A Respons to "Anonymous" aka "sally345" aka "budge"...

I received some responses in my combox today, and although they state they are from "Anonymous" they reveal they are actually someone whom I deal with on a regular basis who goes by the screen name "sally345" or "budge".

Her first comment was on my post "By their fruits...":

You got to be kidding, you are even quibbling this to death, trying to make "outs" that do not exsist, to defend the evil corruption in your false church, [trying to claim that institutions are exempt, hate to tell you but your institution is made of the men--people that comprise it] because elsewhere in the Bible Jesus asks this: Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? As for your charities--hospitals, universities, etc, in America, they have become mostly FOR PROFIT enterprises, or if NON-PROFIT, using gobs of government money and grants. All we have to do is read our daily newspapers to know the hospitals are HUGE money-makers, the Catholic schools bastions of extreme liberalism advancing causes like abortion at Notre Dame! Socialist Humanist social workers do as much 'charity' work as the RCC!

Here is the classic anti-catholic double standard. The sins of individual Catholics are evidence of the "bad fruit" of the entire institution. But the virtues of Catholics don't transfer to the institution as a whole. Either sins AND virtues reflect on the church as a whole, or NEITHER do.

The fact is that an institution like "the church" does not have sins or virtues. It is a thing, an inanimate object. And look at Matt 7, who is the "them" it is referring to? It is referring to false prophets and teachers. Individuals nowhere does Jesus apply this to a group. If so, even the apostles themselves would fail this test. Judas betrayed them, Peter denied Jesus, Thomas doubted him. Are these "bad fruits" of the apostles as a whole?

I would point out that I raised this challenge over at CARM for the anti-Catholics to justify applying Matt 7 to institutions not just individuals, and received no response from this poster.

And, her next comment was posted on "Catholics do evangelize"

I have frequented Catholics blogs for years, Mark Shea, the Curt Jester, Amy Welborn, etc. When do Catholic blogs evangelize except to say JOIN THE RCC! Is the gospel even preached anywhere on your blog? Repent and be born again in Jesus Christ? Or is it the usual narcissistic fest, look what I DID!, look at what a HOLY PERSON I AM!....surrounded by quibbles about whether Catholics should shake hands during the Mass or bow to each other or the latest pretty dress the Pope is wearing. Where do Catholic blogs actually preach the gospel? [The RCC does not have the gospel, it preaches JOIN OUR CHURCH, like every other cult out there]

The fact is, yes, this is a group specific blog. So yes, I am going to say "Join the RCC". Just like a Baptist specific blog is going to say "Join the SBC". Otherwise, what is the point? Is a Pentacostal blog going to tell you to become a Methodist or a Mormon blog going to tell you to become a Jehovah's witness? Of course not. So that is a silly argument.

The gospel is preached. It is just not the Gospel according to sally/budge. On your site, the Gospel is not preached either. It is just "leave the RCC" which is actually the flip side of the same coin, in that, you are not telling me what religion to join to be saved, but you are telling me which one I need to leave in order to have salvation (according to you).

And your final charge that Catholic blogs discuss Catholic things? Big suprise there! Should we go over to Politico.com and accuse them of only talking about politics?

Her final comment was left on: "Why the 'paperwork' matters":

I posted this on Carm before... and it basically wipes away the Catholic claim that "only the paperwork matters" [by the way where is the official list of dogmas?] oh YEAH there ISN'T ONE! I posted this on Carm the other day On paper, the Mafia doesn't exist.

On paper, NAMBLA is about love.

On paper, NOW protects "straight" women...

But are we to look at the position statements, ONLY? Or are we taught to TEST the people delivering the message? Mt 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things.

First of all, on your charge that there is no official list of dogmas, so what? You don't accept the magisterium anyway so even if their was, what would be the point? There is the Catechism, and the list that Dr. Ludwig Ott provided, and I have challenged her many times to name me ONE dogma that is not in either of these publications. She has not, so we can assume there is not one.

Sally/budge answer my original point, how can the sins of a person be transferred onto a thing? My points in my original article stand unchallenged. Matt 12.35 is again speaking of "a man" not an "institution". I have the priviledge of knowing many good men and women who were Catholic. You would like us to believe such people do not exist.

You are right. We are called to test the PEOPLE who bring the message, but even in the Bible demons spoke truth. In Mark 1:23 a demon announced that Jesus was "the Holy One of God". Does the fact that a demon said it, make it untrue? Paperwork. In Mark 3:11 we read how "And whenever unclean spirits saw him they would fall down before him and shout, "You are the Son of God." Does the fact that these words were spoken by demons make them untrue? Paperwork again. The demon Legion, called Jesus "The most high God".

You see where this is going. Even the evil can speak truth, that is how God is able to use sinners to preach his word.

This demand for a "list" and the harping on the sins of Catholics comes solely from the belief that Catholics only believe what they do because the church "tells" us we have to. The idea that we are Catholic because it is what we believe is lost on them. They think we are forced to believe these things because we are mindless droids who have to believe whatever "they" tell us.

Of course that is not even close to being true. Oh well, same tune, different day.

By their fruits...

Originally posted at CARM)

This verse keeps getting brought up to justify the notion that the RCC is not from God.

Let's look at the verse in context.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Now, I want to know how these verses which are speaking of recognizing false prophets can be extrapolated to the entire church.

Numerous references are brought up to the sex scandals, the inquisitions, crusades, etc.. and it is claimed this is all bad fruit of the RCC and as such since a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, that proves the RCC is a false church.

But, the verse also states that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. The Catholic church is also the worlds largest Charity, it the worlds largest operator of private healthcare and educations services. Now, applying this verse literally, this proves the RCC is a good tree, right?

No, When you read the verse in context, you see exactly who Jesus was talking about: "False prophets". These criteria are to be applied to individuals NOT organizations. Because as Jesus pointed out in another part of the Gospel.(Matt 13:24-30) that satan has sown tares among Jesus' wheat. But that we are to leave them and HE will reap the harvest and "bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

There has always been evil men in the church, as there is in every church. It is amazing how we are so quick to judge a church on the faults of its

Catholics DO evangelize

(Originally posted over at CARM)

I recent thread was started stating that Catholics do not evangelize. Mostly because we don't stand on streetcorners or go door to door.

Well, this is the 21st century.

Catholicblogs.com lists over 1000 blog feeds from Catholic Bloggers, isn't that evangelizing?

tweetcatholic has over 1700 Catholics who twitter (tweet?) regularly.

Over 1200 people have visited my apologetics blog since just the beginning of this year.

So maybe we aren't doing this:


And reaching a few people.

We are doing this:


And reaching MILLIONS!

A response to: Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Avoiding Landmines in Roman Catholic Apologetics

I ran across a blog post titled:Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Avoiding Landmines in Roman Catholic Apologetics, I thought it was finally going to be an honest piece about the mature discussion of Apologetics, boy was I wrong.

He gives a list of what he considers arguments to be avoided, he doesn't believe any of them to be wrong, just to be avoided. First, he states that "Rome should be identified with the Whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the Antichrist." but that Anti-catholic apologists should not actually say that.

The second is that the sexual abuse allegation "may even be the necessary and natural outworking of the celibate priesthood that Rome imposes" and that they are "simply a reason not to make your son an altar boy or your daughter a nun" This is a gross over-generalization and surely not a reason to deprive your child of the privilege of serving at the altar or to discourage them from entering a religious life. It implies that sexual abuse is widespread and in every parish when just the opposite is true. It is blatently dishonest.

Next, he alleges "doctrines within Roman Catholicism are not static and modern Catholicism's beliefs do not much resemble the beliefs taught in the Bible or believed in the early church" This is of course another gross generalization. His post is quickly becoming a bad apologetics post.

Next is the myth of Catholic disunity on many issues. While this is true on some issues, the idea that there are few "official catholic positions" is ludicrous, the Catechism gives the "offical Catholic position, on many issues, the Dogmas of faith are non-negotiable and there are lists of those available but the author makes no attempt to point his readers to these resources, in fact he makes no attempt to point them to sources of good information at all!

In his segment titled "Martyrologies" I must give him credit. That was well written and spot on.

In his section 6 titled " Arguments You Don't Understand" he makes the understatement of the year, he says "If you don't understand them (scriptural arguments), though, you have no business using them." Boy is that true, he goes on to list scriptural arguments he clearly does not understand.

He goes on to list some good advice, that apologists should be honest, not be arrogant.

He goes on to reinforce his belief that Catholics are not Christians, and actually calls those who believe that they are "bad apologists". He concludes with "Our regard, generally speaking, of the lost condition of Romanists is (contrary to their complaints) a judgment of charity, because it exhibits a concern for their never-dying souls, and should always be kept in mind in dealing with them. This regard for their lost condition is not because we bear them animosity, but because we care for their souls."

A word of advice to Turretin, if you want to "evangelize" Catholics, don't call us "Romanists". If you do, don't expect us to listen. You should add a new "landmine" that you missed, avoid name calling. It is juvenile and gets you nowhere.

Why the "Paperwork" matters.

(Originally posted at CARM)

I have seen a new slant to the postings of some here in this forum, that the actual beliefs of the RCC does not matter, but that what matters is the "fruits" of Catholics.

This, of course, is a major error in thinking. After thinking about it myself, I do see what they are trying to do.

Those people here who are attacking the church believe that Catholics only believe what they do (Assumption, PV of Mary, the Eucharist) because they are Catholic. So, their logic is that if they can convince us not to be Catholic, we will also abandon all the "unscriptural nonsense" that Catholics believe.

But here is the flaw in that argument. I do not believe in those things because I am Catholic. I am Catholic because I believe in those Dogmas. All Convincing me not to be Catholic would accomplish is either to drive me to the Orthodox faith, or away from religion all together, because if I am wrong, and you are wrong, then what is the point?

Those who would point out every error, sin, lapse in judgment, crime and questionable practice of this Bishop or that Priest or some church in the middle of nowhere are doing nothing to convince me that they are right, they are merely arguing that I am wrong. I have seen this on discussion boards before, rarely do radicals succeed in driving people away from the church and into their brand of Fundamentalism, if anything they succeed in driving people into agnosticism.

When Jesus preached to the people, he criticized the Jewish leaders for their hypocrisy and failing to practice what they preached. But never once did he claim Judaism was a false belief because of it. He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."


Notice that Christ never says that they negate Judaism, but merely that they are hypocrites. It is a good statement of what Catholics believe about our Bishops. You could paraphrase this: "The (Bishops and Priests) have seated themselves in the (chairs of the apostles);
therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."


Now, I feel this is a little harsh as the overwhelming majority of Priests and Bishops are good men. But I am trying to illustrate why posting story after story of a bad priest or a Bishop who did not do the right thing, will not affect my faith. Jesus never instructed the Jews to abandon their faith because of their questionable leadership, nor will I abandon mine.

My problems with "Alberto" by Chick publications.

All too often people accuse Catholics of attacking Alberto's background, but not what he says, well, I try to address that here, hope you like it.

Alberto could not speak latin, impossible for someone who attended a seminary prior to Vatican II

Children are not placed into seminaries and certainly do not become priests at young ages (Alberto claims we went to a seminary when he was seven years old). Also interesting that Alberto never identifies the seminary. Thus making it impossible to contact the school or former students. This is his first deception.

Also, the Priest is not Christ. Nor does his ordination grant him special "powers".

No Priest or "Bishop" would refer to the Church as the "Old Roman Catholic Institution" (The "Old Roman Catholics" being a schismatic sect in Germany, started after Vatican I) This is also the first time Alberto referred to himself as a "Bishop". Again, with no proof.

He goes on to give statistics with no backing and repeat a extremely anti-catholic book as if it were an expert source. But like many Anti-catholics he refrains from citing the Scriptures, the Catechism, or the Code of Canon Law. This is necessary to prevent the readers from going to those sources. He needs to create dependance on his words as the only facts. This is another tactic of con-men.

And the age-old myth that all priests are rapists, and nuns are sexually repressed. And his source? The equally dubious Charles Chiniquy (whom the church does admit was a priest, yet another ex-priest that is not denied, no, only Alberto gets that honor)

No tunnels have ever been found linking Monasteries with convents. In spain or anywhere else. But Alberto throws out places and dates to appear to be telling the truth. Of course those dates are in the middle of a civil war, so when absolutely no proof is found of his story, he can just claim that it was destroyed, convenient. Of course this is just one of the stories he stole from Maria Monk.

On page 13, he makes one of his biggest mistakes, he claims the Priesthood cannot exist without celibacy. Here he shows his ignorance of Catholicism. If he had been a Priest he would have known that Married priests were allowed in the western church for the first almost 1000 years of the Church, he would also know that there is no vow of celibacy for Priests in the Eastern rites of the Church. So clearly the sacrament of Holy Orders has nothing to do with Celibacy.

Then he quotes Augustine, no actually he doesn't, he quotes Augustine and then states that quote has been removed. Again, how convenient for him.

Next, Alberto shows his ignorance of both Latin and Greek. First of all, Simon is Hebrew, not greek. and means, "he who hears"

And "Petros" does not mean "little pebble" that is "Lithos" Petros is the masculine form of the word "Petra" Jesus could not name Simon "Petra" as Simon was a man and "Petra" is a feminine noun.

Jesus did not call Peter "satan" Satan gave Peter those words, that is whom Jesus was condemning. Because would Jesus have allowed Satan in their midst? No, of course not.

Alberto then goes on to point out yet another hypocrite priest, he needs his readers to at once pity and fear Priests.

"We were not allowed to read Bibles". This, of course, is an outright lie. Every Seminary teaches the Bible and requires students to read them. The Scriptures are read aloud in Church, but Alberto never mentions that. He needs to perpetuate myths in order to make his story believable.

The Nhil Obistat and Imprintur is not a "seal of approval" It is not a "seal" at all.

The church has always known Peter was married, as a matter of fact there have been 8 married Popes and one widower. Read the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, that states clearly Peter was married. This is one of Albertos most revealing mistakes. It shows a complete lack of knowledge and History that no seminarian would possess.

He then refers people to "The two Babylons" by Hislop, and "50 years in the Church of Rome" by Chiniquy. Both, of course, available from Chick publications for a small fee. (this was the main purpose of the tracts, for Jack to sell more publications) Now, he could have referred people to the Catechism or the Catholic Encyclopedia for clarification on Dogma or Doctrine. But that needs to be avoided, when people find out the truth, they have the bad habit of converting.

It claims the Inquisition started in 1200 and was run by the Dominicans and Jesuits. Of course the problem is neither of these groups existed in 1200.

Next, comes a story about Donna Maria de Bohorques actually found in Juan Antonio Llorente's "A Critical History of the Inquisition of Spain", pp. 216-218,

Alberto actually got the story all wrong, he combined the stories of Dona Maria and her sister Dona Jane and combined them into a new person called "Dona Isabella". He then goes on to tell more lies about the Catholic church, the most glaring being that Catholic's believe that Mary claimed to be "the way, the truth and the light". This is of course completely false and is solely to reinforce the sterotype of the uneducated that Catholics are completely ignorant of scriptures.

Again, he goes into details that he destroyed churches and Pastors (never of course, naming ANY of them in order to prevent anyone from trying to verify) He claimed then he was sent to a seminary in Costa Rica, again, not giving a name, why?

Then comes the infamous myth of the "roman Catholic Supercomputer", its absurdity speaks for itself.

In 1981, Alberto states that it "won't be long" before Jesus comes, it is now 27 years later. "Jesus is coming soon" is often a tactic used by religious con men to convince people that their life savings won't be needed and to use it to "spread the truth" before it is too late.

On Page 21, is the total irony. It shows Alberto lying to a Pastor to win his trust by claiming he "suffered under them" (the Catholic Church) in Spain. The EXACT SAME claim he is making in this comic. Was he lying then or lying in this comic?

The next thing, he introduces the angelic looking little Catholic girl, whose "job" it is to destroy marriages and basically act like a %!%+!. This is one of many caricatures he introduces. These caricatures serve the purpose of making people distrust and despise devout Catholics. This is another tactic that rather than educate people about true Catholicism, just scare them away from it.

Then, he sets up his alibi. Saying that the first thing the RCC tries to do to attack good and Holy men of God is to discredit them. Thus, now any attacks on Albertos credibility are now explained. He is not wrong, he is being attacked because he is right. It is a great con, used by snake oil salesman and hucksters for years, (ie the recent book: Cures THEY don't want you to know about). It is always the truth-seeker that is attacked by the liars. Thus, he has ironclad credibility, even though he has provided no proof. The lack of proof becomes the proof.

Again comes another irony, he explains how he "acted" anti-catholic to gain trust. Again, identical to what he is doing in this comic, if he was lying then why shouldn't we believe he is lying now?

Again is the angelic Catholic School Girls, both deceptive, one a %!%+!. Again, this is to scare people into not letting their children get anywhere near Catholics. And he stated that they committed all these sins, to "get points to get out of Purgatory". There is no "point system" for purgatory. Again, Alberto shows his ignorance of a Basic catholic belief. He goes on to show how little he knows about Purgatory, it was not "made official" at Florence. One must wonder, if Catholicism is so transparent, why is Alberto sowing so much fear of it?

The idea that killing can bring grace is horrible. It cannot. And this odd obsession anti-catholics have with Purgatory, they think it controls our lives, it does not.

He then goes on to twist and distort the history of the Mass, we have records of "mass" being held in the second century, Alberto claims it was introduced in the 4th. Catholics do not believe Christ is re-sacrificed at the Mass, a trained Priest would know that. And it is Christ who stated of the bread and wine "this is my body...this is my blood" The blasphemy, to a Catholic, is denying it.

And the notion that Hebrews 10:12 is NEVER read in the Catholic Church is laughable. Actually it is read on Palm Sunday. More proof of Riveras ignorance of Catholicism.

It then makes the ridiculous assertion that Catholics believe that no one can approach Jesus but Mary. Of course we can approach Jesus. He also brings up the myth of Mary as co-redeemer. Catholics do not believe that.

He then goes on to claim that a Jewish rabbi found that it was offensive for Jesus to refer to his mother as "woman". Of course here Alberto, without realizing it, accuses Christ of commiting a sin (dishonoring his mother). But he skips past that to accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary as a goddess.

And Catholics certainly don't believe Mary is "co-equal with God the Father" Again, a mistake no Priest would make. But, he needs to explain the title of "Mother of God" this way, because the truth might actually make people think, so here a lie serves the purpose of scaring people away from Catholicsim and making them pity the ignorant stupid Catholics.

He then gives twisted definitions of penance,

And then come the proofs of the id card and letter, I have dealt with elsewhere. They, in and of themselves prove nothing as they can be acquired by other than legitimate means.

Next, Alberto claims that high Catholics are Masons. Hardly likely as code of Canon Law at that time forbid membership in the Masons and stated it was grounds for immediate excommunication.

He then claimed that the Illuminati were one and the same with the alumbrados, also unlikely since Loyola was one year old when the Alumbrados first appeared. Also, the illuminati was made up of Bavarian agnostics 200 years after the Alumbrados (which were heretical Catholic mystics) disappeared.

Of course, he then goes on to explain that the reason so many churches are recognizing Catholics as fellow Christians is not because they are finally opening their eyes to the truth, but because they are afraid of attacks by the Catholic "plants" in their congregations.

Alberto then goes on to claim he admitted everything in front of a large crowd in Guatamala in 1965. No details are given such as the name of this gathering or who was present, no, as usual, Alberto is very careful not to give out too much detail that may be used to try to verify his story, he needs total dependence on him and his facts.

He then claims that he was tortured in a mental hospital to the point he was placed in an iron lung, nice image, but the iron lung had pretty much ceased to be used in 1960. He goes on to claim he recieved the revelation that Jesus cannot be re-sacrificed at the mass. Well, if he had been a priest, he would not have needed God to reveal this to him, because the church does not believe this. It is just yet another thing to cast doubts on his credibility as a Priest.

He then states he got out of the iron lung and "removed the tubes from my body" Either he was in the iron lung or he had tubes in his body, you can't have rubber tubes in a iron lung, they would constantly be contracting or expanding with the air pressure, this pretty much debunks this part of Alberto's story as impossible.

This is my take on Albertos' story, I have tried to avoid any discussion of him or his background as the complaint is always that Catholics never discuss what he says, only attack him.

Ah, the hypocrisy

Over at "Abortion Clinic Days" they have posted I am sure what they consider to be a fair sign that they would like to force all health care providers and pharmacists to post in their offices.

NOTICE TO PATIENTS

I follow my own religious beliefs ahead of your medical needs. Therefore, I will not support, offer, or approve any of the following checked off below.

__ I do not subscribe to a woman's right to make her own decisions about her reproductive healthcare.

__I do not believe that a woman has the right to choose her method of contraception and therefore will not sell prescription birth control.

__I do not believe in Emergency Contraception, even if you have been raped, and will therefore not give you Plan B to prevent pregnancy.

__ I do not believe in abortion and therefore will not provide an abortion nor will I offer a referral for an abortion elsewhere.

Of course the first line jumps out at you. A Doctor or other health care provider should be required to violate their principles and religious beliefs. A Catholic doctor should be forced to provide services that go against his conscience. What's next? A Orthodox Jewish doctor should be forced to keep his clinic open on Saturdays as to not place his religious beliefs above that of his female patients? A Muslim doctor should be forbidden from taking time out of his day to observe his times of prayer so not to interfere with his patients care?

Of course, a womans right to choose trumps the Doctors freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Sorry, this is still America, I have the right to my beliefs and you don't have the right to force me to go against them. Nor, do you have the right to shame me for them.

Here is my response to her post, I don't think it will be posted. A message came up that my email address had been marked as spam:

so, let me get this straight, you support a womans right to choose. But not the Doctors right to choose?

Women have a right to choose an abortion free from ridicule, but health care providers don't have the right to refuse to participate in them free from ridicule?

Nice to know you place a womans right to abortion above everyone elses rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Better yet, why don't we require doctors who follow their convictions to wear a "A" on their clothes at all times so that they can be recognized as enemies of the state and enemies of women.

Hey, worked for Hitler.

Lessons Learned

In the military, whenever an operation is completed, often the "After action report" will include "lessons learned". Well, after getting sucked into the "crackergate" controversy over at Pharyngula, I learned some things:

1. There are such things as fundamentalist Atheists. The sanctimony and self-righteousness of some of the atheists over there would put Fred Phelps to shame.
2. Atheists have a odd definition of what a personal attack is. (Over on those boards Catholics have been called: religious, deluded lunatic, a**holes, f***ers, Catholibots incapable of independent, rational or intelligent thinking, who abuse our children by teaching them our religion. But, none of this is meant as a personal attack [yeah, right])
3. I used to think atheists believed that others were free to choose what they wanted to believe, nope, it seems atheists have a major superiority complex. Apparently only a child or a imbecile believes in religion.
4. And anyone who is a Christian bears personal responsibility for the sins of every other Christian throughout history.
5. They know what we believe better than we do, just ask them.

Oh well, I am done with this. I refuse to give Dr. Myers any more attention. His threat to desecrate the Eucharist, I see know, is nothing more than a child demanding attention. He lack the courage to enter a Catholic Church to get the Eucharist himself (what is he afraid of?), and now he is going to rant in private about the church, well, I encourage my fellow Catholic bloggers to ignore him, deny him his 15 minutes of fame and let him go back to the obscurity where he belongs.

Oh, that one hurt!

I posted this over at Scienceblogs:

This just goes to prove that the last acceptible form of prejudice in the US is Anti-Catholic.

sigh, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Posted by: kmerian | July 13, 2008 1:36 PM

And the responses:

Absolutely. I mean, gosh, there are people getting tied to fences and beaten to death for being Catholic, states keep passing laws against Catholics getting married, and we would never, ever elect a Catholic president!

Posted by: Gretchen | July 13, 2008 1:46 PM

Right. No prejudice against Gays, Muslims, Blacks, Jews, etc. Only against Catholics, and it takes the terrible form of people saying your belief in transubstantiation is absurd. Congratulations, you may win the award for the dumbest comment ever.

Posted by: Taz | July 13, 2008 1:53 PM

Jon Rowe wrote:

Man I can't believe how many comments PZ is getting over at his blog.

I know- it's crazy. I think a good part of was instigated by a sock-puppeting troll (or trolls), though. One weirdo had about 15 names and all of his posts were about the caliber of kmerian's here. And for whatever reason people just can't seem to ignore it. Then it just snowballs and, oh my.

Posted by: Leni | July 13, 2008 2:12 PM

And the one thing that seems to stay the same is the absurd need to case oneself as a martyr. This is pure ********. this is criticism of your ideas, which is not bigotry. Every idea is open to criticism and criticism is not evidence of bigotry. This is nothing more than this country's cult of victimization - everyone's a victim because being a victim insulates you from criticism. Sorry, that isn't going to fly here. If you want to believe stupid things, you have every right to do so. But others also have the right to call those beliefs stupid. And calling them stupid is not bigotry, it's criticism.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 13, 2008 2:30 PM

I stand by what I said.

The fact is, that if Prof. Meyer had written a post that vitriolic about any other group (with the possible exception of Muslims) 99% of the people there defending him, would be calling for his head on a platter. There would be protests outside his office and he would be stripped of tenure.

In academia, criticism and mocking of Christians (especially Catholics) is perfectly ok. Criticism of any other groups, is verbotten, and will earn you a very swift visit from the PC police.

If you want to criticize what I believe, fine, go right ahead. But keep in mind, I am no victim, I will fight back.

Also, how is calling me a "deluded lunatic" who believes "stupid" "hokum" criticizing only my beliefs?

A new low.

I encourage everyone to pray for this professor.

You have to wonder what would make someone this hateful.

Professor PZ Meyers, describes himself as a "liberal athiest". Which is his right, where he differs from most Athiests (who could care less what we religious do) is he has a level of sanctimony and self-righteousness that would make even the most extreme Baptist go "Dude, come on!".

He is certain that all of us are imbeciles who should bow before his superior intellect. His frequent use of profanity just shows the level of his ignorance and how even the most highly educated can have a pitiful vocabulary.

Well, I will let Bill Donohue be the attack dog on this one. I would just encourage everyone to pray for this soul living in darkness.

A response to Pilgrim

This is a response to "the Pilgrim" over at defending, contending. He wrote an article entitled "It's all about Mary".

Fact or Fiction; Scripture or Tradition?

The following is an examination of fifteen of the most often used arguments by Roman Catholic adherents in their defense of their near deification of Mary, (along with a brief response to each argument). Each of the pictures in this post can be clicked on to enlarge.

15 Most used arguments? By Catholics? Where. Some are common arguments, like #1, some I have never seen before in my life.

Argument 1). Mary was blessed among women: FACT

Mary was blessed, however, so is every Believer. To make the leap that because Mary was blessed she should receive the adoration/veneration/worship that she’s given is not Scripturally logical. In fact, Scripture records the way Jesus handled the first attempt to elevate Mary’s status. In Luke 11:27-28 a woman in the crowd tried to draw attention away from Christ and to Mary (what the RCC has perfected) but Jesus corrected her saying, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it. “ (Luke 11:27-28). Also, Mary wasn’t/isn’t the only person blessed. See the Sermon on the Mount for a list of others who are “blessed” (Matthew 5:3-11).

That is all true, but notice something else, Mary is the only specific person called "blessed". And, not only that, but when the angel greeted her, he stated "Hail, Mary". "Hail" in first century Roman Culture was the greeting a subordinate gave to a superior. The angel was greeting someone greater than himself! This is the only time in the Bible an angel greets someone like this.

Argument 2). Mary is worthy of/deserves our adoration and veneration: FICTION

No human is worthy of any amount of veneration or worship because we are all sinners (Psalm 14:3, Romans 3:23); we are to worship God and serve Him only (Matthew 4:10); and God will not give His Glory to another (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11).

Of course no human is worthy of worship, that is why it is wrong to worship Mary, that is the heresy of Collyridianism. And no Catholic claims that God shares glory with Mary.

Argument 3). It is permissible and acceptable to pray to Mary: FICTION

Mary was a human being and suffered the wages of sin–death (Romans 6:23) like everyone else. Scripture prohibits contacting, seeking out, consulting, and/or praying to the dead (Deuteronomy 18:11). It is called necromancy and it detestable to God (Deuteronomy 18:9, 12). Additionally, spiritists, sorcerers, and mediums (who seek to contact the dead) are also condemned by God

This is a favorite of those that condemn the Catholic and Orthodox churches respect of Mary. But the author of this list attempts to equate the belief of the Communion of Saints with the practice of necromancy. When they are in fact 2 different things.

The communion of Saints is the belief that those who have gone to Heaven are aware of and can pray for those of us on Earth. It is the belief that those who die in Christ are forever united with him. Necromancy is the practice of contacting the dead in an effort to tell the future or to change the future. That is also forbidden in the Catholic Church.

Argument 4). By bowing down and praying to Mary, Catholics are not worshipping her, just venerating her. In fact it is also permissible to make statues of her and bow down to them too: FICTION

The “veneration” and bowing down to statues is forbidden. It does not matter what you want to call something to make it more palatable, what matters is what God calls it. We can trivialize sin all day long (humans do it all the time) but God has made His commands very clear. I urge you to review all the pictures in this post (click on them to enlarge) and compare what you see—not with what you think and feel—but with what has been revealed in God’s eternal Word. I recommend starting with the 1^st and 2^nd Commandments found in Exodus 20:4-5.

You are right, it is wrong to venerate and worship statues. That is why Catholics do not do this. Appearances are irrelevant. Read 2 Samuel 6, it records David singing, dancing, worshiping and offering sacrifices to the Lord. But, in actual appearances, he was doing those things in front of the Ark of the Covenant. Yet no one argues that is a violation of the first commandment, why does David get a consideration that Catholics do not?

Argument 5). Mary pleads our case to Jesus who would listen to His mother above us: FICTION

This same Jesus that supposedly obeys Mary’s petitions is the same Jesus who when told by Mary that “they have no wine” replied, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (John 2:3-4). She then tells the servants to do whatever Jesus commands.

The Scriptures paint an entirely different picture of the Jesus that supposedly can’t understand us mere humans, thus requiring Mary’s petitions. Hebrews 2:17-18 shows us of a merciful Christ who—being made like man—is able to the come to our aid because He too experienced the same temptations we do. Furthermore, it is Jesus who is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2), not Mary.

The only fiction here is that this is a belief of Catholics, there is no Catholic doctrine that Jesus will listen to Mary before he listens to us. Please...

Argument 6). Mary is our Mediatrix, our co-redeemer with Jesus: FICTION

This RCC concept didn’t even emerge until the proclamation from Pope Benedict XV in 1922. But the date of its introduction matters little in contrast to how utterly blasphemous it is to even suggest this, let alone teach as if it’s the truth of God. This idea is in direct violation of God’s Word; Jesus is our advocate (1 John 2:1-2) and “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .” (1 Timothy 2:5) not Mary.

Another fiction, no Catholic claims that Mary approaches the Father for us, that is a direct violation of 1 Timothy 2:5. Also, our current Pope has stated that Mary will never be proclaimed "co-redemptrix":

Argument 7). Mary was conceived without sin: FICTION

The idea of the “Immaculate Conception” proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854 has absolutely no foundation in the Scriptures. Even King David (a man after God’s own heart) proclaimed that He was conceived in sin and he was brought forth with iniquity (Psalm 51:5) just like every person ever born.

Again, in Luke's Gospel, the Angel refers to Mary as "full of Grace". Where there is sin, there cannot be grace.

Argument 8). Mary remained sinless her entire life: FICTION

Those who say they have no sin are liars (1 John 1:8); no one does good, not even one (Psalm 14:3); each of us has turned to our own way (Isaiah 53:6); all have sinned (Romans 3:23). This includes Mary. There’s nothing found in Scripture to suggest otherwise. Anyone who claims Mary was sinless is basing this off of their opinion grounded in the purely mythical tradition of man.

Mary proved she was like everyone else (a sinner) when she brought her offering to the temple (Luke 2:24). This was a sin offering that Mary would not have been required to bring had she been sinless (Leviticus 5:11, 12:8). Mary also acknowledged that God was her Savior (Luke 1:47). A sinless person does not need a savior.

First of all, Mary never claimed to be sinless. She brought forth an offering for purification from uncleanliness of childbirth. To fail to do so, would violate the Law, and thus, be a sin. Also, of course God was her savior, who do you think it was that saved her from the stain of original sin?

Argument 9). Mary remained a virgin her whole life (perpetual virginity): FICTION

This is not only beyond reason, but it is contradictory to the revealed Word of God, the holy Scriptures. Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born (Matthew 1:24-25). This means that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph no longer kept Mary a virgin. Mary and Joseph had other children, the half-brothers and half-sisters of the Messiah. This can be seen in Matthew 12:46-50, Matthew 13:55-57, Mark 6:3-4, John 2:12, John 7:3, 5, 10, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5, and Galatians 1:19. (Before you say, “This was brothers and sisters in the Lord” I suggest you read the context of these passages.)

Additionally, Mary withholding sex from Joseph would have not been in accordance with God’s plans for mankind: “Be fruitful and multiply . . .” (Genesis 1:28); “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (1 Corinthians 7:5).

This is easy. Yes, Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth. That does not mean she ceased being a virgin as soon as she gave birth, as the literal reading would imply. Also, nowhere does the Bible record Mary having other children. And the brethren and sisters of the Lord? These are translated with the Greek words "Adelphos and Adelphi" Which can mean any number of relations or even countrymen. The fact is, the Bible does not record Mary and Joseph having any other children.

Argument 10). Mary ascended into Heaven: FICTION

The assumption of Mary into Heaven wasn’t even introduced into the RCC until 1950 by then Pope Pius XII, and there is absolutely no Scriptural support for this, not even a hint of it in Scripture.

This was hardly introduced in 1950. It has been a belief in the Eastern church since prior to the 4th century. Tradition that has been preserved in the Jerusalem church since the times of the Apostles. Also, I would point out that neither Catholics nor Orthodox claim a Scriptural Basis for this belief.

Argument 11). Mary was the greatest among all born evidenced by the fact that she was “chosen” by God to birth the Messiah: FICTION

If anyone was the greatest ever born it would have been John the Baptist, not Mary. Why? Because Jesus said so. Jesus declared of John the Baptist that of those born among women there is no one greater than John (Luke 7:28). Following the logic of the RCC which drives their adoration/veneration/worship of Mary, one would expect that their devotion to Mary would only be eclipsed by their devotion to John the Baptist, however, this is not the case.

Furthermore, the emphasis put on Mary by the RCC is grossly out of proportion to the emphasis she receives from the Bible. Mary–the earthly mother of Jesus– is never mentioned again in the Bible after Acts 1:14. This means that of the 27 books of the New Testament, only five of them (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts) contain any reference to Mary. Not what one would expect when one looks at the current deification of her by the RCC. Even when one would expect to find her name among those mentioned in Hebrews 11, (commonly known as the great Hall of Faith), Mary and any reference to her is strangely absent.

This is grasping at anything. Neither "Jesus Christ" nor "Holy Spirit" appears anywhere in the Old Testament. Therefore, by your logic, we must assume that they are unimportant right? NO. One verse of the Word of God is just as important as 100.

As for the "great hall of Faith"? NO New Testament figures are named there, so her not being there is not "strange" at all.

Argument 12). Mary is the Queen of Heaven: FICTION

There is no Queen of Heaven. In fact, the only mention in Scripture of a “Queen of Heaven” (a false god) is in Jeremiah 7:18 in which those who are making cakes to her (and those pouring out drink offerings to other gods) will have the wrath of God poured out on them (Jeremiah 7:20).

Here, you are making a statement of fact "There is no queen of Heaven" with absolutely no supporting evidence. That there is a pagan deity also called the "Queen of Heaven" is again irrelevant. Similar names do not imply any connection.

Argument 13). Marian Apparitions are genuine and legitimate: FICTION

Again, no such teaching, example or precedent for this is found in the Scriptures. However, we are told “Marvel not, for even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

No catholic is obligated to believe in ANY Marian apparitions, they are considered private revelation and therefore not in any way binding.

Argument 14). Marian apparition messages are true and from God: FICTION

“You will never be alone. My immaculate heart will be your refuge and the way which will lead you to God.” - Mary Apparition in Fatima

“I alone am able to save you from the calamities that approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved.” - Mary Apparition in Akita

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my immaculate heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.” - Mary Apparition in Fatima

“. . . I call upon you to open yourselves completely to me so that through each of you I may be enabled to convert and save the world . . .” - Mary Apparition in Medjugorje

The messages of this entity claiming to be Mary ultimately lead people’s attention away from Christ and to herself (itself), not Christ. The Apostle Paul sought to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul warned us that if anyone, even an angel from Heaven, preached a gospel contrary to what was already preached, he/she/it is to be cursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

Again, I refer you to my answer to the above opinion. Also, I would point out that there have been numerous statements against the "apparitions" at Medjugorje

Argument 15). Roman Catholic Church (RCC) tradition has provided us the doctrines on Mary: FACT

This is true. The RCC consisting of sinful, fallible, fallen human beings has given the world these traditions of men, but the holy revealed Word of God—given to the prophets by inspiration and by which will never pass away—does not support these legends, myths, and downright heretical false doctrines.

Is God incapable of preserving his word outside the Bible? Is humans sinful nature more powerful than the Holy Spirit? Answer these questions and you will have the answer as to whether or not God can use Tradition to instruct his church.

Conclusion:

As noted above, Mary is never spoken of in the history of the Church or the letters (Epistles) to the Church (except in Acts 1:14 where a brief mention of her is made). No where in all the instruction of conduct, examples of operation, and direction given to the early church for its operation and function is Mary ever mentioned, yet today you couldn’t walk into a Roman Catholic Church without bumping into something to do with Mary, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a member of the RCC that would deny Mary as being a pivotal or important part of their life in the mother church. This devotion and near-deification of Mary is something you cannot find anywhere in the early Church. The silence of the Scriptures alone speaks volumes against the RCC’s current obsession with Mary.

“For there is one God, and one mediator also

between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .”

1 Timothy 2:5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This verse is misleading, of course Catholics don't consider Mary a mediator between God and men. The silence of the Scriptures mean nothing. Mary is not the focus of the Scriptures, Jesus is. And to claim the early church is silent on Mary is to be completely ignorant of the early church. Catholicdotcom has some wonderful quotes of the fathers in regard to Mary.

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.

In the combox...

over at Beggars All, dtking said in response to my statement that the Catholic Church does not prohibit personal interpretation of the Bible:

I beg your pardon...John A. O’Brien: The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile. (Italics are his for emphasis) See John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, rev. ed. (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974), p. 117.

It's clear that he doesn't think God is able to communicate clearly with His own God-breathed words.

Well, thank God for Google Books, I went there and they happened to have this book and so I looked it up in context, and this is what it said;

"If you do not claim to be infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case, your statement crumbles (this is a statement to a Protestant who said that the Bible is the only infallible interpreter he needs). The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile. Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader. The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement."

Notice that Fr. O'Brian is not even discussing personal interpretation. He is discussing infallibility. Context is everything. Of course the Catholic is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures. CCC #109:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

Hope this helps.

A response to: Tiber Swim Book Club #1

Over at Beggars All James Swan has written an article called the "Tiber swim book club". In it, he is begging potential Catholic converts to be "fair and dilligent" in their studies, stating that they "owe it to themselves and their families". He then tells them they should get a 150 year old venomously anti-catholic book called "A Treatise on the right use of the Fathers"

"fair and dilligent"? Well, I looked at the book and this jumped out on the first page:

When the avarice and ambition of the Romish clergy had, by working with the superstition and ignorance of the people, erected what they call their hierarchy, and digested an ecclesiastical policy on the ruins of gospel liberty, for the administration of it they found nothing of such use for the support of this lordly system, as the making the authority of the Fathers sacred and decisive.

Yeah, this books seems very fair. Page one and the propaganda starts. If it cannot speak the truth about what Catholics believe and has such an obvious agenda, why should I believe what it says about the fathers?

Here's an idea, get a copy of the writings of the ECF's and just read them for yourself and make up your own mind?

Why I believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary.

Several people in this forum have asked me to defend my position on Mary. So, I will try.

The Bible is silent on the issue of the perpetual viriginity of Mary. While there are references to "brothers" and "sisters" which on the surface seems to support the idea of Mary having other children, the fact is we know nothing about their exact relationship with Jesus. The Bible is silent on these family members untill Jesus is 30! It makes sense that if there were other childeren involved in the return from Egypt or on the trip from Jerusalem, there would be some mention. Now I realize that this is not strong evidence but it is circumstantial and must be acknowledged.

However, there is the additional problem, that even if Mary did not have additional children, that does not mean she remained a virgin. So we must look at the evidence we have. The Bible records that the Angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife. But it also makes it clear that he had no relations with Mary while she was his betrothed, nor did he have any relations while she was pregnant. Here, we must ask, why? Nothing in Jewish law forbids a man having relations with his pregnant wife. But we see that Joseph choose not to.

An Explination for this may be found in other documents from antiquity. In the Protoevangelum of James written in the 2nd century we read the early Christian legend that Mary was a temple virgin under a life-long vow of celebacy. And that she was entrusted to Joseph to care for her. This is not unheard of in antiquity. And, it would explain why Joseph did not have relations with her while she was pregnant.

Add to this that in antiquity, in the early church, there is no counter argument. There is no one claiming Mary was not a virgin, no one claiming relatives of Christ. As a matter of Fact we know from other early christian sources that James "the brother of the Lord" was in fact a son of Joseph, a view supported by the Protoevangelum.

In short, after prayer and study, there appears to be no evidence from the Scriptures, antiquity or Tradition to support the idea that Mary did not have other children. At least, that is my opinion.

Response to eris...

In my stumbling around cyberspace I came upon an interesting blog titled "Masks of Eris" One of her more recent blog entries "A Catholic dilemma", makes for some interesting reading, but it appears to be a gross over-simplification of religion.

She writes:

It is a well-known fact that religion isn’t either necessary for a moral life or, indeed, even a very good source of morals.

Here, I would disagree. I happen to believe that religion is an excellent source of morals. Sometimes we as people need to be told the obvious. "The golden rule", is a notion found in every religion, be it the karma of the Hindus, the Circle of the Buddhists or the morals of Judaism and Christianity. Also, if religion were unnecessary, why is it a element of every society humankind has created?

A further idea of illustrating this point just popped into my head.

Consider the infamous Catholic kid-bothering priests, like Brendan Smyth. Consider the fact that they were the seemingly most religious and sacred persons around in their societies. Then consider what they did.

Then consider whether or not their position was anything to them other than a means to an end, that is, a way for them to use and manipulate people to get what they want. They violated their oaths and betrayed the people who trusted them.

Which of the two resulting alternatives do you rather take: That these outwardly most holy men were liars and didn’t believe the hellfire and post-mortem justice they preached, or that their godly beliefs were of a form that found raping children acceptable?

Consider that.

Or, consider that they were/are pedophiles. Their positions had nothing to do with their crimes, anymore than the teacher who is caught can blame education. Most likely, they did believe what they preached, that makes them hypocrites, but it is hardly condemning of all religion.

The plain truth is that religion doesn’t, on the average, make people any better. Some it helps, some it just hides, some it gives power to do great good or terrible ill, but on the average in doesn’t make people any better. As it isn’t true either, why keep it? Let it pass into the company of hankering for a Habsburg king and spotting ufos — an anachronistic hobby for the slightly eccentric ones.

So, if you happen to be religious or spiritual, you are an "eccentric" with an "anachronistic hobby". Of course, I have seen religion play a huge role in helping people turn their lives in a different direction. And, make them better people. I believe people do need religion, in one form or another. It is our nature, how God made us. We do have souls, and our souls are constantly reaching towards him that created us. That is truth, a greater truth that I am happy to know.

A response to Mr. Svendson

In surfing the web, I came across the blog of noted Protestant apologist Eric Svendsen. Posting as "New Covenant Bible Church", he makes the following statement:

Witness the spectacle of hundreds, or thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics massing together to worship a piece of melba toast, or a stain on the side of a wall, or a shadow against a building, or a growth on a tree, or the latest "apparition" that vaguely resembles the shape of what Roman Catholics have come to associate with Mary.

Now, I have been a Catholic my entire life, and have never witnessed "the spectacle of hundreds, or thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics massing together to worship a piece of melba toast..." This is a ridiculous assertion. Most Catholics I know, view such things as silliness, and when they do occur (contrary to what Mr. Svendsen says) they are almost always accompanied by a representative of the local diocese warning against seeing to much in it.

I guess that is why Mr. Svendsen does not allow comments on his blog, that way, he can post whatever he wants without fear of correction.

Tony Alamo

After a few hit and run comments by Thomas Richards over at spirituallysmart.com. I realized by reading his site that he is a disciple of Tony Alamo and Alberto Rivera. I have already discussed Alberto, and the fact that he has been completely discredited (even by people who agree with him!) and so we will look at Tony Alamo.

Thomas has done pages and videos about his time with Tony Alamo, but his defenses of Alamo are vague. Alamo is a pedophile (interesting that Thomas bashes the Church about the sex scandal, but he is a proud follower of a pedophile!)

Two of Alamo's wives, were just 13 and 11 when he "married" them. And of course, he denies it, apparently in his world bearing false witness is ok if it keeps your butt out of jail.

But, in reading about some of the people who left, it is not Thomas' fault. Alamo is very good at being two-faced, he and Susan act in such a way that most people have no idea about how truly evil this man is. That is why his motto is "receive not an accusation against an elder."

I pray for everyone under the spell of this false Christ. He is a man of great evil.

For more information:
Tony Alamo News
"Nailing Tony Alamo"

Anti-Catholicsm rears its ugly head.

It is rare when I come across a true "anti-catholic" on the internet. Keep in mind, I define an "Anti-Catholic" as someone with an irrational fear and/or hatred of the Catholic Church and Catholics in general. Today on CARM I ran across this gem:

I've been around catholics for decades and arouns them on the internet for years. The catholics in person are as ignorant of what they believe as I would expect. The catholics on the internet are trained liars. By this I mean that regardless of how it stares at them from accurate sources, including their own, they lie their way out of it, using the usual catholic controvertist methods. That means if one of them were to say good morning to me, I'd wait to see if it actually is one. I object to your statement of pre-determined, since I look for the unusual all the time. You know, the possibility that a catholic may agree that what he believes and preaches is not true. I don't hold my breath, you can understand why.

How is this Christian?

My Response to Joe C.

Over at Symphony of Scripture, I have been posting in the comboxes over there, defending the Catholic Faith. Joe C. responded to one of my comments, and wanted a detailed response, so I will post it here. His words are in italics.

Hey I have the Holy Spirit too, cool!!!! Guess I have as much authority as the apostles and Pope by your reasoning? I think you better restate that argument, or nix it alltogether.

The Holy Spirit, gives different gifts to different people. Not everyone is called to be a successor to the Apostles, to possess teaching authority. But those that are called, are Bishops of the Church.

If you need to fill ‘vacancies’ in an ‘office’ of apostleship (aka, mormon alert), then why aren’t there Catholic apostles? And don’t say the cardinals, bishops, and priests are. Why not exactly 12?

Sorry, Joe but the bishops are the modern day successors of the Apostles. I know you told me not to say that, but that is like saying "tell me what 2+2 is, and don't say 4!". Anyway. In Acts we see the first apostle added outside of the twelve (Paul) As the church grew, so did the numbers of apostles.

Why isn’t the Pope the most like Jesus out of all of us, Kenneth? Read my previous comment, please. If the Papacy is God ordained and infalliable (do you even see how cultish and power grabbing that is????), when from the seat of Power, then what of the crusades and burning/torturing/persecution of the heretics? Very Christian, very Christ like. All proclaimed ‘legal’ by the perpetrating Popes, and from their seats of power. Where did Jesus command such actions, how is any of that “Christian” and “From God”? I’d say that’s proof of the Papacy being not what it claims to be, among many other things, and without the Papacy, there is no Catholic anything. Think about it, and please go and study non-catholic written/influenced history, to learn what your “mother church” has done over the past 1700 years.

Because the Pope is still a man, not God. Yes, the Pope is Christs Vicar here on earth. But that does not automatically make him anything more than he is. He is NOT infallible in all things. Merely on matters of faith and morals and even then only when speaking ex cathedra. The Holy Spirit is capable of using men to speak and write infallibly. The Bible is proof of that.

About human nature, all being sinners, and infants…

“Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.” Ps.58:3

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Ps. 51:5

All have surely sinned. All are evil by nature, by the Curse on Adam. Surely God will not hold infants accountable, but that doesn’t negate their sin nature, and wicked hearts. Have you raised children? Full of lies, deceit, and disrespect, from birth even. And, as your Pope finally decided to contradict the other popes (red flag?), they don’t need a man made tradition of infant baptism to avoid the make believe place of ‘limbo’.

Yes, all have original sin, they are not, however, "evil by nature". God created man in his own image. So if man is evil by nature, God would need to be as well. And your verses confirm original sin, something I am not denying, but they do not speak to when or whether Mary was saved from original sin. In them, David, confirms his sinfulness. They do not speak of Mary. Also, I don't believe that children are "full of lies, deceit and disrespect from birth". Perhaps I am lucky, but that does not describe my daughter at all.

As for Limbo? That was never an official teaching of the church. It was a theological theory that the current Pope settled as baseless. I am not aware of any other Pope teaching it as fact.

I’m not sure how you consistently avoid the quoted verses from Hebrews on the Sacrifice of Christ being ONCE and for all, and ONLY ONCE. You keep changing that to fit your pre conceived bias ingrained in to your mind. Please stop. And don’t accuse us of believing in an ongoing sacrifice from ‘a different point of view’, who are you, Obi Wan Kenobi? (I just watched starwars tonight, lol). It was done once, once and for all, only once. How is that not clear to you? It’s not clear because you pre-assume the Catholic position is correct, and reinterpret based on that. That’s what happens with an ‘infalliable Pope’ and Magistrate.

The Catholic Church has always affirmed that the bloody sacrifice at Calvary spoke of in Hebrews was "once for all" (CCC 1364). In the Eucharist, however, it is made present. I attempted to explain the Catholic position to you in a way you would understand. That when a Protestant "accepts Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour" His sacrifice is made present in their lives. Apparently I am wrong, as evidenced by those who have corrected me. So I apologize.

This argument is pointless, no one is changing their minds, so I suggest we just stop. Like I brought up with an athiest evolutionist a few months ago, why come to this site to attack or defend, if you’re completely unwilling to change your mind? That means you just came to cause a fight, bicker, whatever, only you know. But why bother if you’re not willing to be open to change, or the truth on certain things? I just don’t get it. I wouldn’t go to a Catholic apologetics site if I wasn’t willing to be open to changing what I believed. Are you willing to change? I hope this message finds you well.

Joe

In debating, we search for truth. I do not seek to convert, but when I see Catholic beliefs being presented improperly, I respond. If Catholics were misrepresenting your beliefs, wouldn't you want to correct them. You may reject Catholicism, but you should accurately know what you are rejecting. Hope this helps