Anglican Church in America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church

Wednesday, March 3, AD 2010

Breaking news as the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America has formally requested to enter the Catholic Church. All 99 parishes and cathedrals!

Here is the complete text [emphases mine]:

Orlando, FL – 1 pm EST – Bp. George Langberg

Released by the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, Traditional Anglican Communion 3 March 2010

We, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America of the Traditional Anglican Communion have met in Orlando, Florida, together with our Primate and the Reverend Christopher Phillips of the “Anglican Use” Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas) and others.

At this meeting, the decision was made formally to request the implementation of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus in the United States of America by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Reverend Mark Siegel, the Dean of the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Orlando, Florida, expressed his desire and excitement in this historic move by a large Anglican body in more or less the following words.

‘I can’t say anything more than what the ACA announcement says, but we are all excited with this first step.’

Deo gratias!


Biretta tip: Notes on the Culture Wars.

Continue reading...

403 Responses to Anglican Church in America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church

  • really? no, I mean really?

  • Yes.

    Got off the phone with the Dean of the Cathedral of the Incarnation, Diocese of the East Coast ACA, and he said its true.

    But I can’t get any details until their bishop returns.

    It’s on their website, I confirmed it, it’s true!

  • Friends we are at the beginning of something big. The Anglican Church in America has about 100 parishes and 5200 members. Here is a link to their dioceses.
    Click on the dioceses and there are lists of the churches in each diocese.

    With this step being taken watch for lots of other Anglican and Episcopalian groups to plunge into the Tiber. Pope Benedict is a genius!

  • Wow! Praise God!

  • This is huge indeed.

    Of course, patience is needed.

    We need a personal ordinariate to be established first, secondly and Ordinary to head the Ordinariate.

    This my be jumping ahead, but what will this personal ordinariate be called?

    I propose the American Ordinariate of the Catholic Church!

  • Though it is Wikipedia, people should look carefully at what the ACA is about:

    It is really a recent creation, and it has been looking for communion — under its own expectations — with Rome since at least 2007. In other words, this is not a new story – and more importantly, they might not really be ready. Then again they might — but if so, will require lots of humility.

  • The ACA asking for entry is a new story.

    You may be referencing their “desire” to join.

  • What spendid news! On a recent visit in London, I met Canon Stuart Wilson, who when he converted from the Church of England brought his whole congregation with him.
    Armiger Jagoe,editor of The Joyful Catholic

  • Let us pray for the continued conversion of the entire Christian Community, although in a spirit of humility. A spirit of gloating would be a very great sin in deed.

  • Martin Luther would be soooooo Happy!

  • Wonderful, what a good thing!!!

  • About a year ago, my chapter of Lay Dominicans was asked to pray a 40 day novena (oxymoron?) for something, but we couldn’t be told what it was. It turned out that this whole thing was what we had been praying for.

    As someone who entered into full communion in 1994 and left the Episcopal priesthood to do so, I am made very happy by the Constitution and by this news.

  • Does this mean current Latin-rite Catholics will be able to meet the weekly Mass obligation by going to one of these churches?

  • Holy freekin’ CRUD you’re joshin’ me!


  • “Then again they might — but if so, will require lots of humility.”
    Whom makest thou thyself? You don’t sound all that humble.

  • anonymous – yes, once they are regularized. Right now, no.

  • Pingback: Praise God! « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons
  • Pingback: Anglican Church in America asks for entry into the Catholic Church |
  • Pingback: Anglican Church in America asks for entry into the Catholic Church «
  • YEAH! Welcome home!
    I’m seeing a father running to meet his prodigal son…

  • Hunni,

    A spirit of gloating would be a very great sin in deed.

    Yes it would be and we should be cautious in our exuberance, but it shouldn’t take anything away from the joy many of us feel on both sides the Tiber!

  • Our local Anglican Church has been slowly coming in to full communion with the Catholic Church for about 2 years now. I am thrilled to see their church as a whole come over, I hope other denominations follow there lead.

  • Praise God, I think this is great and let us all pray that other denominations will see that this is what we Chritstians need to do in this time of great Religious fanatical devide in the world, is to join togehter and unify as one church praising one God.

  • this has happened because the key to the kingdom of heaven is given to catholic church. gates of hell never prevails against catholic church. whatever st.perter and his successor do will be admitted in heaven. Catholic church build by jesus not by man.


  • Let us praise the Lord! Welcome back brothers and sisters to the Holy Catholic Church.

    Natalio A. Yaria
    Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • So all of the Anglicans in America will be Catholic if this is agreed upon? Awesome.

  • Also, this is only American Anglicans right? not, British?

  • This is wonderful, the answer to many prayers. From one who could not wait and has already joined, I say welcome home.


  • This isn’t the entire Anglican church in America, just the bit of it that disagrees, as we do, with the ‘ordination’ of actively homosexual bishops. It is becoming more and more clear to those in the Anglican church who claim a common heritage with Rome (as some have done, not understanding that to reject Peter is to reject that heritage)that they need the authority that was only given to Peter and his successors: the mainstream (middle of the road) Anglican church is letting in practices that are not compatible with the Tradition St Paul urged us to be true to: “that which I received and in turn passed on to you”.

  • Claudio, the only way you could know what Jesus said, is from Catholic Tradition. In other words no Tradition no Christianity. We are really happy to have our brothers and sisters come home, you are also welcomed.

  • Any church in the US which is “Anglican Use” is a Roman Catholic parish (right now, just a few). Going to mass there is the same as going to a mass at any other Roman Catholic parish, or a liturgy in union with Rome.

    To enter the Church, the people in these parishes will have to do what everyone else does: study what the Church teaches (the Catechism), assent to it, and practice their faith.

    Praise God, who does not leave us orphans but always provides a way for us to know and follow the Truth. And, welcome, brothers and sisters in Christ! Many graces await you!!


  • What would be wrong with a total second christian reformation? If all claim to of one faith why not prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Arturo,

    You’re a friendly reminder that in-your-face anti-Catholicism is still alive and well in the blogosphere.

    You probably should visit a dissident Catholic blog where you would feel most welcome.

  • Heh, Tito- I only barely scanned the caplock king there, initially thought he was (like my Elf) waiting for the Queen to convert. Makes more sense than what the closer reading put out….

  • “What man is amid the brute creation, such is the Church among the schools of the world.” Ven. John Cardinal Newman

  • Pingback: Top Posts —
  • Pingback: Comfortable Church Chairs And Banquet Chairs | Article Marketing
  • as a convert of two years, who was raised Episcopalian. i am not surprised at all.

    My childhood church has changed out of all recognition… and many of the Anglicans feel the same.

  • Benedictus!

  • Looks like one of Don’s Predictions for 2010 is already shaping up:

    “Pope Benedict’s Anglican Initiative will prove amazingly successful with ever increasing numbers of Anglicans and Episcopalians swimming the Tiber to participate.”

  • It was an easy enough prediction Elaine considering the pent up frustration of so many Anglicans and Episcopalians as to what has happened to their church. I think it has made them ready to join a church which does not take its marching orders from the zeitgeist of the moment.

  • Indeed! Martin Luther would be very happy.. And sad at the same time that it isn’t the church bearing his name isn’t the first to seek such Organic Unity!

  • Welcome…..The sheep are coming home…may God bless them….

  • Malcome said the the only way to know what Jesus said it thru catholic tradition. So, whats wrong with opening the bible? Oh, i forgot. The catholic church doesnt like for people to read the bible.

  • Wayne…stop drinking the kool aid… The catholic Church wrote The Bible. Wise up and read the early Chruch documents…

  • Wait, we’re not supposed to read the Bible?

    Dang, that WOULD make Mass short!

  • Foxfier you hit the nail on the head. Wonder how many have no clue what you are referencing.

  • I have a question, not a comment! What is your permissions policy regarding re-printing your material? I am especially interested in the ff: Anglican Church in America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church. I would like to re-print the article as it is in a Blog post. We will fully abide w/ your requirements for full attribution whatever they are! We are a prayer website w/ members from the twinned Catholic parishes of St. James the Less (La Crescenta) & Holy Redeemer (Montrose) in Southern California. Pls say Yes! We are hoping (& praying even harder)!

  • Connie,

    Just as long as you attribute it to us with a link, we’re ok with it be re-printed!

    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,


  • Robert Sledzs, re-evaluate your statement that the catholic church wrote the bible. The early fathers were led by God to make copies. Bless them.The gospels were written by hebrews. Not by any catholic church which wasnt around at that time.

  • “The gospels were written by hebrews. Not by any catholic church which wasnt around at that time.”

    Saint Luke would have been stunned to realize that he is a Hebrew! The Catholic Church wayne was founded by Christ. The term Catholic Church was first used in 110AD by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of Saint John. He used the term to emphasize the universal nature of the Church. (Universal is what the term catholic means.) He was the third Bishop of Antioch and received his consecration from the hands of the Apostles themselves. Learn a little history before you seek to be a troll on a Catholic website.

  • Hi Donald, actally, im not a troll. What i say can be verified either by scripture or history books.I put things in persective and it rubs people the wrong way. Especially if it means that what they believe is false. When i was first saved(born again) i still believed in evolution. I didnt fall to pieces when i found out i was wrong. I was delighted that a false idea was lifted off me. The new testament was written by people who lived thru it. Catholic folks like to believe that the catholic church wrote the bible. Not all,some aware catholic know that the church just compiles the works into one book.That was great. From then on the vatican spiraled down a dark path. Say, does anyone here know how the vatican aquired all its vast land holdings and its wealth? You all seem to be experts on all things catholic.

  • Of course you are a troll wayne, and an ignorant one. I gave you facts that you are unable to respond to so you merely restate that Catholics did not write the Bible.

  • Wayne,

    You’re reading a Bible written by Catholics.

    You think a stork dropped the King James Bible out of thin air?

  • Wayne seems to follow with the Donation of Constantine legend… lol.

  • Tito I have to agree with wayne in this sense. Catholics did not write the old testament. However all of the new testament was written by catholics and the the assembly of the works which makes up the bible was done by the catholic church and then luther chose to revamp the version which has become know as the king james version

  • Terry,

    I know.

    When I say Catholics wrote the Bible, I meant the New Testament. In addition they also put together the Bible.

    Typing too fast for my own good.

  • Catholics wrote the bible? Was Paul and Luke and John catholic? No. There wasnt even a catholic church. Really, im not so concerned about that. Its peoples salvation im worried about. But i do wonder where anyone cmae up with catholics writing the bible. We know who the authors were. But if you feel better thinking they belonged to catholic church, no harm is done. The harm is when you dont read it and or believe it. Donald says im ignorant. Besides claiming catholics didnt write the bible, what else did i ever say that is false or unverifiable?

  • Terry, what changes did Luther make to the bible?

  • Once again wayne you are making a statement without any facts to back it up. I have given you evidence that the term Catholic Church was first used by a disciple of Saint John and that he was consecrated as the third bishop of Antioch by the Apostles. In response you merely restate your conclusion that the Apostles were not Catholic. If you are going to take part in a combox discussion on this blog you need to cite facts to support a conclusion.

    In regard to Luther he rejected these books of the Old Testament that were part of the Christian Bible up to his time: Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 7 Chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the third chapter of Daniel.

  • For those who may not be aware- the Anglican movement to Rome is not limited to just the United States.

    “Anglicans to be brought back to “full visible unity” with the Catholic Church”- ( [Tuesday Oct. 20, 2009]

    “First group of ‘Traditionalist” Anglicans in Britain votes to enter Catholic Church”- ( [Friday Nov. 6, 2009]

    “Australia’s Traditional Anglicans vote to convert to Catholicism” (Telegraph.Co.UK.) [Feb.16,2010]

    Also, comments by Wayne and those of his ilk are learned, and unfortunately are part of a Sunday service. Many are students of Loraine Boettner’s work-[anti-Catholic books,tracts,etc.]

    Catholic’s are not accustomed to attack- it
    may be a good time to read, “Catholicism & Fundamentalism”, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press. It has been in print since, I believe, 1988.

  • Donald, the disciples were humble and did not esteem any man more holy than the next. This is how Jesus taught them. The catholic church with its pecking order of holymen has nothing in common with the work of the dieciples. Further, im not concerned who termed the word cathloic. Does that mean that church is Gods church because of the name? Thats funny. I dont see where jesus or Peter for that matter ever refering to a name for followers of Jesus.Hey Don, theres a rival down the street from your catholic church, its call The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I had one of thier members tell me that thier church was Gods becouse of thier name. So what do we do now? Wait a min,the Jehovas Withness are Gods church, look at thier name.Donald, all joking aside. People who recieve Christ and are born again dont belong to a religion, neither would we join one once saved. Its just me and the Lord. We dont need no stinkin religion. Did i come close to answering your question? Can you answer my question? How did the vatican aquire all its land and wealth during the middle ages?

  • wayne, I’ll take your latest stream of consciousness comment as an admission that you know bupkis about the history of the Church or history in general.

  • Brother terrance, any facts i give out are just that, cold fact of history, easily verifiable. But you cant get an unbiasrd history from catholic history books. Listen to this true story Terrance; a while back, yrs ago, i took my girlfriends boy to the local library for some school project or another. While standing next to a bookshelf i saw a book titled The Inquisition. I started thumbing thru to get to the gory parts. None. Its said that during the inquisition, people were just asked questions and let go. No one was hurt. Hince the name inquisition.I couldnt believe this was a serious work. I went to the front to see who wrote it. No author, just printed by the Catholic Press,1950. Ive been to Catholic and seen more unbelieveable distortions. If you want reliable history, go to college textbooks and other non religious publications.

  • I don’t know who “Brother terrance” is, but the next time you have the urge to read about the Spanish Inquisition you might try reading Henry Kamen’s study on it which is the most up to date account.

    You truly do not have a clue about history do you wayne?

  • Wayne he left out a few books.

  • Pingback: Anglican Church in America asks to come into the Catholic Church « Cooperating with Grace
  • wayne, a little history assignment for you if you really want to learn about the history of the Church. Tell me which Catholic wrote this:

    “And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.”

  • Wayne i’m also curious as to how factual you think the da vinci code is?

  • Wayne my name is Terrence, not terrance. Out of respect it would be nice to at least get the spelling of my name correct, and use a capital T.

    You are fast and loose with words. You claim any facts you give are just that. Cold fact (facts) of history. Funny, but you never “reference” any of these cold, hard, facts, that are easily verifiable?

    You write in riddles and you lead one to believe you think this way. You have managed to expose yourself as someone who has little to no understanding of the history of the Roman Empire, before Christ, and after his birth to present day.

    Am I to understand you do not believe that a great majority of Anglicans are leaving to be part of the Roman Catholic Church? Afterall, this is what this article is about. The Anglicans I quoted from – Catholic site, and a secular news source, do not seem valid enough for you. You can find these stories in any major newspaper throughout the U.S., Canada, England, Australia. Here is another one for you Wayne: the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are also reuniting after splitting
    July 16, 1054. That is where such “insignificant” places like Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey today) happened to be located in the early Church. This of course was before the birth of Martin Luther Nov. 10, 1483, the German Catholic Monk.

    Wayne this may help enlighten you about how Martin Luther viewed the world. “Much scholary debate has concentrated on Luthers’s writings about Jews. His statements that Jews’ homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propganda by the Nazis in 1933-45. As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversal. In 1983, the Luthern Church-Missouri Synod, denouced Luther’s “hostile attitude” toward the Jews. In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Luthern Church in Ameriica announced: “As did many of Luther’s own companions in the sisteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our help and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations.” (Declaration of the Evangelical Luthern Church in America to the Jewish Community, April 18, 1994) (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)

  • Ill deal with one at a time. Terrance, my shift key doesnt work half the time. Some letter dont come out capital. Terry, Da Vinci code is a novel, nothing more. Donald, historical facts are facts. Do i have to mention books to you? Im pretty good with roman history. An overview of sorts.I would have to refer to books for dates and some names and what not. Donald, who cares what man wrote that paragraph? Jesus said; Let God be true and every man a liar. Let me make this clear to everyone; im not interested in what men say, or what some church org says about itself. Of course they will talk wonderfull about themselves, when in fact they are full of dead mens bones.Inquisition history; ive seen it with my own eyes and touched it with my hands, so there is no need to try to buffalow me there. Ive been to the torture chambers all thru europe. Ive seen the devices that the vatican used on people. The first one i went into, i had to run out cause i was about to throw up. Guided by the Holy Spirit, who are they kidding? I think i know why no one answered my question as to how the catholic church got rich. As to why the anglicals and the russian orthodox want to join the roman church, well, my grandma used to tell me; Wayne, it takes all kinds. The unsaved are capable of doing anything and everything.Come on some brave soul, answer my question, please, with sugar on top.

  • Wayne,

    Where inside the Bible is the word Bible?

    Where inside the Bible are the words “sola scriptura”.

    The apostles were just men, why don’t you discount them.

    And back to Donald’s point, why haven’t you addressed his evidence?

    I bet you even deny chapter 6 of the Holy Gospel of Saint John!

  • Almost forgot. Dont look at me for what Luther said. The only thing i admire about him is that he stood up to the vatican and blasted them for selling salvation. Which they still do.Amazing people still fall for that. P.T. Barnum used to say; A sucker is born every minute.

  • Hi Bro Tito. I went to the site Bro Donald put there for me. What evidence of Dons are you refering to. His msgs are pretty big. I read the reviews to the amazon book on inquisition.The author is following catholic lines, deny deny deny. These torture chambers are so numerous that if only 100 people died in each them, the numbers would be big. Thats not counting the ones that werent killed in the, the ones burned alive outside. i still get sick thinking of it. Why anglicans want to team up with an org like this,…beyond me

  • I’ve been looking into converting and I found the responses to Wayne very helpful in providing me with more information I need. Thank you all and God bless!

  • wayne, Henry Kamen is one of the foremost living historians of Spanish history.

    I can understand that you prefer your bigotry to historical facts, but that isn’t acceptable on this blog. If you are going to make a historical statement that the Apostles were not Catholic, you have to defend it with historical evidence. And I note you still have not told me which Catholic wrote the statement I quoted above about the Eucharist. Lazy and bigoted are a poor way to go through life wayne.

  • Regarding the supposed great wealth of the Vatican, it is not the hierarchy of the Church which owns property; it is the Church as a whole, meaning approximately 1.5 billion people around the world. Take the value of all Church property and divide it by 1.5 billion and you will see how “wealthy” we really are. Any entity with that many members and a 2000 year history would of necessity have accumulated something. There must be places for its members to gather for worship, education and social purposes. The great works of art are there to inspire anyone who wishes to gaze upon them. Unlike museums, our church buildings do not charge admission and do not profit from the beauty they contain.

    If the Church were to sell it all today to feed the poor, their hunger would be abated for but a brief time and then they would be hungry again and the Church left with no places to worship or beautiful art to inspire and no resources to help the needy.

    Jesus, Himself, said that the poor would be with us always. Furthermore, the Catholic Church is the single greatest provider of charitable goods and services to people of all faiths throughout the world. We Catholics feed more hungry people, build more homes for the homeless and provide more medical services without expecting anything in return than all the other Christian churches combined. “Help carry one another’s burdens; in that way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal 6: 2 and “If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and no food for the day, and you say to them, ‘Good-bye and good luck! Keep warm and well fed,’ but do not meet their bodily needs, what good is that? So it is with the faith that does nothing in practice. It is thoroughly lifeless.” James 2: 15-17 “You must perceive that a person is justified by his works and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

    So we Catholics take our faith very seriously and live it through our works. The “wealth” of the Church provides resources to do as the Bible instructs us to do for our fellow man and for coming together to worship God.

    Regarding Bible reading, the Mass is filled with scripture, so to say we don’t read the Bible simply demonstrates ignorance. Anyone who goes to Mass every Sunday will have gone through the entire Bible (Old and New Testaments) every three years. Those who attend daily Mass go through the Bible yearly. And, yes, for those non-Catholics out there who don’t know any better, we do read the Bible on our own and we do have Bible studies outside of the Mass. No, we don’t tend to be experts at quoting chapter and verse, but where in the Bible does it tell us that is important?

    P.S. Wayne still is misspelling Terrence’s name. There is no “a”.

  • Hi Jennifer, Terrence, no a. Of course some catholics read the bible. What i said was that the catholic policy is for people not to get into the bible. Ive had catholic after catholic tell me thier priest discourages reading by themselves. Yes in mass the say a few verses.Jennifer , thanks for trying to answer my question.Even though didnt answer the question i still commend you. The others dont want to open that can of worms. The question was HOW the catholic church became so wealthy.By the way, my best friend was in rome a few months ago. They charge for the vatican tour now. I dont remember them charging me, but that was long time ago. Terrence, with an e, you say i deny the news stories of anglicans wanting in with the catholic church. No i dont.I believe the reports. Like i say, the unsaved will do anything.Luthers stand on the jews; he was a catholic monk. Luther just talked, the church did the walk. They put to death many jews thru europe.TerrEnce, i dont know who wrote that paragraph you put up? It could have been my mother. How would i know. Is that your only way of discrediting me? People here just say im ignorant, but they stop short of denying the inquisition killed bible believers and jews by the thousands. The only charge that sticks is that im sort of ignorant of what the catholic church teaches, but i have been closing that gap fast.I know lots of what it teaches. TITO, the word bible isnt in the bible. There was no bible back then. Sola scriptura wasnt mentioned by that term either. That just a ploy used by the church to justify its off the wall teachings.And i dont deny John chap 6 or any part of bible. I would beg to differ on your spin on it which would be, if youre catholic, would be catholic spin.Any religion can take the same verse and say it means thier religion is the best.You see folks, im here to say that its not religion that saves you, its your one on one with Jesus. You go to him one quiet time and ask him to show himself.

  • WAYNE, Can I just ask you something? Like, this is a Catholic website you’re on. I’m taking an educated guess and saying you’re not Catholic and don’t agree with Catholicism, so why are you on this website? Is it to change the minds of the Catholics here? From all the arguing taking place here, I don’t think that’s gonna happen so why not just stop trying. I only ask because I’m subscribed to emails from this site and every day I’ve been getting the emails of arguments and I don’t enjoy it. LOL. I only subscribed because I was curious about what people thought of the Anglican church making this decision and nobody is even talking about that anymore, now all I see is argument.

  • Shacoria, would you like me to go away? And take my message to ask Jesus to be born again so you can enter heaven? Why dont you like that message?

  • Wayne,

    Why are you afraid to answer any of our questions?

  • I must appologise for something. Ive given the idea im just attacking catholicism. Im suggesting that no organised religion will save you. JWs, mormons, seventh days, baptist,assemblies of God, you name them. If i came here exposing the false practices of Jehovas Witness you all would agree with me. Thats why youre not in that church cause you dont believe in them.Earlier i posed a question; How did the catholic church get so rich. No one wants to answer, for good reason.Here goes the answer; Innocent III came up withthe Decreta Vergenti 1199. This document , of his own doing, sanctioned the vatican to kill or and torture people who didnt agree with catholicism AND confiscate their property.Most of the time the vatican made sure these heretics lived on choice land and all grouped togeather. Next in the crosshairs were the Cathars, a people who shunned the excessive and unbiblical ways of the catholic church. You know, men in fancy robes and idols all around, a continuation of roman pagan idolatry. So,the vatican had its loyal troops decimate these docil people and took their land. This senario is repeated over and over again.Its a matter of history for anyone who wants to search.That how the church got rich. Theft and murder.

  • Tito my brother, please repeat the questions you want me to try to answer. Im not God, so lots of questions i have no answer for, but ill give my honest opinion.

  • WAYNE, I just want the arguing to stop. Let’s get back to the topic at hand. Let’s say what we feel about the “Anglican Church In America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church” because that’s what this is about.

  • fair enough Shacoria. I think the Anglican org is running low on cash. They think by joining the big boys they can keep thier cushy jobs. Hey, getting a paycheck regularly. Thats what im about also.Everybody needs an income.

  • I wish to thank, Jennifer- (thoughtful attempt to satisfy Wayne’s relentless harping about the Vatican’s acquired wealth over it’s 2,000 year history- also her message regarding how Catholics live the “SCRIPTURE” [the book Wayne claims we do not read] providing food, clothing, shelter, to all nations, regardless of race, creed, or color.) To Donald R.- (who must be exhausted-no matter what logic he attemped with Wayne, it was just pushed aside.) To Shacoria- who would like the arguing to just “stop”. It seems Wayne delibertly, and in a vicious manner,caused many of us to become angry and miss the whole intent of this article- “Anglicans coming home”, after Henry VIII’s seperation in 1534.
    It is encouraging to see how many of you took the time to express your yourselves in a positive manner,defending the faith we love. Something, sadly
    Wayne refuses to accept, nor attempt to understand.

  • Thank you Terrence! wayne has a bad case of invincible ignorance. I pray that he will ultimately receive the grace to be cured from his affliction.

  • Hello ,
    The Eucharistic paragraphs were written by…..?
    Did I miss the name?
    They are beautiful!

    The WAY is the Catholic Church with Jesus Christ The KING as our Bridegroom!
    Thanks, Tom

  • Donald, the historical facts are sad and i guess im vicious for reminding people of them. The message is Christ and him crucified and risen. People here say i should come to the truth. Is the truth on my knees in front of a statue? And you call me ignorant?

  • “Donald, the historical facts are sad and i guess im vicious for reminding people of them”

    wayne, you have not stated any historical facts in this entire thread. You are ignorant of the history of the Church, and you are too lazy to learn the facts.

  • Terrence, thanks for the acknowledgement. Wayne, again you fail to get the point. You are obviously determined to hate and condemn the Church. I won’t try again to explain 2000 years of accumulated wealth by a 1.5 billion member entity since you will look only for dark episodes in Church history and completely discount anything possitive.

    Again, we don’t just “read a few verses” at Mass. Parishes provide bulletins that include a list of readings for the daily Masses so that those Catholics unable to attend Mass every day may look them up in their own Bibles and read them on their own time. Catholics everywhere are encouraged by the Church to read from Holy Scripture daily and are not limited to the official readings of the Mass.

    Your repeated assertions that the Church’s policy discourages independent bible reading is simply wrong. You have been misinformed and you have had multiple practicing Catholics here tell you that we read the Bible, and not in defiance of an oppressive hierarchy, and yet you obstinately persist in spouting falsehood. The average practicing Catholic of my age who attends Mass regularly has read it 15 to 20 times and more devout ones such as me have read it 30 or more times.

    Think about it. If you are wrong on this one thing about which you are so adamant, what else may you be wrong about?

    About being saved, “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” Mk 16: 16. Faith is necessary for salvation but faith ALONE is not sufficient. “None of those who cry out, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of God but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” Mt 7: 21-22 Also, one can lose one’s salvation. “Consider the kindness and the severity of God — severity toward those who fell, kindness toward you, provided you remain in his kindness; if you do not, you too will be cut off.” Rom 11: 22.

    You say you spurn all organized religion/churches but value the Bible. Well that is contradictory. “Would you show contempt for the church of God?” 1Cor 11:22 “We should not absent ourselves from the assembly, as some do, but encourage one another” Heb 10: 25

    On that note, I invite you to go to Mass at a Catholic Church near you. Go with an open mind and heart. Listen to the prayers which come directly from scripture and to the readings. Notice that we are not in the habit of citing chapter and verse but that we do include a great deal of scripture in our service. Even our Eucharistic prayer includes a great deal of OT and NT passages if you are sharp enough to detect them. Go to Mass but do not partake of Holy Communion since you do not yet have a true understanding of its significance and are not IN Communion with the Catholic Church. After you have attended several Catholic Masses, perhaps you will be better able to communicate with people like us with some genuine knowledge.

    Peace be with you.

  • Tito,

    Thanks so much for your prompt reply! (And even more for your positive, very-Christian & generous response to our reprint permission request!) Of course, we will abide by your attribution requirement of leaving a link intact w/ the reprinted material. More powerful blessings to you & your organization!

    BTW, can i take this as the general policy I can apply to other materials from your site that we wish to reprint?

    GBU all the time,
    Connie I. Ko

  • Connie I. Ko,


    In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,


  • What is interesting is how you all prattle on about historical facts and the true church but seem to forget the 11th century dustup. If you wanted true reunion you should join the Orthodox Church and then endeavor to bring Rome back into the fold. It’s actually the closest thing to historic and pure Christianity that you can get. Don’t need any kind of fun stipulations to be married, etc.

  • Pardon me while I guffaw. All the Orthodox need to do is to live up to the agreement that they made at the Council of Florence in 1439 and all is forgiven.

  • Shacoria

    Thanks for steering the conversation back to the original topic. This is a favorite trick of the evil one…. steering us off target, especially with fallacious arguments. While we should evangelize non Catholics, we also need to know when someone is only interested in arguing and keeping us off the original topic which is our great joy of reunification.

  • You know Wayne, I do believe in evolution…both the scientific kind (What a wonderful God to have created such a magnificant plan) and the evolution of the Church.The human race continues to evolve both physically and spiritually and we continue to add to our understanding of God. and His plan.
    The Church has travelled through the Ages with us humans and likewise has grown and changed as the centuries passed.We now understand how babies are concieved , how germs make us sick and that the earth revolves around the sun. We have changed our forms of government from monarchies to democracies in many places.So as the Middle Ages recede into history we recognize that at one time the Vatican was a monarchy as were most of the world’s governments. The Church has acknowledged her participation in the Inquisition to her shame (of which I’ve been aware all of my long life) and . There are many errors in the Churh’s history but the Churh is made up of sinful human beings and our God is a merciful God. So the Church acted like a medieval kingdom and acquired armies aamd wealth along with her neighbors.Much of that welth has been lavished on the world’s poor and suffering. But art like The Pieta , ancient writings , gold and silver lavished upon the Church by grateful belivers is beyond value. The Church has preserved much through wars plagues and invasions. I guess if you add it all up the Church has done much more good in the world than evil But that’s only what I think.

  • Wayne keeps harping on the inquistion and as catholics we are aware of this wart and all other warts, and as alice pointed out these were do to human weakness. Remember, however, that through all the bad times the Dogma of our faith has never been changed from the beginning. Why, because it is Christ’s church and as he said He will be with it until the end of the world.

  • Terry, you should see some of the dogma.99.99% of people have no idea what the church fathers came up with. You would be amazed. But its not shocking cause the ideas were widespread and still are, like negro inferiority. Its in the Canons. But never mind that. My comp was not moving until now so sorry for the delay in responding.Finally someone admits the reign of terror called inquisition. By the way, the office in charge if the killings, the Holy Office, is still there.The point im making by bringing it up is to make you thing that…Hmmmmm…maybe the holy spirit isnt guiding this church after all.Thats ALL im getting at. Im suggesting that possibly the catholic church isnt a vehicle for salvation. Or any other religion.Corint 11;32 talks about assembling. The saints assembled to bolster each other. How in the heck can you turn that around to mean that the catholic church is gods church? You guys take any scripture, any one at all and turn it into the catholic church.People, get your head out of that ritual ridden religion and ask Jesus himself to show you Himself.I see Donald is still claiming i know nothing, but i noticed he never takes any example of history i mention and says its false. Hes the ‘shoot the messenger’ type. You good people ever stop and think, Hmmmmm..Jesus said that the road to salvation is narrow and FEW that be thereon.Broad is the path to destruction and many be thereon.Any of you bible scholars ever toss that one around? When Jesus says few he means Few, and when he says Many , he means MANY.Yes buddy. In relation to the topic on hand,the anglicans joining up with the vatican, what does that bring to mind? A few devout catholics in here have reminded me on how many catholics there are in the world and now there will be more. One, i forgot, a female, said” lets evangelize people”. in other words, lets make more catholic converts.Well folks, that just fullfills Jesus words. The path to salvation is narrow.It wont accomodate billions. So, whats going to happen to all these billion catholics? For that matter, any group or religion? For that matter everyone.Ill let you in on a secret. Many are called but few are chosen. I rarely come across born again people in blogs or out in public. They are so few its not funny.Oh, i know a number of them. God lets us find each other. We are strangers in a strange land.

  • The Church built Western civilization:

    As for this “narrow” stuff, um… do you not understand that what is meant is that most people won’t choose salvation – not that they can’t?

    Any Catholic can become a saint.

  • Joe, any human can become a saint. The definition of a saint is someone who is saved and born again, which mean the same thing.Dear jennifer, i attended mass a number of times when i was young on Xmas eve. My parents didnt go. i asked my across the street neighbors to take me cause i thought it was the rite thing to do on Xmas eve. My family was , what you call protestant. But i always wanted to do more on Xmas than eat chips and dip and caviar. I had a hunger for Jesus.I didnt know it at the time.But ive been to mass jennifer.Its hollow as a bell.When Jesus healed people, did he do some repeated sermon or wave some gold trinket around? Jennifer, i have an assignment for you. Find out what the official colors of the catholic church are. Or the Vatican colors, which ever.Joe, its not that i dont understand what narrow is, Jesus said the path is narrow, argue with Him

  • Gold and silvery white are the primary colors symbolizing the keys to the Kingdom given to St. Peter. see Matthew 16:19. Why do you ask?

    I still recommend you attend some Masses. Youth often grow impatient with all the readings and homily in the Mass. Even many Catholics don’t develop a real love for the Mass until adulthood. You cannot depend upon memories of a few Christmas Masses from your youth. Especially since you likely had no understanding of what was happening.

    Also, I think your instincts were right when you said “i always wanted to do more on Xmas than eat chips and dip and caviar. I had a hunger for Jesus.” I understand that hunger is what drove you to go to Mass in the first place. Well it is that hunger that brings us Catholics back again and again. Our deep love of the Lord draws us to Him in the Sacraments.

    Do I have a personal relationship with Jesus? ABSOLUTELY!!! Have I been born again? MOST CERTAINLY!
    I don’t understand why other Christians think that Catholic Christians are not “born again” and don’t have personal relationships with Jesus. It is just another example of people passing judgement on others out of ignorance. If you really want to get to know us rather than just wanting to change us or win an argument against us you might begin to see the truth.

  • Hi Jennifer.Do you have a best friend or a brother or a sister? can you tell me one of thier names?

  • I almost forgot. Jennifer, purple and scarlet are official colors. here is an excerpt from catholic answers……It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

  • Dear Jennifer, dont count on me joining the catholic religion. I just cant get into the statues and the holymen with big robes and the icons and gold cups and what not.

  • Wayne,

    No one here is going to join you in your anti-Catholic bigotry and sectarian Protestantism, so, why don’t you go find something better to do?

  • Brother Joe, have you noticed that i ask folks here to go to Jesus and ask him for salvation? Is this what you calll anti-catholic? You have spoken well my brother. because the cathoilc church doesnt want you to go to Jesus. They want you to go to Mary and all sorts of dead people. Joe, get on your knees and pray to dead people all you have my blessing.Joe , this is my something better to do, warn my brothers and sisters.You seem to Hate the message of Jesus saves. cause you love the message of idols get on your rusty knees and pray to those idols

  • Joe is symtomatic of the catholic problem. 99.99% of faithfull catholics dont know what is going on behind the curtians.Most of my childhood friends were catholic and i looked up to them.They didnt do drugs and they did chores like yardwork and pool cleaning.Most of us had pools.Look behing the curtains. have any of you bible scholars heard of the black pope? Dont take my word for any of it…search it on internet, then get back with….BLACK POPE

  • “Joe is symtomatic of the catholic problem.”

    I don’t think I could have asked for a nicer compliment. Thank you 🙂

    And, I’ll be sure to throw in some extra prayers to “dead people” on your behalf. You can thank me later.

  • let me be honest. Joe hates me because if im rite, all his family who have passed away have no salvation. That hurts.The best he can do now is save himself, and that is thru Jesus himself, not thru gold cups or statues or icons. Are you bible scholars aware that when jesus whipped the money changers and what not out of the temple, that most of them were selling religious items? Jesus hates religious items. Catholic loves religious items.Hence, anti christ behaviour.

  • Bro Joe, i dont want to see you unsaved in the last day.You have to ask Jesus for the answer in some quiet time you have. mAYBE BEFOR BED.Dont listen to me. Ask Jesus to show you the way.

  • Joe is most likely a wonderfull person who loves God. As are most catholics. i was unsaved also. I was congregationalist. It meant nothing.But in the judgement, those who claim god god wont enter heaven because Jesus didnt know them.Gold trinkets and incense wont get you a personal relation with Christ.

  • I’m at least glad to see that, however unsaved we Catholics may be, we have better spelling, grammar and capitalization abilities.

  • Wayne I have been away for the past few days-you have posted 24X in the past 7 days- I see you still hate the Catholic Church; your “space bar” is still acting-up, and you continue to berate everyone who makes a comment you do not agree with.

    Here is where we are tonight, at least you and me. You read the bible. (given to you by the Catholic Church, that took 400 years to compile, and another 1000 years before it went to the printing press). You deny that. You have been saved. And according to you there is no universal “Katholikos”,(gk)Church.

    When I pray the Rosary in front of the abortion clinic next week, I will say an “Ave Maria”, for your
    salvation. And on my Chotki beads, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy on me, a sinner”, for myself.

    God bless Jennifer, Joe, Donald, Terry and all my Roman Catholic friends.

  • Wayne, I have several best friends, two sisters and a brother. Don’t see the need to share their names with you. They are all friends in Christ and most of them are also Catholic.

  • Wayne, You are mistaken about the official colors of the Vatican. They are yellow and white as I stated. What you refer to are LITURGICAL colors and there are several more than just scarlet and purple. Liturgical colors are quite different than the official Vatican colors which you would know if you had any understanding of the Catholic faith and liturgy.

  • Wayne, Catholics are not required to get into statues and icons – they are mere symbols. I’m not sure what you mean by the holy men with big robes – if you are referring to Bishops etc. there is no assumption that they are holy and we know that they are only human just as Christ’s first disciples were flawed. Many abandoned Him and went back to their old ways when he told them His flesh is food indeed and His blood is drink indeed. Of the twelve that remained, one betrayed Him, one denied Him and all but one abandoned Him during His passion. Even after His resurection, one persisted in disbelieving until He was provided with physical proof. Why should we expect their predecessors to be any better than the men hand picked by our Lord?
    You have a great deal of misconceptions about the Church.

  • Wayne, I find great joy that the ACA has asked to join the Catholic Church and I also praise God when he fills someone like you with so many questions about our faith. Perhaps in your efforts to get to the bottom of things you will actually discover the Truth (Jesus Christ) and come into full communion with Him in His one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church against which the gaits of hell will not prevail, not ever, past, present or future.

    Jesus said the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses is God of the living, not the dead, so we know that those who have died and gone to heaven are alive and we do not worship them but ask them to pray for us just as we ask people around us who we think may have a special relationship with Jesus to pray for us. That is what is meant by the communion of saints in the Apostles Creed which most Christions proclaim – not just Catholics.

    Peace be with you.

  • Terrence, God bless you also and may the Holy Spirit guide you and provide you with all the Graces He can bestow as you pray at the abortion mill. I am a prayer partner for a couple ladies who pray at the mills. Can’t go in person because I am disabled, unable to drive, and am dependent on others for transportation – also at high risk of having a seizure if exposed to the elements for very long. So I offer my suffering up in union with Christ’s suffering on behalf of those who pray or counsel at the sidewalk, the men and women who are contemplating abortion, and for all the so-called doctors and nurses who provide those murderous services. God can turn even the most hardened of hearts.

    I think the fact that the Catholic Church is vertually the only one that has never wavered in its position on the evils of abortion and contraception is one of the reasons other Christians are softening towards us and coming home to the only faith that holds the fullness of truth, not just selected fragments.

  • let me be honest. Joe hates me

    If you actually believe that, you’ve got a greatly inflated notion of the effect you may have. His last post is good advice if you have no intent to listen as well as talk.

    He DISAGREES with you because you are wrong, and may be annoyed that you will not engage rationally or work with facts–or he may have shrugged and forgotten all about you.

    He did probably care more than most, since he seems to have done more than scan your wave of posts.

    Jennifer… you’re nuts, and a better person than I.

  • Jennifer and others, my aim is not to pick on your religion.Though its a easy one to find fault with. My aim is to exhort you to go straight to the source< Jesus, for salvation instead of depending on any organization. The reason for the history reminders were to make you think about if the catholic church can actually save you or even does it have the ability to dish god out. No man or org has god in a can and can serve him at will. Just do me a favor, think about it for a while. Jennifer, keep on with your battle againt the baby killers.


  • It seems I heard that there has already been some applications to the vatican. Can anyone verify this or have I been dreaming?

  • I need to know much about the church historically and current affairs.

  • Raphael when you see wayne’s post just ignore it. He hasn’t a clue what the catholic church is about. There are books I am sure will give you pure history of the church. If you are interested in theological history from the first few centuries you would have to read the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. To get a feel for the overall faith and to get basics on the attitude of current affairs get the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

  • Benedict XVI moved to receive members of the Anglican Communion into the church without even speaking of it to the Archbishop of Canterbury beforehand. He also repeated the questionable assertion that Anglican orders are invalid.Benedict is a genius? None of this seems wise to me.

    In addition, the hierarchy worldwide, as well as Benedict have so completely and dishonorably managed the sex abuse scandal, that I cannot understand where I fit in the church. The usual tactic was followed: stonewall and all will pass. Everything has to come out. Now! Or there will be no healing over the long-term.

    Everyone needs to come to Rome? What prideful deceit!

  • Thomas,

    He was approached by Anglicans wanting nothing to do with Canterbury.

    As far as Anglican orders being invalid, that was said by an earlier pope (and was correct).

    With your ‘sex’ scandal comments, that means your really not looking to engage in dialogue, just vitriol.

  • …the “poaching” thing, AGAIN?!?

    How come it always ends up applied to Catholics, I wonder, but never…oh…any Catholic converted out? Ooh, can’t use that as a hammer, never mind.

  • You’re not convincing anyone. You’re not angering anyone. No one here is impressed by your blustering ignorance. I’m not sure what your intention or goal was in posting, but all you’re doing is making a public global record of your idiocy. It’s rather sad.

  • Wayne,

    Ditto Chris M.

    You’ll regret what you posted if you ever bother to do any research.

  • Ok Tito my friend, fair enough. Ill do research. In the meantime, disprove anything i said. I dont mean documentation, just tell me what statement,phrase or word i said was incorrect. I get this same stuff on other sites.They just say im wrong or ignorant, usually both. Tell me what you disagree with. Thanks for your time

  • Wayne- you spend time picking fights with poor logic because your unicorn has a flat and the elves aren’t calling back.

    Disprove anything I just said.

  • “Wayne- you spend time picking fights with poor logic because your unicorn has a flat and the elves aren’t calling back.”

    Brilliant Foxfier! I am going to steal that gem for future use.

  • wayne,

    As a fellow Christian, I apologize for the “idiocy” comment. It was mean and uncalled for. I appreciate your intent to do some research.. BUT.. if you’re researching with a hermeneutic of suspicion (IOW, you already KNOW you’re right and you’re just looking for ammo), it won’t do anyone any good since you’ll only see what you want to see. Try reading to see what we believe from OUR point of view, instead of one colored by your own particular beliefs and experiences.

  • Donald-
    just a pet peeve. (one in a huge flock I can’t seem to cull)

    Someone making claims should provide evidence, not demand others do it for them.

  • Well, you guys are batting %100. I made 3 accusations about catholic church and not one of you has the hutzspa to say any one is wrong. Images…the catholic churches and websites are full of them.When god came down on the mount when the israelis left egypt, he didnt show any likeness of himself lest the people make am image to venerate it.Which he doesnt want at all. Tell me im wrong.The priesthood is a homosexual fraternaty….some one tell me im wrong.Ok there are a few straight priest, thats given. Idols, arent the catholic churches filled with statues from small to big? Someone tell me im wrong. Calling me names wont clear those idols out of your church.

  • some one tell me im wrong

    You’re wrong.


  • Im happy now. Thanks Fox

  • Here is my point. We all want salvation. The way to do it is ask Christ himself to reveal himself to you. Dont waste valuable time expecting others to do it for you.

  • Wayne,

    You need to back up your accusations with evidence.

  • Tito, give you evidence? My friend, are you handicapped? Can you see? Just asking. Just walk into a catholic church and look around. You will see statues applenty.Iconic pictures also. By the tons.Im i wrong? My girlfriend is catholic. From new jersey. She fills me in on what i dont know. She hates the catholic church now. Then there is this monsterance(good name) that the wizard(priest) turns a wafer into the actual body of christ.Ive seen peole on their knees praying and singing to that golden trinket on EWTN. Go ahead, say it aint so.ou are asking me if the catholic church has statues? Any one in here can answer that. Shabby way to go about this my friend Tito. If you are embarrased of your religion, find a good bible believing church in your area. I can help you if you live in the USA

  • “monsterance”

    The term is monstrance, you idiot. It is used to hold the body of Christ.

    Tito, I think that far too much time has been wasted on this dim witted bigot. It is your thread, but I think he should be banned. He is unable to argue effectively, expresses himself clumsily and is so ill-informed as to be comic. Aside from unintentional humor, he has nothing to offer other than raw hate.

  • Begging the question: you take as given that icons and statues are idols.

    Appeal to authority, or possibly hearsay: your girlfriend was Catholic and now hates the Church.

    Argument by definition: you define Transubstantiation as invalid, and define the Body of Christ as a mere “wafer.”

    You are incorrect about EWTN showing people worshiping a “golden trinket.” I’m going to guess you mean Eucharistic Adoration, since you mention a monstrance. (That is the holder, not the “wafer.”)

    Jesus said: this is my body, this is my blood. Do this in memory of me.

    It is His body.

    Argue with Him.

  • Mike I liked your comment however I would like to see him go looking to prove he’s right because I would bet he can’t. A couple of pretty well known names tried just that and became a couple of very staunch catholics, I’m thinking of John Henry Neumann and Scott Hahn. They are the tip of the iceberg.

    Wayne You are so far off on our comments it is unbelievable. You can’t seem to get it into your head that the root of the church is the faith, not people.

    As Christ told the apostles I will be with you until the end of time. So keep ranting, and when you are through you will be gone and the Catholic Church will still be here. May the Holy Spirit come on you and show you the way to the truth.

  • Wayne,

    Until you begin to offer evidence your comments will not be approved for viewing.

  • Wayne:
    I assume you are a card carrying Protestant? In the age of the internet I’m surprised that you are so ignorant. You should spend time doing some serious research regarding the things you have been saying about the Catholic Church. Your answers are from the 1800s and 1900s when information about anything and everything was not readily availiable to the serious researcher.
    Have you ever wondered why the Supreme Court now has five Catholics and possibly three Jewish Justices? It’s not even the brain power. It’s the ability to use natural law and common sense. You are sound as if you have no ability to think logically. By the way statues are just beautiful remembers of great people that have long past our way. Washington DC has tons of statutes. Get over it. Many of them are beautiful works of art and a great monument to our civilization.

  • Touche Tito Edwards,It may help to tell our blogging Catholic hater he is in good company with every 20th century athiest and so-called progressive secular in his boring vitriol against the Catholic church, this Catholic hating is so new york times. A reminder that it was the Catholic & Orthodox church before the sad split that canonized the present Christian Bible. statues in a Catholic church are JUST THAT statues, and as pointed out reminders of those great men & women that went before us, as are Ikons in Orthodoxy. Tito you have infinitely more patience than I have towards Catholic haters, my language would have been a hell of a lot more colourful, Mea Culpa

  • Im not a catholic hater. I am an historian. I remind or teach history. Its your idea that i hate. But what has the CC done over the yrs? Kill bible believers and so forth. Call me names but the Cc history remains the same.

  • Wayne,

    If you know history why do you continue to lie.

  • Brother Tito, glad to talk to you. Why dont you tell me what you think is a lie? Then i can document it.You just say i lie without saying what im lieing about. Im open to being corrected. Thanks for talking to me.

  • Pingback: Benoît XVI en Angleterre: que va-t-il faire dans cette galère?
  • The facts remain the same:
    Roman Catholicism represents a radical departure from original/authentic Christianity. I’m not supposing Christianity doesn’t ‘develop’ or progress through time and assume new forms. But Catholicism under Rome has actually altered the essence of Christianity.
    From reading teh New Testament, no one would ever get a sense of Mary that is understood at Rome. In fact, scripture is such that it doesn’t permit the evolution of such an idea. Neither would one assume a devotion to Mary based on a faithful and informed reading of the N.T.
    Abstention from marriage and certain foods as commanded by church leaders is a departure from apostolic orthodoxy. The Greek church seems to recognize this at least in relation to marriage for priests.
    The Roman chruch was the only major church available for much of European history, and it was tolerated and even enjoyed. But when it developed beyond certain scriptural parameters and grew corrupt, other churches formed. Apostolic continuity depends on the maintenance of Christianity under the leadership of the church. If the leaders have succession but are in possession of alien beliefs, there is no real succession. The leaders and sacraments may be in place, but the religion has basically altered, and it is a sham. The most important thing here is to correctly understand the essence of Christianity and the church. If people understand that, I think they can then grasp much else. But it is like a gestalt switch.

  • So, you’re deciding that the organized Christianity that has been around since before there was a collected NT is a radical departure, based on your own reading of the NT.

    The same NT that, by the way, has Jesus doing his first big public miracle…because his mom said to….

    How about some citations with exactly where it’s departed and why you think things are impossible or obvious?

  • Yes, God’s people played a role in scripture and its canonization. That is most certainly true.
    However, I am not basing anything on my own ‘take’ or ‘read.’
    Mary was his mother and things of course played themselves out on a human plane too–we acknowledge that and are glad–God incarnated himself and dwelt with us. He becdame like one of us.
    The Roman church didn’t significantly depart at once. It took time and depending on who you read through the centuries will probably determine where you place the final ‘departure.’
    But to say a profound break with Christianity ocurred by 1300-1500 AD is certainly not unreasonable.
    This will depend on what parts of Europe, what aspects of Roman Catholicism we cite, etc.
    Things like this don’t get pinned down precisely. But like the flu, you know it when it’s there.
    Hope that helps.

  • You said that reading the NT made it clear the Church had departed from the “original” and “authentic” Christianity.

    You still haven’t offered the citations and reasoning.

    Barring any sort of rational support, you’re in the “I don’t like it so I’m grasping” camp.

    Shoot, you specifically call out our treatment of Mary, going so far as to say: scripture is such that it doesn’t permit the evolution of such an idea.

    You claimed it; support it.

  • “But to say a profound break with Christianity ocurred by 1300-1500 AD is certainly not unreasonable.”

    Not reasonable and ahistoric. The essential dogmas of the Catholic Church were well established by the end of the Fifth Century, including Marian devotion. The Catholic Church that you claim is a radical departure from Christianity is the original Christian Church. All other Christian sects and denominations are breakaways from the Catholic Church, or breakaways from breakaways.

  • Sal,

    Where are the citations from the NT you claim?

    You’re making up information out of thin air.

  • Concerning Marian devotion:
    1. Some of scripture demonstrates Mary’s influence upon Jesus.
    2. Other aspects of the N.T. highlight the relativity of things in light of the fulfillment–e.g. here are my mother, brother and sisters–those who do my will.
    e.g. Blessed is she who gave you suck: nay, rather….

    What’s really fundamental here is not which verses we highlight, but the overall tenor or gist if you get what I mean.

    As for the year 500, I don’t really think so.
    Patristic writings use Mary as symbol and there is talk of Eve, sin and newness, etc. This is in keeping with the patristic / greco approach of the use of analogous thought. As Chirst was the new Adam, so let’s have one for Mary/ Eve. THAT SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED ANACHRONISTICALLY (READING BACK INTO HISTORY A LATER DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS MORE MEDIEVAL).
    Hope that helps.

  • Sal-
    you claimed that the scripture would not allow it.

    Support your claim with evidence, not more claims.

    All you are doing is hand-waving.

  • OK then. I take it you want the simple answer. Concerning Marian devotion:
    1. God Father, Son and Holy Ghost requires our full devotion.
    2. Devotion to any saint who’s gone on to glory will sidetrack us; that is idolatry and we are warned of it at the conclusion of the epistle to Jude.
    3. Apparitions have become a part of Marian devotion.
    Attempted communication with a saint who’s gone on can result in contact with an unlean spirit. (If we or an angel from heaven, as Paul says, should proclaim to you a gospel other than what you’ve received, let them be cursed.
    Does that address it satisfactorily?

  • You made the claim scripture is such that it doesn’t permit the evolution of such an idea; you still have not supported that claim, let alone the rest of it.

    Support your claim– you have yet to cite a single specific writing.

  • OK then. Scripture delineates Mary—by the end of the BIblical narrative we have an idea of her. That idea is completely out of harmony with what evolved through Roman Catholic tradition. So the N.T. gives us this story and through it we learn of her role. Then the Roman church describes her another way, affording to her a different character, new attributes and a place in the cult of worship. The Roman church takes i.t upon itself to do all of this. Of course it happens gradually, but that’s the issue–it sort of comes in through the back door.
    Scripture also doesn’t permit devotion to angels or those who’ve gone on to glory. E.G. Paul warns readers not to get caught up in the worship of angels. Saints who go to be with the Lord are now absent from us E.G. to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Do you need more verses?

  • “As for the year 500, I don’t really think so.”

    I know you don’t think so and you are wrong. Popular devotion to Mary long predated the Council of Ephesus in 431. Here are a few quotations from early Church Fathers regarding the Blessed Virgin:

  • Sal,

    Point to me in the Bible where the Catholic Church put what Mary said as “gospel”?

    Do you even know how Sacred Scripture was put together?

  • Some of those quotations are aptly spoken. Others are idolotrous. But these things didn’t crystallize into dogma until very much later.

  • Some Marian dogma wasn’t actually pronounced officially until the nineteenth century.

  • That’s why I don’t consider teh Roman church as having had a Marian DEVOTION by 500 AD.

  • Sal, you have still not supported your claim with the actual writings.

    Is it really this difficult? Why do you keep trying to change the topic?

  • By actual writings do you mean scripture? or the quotations at the website?

  • “Some of those quotations are aptly spoken. Others are idolotrous.”

    And that is your problem. The Christian Church from the earliest times is the Catholic Church. Marian devotion is not something that came about in the Middle Ages, but is something that existed from the earliest times, just like belief in the real presence, confession as a sacrament, etc. Blessed Cardinal Newman said that to be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant. Hold whatever beliefs you wish, but it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to separate the Catholic Church from the early Church. The two are one and the same.

  • I say again:
    give your specific sources.

    Over and over again, you offer different versions of “I think scripture means” without even offering chapter and verse of what you claim as source.

    Again, as I have from my first reply to you:
    How about some citations with exactly where it’s departed and why you think things are impossible or obvious?
    You still haven’t offered the citations and reasoning.

  • Sirs:

    I am an historian–I hold a degree in European history. Of course, we don’t want to be guilty of beoing ahistoric-I understand where the cardinal was coming from. That’s why I don’t say the Roman church departed from Christianity at once everywhere. In fact, I hold out the hope that it will be renewed and restored–even if that means people exiting it and beginning anew. Unity in the Spirit and organizational uniformity are two different things. I’m not claiming that the Catholic church was never Christian or that it can’t some day be so again. All I’m saying is that officially it departed by a certain point along the historical timeline.



  • Sal, you made claims, claims about readings from a single text.

    Prove it. Stop trying to hand-wave it away, stop trying to shift the conversation, stop trying to shift the burden of evidence.

    We even narrowed it down so you can focus, laser-like, on a single subtopic: scripture is such that it doesn’t permit the evolution of such an idea, that idea being how the modern Church treats Mary.

  • First John concludes with this exhortation: keep away from anything that might take God’s place in your hearts—another translation has it as keep away from idols (I paraphrase).

    Romans 1:25 says: they traded the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the creator who is forever praised.

  • Of course it can be reversed–where would one get the assumption that one could innovate concerning Mary? After all, the thought never crossed MY mind.
    Do you see what I’m saying here?

  • Sal,

    The burden of proof is upon you to prove your theory.

    (18) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (19) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    –Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 16:18-19

    I have to go meet up with a friend, but I’ll be back in three hours and see if you can provide any evidence at all, historical or scriptural.

  • Argument and citation, Sal.

    Throwing out a paraphrase and a single out of context verse is not even a decent citation, let alone an argument, and is far from strong enough for the statements you offered when you started.

    Romans 1:25 (context)
    25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    1 John 5:13-21
    13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.
    16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

    18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. 19We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 20We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

    21Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.

  • Sir, it’s really very simple I think. I’m not one of those Protestants who wants always to begin and end with scriptural verses as if the whole debate were in relation to a scientifically precise or logical puzzle. I’m supposing, and I believe rightly, that to evolve a sense or definition of Mary beyond scripture is unwarranted (and that to elevate her to a place of status beyond that to which the Christian story itself has placed her is to commit error). Once again, I think it’s really about what the Bible has to way, but not necessarily in some precise or literal way. When we read the gospels a certain idea about Mary ought to emerge in peoples’ minds. We all ought to share a basic conception of her and that conception, regardless of faith tradition, goes something like this: Mary walked with God. She faithfully waited upon the Lord and when He spoke she listened and responded with obedience. Hence God chose her as a vessel through which Christ was born into the world. Now Mary, because she was holy–a child of God–is with him in heaven. And of course, this is in itself totallyt awesome. But scripture has here given us a portrait of Mary which must reign us in, so to speak. We are not at liberty to devise a radically new conception of her. Neither are we free to create a cult of devotion around her. The story itself has bound us you see–unless of course one wishes to rewrite the story.

  • Sir, it’s really very simple I think.

    That is probably the root of the problem: you made a claim of evidence, when it is really just an “I think.”

    You stated that it was not permitted by scripture.

    Now, you say that it’s not in “some precise or literal way.”

    Again, I ask:
    can you give evidence and argument, as you claimed, from the New Testament?

  • Now concerning Peter, the keys, the church, etc., all of this is used as a figure of speech. God wants to communicate to his followers that Peter in his weakness is strong; though he appears timid, God mightily works in him. Christ has Peter say what Christ already knows is in his heart–Jesus is the Christ–the Messiah–the Anointed One. And if he is, we can go nowhere else. Regardless of what others say, Peter at this moment acknowledges his Lord. And it is upon that Rock (not Peter alone who has been considered but a pebble, but Peter plus his confession: that Rock) that CHrist will build his church. And his church will not be overcome–it’s victorious in the Christ of God.
    Now the keys given are a sign of the authority which belongs to the church–the church is the pillar and ground of the truth and what is decided there, if it be God’s will, is then ratified in heaven.

  • My use of “I think” was in an effort to sound polite.
    I’m sorry if that was misunderstood.

  • And my quote of it was a simple rhetorical device to politely point out that you have still not supported your claims with anything but more claims.

    You say you have a degree in history; would your professors have really let you get away with this personal experience as proof? Hand-waving away any need for evidence? Broad and grandiose statements, rather than reason and the actual sources?

  • When blogging it just simply isn’t practical. And I don’t have books at hand.
    However, if you’ve read everything I’ve written, it’s all based upon written sources–we’re not talking about personal experience here, at least as far as I can tell.

  • The evidence I have may not have been presented in the form you would prefer, but it is there. Go back through the dialogue and you’ll be able to glean lots of evidence.

  • And I don’t have books at hand.

    The site I linked has a huge number of Bible versions.

    You made claims about the New Testament. There’s the books. Go for it.

    . Go back through the dialogue and you’ll be able to glean lots of evidence.

    If it is there, why do you not glean it yourself, organize it and post?

    When blogging it just simply isn’t practical.

    It’s incredibly easy; here is a page that explains how to do links, here is code for formating the text. (A list usable of HTML tags is below the comment box, as well.)
    You can also simply cite Bible verses and version.

  • I’ve already given you food for thought. I’d like you to digest some of it in Christian love.

    If you haven’t already caught the gist of what I’m saying by now, the issue may have to do with one of the following:
    1. Differing paradigms—and here I include how people understand the role of tradition and the nature of the chruch and such things.
    2. Style of argumentation–what I’m noticing is that you seek to communicate and search for evicdence in a certain way.
    a. literal approach (perhaps similar to the way in which fundamentalists debate) and I’m outside that trajectory somewhat.
    b. use of sources cited on the spot and reasoning greatly on the level of particulars. I’m not Thomistic. I think Aquinas’ approach is highly problematic. To wish always to think in Aristotelian cateogories—I’m goin g to be honest with you—it’snot really the Christian apologetic. Neither is a platonistic approach. To let the Bible simply inform our thinking is probably the best way to go and I think I’ve been assuming that’s the way to debate. And I think you’ve been assuming it’s not. That may be part of the issue too.
    What do you think?

  • I’ve already given you food for thought.

    No, you made claims and failed to support them.

    When challenged, you tried to change the topic, shift the conversation, shift the burden of evidence, use an appeal to authority to bolster your standing and then tried to claim you had already given enough information.

    This is not food for thought, this is standard operating procedure for those who are not accustomed to having to support their claims with anything but bluster.

    There is also a rather thick ribbon of attempts to appeal to emotion or ad hominems. (Implying that offering quotes to support a claim is something “those” Protestants do, frequent urging to ‘read closely’ or again, etc)

    You have made claims.
    Support them.

  • OK—in 2 Corinthians Chapter 11 verses 3 and 4 it reads: But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted just as Eve was deceived by the cujnign ways of the serpent. You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different jesus than the one we preah, or a different kind of spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.

    Now, things don’t usually occur in exactly the same way. But a similar theme was underway here in the early church. Defection can and does come from within the ranks. Things change. People change. Ideas change. Organizational structure changes. Paul wrote to churches that were dynamically changing. Some were orthodox in some ways. Some were quite unorthodox in some ways. Some were beset with problems and in danger of death. A church can go through the stages we do–it begins, grows, sickens and dies. The universal church of course continues.

  • Another example–check out Revelation Chaps. 1-3 where John addresses the seven churches of Asia Minor. Each is held to the standard. The last one (Laodicea) is not lively–its lampstand removed. A church, such as the church at Rome, can die. So can a local Baptist church.

  • But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve 4 by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted from a sincere (and pure) commitment to Christ.
    For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus 5 than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough.
    6 For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.”
    Even if I am untrained in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things. 7

    Ironic you should quote this, as you are showing up and trying to tell us other than what they passed down.

    You do not make an argument for any of the claims you made, either Roman Catholicism represents a radical departure from original/authentic Christianity. or that our respect for Mary is not possible, due to the New Testament.

  • More examples: 2 Timothy Chap. 3 verses 14-16 read: But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true for you know you can trust those who taught you. You have been taught the holy Scriptures form childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that tcomes by trusting in Christ Jesus.l All Scriptre is inspired by God iand is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. IT CORRECTS US WHEN WE ARE WRONG ADN TEACHES US TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. (So it is a kind of measuring rod, if you will).

  • Revelation chapters 1-3?

    As evidence that “a Church can die”?

    This is not “another” example, this is grasping at straws.

  • Here is a further example: 2 Timothy Chapter 4 verses 3-4 read; For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whativer their itching ears want to hear. They will reject the truth and chase after myths.


  • All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
    so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

    Still, you do not make your argument.

    Organize your quotes and argument and post an argument and citation that actually supports even one of your claims.

  • Paul warns his listeneres and readers–the warning is in favor of a conservative tendancy—resist radical innovation.

  • Like, say, some guy on a message board that claims that his reading of scripture is true and the Church is radically altered into a form that is not in keeping with the New Testament, yet either cannot or will not organize and cite anything to support his claims?

  • There will come a time when people will condemn marriage and the eating of certain foods.

    The Chruch of Rome has done both those things.

    I’m not saying it was a dirrect prophecy pertaining jsut to tthat. But when Paul or someone states something like that, you can bet it will be a problem in at least one place somehwere down the road.

  • Now you’re not even trying. Ancient, lame, and doesn’t match up with your prior claims.


    You wish to be very rigorous and logical. We’re not dealing with a scientific treatise here. Neither is it a mathematical equation. We’re discussing matters of faith.

    Now I’ve given you something very substantial whcih you’ve chosen to write off:
    Paul prophecied people would come along and forbid marriage and the eating of certain foods. He warned his listeners and readers of this.


    There marriage pronouncement still holds for clergy.

    I’m not sure as to the rules concerning food at this point.

    When Paul brings something like that up, it means it’s going to happen at least once in the future and that people need to tend toward conservatism–resisting serious innovation.

    When a church introduces things that are fundamentally new, it can cease to be a church in the proper sense. I’ve givben you several verses where the Bible expresses this point: A church can cease to be a church because people from within its own ranks introduced new teaching. The church will in that case have sickened and died.

  • Paul was a former tax collector, if he said such a thing then as likely as not he was predicting the rise of global statism, opposed to authentic Christian ministry, such as we are witnessing in our own lifetimes, i.e. the promotion of so-called “homosexual marriage,” that is no more than a thinly-veiled attempt to eviscerate monogamous marriage as it has been known throughout civilized history, and the prohibition by civil authorities against individuals consuming whatever foods or substances that they choose, something that would have been strongly authoritarian even under Roman pagan imperialist standards.

  • Not playing by my own rules?

    I did not state “rules,” I am simply asking, as I have for several hours, that you give citation and a coherent argument for the radical claims you have made.

    You consistently fail to do this, no matter what help I offer.

    Your attempts to bully and manipulate are as pathetic as they are obvious, and you simply cannot manage to stick to a subject, nor can you grasp that you saying “I stated” is not proof.

    You made factual claims, and you keep trying to back them up with your own authority, and seem to be getting frustrated when that is not accepted.

    You eventually threw up a handful of verses that were slightly related, grabbed an old anti-Catholic saw. (which is extensively debunked at the link, chapter and verse)

    When that didn’t work, you threw a fit and tried to claim cheating.

    Make your argument, and support it.

  • Linus–I think you are thinking of one of the other apostles.

    Foxfier–I’ve already made many arguments and have supported them too.

    A rigorously logical approach will not get at the core of the issue. It’s not mathematics and it’s not even science. A Spirit-guided and prayerful reading of scripture is in order. What we should be after, as I see it, is the morphology or grammar of things. When you see the broader shape of Christianity, the incidentals will fall into place.


  • No one can pull one over on Foxfier 🙂

    Hands down the best debater here at TAC.

  • Now I shall retire. I’m in need of some nourishment and a good night’s rest.

    The Lord bless all of you!
    Praise to God!

  • Bravo Foxfier! If you ever wanted to go over to the Dark Side and become an attorney, you would be formidable in cross examination!

  • *blush*

    Just tired of folks dancing around going “I can, I can… I did, didn’t you see it, you fool?!”

  • If sal is a history teacher, I’m super sorry for her students.
    If what she has posted here is her sum knowledge of debating the Truth of the Catholic Church, the kids she teaches will be loaded up with subjective interpretations of what is written by any historian.

    Like what the revisionists are teaching in Japan WRT the attack on Pearl Harbour. And of course, the Crusades were a cowardly and unprovoked attack on the peace loving, Jew and Christian friendly Muslims of that time.

  • Someone has not paid attention to the comments. Christianity can not be decided through logical debate. It is a matter of faith–and faith will beget understanding. As Anselm stated: I believe because it is absurd.

  • As Spengler remarked, Anselm was able to say that because the West was in its “springtime.” But at a later point Aquinas would have us tied up in syllogisms. And that is what I’m trying to argue against. If you are strictly bound by logic, Christianity will make no sense whatsoever. Even Jesuitical theory acknowledges that a point exists where one must ‘make the leap.’

  • 1) “Credo quia absurdum”– “I believe because it is absurd”– is a famous misquote of Tertullian’s credibile est, quia ineptum est .

    2) Anselm is associated with the notion that God is “that than which nothing greater can be thought”.

    Anselm was famous for apply reason to faith.

  • What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

  • To claim the authority of the scriptures, you have to actually use them, Sal. Not flail around and talk about you, you, you.

  • Judaism was a faith-based religion. People believed in God–they placed their hope and trust in him. He seemed hidden as much as he seemed revealed. Jesus claimed he was his son which made further demands upon faith–what reason could make sense of that?

  • The scriptures are authoritative; why have you still not used them to prove your claims?

  • When Isaac was called upon to sacrifice his son through whom his progeny would come–and thereby the promises–reason was of little if any value. Of course Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead as we learn in Hebrews, but that in itself really amounted to faith. For God to give life to the dead and to do so at that time in God’s plan was a remarkably faith-inspired idea—one that a person would not arrive at through logic.

  • Well, yes they are authoritative—I’m glad we agree on that!

    I guess if you wish to prove a claim in relation to Mary it would be this: Where in the authoritative N.T. do we find a devotion to her, the ever-virgin status, the assumption, etc.?

    So the burden, I believe, would be on one to explain how the ideas arose and became dogmatized.

  • Also, given St. Augustine’s insight which we generally term original sin, how could Mary be sinless? Applying logic, and here goes because you wanted this, each parent before here would have to hae been without sin going back to aDAM AND eVE. You see what I mean?

  • Where in the Bible do you get this sola scriptura notion that it must be in the NT? Do you not understand that “authoritative” means true and accurate, not “the only possible source”?

    The Church was established by the Bible; it is on you to support your claim that she has, as you originally claimed, radically changed.

  • Stop trying to change the subject, Sal.

  • If a church begets notions that are not already in the canon, and the canon is closed, and no one assumes it’s ongoing, and then there are these novel notions——tell me, is one to assume they are a continuation of Christian thought?
    I think not.
    If the notions are novel, and Paul was forever warning his congregants of that potential, then Christianity is being altered.


  • “Christianity can not be decided through logical debate.”

    So is that your premise or your conclusion?

  • You jump from “the Bible is authoritative” to all of that.

    You’re trying to change the subject, again.


    Like the one that you are promoting, since you have thus far been unable to support your claims.

  • Because it seems to me that you have a premise (a false one, but a premise still), from which you draw a conclusion.

    It seems to me you’re making a logical argument.

    All Fox is doing is asking you to support your premise with facts. She’s not even asking for a logical argument. She’s asking for facts.

    If you don’t even know the difference between a fact and a syllogism, then it’s no wonder no one can make any sense of you.

  • Sal-
    Yeah, I guess you might be right. I’m more of a James man myself, and certainly no expert on the Bible. It was a stretch for me to try and answer your claims, given your total lack of scriptural reference or even proper grammar. I’ll stand back and let others beat their head against the brick wall for now.

  • You have established an apologetic approach that is logically-based, I think. And you wish for the argument to proceed along those lines.

    What I am saying is that I am not an advocate of Acquinas and I don’t see matters of the faith in light of logig.

    The otehr issue concerns the quotation of verses. I can not quote a verse in support of something else, at least not usually. That verse is set in a context of its own.

    Regarding premises, yes there is one’s premise concerning tradition and when followed out to its conclusion, it yields separate ones obviously.

  • So your premise is probably the following: The church yields tradition and that tradition becomes authoritative over time given certain qualifications.

    Mine is the following: The church has tradition (more in the form of baggage) and tradition is more or less ooptional, sometimes desirable and at other times undesirable.

    We need periodically to clean house, so to speak. Semper reformanda.

  • You have established an apologetic approach that is logically-based, I think.

    I haven’t established anything in this conversation.

    All I have done is asked you to support your statements, using the Bible.

    You have still failed to do this, and keep trying to change the subject, throwing out random verses, well known slanders, radical misquotes and out of context quotes.

    Support your claims– that the Church is radically different and that Marian devotions are absolutely impossible developments from the text of scripture– with the New Testament.

  • I should clarify: asked you to support your statements about the contents of the Bible with actual statements from the Bible.

    I’m not even limiting you to the New Testament.

  • So following your format, the conclusions of the two premises would be

    yours: tradition can potentially be on a par with scripture.

    mine: tradition is always subservient to scripture and must be constantly measured against it.
    The upshot here is that tradition is never authoritative, normative, or binding for God’s people. It is always discardable and in fact must be discarded when it becomes a hindrance, e.g. something that conflicts witih the overall tenor of God’s written story–not necessarily a single verse of it.

    Hope that helps.

  • So we’re not looking at quotes here. We’re dealing with God’s overall story–the larger narrative of his plan with humanity. From Genesis to Revelation we get a sense of the characters, i.e. Mary.

    Mary is in the tradition of a number of excellent faith heroes. She listens for God’s word and responds with obedience. The song speaks of her as the O.T. songs speak of faith giants–Hail, etc. etc. Blessed art thou among women————-in other words she is chosen and special and God works in and through her.

    Now having said that, she is not without sin, she is not–as far as I can tell based on the context of Jesus’ discussion with people in the N.T.—ever-virigin, she is not assumed up like Enoch who is just taken.
    She is not there for a Rosary to develop around her–the symbolism of the Rose does not apply to her on the basis of what we learn in Scripture.

    She is a woman of sorrows and faith, of great joy and pain, and she is ranked with such as were like her.

    But, and there is a big but here, she is not one that scripture anticipated a devotion to.

  • You still have not backed up your claims, Sal.

    You said:
    Roman Catholicism represents a radical departure from original/authentic Christianity. I’m not supposing Christianity doesn’t ‘develop’ or progress through time and assume new forms. But Catholicism under Rome has actually altered the essence of Christianity.

    Show the radical departure.
    Offer the scriptures that place the Church outside of true Christianity.

    From reading teh New Testament, no one would ever get a sense of Mary that is understood at Rome. In fact, scripture is such that it doesn’t permit the evolution of such an idea. Neither would one assume a devotion to Mary based on a faithful and informed reading of the N.T.

    Supply the scripture that will not permit the evolution of the idea of Mary as she is understood in Rome.
    Offer actual readings which would ban such a development.

  • The symbolism of the Rose emerges from later Western culture. Around 1100 or so you had what was called the cult of romance and the rose was big. The rose became a tool in the church’s arsenel. It was baptized as it were–given new meaning and eventually applied to Mary.

    Mary was actaully in all probability arranged to be with Joseph through family. So the rose is very much out of place there.

    Because it was ‘sanctified’ the rose finds a place in high literature, including Dante’s paradiso and one can even detect it in cathedral architecture.

    But that is of course all medieval—definitely not a part of the Jewish world of Mary’s day.

  • New Testament, chapter and verse, Sal.

    Your attempts to change the topic will not work.

    You made big claims, and it’s really obvious to all of us here that you are either unwilling or unable to justify them.

  • In case I have not done so already, I want to get across the idea that we can not rely on verses or quote minor passages–at least not most of the time.

    Each verse is enmeshed in surrounding verses and so on until, working your way outward by degrees, where back at the whole bible again. And this leads me to my point. I’m sorry if it seems circular, but the Bible IS the word of God.

    Now as such, we must read it from cover to cover and take the story on faith.

    If you wish to work from a verse or two it won’t make sense. That verse was never meant to function on its own. It hasn’t got sufficient meaning by itself. It takes on a ‘full’ sense within the larger context, eventually the whole Bible.

    Now I understand the Fundamentalists like to work the other way–but I don’t approve. Meet me on terms of the Bible, not on Fundamentalist terms. I’m not a Fundamentalist and I don’t think you are either.

  • In case I have not done so already, I want to get across the idea that we can not rely on verses or quote minor passages–at least not most of the time.

    Your initial statement about a faithful reading of scripture is counter to this new claim.

    Support your initial claim about the NT, Sal.

    If you cannot support your statement, you shouldn’t make it, and since you did, you should say “I cannot support my claim from Scripture.”

  • Like I said, way back when:
    Barring any sort of rational support, you’re in the “I don’t like it so I’m grasping” camp.

  • So the Bible presents us with a story—a story of God, people, and what happens throughout their interaction. From reading the story we get a sense of our place within it. As N. T. Wright commented, we are called upon to improvise. Now I would like to add that this improvisation does not constitute license for introducing something essenially new.

    This kind of matter is not like adding two and two.

    We’re dealing with how people understand tradition.

    My claim is that any tradition that becomes authoritative and / or conflicts with what the Bible has already stated is a tradition that needs to be scrapped.

  • The N. T. reveals that Jesus’ had earthly siblings.
    Hence, Mary could not be ever-virgin.

    There now is a concrete proof of what you have been fishing for.

    The Bible states outrightly that no one is without sin.

    Mary was therefore sinful.

  • You have made a big deal that the scriptures are authoritative.

    Respect their authority and cite them, Sal.

    We get the idea, you think you’re right. What a shock. Support your claims.

    You’re quick enough to make new claims, yet are unwilling to defend what you say you believe….

  • The N. T. reveals that Jesus’ had earthly siblings.

    Wrong, but at least it’s specific.

    There now is a concrete proof of what you have been fishing for.

    No, that is a claim. You’ve offered lots of vague yet sweeping claims.

    If you have a history degree as claimed, you should be able to tell the difference. You should be able to make a claim, support it with evidence, and offer sources for that evidence with great ease.

    I’ve given you two different sites with Bibles and the tools to put in the hyperlinks.

    You cannot even manage to cite chapter and verse.

  • For heaven’s sake, even Jesus quoted Scripture to make his points.

    The truth is really ever so simple. All of his teachings, all of his points, all of his ways – simplicity incarnate.

    It is the heretics who complicate things, who invent hidden or alternate meanings, because the simple truths are too hard to digest.

    Jesus established the Catholic Church when he gave the keys of heaven and an unfailing faith to St. Peter. He who hears Jesus, hears the Church. He gave the apostles and their successors the power to bind and to loose, and promised that He would be with them until the end of time. It is upon these very simple and clear promises of Christ that the Church has the authority to proclaim and clarify the truths revealed in Scripture, with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

    Why don’t you read the Gospels some time.




  • So I’m citing an exact quote–it’s in what you call the magnificat. Check it out.

    Thanks and peace to you.

  • In Mary’s song, Mary rejoices in God her savior (kind of like when we call on Jesus). He was her savior and redeemer. She was a part of Israel and in Adam–so therefore in need of the redemption that came through Christ. She looked forward to teh promises with anticipation, thanksgiving and praise!


  • Sal
    you are not citing scripture, nor are you making your case.

    Stop trying to change the subject, and just offer support and an argument from scripture for either of your original two claims.

  • Marian devotion in all of its aspects grew up over centuries–it usually emerged from the bottom. Then it gradually gained acceptance among the elite. It was accelerated by the need to evangelize and gain support. It also found acceptance due to its similarities to many of the goddess cults of pagan Europe. Marian devotion has about it the pomp and glitz of the Orient, and probably can be traced to the same place of origin from which there arrived such cults as the Mater Dolorosa, etc.

  • Mary’s song, Luke, chap. 1 verse 47 and it reads:
    How my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!
    Holy Bible–New Living Translation, C.2007

    Mary looked to God as her personal savior.

    That is plainly noticable.

  • Getting closer to a decent argument, but that still doesn’t support your claim that the New Testament makes modern Marian devotions unthinkable as a progression from the scriptures.

    Even though it’s an improvement, it’s still rather vague, as well as not having any citations– Biblical or otherwise.

    This article on the history of Marian devotion is a good example of how you could form your argument.

    Hey, if you get it all organized and linked, you can even put it up to enlighten others! Google offers free sites.

  • To follow up in case it has not already been deduced, a person in need of a Savior is one who has sin.

  • I’ll work on that all tomorrow. But you’ve not responded to the argument I posed.

  • So Mary had sin. She was not immaculate.

    Jesus had half-brothers. Mary was not always virgin.

    I think James was one of Jesus’ half-brothers.

  • In context, from after Elizabeth’s greeting to the visiting Mary:
    And Mary said: 16 “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
    my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
    For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
    The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

    That Mary was a believer is far from a shock.

    It’s rather the reason she agreed to carry our Lord, and has nothing to do with the Immaculate Conception.

    But you’ve not responded to the argument I posed.

    You have not made an argument from scripture, as you repeatedly claimed you could. You’ve barely even quoted the Bible, and when you have, it’s been disjointed, out of context and without a framework to match it up with your claims.

    I will not build you an argument and then tear it down myself.

  • More claims, without support, Sal.

    Look at this and this if you need help to figure out how to format a citation in to your claims; those are two different formats for citing scripture in support of a claim, and then forming the result into an argument.

  • The cult of Mary is practiced because of the definition the church at Rome affords to tradition.

    Paul implies a much more static notion of tradition when he states, “hold on to the traditions you’ve been given,” and “don’t be moved by this or that apparantly new thing,” and so on.

    So new traditions (those succeeding the canon) must be carefully viewed to see if they are in harmony with scripoture. If they aren’t, they need to be scrapped.

  • The symbolism of the sacred heart and the rose have been wrongly applied to Mary. They do not match up with anything concerning Mary in scripture.

    1. The sacred heart is nowhere found there.
    2. The rose had to do with romantic love.

    The symbols surrounding her cultic statue relate to the woman clothed in the sun standing on the moon, etc. in Revelation who can just as easily be translated as Israel/the Chruch.

    Yet, the official statue (the one that’s duplicated for the Roman Catholic altar and that yields little variety from one to another) has Mary appearing as the lady in John’s vision.

    Can you asnwer why that is?

  • Each time I’ve visited a church under Rome I’ve seen that statue–she’s usually wearing a blue gown that covers her head–sometimes she has a crown atop her head. Then there are the stars around her head, the terrestrial or heavenly ball beneath her feet, the serpent somewhere in there, etc.

    And I’m thinking, but this is one of John’s vision in Revelation. Why do they morph Mary and the lady in the vision?

  • Revelation chapter 12 verses 1-6 reads:

    Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant, and she cried ou because of her labor pains and agony of giving birth. Then I witnessed in heaven anothe significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he thre them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman sas she was about to give bith , ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born. She gave birht to a son whowas to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to god and to his throne. And th woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1260 days.

    So the lady in the vision is Israel or God’s people. Then we have a son. That is Jesus.

    If we maintain the lady is Mary then we have a probloem. Are you prepared to say the dragon is a person, etc.? Then the whole book of Revelation just becomes rediculous.

    So in the cult of Mary, the church at Rome has morphed her into the lady in Revelation.

  • Sal, perhaps I missed this in an earlier post. However, do you belong to a religious body and what might that church be? If I may add a couple of points. Jesus never called Mary “mother” because it was understood that she was the world’s mother. Early Christian artwork often depcited images of the Blessed Mother, some even referring to verses like Revelation 12 (even before the Canon was compiled.) In addition, Marian devotion not only took place among the peasant class, but among the learned class, including the Early Church Fathers. This is why in places like the Middle East and North Africa, the Feast of the Assumption was the most celebrated holy day after Chrsitmas and Easter, even before Christianity was legalized (in those places which were under Rome’s rule.)

    As for papal authority, in 96 AD the Church in Corinth sent a letter to Pope Clement asking for his opinion on an ecclesiastical matter, all the while St John was living on Patmos, not far from them. They appealed to Rome because, even though he was under constant threat of death and many popes were killed, that is where the Successor of St Peter resided. There existed a popular phrase in the Early Church, “Rome has spoken.” I believe St Augustine often used this phrase in reference to disputes that broke out among various heresies. I would also like to call to your attention to another matter. Many who argue that Peter is not the Rock, forget that Jesus was speaking to Peter in Aramaic and not Hebrew, so all of this nonsense about pebbles and feminine case for this or that does not apply. Finally, if you don’t believe in papal authority how do you reconcile Pope St Damasus approving the Canon of the Bible in 382 AD. Take care!

  • Well thanks for the response. But what does it all have to do with what I’ve been stating throughout the dialogue? It still doesn’t answer anything I’ve raised,with the exception of the rock/stone/pebble reference. And I’m not sure I see what you mean. Peter was notorious for vacillating before and after he made his confession. His stature in and of himself was certainly not much. So what we’re dealing with, I believe, is his confession:

    Jesus Christ is the head, foundation, and chief cornerstone of his church. That he was the Christ is what we believe. God’s church is made up of God’s followers. So the rock as it’s been interpreted is just that. To see in it the origin of literal succession would be anachronistic.

    Further, Peter went to the Jews whereas Paul went to the Gentiles. I’m not saying it was completely black and white but their missionary impulses were in two different directions with Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles—and Rome was a gentile city.

  • Yes, Rome, bishops (popes), and decisions are all in there. We know it, but as things developed there was the damoclean sword–one that cut both ways.

    E.g. Constantine’s political maneuver. Yes, it was good in some ways and bad in others. And the situation at Rome was like that too for the first 500 years. Some very good things emerged. Some bad. Some indifferent.

    The most basic idea I wish to get across though, is that there is a point (say about 1300-1500 AD), where the church under Rome got so complicated it was time to clean house.

    That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good and functioning church for a long time or that it didn’t faithfully witness in many ways throughout its past.

    It just means it hit a point of decadence and decline–it overreached and grew corrupt, and beliefs and practices grew distorted.

  • So what we’ve got by 1500 AD is a situation where people are looking to get out. They’re looking to start over again, not because of an ahistoric stance.

    They know the church began at Pentecost and continues until Christ returns. They simply wish to faithully continue in that, and to do so in a way that is marked by integrity.

    The way to do that is to organize and obtain resources and to move forward. That’s what they did.

    The church has always continued. There is no break in it. The unity and coninuity of God’s church is visible to all who will see it. God’s people constitute that unity, and it is of course more tangible in administrative form. But if there is a “changing of the guards,” that does not mean the church got interrupted.

    So they sought generally to arrange things as they probably were no later than 500 AD.

  • Sal with all due respect, I think much of this comes down to pride and obediance. Sadly, you and those of a similar mindest, have too little of the former and too much of the latter. Unfortunately it seems some Christians fall into one of two errors; Christianity had gone wrong until 1517 when Martin Luther got it right, or somehow there was a secret group of true Christians unbeknownst to the real world who carried on the truth. Whatever the case, it seems more than a little ridiculous that the Catholic Church’s view of Peter and Mary was somehow corrected by someone centuries later.

    Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What if in the year 3293 a group of historians came forward and said that most of what we knew about the American Revolution was incorrect. Fortunately, we have 1517 years later found out the real significance behind people like Sam Adams and George Washington. In addition, we have uncovered the truth about events and battles, such as the Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, Bunker Hill and Yorktown. Sincere historians would either laugh, cry or shake their heads in disbelief. This is how Catholics feel when Johnny Come Latelys try to lecture us on the Bible (which the Catholic Church gave the world via the inspiration provided by the Holy Spirit) and the role of the Apostles and Saints. I am not attempting to be rude, but I just don’t know how else to sincerely state these facts without pointing to the obvious. Again, thank you for engaging in this discussion.

  • I can see where you would think all of that. I comploetely follow your line of reasoning. I can sympathize with that point of view.

    I do, however, disagree with it because there is a lot more to it than that.

    Scripture is comprised and transmitted by the church, which ought in turn to live in light of it. So there would have been a process of formation that the church underwent. As that occurred, the church itself would make adjustments or “grow into itself.” Then the church is free to formulate traditions that reflect all of that.

    The church is not free to alter the essence of things.

    People CAN alter the essence ofthings.

    When that occurrs, others try to renew the essence. Some do so from within. Others do so outside the existing framework.

    The church continues.

  • You STILL have no support from the scriptures, Sal.

    Why is it so difficult for you to manage to show what you claim is so clear?

  • You can’t even manage to give secular sources for your claims, just claims on claims.

    That’s the kind of BS that you can get away with if you’re giving a lecture, a wishy-washy sermon or writing a newspaper article, but there’s no excuse for such actions on the internet.

  • I’ve already supplied scriptural passages. Someone has not been reading the prior comments in the dialogue.


  • True, you have supplied some scripture– it’s just thrown out, rather than used as support of your two, big, initial claims. Some of it is even counter to your claims.

    I have pointed that out, I have pointed out several factual errors, and I have put up with your attempts to change the subject and let your claims stand as if they were anything beyond just you saying something.

    So we have incorrect information, ignorant claims, unsupported claims, misquotes, contradictory scripture and constant appeals to authority and rather constant ad hominem attacks.

    You attack Mary; I offer not one but two Biblically sourced links; you respond with factual errors and unsupported claims.

    This is not dialog, this is you trying to put forward your notions with no support but your own claims.

    Someone has not been paying attention, unless you’re just another troll; a neutral party will see this and notice your failures.

  • I forgot to add: you also mis-characterize what you argue against. A classic tactic in dishonest rhetoric.

  • I’m sorry if it seems that way. I don’t know what a troll is, unless you mean those small figurines people bring wiht them to bingo for good luck.

    I wanted to get across that the church under Rome developed beyond scripture–it was wrongly innovative.
    Examples here would include ‘the New Mary’ among other things.

    Again, while something may not go against a particular verse or passage, it may still go against the general tenor of God’s word. And that is perhaps somewhat more of a vague matter–Yes, I understand that. People may see the big picture differently. But that is why I think it’s important to be spirit- guided, spirit-driven, and and prayerful in our reading. That of course is what we allneed, including myself. I don’t want to miss truth eirther. I appreciate your deep concern regarding truth. Now I ask you to consider examining the role to which your churhc has assigned tradition. Because fundamentally, that’s where most of this discussion will ultimately get resolved.

    Praise God and peace to you!

  • I wanted to get across that the church under Rome developed beyond scripture

    You have failed in anything but conveying that you believe it to be so, and cannot organize support from those same scriptures.

    You should really not make grandiose claims that you are unwilling or unable to support, and you really should not try yelling louder, changing the subject, offering false quotes, falsely characterizing the other side, claiming you already proved something when all you did was claim it and making “sly” personal attacks.

    Again, while something may not go against a particular verse or passage, it may still go against the general tenor of God’s word

    FINALLY! We get down to brass tacks– and, curses, I was right.

    All the rest is just noise on the line. -.- And here I thought we might’ve lucked on to someone who was interested in genuine dialog.

  • Make it simple, Sal.

    Cite the teaching of the Church that you feel goes beyond Scripture.

    Then cite the passage from Scripture.

  • OK–that sounds good!

    1. (I’ve already given it but here goes) In Mary’s Song, Mary rejoices in God her savior. In order to have a savior, one must be in need of salvation. Yes?
    But the church at Rome teaches that Mary was without sin.

    2. Jesus had half-brothers, e.g. James. Yes? But the church at Rome teaches that Mary remained a virgin.

    3. Paul warns continually against innovation–in several passages—I’m sure you know of them since you’re very informed and intelligent.

    But verses and passages don’t have the force that God’s overall story does. So I feel that we should look more to the drift of the Word–and here is where complications with tradition arise. For example, the new Mary of Roman tradition runs counter to the sense of her in the gospels, etc.

  • Here is one more point to ponder: The Bible teaches that no one is without sin. Once again, Roman tradition has ascribed to Mary a sinless status.

    St. Augustine helped to express this sin thing–we sometimes refer to it as original sin.
    Now Mary was the product of normal conception. FOr Mary to be sinless, her parents would ahve to have been sinless and so on back to Adam and Eve.

  • I don’t think Sal has very good reading comprehension, Joe.

    You Mickey Mouse it as:
    cite the teaching, cite the scripture.

    He then goes and just says the same thing over again, no citation offered at all.

    For bonus, he doesn’t seem to understand what the Church teaches about Mary, either, even though I gave him two links that explain it.

    But, if we go charging off about the various inaccuracies, he carries on as if he’d made a decent argument, shown his work, cited scripture, etc.

  • Sorry, I didn’t cite: For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

  • I’ll await your responses concerning Mary’s supposed sinless and virgin status.

  • Sal, I am quite suprised that someone who claims to be so well versed in Holy Scripture and Christian History would miss the obvious. In the Jewish world, cousins were often referred to as “brothers.” As for those like St Augustine and the Early Church Fathers, they were the ones who had great devotions to the Blessed Mother. Perhaps this link, which includes both Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition will help you with this matter. Take care!

  • Sal, when you get done with the previous link, here’s another one for you to ponder. Take care!

  • Yes, well given the cousin/brother usage, I’ll suggest that it’s up for debate; it can go either way.

    I quoted Augustine of Hippo because I read his city of God and enjoyed it–and I know he’s held in high esteem among Catholics.

    But really, the Patristics and people in their climate did have a vested interest in promoting ideas of virginity, etc. Don’t you think? There was so much platonism and orientalism in the air. I’m not saying Mary couln’t possibly have been a life-long virgin, but we have to remember what was in vogue in vogue–beginning really with the gnosticism the church had to wrestle with as early as Paul’s day.

  • Mr. Madrid feels that because the Bible DOESN’T mention a thing, the opposite of that thing can therefore easily be thought to be true.

    I disagree.

    Mr. Madrid comments that the church sees Mary as the fulfillment of three types.

    I disagree.

    Mary can be seen as a fulfillment of something based on a person’s style of thinking. Things can easily get blended together in one’s mind.

    I would separate them. For example, Eve, Mary, and the figure in Rev. 12 are, as I see it, unlinked. The only way in which they are linked are in the sense that they constitute different parts of the same story–God’s story.

    I appreciate Mr. Madrid wanting to articulate a defense for something. I don’t agree, however, with the defense itself.

  • I’ll await your responses concerning Mary’s supposed sinless and virgin status.

    I’m still waiting for you to, as Joe so simply put it, cite the teaching, cite the scripture.

    No broad claims, no generic notions, just plain, simple “this is what the Church teaches (source), this is why it’s wrong (source.)”

    Since you’ve been HANDED three different sources for the Church’s Marian teaching, it should be easy to go “here, quote from teaching, yet, in Book, chapter, verses.”

  • Sal,

    I think you are making an error in logic – and I know how much you hate logic, but bear with me.

    Mary IS saved by Jesus; she is made sinless by God so she can give birth to him. Without that, I think we may presume, she would not have been born without sin. So, Jesus saves Mary as well.

    That seems rather clear and simple to me. Mary is the new ark. The old ark contained the word of God (the Ten Commandments); the new ark contains the word made flesh (Jesus). The old ark was ordered by God to be made of incorruptible wood (setim wood); the new ark was also made incorruptible by the Immaculate Conception.

    There is also the angelic salutation: Hail Mary, full of grace!

  • Yes, I disagree with the position on the three type-fulfillments quoted by Mr. Madrid. Insights will arise when reading scripture (hopefully.) One may think they see a type. Such things should not become official, authoritative or dogmatized.

    The early writers concluded certain types. Those are written in stone. We are not at liberty to create new ones as official teaching.

    One person thinks Mary is the new Eve.

    Another thinks she is the new Ark or the cosmos restored.

    It’s OK to have inights or even just helpful ideas.

    But we musn’t construct doctrine or dogma on the basis of such things. It’s not safe.

    I see a lot of muddled thinking pertaining to Mary. Things are not being carefully distiniguished.

    The promise to Eve in the fall-context is one thing.

    Mary as a carrier is another.

    The woman and the dragon something else.

    The cosmos gets restored, yes, but that’s another tyhing.

    The church at Rome has lumped together things that should rather be differentiated.

    Are there ties? Yes. Are there perhaps similarities? Yes. Should they be blended together so that at the conclustion Mary is inflated and ready to burst with all that’s been subsumed in her?

    I offer an emphatic no.

  • The old ark containing the word of God: Deuteronomy 10:1-2

    The old ark made of incorruptible setim wood: Exodus 25:10

    The new ark, incorruptible (full of grace) containing the word made flesh: Luke 1:28-31

  • Sal,

    When the successor of Peter teaches on faith and morals, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit per Luke 22:32. The Immaculate Conception is a defined dogma; it cannot, and is not, an error.

    To hold the full and true faith means to hold faith in the promises of Christ regarding His Church.

  • So that’s the real issue here, anyway: the office of the Papacy, its legitimacy, its reality. If one accepts that, one must accept the Immaculate Conception.

    Of course I think it makes perfect sense even without that.

  • Oh, and by the way – Mary as the “new Eve” and Mary as the ark are not contradictory ideas. So that’s another false argument.

    Logic helps.

  • Joe,

    One person may see the church as the fulfillment of the ark. Another may see it as Christ.
    Still antoher may say both are its fulfillment.
    My point is that scripture reading involves this personal element. People guided by the Spirit should conclude the same truth, of course. But not everyone gets there in the same way–I have no problem with people seeing Mary in a certain light as long as it doesn’t conflict with the story that’s already set down on paper.

    Luke 22:32 — Jesus wants Peter to be strong. There is work to be done. And Peter needs to strengthen and encourage the others.

    Now I will not jump from there to a head bishop at Rome. That is just too much of a leap. I thinki it’s unreasonable.

  • Once again, to find in Mary the fulfillment of all these types will render her larger than real life. Mr. Madrid speaks of her as representing the renewal of the cosmos. That is probably why we see stars, clouds, and worlds accompanying her pictorially. It’s out of proportion to her Jewish localized and really quite earthy setting. She was a peasant girl. The cult of Mary has depicted her as something divine.

  • It is like morphing a shepherd boy into an Oriental despot.

  • Sal,

    In the very same passage he gives Peter the authority to “confirm thy brethren” ONCE he is converted – for right after this Jesus predicts his thrice denial of Him. Peter’s tenure as pope begins after the resurrection.

    Even you recognize – any sane person would have to – that Jesus set Peter above the other apostles. But it was only for Peter, the rock upon which Jesus built his Church, that he prayed for so that his faith would not fail. Not St. Paul, not St. John, not St. Thomas or anyone else, but St. Peter alone.

    Taken with the several other passages in which Jesus clearly singles out Peter for leadership, particularly John 21:15-17, any honest person has to conclude that Peter was established as the head of Christ’s Church, and that in that capacity his faith would not fail.

    This isn’t about what “one person sees” and what “another person sees.” There’s only one person who can and will see the full truth, and that is the successor of Peter, whose faith cannot fail. That is what Christ taught. It’s a shame you don’t find that to be “reasonable”, but really, if you can accept that God became man, died, and rose from the dead, I don’t see why you can’t accept this as well.

    It’s picking and choosing otherwise.

  • Isn’t that playing connect the dots, though? I just don’t see–I mean really see–what you’re seeing about Peter and a possible pope.

    Well–the Jews were Jesus’ sheep–they were to first go to the lost sheep–and Peter was the apostle to the Jews–and Jesus said to him “feed my sheep”.

    So perhaps that helps you to put it in context.

    Peter has a mission for the lambs (read–the lost sheep of israel)

    Remember, it was Paul who went to the broader world and Rome!

    Hope this helps.

  • Sal,

    The concept of the Holy Trinity is also, to put it in your crude phrase, “connecting the dots.” Nowhere is it explicitly stated that God is three persons in one divine being. But it is clearly present in Scripture.

    You yourself are making things up now. Where does Jesus say “the Jews are my sheep”? He gave the apostles the task of converting ALL nations, not just the Jews. It wasn’t just Paul who went to the broader world – St. Thomas was in India and he may have even made it to the Americas (some speculate, but still, India is pretty far).

    Nowhere does it explicitly say that Peter is exclusive to the Jews. Just because someone is for various reasons more suited to a task doesn’t mean that it was divinely appointed. Peter’s primacy, however, IS divinely appointed.

    Who in the early Church did not recognize the primacy of the Papacy and the successors of Peter? Maybe you can fill me in.

  • Yes, one can “find” the concept in scripture, though the church has given a definition and theological expression to it.

    Jesus said to first go to “the lost sheep of Israel”
    Paul speaks of “first the Jew, then the Gentile”
    It’s simply a principle—let’s get to the more literal people of the promise first, and then move outward–especially if they don’t seem terribly interested. Paul eventually travells the mediterranean.

    No, there is no exlusive ministry–but Peter is doing more things with Jews, while Paul is preoccupied withthe Gentile world.

    Where do you find that the papacy succeeds Peter?

    As the empire weakened people got insecure and looked to Rome for backup–Hence the bishop of Rome was able to, by default, shout a little louder.

    He was not supposed to assume primacy.

    Even the Greek church explains all of that.

  • In fact, I suspect that’s one of the major issues dividing the two–they feel that first among equals should be just that.

  • Compare the patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope of Rome–their office and function, I mean.

  • “though the church has given a definition and theological expression to it”

    What church? The made-up invisible church of the Calvinists? There is only one Church, and you do not accept her teachings.

    “Where do you find that the papacy succeeds Peter?”

    Jesus established his Church for all time. Matt. 16:17-19 establishes that Jesus named Simon “Peter”, the rock upon which He would build His Church – and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

    This Church, which exists until the end of time, will always have the Papacy – until the end of time.

    You need to understand that Christ gave the apostles the authority they would need to do precisely the things you are complaining about. And he set one apostle up above all of the others. Just as the apostles were guided in the Holy Spirit when choosing a replacement for Judas, so the Church has always been guided by the same Holy Spirit in choosing the successor to Peter.

  • Here is a simple question—how would one know which church is the church–I mean is it Jehovah’s Witness, the Mormons, who?

    There must be a way to tell.

    There is.

    The church that continues in the truth—the N.T. letters are always telling us to abide in the truth, the teaching, etc.

    They are always warning us to avoid innovation, novel ideas, trends, developments in other directions, etc.

    Do you see what I mean?

  • The role that the Catholic church assigns to tradition enables it to develop in other directions. And that is the real issue–the issue that relates to the dialogue as it’s been going on for two days.

    Because of the role of tradition in the church at Rome, other things have been allowed to evolve–and they’ve been embraced.

    The papacy is one example of this.
    The embellishment, etc. of Mary is another.
    Eucharistic adoration is yet another.
    And the list could go on.

    But in all charity I don’t wish to highlight all those things.

    I’m interested in getting across the point that tradition must be afforded its proper weight.

    We stand in need of a fair view of tradition.

  • In our hierarchical ordering of things, tradition must be assigned its proper place. If we allow it to rise higher than its rightful station, the situation grows monstrous. We then have disorder.
    So we place the Bible at the top.
    We place tradition below it.
    When things are nicely arranged, we have a place for everything and everything in its place. This was the medieval idea.

  • sal.

    You say in a previous comment that Mary was a peasant girl.

    Not at all!

    Mary was the daughter of a priest – not a peasant farmer.
    As Joe or Dave explained, Mary was born withour original sin.
    God would not allow His son to be born of anything contaminated by sin – when Jesus, the second person of the Blessed Trinity took on human flesh and became man, if Mary had the stain of sin, then Jesus would have taken on her ‘sinful’ flesh, and therefore Satan would have had victory over God – which of course, is impossible.

    It is common sense and logic – something you seem to dislike – that, along with many other instances, demonstrates that Mary was conceived without sin, so that at no time would sin have victory over Christ.

    Hope that helps. 🙂

  • OK–what I’m saying is that the gospels present us with this picture of Mary that is earthy–and then the church at Rome artistically rendered her in ways that are completely out of proportion to that. The Marian statue of her usually has her morphed ino the figure of Revelation chapter 12 who is standing on the moon, etc.

    So somehow they would have her going by degrees from the human to the divine. She has not yet assumed a body. In her soul-existence she has gone to be with the Lord. Her body awaits resurrection at the last day. Then only will her body and soul be jointly knit together, and the body will be a resurrected or glorified one.

  • The key point here is that the Mary of the N.T. is not the typical Mary of Medieval church representation. Oswald Spengler, in fact, in his Decline of the West, was forced to speak of a new/later Faustian Christianity that was different in kind from the earlier Magian one. Spengler characterizes the difference in terms of Marian devotion–and particularly the centrality of Mary in relation to the church’s interior and the use of her as the focal point of worship.

  • Occam’s razor played a huge role in eliminating much of tradition. When people saw how cluttered the CHristian scheme became, it seemed better to simplify it. And this fostered reform. Occam’s razor was employed in a new urge toward simplicity. The medieval worldview finally broke down. But theology grew more lean as early as the 1300’s.

  • More generalizations offered up as “proof.” I think sal is probably a great example of why no good can possibly come from a thread that is both six months old and has reached the 300+ comment threshold.

  • Mr. Zummo, first of all I like your picture of James Madison.
    Secondly, Christianity is perhaps the greatest generalization: God created the world and sent Christ to redeem it.

    Sir, I’m trying to explain that theology should clarify rather than obfiscate. We should seek simplicity rather than excess, don’t you think?

  • Scripture really can’t provide the space for much of the innovation that’s taken place. It’s simply incongruous.

  • You haven’t simplified, you’ve just blown smoke for about 100+ comments.

    By the way, you know you don’t have to write ten comments for every one addressed to you. Writing more does not equal proving your point.

  • “Here is a simple question—how would one know which church is the church–I mean is it Jehovah’s Witness, the Mormons, who?”

    There is only one Church – that founded by Christ. All other sects have broken away from this Church, or are splinters of those sects, ad infinitum. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Joseph Smith are not Christ. Nor were they given any authority by Christ, nor were they a part of the apostolic succession.

    You know these things when you actually read Scripture with an honest heart, and not pride or vanity.

    “In our hierarchical ordering of things, tradition must be assigned its proper place. If we allow it to rise higher than its rightful station, the situation grows monstrous. We then have disorder.
    So we place the Bible at the top.
    We place tradition below it.”

    There was a Church before there was a Bible. The Church compiled the Bible. Heretics later decided to throw out the books they didn’t like – the books that support Catholic teachings such as Purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc. Luther even wanted to toss out James from the New Testament! This was pure pride at work.

    Have you read 2 Thessalonians 2:14? Tradition existed before the Bible; the Bible itself is the product of Tradition.

  • Well, I’m off for the night.

    God bless us all and may his Spirit guide us into all truth. Amen.

  • Oops, sorry–we’ll finish up first. Just hold on pplease.

  • Well to begin, I’d say that the church existed before scripture was organized and canonized in its present form. I’d also say that scripute and the church sort of developed side by side. The church yields scripture and is then bound by it–so an interactive procedure was at work there. Then the writing of scrfiptrue comes to an end. Then improvisation, as Wright puts it, begins.

    And while improvising, we are not at liberty during this interval between the advents to “mess around.” We have to live in light of what’s already written.

    So the tradition is basically what Paul, Timothy, and others pass on–it’s as though they’re saying, be conservative, keep our traditions, don’t invent new ones, be flexible but don’t overturn things.

    So then we have a dynamic church that should be adaptable, capable of witness, and incarnational, but not a church that evolves or develops in a new direction.

    Hope this clarifies things for you!

  • And now I think I can retire for the evening.
    But I do look forward to further dialogue–you’ve all proved to be so very well informed in the Roman Catholic teaching.

  • You’ve all proved to be so very well informed in the Roman Catholic teaching.

    That’s because we’re all committed Catholics, sal.
    It is our duty to know and defend our Faith.

    And there’s another 1.3 billion of us around the world – I’m in New Zealand, and my knowledge and understanding of the Faith is exactly the same as David, Foxfier, Paul – and all the other guys and gals in the USA who are proud to be Catholic.
    Thats why its the “Catholic” Church. 🙂

  • Amen! I’m #1.3 billionth Catholic who happen to be living in LA, CA who has been ff this highly “Spirited” discussion for days. I am proud to say that I can confirm exactly what Don says about “David, Foxfier, Paul – and all the other guys and gals in the USA” who actually do know & understand our faith in exactly & profoundly the same way & terms & “who are proud to be Catholic” & living members of Christ’s mystical Body!

    Welcome, Sal!!!!

    (BTW, I have no scholarly or theology credentials of ANY kind, just sound, secondary level, loving Augustinian sisters’ Catholic girls’ school catechesis!)

  • Good day to you all!

    I think I left off explaining the relationship between scripture, tradition , and the people of God. There is some muddled thinking at times here, and it’s quite understandable.

    The Bible has been put together over a long period of time, and God’s people have had their hand in it–we must consider that God has really done this–and that his Spirit has guided them every step of the way.

    Now having said that, the Bible is then this ongoing (and finally complete) account of God and his dealings with us. All the while his people lived in light of what it said. When it became complete–and yes, his people had their role to play there–we have a narrative that’s ended.

    Now the real story coninues–we’re in it right now. But what I’ve been trying to say is that we, God’s people, are not at liberty to “mess around” during the interval. We’re in the ‘act’ of the ‘story’ that is the time between the advents, and must think and behave accordingly.

    So we live in light of what occured knowing the Lord is on his way.

    We get a sense of how we are to ‘improvise’ from the post-pentecost pre-return interval as it’s discussed in scripture. How did they act? How did they respond in light of Pentecost and the Lord’s promise to return? What’s our role now?

    The church was given a commission–to go out to the whole world to preach the gospel, making disciples of people. From Paul we learn something about propriety and organization, etc.

    We go from there. We don’t develop in a new direction. What occurs should not exceed improvisation. If we get something novel it’s because there has been development in a new direction.

  • So I’ve spoken about scripture and the people of God. Let me say a thing about tradition. Paul and others had tradition–things they passed on–that were to be held onto. To this day we want to gather for worship, fellowship, the Lord’s Supper or communion, etc. We want to continue in the laying on of hands, baptism and all that.

    Now, we can improvise–footwashing is no longer done, oil is still anointed, we may wish to welcome with a handshake instead of a holy kiss.

    We are not permitted to initiate new tradition, however, if it conflicts with what’s gone before–e.g. the new Mary as she developed beyond the portrait scripture has sketched for us.

  • I think the most obvious example of ‘departure’ in Catholicism relates to the business of Mary. As I’ve stated before, so much has been subsumed into her that she is ready to burst asunder. The Mary of scripture is no longer there. In place of her we have an Oriental phantom.

    Mary was chosen as a vessel to bring Jesus the Christ into the world. Christianity is an incarnational relgion. God intersected with us at a point in history. That is where Mary came in–she had a role to play in things–she was there for a time like John the Baptist–the preparer. As John the baptizer said, he was with us for a spell–he did his part and was gone. What can be said of him can also be said of Mary–she was with us for a while, she played her part,and now she’s gone. We shall see her at the last–when we die or at the culmination of all things–whichever comes first. Scripture does not allow us to reimagine or reinvent her–or to construct a new role for her to play in the Christian drama. That would simply involve a rewriting of the basic Christian story. And that, in fact, would be heresy.


  • Again, it’s all “I think”….

  • (I think) I’m speaking from a bible-informed perspective. Christianity requires discernment and a certain amount of ambiguity remains.

    Unless we have a church that dogmatizes, we’ll have to grow into the knowledge of our Lord through time. Some things will remain unknown.

    It was in part a drive for perfect certainty that drove Chesterton to Rome.

  • Of course Chesterton loved logic too. He often sounded like Sherlock Holmes. He was a noble Christian gentleman–but he disliked logic, and I think that’s what drove this otherwise rather Protestant figure toward Catholic dogma. That combined with the changing times and what he recognized as decay in his church.

  • Sal, we cannot just take your word for it.

    You agreed earlier: the scriptures are authoritative. That means we have a first-hand authority available.

    Unless we have a church that dogmatizes, we’ll have to grow into the knowledge of our Lord through time

    We have a Church that is often called dogmatic, yet which can support her views from scripture.

    On the other hand, we have you dogmatizing and being unwilling to support your views, even when your stated views hold that it is possible.

    In any fight were both sides agree that source A is authoritative, and only one is able to show their work, I’ll be much persuaded by the one that can show their work— especially if the one that can’t show their work says it’s the only acceptable authority.

  • *laughs out loud*
    Oh, come ON! You rant against forming a decent basis for your beliefs from actual citable scripture, and then claim the Church is anti-logic?

    Remember those folks you quoted and misquoted earlier? They were QUITE logical. Reason is what supports so many of the “developments” you so dislike.

  • Of course Chesterton loved logic too. … he disliked logic

    In the words of my generation:

  • Right, well I meant to say that Chesterton liked logic and disliked ambiguity.

  • I think this may be a matter of the chicken and the egg. If we are scripture-saturated and scripture-soaked and then view all else in light of that mindframe, I think we can begin to critique things like tradition, etc. On the other hand, if we accept a priori that tradition ought to be a part of the lens alongside of scripture, then all else is viewed through those bifocals.

    Now here’s what I do: I constantly read scripture to critique tradition, culture, politics, worldviews, etc. Then I am able to decide upon what is worth holding onto versus what should be let go of.

  • Now there is what Scot McKnight has referred to as the Great Tradition–and this I think is part of a good working biblical worldview. But what McKnight means when he speaks of the Great Tradition is simply a scriptural consensus–it’s really quite generic and can probably be summed up in one of the creeds we all assent to.

  • If you are so soaked in scripture, you should be able to use it to support your arguments.

    If you have a degree, you should be able to form arguments.

    If you are intellectually honest, you should be able to realize that being unable to support your views with the source you claim is the only possible source, then there is a need to re-evaluate your views.

  • Now here’s what I do: I constantly read scripture to critique tradition, culture, politics, worldviews, etc. Then I

    I . . .I . . .I

    There it is in a nutshell. The perfect distillation of Protestantism.

  • sal.

    Do you belong to a Christian community? or follow one of the established Christian traditions?

    Or are you simply a self proclaimed christian who puts only your own take on the scriptures, discerns your own interpretations of scripture as being the only truth, and what a Christian actually is?

    Because it appears to me you are the latter. You agree with some Catholic teaching and deny other. You agree with some Protestant teaching and deny other.

    You talk of a Church that needs to have Dogma.

    The only Church to have Dogma, that it has held from the time of the apostles,and been defined at various times when disputes have arisen, is the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    Put aside your biases and prejudices and find out what the Catholic Church really teaches and believes, from Catholics – not assorted historians, who put their own biases and interpretations on the Catholic Church.

    Q E D.

  • Mr. Zummo, that is correct–it is what I’ve been waiting for you to discover. Reading the Bible informs our thinking and we can then begin to think correctly about other things. But biblical understanding is the prerequisite.

    We do not want to begin with scripture plus tradition.

    We want to start with scripture alone.

    Then, as we are informed by Scripture, we can begin to look at tradition.

    I practice this, which is why you CAN NOT sign me up for Luther’s catechism or the Westminister Confession. At best, such things are supplemental. They are not foundational! And neither should Roman Catholic tradition be.

    I think too that this is logical! That’s why I don’t even like to speak of being in favor of a particular theology. I am an advocate of what C. S. Lewis termed “mere Christianity.” Lewis had great respect for tradition–but things must always be assigned their proper place.

    God be praised forevermore!

  • Don,

    As I said, I’m an advocate of what Lewis termed “mere Christianity.” I find no trouble in discerning the Lord’s word by the Holy Ghost, whom scripture promised would guide us into all truth.

    There is an inevitable circularity to it all–but that is the nature of sacred revelation.

  • …Lewis, IIRC, reasoned himself from Atheism to Christianity.

    The open source book is rather poorly formatted for reading, but a quick scan of the intro does support the memory the title refers to that argument of going from not-Christian to Christian.

    Incidentally, Lewis didn’t term it that– a different theologian did, and Lewis referred back to it. (even labeled it after the man)

  • From Heretics. (EWTN quoted part of it when I put my daughter down for bed)

    Whether the human mind can advance or not, is a question too little discussed, for nothing can be more dangerous than to found our social philosophy on any theory which is debatable but has not been debated. But if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there has been in the past, or will be in the future, such a thing as a growth or improvement of the human mind itself, there still remains a very sharp objection to be raised against the modern version of that improvement. The vice of the modern notion of mental progress is that it is always something concerned with the breaking of bonds, the effacing of boundaries, the casting away of dogmas. But if there be such a thing as mental growth, it must mean the growth into more and more definite convictions, into more and more dogmas. The human brain is a machine for coming to conclusions; if it cannot come to conclusions it is rusty. When we hear of a man too clever to believe, we are hearing of something having almost the character of a contradiction in terms. It is like hearing of a nail that was too good to hold down a carpet; or a bolt that was too strong to keep a door shut. Man can hardly be defined, after the fashion of Carlyle, as an animal who makes tools; ants and beavers and many other animals make tools, in the sense that they make an apparatus. Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

  • As I said, I’m an advocate of what Lewis termed “mere Christianity.”

    Wow, you’re going to cite CS Lewis, a member of the Church of England and advocate of tradition in your defense of your own warped brand of me me me Christianity? Is there any other great author you’d like to co-opt?

  • Foxfier–a very interesting quote indeed!

    However, I’m not advocating skepticism or dogmatism–something rather in between.

    Babel-like constructions prove to be an encubrance in our understanding of faith.

    I believe in order to understand–faith should beget understanding. Again, I think we have here a classic situation of the chicken and the egg.

    Lewis was for a type of tradition (and I am too) but I believe this is quite different in kind.

  • Lewis experienced what might only appear as an intellectual conversion–but I believe it was a complete one (in other words, an authentic one). That he was a man of letters seems to suggest his conversion would be most apparant at an intellecctual level. But if one reads what he has to say, it is clear that an entire transformation of his heart and mind took place. He saw things anew—a kind of gestalt switch, if you like, had occured. He had a new paradigm.

    He didn’t forcefully reason his way over to the other side through logical steps. The conversion may have been subtle or drawn out, but I don’t think it manifested in an intellectual excercise.

  • Also, he was not for a “Catholic” or a “Protestant” way of thinking.

    What we see with Lewis is what I believe we should all embrace—and that is to allow scripture to inform our thinking. When we are soaked in scripture and it saturates our mind, we ‘see’ the world scripturally. Then we can go on to formulate traditions. But we mustn’t dogmatize those traditions or place them on a par with scripture. Unfortunately, some Episcopalians / Anglicans may be dogmatic about tradition–but they shouldn’t be. Check out Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity for an understanding of what undergirds the Church of England. (I am not an Anglican or Episcopalian, but I think Hooker’s stance is vastly different from Rome’s. Let me know if you agree.

  • Part of the issue is the following: In Roman Catholicism, if I may be so bold to state, Christianity has yet to become disentangled from former philosophy, worldview, unnecessary theological baggage, etc.

    Christianity is incarnational, true, and hsitory and theology are sort of intertwined. After all, God entered space and time in human form.

    So yes, there is this paradox–and Roman Catholics I think (and all of us really unless we’re ‘primitive christians’) can get overly comfortable with that. Witness the obelisk outside Peter’s basilica.

    So things get baptized and we synthesize–the philosophic urge is toward synthesis.

    Sometimes we have to unravel that stuff–and basically do some housecleaning.

    That’s because we’ve accumulated too much “stuff” and it’s time to throw some out, hold onto what we really find reflects scripture and is currently useful, and perhaps experience ourselves in new contexts that allow for further incarnation.

  • Sal-
    I should have known that you’d treat Lewis as shoddily as you treat the Bible and everyone else you’ve quoted or misquoted. It doesn’t matter what it actually says, it’s all in what impression you get while reading it.

    This is still all based on your unsupported opinion.
    The power to change that is in your hands– just support your claims with something that can actually be shown in the text, not your impressions so vague that nothing can be pointed at.

  • Sal,

    You’re living in a heretical dreamland.

    I challenge you to read Satis Cognitum by Pope Leo XIII:

  • OK–I see we haven’t gotten anywhere yet. Let’s look at scripture itself then.

    In Luke Chapter 11 verses 27-8 we read:
    As he was speaking, a woman in ethe crowd called out, “God bless your mother–the womb from which you came, and the breasts that nursed you!”
    Jesus replied, “But even MORE blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice.”

    Now let’s apply logic, because I know we can have a tendency to thrive on it. Let’s look at it–Mary was blessed. Those who hear and practice God’s word are MORE blessed.

  • OK–I see we haven’t gotten anywhere yet. Let’s look at scripture itself then.

    This is day… what, four? Five?… that I’ve been asking you to do that; does this mean you’ll finally actually supply some support beyond “I, I, I”?

  • And another reference is the following.

    Matthew Chapter 12 verses 46-50 reads:
    As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you.”
    Jesus asked, “Who is my mother? Whor are my brothers? Then he poitned to his disciples and said, “Look, these are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”

    Importantly, we get a strong sense of a theme God is underscoring in both this passage and the one I quoted before.

    That theme is the family of God. God’s people in Christ are as brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers in relation to one another.

    Significantly, we see that in both cases someone seeks to shift attention onto Jesus’ mother. Both times Jesus shifts the attention elsewhere.




    Please point out to me where you think I’m mistaken.

  • Luke 11 27-28 has a footnote at the USCCB site:
    8 [27-28] The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God’s word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.

  • Wow. All caps. You’ve completely changed my mind.

  • Foxfier, footnotes are debatable-don’t you think? Whose commenting–which theologian? One of his colleagues may say something very different. The assumption there is that the one commenting knows what Jesus was aiming at.

  • Gee, Sal, you sound like an agnostic– “Gee, this person says Christ is risen, but this one says he hasn’t, so it’s debatable! That proves they’re both wrong…somehow….”

    Still waiting for your argument that’s from beyond yourself.

  • Alright–here is more scriptural proof–in the parable of rich man Lazarus and poor man divies, which illustrates truth, we learn that a ‘great gulf’ lies between the living and the dead — a principle is being taught — communication with the dead is an impossibiloity–HENCE, WHENEVER SPIRITUAL COMMUNICATION OCCURS WITH SOMEONE WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEAD / LIVING ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY’VE CONTACTED AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT IN REALITY. NOW THE MARIAN CULT HAS COME TO INVOLVE A CERTAIN KIND OF COMMUNICATION WITH MARY, WHO ARE THEY REALLY COMMUNICATING WITH?

  • In the O.T. the Canaanites were devoted to ashtoreth / astarte also known as the Queen of Heaven–part of the cult involved the baking of cakes or breads.

    Queen of Heaven is a pagan concept–one rooted in the ancient middle east, and it would make no sense to apply that category to Mary. It simply doesn’t fit.

  • Numerous writers have established that a mythical construct involving a mother / son pattern had been around. The mother loses the son and he rises again, and there is weeping. Something grand and mysterious takes place–a kind of transformation–and only certain people supposedly were let in on the mystery. Because of the mythical reenactment, the world went on and life continued. So I think the world was sort of used to that and wanted it to continue–and if one looks at the pieta today, one can (if they strain a bit) find that pattern and wish to see it do what it once did.

  • And still with changing the subject.

    BTW, it’s “Lazarus and the Rich Man” in Luke 16.

    All Abraham says is that if the Rich Man’s brothers didn’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn’t listen to Lazarus risen from the dead.

  • Oh, and the old “it’s a mythic cycle thing” is an old rumor.

    From a Chick tract, it seems.

    What is distinctive about Chick’s approach is his is claim that “the ‘Mother of God’ that Catholics worship is not the Mary of the Bible. Satan has tricked them into worshiping a counterfeit goddess.”[68] The basis for this claim is a story he borrowed from Alexander Hislop, according to which there was a queen in ancient Babylon named Semiramis. She married her son, Nimrod. After his death, she claimed to have had a virgin birth of another son, Tammuz, who was Nimrod reincarnated. This pair of Semiramis and Tammuz was often depicted in artwork as a mother and child. They form the basis of all of the mother-child statues in the different religions of the world, and when Catholics worship Mary and the Baby Jesus, they are actually worshiping Semiramis and Tammuz.

    What is one to make of this? Setting aside the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary, it is still complete nonsense. Hislop’s wild ideas cannot be substantiated historically.[69] We have mother and child images from cultures that predate Babylon. Further, if you want to depict a famous mother, a good way of doing it is by picturing her holding her child. Thus before literacy became widespread Christians often would picture Mary holding the Baby Jesus, and it became an established image in Christian art.

  • Hislop was silly—we know–how could one substatiate a thread from ancient babylon to present day rome?

    I’m not referencing a tract.

    I’m talking about mythologists and anthropologists of a secular nature.

  • Everyone knows Hislop was silly! All one has to do is look at the front cover of that book–copies still circulate in used book stores–a despot with an Oriental cap atop his head–a five-layer tiara. Yeah–really serious–I’m really going to reach for that one.

    Pardon the sarcasm, but yeah–I’m really into him!!!

  • Sorry but I have to keep going:

    Yeah, like Hislop was this real Einstein, really cool guy, — like I wish I could meet him and say, “I want to shake your hand!”

    Like, yeah, this guy is smart–really capable of distinguishing one thing from another, a really good historian–like we all need to be like hislop–and just make those connections across space and time.

    Yeah, without Hislop we’d be unenlightened. I love Hislop!!!!!!!!!!! Ha, Ha, Ha!

  • Sorry but I have to keep going:

    Dude, it might really be time to step away from the keyboard. Seriously.

  • Mr. Zummo, I was offering some comic relief–Hislop is absurd!!!

    I’ve explained things as best I can in as many ways as possible. I have provided scriptural evidence. Then I’ve also provided what is admittedly polemical–sometimes evidence comes in that form. I’ve also set forth the proper relationship between scripture and tradition. If you still haven’t caught on, it is probably due to a prior commitment.

    And Mr. Zummo, I see that I can no longer carry on this discussion–fair play is absent and to go on is pointless. I’m perfectly willing to accept a certain amount of testiness, but I’m afraid I’m just not used to this sort of thing in a theological debate–it may be how politics go, but theologial dialogue should probably be a bit less, shall we say…. well I’ll leave you to fill in the blank.

  • I have provided scriptural evidence.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    All you’ve done is yell, misquote and make grand claims.

    If you agree Hilsop is silly, why are you quoting his theories?

  • Discussion of a mother and son and the son’s renewal appears in other works.

  • Doesn’t make it any truer just because someone repeated it.

  • My hope is that we will experience the love of God as we seek him daily–and that his love will enlighten our minds as it transforms our hearts.

  • Lovely.

    That has what to do with your spreading ahistorical claims as fact?

  • I think too that that is what’s called conversion–which entails a life-long transformative process; by grace are you saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, lest someone should boast. For we ARE God’s workmanship (project or masterpiece) created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God has already prepared for us to do.

    I hope that sheds some light on things.

  • I’m reminded of the conclusion of what’s been called the faith chapter–and these three things remain outstanding–faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.

    Faith ends in sight. (Here knowledge passes away–as do our debates surrounding Mary, etc.)
    Hope ends in fruition. (Who hopes for what he already has?)
    But love continues throughout the boundless realm of eternity. (And God is love and he who is in God loves!)

    And I want to express charity on this blessed day of God!

  • You are trying to dodge away from your very un-Christian actions, Sal.

    You are spreading falsehoods, making accusations that we must count as false on the evidence offered, and slandering those who responded with charity in acting as if you might be here in good faith.

  • I’m afraid we’ll have to then agree to disagree.


  • No.

    You are wrong.

    You can go on being wrong, and spreading lies– or you can change.

    But I cannot “agree to disagree” as that would mean that I would have to stop opposing your falsehoods.

  • Well, I nevertheless enjoyed our dialogue–and I think it’s been fruitful. If nothing else, we’ve come to better understand our positions–each others’ and our own.

  • I’m perfectly willing to accept a certain amount of testiness, but I’m afraid I’m just not used to this sort of thing in a theological debate–

    Yeah, sal, how dare we just not accept your complete bs and general nuttiness.

  • “But I cannot “agree to disagree” as that would mean that I would have to stop opposing your falsehoods.”

    Beautifully said 🙂

  • If nothing else, we’ve come to better understand our positions–each others’ and our own.

    Not really.

    I knew what I thought, already, and I am already familiar with people who are use to getting away with false claims, name-calling, misquotes, flatly wrong quotes, spreading misinformation and attempts to use virtues as weapons against those who will not agree with you, be those virtues simple good manners or love and charity.

    Beautifully said

    Thank you, although I wish I’d never had the opportunity to say it.
    Wonder if I can get Sleeping Beastly to get over here and participate… he’s usually really good about actually trying to understand the other side and support his views in a way they can understand.

  • I think it’s important to experience different viewpoints for the sake of widening our horizon. Sometimes we have to hear from our opponents in certain areas in order to develop a better sense of things. For example, the Roman church does well to highlight the sacramental aspect. They remind us too of the ways in which history and theology intersect, the importance of an incarnational understanding, and the relevance of tradition. Where I think much of the difference arises is in terms of the weight that gets assigned to each of these things. And that probably brings us back to our paradigms and premises.

  • Part of different viewpoints is knowing the support for them– if you can’t support your viewpoint, you’re doing no-one favors by championing it.

  • Yes well, I think there is a paradigm that says there is God’s people and his Word, and they need to move forward in their role as witness to that, while being guarded and open to reform.

    Then I think there is a paradigm that says there is God’s people/the church and his Word, and then there is what they do through time–whatever that may be– which together comprise an organic unity. That unity is safeguarded from error so that substantial reform is not necessary and you can in fact have dogmatic pronouncements that are not subject to alteration.
    How one would explain Tetzel in that framework, well, I don’t know.

  • *sigh* Yak, yak, yak.

    I’ve heard street preachers who were more coherent.

  • And these two respective paradigms comprise the premises with which we start off. All else flows naturally from them. So we really have to examine these opposing paradigms, not anything else.

  • Sal, weeks into this, you still haven’t managed to actually lay out your beliefs, and you’ve managed to mangle the facts with awe inspiring regularity.

    The point of view we here come from is that the Church which was founded by Christ himself, headed by Peter, and contains the Truth and map to heaven. God gave us reason, and it can be used.

    Yours is the impression and feelings you get when you read some parts of the Bible. Somewhat undercut since you keep claiming we’d see it if we’d only read carefully, but you keep getting Bible things wrong.

  • If we have a logically coherent system, then I suspect we’ve gone too far. Our understanding shouldn’t be air-tight. It should leave some things unexplained. It should leave room for reformulation. It should allow for new insights and correction.

  • A system developed in the history of Roman Catholicism–it culminated in Aquinas’ Summa. And I just think we as humans have this propensity to engage in a lot of Babel-like constructions, e.g. intellectual edifices and organizational machinery. I guess what I’m trying to get across (hopefully without speaking past each other and resorting to theological mudslinging) is something of the bigger picture–because I don’t think the matter can be settled in terms of prooftexting or ‘this is what my background asserts’ kind of thing. I think we need to go for what C. S. Lewis caught—the morphology or grammar of things. When we get a sense of that broader picture, it puts the smaller things into perspective. If we work from the bottom up it seems reasonable and logical, but we’re actually mislead–and this is at the heart of the problem I believe exists with Anselm, Abelard, Aquinas–these guys were trying to construct a tower and they of course did what anyone would do–they began at the bottom. But God’s Word breaks forth into our lives from above and without. The Scholastic doctors listened in at the back door to the Islamic rationalist debate concderning free-will and predestination–there was a golden age in Spain where they engaged in some tower-building of their own–and they went on a wild goose-chase.

  • Coherency, Sal, is exactly what you’re lacking.

  • I do not possess a logically air-tight system, perhaps. But I do think our basic understanding should be marked, more or less, by coherency. I just recoil from total coherent systematization–faith involves mystery and I think we need always to grow into that mystery over time. And as Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury says, our language in relation to God and spirituality is “at the edge,” which is a good place to be–it keeps us creative and open.

  • Again you try to riff off of something neither I nor anyone else here has — in fact, you’re the one that started in on logically based and logically coherent systems.

    I have offered that God gave us reason and it should be used, and have asked you to offer actual reasons for your claims…yet you fail.

    Looking for R. William’s words including “at the edge” and “language” and found this context for your quote:
    Poets often reinvent their language, the ‘register’ of their voice. Shakespeare’s last plays show him at the edge of his imagination, speaking, through Prospero, of the dissolution of all his words, the death of his magic; Yeats painfully recreates his poetic voice, to present it ‘naked’, as he said; Eliot, in a famous passage of the Quartets, follows a sophisticated, intensely disciplined lyrical passage with the brutal, ‘that was a way of putting it’. In their different ways, all remind us that language is inescapably something reflecting on itself, ‘talking through’ its own achievements and failures, giving itself new agendas with every word. And most of all when we try to talk of God, we are called upon to talk with awareness and with repentance. ‘That was a way of putting it’; we have not yet said what there is to say, and we never shall, yet we have to go on, lest we delude ourselves into thinking we have made an end.

    The paragraph before this is on the limits of human language in describing God.

  • Indeed, language is subject to limitations. Language is symbolism–it is a tool. It is not an end in itself, but rather a means for communication, and an imperfect one at that. Our communication about God and spirituality is never exhaustive–but it is hopefully meaningful. And we rely on creation for analogies to span the gap between ourselves and God and to engage in God-talk. But language is ultimately limited as is our knowledge of God.

  • 1) the quote is not what you claimed
    2) you’re changing the subject again, in so much as you have a subject

  • I think what Williams is saying is that our need for faith-expression keeps us (or should keep us) on our toes.

  • I don’t care what you think, Sal, unless you can offer some reason that’s not insulting to those who disagree with you.

    You keep quoting and getting it REALLY horribly wrong, and then change the topic, among the many other failings I’ve listed several times.

    That’s a really big flaw in someone who keeps saying his understanding is from reading and paying special attention.

  • If language has its limitations, then that certainly places a restriction upon theology–theology is therefore an imperfect, imprecise, dynamic, ever-engaging but never-crystallized phenomenon. Theology is something we do, realizing we musn’t take it too seriously–it is not a math problem. It’s not even a science. It’s more of an art!

  • No-one is asking for perfection. A lack of chance for perfection is no reason to give up entirely– all have sinned, and fallen short of what we ought to do, but that is not going to cut it as an excuse with Him for not doing the best we can.

  • Theology does not drop from the sky; we construct it. As human beings we are builders-we construct intellectual edifices, theological systems, works of art, monuments, dwellings, organizations, etc. We’re always building towers. These human projects will all seem paltry when seen in light of God’s fuller revelation when he returns.

    We can suspect that where there’s a system, there’s humans behind it–and human motivations.

  • So let us strive for faith and for understanding–and let us hold onto what is good!

    I feel the need for a night’s rest now.

    God bless us all and may we know his abiding peace!

  • And that’s why God gave us rules and guidelines!

    Er… wait… system bad…. Hm.

    So let us strive for faith and for understanding–and let us hold onto what is good!

    Theology is a realm of understanding, you irrational blanker. It’s pursuit of understanding God.

  • You know, it might be time to close this thread up. Just a thought.

  • Agreed and done. Some threads take on a life of their own, but it is time to put this puppy to sleep. Besides, in a verbal combat between Foxfier and Sal, since Sal will not say “No mas”, “No mas”, a ref has to step in at some point and stop the pummelling!

The Construct of Rebellion

Monday, January 11, AD 2010

In 2010 the Catholic Church in particular and Christianity in general are under attack because age old truths are being abandoned for the Dictatorship of Relativism. One might ask; how did we get here? It didn’t happen overnight; as a matter of fact many of those doing the rebelling actually think they are doing us all a favor.  Centuries and millennium evolved into a construct of rebellion where self appointed leaders who thought knew better than the Church and society itself tried to change all that was sacred and holy into something, they but most importantly their friends in the intelligentsia, could accept. Too many cooks in the kitchen can be bad for your acquired culinary tastes, but when truth is watered down it is something entirely different and far more serious. In this instance, we are talking about souls, not taste buds.  If this is so then how could the thesis of my book, The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism be true? The answer is simple because the world is getting closer and closer to the precipice. Some may chose to jump but thankfully more will chose to come back from ledge into the world of reality and when they do they will see the many positive developments happening in the Church. One’s own mortality has a way of causing self preservation.

Continue reading...

55 Responses to The Construct of Rebellion

  • Well said, Dave. Thank God for Mary’s heel crushing the head of the serpent that is rebellion, or the whole place would have turned into one boring, childish, real-life version of “Wayne’s World.” It’s no wonder so many folks despise her as she has done what they ought to be doing.

  • What is the evidence for The Porsche?

  • My compliments for a well argued post. I am unaware of the O’Brien site or books, but I cannot disagree with any of your assessment nor your conclusions. I have been making a similar argument via my Canadian blog ( trying to point out the logical contradiction of modern day relativism – a contradiction that exists because moderns no longer possess a knowledge or sense of the role of the church in times past. I offer the following taken from one of my posts written when the European court ordered the removal of the crucifix from Italian classrooms:

    Where I freely admit that the governing authority of any school should be able to either choose or not to present this symbol of Christian/Catholic faith, it is entirely another thing to deny the right to express their faith/convictions/belief in the public square. The principle that is expressed as “separation of church and state” also implicitly includes the freedom to express those values that we believe are the path which leads to the betterment of all humanity.??Read the story, and ask yourself whether the secular argument that leads to this European suppression of the freedom of speech of believers is any different from the agenda that marks the direction of North American society today.??This story is proof positive of the price of failing to argue in defence of the principles which are the accumulated human reasoning that stretches back to the earliest days of recorded history. Whether the moral principles of our modern civilization evolved as the refinement of simply human wisdom, or whether it is a still imperfect vision of God’s will, they have brought Western civilization to the point where we are today. The “rights” that are now so suddenly being tossed aside in the last twenty-five years are the foundations upon which the right itself is rooted. The poisoned fruit of the civilizational tree now endangers the root from which it sprang. ??Freedom of expression of faith in the public square must be respected; it is the essential corollary of the freedoms of thought and speech. I pray that leaders of our faith, our Bishops, would look to the European (or Québécois for that matter) social experiment and heed the need to “teach”, in every forum possible, the wisdom and teaching of our Church: to educate those raised in the “sex, drugs and rock and roll” generation (the first generation of essentially uncatechized “C & E” Catholics (i.e., “Christmas and Easter”) who now have moved into society’s corridors of power) of the wisdom of these first principles before they use the levers of power to shape the debate. ??Freedom of life… Freedom of belief… Freedom of speech: these are the Bishops’ menu of first principles to defend in full. Let’s pray that they fashion sumptuous salad of arguments, no matter how appealing the dessert table secularism seems to offer. ??Society needs strong bones to grow and prosper. We eat of the poisoned fruit at our own peril.

    Fr. Tim

  • Excellent commentary, Fr. Tim, which very much reflects why us California voters are now being put on trial for having the temerity to vote for changing the Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

  • Pingback: Helping A Fellow Warrior Member… | The Blog
  • Lest one begin to think that this is all new, I quote St. Basil to the western bishops in the 4th Century:

    “The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set to nought; the discoveries of innovators hold sway in the churches; men have learned to be speculatists instead of theologians… The aged sorrow comparing what is with what was; more pitiable the young as not knowing what they are deprived of”. [Ep.90]

  • Thank you Dave for letting history teach us, at least some will repeat the errors and call for a “king” to rule and guide or other idols instead of our Lord and Savior. Your recent Times article was excellent also.

  • Dave, you’ll be thrilled to know that Spirit Daily posted this today in its second most prominent spot.

  • Thank you for writing this. Thank you for mentioning the Blessed Mother crushing the devils head.I attend morning mass and pray the daily rosary for conversions and repentence(for many years) and within the last month have had 3 people say they want to come back to the church and I have been taking them to Sunday mass with me. One has already talked with the priest.The other I am taking to a Catholic healing service. The 3rd is actually an unchurched person who accepts what I am teaching him and wants to talk to the parish priest. When the Blessed Mother said she will give graces of conversion and repentance when you say the rosary, she means it. Thank you.

  • Great article !! Truer words were never spoken. We need to hear more of the truth to stir all Catholics
    into reality and into standing up for the Church and our rights.

  • There are 3 essentials ingredients in the Church that keep any soul on the correct road. The Eucharist. Confession and the Rosary. Stay faithful to these and you and your household will be saved. The world is passing away and we are passing through it to something that we can not even begin to understand. Show mercy to all those who are in darkness.

  • As a simple un-educated mother of seven I read the whole article Construct of Rebellion, and thought it was most informative and full of truth.
    However, what it was lacking was the matter of placing some blame on the church itself for the departing of so many Catholics from their true faith during the 2000 years of excistance.
    I asked should the church not have been more alert and listened to the complaints from the faithful on some liturgical customs and for the lack of education in the full deep meaning of scripture and the bible, also the lack of explaination the dogmatic reasons for truth?
    Even the fathers of the church were weak at times and had to also endure the evil one.
    Now we have at least been assured through the workings of the wonderful Popes we have had with John Paul and Benedict that the church will always remain. Both of them have used the media and every other medium to prove that the Catholic church is the only true one to embrace all of the world’s people.

  • as one person commented I echo: Confession, Mass, the Eelfucharist….and let the world blow its up and fall into hell…..or let it REPENT FAST.…….. CALL IT UP…

  • In Worcester, Massachusetts, a Diocese is coming unglued because it embraced dissent and New Age occultism. Visit:

  • I am wondering which diocese in Worcester Roger is talking about.Eileen George gives monthly

  • teachings there and she is veryorthodox andoutstanding catholic

  • The same diocese which hosts a “Commission for Women” which has New Age links. The same diocese where numerous children have been sexually abused. The same diocese where a Holy Cross professor (and ex priest) promotes homosexuality and is “married” to another man. I could go on but you wouldn’t accept the facts.

  • How does Eileen George feel about the College of the Holy Cross sponsoring Planned Parenthood on its campus? How about the Newman Center at Fitchburg State College promoting homosexuality as a simple variant of normal sexuality as well as homosexual “marriage”? Is she concerned that the Diocesan Commission for Women has links to Joyce Rupp? Read what Donna Steichen and other orthodox Catholics have had to say about Rupp.

    With all due respect for Eileen George, the Diocese of Worcester is losing many of the faithful (75 of 120 parishes are in economic crisis by the Diocese’s own admission) for a reason.

  • Holy Cross has engaged in homosexual agitprop:

    Sorry Martha, Eileen George’s presence in the Worcester Diocese doesn’t justify that.

  • While I agree with your basic outline, there are two things that bother me with what you wrote: 1) The many grammatical and typing errors. Sorry, but when people have a good idea and they’re trying to communicate it, it helps to do so with correct punctuation and without typos.

    2) Whether or not people believe what Michael Brown wrote in his book or posts on his site is no indication of their adherence to the truth or lack thereof and no one should take it as such. Mr. Brown may be a Pulitzer-nominated journalist, but that doesn’t mean everything he writes is of the same quality as his work on Love Canal. Mr. Brown is not the sum total of the Catholic Faith. That comes to us from the apostles and their successors.

  • Pingback: The Construct of Rebellion « Mary’s Anawim
  • Thomas, while you may claim to be an excellent grammarian, you might want to brush up on your reading skills. Where did I say or insinuate that Michael Brown is the sum total of the Catholic faith?

  • “Sadly, the construct of rebellion is prevalent in all areas, even among some faithful Catholics.” A construct of rebellion implies that there’s something authoritative against which one can rebel. One cannot rebel against one who does not have authority and Michael Brown does not have authority.

  • “…self appointed leaders who thought [they] knew better than the Church…” It’s the authority of the Church that’s being rebelled against. Not Michael Brown.

    Thomas, are you simply here in an attempt to wear down the author of this article?

  • No, John, I’m not. I made two observations about what I consider to be an otherwise well-constructed argument – grammar and saying that not liking Michael Brown’s book is part of the construct of rebellion.

  • No Thomas, you wrote: “A construct of rebellion implies that there’s something authoritative against which one can rebel. One cannot rebel against one who does not have authority and Michael Brown does not have authority.”

    No one said that Michael Brown is the authority being rebelled against. Instead, the author of the article wrote about, “..self appointed leaders who thought [they] knew better than the Church..” That’s the Church. Not Michael Brown.

    You are engaging in dishonesty.

  • On the contrary, John. The author writes (with my edits): “However, the pull of being accepted by the world is tough even for self-professed, orthodox-minded Catholics. For example, the secular scholarly world rolls its eyes and snickers at modern day miracles and apparitions. One of the most popular Catholic websites, Spirit Daily, is one such site that makes mention of both. However, mention you read this site and you are bound to be looked at with suspicion even in the world of orthodox-minded Catholicism…It would seem that for some, the fear of being lumped in with those who see the Blessed Mother in every scrap of burnt toast or every dilapidated barn door holds far more sway than believing that the Blessed Mother has appeared in human history to bring attention to her Son, the Savior of us all. Sadly, the construct of rebellion is prevalent in all areas, even among some faithful Catholics.”

    Hence my statement that in order to rebel, one must have something authoritative against which to rebel. Just because people don’t like what Michael Brown writes — no matter how well researched it is — doesn’t mean they’re part of the construct of rebellion. I certainly accept that Mary appears in the world and that God works miracles. I don’t necessarily like Michael Brown’s approach.

  • This kind of dialogue appears to be feeding the egos of the individuals. Are we working for our own glory or God’s. I think the best road to travel is the one of Humilty and Love. Why not focus on ourselves individually and see where we are on the road of repentance and reconciliation.

    Better still why don’t we focus on Christian Unity and do positive things, – let us do the will of the Father and not our own, let us take this opportunity to love one another and at least celebrate Easter on the same date every year. At least the rest of the world will see that we are united on the essence of our faith; the death and resurection of Jesus Christ.
    It is only through unity that we will have :
    Peace, Love and Reconciliation
    Mary Joanne

  • I don’t appreciate your unfair criticism Mary. I was merely attempting to defend what the author wrote. Hiw words are being twisted. There is no peace without truth Mary. It is the truth which sets us free (John 8:32), not falsehood.

  • The author wrote, “…It would seem that for some, the fear of being lumped in with those who see the Blessed Mother in every scrap of burnt toast or every dilapidated barn door holds far more sway than believing that the Blessed Mother has appeared in human history to bring attention to her Son, the Savior of us all. Sadly, the construct of rebellion is prevalent in all areas, even among some faithful Catholics…”

    What the author is saying is that because some rebel against the Church’s authority, they even reject or disregard Our Lady’s appearances to mankind. Our Lady always leads people to Jesus her Son and His Church. The author is not saying. or suggesting in any way, that Michael Brown is some sort of ersatz Magisterium of the Church or Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    To suggest otherwise is to engage in dishonesty.

  • Thomas, you are demonstrating the pedantic nature of the “lawyerly” arguments for Relativism. Argue all the brush strokes away and soon the painting itself will no longer exist for you.

  • “Just because people don’t like what Michael Brown writes — no matter how well researched it is — doesn’t mean they’re part of the construct of rebellion. I certainly accept that Mary appears in the world and that God works miracles. I don’t necessarily like Michael Brown’s approach.”

    I agree. I read Spirit Daily, probably more than I should, and I always come away from the site with confusion, not peace.

    What has always bothered me about Michael Brown is his very heavy reliance on non-Church approved apparitions, particularly the “1990 prophecy”. It’s clear to me that he believes all of them, even those which have not received Church approval. I certainly believe Mary has and still does appear in the world, but there are so many alleged apparitions, and many of them contradict each other.

    I certainly don’t believe they should all be thrown out, but they need to be examined. Michael Brown is always going on about today’s Church “throwing out the mystical”, but I don’t believe that’s a fair claim. Why is it so “bad” to discern these apparitions, and if something about one doesn’t make sense, discard it? Why did God give us intellects if He doesn’t want us to use them?

    Michael Brown may be well-intentioned, but the net result of reading his site is confusion.

  • Elizabeth writes “What has always bothered me about Michael Brown is his very heavy reliance on non-Church approved apparitions, particularly the “1990 prophecy”. It’s clear to me that he believes all of them, even those which have not received Church approval.”

    Elizabeth, calumny is a sin. I would refer you to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say in that regard. Mr. Brown has said – repeatedly – that we MUST accept the Church’s final decision on ANY apparition site. And this includes Medjugorje. For you to imply that Mr. Brown is someow failing to discern the authenticity of an apparition site or that he does not accept the Church’s ultimate authority is preposterous.

    Gaudium et Spes (specifically No. 28) forbids judging a person’s interior dispositions. I suggest you meditate very carefully on that teaching.

  • In Fides et Ratio, No. 16, Pope John Paul II teaches us that, “The world and all that happens within it, including history and the fate of peoples, are realities to be observed, analysed and assessed with all the resources of reason, but without faith ever being foreign to the process. Faith intervenes not to abolish reason’s autonomy nor to reduce its scope for action, but solely to bring the human being to understand that in these events it is the God of Israel who acts. Thus the world and the events of history cannot be understood in depth without professing faith in the God who is at work in them. Faith sharpens the inner eye, opening the mind to discover in the flux of events the workings of Providence. Here the words of the Book of Proverbs are pertinent: “The human mind plans the way, but the Lord directs the steps” (16:9). This is to say that with the light of reason human beings can know which path to take, but they can follow that path to its end, quickly and unhindered, only if with a rightly tuned spirit they search for it within the horizon of faith. Therefore, reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.”

    Faith and reason are described by His Holiness in this important Encyclical Letter as two lungs. Imagine how difficult it is to breathe properly with only one lung!

    Michael Brown is all for discernment of private revelation. But, along with St. Paul, he believes that we shouldn’t despise prophecy. Understand the difference?

  • peter santos: You accuse Elizabeth of sin because she expresses concerns about a Catholic writer and speaker. You accuse her of “judging a person’s interior dispositions”, and then lecture her on how she should meditate on Church documents.

    Elizabeth states that, in her opinion, Michael Brown relies heavily on non-Church approved apparitions, particularly the “1990 prophecy”. This is not judging Mr. Brown’s “interior dispositions”, but simply stating fact. On Spirit Daily, Mr. Brown mentions the “1990 prophecy” VERY frequently, and is quick to defend Medjugorje. Yes, he does state clearly that we should accept the final decisions of the Church on these matters. But, that does not negate what Elizabeth wrote.

    It seems to me that because you disagree with Elizabeth YOU assume evil motives on HER part. She says nothing in her post that would constitute the “sin” you claim she has committed. YOU are the one who has accused someone of sin because of a post. Elizabeth makes no such accusation.

    As an aside, I follow Spirit Daily and have for about 4 years now. I enjoy reading both the links and Mr. Brown’s own articles. Much discernment is needed in digesting these writings, clearly, as Mr. Brown’s opinions do not constitute official Church teaching. Stating that plain fact is NOT a sin, Peter.

  • For Elizabeth to assert that Michael Brown believes all apparitions or private revelation, “even those which have not received Church approval,” is calumnious. It’s a lie. He has written against certain private revelations which were obviously false. The rest he commends to the Church.

    Calumny is, objectively speaking, sinful. It may even constitute grave sin. It offends against both charity and truth. It is a violation of justice.

  • For Elizabeth (and anyone else who falsely accuses Michael Brown of accepting all apparitions), I submit the following words of Mr. Brown himself from 2005:

    Discerning Apparitions A Difficult Process

    [Q & A by Michael H. Brown]

    In the past twenty years there has been an explosion of alleged apparitions, locutions, stigmatics, and healers. Which are real and which are not?

    I would never attempt such a list, because I don’t have the authority to do so. We simply go by what the Church has decided, unless there is not yet a decision, in which case we try to exercise discernment.

    How do you tell if an apparition is real?

    This is one of the hardest questions in the world to answer. The process of what we call “discernment” is intensely complex. It’s also very personal. There is no formula. Some apparitions miss certain criteria and yet bear signs of authenticity while others seem to fill most standards but have problems at their very root. In the end, only through prayer and fasting can we get a true inkling. It is the spirit — not the mind — that discerns.

    You mean a “gut feeling”?

    No. I mean a feeling in the depths of the spirit after a period of fasting. When we fast, we are more sensitive to evil. We are more likely to know if it is present. This is very important.

    But aren’t there some tips to discernment?

    In the Bible it says that “by their fruits you will know them,” and so this is certainly one major facet. But we have to be careful about what we consider “fruits.” I have seen many cases in which people adhering to what turned out to be a deceptive circumstance had a great first impression, or even found the visit a major step in their return to the faith, to their conversion. God can take good from evil. He can draw with crooked lines. It is for that reason that we must be careful in speaking negatively about a circumstance, even if there are indications of problems; we don’t want to discourage those who have had good experiences.

    Are there often problems?

    Most claims of apparitions, visions, or locutions are a mix — in other words, there are parts that seem inspired, parts that come from the person’s subconscious, and parts that may be from a source that is deceptive or demonic. All of us are in touch with God and those who feel they have a special “line” of communication may in some cases have such a special gift, although too frequently this leads to ego, and ego leads to a person putting his or her own spin on what they think they have been “told.” This is very common, and why so many predictions do not materialize: The prophecy was not a direct communication but filtered through the ideas, preconceptions, and feelings of a person. It is the demonic component that of course concerns us the most. A demonic influence can cause not only spiritual trickery but also deep discouragement, division, and illness.

    Is divisiveness a standard of discernment?

    Certainly, it’s one. Now, remember that even with the authentic apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes or Medjugorje, which the Pope discerned as worthy of devotion (in recently publicized private letters), there is resistance. There is spiritual warfare. And that can lead to division. There will be some division. But that division usually is far outweighed by good fruits such as conversion. If division is the main effect, or if there is constant, lasting rancor, and a lack of peace, then there is a problem with the apparitions. We can also say to watch out for pride among the seers, attempts at self-promotion, and the spawning of a cult-like following. Cults in the bad sense of that term are a bad fruit (there are also holy cults, when proclaimed as such by Rome). Those who begin to exclude others because they don’t believe in a certain apparition are not in tune with the Holy Spirit, Who tells us through the Church that we don’t have to accept a private revelation. Meanwhile, we must watch for prophecies that are too gloomy and dark, that give messages of tremendous specificity, that ramble on at great length, and that contain messages threatening people who don’t believe in the particular revelation. There are some messages that have denounced anyone who won’t help purvey a private revelation. As soon as I see that, I know there is deception.

    What about those that mention the anti-christ?

    We have to weigh these with special caution. In my discernment there is truth to the coming of a personage of evil, and certainly major events, but we have to be cautious about believing that the coming scenario will exactly fit the scenarios spawned by those who have speculated on specific end-times schedules. Are we in the end times? We are at the end of an era. It is a very, very important time. It is not the end of the world. What is about to happen will fit the general prophetic pulse we have heard now for nearly 25 years (since the onset of Medjugorje, which caused an explosion in private revelation), but it will occur in ways we don’t specifically anticipate and that make sense (the feeling of, “oh, yeah, of course”) only in retrospect.

    What percent of seers are authentic?

    It’s impossible to say. What we can say is that very, very few are corporeal apparitions at the level of a Lourdes or Fatima. “Corporeal” is to see the Blessed Mother as a full-bodied, multi-dimensional apparition similar to the way we see another person: with eyes wide open. Some who claim this are imagining it, are projecting a “vision,” and a vision can be authentic, but it is not at the level of an apparition.

    How prevalent is actual demonism in alleged revelations?

    It is not uncommon. That is one way to put it. This is the fast lane of mysticism, which is one reason the Church is cautious. I might add that I am always perplexed by why a local bishop usually uses the term, “no evidence of the supernatural,” to dismiss a troublesome apparition. Often, there is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, but it’s supernaturality that is coming from the wrong source. At the same time, and overall, private revelation is of great benefit and as in Jesus’ time, among the Pharisees and Sadducees, it is sorely neglected by the official Church.

    Is the U.S. Church more closed and skeptical toward apparitions and phenomena like weeping statues than other nations?

    Yes, due to our scientific bent, much more skeptical.

    Why do you believe in Medjugorje?

    I have been there I think seven times, and I didn’t believe in it the first few hours I was there. I thought it was collective hysteria. Then I started to see phenomena myself — a lot of it — and tremendous, tremendous fruit, whereby virtually everyone who was going there was experiencing a deepening of faith or outright conversion unlike any other religious encounter with which I was familiar, just really profound and in most cases lasting. I had never seen people touched on such a massive scale. Dozens of millions have been affected in a way that can be compared only with older sites such as Lourdes or with trips to the Holy Land. Medjugorje leaves a feeling of peace and well-being and conversion.

    Whereas a false apparition?

    Another way of discerning a false apparition or a false anything is that it tends to drain you. It takes your energy. This is a hidden means of discernment: it takes more than it gives. It is temporary. This is often a good way to evaluate any situation, although like everything else in this field, there are exceptions (no foolproof means of discernment). We are very open to mysticism — it is crucial to our time and to any time — but we urge folks not to become involved in new such claims unless they are fasting and staying close to the New Testament. Daily reading of the Bible puts us in the correct frame of mind and is probably the best way to discern an apparition.


    As for his acceptance of Medjugorje, there is nothing against faith there. A decision has not been made regarding that alleged apparition site. Mr. Brown has already said that he will ACCEPT THE CHURCH’S DECISION.

    Elizabeth is engaging in calumny. She should make this right.

  • I don’t understand where you’re coming from. How can you be so bold as to assume I’m in a state of mortal sin? Isn’t that up to God to judge? Not you?

    What exactly IS the “1990 prophecy”? Has it undergone Church scrutiny? Has it been submitted to any Church authorities for discernment and/or approval? I have been reading Spirit Daily for about 5 or 6 years. This is what I meant by an unapproved private revelation. There is no source and no mention of it ever being submitted to the Church.

    Medjugorje is different. It hasn’t been formally approved by the Church, but the Church is more than aware of it, so to speak. Not so with the 1990 prophecy.

    There is good on his site (his articles on Maria Esperanza, but much that leaves me, and others I’m sure, scratching their heads. There is a lot of stuff from his “mailbag” that makes me wonder. How much of this is real, and how much of it is coming from people’s overwrought imaginations? He needs to be more careful when presenting these viewpoints and some sites he links to. It’s all very confusing and doesn’t help the average person on their spiritual journey. That is all.

  • Elizabeth, Peter never said you are in “a state of mortal sin.” Your dishonesty is showing again. He wrote, “Calumny is, objectively speaking, sinful. It may even constitute grave sin. It offends against both charity and truth. It is a violation of justice.”

    You falsely accused Mr. Brown of accepting ALL private revelation, “even those which have not received Church approval.” This is – objectively speaking – calumnious. But rather than acknowledging that your post was false and unjust, you now assume a defensive posture and accuse Peter of judging your soul.

    When will your dishonesty cease? You are behaving very poorly.

  • I know what I wrote. I don’t appreciate Elizabeth’s false accusation against me.

  • This is the time I will ever read or visit this site. I’ve been accused of being a poor reader, of trying to wear down an author after a mere two posts, being dishonest, being egotistical, twisting words which were clearly written, and of being a relativist. Elizabeth comes along and gives her opinion that Michael Brown relies too heavily on Marian apparitions and personal revelation and she’s accused of calumny. There is no engagement of ideas here, only personal animus. The impression one is left with is that if one does not agree with everything written at this site, then that one is necessarily part of the construct of rebellion. Not exactly the best impression to leave with anyone.

  • Sorry, meant to say “This is the last time I will ever read or visit this site.”

  • Thomas, you’re not here to participate in a “dialogue.” Like Elizabeth, you’re here to level false accusations. Read Peter’s post of Michael Brown’s article from 2005. He does not accept all private revelation uncritically. Nor has anyone (including himself) held up Mr. Brown as “the authority” on all private revelation.

    As Christians, let us refrain from such falsehoods.

  • I will never cease to be amazed how the internet has the capacity to take a solid, well formed argument for the faith, and transform it into this demonstration of the classic “my father can beat up your father” form of analysis (or in this case, “my Mary can beat up your Mary” such as this thread has morphed into.

    Will wonders ever cease.

    Yes indeed, a great illustration of how the the internet is a wonderful tool for the faith… or is it that the internet is the place to witness the faith of tools?

  • Apparently Fr. Moyle has no problem with calumny. Maybe he should brush up on his Catechism. If this thread has “morphed” into something unproductive, it is because of unfair allegations and misinterpretations.

    Asinine comment Father. With all due respect for your priestly office. Asinine.

  • “Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2479).

    I would exhort those who visit this thread to read Michael Brown’s 2005 article on discerning private revelation and hold Elizabeth’s false accusations up to the light of truth.

  • I agree with you Peter. Where was Father Tim when Elizabeth was leveling a false accusation against Michael Brown? He chides you for exposing Elizabeth’s false accusation against Michael Brown and showing it for what it is and describes it as a “my father can beat up your father form of analysis.”

    Father is a disappointment.

  • I am closing this thread.

    In the future please stay on the topic at hand.

  • Pingback: If You Want The Political Left To Run Governments, Look At What The Religious Left Have Done To Religion (Left It In Tatters) « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: As Our Modern, Western Culture Begins To Implode, The Catholic Church Is Our Last, Best Hope « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: The Coming Open Rebellion Against God « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Lent 2010; The Tide Continues To Turn Toward Catholic Orthodoxy « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Why They Attack Pope Benedict XVI « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Liberal Dystopia of Political Correctness « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Margaritaville Christianity; God’s Way Or Our Way? « The American Catholic

Anglicans And Catholics To Reunite, Reaction And News Roundup

Tuesday, October 20, AD 2009

St. Thomas More

I will be updating this post as often as I can throughout the day [Last update at 10:01pm CDT].  I’ll be reporting on reactions and news concerning this groundbreaking development that came from the Vatican this morning.  The Vatican issued a note explaining a new provision in an upcoming Apostolic Constitution that will allow for a structure to be in place to receive Anglicans and Episcopalians into the Catholic Church.  Basically a corporate reunion!

To read the full text of this announcement from the Vatican click here.

To read the full text of the joint press release of the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Gerard Nichols, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, click here.

Reaction and news from around the world [all emphasis mine]:

Last Update of the day at 10:01pm CDT (Earlier updates further down this post)

Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London.  Offers a brief history of what transpired the last couple of years between Anglo-Catholics, and those inside the Vatican, both faithful and dissident Catholics.

Rome has parked its tanks on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lawn [Interesting choice of words, but nonetheless accurate in my opinion] after manoeuvres undertaken by up to fifty bishops and begun two years ago by an Australian archbishop, John Hepworth [The leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion].”

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Anglicans And Catholics To Reunite, Reaction And News Roundup

  • Does this action reverse Apostolicae Curae?

  • A brilliant stroke on the part of Pope Benedict. He has the mental agility and energy of a prelate half his age. Disaffected Anglicans now have a home and the powers that be in the Anglican Church have a major problem. To all of our Anglican brothers and sisters who will be joining us I say that we are overjoyed to have you!

  • Might I just add that this is what Ecumenism is supposed to be about: Conversion into the Catholic Church, and not the other way around (i.e., Catholics mutating into Protestants)?

  • e.,

    In addition to what you said, Ecumenism is about conversion, not dialogue that continues without resolution.

  • Tito: I was having problems earlier at the website. Would you kindly remove the first instance of my comments above since it’s merely a duplicate?

    Also, would you happen to know if in that ordinariate in the Anglican ultimately means that a person can actually be married and yet become a priest in that rite (for lack of a better word)?


  • e.,

    Yes, I read the Note that was released early this morning the same way.

    Married men can now become priests in the Catholic Church, but only within the Anglican Personal Ordinariate. Very similar to Easter Catholic Rites.

    But they may not become priests in the Latin Rite, which encompasses the vast majority of Catholics worldwide.

    I’m sure once the mainstream media gets to reading the details they’ll begin to make hay about this pretty soon.

    Take note though, only unmarried priests can become bishop within the Anglican Personal Ordinariate, just as in the Easter Catholic Rites and the Easter Orthodox Churches.

  • Tito:

    Thanks for the info!

    I’m just wondering if a person who is seeking to become a priest and yet at the same time be married, alls he need do is pursue such vocation but within that same Anglican Personal Ordinariate which you mention; in other words, will this be at long last that loophole for those married but yet feel a calling to serve the Lord in the priesthood.

    Here is The Wall Street Journal scoop:

    Vatican Opens Door for Anglican Converts

    ROME — Pope Benedict XVI introduced a fast track for Anglicans seeking to join Roman Catholicism, paving the way for conservative Anglicans frustrated by their church’s blessing of same-sex unions and homosexuality in the priesthood to enter the Catholic fold.

    The Vatican on Tuesday announced plans to create a special set of canon laws, known as an “Apostolic Constitution,” to allow Anglican faithful, priests and bishops to enter into full communion with the Vatican without having to give up a large part of their liturgical and spiritual traditions.

    With the measures, Pope Benedict is attempting to reclaim ground lost by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century when King Henry VIII defied papal authority to found the Church of England. The move clears the way for entire congregations of Anglicans to join the Catholic Church and makes it easier for married Anglican priests to convert without embracing Catholicism’s traditional code of priestly celibacy…'s_Most_Popular

  • e.,

    As much as the mainstream media hypes that the solution to a declining pool of priests is to allow married people to pursue this vocation, it won’t be anything more than a trickle.

    We all know that families that practice and teach the faith to their children, ie, foster vocations, in addition to participating in orthodox Catholic parishes will create large pools of seminarians.

    As evident in the Lincoln and Omaha dioceses of Nebraska.

    Allowing married men and wymyn priests is a band-ade at best.

  • Tito:

    Obviously, woman priests is clearly forbidden and should never be allowed — ever.

    However, allowing married priests is more of a disciplinary rather than a doctrinal matter; I don’t see how such a thing can actually even be considered subversive.

    In fact, even Fr. Corapi admitted as much in his Catechism of the Catholic Church series on EWTN.

  • e.,

    I know that it is a discipline and not doctrinal.

    I agree with you completely on this point. You may have misread my comment on this, but to be clear, I believe you and I are on the same page.

    I’m fine with allowing married priests. Especially how it will be set up in the upcoming provision in the Apostolic Constitution.

    …and I looove Father Corapi!

  • I got to see Fr. Corapi in Buffalo this past August on Our Lady’s feast. He is wonderful. A true son of the Church.

    I prefer that the Latin Rite keep the celibacy discipline. We are at a point right now where experience is teaching us that when we are orthodox we grow and when we are hetrodox we wane.

    Even though the Pope could lift this I think it diminishes the priest’s efficacy if he has to worry about the formation and protection, etc. of children of his own flesh – it is actually a freedom to be able to care for all the children in his parish.

    Nevertheless, whatever the Pope decides is fine by me. I think everyone except the Holy Spirit underestimated our German Shepherd. He rocks.

  • AK,

    I agree 100%.

    Celibacy needs to be kept for many apparent reasons, one of the most basic is he has dedicated his life to Christ. Adding a good wife would only shorten his time on earth.

  • Fr. Grandon is a distant relative of mine by marriage, whom I met for the first time when he had just become Catholic and had gone from being an Episcopal priest to a Catholic layperson. Great guy with a really interesting conversion story.

    On another blog I read that Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman, retired Episcopal bishop of Quincy, Illinois (its cathedral, however, is in Peoria), was more or less stripped of his episcopal status by the “High Priestess” referred to above… he also is a great guy, good friends with Bishops Myers and Jenky, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him jump the Tiber now. Since he’s married and has kids he wouldn’t be able to be a bishop anymore, but given how he’s been treated by his own denomination of late, he’d probably have little to lose if he did convert.

  • Also, maybe I’m getting WAY ahead of everyone here… but could this approach to ecumenism be carried even beyond the boundaries of the Anglican or Orthodox churches? Could we someday (probably centuries from now, if ever) have a Lutheran Rite or Baptist Rite or Pentecostal/Charismatic Rite that combine their distinctive styles of worship with the sacraments, doctrines and teaching authority of the Church?

  • Elaine,

    I briefly touched on that in the next posting.

    In my opinion, I could possibly see something for the Lutherans in a Personal Ordiniate.

    But after them, there are no vestiges of any signs of an apostolic church. Maybe the Methodists, but that is stretching it a bit.

    But again, it’s strictly my opinion.

  • Tito:

    No disrespect; however, if you actually felt that way about married priests, then why did you put it up there with woman priests which, in fact, can never be allowed as it directly goes against Christian doctrine itself?

    Also, I don’t think there could ever be rites that would cater to such Protestant sects as the Baptists who clearly do not hold the same Christian beliefs that we do, like the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

    Ironically, it is folks like the Lutherans who we have more in common (relatively-speaking, of course) in comparison with those sects who are far more heretical in degree.

    Yet, I do greatly appreciate the fact that you are keeping us apprised of such news. Keep it up.

    Adding a good wife would only shorten his time on earth.

    This reminds of precisely what Saint/Sir Thomas More once said as regarding marriage; that is, once a man is married, he can never be free of worry!

  • e.,

    Now your reading into things way to much.

  • Pingback: Anglican Church in America Asks Entry Into Catholic Church « The American Catholic

Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-23-2009

Thursday, July 23, AD 2009

Salvete AC readers!

Buckle Up! Because here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. I want to welcome Blackadder to American Catholic.  Yes, it’s belated, but needed nonetheless.  He has been an excellent addition to our fledgling website.  He’s written many exceptional posts over at Vox Nova and we are glad to have him here with us.  He also writes at the fine political group blog, Southern Appeal.

2. Meaningless word of the day, Ecumenism.

A close second, Interreligious Dialogue.

…which dovetails very well into my third pick…

Continue reading...

85 Responses to Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-23-2009

  • “Ecumenism” is a meaningless word? Tell that to the Vatican.

    “The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.”

    “Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.”

    “In the same way, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” recently published (1992), includes the ecumenical dimension as part of the basic teaching for all the faithful of the Church.”

    This post is another fine representation of cafeteria Catholicism.


    Thursday, 1 February 2007

    Dear Friends,

    It is a joy for me, having been one of the founding members of the Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue, to meet you again and to welcome you today at the Vatican. I greet in particular His Royal Highness Prince Hassan of Jordan whom I have the pleasure to meet on this occasion.

    I thank H.E. Metropolitan Damaskinos of Andrianoupolis, your President, who has presented to me the first result of your work: a joint edition of the three Sacred Books of the three monotheistic religions in their original language and in chronological order. Indeed, this was the very first project we conceived of in creating the Foundation together, so as to “make a specific and positive contribution to the dialogue between cultures and religions”.

    As I have said on several occasions, in continuation with the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate and with my beloved Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, we, Jews, Christians and Muslims are called to develop the bonds that unite us.

    Indeed, it was this idea that led us to create this Foundation which aims to seek “the most essential and authentic message that the three monotheistic religions, namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, can address to the world of the 21st century”, to give a new impetus to interreligious and intercultural dialogue by means of our common research and by highlighting and disseminating everything in our respective spiritual heritages that helps to strengthen fraternal ties between our communities of believers.

    Consequently, the Foundation had to work out an instrument of reference that would help us overcome misunderstandings and prejudices and offer a common platform for future work. Thus, you have produced this beautiful edition of the three books which are the source of our religious beliefs, creators of culture, that have made a deep mark on peoples and to which we are indebted today.

    The reinterpretation, and for some people, the discovery of the texts that so many people across the world venerate as sacred, demands mutual respect in trusting dialogue. Our contemporaries expect of us a message of harmony and peace and the practical expression of our common willingness to help them achieve their legitimate aspiration to live in justice and peace.

    They are entitled to expect of us a strong sign of renewed understanding and reinforced cooperation in accordance with the actual objective of the Foundation, which proposes to offer “to the world in this way a sign of hope and the promise of divine Blessings that always accompanies charitable action”.

    The Foundation’s work will contribute to a growing awareness of everything in the different cultures of our time which is in conformity with divine wisdom and serves human dignity, the better to discern and reject everything that usurps God’s name and deforms man’s humanity.

    Thus, we are invited to engage in a common task of reflection. This is a labour of reason for which I wholeheartedly appeal, with you, to be able to examine God’s mystery in the light of our respective religious traditions and wisdom so as to discern the values likely to illumine the men and women of all the peoples on earth, whatever their culture and religion.

    For this reason it is henceforth invaluable to have at our disposal a common reference point, thanks to the work you have done. Thus, we will be able to make headway in interreligious and intercultural dialogue which today is more necessary than ever: a true dialogue, respectful of differences, courageous, patient and persevering, which finds its strength in prayer and is nourished by the hope that dwells in all who believe in God and put their trust in him.

    Our respective religious traditions all insist on the sacred character of the life and dignity of the human person. We believe that God will bless our initiatives if they converge for the good of all his children and enable them to respect each other in brotherhood world-wide.

    Together with all people of good will, we aspire to peace. That is why I insist once again: interreligious and intercultural research and dialogue are not an option but a vital need for our time.

    May the Almighty bless your work and grant an abundance of his Blessings to you and to your loved ones!

  • Ecumenism is meaningless? Caritas in Veritate is poorly written?

    What the heck?

  • “What the heck?”

    ditto, and I rather liked Ut Unum Sint.

  • Ecumenism is meaningless in the sense that the neo-modernists and the left have misappropriated the term to mean the Catholic Church abandoning the principles upon which she was founded, in favor of a more generic and FALSE Christianity in order to appease the separated brethren sufficiently to establish some sort of loose affiliation which they would consider “unity”. That is FALSE ecumenism, with true ecumenism being the goal of restoring those separated brethren to the One True Church by abandoning their erroneous doctrines and invalid hierarchies.

    Tito did not say the latest encyclical is “poorly written” he acknowledged that some critics have said so. It clearly is more of a committee document than Benedict’s prior encyclicals.

    Ut Unam Sint? Good heavens, that is by far the worst encyclical since the 2nd Vatican Council, or perhaps EVER. There’s a reason that our current Holy Father as head of the Holy Office, issued a major clarification to restore proper understanding of the mission of the Church and the true meaning of Ecumenism.

  • If a text leads to a clarification later, that doesn’t mean the text itself is written badly (otherwise, we must all consider the Bible one of the worst books ever written). Theology is always engaged with this kind of work; compare St Cyril of Alexandria vs Pope St Leo; I wouldn’t call Cyril a bad writer because he doesn’t use the advanced terminology of Leo, because, well, he didn’t have use of it in his time!

  • “Neo-modernists”? Who are these people in the Church who have with their practice so destroyed the meaning of ecumenism? Are they Church officials? Bishops’ conferences? Renegade theologians? General ill-willers?

  • Henry & Alan,

    Could you find for me in Ut Unum Sint what the definition of “ecumenism” is?

    I doubt you can find it.

  • Tito

    Can you find in the Bible a definition of the Trinity? Does it make the Trinity not in the Bible? Documents are after written with the presupposition that the basic terms within it don’t need to be defined.

  • Henry Karlson,

    Even the text of infallible proclamations/documents does not necessarily make them impeccable.

    Your point concerning thus seems to make the case that such documents are indeed so.

    If that is the case, your contention is as remarkably risible as Tito’s TACO is as derisive.

  • Henry K.,

    I didn’t say Bible, I said Ut Unum Sint.

    Again, you can’t find it because Pope John Paul II never defined “ecumenism”.

    Ecumenism is a protestant invented word. Nowhere is it defined.

    It is so ambiguous it could mean anything, ipso facto, it can be meaningless.

  • Ecumenism is a protestant invented word.

    I think if we wanted to start digging into the origins of much of the vocabulary commonly utilized in Catholic theology, the origins will not be majority Catholic.

  • “Ecumenism is a protestant invented word. Nowhere is it defined.”

    A couple things, you are arguing a Latin document to define words in English? Again this is rather weird. Second, the source of the word is Greek, and nowhere I see is the word “invented by Protestantism.” You will find ecumenism engaged long before Protestants.

    While the word itself is not defined in the document, the activity which the Church supports is given throughout. More importantly, just because a document doesn’t define the meaning for you, doesn’t make it meaningless, just as the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but not meaningless. Again, this is basic — the arguments you make remind me of Protestants as they argue definitions “via the Bible.” They don’t understand definitions are presupposed if a word is used, and the Bible doesn’t define words, just as a Papal Encyclical doesn’t have to define every word it uses to make the word meaningful.

    As for a fine example of dissident Catholicism, just remember who it is pointing at the Church and telling it that its declarations are in error! You are telling the Church it is calling us to something meaningless, not I. This is the example of your clear Cafeteria style Catholicism. It is quite apparent you don’t listen to the Church, you only take things out of context for your non-Catholic political ideology, and if the Church says different, you begin to mock the Church.

  • HK,

    issued a major clarification to restore proper understanding of the mission of the Church

    First let me correct the record, the clarification was issued after the ascension of Benedict XVI to the papacy, and so was under the prefect Cdl. Levada technically (though clearly it was written by and/or closely supervised by Benedict XVI).

    Secondly, this clarification after only 12 years is in no way related to re-examinations of the early fathers work 100’s of years later. They’re just not the same thing. The document in question is not simply an analysis, it is corrective. The corrective was necessary because the neo-modernists and leftists began taking advantage of the difficulties in Ut Unum Sint to further their destructive efforts, completely ignoring 2000 years of doctrine. The same occurred after the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council.

  • Michael

    It is true that the origin of the word is not important (most words can probably be traced back to pagans), but in this case, he is also in error. The word is derived from Greek – and is cognate with “economy.” Ecumenism isn’t a modern phenomena – again, as I have said, all one has to do is look back in time, and one will find Florence, which was 15th century ecumenism.

  • Matt

    You really should look into the time between Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also, the reaction of those who opposed Chalcedon. You will find that clarification was indeed needed, soon after Ephesus, but that does not dismiss the value of Ephesus itself. This is the same thing. The Church is always engaging, going deeper, bringing up something new.

  • Tito,

    Ut Unum Sint is built on top of the Second Vatican Council’s decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, which notes the following:

    “The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity.”

    I would recommend a careful reading of Unitatis Redintegratio to frame Ut Unum Sint. Having read some responses to Ut Unum Sint, primarily on the part of some Orthodox, it’s impact is important. To pass it off as some sort of Protestant invention is, in my opinion, silly.

  • HK,

    So because you can’t find the definition you begin your ad hominem attacks on me.

    Typical Vox Nova poster.

  • Tito

    No, I didn’t make any ad hominems — heck, there is a post on VN you need to read, now that you make that claim.

  • Alan Phipps,

    you should also review Unam Sanctum, Redemptoris Missio to properly understand the Church’s teaching on how unity is to be restored and maintained. Where Peter is there is the Church, he is the earthly sign of unity.

  • Tito, I think you’re being willfully obtuse on this.

  • Matt,

    I’m only helping to frame Ut Unum Sint. I don’t dispute that “ecumenism” has been hijacked by some groups to mean something it does not. I don’t think your beef is really with me.

  • Henry K.,

    “the ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the Reform”.
    –Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II

    Ut Unum Sint is not ex cathedra.

    Pope Pius XI condemned any attempts at ecumenism in Mortalium Animos.

    Pope Pius XII made a prediction concerning the problems of ecumenism, being of Protestant orgigen:

    “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.”

  • Ecumenism is but a vile virus that has become an apparent plague on Rome, which will ultimately lead to its very undoing.

    You need only take notice of purported Catholics who are nothing but Gnostics in disguise, succumbing to various heresies and cultish folk practices given to the provocation of the spirits.

  • Tito, it’s interesting that you dismiss one encyclical by citing another, and bolster it with a purported quote from Pope Pius XII that only appears as a “so-and-so said he heard that the Pope said” kind of quote on far-right Traditionalist websites. It would appear that cherry-picking isn’t only a left-wing activity.

  • e.,

    Well I wouldn’t go that far.

    “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
    – – Holy Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18

    Ecumenism may have harmed the Church but it won’t be it’s ruin.

  • JohnH,

    I am not dismissing Ut Unum Sint, I am just pointing out that it isn’t ex cathedra and there still needs to be a better clarification on the subject of ecumenism.

    40 years of “ecumenism” has produced zero, “0”, results.

    Outside of cut-off chicken heads at Fatima and heathens desecrating the churches of Assissi, it has been fruitless.

  • JohnH,

    And no, I didn’t pick the quote from “traditionalist” websites, I got it from the Vatican website. Unless of course you are accusing the Vatican of being traditionalist.

    Take a chill pill dude.

  • Alan Phipps,

    I’m only helping to frame Ut Unum Sint. I don’t dispute that “ecumenism” has been hijacked by some groups to mean something it does not. I don’t think your beef is really with me.

    there’s no beef really, I just want to point out that one can’t properly understand Ut Unam Sint by reading it and Unitatis Redentigratio (UR). One must also read older documents, and the correctives from Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the doctrinal note which followed from UR.

    Speaking of which, after further research, Dominus Iesus was in fact issued under Cdl. Ratzinger as a corrective for UUS and only 5 years after it’s issue, subsequently another corrective was issued under Cdl. Levada.


    Ecumenism is but a vile virus that has become an apparent plague on Rome, which will ultimately lead to its very undoing.

    I don’t think it’s possible for Rome to be “ultimately” undone, pretty sure Christ assured us of that. Clearly the false understanding of ecumenism has been a vile virus which harms the Body of Christ but can not destroy it.

  • “Neo-modernists”? Who are these people in the Church who have with their practice so destroyed the meaning of ecumenism? Are they Church officials? Bishops’ conferences? Renegade theologians? General ill-willers?

    Christopher Ferrara in his critique of ecumenism places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the most recently deceased pontiff. The Latin Mass has an occasional feature on the problems which ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue have presented and Ferrara and Woods write at length on the subject in The Great Facade.

  • Tito, you need to know how to read things in context; Pope John Paul II, in saying, “the ecumenical movement really began within the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of the Reform,” is of course talking about the modern ecumenical movement in the 20th century. However it is not the foundation of ecumenism, which is something else.

  • And no, I didn’t pick the quote from “traditionalist” websites, I got it from the Vatican website. Unless of course you are accusing the Vatican of being traditionalist.

    OK, please show me where that quote shows up on the Vatican website. The one that begins with “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima.” I can only find it though sedevacantist / SSPX websites.

  • Henry K.,

    I agree with you on that point.

    Like you, I want all Christians united.

    I just wished that Pope John Paul II would have used more concise language than the ambiguities that are infested in Ut Unum Sint.

    I doubt Ut Unum Sint will ever be as relevant as when it was first issued. Like Vatican II, it will be our children who will see what is effective and what is not effective.

    You and I are on the same side, we want to evangelize the world.

  • “Dominus Iesu” was actually not written as a corrective to UUS, but to deal with some Catholic theologians engaging a broad form of pluralism which rendered Jesus insignificant. It was an internal theological document, not a document which was at all written in response to ecumenism.

  • “Outside of cut-off chicken heads at Fatima and heathens desecrating the churches of Assissi, it has been fruitless.”

    I think that such a conclusion is short sighted. There has been great strides in our ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox, and hopefully with the TAC. Did you read Unitatis Redintegratio? Just because it doesn’t move according to your schedule or expectations doesn’t make it fruitless. Nor is it rendered irrelevant when other groups reduce enumenism to indifferentism, which the church has also condemned.

  • JohnH.,

    I was referring to Mortalium Animos.

    Please, where is the evidence of any ecumenical success?

  • ““I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to little Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past.””

    Speaks nothing of ecumenism. As the Church makes clear, even in UUS, ecumenism is not about the alteration of Church teaching; it is not a syncretism.

  • Matt,
    Cardinal Levada’s document was in response to misinterpretations of and questions about Dominus Iesus, which was issued by the CDF under Joseph Ratzinger.

  • Sorry, Matt, I missed where you noted the correct timeline. Shouldn’t have skimmed through the subsequent responses.

  • Matt McDonald:

    Agreed; however, it has most assuredly not only harmed the Body of Christ, but it has done so to such remarkable extent so as to disfigure it almost rendering it to where you can hardly see the Catholicism of today as actually being “Catholic”.

  • Henry Karlson,

    “Dominus Iesu” was actually not written as a corrective to UUS, but to deal with some Catholic theologians engaging a broad form of pluralism which rendered Jesus insignificant. It was an internal theological document, not a document which was at all written in response to ecumenism.

    Unless you’re actually familiar with the “ecumenism movement” in which case you would know it has been drifting towards pluralism since the 70’s and recognize that this illicit movement had used UUS to further it’s cause, thus justifying it’s inclusion in the discussion.


    I think that such a conclusion is short sighted. There has been great strides in our ecumenical efforts with the Eastern Orthodox, and hopefully with the TAC. Did you read Unitatis Redintegratio? Just because it doesn’t move according to your schedule or expectations doesn’t make it fruitless. Nor is it rendered irrelevant when other groups reduce enumenism to indifferentism, which the church has also condemned.

    Tito forgot to mention the illicit inter-communion which the Canadian Bishops have all but publicly embraced… I don’t think Tito is objecting to the TRUE ecumenism which is going on with the Orthodox and TAC, he is rejecting false ecumenism (on that he ought to be more precise) as does the Church.

  • e., sounds like you’d agree with this fellow:

    Ecumenism — is one of the mechanisms by which this mixing is achieved in practice. It is a relatively recent satanic invention, which already proved to be a huge success. Under the guise of “super-Christian love” it attempts to blur and, eventually, destroy the boundaries of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, depriving the faithful of the Holy Mysteries and corrupting their souls.

    Except that he’s not Roman Catholic.

    And Tito–if you want to find out what the fruits of ecumenism have been, why not ask some of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Rite priests who have been doing mission work in Russia? I’m sure if you look around, you could get a good perspective on it. The efforts have not been fruitless, especially in building trust within countries that traditionally have been fiercely anti-Rome.

  • So “ecumenism” means being “nice” to others?

    I thought charity fell under that category, but I guess ecumenism is the new “charity”.

    So ecumenism means being nice to others, but not necessary being one Church.

    See the confusion?

  • “Unless you’re actually familiar with the “ecumenism movement” in which case you would know it has been drifting towards pluralism since the 70’s and recognize that this illicit movement had used UUS to further it’s cause, thus justifying it’s inclusion in the discussion.”

    Not true at all; it is quite apparent you are the one who has not studied the movement, but rather, strawmen about the movement itself; indeed, as I pointed out, UUS has criticized this idea of ecumenism, so it can’t be seen as supporting this notion at all. More importantly, if you look at the bi-lateral dialogues between Catholicism and others, you will note doctrine is significant, and the Orthodox, who have always been with the WWC, have always put forward as the difference of doctrine is a fundamental issue and cannot be dismissed for some “super-church” which ignores the distinctions. Sergius Bulgakov consistently insisted the ecumenical movement address Mary, btw.

  • e. ,

    Agreed; however, it has most assuredly not only harmed the Body of Christ, but it has done so to such remarkable extent so as to disfigure it almost rendering it to where you can hardly see the Catholicism of today as actually being “Catholic”.

    not everywhere, but certainly in many places.

  • JohnH:

    Stuff it and quite putting words in my mouth; regardless of the fact that even previous popes themselves opposed ecumenism and for good reason, too!

    Truly, the Smoke of Satan has already infiltrated the Church, as had even been prophesied by a well-respected pope; one need only see the many modern-day ‘Catholic’ churches, which are more like pagan sacrificial worship sites or your local protestant gathering place, as well as attend any number of ‘services’ to see its dispicable fruits which, thus, evince an overwhelming evidence for the center of such villainy.

  • So “ecumenism” means being “nice” to others?

    No. I think you are confused, or possibly being obtuse again. The efforts at ecumenism in Russia and elsewhere have opened doors for Catholics working in these countries.

  • JohnH,

    Again with ‘obtuse’.

    Show me the evidence that Michael Denton so often begs for that we are making inroads in Russia.

    I have heard our Russian Orthodox brothers complain about this, yet I don’t see any evidence of this.

    As of today, Rome and Moscow have no plans to reunite.

    Shoot, they don’t want us to walk within a hundred miles of the Russian border.

  • e.: I’m pretty weary of the whole “I’m more Catholic than Rome” schtick.

  • Tito: you can talk with the priests from here:

    next time they are in the US. I know Fr. Dan is back and forth quite a bit. Or you can e-mail them for a chat (though the internet there is wonky).

  • JohnH,


    I sincerely appreciate this because I love conversion stories and I would like to know how the whole “conversion of Russia” scene is playing out.

    Saint Padre Pio once said that the Russians will convert to Catholicism before the Americans, and they will teach us how to convert.

    Yes, I am being sincere, thank you!

  • You are welcome.

  • Henry K.,

    I have read those in the past, but I mostly stick to InterFax and Patriarchia for my Russian Orthodox news, and they haven’t been as friendly nor as optimistic:

    (use a translator for the second link)

  • fruits of ecumenism:


    Not sure what that has to do with ecumenism.

  • Henry Karlson Says Thursday, July 23, 2009 A.D.
    “Ecumenism” is a meaningless word? Tell that to the Vatican”.

    “This post is another fine representation of cafeteria Catholicism”.

    What is cafeteria-like about it is the avoidance of specifics. It is headline writing. All fog and fuss, no way to answer it.

  • e. Says Thursday, July 23, 2009 A.D. at 10:55 am
    “Henry Karlson,
    Even the text of infallible proclamations/documents does not necessarily make them impeccable”.

    Surely there is some confusion here about the meaning of “impeccable”.

    [NB: “not necessarily” is a meaningless weasel phrase].

  • Gabriel Austin:

    Are you much a fool as you are incapable of discerning what “necessarily” actually construes? Or are you so devoid of philosophic/theologic training so as to be wholly incapable of noting what is necessary and what is sufficient?

    Furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that just because something is, in fact, infallible does not actually render it “impeccable”; if that were indeed the case, that one is saying that any such infallible decree has been rendered remarkably perfect.

    For your information, neither professional Catholic theologians and even then Cardinal Ratzinger think so.

  • I doubt anyone here had trouble understanding what e. means in using the word “impeccable” even if it was not perfectly applied (which I don’t concede).

  • You guys are hilarious.

    Here, for your edification:

    [I]nfallibility has never been said to entail impeccability, the fact that some bishops and popes have been quite peccable indeed is irrelevant as an objection to the doctrine that they are infallible under certain conditions. By the same token, infallibility is not a prerogative that men enjoy as men. Since only God is infallible by nature, infallibility is a divine gift to the Church that nobody deserves or can attain by their own efforts. Such a gift is also negative rather than positive: it does not entail that the irreformable pronouncements of the Magisterium are divinely inspired, or opportune, or even particularly well-formulated; it entails only that the Magisterium will never bind the Church definitively to a statement that is false.

    There, I’m done with informing the ignorant.

  • Pingback: Ecumenism! Ecumenism! « The American Catholic
  • e.,

    There, I’m done with informing the ignorant.

    I would advise you to not attend anymore Jesuit conferences if that is the case.

  • e. Says Thursday, July 23, 2009 A.D. at 2:41 pm
    “Gabriel Austin:
    Are you much a fool as you are incapable of discerning what “necessarily” actually construes? Or are you so devoid of philosophic/theologic training so as to be wholly incapable of noting what is necessary and what is sufficient?”

    I permit myself to reprove you with (Matthew 5:22) – “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

    “Furthermore, the fact of the matter remains that just because something is, in fact, infallible does not actually render it “impeccable”; if that were indeed the case, that one is saying that any such infallible decree has been rendered remarkably perfect”.

    Does not change the fact that you seem to have confused infallible with impeccable [which was nowhere discussed].

    Why do you hide behind an initial? Just curious.

    Interesting that in your informing [instructing?] the ignorant, you give a quotation but not a reference. Please do continue not to instruct [inform?] us.

  • I’m the one who has infallible confused with impeccable?

    Thus, says the man whose comments seemed to imply that an infallibile decree is actually flawless [impeccable].

    Now, go find a box somewhere upon which to recover your poise as you certainly need it!

  • Tito’s anti-Catholic recklessness continues and his co-bloggers remain silent.

  • Even those bloggers here with whom I greatly disagree, I would not accuse of either recklessness or anti-Catholicism.

  • e. Says Friday, July 24, 2009 A.D. at 2:44 pm
    “I’m the one who has infallible confused with impeccable?”


    “Thus, says the man whose comments seemed to imply that an infallibile decree is actually flawless [impeccable]”.

    “Seem to imply”. More weasel words. Have you a citation?

    “Now, go find a box somewhere upon which to recover your poise as you certainly need it!”

    Is this meant to make sense? Or is it merely an attempt to be offensive? If the latter, you need more practice. Read some Jonathan Swift.

  • Foxfier – I’m not accusing “the bloggers” of anything in the abstract. I am accusing Tito of specific actions here that are reckless and anti-Catholic.

  • I’m not accusing “the bloggers” of anything in the abstract.

    Incorrect; you accused them of allowing and– by their silence– promoting anti-Catholicism.

    That is both abstract– lacking as it is specific examples of “anti-Catholicism”– and an accusation.

  • Gabriel Austin:

    Are you that deficient in cognitive abilities? My comments were in fact making a distinction between the two.

    Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything more especially from a pompous trogoldyte who hails from the lesser races and believes adverbs are anathema.

  • Tito’s hatred of the Church’s teaching on ecumenism and his hatred of Archbishop Oscar Romero are evidence of his anti-Catholicism.

  • And speaking of so-called “weasel words”:

    “Does not change the fact that you seem to have confused infallible with impeccable [which was nowhere discussed].”

    By the way, you’re the one who has completely conflated the two since you actually are of the opinion that just because something happens to be infallible, it is indeed impeccable [flawless], or else you wouldn’t have taken issue with it to begin with (unless, of course, that’s just your way of demonstrating how you take being an arse to an art form!).

    So, go take your faux Catholicism elsewhere and stick your arrogance to where the sun don’t shine; I’ve had it with not only your pernicious mischaracterizations and condescending pettiness but, more especially, your constant pharisaic delectations, which are nothing more than a devious disguise to hide a clearly hideously fiendish nature underneath all that supposedly Christian exterior!

  • The only time Tito has written about Archbishop Romero was when he complemented you for praying to an uncanonized saint, and added prayers to Fr. Kolbe.
    (do a google site search, if you doubt)

    You seem to have a bit of a problem with facts.

  • Foxfier – You must have missed our conversation the other day on this blog about Romero.

  • Iafrate:

    At worst, Tito may be classified as careless or even thoughtless in some respects; however, to actually label the man “anti-Catholic” would seem to me to be wholly unjustified.

  • Michael,

    Yes Tito expressed belief in the accounts given to him by several Salvadoran friends indicating that Archbishop Romero had been hiding guns to help the guerrillas in that insanely long comment thread last week. No, I do not think it likely that his friends were right to believe that — though given their personal sufferings at the hands of the communist revolutionaries there I can see why Tito would.

    However, that in no way indicates “hatred” or anti-Catholicism, and while I won’t delete your original comment making that accusation (since it’s not my thread) I am going to stake out a line and tell you to stop it, or else I’ll delete any further comments from you along these lines.

    If you have something substantive to say, say it, but if you’re working on your extensive hate-list, we’re not interested.

  • Interesting to note that Iafrate is committing the very same kind of calumny that he was berating Tito for in a previous thread.

  • e. Says Monday, July 27, 2009 A.D. at 10:46 am

    [I must say I don’t know why I bother. Nonetheless to prevent the spread of error}.

    “you actually are of the opinion that just because something happens to be infallible, it is indeed impeccable [flawless]”.

    I would be curious for a citation citing my opinion on this confusion. The error is in the definition of impeccable as flawless. Perhaps in common usage. But in theology, impeccable means without sin.

    [Again, I ask myself why I bother].

  • And what, pray tell, was it in my comments that made you believe I was actually employing the term in its seeming officially accepted theological meaning?

    Especially since you yourself so much as admitted that its common usage (as well as according to Webster’s dic. and, not to mention, the fact that a certain Catholic Theologian himself also utilized the same term in the same sense I had applied thus in my own comments) is meant to contrue “flawless”, as I had indeed intended then.

    Regardless, that does not render (even slightly — and, if anything, your constant harangues only solifies support for my original position) my original statement wholly nugatory: the fact that just because something happens to be infallible, it doesn’t mean it’s actually impeccable!

    [Why do I even bother?]

  • Pingback: Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-30-2009 « The American Catholic

Dissidents & Mainstream Media Attack Papa Bene

Tuesday, February 3, AD 2009


Updates below ?, Hans Küng accuses His Holiness of being “egomaniacal” (more below).

A dissident Catholic theologian from Germany is calling on the Pope to “resign”.  Hermann Haering is the “theologian” in question who is asking for His Holiness’ resignation.  Even the German Chancellor, Angela Merkell, has asked the Pope to strongly rebuke Williamson and distance himself from it–which he has already done though many in the secular world fail to recognize.  What do they want, Richard Williamsons’ head on a stake?
We should always take what the mainstream media reports with a grain of salt.  The mainstream media has more times than not, reported with a bias against the Catholic Church.  With dissident Catholics such as Hermann Hearing, anything they say will be grasped upon quickly for a cheap shot against the Catholic Church.  The smear campaign has begun in full throttle just as Fr. John Zuhlsdorf forewarned us about;  Anti-Catholics and dissidents are coming out of the seeping cracks to take potshots at our Pope.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Dissidents & Mainstream Media Attack Papa Bene

  • Tres Saint Pere bien aime,

    Ne soyez pas discourage’, mon tres cher Papa. Le Media est toujours bruyant, c’est leur nature. Me voici, votre fille qui vous supporte, vous aime et vous admire . L’amour est avant tout. Vous avez raison de pardonner les gens. Bien entendu, il a commis des fautes , mais c’est
    parce qu’il avait des fautes qu’on le pardonne ! Je vous remercie infiniment d’etre notre Pape . Je prie pour vous chaque jour .Je prie aussi pour les pretres . La plupart d’eux sont des bons pretres. Quelques uns ne respectent pas suffisamment leur Ideal. Je vous prie de donner l’ordre de bien organiser L’Adoration de Blessed Sacrement d’une facon serieuse , et
    une fois par semaine au moins .Et surtout, il ne faut pas tout simplement ouvrir la porte du Tabernacle pour que les gens puisse prier en regardant la boite contenant le Host consacres,soi disant ainsi l’Adoration quotidienne . Non, ceci diminue la vraie valeur et la grandeur de l’Adoration , ce qui, a mon avis, n’est pas acceptable. Et, le Pretre de la Paroisse organise la vraie Adoration seulement une fois par mois !
    Je pense qu’il faut payer attention au travail des pretres qui received la formation du vieux temps o`u les pretres etaient une sorte de Seigneurs avec des priorites et qui travaillent comme des fonctionnaires, ni plus ni moins. Au contraire, j’ai vu des pretres qui sont tres devoues, qui font de grands sacrifices pour L’Eglise et pour les gens, qui cherissent leur Ideal .

    Grand Merci, Papa. Que notre Bon Dieu vous protege chaque jour !

    Bien bien affectueusement, Votre fille en Jesus, Mary Cong

  • Mary Cong,

    Merci pour ces mots gentils concernant le Père Saint.

    Dans Jésus, Mary et Joseph,


  • It may be a good sign that the Holy Father suffers these slings and arrows. The Church tends to be at her best when she is not respectable. Screwball Williamson is just a useful idiot in this matter. This too shall pass. Meanwhile, prayers for our Chief Shepherd as this adds to his infinite burdens.

Rule of Three: SSPX, TAC, & the Orthodox Church

Saturday, January 31, AD 2009


We have had a spate of exciting news these past two weeks.  So much good news that I have noticed a certain pattern forming.  That pattern usually comes in threes, so I’d like to introduce the Rule of Three theory.  The Rule of Three is a theorem that states good news comes in threes. 

First we have Pope Benedict XVI having the excommunications on the Society of St. Pius X (S.S.P.X.)  lifted on January 21.  Then we have rumors that the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (C.D.F.) possibly offering the  Traditional Anglican Communion (T.A.C.) entry into the Catholic Church on January 29.  So there needs to be a third piece of good news percolating somewhere some would think?

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Rule of Three: SSPX, TAC, & the Orthodox Church

  • I think an invite will occur, but I don’t think it will be in the immediate future.

    Besides, the TAC issue is still just a rumor/consideration, though a really fascinating one at that.

  • It’s “interesting” that you call #1 “good news” with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever. Telling.

  • I think it is all good news. Even though the ryumors of TAC might be premature there is somethig in the wind. We actually in the USA can reconcille some Anglican through a wder use of the Anglican Use Parish.

  • Michael I.,

    It’s “interesting” that you call #1 “good news” with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever. Telling.

    Very telling that you abhor Forgiveness, The story of the Prodigal son, orthodoxy, Latin, the Extraodinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass, Ut Unum Sint, and many other Catholic doctrine just by that simple statement you left.

  • Forgiveness is fantastic. But the SSPX is not “orthodox.” News flash, Tito: You can love forgiveness, “orthodoxy,” Latin, the extraordinary form of the Mass, etc., and not embrace groups like SSPX that reject Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and the Catechism and who believe that “the Jews” committed “deicide.”

    Don’t flirt with these people, Tito. Seriously.