For Ellie....

UPDATE: Little Ellie went to be with our Lord at 1035 EDT Today, May she rest in peace.

I just recently found out about little Ellie Potvin. I lit a candle for her and her family at adoration last night. No 8 year old should have to suffer like this, nor should any parent have to watch. But not our will, but thy will be done Lord.

Eternal rest grant unto her o Lord and may your perpetual light shine upon her.

Read Ellies heart wrenching story at Caringbridge.org

Follow her struggle on twitter at: http://twitter.com/liftupellie

And her mother at: http://twitter.com/amypotvin

This is for you little angel, may you rest in the arms of the Lord:

The things God puts in front of us....

Something happened at church last night that has stuck with me. My family and I were sitting in the front row of the church, and when time came for communion we dutifully got up and received the blessed sacrament. As we were returning to our seats, I saw the elderly woman that was sitting at the end of our pew struggling to get up, it was then she reached for my hand, with her husband on one side of her and me on the other, we helped her to make her way up to the extraordinary minister.

Here is this woman who walks with a walker, barely able to move without help, was not going to be denied receiving our Lord in the Eucharist. How many times have we waited for God to come to us? How many times would we have been perfectly justified in just staying where we are? This woman did not have to get up, the EMHC would have gladly come to her, but she was not going to be denied. It humbled me, to this woman, receiving Christ was the only thing she wished to do. Anyone who says communion is purely symbolic, that it is nothing more than a piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine, should have seen the determination in this woman. She was not going to be denied.

It reminded me of the story in the Bible of the woman who forced herself through the crowd just to touch the hem of Jesus' garment (Luke 8:40-48). Jesus pulled her to her feet and said "Daughter, your faith has saved you, go in peace".

I will remember that woman in my prayers, and never forget the powerful lesson she taught me.

More Catholic Android Apps

Never thought this would become my most popular topic, but go figure.

Since my last post, some new Catholic Android apps have come out, let's run them down.

First, the free apps.

The first one is imass, this is a reworked iphone app and very poorly done at that, it is a memory hog and while the premise is good, (daily videos of Mass at the Cathederal in New Orleans, as well as video rosaries and news), the videos are on a site not supported by android, and the news stories just take you back to the diocese website, it appears to just be an advertising platform that accesses a lot of part on your phone you don't need it to. (for example gps must be on for app to work). No link, because not worth the download

Next is a vanity app for the "4th Frog Blog", the blog of a catholic wife and mother in the midwest, not exactly my cup of tea, but if you are a fan, you can have her posts and tweets at your fingertips.




Next is a team of apps form Artur Polit, Mobile Rosary and Mobile Prayerbook, these were originally Java apps that were converted over to Android, at first, not very well, but they have since been updated and include the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, various Chaplets and other prayers. Very simple and very good apps that don't take up a lot of space.



There is a pay-for Catholic app out there now, the very popular imissal from the iphone platform. I have not seen this app at work yet, but the reviews I have read are outstanding. I may have to actually buy this one!



I will keep my eyes out and let you know as new apps come online!

Now, don't forget, there are always ways to make secular apps Catholic! Combine IP Cam viewer, with the live feed over at savior.org and you get a live feed on your phone of the Blessed Sacrament, ready for prayer wherever you are!

Or, download Worldtour and you can set your wallpaper to one of the live webcams that the Vatican City State operates of St. Peters.

Catholic Apps for Android phones

I have updated with a new post on this topic

One thing people like me who have Android phones (in my case the Tmobile G1 [aka HTC Dream]) is the lack of Catholic Apps compared to the iphone.

Well, some have come onto the Market.

The first and the oldest is the Ibreviary. This app has the distinction of being the only app for both the Android and the iphone that is approved by the Vatican. The Ibreviary is the brainchild of Fr. Paolo Padrini, it contains the daily readings and the daily office as well as a variety of Prayers in several languages.



The second and only other app is the Sincereprayer app from mlabs. It is a very sleek and well put together app. It contains a rosary, a prayer journal and links to the USCCB website, daily podcasts and readings as well as the ability to add your favorite prayers or write and integrate your own.

The block codes on this post can be read with the barcode scanner app, to download the programs.

Yes, it is 3 in the morning; yes, I am at church; no, I am NOT crazy.

Recently, I began attending Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration at my parish. At 3am. Now, most people look at me like I am crazy. But it is, without a doubt the most spiritual thing I have ever done.

For one hour each week, I am alone with our Lord. Just me and him. I don't have to worry about bills or work. It is a reminder to me, that Jesus is always there, patiently waiting for us. That although we may wander away from him, he never wanders from us and like the story of the prodigal son, he rushes to greet us when we finally return to him.

And, at 3 in the morning, the world is a very peaceful place. No planes, no cars, nothing. It is quite dark, but that adds to my peace of mind. The windows are dark, no voices, no distractions. It is the most peaceful place anyone could ever imagine. and at the center watching over us all, is Jesus.


My faith has grown by leaps and bounds.

I take my G1 with me and plug in the earphones sometimes. I listen to either one of William Carrolls lectures on the lives of a saint, or lately to ArchBishop Fulton Sheen's Life is worth Living. And sometimes I just sit in the quiet and pray. My Knights of Columbus Rosary is always with me, I always say it when I am there, in the quiet I can really meditate on the scripture passages I read with it, the lives of Jesus, Mary and all the Saints.

I guess this makes me an "extreme" Catholic. But I don't care. Most people look at me and say "We'll if that's what you want to do". It is, and I am glad I am doing it.

Some little things...

First of all, I know I haven't blogged anything for a while, so I thought I would do a kind of all inclusive post.

The first thing I would like to recommend is an album I have been listening to. It is "Alive Again" by Matt Maher. Matt is a Catholic Music Director from Tempe Arizona who has had a tremendous amount of success in the Contemporary Christian music scene. Every song on the album is great, from the upbeat "Alive Again" and "Shout of the King" to the solemn and deeply moving "You were on the Cross" I recommend this to everyone.

Second, is my new toy. I recently got the G1 from TMobile, and it is great! I have never had a smartphone before and am constantly amazed by what this phone can do. Unlike the Iphone however, there is a real dearth of Catholic (and Christian in general) apps. There is, at least, the ibreviary, probably the best Catholic app, with daily readings and all the common prayers.

Oh well, with new apps being added every day, I am sure this will change.

A blessed Sunday to you all!

Ray Comfort's at it again...

Ray Comfort continues to illustrate how little he knows about the Catholic Church. This is not a swipe at him, many people THINK they know what the RCC believes only to find out its not true.

In Rays latest post against the church:"The Catholic Church and Peter", Ray Comfort starts out with a statement of the Geaneology of Herod and Zecharias, interesting, but not really relevant. He then goes on to state:

Zacharius was married. Aren’t priests supposed to be celibate? According to the Roman Catholic church, New Testament priests shouldn’t be married, but this is contrary to the Bible. Peter was married. During His earthly ministry, Jesus came to Peter's house and healed "his wife's mother" (Matthew 8:14- 5; Mark 1:30-31). Now there’s a clue he was married.

Yes, Zecharias was married and yes Latin Rite Priests are celibate. But that is where he goes off base. The Church does not claim that New Testament priests "shouldn't be married". As a matter of fact, that discipline is only present in the Latin Rite of the Church. Priests in the Eastern churchs can be and often are married, as well as Priests which convert from the Anglican or Episcopal churches. Also, the Church has never denied Peter was married From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children."

From Ray:

In Corinthians 9:5, Paul asked, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Cephas was another name for Peter. In this verse it speaks of him as having a wife who traveled with him. There’s another clue that he was married. So don’t take what anyone tells you as being gospel. Check it out and see if it is according to the Scriptures (see Acts 17:11).

Ray, can I suggest you take your own advice before posting something embarrassing like this again?

Another trip over to "Abortion Clinic Days".

While this site has always been unashemedly pro-abortion, even they stepped beyond the fringe with their latest post, here are some highlights and my responses:

"In the United States since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 there have been over 45 million women who have chosen to have safe, legal abortions. In fact, 37% of American women, over 1 in 3 women, will have an abortion by the age of 45. "

The fact is, this is a false statistic, it is playing with numbers, it takes the number of abortions performed and divides it by the number of women living since 1973. It assumes one woman having one abortion in her lifetime. It does not take into account repeat recievers of abortions, and abortion of more than one fetus at a time. That would greatly reduce this number and its impact.

She then went on to list abortion "stigmas":

Abortion IS mainstream medicine.

Abortion IS a normal part of women’s health care.

So, why is stigma so successful? Why does the shame persist and silence pervade in our culture when so many people share the abortion experience?

Most of the time these 45 million women are silent.

Most of the time the loved ones who helped them with their abortion don’t talk about it either.

In fact, the pro-choice majority is silent.

Most of the people talking about abortion in our society are anti-abortion.

We abortion providers often feel and are looked at as the “radical fringe of the pro-choice movement”

So, their argument is that abortion should be "frequent" (of course, more money for them)

Abortion should be considered "mainstream medicine" (In other words, remove conscience clauses and force healthcare providers to perform abortions.)

Abortion should be a "normal" part of a woman's health care (IOW, every woman should have an abortion, whether she wants to or not, making them no different than a pap smear.)

It goes on to ignore the negatives of abortion, the guilt, shame that accompanies it. They don't make the connection that is the reason women don't talk about it. Many come to regret their decisions, even though you will NEVER hear the pro-abortionists say that.

She then lists more "stigma":

I EXPEREINCE stigma all the time in my work; the hospital will not give privileges to our physicians, we can’t secure local back up doctors, we can’t get anyone to provide us with bottled water or replace our tile floors or replace our roof or resurface our parking lot.

I HEAR stigma everywhere:

“Abortion should be rare”

“Abortion is a tragedy” (and these are our friends!)

“Prevention First”

“I am pro-choice but I’d never have an abortion”

“I am not like those other women”

“I don’t believe in abortion as birth control”

Starting from the top, she implies that they cannot find doctors because of "stigma" the fact is my doctors want nothing to do with Abortion. Perhaps she should ask herself "why"?

The rest of her "stigmas" are shocking in their callousness.

If she believes these are stigmas, then she must believe the converse to be virtues:
She believes:
That private companies, hospitals and doctors, should not have the "right to refuse service to anyone" this is a cornerstone of free enterprise.

Abortion should be frequent.
That it is NOT a tragedy
That prevention is unnecessary
That Pro-choice women should not exercise their "right" to choose, they should choose what this pro-abortionists says they should, which is abortion.
That woman who are responsible about their reproductive choices are "stigmatizing"
That abortion should be an acceptable form of birth control (one that carries risk of sterilization or death, but that is pretty much irrelevant to her)

The article goes on to claim that pro-abortionists encourage women to "be all they can be", in other words, that children dimish a woman and hold her back. This is beyond even radical feminism.

This is the leaders of this movement, and thier biggest liability. While those of us on the pro-life side have our wackos, this article makes it clear the "pro-choicers" do as well. This post of thiers borders on absolute bloodlust and stinks of authoritarianism.

And they claim they are the "common ground"?

An excellent documentary

She was not his "girlfriend"!

I am so sick and tired of this. What happened to Steve McNair is horrible. But what is worse is the growing amount of disrespect to his wife.

This headline hit me on Yahoo! today:
Police: McNair shot dead in sleep by girlfriend

She was not his "girlfriend" she was his mistress. He was not getting a divorce and had not even discussed getting a divorce. Now, it comes out that her motive was her fear he was cheating on HER? She should not have been surprised, he was already cheating on his wife with her, could she (the mistress) really have been surprised that he was cheating on her?

It is disrespectful to his wife and family every time this woman is referred to as his "girlfriend" it implies that he did not even have a wife or family, when he did. It is one thing not to speak ill of the dead, it is another to try to act like the living don't even exist.

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!

For the warriors.

For all of those who have served and given the ultimate sacrifice, I know this is late for memorial day, but it reminds us that it is not about war, but about the warrior.

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.

Crypt of Bl Emperor Charles of Austria

Blessed Emperor Charles is one of my patrons. A man of peace in a time of war he did his Christian duty as a Emperor and King, and also a great model of a husband and father.

"weisserstier" over at flickr has some great photos from Igreja de Nossa Senhora do Monte Church in Funchal Madeira. The church is the final resting place of the Emperor who died there in 1922 after being exiled to the Island by the Great Powers.


Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

A very powerful pro-life ad.

I can see why the pro-abortion networks refused to air it. The ad destroys their arguments:

Some People will believe anything...

Looks bad right? Well, guess what? IT'S A CHRISTMAS DECORATION!!!!!

A woman rides the beast Part IV

Rome Equals Vatican

Some may object that it is Rome, and not that small part of it known as Vatican City, which is built on seven hills, and that the Vatican can hardly be called a "great city." Though both objections are true, the words "Vatican" and "Rome" are universally used interchangeably. Just as one would refer to Washington and mean the government that runs the United States, so one refers to Rome and means the hierarchy that rules the Roman Catholic Church.

True, one MIGHT refer to Rome and mean the Vatican, but one might also mean the Italian Government or the Coleseum. We cannot assume, that just because someone says "Rome" that they autmatically mean the Vatican. Just like not every single reference to "Washington" is a reference to the White House or Capitol.

Take for example a placard carried by a demonstrator outside the November 15-18, 1993, meeting in Washington D.C. of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Protesting any deviation from the pope's wishes, it read: "ROME'S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY." (Our Sunday Visitor, December 5, 1993, p. 3.)0bviously by "Rome" it meant the Vatican. Such is the common usage, So closely are Catholicism and Rome linked that the Catholic Church is known as the Roman Catholic Church, or simply the Roman Church.

Now, this picture could have come from any number of sources, but he choose "Our Sunday Visitor" in order to use another Catholic source. In order to make it appear he heavily used Catholic sources in this work. His point is weak, the context makes it very clear what is meant by "Rome".

Moreover, for more than a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church exercised both religious and civil control over the entire city of Rome and its surroundings. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) abolished the secular Roman Senate and placed the administration of Rome directly under his command. The Roman Senate that had governed the city under the Caesars had been known as the Curia Romana (Roman Curia). That name, according to the Pocket Catholic Dictionary, is now the designation of "the whole ensemble of administrative and judicial offices through which the Pope directs the operations of the Catholic Church.(John A. Hardon, S.J., Pocket Catholic Dictionary (Image Books [Doubleday], 1985), p. 99.)

Now we got into false history. The Roman Senate disappeared from History around the 7th Century, the Popes had nothing to do with it. In the 12th Century, the Popes turned the administration of Rome over to City Magistrates with the power of (war and peace) Source But, his definition of the Roman Curia is correct, but it applies only to the highlighted passage. It is poor composition on his part not to separate his quote, someone might assume it applies to the entire passage. Which of course is his intent.

The popes' authority even extended to large territories outside Rome acquired in the eighth century. At that time, with the help of a deliberately fraudulent document manufactured for the popes known as The Donation of Constantine, Pope Stephen III convinced Pepin, king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne, that territories recently taken by the Lombards from the Byzantines actually had been given to the papacy by the Emperor Constantine. Pepin routed the Lombards and handed to the pope the keys to some 20 cities (Ravenna, Ancona, Bologna, Ferrara, lesi, Gubbio, etc.) and the huge chunk of land joining them along the Adriatic coast.

Notice that in this paragraph there is not one single citation. Even though it is filled with "facts", every sentence should have a citation, but they don't. Why? Could it because there is little historical fact in it? Yes, Pepin conquered those territories and yes, he gave them to the Pope, but not because of the Donation of Constantine. Google, the "Donation of Pepin".

Dated 30 March 315, The Donation declared that Constantine had given these lands, along with Rome and the Lateran Palace, to the popes in perpetuity. In 1440 this document was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, a papal aide, and is so recognized by historians today. Yet allegedly infallible popes continued for centuries to assert that The Donation was genuine and on that basis to justify their pomp, power, and possessions. That fraud is still perpetuated by an inscription in the baptistry of Rome's St. John Lateran, which has never been corrected.

Once again, Popes are only infallible on matters of faith and morals. Being suckered by a good forgery makes them human, nothing else. And as for the inscription, it reads:

MARTYRIBUS XPI DNI VOTA JOHANNES
REDDIDIT ANTISTES SANCTIFICANTE DEO
AC SACRI FONTIS SIMILI FULGENTE METALLO
PROVIDUS INSTANTER HOC COPULAVIT OPUS
QUO QUISQUIS GRADIENS ET XPM PRONUS ADORANS

John, bishop by God's consecration, made devout prayers to the martyrs for the Lord Christ and with foresight put this work together apace with enamel gleaming like te sacred spring, that each man may process and stoop to worship Christ and offer their prayers in profusion to Heaven.

I fail to see what needs to be corrected, or what it has to do with the donation of Constantine.

Thus the Papal States were literally stolen by the popes from their rightful owners. The papacy controlled and taxed these territories and derived great wealth from them until 1848. At that time the pope, along with the rulers of most of the other divided territories of Italy, was forced to grant his rebellious subjects a constitution. In September 1860, over his raging protests, Pius IX lost all of the papal states to the new, finally united Kingdom of Italy, which left him, at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, still in control of Rome and its surroundings.

Again, notice something, that's right, no citations. More "facts" nothing to back them up. The Papal States were conquered by Pepin and given to the Pope in exchange for his support for Pepins claims to the Frankish Crown. Who does the Pope think are thier rightful owners? The Lombards, who stole them from the Byzantines? The Byzantines who took them from the Romans, the Romans who took them from the original kings and princes? Such is human history. Interesting though, Hunt view the Pope as "stealing" his land from the Lombards, but it was a "United Italy" that "controlled" the Papal States. This is a very hypocritical observation, either the conquest of land by force is either theft or it is not.

The point is that, exactly as John foresaw in his vision, a spiritual entity that claimed a special relationship with Christ and with God became identified with a city that was built on seven hills. That "woman" committed spiritual fornication with earthly rulers and eventually reigned over them. The Roman Catholic Church has been continuously identified with that city. As "The most definitive Catholic encyclopedia since Vatican II" declares:

...hence, one understands the central place of Rome in the life of the Church today and the significance of the title, Roman Catholic Church, the Church that is universal, yet focused upon the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. Since the founding of the Church there by St. Peter, Rome has been the center of all Christendom(Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1991), p. 842.).

Again, the citation of a Catholic source is merely to give the appearance of research. In his attempt to link Rome=Vatican, he has failed miserably.