More Fanciful Anti-Catholic history...Part 2

Continuing on with "Exposing the Satanic Empire Final Edition", Mr. Thomas also points to another picture of "Catholics at the Grove":
Again, this can look like a very bad picture. Appearing to show what looks like a Bishop and several Nuns in the grove.

But, once again, thanks to the Internet, we can see the truth:














As you can see, this picture of "Catholics" is just yet another play in the Grove, this one in 1909. But the picture used in the video is carefully cropped to remove the stage and orchestra pit.

You can see more pictures of this play in the grove at: http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=tf7r29p3kg&doc.view=items&brand=oac

The fact is, the Bohemian Grove is nothing but a summer retreat for bored rich white men. It is not at all unusual for a fraternal organization from the 19th century to be steeped in bizarre rituals. G. William Donoff has written an excellent Sociological study on Bohemian Grove, it is at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/bohemian_grove.html Read it, you may be surprised.

When good history happens to bad research.

Richard Bennett has written a new article over at Symphony of Scripture titled History of the Early Church Invalidates Papal Claim of Apostolic Succession. The historical scholarship in this article is extremely lacking. His “examples of early believers testifying to the gospel” Have nothing to do with the notion that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

He strings together events separated by 100’s of years to try to make a point that the church in northern Italy has always been protestant. He finally claims that the Waldenses (or Vaudois) were not started by Waldo. Interesting to note, however, is that even the Waldenses themselves don’t make this claim. They (rightfully ) claim that: “The Waldensian Church originated with the preaching of the merchant Valdo (Waldo of Lyons, from whom the church’s name originates), 1140 - 1217″ (from the website of the American Waldensian Society http://www.waldensian.org/aws03.php)

The idea that St. Patrick was a protestant is laughable. We have writings written by him, attesting to his beliefs.

The fact is, the points of this article could have been better made without resorting to poor scholarship.

A visit to the missions.

Yesterday, my family and I went to check out some of the Missions here in San Antonio. In the mid to late 18th Century the Spanish established 5 missions along the San Antonio river. They are Espada, San Juan, San Jose, Conception, and San Antonio de Valero (more famously known as the Alamo).

San Juan is the mission we visited, it was founded in 1690 as San José de los Nazonis. We wandered the grounds for about an hour:


The Park Ranger informed us we were in time to attend Mass in the Mission. I really enjoy attending mass in small churches like this. We were among only about 20 people present. A short Baptism was performed at the start of the ceremony. It is always a joy when a new Christian is brought into the church.


If anyone is visiting San Antonio or lives here, you cannot beat forgoing your local modern church, to take in the history in one of the original San Antonio churches.

Debunking the "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit"

I can't tell you how many times over my years involved in Catholic Apologetics this book has been thrown in my face as "proof" that Peter was never in Rome. Despite reams of historical evidence to the contrary.

Well, recently the University of the Holy Land began investigating this and guess what? It is yet another myth perpetuated by anti-catholics. I thought I would write some on it here, because I can guarantee you that they will not edit their websites in any way. (In other words: Don't bother them with the truth, their minds are made up!)

In a blog titled "Whose son is Simon" members of the universities archaeology team began translating this inscription:

Now, according to Peterson, it reads "Simon bar Jonah" so Peterson concludes that there is only one man in Israel to ever have that name, so it must be Peter of the Bible. Never mind that by the end of his life, no one called him Simon, he is always referred to in Acts as Peter. Also, why would his fellow Christians bury him under his Jewish name and not his Christian one?

The answer of course is that they did not. UHL researchers properly translated the inscription on the ossuary as "Simon bar Zilla". Peterson relied on Bellarmino Bagatti 's translation. But according to the UHL when it came to Bagetti "not a single letter was read correctly".

So, read the article, it is very clear and concise. Once again, the anti-catholics are proved wrong. Which once again leads me to ask:

If they cannot be trusted to tell the truth about Catholicism, why should I trust them to tell the truth about Jesus?