Catholic | Blogger Priest

The Catholic Church is NOT a Cult

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Father Joe

This is a follow up discussion from the initial debate with Nicholas who runs an anti-Catholic website. The following discussion shows that he has many bedfellows.

KYRIE:

Deuteronomy 4:2: “Never add anything to what I command you, or take anything away from it. Then you will be able to obey the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.”

What part of “Never” is unclear?

“Come out of her my people” (Revelation 18:4).

FATHER JOE:

The Catholic Church is faithful to Christ. Those who would use these verses against Catholicism are themselves seriously in the wrong. They minimize or reject the significance of the Church. Jesus said that such critics would best have a millstone tied around their necks and be thrown into the sea before leading any of the little ones astray. Jesus established the Catholic Church. He promised us that the gates of hell would not prevail against her! (Acts 12:1-24)

ROB:

The question at hand is whether or not the Catholic church is a cult. I’d like to expand the discussion by asking you if you think a cult is a religious system whose dogma is adhered to at least as much as its quest for fostering spiritual growth. Far too many times I’ve encountered churches that put more energy into kneeling, standing, kneeling again, standing again, etc, until I wonder if I’ll have any cartilage in my knees when it’s over. Church services shouldn’t be choreographed. Spirituality is supposed to be the main focus. Cults seem to place extremely tight and rigid emphasis on all the pomp and circumstance in lieu of fostering healthy relationships with our Heavenly Father. Tragically, that seems to be the case with Catholic churches.

FATHER JOE:

Actually, it is the other way around. Cults usually minimize liturgy and sacraments. Ritual is formalized to ensure the fidelity of faith and worship. Remember, that Catholicism is both a corporate and a personal faith. As for pomp, the reformed liturgy is not sensational at all. It essentially consists of the LITURGY OF THE WORD and the LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST. It is fairly simple really. But the meaning it has for God’s people is tremendous. As for liturgical gestures, it is a sad truth that many do not understand what they fully signify.

KOLOSTYAK:

Is this is a joke, or a bad joke? The Church is a cult. It’s not a Branch Dividian-esque cult, but that doesn’t change the applicability of the word. With words as the topic, read up on “pride.” Have a debate on the merits of that topic. There is at least one seminarian who thinks there is such a thing as “good pride.” *cough*

FATHER JOE:

Better watch your cough, because your cold seems to have affected your head and thinking. Webster defines cult as “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.” The Catholic Church is the Mother Church of all Christianity. She is not a cult but represents true Christianity. I am unsure what you mean by “pride” unless you are trying to make a homosexual connection. Are you a gay seminarian?

JAMIE LEE:

[Comments deleted.]

FATHER JOE:

Let me intrude to admit that I deleted the pages of anti-Catholic garbage that you purloined from a bigoted website (I traced it with GOOGLE). The sources go back to the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing movement of the 1800’s. It is a shame that anti-Catholics must rely upon ignorant half-truths and outright lies to make their points; but, prejudice has never been known for its honesty and reliance upon reason.

JAMIE LEE:

I have read all the commentary above and strongly disagree with all of the Catholic arguments and some of the Protestant arguments. Some of these I will gladly address at a later date as I am short on time at the moment. The one thing I want to leave for the moment is a bit of a history lesson specifically for our friend Father Joe. This is also a lesson that others may mull over and respond to at their own discretion. A full discussion on the matter is quite welcomed. Father Joe has stated quite clearly that “Jesus established the Catholic Church”. This, sir, is an erroneous statement. Jesus established followers of our Fathers Word and His teachings…His followers (Christians) established a church, soon to have separated into many different belief systems based on what THEY thought were the teachings of our Christ Jesus.

FATHER JOE:

Sorry, but it will not wash. Study the Church any further back than five centuries and the Church you encounter in the West is the Roman Catholic Church. The fracturing of the Church came with the printing press and political rivalry between princes. Our Lord made the apostles his bishop-priests at the Last Supper. He gave us the Eucharist and gave to the Church the power of the keys to forgive sins. Read the Bible and the writings of the Fathers of the first few centuries. The vision they give us of the Church is very Catholic. The Bible itself was ratified at the Council of Hippo. It is a Catholic book!

JAMIE LEE:

Many of the ‘rituals’ and ‘beliefs’ and ’symbols’ of Catholicism were stolen from the pagans when the Church went out and conquered their lands, forcing them to build Catholic churches on the sites of their pagan temples. Thus the Catholic church received many things from the pagans they slaughtered and conquered in the name of God.

FATHER JOE:

Catholic Christianity brought Jesus to both Jews and pagans. The Church sought to transform and Christianize a pagan world. Centuries of Christians faced torture and murder. The early martyrs were Catholics in a Church persecuted by pagan Rome. Pagans killed Catholics, not the other way around. However, this Church would one day come up victorious. The beliefs were handed down from the apostles as the deposit of faith. Jesus told the apostles to go out to the whole world and to baptize in the name of the Trinity: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ablutions were often followed with anointing and here we have the accompanying confirmation. Jesus took bread and wine and said this is my body; this is the cup of my blood (of a new covenant). He made the apostles his first bishop-priests by telling them to “do this in remembrance of me.” He told them that they would have the power to forgive sins and St. Paul calls the shepherds, “ministers of reconciliation.” The epistle of James speaks about the sacrament of the sick and how the priests of the Church bring healing to others. The wedding feast of Cana is where our Lord performed his first sign; Jesus is imaged as the groom and the Church as his bride. Every marriage as a sacrament points to this reality.

JAMIE LEE:

To this day in some churches in Europe, you can look up in the rafters of many churches and see what is called the “foillate mask.” This is a portrayal of the pagan god, Pan, left behind by the slaves of the countryside who were forced to build these monolithic buildings of worship.

FATHER JOE:

Such a charge is absolute nonsense! You just oppose the artistry and beauty of the great cathedrals. By the way, it is called a “foliate mask” and such is simply a carved face. Our places of worship were built and decorated as a way as to raise our thoughts to heaven. Some of the great churches took generations to build. They were built by people in love with Christ and wanting to please God by the gift of their craft and hard work. These churches are testimonies of faith!

JAMIE LEE:

On the same note, this is also how it came to be that the ‘Church’ started to worship Mary as the ‘Queen of Heaven.’ The pagans, being forced to worship our Lord, built a statue in the likeness of their goddess Diana and handed over it to the officials stating that it was the image of the mother of God. This way they were able to go to the ‘Catholic’ church and ‘worship,’ but really the whole time they were paying homage to their own deities.

FATHER JOE:

Pick up a reliable history book and you will find a different story. The Christians destroyed many idols but discovered that statues once dedicated to pagan deities could sometimes be salvaged and given a new and worthwhile meaning. A statue of a woman holding a child made them immediately think about Mary and the baby Jesus. You probably oppose any type of religious art. As for the title MOTHER OF GOD, it was known in the East as the THEOTOKOS. It regards a form of communication through idioms. Mary is a creature like you and me. However, her child is the God-Man. The title does not make Mary into a goddess; rather, it defends the full divine personhood of Jesus Christ. Those who opposed the title (Nestorians) were charged with denying or compromising this divinity. You have actually fallen into an ancient Christian heresy. Do you believe that Jesus is God come down from heaven? If not, then you are not even a Christian, of any sort!

JAMIE LEE:

There are many other instances to be discussed here, and I assure you that this and all the others I have in mind to post be historical fact and may be looked up and studied.

FATHER JOE:

Sorry, there is no history in your distortions, just angry fantasy.

JAMIE LEE:

I leave you now with this thought; if Jesus established the Catholic Church, then why were Paul, the rest of the apostles and the followers of Christ in the time of the Bible not holding the same ceremonies as the Church does today? Answer: They are the rites of man, thought up and adopted by man and are a shear pompous expression of man, a proclamation to be the only way to God. I am sorry my friend, but Jesus did NOT create the Catholic Church and only HE is the true way to the Father.

FATHER JOE:

I have often detailed how all the sacraments of the Church find their source in the Gospels. Indeed, St. Paul gives us the institution narrative of our Lord at the Last Supper and says that he hands on what he received. As an apostle-priest this is literally the wording he used in offering the Mass! While the Church has made various adaptations, the sacraments, called MYSTERIES in the early Church, were instituted by Jesus. The Church uses words, ritual and art to bring men and women to the Good News of Jesus Christ. The Church is the great sacrament of our encounter with Christ, his mystical body as detailed in Scripture. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. But, you know neither our Lord nor his Church as you ought.

JAMIE LEE:

Oh, dear Father Joe, I mean no disrespect by the things I say, but I can clearly see that the facts I have pointed out have deeply disturbed you and have made you angry. This, I assure you, were certainly not my intentions. I must say that I find it quite disturbing that you would delete my latest entry that I borrowed from another web site. Isn’t it better that the others who read this great debate understand the depth of it. This ‘anti-catholic garbage’ as you call it should be the center of discussion.

FATHER JOE:

Then those who wrote it and not those who purloined it are the ones to initiate the discussion. Copying and pasting pages of material into the comments fields is a practice of spammers and flamers. I doubt non-Catholic bloggers would like to have the entire Catholic Encyclopedia downloaded to their sites.

JAMIE LEE:

To set the record straight dear friend, I am in fact a Christian, a devoted one at that. I’m just not a Catholic. I seek God where ever I may find Him and yearn for his presence in my life daily. My wife, on the other hand, IS a Catholic. I have yet to understand many things, but I’m sure that our thoughts and beliefs can be shared and discussed in more detail as time allows.

FATHER JOE:

Sharing and dialogue is not what you did. You posted anti-Catholic material that is rooted in half-truths and outright lies. Even many educated Protestants would have rejected the material I deleted. Much of it has already been covered in past discussions.

JAMIE LEE:

I will debate more later on, though I do wish you had allowed for that borrowed piece to be a foundation for the upcoming days. God bless you Father.

FATHER JOE:

I am a busy pastor. I can discuss one topic at a time but not volumes of propaganda. Keep your comments short and to the point. Also, make them original. I am not interested in debating bigots who have already been dead a century or more. If you are going to question Catholic teachings, then use Catholic source materials. It will save us a lot of unnecessary corrections. Peace!

MICHAEL:

Jamie Lee, Jamie Lee, you’re having a discussion with a man who gave up his entire life to be with and to serve God alone. Give the man the benefit of the doubt by maintaining an open mind. Fr. Joe is very right. You know that God doesn’t tell us everything. Why? Because if He revealed it all to us right now we would die. This peanut-size brain of ours couldn’t handle it and our eyes aren’t capable of seeing it, YET. We wouldn’t have the need for any faith either. God preserves these things for us in the next life.

Your remarks remind me of those of St. Thomas the apostle after the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus did indeed create the Catholic Church through St. Peter (one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic). These are the four true marks of Christ’s real Church here on earth.

FATHER JOE:

Jamie probably has a perfectly normal brain. The trouble is that it has been filled with poisonous ideas. Christians can disagree about their interpretation, but the facts of history are pretty clear.

JAMIE LEE:

Well Father Joe, I must say, I am a little disappointed that at this time you are not interested in a debate with me. I myself am trying to understand your beliefs and WHY anyone would hold to them. As I said previously, my wife is Catholic though she does not practice her faith. There are many points I would like to discuss.

FATHER JOE:

I would suggest you visit CATHOLIC ANSWERS. They have full-time apologists ready to play with you. Right now, I have finished a funeral, come back from the Confirmation retreat, just concluded Palm Sunday Masses, attended Confirmation prep, still have sick calls to perform, a family counseling appointment, two house blessings, and all the Holy Week and Easter services with which to deal. Your life might be empty, but mine is full.

JAMIE LEE:

I do have a question for you though; By ‘Catholic source materials’ do you mean material written by and for Catholics? Is this the material I should get my arguments and future material for debate from?

FATHER JOE:

Yes, look to primary sources, starting with the Bible, writings of the Church fathers, Papal and conciliar teachings, and approved catechetical texts, etc.

JAMIE LEE:

I’m trying to keep this short my friend, but I just have a couple of questions, if you would please answer without thinking me long winded: Why do you burn incense in the church?

FATHER JOE:

Incense was once used in processions because the streets were smelly. Church use can be traced to Jewish usage. The sweet smell symbolizes the odor of sanctity and the rising smoke represents our prayer ascending to heaven. It is symbolic language or ritual. There is nothing supernatural about the sacramental of incense. It adds to a ceremony as do flowers and candles and such.

JAMIE LEE:

Why must I confess my sins to a Priest?

FATHER JOE:

Not all sin must be confessed to a priest, although Catholics are urged to bring all serious sins to their Confessor. The authority goes back to Christ:

“On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:19–23).

We have not only an individual relationship with God but also a corporate relationship with Christ, in the Church. The sacrament of penance makes possible our spiritual healing as part of something greater than ourselves. Sin hurts the whole body of the Church. The priest represents both Christ and the Church. While we can ask for personal forgiveness, the absolution of the priest heals us as members of the Church.

JAMIE LEE:

And lastly for now, how does praying to Mary repetitively after confession absolve me of said confessed sin to a Priest?

FATHER JOE:

Repeating the Hail Mary after Confession does not absolve you from sins. It is a possible penance (other prayers and/or acts could be substituted) demonstrating our repentance and making amends for the temporal punishment due to sin.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Church, Evangelization | 24 Comments »

Catholic Church is a Cult— NOT!

Posted on August 8, 2011 by Father Joe

The following is a debate on the matter of true religion and the cult. While the charge is leveled against Catholicism, it actually sticks against Nicholas who represents a radical variation of SDA belief. Nicholas operates the anti-Catholic PRESENTS OF GOD website.

Nicholas writes:

Cult: —n. 1. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 2. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or bogus. b. Followers of such a religion or sect. 3. a. Obsessive devotion or veneration for a person, principle, or ideal, esp. when regarded as a fad. b. The object of such devotion. 4. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric interest. —Modifier: a cult figure.

Bogus: —adj. Counterfeit; fake.

To call a Church and or a collection of Churches a cult, the burden of proof would have to be upon the one proclaiming such a bold statement. For a church to be a cult, I would have prove that they are teaching “counterfeit” doctrines not found in the Word of God, therefore making themselves “2. a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or bogus.” A Christian church that does not do as the Word of God requires is easy evidence of being a cult to anyone with even a basic knowledge of God’s Word. All one needs to do is share what the “cult” teaches with what the Bible (which CATHOLICS CLAIM as their book) teaches. And the truth will come out as easily as Isaiah proclaimed…

Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Catholic response:

Okay, the first definition would apply to any “cultus” or ritual. The second definition would apply to Nicholas’ religion of hate, even if it is a religion of ONE. The third would apply more to fans of Elvis Presley than to members of the Church. The fourth definition is in regards to aficionados of Science Fiction and other such things. If there is anything bogus here, it is the religion Nicholas and others of his mindset have manufactured.

An honest individual would be hard-pressed to call any religious movement a cult unless his appreciation is shared and confirmed by others in an intelligent and cautious manner. Nicholas exudes neither of these characteristics. Indeed, cults have traditionally been minority movements, suffering from syncretism and often preoccupied with eminent judgment. Having said this, there are no easy classifications. For example, is a cult still a cult when it balloons in size like the Church of Latter Day Saints? Traditionally Catholicism has considered the following to be cults: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, the Unification Church, and even the YMCA and the Salvation Army (although these last two organizations have toned down their religious peculiarities). Since Nicholas shares so many of the teachings of the Seventh Day Adventists, but not all, he would also fit into this category. While an atheist might think we are ALL nuts; the verdict from traditional Christianity is that these are man-made and deceptive spiritual movements.

Nicholas writes:

Billions of people realize that MANY doctrines seen in today’s churches have indeed been FIRST invented in the Roman Catholic Church many years prior. But what are we to say about these doctrines? Are they Biblical? Are they found in God’s Word? I would like to transfer the burden of proof now to all those reading this post. I have “…searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11) and I must be honest with you. I have NOT found Biblical evidence for the doctrines found in the Roman Catholic Church. MANY of these doctrines can be found practiced in other churches as well. Making it easily seen as fact that the Roman Catholic Church is THEIR “Mother” and they are her “daughters,” they do as she would ask them to do. I dare YOU to give me the Scriptural facts that proclaim the inventions of the Roman Catholic Church as Biblical doctrines spoken by God in His Word. If you cannot, you must admit that you are following that which was formed by the Antichrist. Show me the verses that proclaim the Roman Catholic doctrines / rituals as Biblical!

Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Catholic response:

Nicholas gives us a text that precisely could only emerge from a cult leader or stratagem:

1. He opposes mainline religion, in this case Catholic Christianity.
2. He becomes the singular interpreter of Scripture and the arbiter of religious truth.
3. He feigns honesty and may actually believe something of his deception.
4. He posits another institution as utterly evil, in this case Catholicism.
5. He castigates the opposition as formed by the antichrist and thus under judgment.
6. He implores (here implicitly) that listeners leave the Church and join him.

The only thing missing is the poisoned punch or a comet to die by. He offers no proof for his claims, but always has a random Scripture verse handy.

He seems to forget that Catholicism is NOT a “sola scriptura” Church. Catholics can find many supportive verses, but they do not live by the Bible alone. His argument has more appeal for Protestants and lazy Catholics than a Catholic who truly knows his faith. I suspect that Nicholas is hoping to catch the dumb fish; intelligent believers might run home to Rome after a taste of his poison– thank God!

Nicholas writes:

Here is my list of bogus Catholic doctrines and rituals:

SACERDOTAL MASS, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, WAX CANDLES, VENERATION OF ANGELS AND DEAD SAINTS, DAILY MASS, EXULTATION OF MARY AS MOTHER OF GOD, PRIESTS WEARING SPECIAL CLOTHING, PURGATORY, LATIN LANGUAGE USED IN WORSHIP, PRAYER OFFERED TO MARY, DEAD SAINTS, AND ANGELS, THE OFFICE OF POPE, KISSING OF THE POPE’S FEET, KISSING OF THE POPE’S RING, TEMPORAL POWER OF POPES, POPE = GOD ON EARTH, PONTIFEX MAXIMUS, POPE HOLDS KEYS TO HEAVEN AND EARTH, POPE CARRIED ON PORTABLE THRONE, VENERATION OF CROSSES, STATUES, IMAGES AND RELICS, HOLY WATER, USE OF SALT IN HOLY WATER, CHRISM, PRIEST’S BLESSINGS, BAPTISM OF BELLS, INFANT BAPTISM, CANONIZATION OF DEAD SAINTS, FASTING ON FRIDAYS DURING LENT, CELEBRATION OF EASTER, CELEBRATION OF GOOD FRIDAY, CELEBRATION OF CHRISTMAS, DAILY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, THE ROSARY, THE INQUISITION INSTITUTED BY THE COUNCIL OF VERONA IN 1184 AD, SALE OF INDULGENCES, SEVEN SACRAMENTS, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, AURICULAR CONFESION (CONFESSING TO A PRIEST), ADORATION OF A WAFER (COMMUNION), THE SCAPULAR, THE BIBLE FORBIDDEN TO LAYMEN IN 1129 AD BY COUNCIL OF VALENCIA, TRADITION PLACED ON SAME GROUND AS SCRIPTURE, THE APOCRYPHA, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY (WITHOUT SIN), INFALLIBILTY OF POPE IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS, ASSUMPTION OF MARY, MARY AS QUEEN OF HEAVEN, MARY AS CO-REDEEMER, MARY AS MOTHER OF THE CHURCH, IMAGE WORSHIP INSTITUTED BY COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 787 AD, TORTURE AND KILLING OF OVER 100 MILLION CHRISTIANS, THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY, POPE JOHN PAUL STATES EVOLUTION = FACT, CHURCH SANCTIONED BINGO AND GAMBLING, LOYALTY TO CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, CHANGE OF SUNDAY AS SABBATH INSTEAD OF SATURDAY, CHURCH AND STATE COMBINED, ENFORCEMENT OF CHURCH DOCTRINES UPON GENERAL PUBLIC, THE NATIVITY OF JESUS DECEMBER 25TH, THE NATIVITY OF ST. JOHN JUNE 24TH, HOT CROSS BUNS, 40 DAYS OF LENT, DEAD VISITING LIVING ON ALL SOULS DAY, BURNING INCENSE, CHANTS, THE CRUCIFIX, WEARING OF RELIGIOUS IMAGES, MYSTICISM, PENANCE, INDULGENCES, AND SALVATION BY WORKS, NUNS, CONVENTS, etc.

Catholic response:

Without explaining how certain practices must be signs of a cult, he gives a long list and demands Scriptural verification. In other words, he has gutted Christianity of its beauty and truth and now he wants accolades for his perverse surgery. Nicholas is a smooth operator. What he does here is a cover-up for his inability to debate or dialogue regarding the points of opposition. He mentions such a multitude of topics that it leaves the reader speechless. Who has time to write upon each of these matters? Unable to respond adequately in short order, Nicholas translates silence or quick web posts as a victory for him. Many of these subjects were addressed on his now defunct message board; however, he immediately deleted or ridiculed answers without ever addressing the concerns of others. Habitually, he would not even amend factual mistakes. Sometimes he would become quite irate when a Catholic answered from tradition and the catechism; it was outside the parameters within which he wanted an answer. He wants everything on his terms— however; to fully ascribe to his reductionism is already to capitulate upon an adequate response— upon the genuine truth. Smart discussion gives Nicholas a headache. When cornered on the message boards of others, he would sometimes retreat behind an anti-intellectual attitude, slamming those who used words longer than four letters or who presented arguments with which he could not deal.

Nicholas writes:

The Roman Catholic Church has indeed invented numerous “doctrines” that cannot be verified in the slightest sense with Scriptures. Sure there is a couple that if one was to twist Scriptures could “appear” to be of God. But when the full context of the Scriptures are given, even a “babe in Christ” can see the truth before their eyes for it is written that “you cannot deceive the very elect” (See Matthew 24:24) If you are not in the Catholic Church but your church embraces any or all of the list of inventions mentioned then your church is seen as a daughter of the “Mother.”

Catholic response:

Ah, here Nicholas condemns almost every Christian on the planet. All the mainline traditions can claim Catholicism as the Mother Church. The two hundred million plus Orthodox believers of the East with their priests and sacraments can be included in this colossal spurning of Christianity as it has come down to us in history. This leaves Nicholas with few allies; and if he is wrong, which he is, even the good Lord is not on his side.

Nicholas talks about how others twist bible verses and yet here this is precisely what he does. The elect of God do indeed see the truth. Yes, it is in the Bible; however, the Living Church also proclaims it. Nicholas violates his very contention. If the Bible alone sufficed, then we would not need his explanatory notes. However, he has to add his own spin to the texts so that they will reach their desired end. Catholicism uses Scripture in a contextual way– explaining the meaning and elaborating upon the development of biblical themes through theological reflection. Nicholas forces the Bible to support his given subject matter. He is guilty of the very crime about which he laments.

Nicholas writes:

Revelation 17:5: “And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”

Catholic response:

I explained in a post which Nicholas deleted how this harlot and abomination was the Rome of the ancient pagans, not the Rome of Christianity and the Catholic Church.

Nicholas writes:

Understand if you cannot explain the above doctrines being embraced in your Church with your Bible then you must admit that this verse speaks unto you this day.

Catholic response:

I have tried to explain, but Nicholas deleted my posts, sometimes (at his own admission) without reading them. This illustrates his intellectual dishonesty and deep-seated hypocrisy.

Nicholas writes:

1 Timothy 4:1: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils….”

Catholic response:

We see something of this in the return of paganism and in various New Age movements. We also see something of this betrayal of the Christian faith in people like Nicholas who seek to remake the Gospel in their own image.

Nicholas writes:

If you choose to ignore the simple truth it is only because you have embraced the lie for so long that you have become deaf to the Holy Spirit as did Ephraim…

Hosea 4:17: “Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone.”

The Lord saw that Ephraim continued to ignore the truth he was sharing with him. Therefore the Lord LEFT Ephraim alone. Now that the Holy Spirit has left, the lie of Satan will be so embraced that it will appear as truth to even those that would say “Lord, Lord.”

Catholic response:

The Lord has promised to remain with us until the end of the age. Yours is the reinterpretation and novelty. In some ways yours is more an Old Testament religion than one that reflects the new dispensation of Christ.

Nicholas writes:

Matthew 7:22: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?”

They thought they were Christians. They appeared as Christians to many. They did many wonderful works in His name as does the Roman Catholic Church and many other Churches embracing her “doctrines of devils.” But what was it Jesus said about that day when the whole world thought they were Christians?

Matthew 7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Catholic response:

Be prepared Nicholas, these could be the very words that you will hear from our Lord’s lips. You carelessly blaspheme against the works of the Holy Spirit in his Church, making faith possible and giving efficacy to the sacraments. It is Nicholas that has called Catholic teaching the “doctrines of devils.” If it is indeed the truth of Jesus then you have cast yourself in the role of the disbelievers who sought to trick Jesus in his speech and who dismissed his words and works as that of a demon. Making no distinction about those things upon which you might concur with Christians, you seem to reject the entire Good News preached by Christ’s Church.

Nicholas writes:

Are you sure the Church you embrace is seen by the Lord thy God as His Church?

Catholic response:

This is my question to YOU.

Nicholas writes:

Or does the list I have given of “invented lies of Satan” open your eyes and make your heart pound within your chest in fear? The Holy Spirit will not continue to warn you day in and day out my friend. Sooner or later, like Ephraim, you will have heard His voice for the last time….

Catholic response:

Sorry, none of this happens. Some of the things on your list are not even part of the deposit of faith. Other subjects are misunderstood by you and your few associates. I have tried to respond on individual matters, but you go in a rage and then delete the posts.

Nicholas writes:

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12: “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Catholic response:

Is this what has happened to you? Is this why you will not even correct black-and-white factual matters? Is this why you show such animosity toward Catholicism? Dear God in heaven, it causes me to shudder to imagine that such might be the cloud that surrounds your heart and mind.

Nicholas writes:

And when you ignore Him, you will be open to the strong delusion that has drawn you away in the first place. It will appear as “of Him” when in fact is it of Satan. Keep in mind; if you CANNOT verify what your Priests, Pastors, or Preachers proclaim from the Word of God, then it is NOT of God. It is actually that simple….

Catholic response:

And so you stand absolutely alone? No, our Lord established a Church to preserve us in the one true faith of Christ. Protestantism and cults have fractured themselves into thousands of communities— each believing different things— each claiming to possess the truth. Personal interpretation that ignores the working of the Holy Spirit among the shepherds appointed by Christ can only lead to a further corruption of the Gospel. We do not stand alone. Yes, we have the Scriptures, as understood within a horizon of tradition in a living and teaching Church. Would you utterly reject the holiness and learning of those who have dedicated themselves to the Gospel of Christ? Would you dismiss as irrelevant the charism of truth given the teachers of faith in the Catholic Church? Alas, I guess you would— and so you trust no one (as you have said before)— I suspect you can join no church because you have made yourself a church of one.

Nicholas writes:

Isaiah 8:20: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Catholic response:

Ah, Isaiah is talking about the word from God that he is proclaiming as a prophet of the Most High. The New Israel also has prophets of the living Word, Jesus Christ. These evangelizers find a singular focus in the ministers of the Catholic Church.

Nicholas writes:

Truth is truth!

Catholic response:

You would best sign off your posts with “Deceit is deceit!”

Filed under: Apologetics, Catholic, Church | 2 Comments »

Original Sin & Mary’s Birthing of Jesus

Posted on July 29, 2011 by Father Joe

Back in my college seminary days, I remember watching with a large number of other men the wonderful television miniseries, JESUS OF NAZARETH. During the scene where Mary gave birth to Jesus, a group of the guys verbally objected that it was not right and that Mary did not experience birth pangs. They reminded everyone in the room that the pain of labor was a consequence of the fall and original sin. Since Mary was sinless, they argued, the whole birthing process should have been easy and free of any sort of distress. A number of the Church fathers concurred about the ease of Mary’s birthing of Jesus. One compared it to water passing through a straw. Nevertheless, the girl on the screen was pushing, grunting and screaming. The more liberal guys disagreed with the conservative ones and before long there was a very loud and vocal debate going on. I had very little theological training at the time and just wished they would be quiet so that we could enjoy the movie. We had to ask them to take it outside the room. I fully accept Church teaching about Mary, but at the time I wondered about it quietly to myself. This was a new question for me.

Published in 1566, The Catechism of the Council of Trent had this to say about the question:

“Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulcher while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from everyday examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother’s womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favored the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.”

“The Virgin Mother we may also compare to Eve, making the second Eve, that is, Mary, correspond to the first, as we have already shown that the second Adam, that is, Christ, corresponds to the first Adam. By believing the serpent, Eve brought malediction and death on mankind, and Mary, by believing the Angel, became the instrument of the divine goodness in bringing life and benediction to the human race. From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through Him are regenerated children of grace. To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.” [Part 1, Article 3]

Other than these few paragraphs, the Church gives us little further guidance on this question, placing　the stress upon Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness. While we can speculate, I would not want to say anything that would harm true faith and the devotional life of believers. Jesus was sinless and yet he would pay the terrible price for our sins in his flesh through his passion and death. His death would make possible our rebirth in him.

Although Mary’s integrity is not compromised, this in itself does not mean that Mary’s lifelong participation excluded elements of the pain and struggle connected to his saving activity. If not the birthing itself, certainly there was the struggle of the journey and anxiety to find a place for the birthing. What they did find was no more than a cave or barn. She might have straw but no fine bed　to rest upon. Mary certainly suffers at the Cross, even if vicariously, witnessing her Son’s saving sacrifice. This notion of suffering through another’s pain is worthy of reflection.　 I am told that men sometimes have phantom birth pangs when their wives go into labor. Might Mary’s birthing possess solidarity with the Cross on a level about which we do not know? She does not share original sin with her sisters in the world, but helped her cousin Elizabeth with her birthing of John the Baptizer. She knew well what other women endured in bringing new life into the world.　 Might she have offered up her miraculous pregnancy and birthing　on their behalf?　 If there were no physical pain, she might have endured something on an intentional and/or a spiritual level. Further, if she knew anything about the high calling and work of her Son, then there must have been both joy and the beginnings of that piercing into her immaculate heart. After all, Jesus was born to die. The powers of the world would conspire against her Son from the very beginning of his life among men.　 Soon after his birth, Joseph would spirit them off to Egypt with Herod hot on their heels, seeking to kill the newborn king.

Mary offers up her flesh in her pregnancy and in birthing Christ. Yes, she is sinless, but the whole reason for this favor was the incarnation. She opened her heart to sinners and desired their salvation. The Sorrowful Mother probably knew a measure of suffering at both the end and beginning of this story. If so, it would not be because of any sin or fault on Mary’s part, just as Jesus did not deserve the agony of the Cross. All that Jesus was and would be was present throughout. Death was also a consequence of sin, but both John Cardinal Newman and the late Pope John Paul II thought that Mary, though never corrupted by the grave, did indeed die. In this regard she stood with Christ and the rest of humanity. By contrast, along with those of us who find the notion of birth pangs difficult to reconcile with Mary’s sinlessness, the Eastern churches would prefer to speak of Mary “falling asleep” and being translated into heaven.

The text from Genesis is clear: sin, suffering and death are on our side of the equation. We read in Genesis 3:16: “To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in child bearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.” Based upon her not suffering from concupiscence or any other consequence of original sin, magisterial teachers would contend that she had a painless delivery. This was the assessment from the Church fathers of Trent.　 There is even the stress upon a spiritual or supernatural birth over a natural birth. While some might find that this challenges credulity, there are stories about ordinary women (not so holy) who have had easy deliveries. Given this case for them, then why not something unique for Mary? If God could conceive a child in her by the power of the Holy Spirit, he could certainly bring that child of promise forward in a manner that would leave Mary’s bodily integrity intact and free from the usual distress of delivery.　 I suppose if the incarnation were to occur today we would insist upon St. Joseph documenting the whole event with a video camcorder. Thankfully, the truths of Scripture and Sacred Tradition are of an entirely different order than the voyeurism reported by the network news or by reality television programs.

There are certain dangers or risks in talking about Mary’s virginity. First, there is the invading atheism where critics scoff at the miraculous. Second, and this flows from the first point, people might easily mock the teaching and women might despair of any real association with Mary. While the marital act consummates and renews their marriage covenants, women often have mixed feelings about the sexual gymnastics required to get pregnant. They are intensely aware of how it is a means to an ends. Not only is Mary removed from such a repetitive duty, it is also insisted that Jesus was born with no trauma to her body. As one woman I know asked, then how is Mary really like the rest of us who are mothers? If the authorities are right, then Jesus exits the womb as easily and mysteriously as he enters the locked upper room after his resurrection. The current universal catechism also insists that Mary’s virginal integrity is unassailed (not mentioning birth pangs):

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’ And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin’” (CCC #499).

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary, Religion, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

Mary & the Brethren

Posted on July 27, 2011 by Father Joe

No one denies that the Bible mentions brethren of Christ, as in Mark 6:3. Such references are a real stumbling block for Protestants to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Many Catholics might also suffer from such confusion, particularly in the absence of good catechesis and preaching on the Blessed Mother. While there are biblical supports, Marian teaching is an area where the importance of Sacred Tradition is proven. Our beliefs about her have been passed down from the days when she was treasured as our Lord’s most intimate living witness in the early Church. Since she was not the direct mother of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus, she is entrusted to John at the Cross. The family of faith will take care of her and in return she will manifest a spiritual motherhood among them.

Protestants generally agree with Catholics that prior to the birth of Jesus, Mary was a virgin. The prophecy of a virgin with child in Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled in Matthew 1:23. The scene of the annunciation confirms her virginity. The angel Gabriel tells her that she will conceive and bear a son (Luke 1:31). Mary immediately asks how this could be since she has not known　man, in other words, had sexual relations. The angel makes it clear that the agency for her pregnancy would be divine power: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35).

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | Leave a comment »

Precedent for Improbable Births Before Mary

Posted on July 26, 2011 by Father Joe

Mary’s own birth to the aged Joachim and Ann would be deemed as improbable but possible, in line with a pattern seen again and again in Scripture with the parents of special children called forth by God. Her own cousin Elizabeth would be another example as the mother of John the Baptizer. Sarah gave birth to Isaac when she was in her 90’s; Manoah’s wife is another and she would deliver Samson; and the barren Hannah only became pregnant with the prophet Samuel after she desperately promised God that he would be dedicated to his service. These were all children “of promise” and they were singular in that there would be no others to pass through their mothers’ wombs. God stretched the rules of nature in these miraculous births. But, in Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, the laws of nature were superseded. It was a miracle of an entirely different order. Isaac would become the father of a great nation, God’s people. Jesus ushered his kingdom, first through his own person and later through his mystical body, the Church. Samson was a mighty deliverer of his people from the bondage of the Philistines. Jesus lays down his life as the redeemer of mankind from the slavery of Satan and the afflictions of sin and death. Under Saul and David, the prophet Samuel brought God’s word to his people. Jesus is the revelation of the Father, showing us the face of God. He is the true mediator between heaven and earth. He testifies to the truth, the Good News of the kingdom.

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | Leave a comment »

The Impossible is Made Possible for Mary

Posted on July 24, 2011 by Father Joe

Joachim and Ann conceived Mary in the normal course of marital human interaction. Tradition claims they were elderly but as with Zachariah and Elizabeth, it only made such a pregnancy improbable, not impossible. The most sensational divine intervention was left unseen in the unblemished soul of Mary. This preservation from sin also spares her from the most serious consequences of the fall; she is conceived already as an inheritor of eternal life. This was only fitting because the Lord of life would make her into his Ark for entering this world.

Mary asks the question which would initially trouble Joseph. “How is this going to happen?” (see Luke 1:34). The angel lets her know that the impossible will be made possible by God. “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you” (see Luke 1:35). God shall come down from heaven and reveal his face in Jesus Christ. The eternal Word and Second Person of the Blessed Trinity shall enter into the human family.

I recall reading in public junior high school a short story (probably banned now) about a Jewish boy upsetting his rabbi with questions on Jesus. (The title and author escapes me.) The rabbi’s response to the incarnation and miracles of Jesus was one word, “Impossible!” But the boy nagged him, “If God can do anything, why not this?”

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | Leave a comment »

Mary & Consecrated Virginity

Posted on July 22, 2011 by Father Joe

Any precedent for virginity or celibacy that is used to substantiate claims about Mary, also applies to the discipline of celibacy by religious and clergy. Those who would malign such a lifestyle as unnatural do an injustice to good people who embrace purity. St. Paul, himself, affirms that it is a noble choice and one for which he has a preference.

A chief foreshadowing in the Old Testament is the prophet, Jeremiah. God commanded him, “Do not take a wife, have no sons and no daughters in this place” (Jeremiah 16:1-4). Mary was the first disciple and prophet of the Good News. Priests are also prophets and living signs of contradiction to the world. Their celibacy is an eschatological sign pointing to the fact that we are only pilgrims in this world. The kingdom is breaking into the world and time is short. Like Jeremiah, their lives are consumed by their relationship with God and their mission among his people.

Although there are translation disputes about whether it is best to use “maiden” or “virgin” in the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14; “a virgin is with child,” is regarded as being satisfied in Matthew 1:23. This testifies to the truth about Mary.

Single and religious should maintain a virginal life and the married must never confuse lust with passion.

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | Leave a comment »

Mary’s Virginity & the Celibate Priest

Posted on July 21, 2011 by Father Joe

The virginity of Mary is often spoken about in reference to the lives of consecrated religious. But along with the witness of St. Paul and that of our Lord, himself, it also finds a correlation with priestly celibacy. Mary is the virgin who conceives and gives birth to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. By giving life to Jesus she is making possible the life of the world. Similarly, the celibate priest is called, “Father,” because he is a spiritual parent. The priest consecrates and makes Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament by the power of the Holy Spirit. As one who is specially configured to Christ, he makes Jesus present as the bread of life and, again, the life of the world.

Never had God given such responsibility to human beings as he had to the Holy Family and later to his bishops and priests. It is for this reason that the Western Church has preferred that its clergy manifest a single-hearted love of God and a service undistracted by a spouse and personal family. In her later years, Mary too had to go on without her faithful protector, Joseph. Priests have the support of the believing community, but in a real sense they also embrace an aloneness for the kingdom.

Mary was never ordained a priest, but there is a sacerdotal element in her life that resonates with the priesthood.

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | Leave a comment »

Mary as Virgin & Mother

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Father Joe

Mary seems to benefit from both poles of emphasis: she is a virgin and a mother. While she was a wife to Joseph, such was in terms of partnership and as a confidant, caring for the domestic needs of the home. Few couples embrace a Joseph-Mary celibate love all throughout their marriages; however, while rare, some do make and keep such pledges. I knew of a couple who tried to live such a life as a special sacrificial offering to God. They made this promise before a priest and the day came a year later that they returned to see the pastor at the rectory so that they might be released from their sacrificial vow. They came to discern that God willed that they now embrace the physical and life-giving joys of their bond. The priest sent them home with his blessing.

Mary and Joseph perpetually lived out their chaste and celibate love in honor of the Christ who was the center of their home. The many brethren and sisters, actually cousins, insured that Jesus had many playmates as a child. The extended family life in the time of Christ was very different from the nuclear families of today. Households often included aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. The family meant everything and everyone worked and played together. Such would probably play a formative role in how Christ would relate to his apostles and disciples.

He was truly part of a human family.

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | Leave a comment »

Can We Compare Mary to Jephthah’s Daughter?

Posted on July 19, 2011 by Father Joe

My mind races back to the days when as a young seminarian I studied theology at Catholic University. There were several ladies also taking classes and studying for degrees. When we studied the story of Jephthah’s daughter, my friend Theresa became agitated. She found the story in Judges 1:37-40 to be deeply disturbing. She wondered aloud if there might be some Scriptures that cannot be salvaged for Christian believers, today. In thanksgiving for his victory in battle, the Hebrew general pledges that the first who steps out the door of his home, he will sacrifice. He immediately laments his pledge because out steps his young daughter. She requests a short time to mourn her virginity and then we are told he did as he promised. Unlike the story of Abraham and Isaac, God does not stay his hand. It is a remnant story that betrays the fact that human sacrifice, while later regarded as offensive, had at one time been practiced by the Chosen People. As with a few other passages from the Bible, there was a debate during the formulation of the Lectionary for Mass that this story should be skipped. Nevertheless, while the Scriptures are edited and censored for polite sensibilities in the Lectionary, this reading was still included. It is terribly hard to preach upon. The young girl had courage and her father kept his promise to God; but as Christians, we are aware that some promises should not be made. The child mourns that she will never know the joys of being a wife and mother. It is a poignant and terrible story. Mary was probably not much older. Tradition has it that she had embraced celibacy and/or virginity as a servant of the Temple. This fuels the assumption by some authorities that Joseph was a much older man, betrothed to protect Mary in a male-oriented society. A friend of mine uses the story of the slaughtered girl to talk about the low premium placed on virginity in Jewish society in ancient days. We also see how virginity is embraced to honor God, either in a death to self (as with Mary) or in a physical death (as with Jephthah’s daughter). But I am of the mind that the story is too emotionally evocative for a level-headed analysis. It makes us very angry. How can the murder of the innocent ever please God?

Filed under: Catholic, Jesus, Mary | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »