does do what we claim it will.

“Just because there are many Protestant denominations and sects does not prove that all of those denominations and sects are false.”

This sounds childish to me. Like my 5 year old saying “just because there is jam all over my face doesn’t mean I was eating jam!” So yes, all the Protestant sects might not be false. But only one can be right at a time! So I guess one of them could have the *true* view of sola scriptura, and be the *true* and real heir of the reformation. And it is obvious to their tiny sect that they are the true believers. Just like it is obvious to all the other sects that they are not. Yes that could be the case that they are the one and only true sect. And my daughter could have not eaten the jam.

“while plurality is not necessarily an indicator of falsity, uniformity is not necessarily an indicator of truth.”

I agree. BUT, the true Church will be uniform! Uniformity alone might not prove it is the Church (there are other things necessary) but unity is a necessary mark of the Church. Obviously Mormons are unified to some degree, and claim to be the only Church, so unity alone does not prove they are so. But any sect or schism that has a non-unified view of the Church cannot be the Church. And very few Protestant sects believe they are the One True Church.

“Truth, you see, is not to be sacrificed on the altar of misguided ecumenicism.”

Thanks for the lecture you pompous blowhard. WHO sacrifices truth on the altar of ecumenism? Is it the Catholics or Hagopian? Lets see, which one sees dispensationalists as part of the Church? Answer: Hagopian. The Catholics do not. The Catholics will not sacrifice the truth for a false unity of ecumenism. The Reformed and most Protestants will. 1.2 Billion Catholics have ONE catechism. If you want to know what they believe, you can buy a paperback for $7 and find out. If you want to know what the “Protestant church” believes, you will simply never know. You will never get two answers that are the same. If ever there were a “misguided eccuminism”, it is the Protestant concept of the invisible Church! If you can understand Protestantism's "invisible Church", you might also be good at nailing Jello to a tree.

“they embrace transubstantiation and believe that at the sound of the bell, the substance of bread and wine turn into the physical body and blood of our Lord.”

This is just totally incorrect. The words of the priest offering the elements in persona Christi are what makes this change, the bell is just for the convenience of everyone at the mass to know when it happens so they can pay closer attention. Christ causes the change, not a bell. Hagopian says “they believe…” then lies about what Catholics believe on a very basic and important point.

“In passing we must also note that lavish churches, while architecturally and aesthetically pleasing to some, come with a hefty price tag. […] But advancing the kingdom of God and meeting the needs of others often compete for the same limited resources.”

That is the wimpy lecture Judas gave to Jesus when the perfume was used on him by the woman. There are no “limited resources” in the Church of Jesus Christ. Christ will provide it’s needs. Judging people for making something beautiful and implying they should have spent it some other way is the same sin Judas was reprimanded by Jesus for. Shame on Hagopian. Go back to your boring, stripped down, bare, regulative principle church and stare at your blank wall. Meanwhile, we Catholics will send money to Mother Teresa’s nuns from our beautiful cathedrals.
“You see, Neocatholics have to name drop because name dropping is built into their ultimate authority (Tradition).”

Yep. I am 100% a name dropper. Starting with the name J-e-s-u-s. Just like it was in the early Church. People listened to the apostles because they “name dropped”. Their authority was primarily from who they were, not primarily what they said. Paul himself says to follow the “traditions” he has handed down “whether by word of mouth or by letter.” Paul is the focus based on his position and his name.

“When all of their [Catholics] rhetorical dust settles to the ground, however, the only true authority left standing is God speaking to His people through His veritable Word.”

When will the “rhetorical dust” settle to the ground for Protestants? After 500 years the rhetoric is more diverse all the time. Would God really speak that kind of confusion to all these people through His word? Better to listen to the men who have the authority handed down from Peter and Paul to interpret the book.

Hagopian also just glosses over apostolic succession, which is historical, and scriptural, and for some people is the main reason for conversion. He also implies that Catholics believe only they have it. Not true. We believe the Eastern Orthodox still have all 7 sacraments, including Holy Orders.

“Falling in love with everything Rome has to offer is ultimately why Neocatholics have found their home in Rome.”

Wrong. Every convert I know has had and does have areas where there was anything but love for “everything Rome has to offer”. Areas where they needed to submit to the wisdom of the Church over their own desires. I find myself in that position frequently. By far the main reason for conversion I have personally encountered, and Hagopian barely touches on, is authority, not "falling in love" primarily. Right or wrong, most converts feel there was just no objective authority in Protestantism, and that it could not claim to be the true Church which Christ left on this earth. That is a big reason! Telling converts how all the other protestant sects are wrong (Hagopian does this near the end) is just more of the same. Even if his arguments are convincing, what authority does he have to interpret scripture and demand others listen to him? Has the apostolic authority landed on his shoulders? Puh-leeese.
Another thing here. What the hell is wrong with falling in love? Shouldnt Hagopian ask why people aren't busting down the doors of his "frozen chosen" Reformed church because they have just "fallen in love" with everything Reformed? I have a lot of reasons for being married to my wife. Lots of great reasons. But a kind of visceral, emotional love better be on my list of reasons for loving her. I converted to Reformed in '01, and Catholic in '10 so I think I can speak to this. I "loved" Reformed theology because I believed it to be the most biblical, the closest to the truth, but I didn't fall in love with it. Once I realized she was who she said she was, I fell in love with the Catholic Church because she is my mother.

Overall, Hagopian does a weak job in his paper. As a convert myself, read many inaccuracies and falsely attributed motives in his arguments. Many of his examples are obviously not the only reason someone converts (more liturgical worship, beauty, or weekly Eucharist for instance), yet he often ends his critique with the following sentence:

“But [he names some minor issues] do not prove that Catholicism is true. Nor do they prove that Protestantism is false.”

Almost all converts have a couple dozen reasons for converting, and not all of them have the same priority. Sometimes 2 dozen little reasons add up to a very convincing reason for conversion also. That is very reasonable. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I for one find the size and scope of the Catholic Church to be a very important proof in favor of Catholicism. It alone is not proof of course, but it is significant to me, and was on my list of "circumstantial" evidences in favor of conversion.
Hagopian treats each reason as if it were stand alone, and often even misunderstands the reasons, thus presenting a straw man. For instance, having the mass be the same everywhere in the world is not just nice because one knows what to expect in the way Mc Donald’s is nice because the “Big Macs will always taste the same!” as Hagopian says. It is *nice* because it is the ancient liturgy of the Church! The mass is what was handed down from the apostles! That is the main reason a convert wants the Catholic Liturgy, with matters of convenience or stained glass in second (but still significant) place! Hagopian chooses to gloss over what are probably the primary reasons though, and talks about Big Macs.

“Perhaps after travelling part of the way down the yellow brick road of Neocatholic rhetoric, we are now in a better position to "give an answer" -- in an introductory way, to be sure -- to those who are considering making their home in Rome and even to those who are already there.”

My criticisms of Protestantism are still hanging out there unanswered. So big F Fail on your part buddy. Giving just any "answer" is not enough. And if that is your goal, you will fail. What we converts want is for you to give us the truth, and give it wherever it takes you. It seems more often however, that people just want to give an "answer" even if it makes no sense.

“After all, even Dorothy, with the blink of an eye, realized that her adventure in the land of Oz was only a dream.”

If I wake up and realize Catholicism is a dream, I am abandoning the Christian faith entirely because to me it would be shown to be a complete joke. There is either ONE Church who has Christ’s authority and demands submission, or the whole thing is a big joke. What is implied here also is that Catholicism is too good to be true, like the Wizard of Oz. But this is Christ's Church! Doesn't that seem just like Him to do something so extreme? It is not obvious enough that people don't still think it is fake, but if you give it a chance, and look at its history fairly, it will surprise you as a 2000 year old miracle of beauty holiness and truth.

I'm Back... I think.

2011-09-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

Ahh. That was a nice break.

My plan was to stop doing this blog and facebook. Then I found out 2 people have been influenced by some of my links and comments and are strongly considering converting to the Catholic faith. One has just informed me he is basically ready to jump in the Tiber from his OPC Church! I am so glad that I had something to do with that. Nothing makes me happier than to see people come to the Church.

So I decided to come back half way. Even though facebook (contrary to all human reason) does in fact appear to be a good venue for evangelism, it is just not for me. I will leave it at that.

But I do like to blog sometimes. I will just try to be more deliberate about the whole thing so as to maintain my sanity.

This Blog is Done

2011-08-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

This is the final post for this blog. I hope it has been enjoyed by some. My purpose in starting it last year was to keep a record of my conversion to the Catholic faith. It has served it’s purpose. I find myself increasingly frustrated with online communication. People say anything and everything, my brain is assaulted with unwanted information on a huge scale. It is just too much to take without going insane. I highly recommend reading Marshal McLuhan or Neil Postman to understand how I feel about the communication technology that we are blindly moving forward with as a culture. Postman’s book Amusing ourselves to death is a must read. In it he proves that McLuhan was right when he coined the phrase "the medium IS the message". Like television, there is no commonly understood teleology (purpose) of the internet, and certainly no teleology for the “social” venues on the internet. Which is dangerous. It is Orwellian, and I don’t want a part of it anymore. I just quit Facebook, and I am downloading and deleting this blog. Anyone who wishes to remain in contact with me can use email. At dub[DOT]lord[DOT]of[DOT]the[DOT]sith[AT]gmail[DOT]com.
This article expresses how I feel in general. To it I would add that as a Christian, I feel that the internet is... well, imodest and dehumanizing. I think that is the best way to describe it. And I don't think that situation can be gotten around easily. If it can be gotten around, it is rare, and not usually done in a deliberate way. We don't know why we have the internet or what it is for, yet we use it constantly. That is dangerous. We need a teleology to continue. And with the state of cultural decay we are in in the west, no teleology is even close to being agreed on. The internet is for everything and anything anytime and for anyone. I cant explain well why that is not good, but I am growing very suspicious of the whole thing. It just feels wrong.

The Orwell in me wants to turn away from the screen in my living room like Winston Smith did in 1984. Am I crazy? Yeah, probably. But in 40 years perhaps I won't be. The internet is de-humanizing. Perhaps it does not have to be that way, but it is. Untill that changes I am severely limiting my involvement in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman

I will be trying to do the liturgy of the hours and developing a prayer life instead of staring at a screen so much. Pray that I have success.

Best wishes to all of you! And God bless you and yours!

David M.

Protestant non-participation in Communion

2011-07-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

Jed said:

“I am not aware of any protestant group that doesn't participate in the sacrament of communion.”

I replied:

“just off the top of my head, there are people within your own movement that don't. Not the "Grace" churches probably, but the more Acts 28 types. If you disagree, I can show evidence.”

Jed then said:

“Regarding Communion: I don't disagree that there are splinter factions of many churches that either do it very rarely or not at all.”

But you did deny that exact thing! And the main ones are Dispensationalist “splinters” like the Acts 28 types. And they use much of the same reasoning you use to reject water baptism.

“If we were really going to be serious and follow Jesus' example we would do it while eating a feast as they were at the last supper. There is a strong tradition in both the Circumcision and Grace for communion.”

Jesus example was not to have a “feast” per se, it was to have a liturgy. The celebration of the passover meal was a liturgical act for the Jews, where they participated in the actual passover, and Jesus transformed that act into the liturgical act of the new covenant when He said “this is my Body” and then said “do this in remembrance of me”. In the original passover the word “remembrance” is used also, and the disciples knew what was going on. And the Hebrew idea of remembrance is far different than ours. Their concept was one of “reliving” but more like actually being there. They would actually refer to themselves in the passover meal as having been there with Moses! It is much more than a feast Jed. It was a participation in the passover for those celebrating it. And they had to actually eat the flesh of the sacrifice to participate. So when Jesus changes it into the “passover” of the “new covenant in His Blood”, they would have understood this in a liturgical way, just as they understood the passover meal. And when He said “this is my body”, you can bet they thought back to the incident in John 6 when he goes on and on about eating his flesh, and that his flesh is “real food”. Once it is in the context of the passover, it is an “aha” moment for them.

And EVERYTHING we know about the early church shows they thought of it this way as well, that it was literally the flesh of God that must be eaten (with faith of course) to gain eternal life. Ignatius in 107AD called it the “medicine of immortality.” St. Paul is really clear to the Cointhians as well that it is “a participation in the body and blood of our Lord”.

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

Just like the passover, when we follow the Tradition handed down to us by the apostles and partake in the liturgy of the Eucharist (thanksgiving), we “participate”. We don't merely “remember” in the english meaning of the word.

This leads me to your use of the word “sacrament.” Your denomination calls it an ordinance, and I will bet you $100 bucks that if you ask your pastor if it is a sacrament he will adamantly say “no, it is an ordinance” and he will say it does absolutely nothing other than help us have a reminder of Christs death for us. Sacraments “do” things Jed. Dou believe the eating the bread and wine “does” something? That God acts in a special way? If not, you do not believe it is a sacrament. If so, then you do. But if you do believe it is a sacrament, I would be very interested to know that! Jesus and Paul sure thought it was a sacrament!

Demographics of the Real Presence

2011-07-28T12:04:00.000-07:00

Demographics of World Religion 2011 compiled by David Meyer

Kendra said:

Just a side note, "most Christians" do not take John 6 literally the way you do, just Catholics. Do Calvanists also?

Actually, you are badly mistaken, "most Christians" do take it quite literally, and it is central to their doctrine.

2/3 of them (67%)!

And it is not just Catholic. Remember that Eastern Orthodoxy is half the size of Protestantism, and Catholicism alone is over half of Christianity. And that is just in 2011. Historically it was near 100% who believed in the real presence. Until Protestantism in the 16th century, the vast majority of Christians believed in the Real Presence. So if we take the # of Christians of all time who believed it, I would estimate it being well above 90%

Also, Calvin’s view would be considered by Zwinglians (your view is the Zwinglian view) to be a “Real Presence” view. But most modern Calvinists do not follow Calvin in his thinking on this and have become Zwinglians on the issue.

Calvin believed that we truly and substantially parkate of the flesh of Christ, but that it happens through the intermediary of the Holy Spirit. This was my view as a Calvinist, and I took John 6 quite literally, as the text itself demands.

How do I get 67%?

As far as the demographics of who believes in the Real Presence, We can take the Catholic (51%) and Orthodox (11%) and get 62% of Christendom right there. Although they explain it poorly, I would add 25% of Calvinists, All Lutherans, and certainly some % of Anglicans and other groups to the “Real Presense” list. They (including Luther himself) would interpret John 6 literally. (“Truly I say to you…My Flesh is real food, and my Blood is real drink…”) So I think it is fair to include Anglicans (12% of Protestants) and Lutherans (11%) with a quarter of the Reformed and “other” (3+% of Protestants) ... for a total of ~26% of Protestants being convinced from scripture of the Real Presence. Protestants are 21% of Christianity, and ~26% of 21% is ~5.5%. So 5.5% of Christianity is protestants who believe in the real presence.

If we combine the 100% of Catholics (51%) 100% of Orthodox (11%) and 26% of Protestants (5.5%) we get a total of 67.5% of Christianity which believes in some way in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

I think a lesson here is that we often have a colored view of demographics and history. You seemed to think your view was the strong majority, when it is the minority. When I was Reformed, I knew that Reformed people made up only 11% of Protestant Christianity, and conservative ones far less than that, perhaps 5%? Yet even with that 5% in mind, I was tempted to think of my Reformed theology/Calvinism as a serious player in the game. It just isn’t. If we are talking about conservative Protestants, they are Pentecostal… hands down, and that trend is increasing rapidly.

You might be interested to know that your Mid-Acts Dispensationalist denomination Grace Gospel Fellowship reports 60,000 members. Perhaps we could double or triple that figure for all people on earth with your particular views about scripture? If you are correct, you are really lucky to have found the truth while nearly the entire globe is so deceived! And who believed what you believe before Stam and the others in the 20s/30s? From what I can tell they are the first. (other than St. Paul *of course*) Bulinger would be the closest, but I know you guys don’t agree with his more Acts 28 type view. (he rejected communion btw Jed) Just food for thought. I mean, numbers don’t make something true of course. But isn’t it just a bit weird to be part of something that is so small and goes back less than a hundred years? 150 years tops if you include “traditional” Dispensationalism?

My overarching point is that Protestantism continues to splinter, while it still contains people who truly desire the truth from scripture. Either the scripture is false, or the way Protestants are trying to access its truth is wrong. You simply cannot claim the scripture is “clear” and have thousands of conflicting interpretations. The only option then is to say all the other guys just don’t get it. That is the position you are in. You are forced to say that even among fellow Protestants, who have largely only been around <500 years, that even they have totally missed the whole point of scripture.

So not only have the Catholics and E.O. been utterly and fatally wrong for 2000 years, but even the 99.9% (not an exaggerated # btw) of your fellow Protestants have gotten the scripture totally wrong until Stam and the boys came along.

You can choose to dismiss all this by saying numbers don’t matter, and your right, alone they prove nothing. But it is really hard to take you seriously if you say the Scripture is clear and at the same time only 0.000000001% of Christians who have ever lived and read the scripture can see that same *clarity*. It can’t be clear and yet billions of spirit filled Christians completely missed the main point of the new testament for 1900 years!

My Family is on Youtube!

2011-07-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

This is our family's first evangelization video! I noticed our kids were enthrawled by other kids online in videos. So I got an idea to have them evangelize other kids (and their parents possibly!) At the same time it is a great incentive for them to learn their memorization verses and catechism. Enjoy!

Visit the youtube channel for "The Catholic Kids" here.

If you like the video please say a Hail Mary for my family!

Blessings!

David Meyer

To Mom

2011-07-10T15:00:00.000-07:00

This is a plant my Mom asked me to video and send to her. Love you Mom!

THIS is what we need to pray for Fr. Corapi

2011-07-07T12:43:00.000-07:00

For Father Corapi,

That the Lord would Shut his mouth.
That he would return to his order and prostrate himself before his superior.
That he would live out his life as a silent cloistered monk praying for the Church.

Please dear Lord, hear our prayer. Have mercy on your Church and defend us from men like Corapi who would heap scandal upon scandal. Close his mouth Lord.

In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti

Does the Bible say the Church rejected St. Paul and immediately apostatized?

2011-06-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

In the context of the Catholic claim to succession, Kendra cites verses in scripture showing people “rejecting the truth within the church since before the church even began.”

My response which I will defend here is twofold:

One, that these verses do not show that the Church was “plunged into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years”.

And two, these verses do not show the Catholic conception of apostolic succession to be false.

The verses are from this article:
www.bereanbiblesociety.org/ohair/HTML/BEREANFEBRUARY1936/notes.html
Here is the pertinent paragraph:

“Nevertheless, the devil also seems to have scored a great victory in that he instigated a deadly hatred, against the human teller of this secret. It is very important to see that from the time he told this mystery, Paul was forsaken by many of his old friends. Study carefully Philippians 2:20 and 21; Colossians 4:11; II Timothy 1:15; II Timothy 4:10; II Timothy 4:17; Ephesians 6:19 and 20. The great apostasy which plunged the Church in the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry. At least eighty per cent of the confusion and delusion of our troubled days is also directly attributable to the same cause.”

First, I will admit that these verses showing very early apostasy are *consistent* with there being “The great apostasy which plunged the Church in[to] the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenced with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.”

But they do not prove any such thing happened, and they are also consistent with a quite opposite situation with a faithful remnant of a Church under severe persecution (what I would say), which is what we find in the scripture (St. John) and in the late 1st and early 2nd century with men like Pope St. Clement (90’s) and St. Ignatius (107). These men also speak extensively about unity and apostasy. Clement does so to the SAME Corinthian church Paul had written to! That right there shows that the Corinthians had not apostatized even as late as the 90’s. In 107 Ignatius writes to 6 different churches (including Ephesus, where St. John had been) that had not apostatized. And as far as these apostates rejecting Paul in some *specific* way, no, because every single other (I’m pretty sure) New Testament writer besides Paul gives examples of or speaks against apostasy. For instance if we look at 1John, which was probably written in the 90’s, he also talks about apostates and “anti-christs”. 30 years after Paul’s death there are still Christians apostatizing, just like today. Also Paul nowhere implies in these verses the apostasy is universal (could effect the entire Church.)

These verses do not prove a mass apostasy started with Paul any more than the rich young ruler leaving Jesus or many of his disciples who leave Him in John 6 proves that that was the point of a great apostasy, or that the apostles abandoning him on the cross proves it. We all can agree that in the early church before and after Paul there was apostasy. No one denies that, but the entire NT taken as a whole paints a picture of a Church losing apostates yet surviving intact.

Second, these verses do not show the succession (which we clearly see in scripture) to have been broken or to not be in effect in the NT. One of the great things about succession is that it shines light like a laser on apostasy. In fact it is the only way to objectively identify apostasy. When multiple men claim to speak with the authority of God and all use scripture to back their claims, succession can show us who is legit and who is not. The actual scriptural proofs for succession are not the topic here, so I wont side track.

My point is merely to say that these verses are consistent with apostolic succession and in no way disprove it or show it to not be in effect in NT times. Apostolic succession does not imply there will not be apostasy from the Church, in fact it assumes it! It is an objective way of identifying the Church and who seperates from the Church. Those who do not even claim apostolic succession (such as you Pauline Dispensationalists) generally have some other way of determining if they are an apostate. (for your denomination I believe it would be something on the order of "not recieving the free gift of God's grace") But history (even right away in NT history) has shown that abandoning physical apostolic succession and the teaching of the apostles is what makes an apostate. That is why John says “they went out from us”, and why Paul says he hands people over to Satan. There is a positional change, not just merely a change of doctrinal opinion, but a change in *who’s authority* the apostate is under. From the apostles and their successors they leave to go to some other authority.

I will comment briefly on a few of the verses:

Here is a link to Biblegateway with the scriptures all on the same page for reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%202:20-21;%20%20Colossians%204:11;%20II%20Timothy%201:15;%202%20Tim.%204;%20Ephesians%206:19-20&version=DRA

Phil. 2:20-21: “For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.” Paul is highly recommending Timothy, one of the faithful men whom he has ordained in the line of succession. His point is not to say the whole Church is apostate, but that Bishop Timothy is a diamond in the rough. (Btw, in 2 Tim. 2:2 Paul give the first four generations of apostolic succession.)

Col. 4:11: “and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” He is talking about those “fellow workers” he is working with directly, face to face. He is not implying everyone else is apostate. Side note: Notice he is working for the “Kingdom” program as well, which is the only NT program.

1Tim. 1:15: “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.” Paul is talking about those who have left him to rot in prison, as the following verses show. He is not saying that every believer in all of Asia (Turkey) has apostatized.

2 Tim. 4:10, 17: (The writer of the article meant 16, not 17 I think) Again Paul is merely talking about those who have abandoned him in prison. As verse 9, and 10-15 put into context. There is no “Great Apostasy” that is “commencing with the rejection of Paul’s message”. Just in chapter 4 alone, Paul mentions 14 people by name that are not apostate, he mentions a whole household, plus 5 cities (including “all the brethren” at Rome, including the future pope Linus who is also mentioned) including Ephesus and Corinth which have non-apostate churches.

Eph. 6:19-20 I am at a loss. I don’t understand how this verse relates even a little bit. Paul asks for prayer that he may boldly preach the gospel. How does that relate? Perhaps it was mis-cited?

I set out to show two points. And I think I have shown here how #1 these verses *do not* prove that “The great apostasy […] plunged the Church into the long dark ages for more than a thousand years, commenc[ing] with the rejection of Paul’s message, mystery and ministry.” And that #2, they do not in any way contradict the clear NT teaching on apostolic succession. Even if half the NT Church apostatized, there still was a sizeable Church that we see (in the NT and early Christian writings) handing down the apostolic faith.

At the very least, someone inclined to use these verses as reason to believe that a “Great Apostasy” began directly after Paul must concede that it is quite reasonable for others to disagree about that particular interpretation even based on scripture alone. (The vast majority of Protestants disagree vigorously with that interpretation) If we include post NT history which shows a continuing faithful church directly seeded by the apostles…

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

...the case becomes even more undeniable.

Humor for non-fundamentalists (whether Protestant or Catholic)

2011-06-23T16:56:00.000-07:00

"Augustine instigated persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith."
Did you feel your head rotate 360? Bible believing Donatists? Yes that is a real quote. Of course they would hate what the Donatists believed as much as what the Catholics did. Evangelicals are so cute sometimes when they write this kind of stuff! Yes it is sad, but I know you want to hear more. You wont believe what the article says about Irenaeus!
I stumbled upon this article while doing a little research about Hyper-Dispensationalism and found this gem of an article full of hi-larious fundie quotes and one liners slandering the church fathers. If you have read ... well, any... church father, I mean any amount of any of them, you will love this article! Even Reformed people will love it! One refreshing thing for me though... they admit what many Protestants don't like to about saints like Irenaeus:

"He taught the Catholic heresy of “real presence,” saying, “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”

Ahhh, good clean fun.

Enjoy!

Did the Church in the "Dark Ages" keep the Bible from the people?

2011-06-20T20:34:00.000-07:00

I was recently told in front of a large group of people, (with impressionable women and children present) that the Catholic Church kept the Bible out of the peoples hands in the "Dark Ages". I responded that that was a bald lie with not even a hint of truth, and that in fact the opposite was the case, and that I could provide proof of that fact. At that time I was asked to provide that proof, which I will now do. Unfortunately, my guess is that only one or two of those present will take the time necessary (15-30 minutes) to read this response and the recommended reading. So the damage is most likely done. They quite possibly will be repeating the same fanciful tale a decade from now. Lord have mercy on that kind of slander that grows legs and not ears. If one has the time to make uninformed statements, they should have the time to be corrected and repent of their ignorance and defamation. In my experience however, it is rarely done. As St. James says in Ch. 3 of his letter:
"For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison."

Saying that the institutional Catholic Church, the sole religious authority of an entire continent for the thousand years of the medieval period, was keeping the bible away from people either physically or by preventing translation into their vernacular language is a big, bold claim. One that should pop out of the history books if true (or if false). And if true, the Catholic Church would have been gravely evil. But if false, it would be quite a slander for someone to claim this. Of course this is a common narrative for Protestants though and is often just repeated without inquiry. It has become part of the "founding myth" of Protestants who fancy themselves the protectors and promoters of the Bible. So lets briefly examine the claim. I will pass on a couple links that if read will leave absolutely no doubt in the mind of a serious human being of good will that the claim is false.
Henry Graham's Where We Got the Bible is what I found most helpful. Chapters 9-12 are amazing. But if you only have a half hour or so, chapter 11 is an absolute must. If you cant take the time to read Ch. 11, please do not comment here or broach the topic with me ever again. I will not play games with the truth. And like I said, to make big statements but not wish to engage critically about them is just slimy. Better to not pontificate at all than to throw empty words of slander out there with no proof. So I encourage any Protestant reader here to read chapter 11.
Here is the opening paragraph and some passages from chapter 11 with my emphasis.

...people who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: [DM: the Latin Vulgate was widely available of course] hence there was little need for the Church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. (I) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but we shall confine ourselves to England, so as to refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382.

Here (from Ch. 11) is a taste of what St. Thomas More had to say about the topic in the 16th century (my emphasis):

Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says: 'The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read' (Dialogues III). Again, 'The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folks' hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen's hands and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.'

(2) But you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also...

[dm: Next is where the myth breaks down badly. The translators of the Authorized Version explode it themselves (my emphasis): ]

The translators of the Authorised Version, in their 'Preface', referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, they proceed:

'The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin ... but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.'

Now, as all these nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The Translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others.

'Much about that time,' they say (1360), even in our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . ... So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] ... but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.'

This testimony, from the Preface, (too little known) of their own Authorised Bible, ought surely to carry some weight with well disposed Protestants.

So having read at least chapter 11 you can now admit this fantasy of the medieval Catholic Church squirrelling away the scripture is false and that the opposite is the case, the Catholic Church was the guardian and disseminator of the Scriptures in the Middle Ages, as even the King James preface says.
Feel free to comment below.

Preliminary questions to "two gospels" discussion

2011-06-16T09:18:00.000-07:00

Jed and Kendra,

I have gone through the document you linked, at http://www.matthewmcgee.org/dispguid.html, and it is a really good (but brief) summary. It is an overview full of lots of statements. And that is fine, it was not attempting to go in depth on any of them. I would like to continue on the topic of the different gospels of Paul and Peter if you are game. Would the other articles on the Matthew Mcgee site be in line with your thinking? If not, how not? Also is there any "exceptions you guys take to Stam. Anything in his book you would not agree with? And please, if you don't want to go into all this, please let me know and I will not go into it with you. (although I will still be going into it, but perhaps less informed than if you or Doug or someone engaged me on it first)

As a preliminary question to the (Disp. of law/Disp. of grace) conversation (which I am still in process of further researching if you have other resources to offer), I want to know if we agree on something or not. My claim is this:

All interpretive methods (paradigms) in Protestantism which rely on the concept of sola Scriptura are on the same level of authority. Put another way, there is no principled reason to choose one method over another, other than personal conviction of the methods reliability.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, it seems just to be true. But I think it will help me understand your epistemology more to know if you agree with this statement or not. If we get too bogged down and can't agree very much on the epistemology, we could just set it aside. But otherwise it will help me narrow the focus of my questions.

Could I try an experiment to show you where I am coming from here? Read the following link from a Reformed perspective. If you don’t have time, then just read my excerpts below. I think these statements are common to all Protestant interpretive paradigms. I will put in red the parts I think you would replace with other more "Mid-Acts Dispensational" words. See if you find this as interesting as I do:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/12/what_is_covenant_theology.php

“At first glance, it is apparent that the Bible is a very complex book: it was written in three different languages, by dozens of human authors, over the course of many centuries, and in a wide variety of styles and genres. However, beneath this dauntingly complicated surface, there must be a unified purpose and message; … So what is that unified message of the Bible?... the idea which most rigorously allows the Bible itself to indicate its own major emphases and underlying structural elements, is commonly called Covenant Theology.”

However, the sad truth is that, in contemporary Evangelicalism, many believers have only a very fuzzy understanding (at best) of this helpful and biblically-faithful way of understanding the over-arching message of the scriptures. And yet, in the author's experience, there are few teachings which will enable a Christian to make better and more fruitful use of his scripture-reading than the basic components of Covenant Theology – understand these few, scriptural themes, and you will be able to mark out and follow the general flow of the unfolding saga of redemptive history, as recorded in God's Word.”

“Basically, Covenant Theology attempts to unfold the biblical story with constant reference to the universal display and glorification of God…”

“Covenant Theology differs from other systems in that it sees the biblical structure giving great weight and importance to a series of divine covenants. These covenants are like the framework of a house – without them, all the doctrines and stories in the Bible fall down into a hopelessly confused jumble of unrelated bits of information.”…

“So what are these covenants? Theologians speak, first, of a Covenant of Redemption, made between the members of the Godhead; second, of a Covenant of Works, made between God and man; and third, of a Covenant of Grace; which is basically a repetition to man of the first Covenant of Works, with the added proviso that a Redeemer would be provided to fulfill the required works in the place of all covenant-members, as their federal head. Let's look at each of these three covenants in a little more detail…”

O.k. so what I think is interesting is that the language here (minus the red) is almost identical to what I read from Traditional Dispensationalists, Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc, etc. Not to even mention more unorthodox people like Harold Camping or worse weirdos.

Now here is a selection from the Matthew McGee article you linked:

"One aspect of the context which is often overlooked is the dispensation. God has provided His Word in the Bible in several different dispensations. Every Bible passage is written in the context of one dispensation or another. Therefore, proper understanding of the different dispensations is needed in order to understand the context of each Bible passage. After becoming aware of this need, many Bible students will then ask about how they can determine which dispensation any particular Bible passage is under, so that they can more fully comprehend the context of the passage."

There are some obvious similarities in their views of the superiority and simplicity of their interpretive method, but of course the results of those methods are quite different.
The following are some facts I think are uncontroversial. If you disagree with these facts, please, by all means tell me, but honestly they seem to be obviously true to anyone who looks at the evidence. So, concerning the proponents of the various Protestant interpretive paradigms:

1. They all (using the same language) claim that their method is clear and biblical.
2. They all claim their method "gets to the bottom" of things, and simplifies interpretation by focusing on some key interpretive principle that other Christians have ignored or missed. (covenants for Reformed, dispensations for Dispensationalists, Law/gospel for Lutherans the quadrilateral for Methodists, etc.).
3.They generally claim other Christians "just don't understand" their interpretive method, and if they did, would adopt it.
4. They all can be assumed to have good motives, to be followers of Christ, and to have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they all desire the truth of God's infallible word, and are using the method of interpretation that they truly and honestly believe gets closest to the truth of the scripture.
5. They all pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit to properly interpret.
6. They all can be assumed to have studied the other methods of interpretation and found them to not be the right ones.
7. They all believe ONLY the Bible is authoritative for faith and practice.
8. They all disagree on how to interpret the bible at key points of doctrine, and they all disagree on what those doctrines actually are. (they take different roads, and find different destinations.)

So to summarize, do you agree with my statement at the beginning of the post, and do you agree with these 8 statements?

Peace,

David Meyer
P.S. If we continue the conversation, I will try to keep things short. Staying on topic will really help me with that.

Longish reply to Bob

2011-06-07T15:20:00.000-07:00

Bob,
You said:

“I imagine that the table is fenced on both sides - to the detriment of both.”

Hmm, I’m not sure I am smelling what you are cooking here Bob. Why is it a detriment or a bad thing? Is it a bad thing if your Pastor or my Priest sees a guy with a shirt that says “I’m a Mormon” or “I am an active homosexual” and denies him access to the sacraments (or ordinance in your current case)? No way. That is a good thing. The sacraments are given through the Church, to members of the Church (with the exception of baptism). What possible good does it do to profane Christ’s Body and Blood by giving it to someone who openly places themselves outside of the Church founded by Christ, or openly confesses heresy? And why is that the new assumed orthodoxy for evangelicals? The Reformers would bristle at your idea of open communion as being rank heresy, because they knew that the true church must confess the same faith, and heretics must be expelled just as Jesus, John, Paul, etc. tell us to.
Communing heretics does not bring more unity to Christians, it only waters down the faith to a common denominator of easy belief that gets more and more watered down all the time. What about Mormons Bob, should I reach out to Mormons and go chomp their bits of wonder bread in their “church” on Sunday morning? Should I let them receive the same precious Eucharist I receive from the Priest in the Catholic Church when St. Paul explicitly says it will bring them condemnation to eat it? I hope I don’t hate them enough to kill their soul that way.

No offense Bob, but in your congregation there is no sacrifice of Christ on Sunday morning. There is no Mass. There is no sacramental apostolic succession, no transubstantiation. I mean, it is not an insult, that is what they believe. So how could I go there in place of the Mass? By their own admission, they believe the bread they eat and juice (I can’t imagine it is wine) they drink (who knows how often… once a month?) is merely a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, and has no saving power as a sacrament. Not only that, but there would be no sacramental confession in your church. So in all these ways I could just not even take part. There is no access to the grace of God for me there (according to Catholic belief). Even Jed barely could. As soon as the sermon got around to the great commission, Jed would tell you that your pastor is not rightly dividing the word, and has the biblical programs all mixed up, that the 4 gospels are written only to Jews, and not to us. He would also say that you shouldnt water baptize… again different program. Although he would commune on the bread with you… because he does not view it as a sacrament, does not view it as the flesh of Christ, and does not view it as infusing sanctifying grace into the soul of the willing receiver. So yes, you and Jed could commune together because he (and you?) is a Zwinglian when it comes to the Eucharist. For some reason you think non-Zwinglians should just give up their firmly held convictions and commune with you. (Even many Lutherans and Anglicans would be on my team here btw, not just Catholics and Orthodox)

You said:

“As far as Catholicism (or Protestantism) being a lie - I don't think that the question is valid.”

Well, you are wrong. Here is how. Catholicism claims a set of beliefs we will call “X”, and they believe it to be absolutely true. No argument there I assume. Protestant groups each claim various doctrines, but let’s focus on just one… I like oatmeal so how about Quakers. Quakers are no Papists, so you will agree that they believe “Y” which could be stated in terms of “NOT X”. And they believe “NOT X” to be true.
So we have X and –X. Bob, X does not equal –X. One is right and one is wrong, OR both are wrong, but there is no third option Bob. Agreed? Therefore one or both of these creeds (Catholic or Quaker) is a lie. Therefore the question is quite valid.

“It can be easily proven that protestants believe / do / behave contrary to God's will.”

I agree.

“Their doctrines have flaws, their assertions are wrong, and it shows in what they believe and how they live their lives.”

I agree the doctrines are wrong, but I think their lives could be messed up even with perfect doctrine.

“The fact that there are so many denominations proves that all protestants are failed human beings.”

I disagree. These are two separate questions and your conclusion does not follow from the premise. If all Protestants were united with the same creed under …say, Lutheranism, they would still all be failed humans. So therefore whether they are united or divided, either situation leads to the result you say division leads to. Therefore those criteria (unity or disunity) do not bear on whether they are failed people. Also I would rephrase and say “The fact that there are so many denominations proves that sola scriptura cannot provide an authoritative source of unity”. That is a statement that we can prove from history.

“Unfortunately, the same can also be said of Roman Catholics.”

Some can, some can’t.

“Their doctrines have been (and still are) flawed,”

Not true. With no examples provided, I chalk this up to mere assertion. The Church has never proclaimed a false doctrine to be believed by the faithful. Never. If you take the time to try to find even one instance, you might end up Catholic like I did. It is absolutely a miracle that in 2000 years of history, with (some) pimping, murderous, lying, thieving Popes, that no doctrines ever taught by the Magisterium have ever contradicted each other. Knowing human nature is fallen, this is one of the best proofs of Christ leading His Church and keeping her from error. There is NO OTHER example of anything close to this situation in history. If you can find one, I am all ears.

“their assertions are wrong, and it shows in what they believe and how they live their lives.”

Perhaps individuals, but the Church as a whole is spotless and does not lie. The one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is all of those 4 things, while individuals will always have sin of course.

“The fact that the reformation happened proves that Roman Catholics are failed human beings.”

This is true in a sense, because the people who left were Roman Catholics who turned their back on the Church founded by Christ, so yes, they failed. It is also true that every Roman Cathiolic (or other eastern Catholics) are all sinners and fail daily to live for Christ, this does not need to be proved, I fully admit it and it is part of Catholic doctrine. I just went to confession on Sunday morning and the Priest gave me quite a penance, so believe me, I know I suck dude. But in the way I think you mean it, the statement is not true. Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. For instance, If I were to say “The fact that the Donatist schism happened in the 4th century proves that Roman Catholics are failed human beings.”, I don’t think you would agree. The Donatists were the ones at fault, and were heretics by nearly any Protestant reckoning. They chose to separate from the Catholic Church, and therefore the Church is not to blame. In fact, the Church (post-Donatist schism) could theoretically be sinless, and the Donatists could still have left. Likewise if the Church could have said or done something loving to woo the Donatists back, but individuals in the Church chose in their sin and pride to not do so, that would not mean that the Churches doctrine was false, or that the Church was at fault for the sin of the Donatists, any more than a girl dressing scantily means rape is ok.

blockquote>
“My contention through this is that it isn't the RC's vs P's. We are all collectively and currently the Church universal and indivisible, the bride of Christ.”
If you only read and answer one thing in my extended rant here, let it be this please:

If the Church as you conceive it was NOT “the Church universal and indivisible” but instead was actually fragmented and divisible, what would look different?

Thought experiment Bob. Let’s say I take you to an insane asylum (where I reside btw tehe..hehe) and introduce you to a man who says he is Barack Obama. I then tell the man “Hey bud, pretend for just a moment you are wrong and you are not Barack Obama. What would be different?” So the man looks around and sees guys in pajamas drooling and playing checkers and peeing their pants and yelling. He checks his wallet for his ID and it says “Biff Jones”, he thinks back to where he was born, and his parents were white and from Canada. He calls for the secret service to arrest you and me and no one shows up. “hmm,” he thinks, “If I were wrong, and I really weren’t Obama, nothing would be different than they are right now. Things would be just like this.” If he is thinking properly, this should be a clue to him that there is a very good chance he is not Barack Obama. Unless an elaborate brainwashing, plastic surgery, and body switch scenario was perpetrated by the CIA, which is just not plausible. (unless your one on those wako 9-11 truthers… hehe just kidding Bob)

So I ask you again Bob:
“If the Church as you conceive it was NOT “the Church universal [catholic] and indivisible” but instead was actually fragmented and divisible, what would look different?”

I think you are forced to answer “nothing”. And if that is the answer, you need to consider that your conception of what constitutes the Church is must be wrong. In a fragmented Church you would expect to find contradictory doctrines set forth as both being true. In your conception of the Church, that is what you find Bob. If you consider Catholics part of your Church, then it is even more provable. Example: Catholics believe as a matter of faith that the elements become the actual Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ when the priest says the words of consecration. Zwinglians (Evangelicals are nearly all Zwinglians), who you would say are in the Church, believe that is not true, and is actually idolatry. So you conception of the Church has both of these (and many more) disagreeing bodies in the ONE Church. It looks exactly like a fragmented, divisible Church. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck… it’s a duck Bob.

For myself, when I ask the question:
“If the “Church” as the Catholic Church conceives herself was NOT “the Church universal and indivisible” but instead was actually fragmented and divisible, what would look different?”
There are A TON of differences. First off, there would have to be different creeds and different doctrines being proclaimed by various bishops as necessary to believe. There would have to be no Magisterium, no records of sacramental apostolic succession, no Pope who all his brother bishops are unified with. There would have to be contradictory dogmas that I could point to within the one Catholic Church.

But I can’t point to any of that. And you can’t accuse the Catholic Church of any of that. You may not like some of it’s doctrines, but you can’t deny that the whole Catholic Church (minus the desenters present in any group) affirms them and is united under the Pope, and can point historically to physical succession from the Apostles, and has ONE creed and ONE belief about the Eucharist, and ONE belief about salvation, Church government, Sacraments, etc…

“The fact that saving grace is evident in both the RC and P churches proves that at the very least the holy spirit is present and working in both factions.”

The Catholic Church agrees 100% (And so do I)
“This is the same holy spirit that preserves its church - apparently without regard to denomination.”

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. Your conception of the Church is one where contradictory truths are within the one Church Bob. That is not a work of the Holy Spirit. It is almost mathematical how easy it is to show that: Multiple “truths”=oxymoron=false=Not a work of the Holy Spirit=Not the Church. Your conception of the Church is false. The Church will always be one. 1John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”

By the mere fact of a group separating from or remaining separated from the Church, they show themselves to not be in the unity of the one Church.
I think you are conflating the fact that the Spirit can work in someone’s life with that being the way we identify the Church. The Spirit can work in a Muslims life to draw him to Christ, yet they are not yet in the Church. The Church is identified in the Nicene creed as “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” The council fathers who wrote those words specifically pointing out 4 VISIBLE things to look for to identify the Church. To make those words fit your model of the Church, you need to make all 4 of them INVISIBLE. Think about it Bob, here is the Protestant definition of these identifiers:

ONE: Not really one visibly or with common doctrines or hierarchy, but “one” in some sort of invisible “spiritual” way where nobody can really see it.
HOLY: We don’t really need to venerate the communion of Saints as being the holy ones among us, in fact we are all saints AND sinners at the same time, it is a sort of “invisible” holiness of Christ that covers us that no one can see.
CATHOLIC [universal]: The Church is wherever people who “believe in Jesus” and show fruit of having some amount of the Holy Spirit, so that means it is universal. But not Mormons, JW’s, etc. because their fruit is not from the Spirit and the don’t really believe in Jesus. So really “universal” means invisible and everywhere, mushed around the globe in a “spiritual” way that can only be verified one person at a time.
APOSTOLIC: The true Church always agrees with what I think the Apostolic doctrine was. So Mormons are not in the Church because their doctrine does not agree with my conception of the Apostles doctrine. “Apostolic” does NOT mean (like Catholics believe) that sacramental apostolic succession will preserve the Apostles doctrine.

“Not believing lies is a part of the sanctification process. That process has lead you to the RC church. I don't think my sanctification is taking me in the same direction.”

One of us is dreadfully wrong Bob, we can’t both be right, although we could both be wrong. But we cannot both be standing in the truth. So the one (or both) of us who is believing a lie, that lie cannot be part of their sanctification.

You quoted me saying:

"I really believe the Catholic Church is the only hope for humanity"

Then you said:

“I don't. I believe that Christ is the only hope for humanity”

Again, it is not either/or. When Paul raised from the dead that kid who fell from the window, was it either Paul or Jesus that healed the boy? No way. It does not have to be seen in that either/or context. With the proper understanding of the relationship between Jesus and Paul, It is both/and. So when I say the Catholic Church is the only hope, I am saying that Jesus, working through His supernatural Body, the Church, is the only hope.

“and he does not confine his workings to the RC church.”

Yes He does. All grace that comes from God flows from the Father, to Christ, to Mary, to the Catholic Church, then to the recipient here on earth. Any working of the Holy Spirit, all salvation, all grace, all sanctification comes from the Church. Even the Westminster Confession says all salvation comes through “the Church” as they conceived it. This is nothing new. So if we see people coming to know Christ through a Mormon or Assemby of God or Presbyterian missionary, those graces and that salvation have flowed through the institutional Catholic Church whose head is the Pope in Rome, the vicar of Christ on earth. My baptism on a lake boat launch by an Assemblies of God Pastor, unwittingly to him, was done under the authority of and through the Catholic Church. Again, seeing the Holy Spirit work is not evidence that an organization belongs to the Church. There are Muslim charities which do much good, and that good is from the Holy Spirit, but they are not the Church.

Re: 1 Peter 2 you said:

“It is our confession that causes us to be rocks.”

Again the either/or fallacy will come into play here. Yes, when we make that confession, we become rocks, I don’t deny it. And Peter’s confession IS the rock. And Jesus IS the Rock. And PETER IS the rock as well. But which rock has all authority? Which rock has the keys to administrate that authority? Please tell me that you have them Bob. I am itching to hear that! But of course we don’t. Peter was given them. HE is the rock upon which the Church is built in the sense of having Christ’s delegated authority. Just as Christ is the Rock upon which the Church is built. Just as Peter’s confession is the rock upon which the Church is built. And if you want to join in and say you are a rock in the foundation because of your common confession with Peter, go ahead. As much as you are a faithful member of Christ’s Body, you build up the Church and support it… great, you ROCK ON dude. But there is an elephant in your rocky living room Barney Rubble: You can’t say you have the keys to the kingdom of heaven, because the rock of Peter has them. You could not possibly be that cocky to say Christ is giving Bob Brenton the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in Matt. 16. (with authority to bind and loose “whatsoever”). That would be David Koresh weird. So again, the either/or thing is not how Catholics view this topic. (or justification/sanctification, Scripture/Tradition, faith/works, Grace/obedience)

God ALWAYS makes the first move in Catholic theology. Whether in salvation in giving us grace to be able to respond to Him, or in Justification by actually infusing us with sanctifying grace and making us holy. It is all about Christ and His work in His Church. And Christ has ALL authority in heaven and earth. That does not conflict with the successor of Peter being Christ’s “prime minister”.

And if the Papacy was not being supernaturally protected from teaching error and from dissolving, why is it here after 2000 years? It takes a lot of naïve trust in the goodness of man to believe that sinful men, unguided by the Holy Spirit, could keep the largest single human organization running under the authority of one (sometimes quite incompetent and evil) man for 2000 years! And it is still growing! I don’t have the stomach to believe humanity could accomplish that unaided by God Himself.

Sorry for the long reply, but I wanted to cover all the points you brought up. I hope Deb and the lil’ ones are doing good and all is well for you. Peace to you bro.

-David

Conversation with Jed, Kendra and Bob continued...

2011-06-06T07:01:00.000-07:00

Jed you said:

"All authority was transferred (for our dispensation) to Paul."

The early Church and all that the fathers wrote extensively in direct contradiction to that. I think that you will need to explain that somehow. But in the meantime, lets assume for sake of argument that all the writings of the Chruch outside of scripture was all just rank heresy.

Consider the direct language of the following scriptures which I think you and Stam will heartily agree show Peter recieving all the authority of Christ on earth to lead His Church.

Matt. 16:17-19 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Stam (he has done his homework) gives the Old Testament reasoning behind the keys and interprets this surprisingly like a Catholic! (I have NEVER seen a Protestant interpret it this way or even use this verse from Isaiah. Good for Stam):

Isaiah 22:20-24 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne [seat, or cathedra] to his father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

Jn. 20:21-23 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jn. 21:15-17 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

and my favorite:

Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you [all the apostles] as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Remember Jed, you hold to sola scriptura, not me. so let's be clear here, I don't need to prove my case from the scripture for my position to be internally consistent. For me, the Tradition of the early church and the last 2000 years carries a lot of weight alongside scripture, and obviously the current magisterium does as well. But you do need to unambiguously show your position from the 66 books you hold to be scripture.

So considering the direct language of these and other scriptures where the keys are given to Peter (which, wondrously, you agree with!), what similar scriptures are there showing that, as you say, "All authority was transferred (for our dispensation) to Paul." ? I gave you my best, and have more waiting in the wings if you want them. So give me your best, most clear and explicit exegesis.

Peace,

David

Reply to my Nephew Jed on Facebook

2011-06-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

Here is the video I could not put in the comments:

Jed you said:

Except logic would ask if there are 13 apostles the 12 and Paul why would you send the 12 to minister to a 2 million people and the other guy (or two if you want to be specific and include Barnabas) to 1 billion? And how can it be a misuse ...of scripture when Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

He also specifically mentions that he has a special message.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

The word dispensation is the Greek word Oikonomia which means rules of administration.

Facebook stinks for these sort of conversations. I cant even figure out how to link to our conversation over there. I am linking to my blog so I can use bold and quoteblocks and such. You said: “why would you send the 12 to minister to a 2 million people and the other guy ... to 1 billion?” I don't know. It wasn't me who sent them. ;-) Why did God make mosquitoes? Doesn't seem “logical” to me, but He did. What are you saying here though, I am not sure?
I think there is an error of assumption in your question though Jed, that the 12 and Paul have separate ministries to the point of different gospels. Just because Paul is sent to the gentiles does not mean he is is exclusively ministering to gentiles. And we see in scripture he is not. He always goes to the synagogue first when coming to a town. He preaches to many Jews AND gentiles the same message of grace in Christ. (which includes repentance and is also called the gospel of the kingdom by him)...”testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:21) Acts 20 is an awesome example of this. Read the whole portion of v17-32 and it is real clear. I will bold the sections I think are very pertinent to our discussion.

From Miletus he (St. Paul) sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” (Acts 20:17-32).

Notice that for Paul, the "gospel of the grace of God" and the "kingdom of God" are the same thing. Not only that, but Paul's gospel includes repentance. So "Paul's gospel" is the same as "peter's gospel". The only difference is one of mission. Paul's mission was to go to the gentiles, something that was revealed to him, yes. And something that was a mystery. It was also revealed to Peter of course in the incident with Peter preaching to Cornelius (a gentile), and was quite a mystery to him as well.

You said:

And how can it be a misuse ...of scripture when Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles.

The misuse I was referring to was Stam in chapter 9 of Things that Differ When all Galatians 2 says is that Peter, James and John "gave to me [Paul] and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:" and it also shows how Paul corrected Peter's hypocrisy.

I then said:

That is a lot to get out of that verse. Just because they are focusing on different groups of people does not mean there are 2 "programs" or gospels any more than being a missionary to Borneo means there is a special "Borneo" program different from other gospels. This is simply a misuse of scripture.

So I stand by my statement that that is a misuse. It is reading into the scripture to say they preached different gospels in Gal. 2. Even the "withstood Peter to the face" part of Gal. 2 merely shows hypocrisy on Peter's part. Where in the world does it show a handing on of (or losing of) the authority of the keys? Where does it show that different gospels were being preached? All it shows is that Paul and Barn were sent to preach the ONE gospel to to gentiles. Other than the Stam scripture in Gal.2, the scriptures you give show that Paul's mission was to the gentiles. You are right Jed when you say:

"Paul repetitively make a big deal of being the apostle to the gentiles."

Yes, yes, yes he does make a big deal about it. And I can't think of any Christians who deny that he is the apostle to the gentiles! But what he does not do is say that his apostleship is to preach a different gospel, which really is the only disagreement between your religion and mine (and other non-ultra-dispensationalist Christians) The scripture you give simply do not show what you need to show: that he had a unique gospel in its content and not merely in it's recipients. I really think this is what you are trying to show right? Here are the verses you give one by one followed by my comment:

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

His calling is to go to the gentiles, and that it is an important calling. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12. Next one:

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

His mission is to preach, and to be an Apostle, and to go to the gentiles. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12. Next one:

2Ti 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Again, his mission is to preach, and to be an Apostle, and to go to the gentiles. Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

These next scriptures you preface with the following:

"He also specifically mentions that he has a special message:"

So let's see the special (by which I will assume you mean different) message.

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

So he is a minister of the gospel. I mean, he even says THE gospel! Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Again, he has been given the task of "dispensing" or administering, or preaching THE gospel to the gentiles. Who disagrees with that? Nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Same as the other verses, he has been made a minister of the gospel. Is he special? Yes. He is one of the greatest men who have ever lived! He was given one of the most important tasks ever given to anyone, to bring gentiles into the Church. But nothing here about a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

So I think I have shown that the verses you provided do not say what you think they say (that Paul preached a different gospel from that of Peter and the 12). In addition I provided evidence from Acts 20 showing that Paul's gospel included repentance, was called the gospel of the kingdom AND the gospel of grace, was aimed at Jews AND gentiles, and was described as being received from God, all written to the same bishops of the same local church, in the same chapter of scripture. I'll throw in Acts 26:20:

First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

But to get back to the original point of all this, none of what you provided shows how the keys were lost by Peter. If you say (with Stam) that Peter had the keys at some point, I think you need to show when they were lost. Paul pointing out Peters hypocrisy did not somehow do it. Paul being given a mission to the preach the gospel to gentiles does not do it. So what does it? When did Peter lose the keys?

Can't wait for this in November

2011-06-04T19:54:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt from the "Catholicism" series being aired on PBS this fall. Father Barron is great. I can't wait.

Harold Camping: Man in the Protestants Mirror

2011-05-25T10:45:00.001-07:00

Condescending Old Fart, and Heretic After his failed prediction of the rapture, piece of crap false prophet Harold Camping has the following to say to reporters: (I personally transcribed from video from the AP from May 24) (Bold text indicates emphatic, slow voice with hands gesturing in the air for effect)

“On May 21st 2011 we didn’t feel any difference… we didn’t see any difference in the world, but we know from the bible that God brought judgment day to bear on the whole world… the whole world is under judgment day. And it will continue up until October 21 2011 and at that time the whole world will be destroyed. God had not opened our eyes yet to the fact that May 21 was a spiritual coming, as we had thought it was a physical coming, but He has come, he has come in the sense that He now has the world under judgment… if people want me to apologize I can apologize yes, I did not have all of that worked out as exactly as a should have... or wish I could have had it…uh... that doesn’t bother me at all. I’m not a genius, and I pray all the time for wisdom and when I make an error I admit, I say “yes, I was wrong”… I can’t be responsibility of anybody’s life, I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says. I don’t have spiritual rule over anybody, except my wife.”

OK, so he is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. And is the whole situation deliciously funny? Yes, Hilarious. He is a false prophet and deserves ridicule. But that is not what I want to focus on. I am a very sarcastic person and that is a fault of mine. I eat this kind of thing up because I get to point out someone’s failures which I tell myself I am far from following them into. Of course I have my own problems that I sweep under the rug amongst all my pointing, hooting, and mocking. Mote and beam, you know the drill. So I don’t wish to rub Harold Camping’s nose in his foul hairball he has hacked onto Christianity’s carpet. Anyway, it should be obvious to us all that he is a complete looney. Right? Hmm… But WHY is he a looney? What is at the root? Evangelicals need to ask themselves what is different about Camping’s method of bible interpretation and theirs? I want to argue that no matter which version of sola Scriptura (bible alone) Protestants take, they are solidly in Camping’s “camp” when it comes to method. Coming to a different conclusion does not mean other Protestants are off the hook. You can say all day that you would never predict the rapture day because Jesus says in Matt. 24:36 that we can’t know. And hey YOUR RIGHT! But I want to clue you into the fact that even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Even Hitler loved his dog. Pretending the bible is all as easy as interpreting Matt. 24:36 is just silly and sad. Yet that is exactly what Protestants think about their interpretive abilities. Reformed Christians generally don’t even believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, so they like to think they are really far from the likes of Camping. But strangely, when they describe their method of interpretation, it will match Camping 100% Here is what I mean. Take a look at the quote I transcribed. This is what Camping says:

“I’m only teaching the bible. I’m not teaching what I believe or that I’m the authority, but that this is what the bible says.”

This is EXACTLY what any Protestant would say! “BUT,” says Joe Protestant, “Camping is not teaching what the bible really says! He is taking things out of context and making things fit his preconceived view of things! So there!” Of course, I respond Camping would say and believe the same about you! Because the fact remains that he is using the exact same method you are. Cases like his false prophecy are really easy for you to point at and say he got it wrong, but we all know that there is more to bible interpretation than sensational false prophesies. In the everyday world of the average Christian, there are DOZENS of important doctrinal and dogmatic issues that cannot be pointed at with the same confident finger. What about baptism? Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Does it regenerate or just symbolize? Is it for or infants or adults? And this is merely ONE important issue that Protestants disagree among themselves about “what the bible says”. And you all use the same logic as Camping; that you are just going by “what the bible says”. And sadly, from personal experience I believe you. I don’t believe you set out to deceive yourselves or anyone else, you just want the truth, and you believe your interpretation is true. You want to submit to what you see as an authority outside yourself (the bible) but what you end up with is some man’s opinion of what the bible says (maybe yours, maybe someone else’s, maybe right maybe wrong). To the Protestant skeptic, I offer proof of this fact: Heretic Test. To prove to yourself your method of discovering truth from the bible is no different than Harold Camping’s method; ask yourself the question “How would my current situation look different if my interpretation were wrong?” That is to say, assuming your current reading of scripture on (doctrine X) is correct, what would be different in your approach/interpretation in a situation where you fell into error? If there is no difference in what you would say or feel between these two situations, then what makes you so sure you are not in grave error? Remember we are talking about method not result. Again, let’s assume for sake of argument one of the following propositions: A. You have properly interpreted the bible and understand what God is saying in His word about doctrine X. B. You have completely misinterpreted the bible and have an incorrect interpretation of doctrine X. Now let’s ask our question. If your current situation is A, what would be different about how you would describe your situation from within situation B? What would you say differently? If you believe you are in situation A at this moment (pick a doctrine), what would you say right now about your own situation that Harold Camping would not say about his situation? (queue Jeopardy music...) Answer? The fact is you would say nothing substantially different from him. You would say you have taken the bible at it’s word, that you have studied hard and asked the Spirit for help, that you had prayed for wisdom, and had gleaned the truth from the bible. In short, you would say you are following the bible. Harold Camping would say the exact same as you. So I ask you, how are you any different from him in this respect? If you can’t point to a difference, then there is none my friend! Tu quoque? As a Catholic, I do not fall into this trap with you. When I look at situation A above, I am using the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church as a guide. So when I ask the question “what would be different?” my answer is that my doctrine would have to change from that of the Magisterium. For instance, a Catholic CANNOT hold to premillenialism and the usual “rapture” theology it entails. That is specifically forbiden for Catholics to hold that view. So if I were to start believing that tomorrow, I would immediately find a big change in my method. I will find that I no longer am in agreement with the Church on this matter and have either ignored or disobeyed the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium of the Church. Bishops of the world gathered at the Second Vatican council. I can then either return to orthodox belief or remain in my heresy, but either way, there is quite a difference in my situation, and I (unlike you) can describe it to you in detail. The Protestant (you) has no such difference. Each doctrinal position he takes will be for the same reasons as the gravest heretic, and both roads are paved with the best of motives and most inocent intentions. The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic saying he believes the bible, the protestant believes the same, and would say the same. The Protestant looks over and sees the heretic claiming the bible as his highest authority (and truly believing so) and the Protestant would say THE EXACT SAME THING ABOUT HIS OWN SITUATION. If you behave like a heretic, talk like one, and can’t tell the difference between yourself and a heretic… then you are a heretic! So Protestants, I suggest you not be so quick to laugh at Harold Camping. You are standing shoulder to shoulder with him under the banner of sola Scriptura, using the EXACT same arguments he does and saying the EXACT same things about scripture he does, so the conclusion is inevitable: you are objectively a heretic just like he is. You fool! Cower in shame before the bishops of the Church Christ founded and repent of your arrogation of authority. There is ONE faith, and ONE, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Crawl back to Christ on your hands and knees and beg his priests for absolution for your schism. Kyrie Eleison!

Uncomfortable quote for Protestants

2011-05-20T11:34:00.000-07:00

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in 180 AD:

“It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [bishops], have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (Against Heresies, 4:26:2)

If this quote makes you uncomfortable, you are not in the Church that Christ started. Repent and come to Jesus.

Doug Wilson says faithful Catholics will go to hell

2011-05-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

Here is the short video from Doug:

Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Here is the comment I left on the video: I am a recent convert to the Church, (the Catholic Church) and have been steeped in Reformed theology about as much as a layman can be. So I think I understand what I am leaving behind (and what I am able to keep from it) and where I am going. Upon unbiased examination, Rome is simply not what I was told she was. The main difference (according to Protestants) seems to boil down to imputation Vs. infusion. Well, if you have a proper understanding of the primacy of grace in Catholic theology, then this distinction just does not add up to a reason to stay separated from the Church Christ founded. Grace is ALWAYS first in Catholic theology. If infused grace makes me holy, that sure looks like the work of God to me. Protestants like to focus on Eph 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Catholics love that verse as well but have a better way of explaining verse 10: "For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Infusion is a much more beautiful doctrine. God is not content that we remain in our sin. We must be perfect as Jesus said we must. And that perfection comes from Him in both Catholic and Reformed theology. If Luther's snow-covered dunghill (imputation) were not merely snow-covered but instead transformed by God into pure snow from top to bottom (infusion), which is more miraculous? Which is more monergistic? Which gives more glory to God? Infusion of course. As far as Doug thinking I will be in hell (for I certainly think I understand Catholic theology and reject the Protestant understanding of sola fide) I am OK with that. I respect his conviction. But let it be known that Catholics believe the same. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unless you are invincibly ignorant of the identity Christ's Church, you will be damned for rejecting her. As the church father St. Irenaeus said in 180 AD: "It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (Against Heresies, 4:26:2) Why should I listen to Protestants with no authority from Christ? Your personal exegesis just is not impressive (been there done that)... sorry, but all the chest pounding and bible thumping you can muster will not make your interpretation of scripture anything more than your opinion. Who started your Church again? What year did he start it? What Bishop in the line of succession authorized it? The Reformed believe in ecclesial deism, and hold to a "conservative" religion that is merely another century's liberalism. Wake up to Mother Church. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Altar Girls= Liturgical Oxymoron.

2011-04-28T05:52:00.000-07:00

I recieved the following question in an email:

According to this letter, http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html the Holy See’s Congregation for Divine Worship reaffirmed that bishops may allow altar girls, at their discretion. (Supposedly this was first allowed under JPII?) “With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors. Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.” What do you think?

What can I say, it sounds cocky, but JP2 (of happy memory, and soon to be declared Blessed), was simply wrong about altar girls (He was wrong about evolution too) This does not shake my faith because I know the Pope is only infallible when speaking in certain situations. Well, I will give the benefit of the doubt in most situations where I am tempted to disagree, but some things we must draw the line. Altar girls and similar abuses are one of those lines in my opinion. Scripture, tradition, and 2000 years of magisterium are against this practice of women on the altar 100% right up until the sexual revolution of the 20th century. Coincidence? What about "taking things slow" which I always hear is how things are to be done in the Church. Shouldnt we wait a hundred years or so after the sexual revolution before entertaining the idea of women on the altar? Instead it took, what... 5 or 10 years? And in many ways we are not even done with the depths this revolution will likely sink to. As far as what I think about Cardinal Estevez letter, it is just weak. Asking people to remember things they should know is not the same as telling them what they should do. Sometimes a shepherd needs to use his hook instead of just whistling. There are some liberal Bishops and Priests in this country who will merely crumple up Estevez' letter and toss it in the trash and think... "welp, on with business as usual, lets start a new "women on the altar" program and we can have them dancing on top of the altar, because hey its not forbidden". They could care less about vocations or tradition, they want women at the altar because they are modern femenists, or they have caved to the spirit of the age, or they just don't care about the issue. Thank God Estevez did not cave to what the liberal Bishop asked for. The Bishop requested whether "a Diocesan Bishop would be able to oblige his priests to admit women and girls to service at the altar" (my emphasis) How sick is that? He wants to be able to FORCE his Priests to have this practice. I have not researched the issue much, mainly because my Parish thankfully does not allow the practice. From the document you provided it looks like it is allowed for local Bishops to allow the practice. OK I knew that. But it is still an abuse. (There was a time when married Catholics could not recieve the Eucharist for a lengthy period of time (24 hrs I think?... not sure) after having relations. I think that was an abuse as well, even though it was sanctioned by the Church.) All I know is that it is insane. Do you doubt that women at the altar is an abuse? The church has had 2000 years to come up with that one and never did. Then it just so happens it starts having women servers during the most massive "sexual revolution" the world has ever known. Now don't get me wrong, the Church has been protected from accepting the deadly sin of contraception. That is a miracle, and one that we can be proud of. So perhaps God is allowing the church to be infected with less serious things instead. Like a good Father He is allowing us to get drunk so we can have the hangover, but protecting us while we learn our lesson. Altar girls are like if you saw the preist consecrating the wine in a Zip-Lock bag. Would the consecration be valid? Well, I think it would. What if the practise was sanctioned by Rome in some way? Well they are wrong. And I will say they are wrong untill they declare I MUST say otherwise. Bad attitude to have? Yeah, probably. But give me a break, look at what has happened to the world in the last 50 years! This is war, and our Church leaders need our support not only in the good they preach and do, but they need our encouragement to STAND UP as bold shepherds like David who killed lions and bears in defense of his sheep. Be bold Bishops! Call this generation to a new level of holines, drive the siliness from the temples with your whip, and the sheep will flock to you! Of course, I should probably just shut my mouth about all this and pray and worry about my own "abuses" and sins. Bear with me.

Evolution part trois

2011-04-21T11:53:00.000-07:00

I was asked by my online acquaintance Brent what I mean by evolution, and that kind of information we can expect to get from a theory like evolution. My answer got long enough I thought I would post it on my blog so I can have a better record of the conversation. Here is my thinking at this point: OK, my idea of evolution is what I believe to be the broad cultural view of it. It is seen as the theory that explains how one species becomes another over long periods of time, by very gradual changes, by natural selection of fitter characteristics over less fit ones. Darwin’s book is called on the Origin of the Species, and that certainly is what evolution attempts to explain; how different species originated from a common ancestor. On the face of it, this could be true. I mean I can imagine in my mind little evolution factories in the cells that are "selecting" traits and making the gradual changes. I can picture the cell knowing that it needs to get this amphibian turned into a whale and it sets about getting it done over millions of years. And if that were the case, well then glory to God for an amazing design. But by its practitioners own admission, that is not what science has seen in the cell. What they have seen contradicts their theory, yet they still cling to it. What they see in the cell is not a blob as Darwin thought it was, but the complexity of a galaxy full of planets which are each full of cities which are each full of libraries which are each full of books which are each full of unique and wonderful literature. Next to each of those libraries are factories that all work together to maintain and repair the libraries and build more galaxies. What they see in the fossil record directly contradicts what Darwin said should be expected as far as transitional forms, yet they still cling to the theory as if it were the theory of gravity. If you have the time, this series of videos of Dr. David Berlinski is really interesting. (I love this guy!) I am no scientist that is for sure. But that does not mean I will swallow a theory that seems to have been disproven, (or at least that does not have the kind of evidence it seems it should by this point in history) just because scientist mostly agree it is true. ESPECIALLY when it seems to me they have non-scientific motives for holding the theory. Here is what I mean: I think the main reason evolution is rarely questioned even in the face of a lack of evidence is because of the alternative. Which for Godless mainstream scientists is NO alternative at all. I suspect they think that if the story of evolution is false, the only option is special, instantaneous creation. Now that may not be the case, and Berlinski says as much. There could be some yet undiscovered theory of how speciation happened. But evolution ain’t it from what I have seen. Now one might ask, "who cares" about evolution either way. Well, if my suspicion is right, and evolution, against the evidence against it, is being held out there as a theory for the express purpose of giving a further excuse for sin and unbelief ala Romans 1, then whether or not the theory itself is compatible with Christian theism it should be rejected as evil. Put another way: If it appears to me that this scientific theory is being believed for primarily pagan religious motives, namely to deny the Creator as it says in Romans 1, then although it can be argued that the theory is technically neutral as far as science goes (it does not necessarily imply Godless motives to believe it), it should nevertheless be resisted by Christians so as not to give scandal. For instance: if you live in a village where all the men go out and chop wood on Thursday evenings while singing “waltzing Matilda”, then hey that’s great. Chop away Christian. But then you discover that instead of using the wood for cooking like you are, the other men are using it for a bonfire for human sacrifice. I think it is clearly wrong to go out chopping with them on Thursdays in this case, and you might even want to sing a different tune when you go on Wednesdays. If a hundred years later they are merely pretending to chop the wood, and are incredulous that you can't see their stacks of wood piled all around, then you really should stop "chopping" wood with them. Things have obviously progressed to some sort of pagan religion or madness and you should run away. The more I think about this topic and examine the “proofs” for evolution, the more I become convinced that for the scientists that hold to it evolution has long since past the point of being what St. Paul is speaking of in Romans 1:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”

Global warming has some similarities here. Most scientists may well believe in man-made global warming. But their godless reasons for doing so should make us want to steer clear of them. Their science has crossed over into religious belief. Evolution is atheistic religious belief, held to in opposition to good evidence for the falsity of the belief. A special creation is just impossible to the mind of modern man. So he clings to an ad hoc, improbable theory of evolution as the only “possible” explanation. Well, I am under no such delusion, and do not see why I should worship in their temple. If my fellow Catholics or Protestant brothers want to eat the meat sacrificed in their temple, so be it. You are probably not sinning, and I am not your judge. But I will point and laugh at you. And I will point out that you look absolutely absurd down on all fours eating the crumbs that fall from this decadent cultures table. I believe history will show your compromise to be needless at best, and damaging to the faith at worse. Have a blessed day on this Holy Thurday! I look forward to recieving the Lord at mass tonight when we remember the Last Supper. Peace, David Meyer