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.

A HAPPY sign of the times....

Benedict & Bartholomew embrace

Pope Benedict XVI embraces Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I during mass for feast of Saints Peter and Paul in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican June 29, 2008.
REUTERS/Tony Gentile (VATICAN)

Phelps inane ramblings.

Just for grins, I decided to listen to Eric Phelps radio program on fistamendmentradio.com. This is a one station radio network out of northern Florida.

The topic of his June 19th, 2008 show was the Catholic Code of Canon Law. No, not the 1983 code that is available on the Vatican website, but a 13 point "code" he found in a book titled "Romanism and the Republic" By Isaac J. Lansing and Leroy M. Vernon. This book was written in 1889. The "code" that Eric used is found on page "xi" and it says:

The Canon Law, the undisputed, fundamental code of
Romanism, is utterly incompatible with the Constitution
and laws of our Republic, as witness the following leading
provisions, gleaned therefrom by Dr. G. F. Von Schulte,
Professor of Canonical Law at Prague, viz. : — "
I. All human power is from evil, and must therefore be
standing under the Pope. "
II. The temporal powers must act unconditionally, in accordance
with the orders of the spiritual. "
III. The Church is empowered to grant, or to take away,
any temporal possession. "
IV. The Pope has the right to give countries and nations
which are non-Catholic to Catholic regents, who can reduce
them to slavery. "
V. The Pope can makes slaves of those Christian subjects
whose prince or ruling power Is interdicted by the Pope.
VI. The laws of the Church, concerning the liberty of the
Church and the Papal power, are based upon divine Inspiration. "
VII. The Church has the right to practice the unconditional
censure of books. "
VIII. The Pope has the right to annul State laws, treaties,
constitutions, etc. ; to absolve from obedience thereto, as soon
as they seem detrimental to the rights of the Church, or those
of the clergy. "
IX. The Pope possesses the right of admonishing, and, If
needs be, of punishing the temporal rulers, emperors, and kings,
as well as of drawing before the spiritual forum any case In
which a mortal sin occurs. "
X. Without the consent of the Pope no tax or rate of any
kind can be levied upon a clergyman, or upon any church whatsoever. "
XI. The Pope has the right to absolve from oaths, and
obedience to the persons and the laws of the princes whom he
excommunicates. "
XIII. The Pope can annul all legal relations of those In
ban, especially their marriages. "
XIII. The Pope can release from every obligation, oath,
vow, either before or after being made. "
XIV. The execution of Papal commands for the persecution
of heretics causes remission of sins. "
XV. He who kills one that Is excommunicated is no murderer
in a legal sense."

Well, I set out to try to authenticate this list, and I couldn't. This book is the first appearance of this list and it does not give a page, chapter or even a Book name where they can be found. A search on the name of the "theologian" that compiled it, shows that his name can only be found in association with this list.

This is a common tactic of anti-catholics. (and bigots in general). Create some damning piece of information. Then attach such an obscure and unverifiable citation to it that it becomes impossible to verify. The benefit of this is now, the author can claim that no one can "prove him wrong". This is the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof". To my non-catholic friends, rest assured nothing on this list is true. That is not the Canon Law of the church.

Did Pope John Paul II attend Bilderberg?

According to many websites Pope John Paul II attended the Bilderberg Conference in Portugal in 1999. But did he?

According to World Net Daily, in 1999 Pope John Paul was to attend the Bilderberg Conference in Sintra, Portugal. However, there are no indications he ever did. The Bilderberg's were meeting from June 3-6th. but where was the Pope:

On June 3rd?
On the evening of June 3rd, the Pope gave a homily to the crowd in St Peters Square marking the Feast of Corpus Christi.

On June 4th?
He attended the opening of the 14th plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Meeting for reflection on the theme "The Paternity of God and Paternity in the Family" Later that day, in the Vatican he recieved and met with the ambassador of the Gabonese Republic to the Holy See.

On June 5th?
In the morning, the Pope arrives in Gdansk, Poland to begin a pastoral visit there.
Later in the day, he celebrates a Mass there.





On June 6th?
The Pope is still in Poland and delivers three more addresses

So, it is safe to say, the Pope never attended Bilderberg.

The False Story of "Sister Charlotte"

Sean, over at "Sean's Faith Website" has already done an excellent expose on this fake nun. I would just like to add some to his research.

Charlotte Keckler was a pseudonym used by a woman who traveled the country in the 60's, 70's and 80's claiming to have "escaped" from a Carmelite Convent. However, she never names this convent, just that it is "foreign". But in reading her story it is interesting to note that in this country everyone speaks English. England, possibly, but I was unable to locate any Carmelite convents in England. It could not be Canada because she states that part of her journey home was on a ship.

A "pastor" by the name of Reckart put up a website defending this one and giving his proof. His proof is her Social Security Death record:

Name	Birth	Death	Last Residence	Last Benefit	SSN	Issued	Tools	Order Record?
CHARLOTTE KECKLER	12 Apr 1898	Sep 1983	94558 (Napa, Napa, CA)	(none specified)	261-58-5764	Florida	SS-5 Letter Add Post-em Search Ancestry.com

According to the Social Security Number Decoder, we know that this SSN was issued in Florida in 1951. "Sister" Charlotte's testimony never mentions her living in Florida. That also raises the issue of where was she between 1898 and 1951? Turning to what we do know, thanks to Rootsweb, we can see her death record as well:

Results 1-1 of 1

Last Name	First Name	Middle	Birth Date	Mother Maiden	Father Last	Sex	Birth Place	Death Place	Residence	Death Date	SSN	Age	Post-ems	Order Record
KECKLER	CHARLOTTE	EDNA	04/12/1898	TRIGGS		F	IOWA	NAPA		09/28/1983	261-58-5764	85 yrs	Add

This gives us a little more info. But a search of the Iowa census at Heritage Quest does not reveal a Charlotte Keckler in Iowa at all in 1900, 1910 or 1920. Neither does it show her (alleged) brother John or sister Connie. So it appears the name she gave in death is as fictitious as her life. Add this to Sean's research and it can safely be said this woman was a fraud.

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.

More Fanciful Anti-Catholic history

A man by the name of Keith Thomas has made his own film and put it up on YouTube. It "details" the "illuminati's" plan to take over the world. It also offers a new twist, that the evil "illuminati" Freemasons are slowly infiltrating the Vatican. Now, he never explains whether or not he believes that the Church is slowly becoming masonic or that the Masons are slowly becoming Catholic. Anyway, it is based on lousy history and histrionics from people like Lorraine Boettner, Jack Chick, Alberto Rivera, Alexander Hislop and others.

Like many anti-Catholics, Mr. Thomas shows that he will believe anything anti-catholic, even when shown the truth, he will stick to his version before he would admit being wrong. There is a reason "Pride" is one of the seven deadly sins.

For example, in his videos, he shows two photos of "Catholics" in the Bohemian Grove:


Now, this photo looks like a Catholic Ritual of some kind. Now, here is the real photo:































Notice something vastly different? Well, the source for the cropped photo is the photobucket account of tlthe5th, who is none other than our old friend Thomas from Spiritually "Smart" dot com. Now, I don't know if Thomas was duped or if he did it on purpose. But, the fact is, that it is obvious it isn't any kind of Catholic ritual. According to the pictures source, it is part of a Play done in 1927 on the Life of St. Francis. But, if it is anti-catholic, it must be true, right?

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 great movie

Saw this at the Corral Theater in Wimberley, Texas. (A great place to watch movies). Wonderful message, Christian themes and very exciting action without being bloody.

Most Protestants believe in the Communion of Saints

Sort of...

I have been listening to and watching non-Catholics a lot lately, and I have noticed something interesting.

Protestants will often criticize the Catholic belief of the Communion of Saints, the idea that those in heaven are not only aware of, but hear, see and pray for those of us on earth.

But yet I cannot count how many times I have heard a non-catholic say:
">so-and-so< is up in heaven looking down on us and smiling" or something similar.

I have heard this at protestant funerals, services and in everyday conversation.

But, what is this but and affirmation that when we die, we go straight to heaven (no "soul sleep"), and that those in heaven are aware of, and can even see and hear those of us on earth. This is practically identical to the Catholic and Orthodox notion of the Afterlife. And it flies in direct contradiction to the criticisms thrown at us that the "dead" can neither see nor hear us.

Just an observation.

A response to: The Hypocrisy of Catholic Answers

Over at Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics Carrie has written a post titled Over The Hypocrisy of Catholic Answers

But what she sees as hypocrysy is actually only in her mind.

She writes:

Note the hypocrisy of Catholic Answers when comparing the two “P.S.”s of the two campaigns. In the first campaign Protestants are brethren whose opinion is consulted, in the second they are “anti-Catholics” with “slick propaganda” that must be thwarted. I have seen this conflicting attitude many times so it is worth pointing out.

Now, did they say that? Here are the two "ps's":
The first:
"P.S. The Mormon religion is not what is styles itself to be. Even our Protestant brethren agree that Mormonism is non-Christian. And yet, Mormonism is flourishing in America."

Second:
"P.S. With your help, we can thwart the anti-Catholics and the homosexual activists at World Youth Day—and help make this event a glorious one for the Church and for the salvation of souls.”"

Now, Carrie plays the victim card by equating "Protestant" with "Anti-Catholic".

Notice that nowhere do these paragraphs make any assertion that Protestant=Anti-Catholic.

True most Anti-Catholics are Protestants, but relatively few Protestants are Anti-Catholics. There is nothing in these paragraphs that link the two.

This is a great example of a strawman argument. And of playing the victim. And it is interesting to note, that she takes a lesson from Robert Sungenis and disables comments so as to not be challenged on this.

Carrie, this post was not one of your better efforts. You are better than this.

A great political cartoon...

A response to Triablogue

Over on Triablogue Gene Bridges has written a response to my blog posting In the Combox... He writes inTriablogue: The Need For An Infallible Interpreter a very good response, I will answer his points below:

Hmmm, and why is this a convincing argument? Let's take a quick look at it:

The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile.

1. So, the Jews labored for centuries with Scripture but no infallible interpreter.This was futile. Okay.

No, the Jews had infallible interpreters. God sent them prophets. These prophets spoke the Word of God. It was only when God ceased sending prophets did the Jews fracture into different sects.

2. How do we ascertain - infallibly - who the infallible interpreter is in the New Covenant era?

Logic and Faith. Jesus left his church. A church which is the "pillar and foundation" and is led to "all truth".

Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader.

This would, of course, apply equally as well to the Roman Catholic if true. Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter.

Every interpreter is a reader/hearer too, and vice versa. So, the problem isn't related to the necessity of an infallible interpreter (teaching office), it's the necessity of an infallible hearer/reader (person in the pew, reader, etc.).

Using this logic, then the Bible cannot be infallible either. Because it was written down by men. And since men cannot be infallible even under the protection of the Holy Spirit, we must assume the Scriptures are not infallible.

This is the slippery slope that begins to develop when one sets out to discredit the church. See, the Church believes infallibility is possible with the protection of the Holy Spirit. So, the Bishops' arguments do not apply to the church.

The Roman Catholic solution only puts the question back one step or more. So, it's on epistemic par with the Protestant rule of faith, which is precisely our argument - and the very argument you provided here has proven it for us. Moreover, since you apparently agree with it, you have done our work for us. That's a real timesaver.

But the ultimate question is: "Is infallibility possible?" The Catholic says "Yes", the Protestant says "No".

The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement.

Of course, this is a non-sequitur. The divisions within the receivers of teaching say nothing about the fallibility or infallibility of the teaching itself or the text itself. That's a category error.

No, his point with this statement was that the divisions among Protestantism demonstrate the futility of the doctrine of "Scripture Alone". Because if it were a valid system, there would be unity in Protestantism instead of division.

He was illustrating the flaw in the logic of Protestants who claim the Bible is infallible but they are not.

And it does a miserable job of illustrating it, for if valid, it applies equally to the Roman Catholic.

Everything must be read in context, I only offered one paragraph of his work, I suggest you read the entire chapter.

Another trip..

Yesterday, we decided to visit one of the famous "Painted Churches of Texas" This one is St. Mary's Church in Praha, Texas.




And here is some video:


This is one of the most fantastic Churches I have ever seen.

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?

Welcome to America

I would like to welcome His Holiness Pope Bededict XVI to the United States!

FreeVideoCoding.com

Screwy blog tests.

All over the web, you can find sites that rate your blog on any number of things, so I thought I would take a few of these and post them here:

Movie Reviews

Created by OnePlusYou

My blog is worth $0.00.
How much is your blog worth?

(Bummer)


Created by OnePlusYou

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.

One problem Senator.....

PHILADELPHIA - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she has something in common with legendary film boxer Rocky Balboa — she's not a quitter.

Someone may want to remind the Senator, Rocky lost!

Just a little note.

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.

Overheard at CARM this week:

• (referring to an emotional investment in pastors) Not like that required of Catholics which obligates them to believe that their church leaders are not wrong or even Christ Himself is a liar and fraud.
• Individual catholics are subject to the RCC. They lie for they mama. They mama is a liar par excellence. If that does not clearly state that one plus one equals two, nothing does.
• A true Christian is a Christ-follower, not a papist.
• .you (Catholics) have been brainwashed by your superiors...
• You must obey the Roman Catholic Church....This is all they believe and all they think they need to believe.
• But they have been brainwashed Catholicism is "apostolic" so they believe modern Catholic teachings "must be" there, albeit, the fault is THEY cannot see them...
• Now Protestants (and other non Catholics) notice the same thing Catholic readers do, that modern Catholic doctrines are not in scripture...but they aren't brainwashed by the Magisterium...
• No, it's because Roman Catholics get cliched talking points that are seen all over, yet when queried in a way that they cannot rely on those cliched talking points, are totally lost, just like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults who regurgitate conditioned cliched talking points.

And all of this from people who claim they "love" us.

A new favorite:

I recently came across a blog that I am really enjoying. It is called American Papist, and it is the blog of Thomas Peters, a lay catholic and sometimes contributor to Inside Catholic webzine.

It is a mix of Catholic social commentary and humor.

Check it out!

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.

Death of an Archduke.

History has always been fascinating to me. So it is interesting when traditions from the past are brought out to commemorate the passing of a special person.

On January 12, 2008 the Rite of Christian Burial was performed for His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Carl Ludwig Maria Franz Joseph Michael Gabriel Antonius Robert Stephan Pius Gregor Ignatius Markus d'Aviano of Austria. aka Archduke Carl Ludwig von Habsburg-Lothringen. He was the fifth child and the fourth son of Blessed Emperor Charles and his wife Empress Zita of Bourbon-Parma.

The Ceremony was held in the Cathedral in Vienna, and the archduke was later interred in the family crypt in the Capuchin Abbey.

Some videos of the Ceremony:





There are also some home videos on Youtube, posted by the Austrian Monarchist League. This one, is the most moving, it is the family rising to its feet as the Kaiserhymme (the anthem of Imperial Austria) is played, and the crowd present singing the old anthem. Most Americans don't know that Austria was once a superpower that dominated Central Europe.



There are also some photos of the event at the German magazine Bunte:

Eternal rest grant unto him o Lord, and let your perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

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"

More on the Miracle in Florida

In searching the web, I was able to find more information on the miracle involving the intercession of Blessed Emperor Karl.

From the Florida Catholic:

Miracle in our midst

Central Florida woman’s cure may lead to sainthood for Blessed Karl of Austia.

TANYA GOODMAN FLORIDA CATHOLIC STAFF

Published: 02.08.08

ORLANDO It appeared to be an ordinary gathering of faithful for morning Mass in the chapel of St. James Cathedral, but Jan. 31 was anything but ordinary for those gathered. The Mass signaled the closing of a 16-month investigation of a miraculous cure that may propel Blessed Karl of Austria to the threshold of sainthood.

“This is a very privileged moment for the Diocese of Orlando,” Bishop Thomas Wenski said at a closing ceremony following the Mass at the diocesan chancery in downtown Orlando.

Blessed Karl of Austria, also known as Charles I, Emperor of Austria, was the last of the Habsburg monarchs. He died in 1922. Known for a life of holiness and advocacy for peace, he was beatified in Rome in 2004.

Thousands of miles away in the Kissimmee area of central Florida, a woman, in her mid-50s, who received a diagnosis of breast cancer began what seemed an endless cycle of hospitalization and treatment. The cancer had metastasized to her liver and bones. Medical opinion deemed the disease terminal. She was bedridden. Nothing more could be done. Nothing more on earth, that is.

Soon, a network of prayer began, asking for heavenly intercession through Blessed Karl. One miracle has been attributed to him by the Vatican since his death, clearing the way for his beatification. A second miracle must be confirmed before he can be canonized.

The series of occurrences that led friends of a Baptist woman in Florida to seek divine assistance for her through a European royal under consideration for sainthood by the Catholic Church began with a Louisiana couple’s trip in Austria.

“This is such an extraordinary story, how this whole thing happened. It really is,” said Paula Melançon of Baton Rouge, who along with her husband, Joseph, met and befriended Blessed Karl’s grandson, Archduke Karl Peter, while traveling through Austria.

The Melançons, who told their story to the Florida Catholic after attending the Jan. 31 Mass, said the archduke later invited them to his grandfather’s October 2004 beatification ceremony. The following Christmas, Paula Melançon gave her sister-in-law, Vanessa Lynn O’Neill of Atlanta, a medal of Blessed Karl and a book of novena prayers to him she had received at the ceremony.

“I knew that when I got that novena — I knew that my mother’s best friend was sick — I just knew at that moment that it was something I was going to do. And that is how I got started, I just prayed the novena,” O’Neill said.

Friends near and far joined O’Neill, her mother and her mother’s sick friend in a prolonged period of prayer. The woman recovered and medical experts could not offer an earthly explanation as to why.

How is this friend now? “She’s great — truly a miracle,” O’Neill said.

The woman, not publicly identified, attended the closing Mass.

“The sequence of events has all been totally guided by the spirit of God,” Joseph Melançon said. “There is no other way to describe it; no way,” Paula Melançon added.

O’Neill, who is married to Paula’s brother Tom, and O’Neill’s mother are converts to Catholicism.

“A fairly recent conversion, too,” Paula Melançon said. “She (O’Neill) called and said, ‘Explain this to me, this novena, and intercessory prayer.’

“I did. She told me, ‘I want to start praying for my mother’s best friend.’” Emotional, Paula Melançon paused for a moment before concluding, “It’s just been really unbelievable.”

“She was not immediately accepting,” Paula Melançon said of the sick woman. “She did not understand intercessory prayer.” The sick woman thought her friend wanted her to pray to Blessed Karl for healing.

“She realized the prayers were to ask Blessed Karl to intercede before the Lord. She (the sick woman) then said, ‘All prayer is helpful.’”

The woman who received the healing still attends a Baptist church and continues to pray the novena to Blessed Karl.

According to a 2000 Newsweek Poll, 87 percent of Americans believe miracles can happen to people of religious faiths different than their own.

Bishop Wenski, at the request of the Vatican, commissioned an Ecclesiastical Tribunal to investigate the alleged miracle.

The Tribunal was composed of Father Fernando Gil, judicial vicar for the diocese, who served as the promoter of justice or the “devil’s advocate”; Father Larry Lossing; Father Gregory Parkes, chancellor of canonical affairs; a medical doctor who served as the court expert; and Delma Santiago, the notary. Bishop Wenski also attended some of the proceedings.

Father Gil said, “Other alleged miracles attributed to the intercession of Blessed Karl I are currently being investigated in different places in the world.”

At the chancery, documents were signed, sealed and placed in special boxes.

The boxes were then tied, sealed with wax and stamped with an official seal by Roman postulator Andrea Ambrosi. The boxes were to travel by diplomatic pouch to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints where the case will receive further study. Pope Benedict XVI will make the final decision as to whether a miracle took place.

“I am very happy that the first miracle that is being attributed to Blessed Karl (after his beatification) has been documented from the United States,” said Benedictine Brother Nathan Cochran of St. Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, Pa., where he is the curator of the art collection. He is also a delegate to promote the cause of canonization of Blessed Karl in the United States and Canada, at the behest of Archduke Rudolf, one of three remaining sons of Emperor (Blessed) Karl.

For this special occasion, Brother Cochran brought a relic of Blessed Karl and placed it on the table for the signing of the documents. He added, “Archduke Rudolph is very aware of what’s happening today and says ‘thank you very much.’”

In a follow-up telephone call, Paula Melançon spoke of the woman at the center of the miracle. “Knowing her, I think she would say to everyone, trust in God and have faith in the Lord.”

Paula Melançon, herself, deeply affected by the whole experience said, “I have certainly grown in my faith watching the faith of that woman.”

Kissimmee Baptist edges emperor toward sainthood

Orlando, Feb 5, 2008 / 07:12 am (CNA).- Karl von Habsburg, the last emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire moved a step closer to sainthood last week, the Orlando Sentinel reports. A Florida woman has claimed that by praying for the intercession of the emperor, she was cured from breast cancer.

The Baptist woman from Kissimmee, Florida received the ruler’s holy card from a friend, Paula Melancon, who became interested in Emperor von Habsburg on a trip to Europe. The cancer sufferer prayed that Karl intercede on her behalf.

Doctors as well as a judicial tribunal of the Diocese of Orlando agreed that there appears to be no medical explanation for the woman’s recovery.

Karl, who was emperor during World War I, opposed the war, censored obscene materials, closed brothels and increased the chaplains sent to troops. He was exiled and died of the flu at the age of 34. In 2004, he was beatified by Pope John Paul II.

Orlando Bishop Thomas Wenski said, "It is an honor for our diocese to be part of something that is larger than all of us. Miracles are not done for show. Jesus didn't do miracles because he was a showoff.”

Requiescat in Pace

His Most Eminent Highness Fra Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie, Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta, Most Humble Guardian of the Poor of Jesus Christ.

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and may your perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.

For Catholics Only...

This information is for Catholics only. It must not be divulged to non-Catholics. The less they know about our rituals and code words, the better off they are.
AMEN: The only part of a prayer that everyone knows.
BULLETIN: Your receipt for attending Mass.
CHOIR: A group of people whose singing allows the rest of the Parish to lip-sync.
HOLY WATER : A liquid whose chemical formula is H2OLY.
HYMN: A song of praise usually sung in a key three octaves higher than that of the congregation's range.
RECESSIONAL HYMN: The last song at Mass often sung a little more quietly, since most of the people have already left.
INCENSE: Holy Smoke!
JESUITS: An order of priests known for their ability to find colleges with good basketball teams.
JONAH: The original "Jaws" story.
JUSTICE: Wh en kids have kids of their own.
KYRIE ELEISON: The only Greek words that most Catholics can recognize besides gyros and baklava. (for you non-Catholics it means Lord have mercy)
MAGI: The most famous trio to attend a baby shower.
MANGER: Where Mary gave birth to Jesus because Joseph wasn't covered by an HMO. (The Bible's way of showing us that holiday travel has always been rough.)
PEW: A medieval torture device still found in Catholic churches.
PROCESSION: The ceremonial formation at the beginning of Mass consisting of altar servers, the celebrant, and late parishioners looking for seats.
RECESSIONAL: The ceremonial procession at the conclusion of Mass led by parishioners trying to beat the crowd to the parking lot.
RELICS: People who have been going to Mass for so long, they actually know when to sit, kneel, and stand.
TEN COMMANDMENTS: The most important Top Ten list not given by David Letterman.
USHERS: The only people in the parish who don't know the seating capacity of a pew.

More Bad News for Alberto Supporters:

Andrew Wilson is another investigator who looked into Alberto, and just like EVERYONE else, he found out Alberto was a fraud. When will people start to believe?

For Thomas...

For Thomas, I thought I would repost this, Enjoy!

Nury Rivera (wife of the late Alberto Rivera) has resurfaced, now in Florida. She is still pushing her husbands agenda. She is now claiming that the Vatican has been hounding her since her husbands death, offering her 1 million dollars to reveal the location of his grave so that they can take his body. (Never mind that cemetery records are public record in Oklahoma.)

BTW, according to the survey for Rose Hill Cemetery in Broken Arrow, OK "Dr." Alberto Rivera is buried in section Moore (28) L-14 #3.

There we go, just saved the Vatican $1,000,000.

Anyway, they are keeping up their claims and still trying to push the fanciful story that Alberto was ever anything more than a con-man. They cannot prove he was a priest and often turn to the logical fallacy of demand that Catholics prove that we are NOT trying to take over the world. But, of course, you cannot prove a negative.

Alberto was a fake, perhaps he was mentally ill and sincerely believed everything he said, perhaps he did not, we will never know. But apparently there are more coming out now who knew he was a fraud and can prove it.

Donald R. Blanton, who used to work with him at AIC, sued him and won! (Rivera was famous for daring people to sue him, well, Blanton did, and Rivera could not prove a thing)

Roy Livesay also wrote a book about him, and was able to show he was a fraud as well.

Not to mention the testimony of other Christians.

Add to this the work of iconbusters and Cornerstone Magazine and Gary Dale Cearley and the evidence against Alberto is overwhelming.

Once and for all....

There is no "Jesuit Oath", thanks to youtube, we can prove it. Here a video of a Jesuit taking his final vows in Rome:



Notice, there is no blood oath, no dagger, no theatrics.

Also from http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit

Quote:

[The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in the Journals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record (House Calendar No. 397, Report No. 1523, 15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216),

False, the "oath" recorded in the congressional record is the equally false Knights of Columbus "oath". Paisley does not mention that it is also called "false and libelous" on page 3221. (see here)

Quote:

from which it was subsequently torn out.

FALSE, it can be read in any copy of the congressional record, there is not just one, and people have looked it up (see here) This is Lie #2

Quote:

The Oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book Subterranean Rome (New York, 1843), translated from the French original.

I hunted and could find no record of this book or author, only the crediting of this quote in many places. Given that his first two statements are lies, it is highly unlikely this is true either.

Quote:

Dr. Alberto Rivera, who escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, confirms that the induction ceremony and the text of the Jesuit Oath which he took were identical to what we have cited below. – A. N.]

Lie #4, Alberto was never a Jesuit, nor a Priest. Despite years of requests, he was never able to offer even one shred of proof for his claims.

The Oath is the work of English forger Robert Ware, it was first printed in his book ""Foxes and Firebrands" in 1682. NO Catholic has ever taken such and oath, and no Catholic ever would.

Now, can we put this to rest once and for all?

The other video

I mentioned in my last post, that I had two videos, this is the other one, the first time I saw this, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Remember "Emotions are for ethnic people" (Watch the video, that will make sense).

Keeping a sense of humor

Keeping in mind that humor is one of God's great creations as well, I thought I would share with you a couple of my favorite videos on the web right now.

The first is actor Jerry McConnell spoofing the very "unusual" Tom Cruise scientology video.

More evidence of the Popes lifestyle

Here is His Holiness during some "down time" with his brother on his visit to Germany last year. This is for everyone who states that the Pope lives a lifestyle of greed in clothes that are encrusted with jewels.

Sola Scriptura comes from Islam.

I am getting tired of reading all of these websites and posters that state that Catholicsm is based on paganism. So I post this question to everyone who believes it:

1. Muslims believe that the word of God is solely found in a book (Circa 8th Century).

2. Protestants proclaim that the word of God is solely found in a book (16th Century).

Now, on the surface these are two identical beliefs. Does that mean that the notion of "sola scriptura" comes out of Islam? Or are superficial appearances a very poor way to make judgments? Especially with evidence to the contrary?

The Pope's Private Residence

Not everyone is aware that the Pope owns his own house. I am sure everyone wants to see it right?

Here it is:


What an obscene and ostentatious display of wealth ? Especially compared to these "men of God":
http://kmerian.blogspot.com/search/label/pastors%20for%20profit

Myth of the "dagon" hat

I have seen this several times on the net and it is just plain silly. The notion is that the mitre that bishops wear in the Catholic Church is actually a representation of the fish god "dagon".

Here is a sketch showing the evolution of the Mitre from the 11th Century onward:



Now, notice that the mitre has only been in use since about the year 1000AD, and that (according to wikipedia) the cult of Dagon disappeared about 500BC, how can bishops be referencing a pagan God whose followers died 1500 years before? It is ridiculous to think they are.

Here is also some good articles on the history of the Mitre:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10404a.htm

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

Now can we stop this "dagon" nonsense? You have been educated.

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?

More scare tactics.

Why is the truth so hard. Why is it necessary nowadays to vilify the other person in a dispute?

A Colorado Hospital is being purchased by a Catholic group. And already some of the doctors and the press are making it seem like health care will suffer. Of course there is a sob story about a woman who will be denied a life-saving operation because of repressive catholic morals (In fact, Catholic hospital directives would not prevent her surgery at all). And the scare tactic that people will be kept alive against their will as vegetables (this is also untrue).

Here is a letter I wrote to the paper on this article:

This article is full of misinformation about the Catholic Church and is poor journalism.

First of all, nothing in Catholic medical directives would forbid the Doctor from performing a tubal ligation on Ms. Strong. She has a legitimate medical need for it. I don't know if it is an attempt either by the hospital or the reporter to make the Catholic Church look evil but it is not true. I have been around Catholic hospitals my whole life and have seen this procedure performed many times in them.

Also, Dr. Murphey is mistaken, living wills are allowed and are followed at Catholic Hospitals.

Happy Birthday

To Dr. Otto von Habsburg, who turns 95 on Tuesday. A Christian statesman and head of the house of Habsburg, he is the personification of a Catholic servant of the people.

Europe NewsOtto von Habsburg turns 95By DPANov 19, 2007, 16:26 GMT
Vienna - Otto von Habsburg, son of Austria's last emperor, turns 95 on Tuesday.
Bearing the full title Franz Joseph Otto Robert Maria Anton Karl Max Heinrich Sixtus Xaver Felix Renatus Ludwig Gaetan Pius Ignatius Habsburg, Imperial Prince, Archduke of Austria and Prince of Hungary, he was born on November 20, 1912 at the heart of the then-Austrian empire.
Four years later his father Karl's accession to the Austrian throne made young Otto von Habsburg crown price, expecting one day to inherit the Austro-Hungarian empire.
But history, and Austria's loss of World War I changed not only Europe's fate, but also the fate of the Habsburg family.
The Habsburgs were forced to abdicate in 1919, but the dynasty's scion regarded himself in line for the throne for many years to come. Only in 1961 Otto renounced his claim to the throne, but none of these adversities prevented him from embarking on a political career.
Habsburg served as a member of the European parliament for the conservative German CSU for 20 years. From the 1930s onwards, the trained lawyer, who holds Austrian, Hungarian, German and Croatian citizenship, was an outspoken opponent of Nazi Germany.
During the Second World War he lobbied in the United States to re- establish Austria as a state. From the mid-1950s onwards Habsburg settled in Bavaria in southern Germany.
Since his retirement from politics he has been a prolific writer, focussing on European issues.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

His name says it all....

One of the most lavish "Pastors for profit" I have ever seen is Creflo Dollar:















Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:19)

I thought this guy was a healer?

Looking around the internet I found Benny Hinns website. Benny Hinn claims to be a "healer" and has cured people of AIDS, Cancer and other diseases. So explain the benefits at his company:

BHM Benefits

Our competitive benefits package includes:

• Subsidized health insurance coverage
• Subsidized dental insurance
• Life and AD&D benefits
• Short and long-term disability insurance
• Workers' compensation insurance
• 403(b) retirement savings plan
• Direct deposit paychecks
• Supplemental dependent life insurance available
• Paid Time Off
• And the biggest benefit of all: the knowledge that you are working to win souls, souls, SOULS!

The information contained here is meant as a summary overview of benefits. The benefits listed above apply to U.S. employees only. Specific benefits will be discussed with employees on the date of hire.

Call me crazy, but if this guy is a legitimate faith healer. Why does he have to offer his employees health insurance, workers comp and dental? Can't he just heal them?

Ah well, but, winning souls does seem to be quite lucerative, hence his 3 million dollar mansion in Dana Point, California overlooking the Pacific ocean;

correction

After further research, there is no indication Paula White is the new associate pastor at the FPC

More Pastors for profit....

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23-24)

Recently, here in San Antonio there have been a series of stories on a local (and anti-catholic) pastor by the name of Rick Hawkins.

"Bishop" Hawkins founded the "Family Praise Center" And it apparently has been quite lucrative for him. According to the Kendall County Appraisal District Mr. Hawkins owns just under 1 million dollars worth of land northwest of Boerne, Texas:

View Larger Map

Oh, but pastor Rick, is not alone. The new associate Pastor at that Church is the recently divorced Paula White. Ms. White recently purchased this house, also in Boerne:


View Larger Map

It is over 3000 sq feet with a three car garage, guest house and pool.

I close with the words of Pope Paul VI in his encyclical "Populorum Progressio":
Thus the exclusive pursuit of material possessions prevents man's growth as a human being and stands in opposition to his true grandeur. Avarice, in individuals and in nations, is the most obvious form of stultified moral development.

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

Zeitgeist: The Movie

A woman at work recommended I watch "Zeitgeist the movie", I did and needless to say, I was not impressed.

The movie is divided into three parts.

Part one deals with the filmmakers idea that Christianity is merely a rehashing of the Horus myth. He makes the laughable statement that there are 16 other deities that claim lives identical to Christ. All born on December 25th. Of course this shows a lack of historical knowledge (the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians did not use the Roman calender). And he also does not seem to realize that there is not a single Christian who believes Jesus was born on December 25th, that is just the day we observe it because we do not know the actual date.

He also states that the star in the east is the star Sirius, which aligns with the southern cross only on Dec. 25. This statement alone shows he is an idiot. Stars don't change positions. Sirius is aligned with the southern Crux EVERY DAY. Of course he obviously does not realize that these stars cannot be seen north of the equator.

Over at "Preventing Truth decay" (love the site name BTW) the site author does an excellent job of debunking Part 1 of Zeitgeist point-for-point.

The other glaring problem is that the Celtic cross (cross with a circle) is just an ancient zodiac symbol. It is not. When St. Patrick converted the Druids, he would draw crosses over their lunar symbols, thus symbolizing the defeat of paganism by the True Faith.

Parts II and III are rehashed conspiracy theories about 9/11 and racist Jewish conspiracy theories from the late 19th century. At the end, the author tells us not to take his movie as truth, but to search out the truth. I did and he is wrong.