Absolutely agree!  Many years ago, when my dh and I were coming into full knowledge and acceptance of the Church’s teaching we undertook NFP classes.  These meetings, over four months, were vital but we would be guaranteed to have a fight the weekend of these meetings.  The first one caught us off guard but when we shared it with our wonderful teachers they laughed and made mention of it for the benefit of the other couples - all of whom were relieved to be able to admit the same thing happened to them!  In solidarity, we undertook praying for each other to combat the attacks.  By the last class, it became almost a source of humor as we would all share the latest attempts Screwtape would undertake to get us away from God and back to contraception (or worse).

Very very very much on target. This is why every Christian should read CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters…

These spiritual attacks are real.  It happened to me as a college student in 1988 when I first tried to convert to Catholicism.  The resistance, even anger, was so great that I backed away from any faith of any kind.  Now, twenty years later, I am a baptized, full member of the Church and couldn’t be happier.  Still, the closer I came to baptism at Easter Vigil last year, the more anger and resistance I encountered - from friends, family, strangers, everywhere.  They would say express frustration, saying they “didn’t understand why I would do this.”  Some of them still popped out comments when we had two children - ages 2 and 4 - baptized earlier this month.  These are spiritual attacks that came, in most cases, from people who were not grounded spiritually in any Church.  It can feel like the Devil is seeking you out through many eyes and using the mouths of the ignorant to impose any sense of emotional or intellectual guilt that will stick on you and your progress stop.  Like others here, I found reading C.S. Lewis - in this case “Mere Christianity” - to be a great help and, in my RCIA classes, I warned my fellow catechumens and candidates that they too might experience increasing resistance the closer they got to baptism.  In the end, I still wonder - is it a spiritual attack, or is it a spiritual test wherein God wants to make sure you have done this out of your own free will and not by anyone else’s coercion of you.  Still, it’s an attack and the convert, even while learning doctrine, must be prepared for self-defense.

For starters, RCIA teams across the country need to stop reducing mystagogy to a BBQ in the parish parking lot the Second Sunday of Easter. It’s pandemic. Mystagogy is a real commitment of time and energy, spiritual devotion, and great care. It is not an afterthought and must not be treated as such!

Oh great. Whatever legitimate theology and church tradition they were exposed to during their RCIA classes will go right out the window when you start teaching them that we actually prefer to base our faith on magic and we love to stroke our superstitious natures.

Jeffry G.,
The Devil and his minions, and their efforts to tempt us from the narrow path are perfectly legitimate theology.  How is believing in God less superstitious than believing that there are dark powers who may want to keep you from God?
—
Whether we call them demons or the id, there is always something that draws us away from doing what we know is right.  I know every day I get random temptations to do evil.  Most of these are so outrageous my mind is able to immediately dismiss them, but others are more subtle, promising reward with no cost to anyone (except my soul of course). 
—
Living in a modern, indeed a post-modern world, many of us are willing to accept purely materialistic thinking about our minds and how they work.  Thus, our temptations must come from the workings of our own brains, and thus we write off the notion that perhaps they are tickled by some supernatural force.  But if we really think about it, if our souls are real, then who we are is independent of any part of our bodies.  Yes some parts may be essential for us to live, or to interact with our world, but on some level, our minds must be rooted in our souls.  If that is the case, then it makes sense to believe that our temptations are attacks on our soul.

I have to add, in considering Anne Rice as subject of this piece, that a person of great ego has the hardest time with what I believe is the most important quality to bring to faith - humility.  Anne is not a good example of the many faithful who convert or return to the Church every year.  Her ability to identify with true humility may not have ever been established.  She did what felt good, not what she knew in her heart was right.  That’s ego, not faith.  As she isn’t a good example to other Catholics, I don’t know what benefit there is in singling her out as an example for other converts because it will legitimize a kind of lukewarm approach to faith that allows ego to trump the soul.  I’d argue that she never re-prepared herself and relied only on what she thought she knew.  She took the Church for granted.

Spot on!  It took me a long, long time to realize two things:  1. I’m not in control, and 2. You do have to look out for demonic activity.  Now I start each day with a binding prayer, and ask St Joseph to help me resist several spirits.  At night I close with Eph 6:10-18, and thank Jesus for all he has done that day.

As Nora points out, the ugliest devils usually rear their heads from within our own ranks!

@Jeffrey G - the Devil and demons are not superstition. They are part of Catholic teaching. Christ spoke about them, and if our faith is based on Christ then they are a requirement for belief of every Catholic.

This article is so true. Many converts don’t make it to the first anniversary of their baptism because of the spiritual attacks they undergo. My husband did go through severe trials after his baptism, but fortunately for him he had many people praying for him and some who could advise him.

I think Anne left the Church for the same basic reason I did once.  She doesn’t want to see her son condemned to Hell for his behavior, and she is dealing with the grief of fearing her husband may be there already. It’s easier for her to walk away in anger than to confront these realities. She doesn’t trust God enough to believe that if she prays for her son’s conversion and has masses said for her husband, there is still hope for them both. God operates outside of time, so he’s not limited to the present but can change the past. She has a very shaky relationship with God, but she’s not dead and the final word on her life hasn’t been written yet. If we keep praying for her and keep reaching out to her, we can help her reconcile the issues and come back home to find the peace and healing she needs.  I left the Church no less than 6 times before finally coming back home for God. Each period of leaving was shorter than the time before it, but it was always over issues of trust.

There’s no defense for those who attacked her son, but I think she was intelligent enough to know the difference between being Catholic, Episcopal, Anglican, Presbyterian, or whatever.  In saying she took the Church for granted, I should be clearer and say saw the Church for what she wanted it to be, not for what it is. 

In my defense, I didn’t know she had any children at all.  I base my opinion on her art, her words, and her inconsistency; and stand by the position that I’d rather be talking about saints with converts than discussing Anne Rice.

If you don’t expect to embrace the Cross when you join the Church, you will not be prepared for the Cross to be given to you by the Father so you may become His adopted son, by the Son so you may become His brother, and by the Holy Spirit so you may become His spouse, just as the Father gave the Cross to His Son for His Work, and the Son accepted the Cross for His Work, and the Holy Spirit led Him to the Cross for His Work. Work and love are inseparable, just as Baptism and dying to the world are inseparable.

By the way, here is my conversion story: http://blogsofasoul.blogspot.com/2008/10/conversion.html

Take it with a grain of salt. :)

Nora-
A farmer once said bad things about my brother.  That’s why I no longer eat any food from farms.

Nora and Jeffrey G are trolls, people.  (i.e. saying crazy stuff to get everyone all worked up)  Stop responding to them so they will go away.  Also, can we get a moderator to maybe delete their trolling comments?

Thanks for this -  and the linked articles by Dr. Kreeft and you (about doubts) were excellent, too.  Very timely for me.  God bless.

The attacks are a reality. The source may vary, the world, the flesh, and the devil. Often two or three in concert with the other. No one is immune. To say such thinking is superstitious is to say there is no God, for if there were no source of evil, from whence did it come…from God? And how would we know evil, if we first did not know good? Only God is good. Time to get back to basics.

As my mom has always taught me : when you have TRUE faith, nothing in this world strikes you. Nothing. And that includes anything that attacks our Church, our beliefs and Christ.

Faith ought to brings us towards peace, and if doesn’t , then it is not true faith then

Great article, Jennifer!  This notion of spiritual attack occurred to me the other day.  I’m a revert to the faith, having completely left Christianity, though never becoming an atheist, for about 15 years.  I have never been plagued by more doubt than since I’ve come back to the Church.  I finally realized that this doubt is a spiritual attack.  It’s been that realization - that since I’m on the right path the devil is throwing everything he’s got at me - that’s made me even stronger in my faith.  Thank you for confirming these ideas!  God bless!

What’s the basis for assuming that these attacks are external, as opposed to just manifestations of our own imperfections and weaknesses.  When I end up in an irrational strop with someone, I don’t think I’m being assaulted by an external force, I just think that I’m not always a good person and I need to be more careful.

Leah,
In both cases we are making assumptions.  But haven’t you ever felt tempted, even if just briefly to do things you know you never wanted to do?  And how about things like addiction?  Sure, it is easy to buy the modern purely materialistic explanations about various chemicals in the brain reinforcing certain behaviors, etc.  But the older idea, that it is a form of spiritual assault makes sense too, particularly in cases like addiction where the addict clearly wants to stop but can’t overcome their addiction.

Yes, we are subject to such attacks because of our imperfections and weaknesses; but the Devil and his demons are happy to help turn those imperfections into wedges that will separate us from God!.

@Leah

I’m not an expert just living a life but for me, it all comes down to the ‘meat of the matter’.  For example, an argument w/ my dh over his drinking the last bit of milk when I wanted it and the subsequent decline in the conversation comes from my losing my patience and fatigue.  However, if the conversation is w/ someone over a truth of the Church, an area of great importance to God and/or any situation where what I am doing or saying can bring real glory to God is an opening for Screwtape.  He’ll strive for me to be abandon the Church’s teaching.

When we were learning NFP we often battled over it being too hard, too weird or whatever.  These fights spilled over into other areas we never usually fought about - movie to watch or dinner to make.  At one point, we actually said to each other - during this time - Wasn’t our marriage better when we were contracepting?  We didn’t seem to fight as much!  Arggh!!

Getting into an ‘irrational strop’ (cool phrase) with someone might just be you (or me) being unkind.  However, if what you are talking about has anything at all to do with lifting God high, becoming holier, living a life for God’s glory rather than your own saying an extra prayer for protection won’t hurt and probably will help.  Of course, not every source of frustration is an attack but I can’t help but laugh and remember Joseph Heller’s wonderful quote - “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”

I am glad that there are people who will brave the tyranny of the rationalists and publicly announce their belief in the powers of darkness. It is the Church’s constant teaching, evident in the Bible and in the Catechism that there is an continual and ubiquitous war between the forces of God and those of the “enemy of our souls.” To deny that is to be an unarmed and defenseless civilian walking amidst a war zone obliviously unaware of the dangers.

Thank you so much for your comments. Since coming into the Church in 2003, I have been under near constant attack & some of this comes from within the Church - mostly dysfunctional or “relativistic” people. By God’s grace, He’s provided a good spiritual director who understands real intimacy with God as our goal.  It’s heartening to know that others endure this trial, as well.  We can all draw strength from the certainty of God’s love.  During one especially difficult time, I prayed a novena to St. Terese of Liseaux - the Little Flower, for a small sign of God’s love.  On the fifth day, 10 roses were delivered.  Talk about a sign!!  All new converts/reverts really ought to have good spiritual direction.  Thanks again for your comments.

“Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.”
—GAUDIUM ET SPES 19 § 3

I apologize for what I said about Nora and Jeffrey G. After rereading and praying over their coments, I realize that they may actually be right.

That wasn’t me who apologized! I’d NEVER do that. Someone, probably one of the trolls I originally mentioned, is using my identity.

I can’t believe this. Please, NCR, get a moderator for these chat rooms. I did apologize. I do mean it!

And the combox just got funny.

Spiritual attack is always an important consideration.  Read the lives of St. John Vianney or St. Padre Pio for extreme examples.

One of Anne Rice’s problems is that her Achilles Heel was not quite accepting all the Church taught from the start.  While on a human level it is easy to understand her attitude considering her son’s same-sex attraction.  But starting out not quite accepting all leaves a large chink in the armor that would make it easier to fall to spiritual attack.

Jennifer, great article. We should ALL be aware of spiritual attack.  And we should be aware that it also happens via the internet.  This very medium we’re using now can be used for good or evil, love or hate.  And I have to say that I too recall that Anne Rice had a lot of ugly stuff written at her in comboxes during her faith crisis. 
For me, the question is not “Was Anne Rice right about the Church and leaving it?”  I believe a better question is, “How much love can we show one another as we teach the Faith & defend it?”

I remember reading and admiring Anne Rice’s account of reversion in Called out of Darkness.  She’s not a convert really.  She’s a revert.  So, years of Catholicism (not always the most salutary or intellectually strengthening kind) cling to her ‘conversion’ like excess baggage.  She was recovering something laid aside, not opening herself to something completely new.  Old patterns are hard to disrupt.  Naturally, a RCIA program that does not equip converts for spiritual struggle is not worthy of the name.  But do the specific USCCB-approved structures of RCIA really acknowledge and serve the revert?  I wonder.  They may need something else.

I would recommend reading G. Amorth’s book ” An Exorcist Tells His Story”..As my background is in science and medicine, I was initially sceptical about this issue; on the other hand I still remembered all these patients on psych ward beyond the help of modern science. Since Amorth does not reject help of professional psychologists and psychiatrists, I found his experiance quite interesting.I think that the influence of non-divine upon our lives is real. After all if God existbthen Evil must exist as well.

I’m a former minister of 18 years who converted and was formally received in 2006. I can say that these past years have been among the hardest ever on our family. Anything the adversary of our souls can do to make one re-neg on this very, very good thing will be done. We hold firm though because there is no grace like the grace that comes through the Sacraments and there are no sacraments without the Church. Our near continuous prayer is the one offered by St. Andre Bessette (our fellow Canadian) as a suggestion to a soul seeking help: “O Good St. Joseph, grant me what you yourself would ask if you were in my place on earth (name situation). Good St. Joseph of Mount Royal, be my help, harken to my prayer.” Only last week I was deeply saddened to read of a good friend online who helped me move toward the Church some five years ago turn away from the Church themselves. They suffer from addictions and from a very low self worth. They think they have found the answer back in evangelical Protestantism but I think, are again, seeking experience over soul saving knowledge and have fallen subject to a behavioral pattern of moving from one thing to another. It’s very sad. We need solid teaching from our clergy on a regular basis and we need godly examples in them also. No, I do not blame the clergy, not entirely, we lay people also share the burden of being good and faithful stewards of Christ’s truth as expressed through his Church and we also need to be living examples of his love. And we need to be careful how we treat converts and reverts, especially high profile ones. It seems to me we are quick to make fast heroes of them. Perhaps the burden of example and responsibility we (Catholic media and Catholic public) place upon them in our zeal to promote the Church or to justify our Catholicism to non Catholics is simply too much, too soon. While there is a great unseen battle going on is it not possible we ourselves are the unwitting hand of spiritual attack when we idolize and inundate the *famous* convert/revert? St. Joseph, pray for us. St. Martin de Porres pray for all turning away from the Church. - Owen (luminousmiseries.ca & drawntocatholicism.com)

Oh boy! Just got through a night of spiritual war on Monday. Never mind what it was about, I felt so drained when getting out of bed Tuesday morning. I am not kidding folks. It happened, it’s real.

And when I got up the first thought to stick in my mind was, “Don’t think this was the end. More fun & games are on the way.”

Subvet, are you sure it wasn’t just gas?

Marie said, “...since I’m on the right path the devil is throwing everything he’s got at me - that’s made me even stronger in my faith.” I’ve been through this myself and Marie is right on target—the more the devil throws at me, the more I hold fast to my faith. In many ways, the devil is pretty stupid.

Jen, thanks for posting this.  I went through huge spiritual warfare issues in my own conversion, which I blogged about here: http://intimategeography.wordpress.com/my-conversion-story/#Love
I was lucky that I had an RCIA instructor who told me exactly what was going on and didn´t mince words about it.  Conversion is a difficult and painful process which.  Yes there is much joy, but there is also much sorrow and contradiction, a side which you never hear about in Conversion stories.  Anne Rice hit some of the same snags I did and they spooked her right out of the Church.  I would love to see RCIA courses address the difficult side of Conversion and offer some kind of emotional support or I´m afraid Anne Rice won´t be the only example of attrition.

This is so true!

Nora, I take exception to your comment:  “but if you’d seen the hideous commentary she received on one Catholic forum alone about her son, I doubt you’d be so quick to blame the devil and Ms. Rice’s ignorance for her rejection of a religion that clearly inspires that kind of behavior.”

The Catholic faith does NOT inspire “that kind of behavior.”  We are taught to love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Some in and out of the Church would have us condone the sin in order to spare the sinner shame.  I prefer to condemn the sin to spare the sinner eternal damnation.

As a previous poster said, if Ms. Rice trusts in God and prays for her son’s conversion, then he may repent, and can still be saved. However, let us not forget Catholic doctrine. If Ms. Rice’s husband is in hell, then no amount of Masses will release him from it. Since Ms. Rice does not know with certainty that her husband is in hell, then she should have Masses said for him. If he repented enoough to satisfy God, and is in Purgatory, then those Masses said for his soul may help him (if God allows).

Did I understand this contents of this blog correctly: The Devil made Anne Rice reject the church?  Tell me I read that incorrectly.

If I am correct, than the author is blissfully unaware of the workings of the Holy Spirit.  Rome has had apple opportunity to correct the travesty of its religious personnel sexually preying upon young children.  Rome either has not listened or is no longer able; regardless she has raised up prophets to speak out against sins of the temple as She did Jeremiah of Jerusalem.  The anguish and anger you hear are the cries of the victims of clerical abuse.  I would remind the author of Sensus Fidei Fidelium or the truth that arises from the body of Christ. Ignore the call of the Holy Spirit at your peril.

In all honesty I fail to see the hand of the Devil in any of this save in the intent of this blog.

I’m not Catholic, but I am an Anne Rice fan. I relate to her experiences in leaving the church for ethical reasons. I left the Southern Baptist church after completing a degree in religion and attending the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary under the Billy Graham School of Evangelism and Missions. The reasons why I left is a long list, however the deciding factor was how money and power and politics was at the heart of the four Southern Baptist seminaries. By the time you graduated every soon to be pastor was looking for the church that paid the most money, and why not be that way since Billy and Franklin Graham themselves are that way. They make millions of dollars every year off natural disasters alone. For example, when the flood waters hit Atlanta, Franklin Graham was there under a salary of $400,000/yr for that one natural disaster alone, not to mention the other disasters. And this was during the worse recession since the great depression. Talk about financial security and greed. I left the church when my two roommates were graduating and talking about the megachurch offerings and how much money they paid…oh and of course it is always gods will to make more money. Unfortunately, you don’t realize how corrupt the institution is until you get very very deep into the inner-workings and you can only get that far into it if you’re extremely religious.

Mark,
With respect, I don’t think Anne Rice left the Church because Catholic Priests are making too much money.  Having been on some parish committees, and knowing a few personally, I can tell you that by and large, very few Catholic Priests are doing it for the money.  Many public school teachers make more money than the average Priest.
—
From what I have seen, the ethical reasons Anne Rice left the Church were based more on her disagreements with basing Church moral teaching on the Bible… or rather her desire for the Church to “update” its moral teachings on issues like sex and abortion to reflect the times.

Jennifer, I agree with your point about the difference between her writings and interviews when she first reverted, and the way she sounds now.  What saddened and surprised me was that it seems as if she has forgotten what she herself learned and wrote about in her first book on Christ’s life:  how so much criticism of Christianity and the Church was deeply flawed and doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.  This is what has made her more recent comments seem so strange:  she has spewed odd accusations that a little tiny bit of research—the kind she did before!—would easily dispel.  I also found it so odd that she said, in a recent interview, that she didn’t know that there were Christian churches whose teaching on homosexuality is different than ours in the RCC.  This is a smart woman—but she doesn’t know about the Anglican Church??  It’s the muddiness that is, to me, the earmark of the spiritual attack.  It does seem as if her weaknesses were targeted.  Great article!

Very timely topic for Lent. I always experience spiritual oppression that coincides with Lent. I am always shorte-tempered, things go wrong and break, people are mean or I just look at them as if they were ... always variations on the same theme.  Also, on fast days, I feel very attracted to food. Fridays, I think about cheeseburgers. These examples are trivial compared to those given by others, and I am sure the temptations suffered by Anne Rice, but you get the point.

As for Ms. Rice’s husband, she should have masses said for his soul. Noone knows the fate of another, and prayers to God are always efficacious. Didn’t Padre Pio pray for his grandfather or great-grandfather? You can pray for anyone, past present or future. It’s an act of faith, trusting those we love to God’s love and wisdom.

The best weapon is always prayer.  Some people tend to sensationalize spiritual attacks, focusing on the drama of demonic activity rather than concentrating on the remedy, which is prayer.  I wrote an article about Demonic Activity on March 16th.  Here is the link:

http://therosarytrail.com/demonic-activity/

Margo, I appreciate your posting—and I’ve just read your blog. I’m 59 years old and was never one to believe that ghosts and evil spirits could do much harm until my wife and I experienced a horror story of our own. We moved into a house about five years ago and had very frightening experiences (including sights and sounds, even voices talking TO us from radio and TV speakers and out of thin air!, which we recorded at the request of our priest). Our priest obtained permission from the bishop to exorcise the house—which I was totally unfamiliar with (I thought it was only people, not places or things, that could be exorcised)... He said we had a demonic infestation of the structure, which had sat empty for a few years before it was renovated. In our case, some of the “entities” seemed “neutral” (one said he was a deceased state trooper and even told us where he was buried!!) but some of them were very menacing—some of our recordings captured numerous threatening comments like “I’ll be there with you in the end to claim you”). I assure you that I am not crazy and that I am telling the truth without any embellishment. To make a long story short, our priest conducted Mass in our home and then blessed it, and I continued to pray spiritual warfare prayers from Fr. Amorth’s first book on exorcism. The worst of the attacks ended after that, but it took another year before the voices stopped. Our current priest and our former priest both said that it takes much consistent prayer to keep “them” away once there has been a problem. I was not a Catholic when this problem began. But the Catholic priest was the ~only~ cleric who would help (and I had contacted about 20 before I finally found him). As a result of all this, I was baptized and confirmed two years ago this coming Easter. I’m just sorry that it took this problem to lead me to the Church. Now, at the very least hint of demonic interference, I simply take out my rosary and pray! Sorry this posting got so long-winded. God bless.

Anne Rice rejected the ROMAN CATHOLIC *denomination* because it made her ill to see how our esteemed Church Leaders have so poorly treated the victims of clergy abuse.

I don’t only mean the 3% of priests that molested children.  I’m talking about the what, 97% of bishops that covered it up!  It’s the POLICY of the Church to cover-up, so as to “not cause scandal.”  I’m talking about all the priests (AND BISHOPS) that are sexually active with women, and with other men.

Earth to my fellow Catholics:  The jig is up.  Not everyone is willing to sit in pews, pray, pay & obey men that are NOT being led by the Holy Spirit.  Wake up!!!!

It’s not so much the “devil” that is attacking the faith of pew people.  It’s that many of us are finally smelling the coffee.

Clean up the Church - train priests to preach and teach TRUTH = that means the Bible, and structure the Church in a God-honoring manner = that means obeying St. Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy and Titus (fellow Catholics: Paul’s letters are found in the New Testament.  You hear them read on Sundays often, but priests do NOT preach about them.  Instead, you normally hear matters that have NO eternal value.)

And you wonder why Anne Rice got fed up?  How about paying attention to the REAL World - and learning about matters that have ETERNAL VALUE.

@Born Again Cradle Catholic: Your name says it all. You were raised “Catholic” but have no real clue what the Church really teaches. You may even have spent time in Catholic schools which means you believe you are an authority on Church teaching. Your faith has been rocked by the scandals because it wasn’t very solid to begin with. You felt like you weren’t being “fed” in the Catholic Church and so you left. You are now a protestant and feel like you now know Christ better than you ever did in the Church. You feel the need to “save” the Catholics from what you see as being a corrupt institution. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Christ, however misguided it might be, but assure you that most of us who are on these boards are well aware of the problems within the Church. Paul warned us that there would be such problems. “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29).

There is, according to Saint Paul, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5), thus there is only one true Church. Since all Christian faiths have but one faith from which they came - the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is the only True Church.

No other denomination has the Eucharist, and so with St. Peter I will say, “Lord, to whom would we go?” if not to the Catholic Church, since Christ has told us that those who refuse to eat of His Body and Blood will not have eternal life.

Thankfully, true Catholics do not have to rely upon obedience to a single priest, bishop, or cardinal.  We have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition as passed on through the Magisterium, and the Pope to guide us through the working of the Holy Spirit.

Priests in some areas may not preach about these letters, but most priests do. I have been in many parts of the country and have heard many different priests speak. Most are good and faithful men whose teachings have led me deeper into the faith. Some are not. Things are getting much better in the Church as the Pope works to clean house. However, the Church is like our mother. We do not abandon her because she is beset by problems. Instead, we rally around her and work with her to bring about the change we desire.

If you attend Mass faithfully on Sundays over a three year period you will hear the entirety of the Bible (with the exception of a couple of passages from Leviticus) to you. If you were not being “fed” or are not getting “eternal values” taught to you in the Catholic Church it is your own fault. There is a banquet there, but it is up to you to take advantage of what is available. Furthermore, there are the lives of the saints, the encyclicals, and numerous other works to help you grow.

To Mark Dupree, who wrote on Sunday, Apr 3, 2011 8:20 PM:
“For example, when the flood waters hit Atlanta, Franklin Graham was there under a salary of $400,000/yr for that one natural disaster alone, not to mention the other disasters. And this was during the worse recession since the great depression. Talk about financial security and greed.”

Cradle’s reply-
You make a very serious allegation above.  Where specifically is proof for your statement?

Secondly, a note to Helene:
There is no need for you to do a “Troll alert” on my blog name. I really AM a Cradle Catholic.  The last time I was at Mass was last Sunday.  You may not like what I think.  But it is wrong to try to alientate anyone that isn’t your clone.  By the way, I am against embryonic stem cell research, being Pro-Life.  “Clone” in this case, is used as an adjective.

To Brandy M. Miller, you wrote: “If you attend Mass faithfully on Sundays over a three year period you will hear the entirety of the Bible (with the exception of a couple of passages from Leviticus) to you.”

Cradle’s reply-
Brandy, what is your source?  What are the specific statistics, and are they recent?

I ask, because you wrote above has been said by many, Brandy.  But it is *not* true.  Recently, Jesuit priest Fr. Felix Just did a study of precisely how much of the Bible is read at Mass.

These are his findings:
Over a three-year cycle, Sunday Masses include 3.7% of the Old Testament (plus Psalms) and 40.8% of the New Testament. If you add weekday Masses you’ll hear 13.5% of the Old Testament (plus Psalms) and 71.5% of the New Testament.

We “meet” God in the Old Testament.  Catholics are sadly kept in the dark about Who He is and how He works, unless we read the Bible on our own - which is what I did.  I have not left the Church.

Thankfully, there are many, many OTHER born-again Cradle Catholics in my area, and I know of others like me, across the country.  We just stay in the Church.  We merely THINK and READ, and fellowship with each other.  We have the faith = we have Jesus.  We must abide IN Him, and His Word in us.  And that has eternal value.

I appreciate the depth and substance of this conversation, and the deep spiritual concerns expressed here and the willingness to make fine distinctions in the discussion of why people go or stay in the Roman Catholic Church.
Allow me to say this: a well indoctrinated, well educated practicing Catholic can walk away from the Roman Catholic Church for moral and theological reasons.  I did.  I felt I had to do it.  In twelve years as a practicing Catholic, in twelve years of study of Scripture, I learned many things about my church and my faith and my own conscience.  I felt that I had no choice but to leave the RCC on moral grounds.  And I remained convinced that I made the best decision.  I thank all those Catholics and others who have been so generous to me since that departure.  But it is clear that a departure such as mine makes some Catholics extremely uncomfortable.  They feel a need to attack my integrity, my sanity, my educational background, my intentions.  I say again to those Catholics. I did what I felt I had to do.  It was a moral and theological decision.

To Anne Rice - You are not alone.  Just for questioning the wisdom of our institutional leadership, & objecting to how they treat survivors of clergy abuse (they apologizde profusely, but dismiss them, turning the tables on them, and making THEM sound like the bad guys, all along hoping the issue will blow over), and for calling for Bible-based reforms, those that would be in alignment with universal Church Tradition, I too, have experienced fellow Catholics with “a need to attack my integrity, my sanity, my educational background, my intentions.”

In fact, for 10 years, my blog name has been “Cradle Catholic”.  But in another National Catholic Register blog, a few folks complained that my name gave people the wrong impression.  Due to their incessant complaining, I changed it to “Born Again Cradle Catholic”.

I never left the Roman Catholic church.  I am not a revert.  I was baptized at the age of 4 weeks old, and I have 12 years of Catholic education.  I am conservative in social issues, and Bible literate.

But, these fellow Catholics felt I wasn’t “Catholic enough” for them.  A few say, “You are your own pope!” 

While I feel women are not to be priests (it’s not in the Bible or in universal Church Tradition), frankly, if I were pope, I’d clean up the church in a heartbeat.  The “princes of the church” and their diocesan lap-dogs that show neither mercy nor good sense, would be out on their consecrated fannies, getting their hands dirty to make a living, like me and the rest of the world.  Oh, yes.  I’d have a dandy time, being Pope.

Jennifer and Anne,
My daughter (26) and I had a wonderful theological conversation about the difficulties of giving up desires (specifically the desire for the ones you love to have or to be what they desire) to follow Jesus and to remain a faithful Catholic. 
Thank you for presenting this opportunity to have an enlightening and Faith building conversation with her.  Our sins and the sins of those we love are some of the greatest weapons used to defeat belief. 
Guard and love your children mightily! 
Then one day, they will tell you about the beauty of being a Roman Catholic Christian. And the Love proclaimed by the Church.
Tonight was such a night for me.
Love to you both!

@Anne Rice: Thank you for visiting. Thank you for reading our discussion and our posts. I certainly appreciate the time you have taken. However, I will say that any Catholic who was truly well indoctrinated and well educated in the faith would know Church teaching well enough to understand that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and women’s ordination have absolutely nothing to do with hating women or those who suffer with same-sex attraction. 12 years of being a practicing Catholic do not make you well educated in the faith nor well indoctrinated to it anymore than 12 years of public education do. Well educated in the Catholic faith would mean that you have read all the encyclicals, studied the Church fathers, and know what the Church teaches and why she teaches it. I don’t claim to be well educated. I have spent a sum total of 25 years in the Catholic Church, have read several different encyclicals including Humanae Vitae, have studied Theology of the Body and have studied the Bible. I would still not claim, by any stretch of the imagination, to be well educated in the Catholic Church. You could spend a lifetime and never really be an expert - there’s over 2 centuries worth of teaching to explore!

You left because you couldn’t reconcile your doubts. I understand that. I’ve been there. My suggestion to you, though, is that you do what I do and you ask God why. He’s not afraid of questions like that. He’ll show you when you’re ready to listen.

I know a large part of the reason you left is because of your son. If you really love him, fight for him on your knees. Pray for him, and challenge him. It will be tough. He will not appreciate it. He may even cut off his relationship with you. Every pain you suffer because you stand up and fight against the sin that has your son ensnared offer it up to Christ. Remind yourself that this is how it felt to God when you wandered and went astray. Use it to grow in your faith, in your humility, in your willingness to sacrifice for the sake of others. Be strong. Stand firm. You won’t have to fight the battle alone, but if you truly love your son you’ll fight for his soul with every ounce of your being. It will take time. God will have to transform you first so that Christ can shine through you and reach him. I’d give you the same advice if he were fornicating with a girl, or committing adultery, or masturbating, or addicted to porn. Homosexual acts are sexual sin, no different from any other sexual sin.

Have the courage, Anne, to fight for your son and the faith to believe that if you do God will see your tears and will bend His ear to listen. If you need to, read the life of St. Monica. She prayed 50 years for her son’s conversion, and he converted shortly before she died. You’re not the only mother who has ever had a son go astray.  The peace you claim to feel now isn’t real peace. It’s surrender. You gave up and quit. Get back up and start fighting.

To Brandy M. Miller - Your sincerity shows through your last post to Anne Rice.  I applaud the compassion & concern you share in your post.

With that said, may I please suggest to you that you jumped to a conclusion about why Ms. Rice left the ROMAN CATHOLIC church, in that you feel it was due to the lifestyle of her son.  You suggested she read every book, encyclical & opinion of Church Fathers, and even read the life of St. Monica who had “problems” with St. Augustine, prior to his conversion.

Two things you overlook, and the first is the *most* important:  YOU DID NOT SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE ON THIS POST READ THE BIBLE - which is the Word of God direct to us.  It is Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.  This life is temporary; our spirits will live forever - with God or without Him.

Secondly, you suggested that Ms. Rice read about the life of St. Monica - as she had problems with St. Augustine, prior to his conversion.  Brandy, I have issues with St. Monica.  It was due to her incessant complaining that Augustine DUMPED the mother of his son, abandoning her.

Monica instead arranged for Augustine to marry a “more suitable” girl from a wealthy family, although he had a family of his own - fathering a child from the woman with whom he’d been living.

Since Monica’s choice was a PRE-TEEN at the time, Augustine took a concubine for his sexual needs, until the girl grew up.  (Who knows if he had any MORE kids out there…)

When he converted and became a priest, turning his life around, he took the son he fathered by the woman he dumped with him, to be a priest.  St. Monica may have been overjoyed.  She could then beam about “My son, the priest.”  And she does get “credit” for being the mother of Augustine, a Church “Father”.  But AT WHAT PRICE did we get this mother/son team of saints?  If only the mother of Augustine’s son was alive to talk for herself, and give HER side of the story about how she was dumped.  God didn’t intend that for a family.  Augustine should have MARRIED the woman who bore his son, and their marriage should have been a COVENANT.

This is why we can ONLY rely on the Bible for our truth.  Among your other suggestions to Ms. Rice, Brandy, you wrote, “My suggestion to you, though, is that you do what I do and you ask God why. He’s not afraid of questions like that. He’ll show you when you’re ready to listen.”

My guess is God would tell Ms. Rice: THE VATICAL SYSTEM IS CORRUPT -
“Obey God, not men.”  To everyone reading this post: Read the Bible.  You will not be disappointed.

And to Monica and Augustine?  You were NOT perfect.  Some role models you were.  Catholic pew people: SPEAK UP.  And as Brandy suggested to Ms. Rice, “Get back up and start fighting.”  = Good adivce.  Just fight for TRUTH. God’s Truth - directly from Scripture.  It’s crystal clear.  Error-free.

Born Again:
With respect lets start with a basic statement of fact.  When Anne Rice left the Catholic Church, she made it clear that she was leaving not just the Catholic Church, but Christianity.  Most specifically (IIRC), she left because she believed that Christianity’s teachings on homosexuality, women, science, etc.  In other words, she left on the issues that conservative Protestants and Catholics mostly agree on.
—
Regarding Augustine, Monica and his concubine; we don’t know the real details of the story.  Certainly Augustine was not proud of his part in the affair (hence he wrote his confessions).  We certainly don’t know why Augustine didn’t marry his first concubine.  While it is easy to say they should have gotten married (and they should have), Augustine, or she might have felt that it was impossible for some reason.  If marriage to the concubine was impossible, then it was certainly appropriate for him to end the relationship rather than continue to live in a state of sin.  The fact that he failed to remain chaste in the aftermath of that relationship does not change the rightness of that action and it certainly was a necessary precondition for his ultimate turning away from his sinful past.
—
Certainly, with out knowing all the facts, it is not fair to Augustine, Monica or the concubine to blame any particular one for the actual events that happened.
—
Lets remember that the Church never has claimed that saints are perfect (with the exception of Mary), in fact it is not unusual for them, prior to their conversions (formal or otherwise) to have had serious struggles with sin.  The point of the suggestion to read about Augustine and his mother is that prayer can help turn the lives of people around.
—
Final point, as Catholics, we believe that the Bible was given to us by through the Church.  It was the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Tradition of the Church that allowed the Church to figure out which writings should be considered canonical and which should not.  While reading the Bible is laudable, personal interpretation can be tricky.  There are tons of Christians who all spent equal amounts of time and effort reading the Bible who interpret it very differently.  I will stick to the Church’s interpretation of scripture because it was through the Church’s interpretation of Tradition that we have the Bible in the first place.

To MarylandBill-  Thank you for your thoughtful comment.  You wrote, “Certainly, with out knowing all the facts, it is not fair to Augustine, Monica or the concubine to blame any particular one for the actual events that happened.”

Cradle’s reply-
There is enough in history documented to form some conclusions about this-one is that the mother of Augustine’s son was very poorly treated.  I only mention this because women are STILL poorly treated by the institutional Catholic church AND by most pew people, that think their priests (and bishops) walk on water, in spite of their actions.

It is always about the priest, his welfare, his vocation.  At what expense?  News flash to all: The Catholic Church as an institution cannot be trusted.  I am a conservative Catholic, and even I disregard what most of the windbags with collars (and tall hats) say.  Unless I know the cleric is trustworthy—and even the ones that are good, keep secrets of those that are not good—I am wary.  Do you blame me for being prudent?
 

When I was a child, I was raised to believe Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.  How about the facts?  There is NO evidence of that being her lifestyle in the Bible.  None.  There is also no evidence in universal Church Tradition.  I learned something when The Da Vinci Code book was released, I attended a talk by a local priest about “Debunking” the Code.

I learned that in a sermon, Pope Gregory the Great made an error once, linking the woman that dried Jesus’ feet with her hair to Mary Magdalene, and the woman that dried Jesus’ feet was a prostitute.  He made the error because the account of the prostitute’s noteworthy actions and the mention of Mary Magdalene appear close together, in Scripture.

So, “not to give scandal” - it seems a pope was allowed to ruin the character of a woman for generations!!  Jesus did cast several demons from Mary - but there is NO evidence she was ever a prostitute.  Facts are facts.  I defend Mary as you’d defend Monica and Augustine.  With Monica and Augustine, there ARE facts.  With Mary M, there are NONE.

Regarding the importance of using Scripture - have you noticed while the writings of St. Paul are almost always the second reading at Mass (he wrote 13 New Testament letters, & he is the ONLY apostle tutored directly by the Holy Spirit, in the desert, and for several years) St. Paul’s writings are rarely taught by priests in homilies?  Romans is the Christian CONSTITUTION.  Romans is amazing.  It’s a gift!!! 

June 2008-July 2009 was “The Year of St. Paul” according to the Vatican.  But it may as well have been “The Year of the Rabbit” because Catholics were not taught any more about Paul or his WRITINGS than before.

Let’s face it - for all the talk they do about theology, the Vatican just does not understand Paul.  Or they understand him, and they ignore him.  I think it’s the latter.  Paul, read in context, would send the Vatican spinning, and he would undermine the power and control they love so much.

Here’s a confession: I love Paul.  Paul rocks.  He was tutored by the Holy Spirit Himself.  Paul is amazing.  Pew people are unchurched in his writings.  It is a crime.

@Born Again: 

I agree with you about the lack of evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but what does it really matter whether she was or wasn’t a prostitute?  The Church has always celebrated her with the highest possible honor—sainthood (feast celebrated every year, rain or shine, on July 22).  Of course, the Da Vinci Code tried to turn this all into a conspiracy against “the divine feminine.”  But the book idiotically ignored, entirely, the Church’s veneration of Mary the Mother of God.  I trust that, as an educated person, you didn’t make that mistake.

As for Paul, you really ought to read the “The Catholic Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Origins of Catholic Christianity,” by former Episcopalian priest Taylor Marshall.
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Perspective-Paul-Origins-Christianity/dp/0578050161

Paul’s writings are indeed a gift, fully embraced by the Church.  You say Paul properly read “would send the Vatican spinning.”  Hogwash.  Have you read Pope Benedict’s 2009 book “Saint Paul”?  http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Paul-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/1586173677

Born Again:
With respect, I must disagree with the way you characterize yourself.  You may be a Catholic who is politically or socially conservative, but you are not a Conservative Catholic in the sense of being theologically conservative.  You appear to have openly rejected the magisterium of the Church in preference of your own personal interpretation of scripture; that sounds an awful lot like Protestantism to me.  Your contempt of priests for the sins they commit seems smack of Donatism as well.
—
Lets return to St. Augustine, his concubine and St. Monica for a moment.  I did a bit more digging.  It turns out that in the Roman empire, one was not necessarily free to marry whomever you choose.  There were laws that prevented citizens from marrying slaves for freedmen (i.e., ex-slaves) for example.  In situations like that, it was common for the citizen to take a woman he might want as a concubine precisely because he couldn’t marry her.  So if that was the case with St. Augustine, then what St. Monica did was nothing but praise worthy.  If Augustine couldn’t marry her, and if St. Monica feared (with justification) that Augustine would not be able to live a chaste life, then arranging a marriage for him was the only way to get him out of a life of sin.  To this day if someone was living with someone who they could not marry with in the Church, leaving that person is the only option.
—
I am just curious, by what standard do you feel that women are still poorly treated by the Catholic Church?  Is your objection with the fact that they cannot be priests?

Alexander - it matters because Mary Magdalene has been slandered, and by the church.  How would you like it, if your reputation was that of a “thief” or whatever else that is negative, and it was NOT TRUE.  Christians are to support each other and to be mindful of our reputations.  I take great offense that Mary M was degraded so badly, even if it was a mistake - someone should have said, “Excuse me, Pope Gregory, Mary was NOT a prostitute.” - instead, everyone kept quiet, until a FEW YEARS AGO.

MarylandBill - read St. Peter Damian’s “Book of Gomorrah” - he was disgusted about the sexual activity of priests in HIS day too, and he warned the pope about it too.  Just like now - HE WAS IGNORED.  I’m disgusted.  I do not have contempt.  Let’s define our terms.

For the record, if Catholics would just read the Bible, they’d see women should NOT be ordained priests.  On that, the Vatican gets it right.  Women are being poorly treated, because when a priest uses a woman for sex, it’s always her fault.  It’s never the priests fault.  He’s “naive” and “he was seduced”.  Talk about giving priests a free pass (literally).
It’s the priest that should KNOW BETTER.  He’s supposed to be a MAN.  Our church is filled with MALES, but we have too few MEN.  Men are responsible.  Priests can even father children, and not have to be responsible for them.  Their “bishop-daddies” get them off the hook.  And it’s the woman’s fault.  Our clergy (priests and bishops) need to grow up.  Pew people - wake up.

by the way- I haven’t left the church.  The last time I was at Mass was last Sunday.  I just don’t leave my brain at the door, as do most Catholics.

Mary Magdalene had seven - not several - demons.  Seven is a significant number in the bible.

Magda - Thank you for pointing out MM had 7 demons.  I didn’t want to sound like a know-it-all, and figured if I just said several, folks would at least get the picture.  But I like & appreciate that you are specific and that you, like me, work with DOCUMENTED FACTS.

If the specific number 7 is important to you, I trust with MM being called a prostitute, when there is NO evidence of it in Scripture, or in universal church Tradition (before Pope Gregory the Great’s Big Mistake), it would bother you too?  Dead or alive, MM’s name was beschmirched.  It’s not right to leave it like that.

Unbelievable!  Today (9 days after this article was published…) is the day I needed to read this article.  I am in an uphill battle against secular thinking in the Catholic School where I teach.  Today was especially bad - the spiritual attacks come in the form of mixed messages that confuse message with delivery, etc.  I had just been praying for some help and clarity.  This article was the answer to my prayers. Literally.

BACC Perhaps that is the lesson to be learned - no one should have their name besmirched.  Even someone who had seven demons cast out by Jesus.
I have asked St. Mary Magdalene to intercede for you.
God bless.

Magda - thank you for your prayers, I appreciate your kindness!  Perhaps we can all pray for our Magesterium too, so that they will come to realize that they are not to “lord” over the Church, making up their own rules and ignoring Bible-based wisdom, and universal Church Tradition.

Specifically, we can all pray that ALL the New Testament teachings will be taught, not only in Church, but in diocesan newspapers, and from the Vatican, most especially those written by Paul - he wrote 13 letters - and that healthy changes will be made to reflect the structure of the church outlined by Paul to Timothy and Titus, in the Pastoral Letters.
Timothy was setting up a church in Ephesus, and Titus was setting up a church in Crete at the time.  Paul was nearing the end of his life, and he had years of wisdom under his belt.

But our Magesterium, in their pride, ignores what Paul wrote, and we are all paying for it.  It’s not as much “spiritual attack” as much as it is NEGLIGENCE in the treatment of God’s Word.  Our church leaders have been on a power trip, for years, and now, with the Internet and instant news, we can all see the damage it has caused.

Let’s all pray that every Catholic in the world, and especially our church leaders, will read Paul’s letter to the Romans, in context, and in full.  It’s time for our church to do it God’s way.  Admit failures, apologize, repent and TURN TO GOD, allowing ourselves to learn His Word.
Pew people need that “top-down” example of repentance and renewal.

Can I ask two questions, please, as an inquisitive atheist? I have absolutely no desire to deconvert, this isn’t an attack, please don’t misconstrue it as one, it’s just a couple of questions.

1. I read this post, then I read the comments, it took me a while ... are people really talking about actual, literal demons or devils doing this? For clarity, not ‘inner demons’ (ie: your own doubts), but separate external beings?

2. “her conversion hinged on something that the world needs more than anything, and that the demons hate most of all: the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”

OK ... here’s the point that really confuses me. I get that only through divine revelation can God truly be experienced. But, er, once someone’s experienced it, how can it possibly be reversed? I thought the whole point of a divine revelation was that it was ... well, God unambiguously and unalterably revealing himself.

So how did this work? Anne Rice *didn’t* really see God, or she did but he revealed himself in a way that was only temporarily convincing?

“especially those written by Paul - he wrote 13 letters”

Seven.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

“they’d see women should NOT be ordained priests.  On that, the Vatican gets it right.”

Again, a very simple question:

In the whole history of the world, would you say there’s never been one woman who would make a better priest than, say, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27521635/  ?

To me, this is very similar to the gay marriage debate. The moment you concede that *one* gay couple, *once*, are more stable and loving than the very worst heterosexual couple (narrow it down to Catholic heterosexual couple if you have to), then all you’re left with is the assertion it’s God’s will.

Why would it be God’s will that it’s OK to have a horrible, corrupt, abusive male priest, but not a devoted, kind, attentive female one? That it’s fine for an adulterous, boozy, violent man to marry a woman but not two women, say, who’ve loved each other for twenty years?

Does it not concern people that in a lot of other jobs, this claim was made traditionally, but has proven to be false? What’s the problem - are women inherently rubbish, or are the male priests just so great no alternative is imaginable?

To Steve Jeffers, who asked, “..are people really talking about actual, literal demons or devils doing this?”

Cradle’s reply-
If you don’t believe in God, you won’t believe in the devil (Satan) or in a demon (fallen angel) either.  For you, this topic would be a moot point.
As for me, I do believe in God.  Jesus WAS a real person.  So he was either a liar, when he claimed to be God, or he was mentally unstable (which would not make him a “holy” man, & even the Koran indicates he was holy) or he was telling the truth about who He was = God.  “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” and “I and the Father are One.” 

Further, there is so much evidence for the Resurrection, when even atheists seek with an open mind, many conclude the event was real, by the documented evidence.

I am not trying to ‘convert’ you.  I am just doing my best to answer your question.  If you are sincerely seeking with an open mind, look up the books written by Lee Stroebel.  He was an atheist too, who set out to prove Christianity wrong.

With all that said, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and everything in it is true, including the account of a real and literal “spirit” that is Satan, and 1/3 of the angels (all spirits) fell through sin, and have no second chances, as do we human beings.

You also asked, “Why would it be God’s will that it’s OK to have a horrible, corrupt, abusive male priest, but not a devoted, kind, attentive female one?”

Cradle’s reply-
When we read St. Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy and Titus, we see the qualifications of those in ordained church ministry.  The kind of man you described above would not be suitable, by definition.  If a man were to be deceptive, and appear suitable at first, and later, he became such as what you describe, other chapters of the Bible cover how to handle that, according to “God’s will”.

You asked, “What’s the problem - are women inherently rubbish, or are the male priests just so great no alternative is imaginable?”

Cradle’s reply-
Again, if we read the Bible, we will see that men and women are equal in God’s economy, and each made in His image and likeness.  But men and women are to have different ROLES in the Church.  Neither men nor women are inherently rubbish.  But men and women have different roles within the Church, the Body of Christ.  Thank you for listening to my responses to your questions, and for showing interest in the Roman Catholic church.
The very best thing I ever did was to sit down and read the Bible, from cover to cover- with an open mind.  It took me 4 months.  Time well spent.

Steven Jeffers
Yes, Mary Magdalene was possessed by seven actual demons, as in evil spiritual entities which inhabited her body until Jesus drove them out.

“Yes, Mary Magdalene was possessed by seven actual demons, as in evil spiritual entities which inhabited her body until Jesus drove them out.”

And you believe that Anne Rice’s deconversion is, or may be, because of demonic possession? Or that when the people here talk about their own experience of ‘spiritual attack’, it’s the same kind of demons?

“As for me, I do believe in God.  Jesus WAS a real person.  So he was either a liar, when he claimed to be God, or he was mentally unstable (which would not make him a “holy” man, & even the Koran indicates he was holy) or he was telling the truth about who He was = God.”

CS Lewis made the same argument, but there are other alternatives - he could have been misrepresented, or misinterpreted ... or simply he could have been genuinely and sincerely convinced of it, but wrong. As I’ve said in other threads, I find it impressive that a number of people who heard him continued to spread the word after he died ... but, well, you could say the same of L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith.

Again, I’m not trying to win a debate or persuade on this point, I fear that one’s a lost cause! 

“I am not trying to ‘convert’ you.  I am just doing my best to answer your question.  If you are sincerely seeking with an open mind, look up the books written by Lee Stroebel.  He was an atheist too, who set out to prove Christianity wrong.”

I’ve read his Case for a Creator and ... well, it’s terrible, frankly. But it wasn’t about Jesus specifically, so perhaps I’ll bite the bullet again.

“When we read St. Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy and Titus, we see the qualifications of those in ordained church ministry.  The kind of man you described above would not be suitable, by definition.  If a man were to be deceptive, and appear suitable at first, and later, he became such as what you describe, other chapters of the Bible cover how to handle that, according to “God’s will”.”

I’ve seen this line of reasoning used a few times here - you did when you said ‘not men, just males’. Isn’t this what’s often called the No True Scotsman argument - someone says ‘no Scotsman would ever eat quiche’ or something, and someone else says ‘my name’s Jock McTavish, I run my ancient family’s kilt making company in Glasgow and after bagpipe practice I like nothing more than a nice slice of quiche’ and the first guy goes ‘you may technically be Scottish, but you’re not a *True* Scotsman’.

If the bad priests don’t count as True Priests, then there are no bad priests. But it’s defining away the problem, or misunderstanding how it’s developed. What it won’t do is solve it.

“But men and women are to have different ROLES in the Church ... The very best thing I ever did was to sit down and read the Bible, from cover to cover- with an open mind.  It took me 4 months.  Time well spent.”

I’ve read the Bible and enjoyed it. I think the very best thing someone can then do is something like Robert Wright’s Evolution of God. I think there’s some pretty compelling evidence that the ‘role of women’ is developed after Jesus, and that the Gospels are pushing a particular line on a point that was debated amongst followers. There were certainly early Christian factions where women played an equal role. Generally, as with most ideologies in the first couple of generations after the founder dies, there are many arguments among those first Christians about the ‘legacy’ and the direction the religion should take.

And even if there weren’t, we live in a world where a hundred years ago we were told that many jobs could only done by particular genders, races and classes, and the story of the last century is the story of how that simply isn’t the case. I

As an atheist, and this is a handy hint for talking to atheists, one of the things I believe is that religious claims are like any other - invoking special pleading for them is an indication of weakness. What makes me suspicious of claims that it’s not a woman’s role is that people said the same thing about military officers, CEOs and heads of state. If churches were magnificently run with only a few minor problems, it ain’t broke but don’t fix it ... this is not the situation.

What I detect in Jennifer’s posts is a certain moral absolutism that, for all its talk of challenge, is not actually challenge. It’s her own preexisting beliefs, which she then self-validates by saying it’s God’s will, which she then looks at and says ‘now I am a Catholic, my beliefs align with the natural law of the universe’. The modern art one is the most blatant of those. It’s a feedback loop - I don’t like modern art, if there was a God he wouldn’t, therefore there’s a God, therefore I am right in not liking modern art, this sense of rightness validates my belief there’s a God ... and so on.

But the idea that Anne Rice hasn’t read the Bible or thought about it, or that her conversion doesn’t count, or that her concerns aren’t valid, or - and this is the new dimension in this post - that the only possible reason to leave the church is that little devils have got inside her brain ... these are not ways of thinking about the world we find ourselves in that work in other spheres of life.

Anne Rice rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church. To be truthful, her conversion never seemed compelling to me.  I had questions from the beginning.  Perhaps she was taken with the Eucharist - this is a very real kind of call from Christ, but she felt she would betray friends and family if she embraced the teachings of the Faith.  Embracing the Faith is difficult - it requires confronting some of the fun times and friendships you have and saying to yourself and to God - I am sorry and I wish I had never done that and I wish I had never led others into sin.
Then the battle ensues and the cross is carried, with total dependence on Christ and the ever more apparent knowledge of personal weakness.
Your questions to me about demons do not seem sincere, but rather a rhetorical technique.
The answer to your questions can be found in the realms on the subject written by Church fathers and in very succinct passages in scripture.

For what it’s worth, what matters to me is the pursuit of truth. I do not
think one can compromise in the pursuit of truth.  If one returns to a religion, lives it
and studies it for 12 years, and one is confronted with evidence that the religion
tells lies, that it has subordinated truth to its own institutional concerns, that its
biblical arguments are not honest or supported by Scripture, one is fully justified
in leaving that religion. In fact, I felt obligated to do just that.
I’m almost 70 years old.  More than ever I am concerned with what belief means.
Can we use that word over and over against to describe and declare what we would
like to believe?  Or must we admit to ourselves and to God what we do believe?
I feel we have to do the latter. 
Of course Roman Catholics are going to believe that anyone who rejects their church
is corrupt, insane, dishonest, dishonorable, or plagued by demons.  Many of
them have to believe this sort of thing, because they have been convinced that the
only truth in the world is the truth taught by their church.
I did not find this to be the case. 
It is impossible here to sum up the full scope of my findings. But I can say this
plainly and clearly:
there is no basis in Scripture at all whatsoever for the establishment of an
anointed male priesthood with magical powers to control the Lord’s Supper
and how it is celebrated.
there is no basis in Scripture at all anywhere for a doctrine of infallibility for a pope.
These and many other conclusions became inescapable for me.
The honest thing, the moral thing, for me to do was leave. And I did.

Speaking as a former heretic and agnostic, who was arrogant in my personal intellectual and psychological understanding of religion, the more I view the Truth the Church teaches (and how it is true to the teachings of Jesus, the more sense it makes).  It is the most natural, most loving, most forgiving, most hopeful and most exacting of any teaching.
Roman Catholics will always be sinners and hypocrites when held up to the standard of the Faith.  It is why we have confession.
Receiving the Eucharist worthily and reverencing the Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist are strengthening.
Focusing on the sins and lies of others present an out to the challenge of living the Truth. 
When my heart was humbled and changed, the Truth came to me in a rush - but I did not accept it all at once.  It is the consequences I have witnessed that follow rejection of the Truth and rebellion against the Truth that have led me to the eventual conclusion that the teachings of the Church are beautiful, true, one and good. And natural and real.
I don’t know that Ann Rice actually wrote the comment preceding this one.
I was not insinuating that she contrived her love for Christ. 
It seems that there was an impasse to total Catholicism at the start. This was something I noticed at the time.
My Faith is not contingent on anything but Jesus, the Eucharist, and the Keys entrusted to Peter.

“Your questions to me about demons do not seem sincere, but rather a rhetorical technique.”

It’s a sincere question. I’ve stated categorically that I’m an atheist, and that I see the world in a modern, scientific way, and that religious arguments have no components non-religious ones do. So, I admit if you say ‘I believe anyone who doubts the Church or any of its teaching may be literally under attack from a literal devil or demons’, I confess I will find that to be a bit barmy. But if it’s what you believe, it’s what you believe. I’m sure I believe any number of things you’d find at least as barmy. Is that, stated simply, what you believe? I’ve always assumed that when people say ‘spiritual attack’, they’re speaking metaphorically. Is this the euphemism Catholics use because they don’t like talking about demons in mixed company?

“Truth that have led me to the eventual conclusion that the teachings of the Church are beautiful, true, one and good. And natural and real.”

If I may - did you find any of your political or moral positions changing? Were you for gay marriage, say, or pro-abortion. You talk about having an of intellectual and psychological understanding of religion - do you still bring intellect and psychological understanding to bear.

I think the test for any belief for me is ‘is it falsifiable?’. Which I’d quickly define as ‘can I make a prediction or ask a question or set a test and if I get a particular answer, I can come to a definite conclusion?’.

Elsewhere, I’ve talked about a chat I had with a Catholic theologian who states, categorically, that if Catholicism is false there’s no God. And that if one Infallible statement is false, Catholicism is false. So he said he thinks it’s *possible* that Catholicism is false, and if certain conditions were met, he’d concede it.

In the event, proving that one Infallible statement is false is pretty easy - just Google - and in practice what he did was deny those particular statements were Infallible. The ordination of women one is the most interesting, as we discussed in an earlier thread - the Church has backed itself into a corner, knows it, and is trying to inch out without anyone noticing. But his heart was in the right place.

Steve - I think anyone is sincere, who posts reasonable and polite comments on a blog, such as you have in this one, and yes, I appreciate that you were upfront about not believing in God.  Thanks for that.

Just because I question what the Catholic church teaches (I only started to really question it about 15 years ago!), I have had fellow Catholics look at me in digust, & say, “YOU sound Protestant.”—as if it’s bad!
I have been seen as spiritually suspicious too, so I think in Ms. Rice’s case, it’s just because most Catholics are taught to just accept what comes down the Magesterial pike, without question.

Since I read Scripture, I have questioned everything.  I’ve had people say, “YOU ARE YOUR OWN POPE!” and others have accused me of being led by a spirit OTHER than the Holy Spirit too.  I just roll with it - and ignore the insult.

I do not believe the Roman Catholic church is the “One True” church, or that church “membership” is of much importance.  The Body of Christ is ONE, and it’s big.  The source is the Bible, any authorized version.  I attend weekly Bible studies at a Catholic Church, where fellow Protesants are there (all of us with authorized - for lack of better words- Bibles) and we all follow along beautifully.  We all understand the *meaning* and the *intent* of the passages.  The Body of Christ has no denomination.  None.

You mentioned, “Elsewhere, I’ve talked about a chat I had with a Catholic theologian who states, categorically, that if Catholicism is false there’s no God.”

I can’t make that leap.  Much of Catholicism is right - and squares with the Bible.  But much of it (all the extras, like we NEED a priest to ‘bring us Jesus’ and without a priest, there is no Eucharist) cannot possibly be true.  The whole religion they’ve created out of Mary (folks, I know we don’t worship her, but the whole “Co-redemptrix” cause is just tooo much…) and the praying to saints (as if they hear and answer, giving them the attributes of God Himself), Purgatory- like Jesus’ sacrifice did not pay for all our sins (all sin was in advance then) and *we* still have to be purified.  It’s just not right.  I like to ask people, “If you have the Holy Spirit in you right now, will you be taking Him to Purgatory with you?” - it makes people think.

About not having women priests - it squares with the Bible.  On that, the Vatican gets it right.  Women are not to lead men, at least in the Church.  If a woman is President - and a country goes for it, fine.  That’s secular, and not a church role.  But frankly, in the woman’s own home, even if she’s President, her husband needs to be the head of the house.

It’s only a ROLE.  It’s as if a husband and wife are in a car, there is only one driver - and the man is healthy and equipped to drive, he’d drive; the wife would navigate, as a help-mate.  It doesn’t work to have two drivers, clammoring for the wheel.  It’s not to demean women.  It’s just what the Bible says.  And frankly, it works well, when attitudes are correct.

Lest you think I’m a male chauvinist - I am a Christian woman.  In terms of the Church, the role for a woman is as a priest’s wife.  All over the world, in Bible-believing Christian churches (non-Catholic) it works to have a married clergy.  And it is SO easy to talk with these people - it’s a joy.  We all speak the same language - being literally on the same (holy) page of the Good Book.  Again, thanks for listening!

Steve,
Yes, I was a heretic and a moral relativist. 
Can you disprove demonic activity?

“Can you disprove demonic activity?”

As an abstract concept, no. On a case-by-case basis, yes, I’m pretty sure it could be disproved. Same as with every miracle in the scientific age. I think there are burden of proof issues, and I’d want terms defined. But ‘I paid some exorcist $500 and he told me the creaky pipes were the devil’ stuff you can dismiss instantly.

In Al’s case, if the demon/ghost supplied information, and it was specific, and it could be tested, I’d be interested. But if the exorcist was doing that ... well, Google ‘cold reading’.

Is there anyone here who knows a Mary who’s recently passed? Or a Marie? Margaret? Mag ... I’m getting Mag. No, not passed, it’s a message for Mag ... from someone who’s recently passed. He says not to worry. Does that make sense to you?

It’s conjuring tricks.

Pretty sure?

Steve,

If you think we can disprove every miracle in the scientific age, you are sadly mistaken.  I bet if you talk to Doctors who specialize in terminal diseases, at least some of them will be able to provide stories about people who recovered for no known reason.

That being said, there is the philosophical issue regarding what a miracle really is.  Some where along the line people decided that a Miracle had to be something that was physically impossible as opposed to simply be God’s will working within the world in a special way.

> Some where along the line people decided that a Miracle had
> to be something that was physically impossible as opposed to
> simply be God’s will working within the world in a special way

There are problems with definitions, yes, but let’s confine things to healing miracles, which are easy enough to examine (and to credit to a benevolent being, not just a powerful show off).

There are three issues here. First of all, we can look at what the Church happily certifies as a ‘miracle’ and examine the case and see that the explanation is a great deal more simple.

You’d agree, I assume that the miracle attributed to Cardinal Newman, for example, stretches credibility, and that there’s a rather obvious, non-miraculous reason why it happened:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7113421.ece

‘Man predisposed to believe in miracles who is in a hospital loses his back pain around the time most patients on the same course of painkillers he’s on do’.

Secondly ... theology becomes extremely twisted the moment we credit God with medical cures. Why would he look at two good Catholics with loving, devout families and let one die and miraculously save the other? This would be a capricious, nasty God who played favors. In human terms, a tyrant. A God who ‘works through the world’ is one thing (and impossible to disprove, which is handy), that would be quite another. Would you really want to worship that sort of God?

Thirdly ... do you believe in homeopathy? The logic behind miracles, and the methods used to demonstrate their effectiveness, is exactly the same. The basic technique is ‘confirmation bias’ - that is, *you only count it when it works*. You have a thousand cancer patients who use a homeopathic remedy, ignore all other factors (like that they’re also on conventional drugs) and then concentrate on the successes. One person lives, 999 die, you grab that one survivor, have them do all sorts of publicity saying ‘doctors said I had one chance in a thousand, but I took homeopathic medicine and I lived’. The other 999 don’t get the chance to set the record straight, and anyway, what sort of news story is ‘doctors gave my wife a 1 in 1000 chance ... and, yes, she died’?

In the Cardinal Newman case - how many people saw that TV show, prayed to Cardinal Newman and *didn’t* get any better?

I think the best argument is one I heard recently. In the Bible, we’re told about some incredible miracles, ones that are instant and immediately and directly beneficial to those who worship the same God the Catholics worship.

We live in an age where we understand so much more about the human body, where medicine routinely does things that were called miracles in earlier ages. If Jesus had removed one man’s heart, put a dead man’s heart in its place and then started it beating again, that would definitely have counted as a miracle - that happens six times a day in the US, now, for entirely secular reasons.

The best argument I’ve heard against miracles - We don’t need God any more to resuscitate people who’ve technically died, cure skin conditions, reattach severed ears. We’re not far off the point where we’ll be able to regenerate limbs, grow organs from scratch, manipulate the genome. In the last hundred years, the average lifespan of a human being has *doubled* and your chances of surviving childbirth and infancy are a lot better in the age of antiseptics than they ever were when it was only God looking out for you. Given the advances in medicine, given the records of extreme cases of survival, wouldn’t a healing miracle in the modern age have to be *more* impressive than the ones Jesus performs? Not just statistical anomalies, but out and out *impossibilities*? Something as impressive to *us* *now* as the healing miracles Jesus did were to the people back in the Iron age?

> Pretty sure?

I’m confident that 100% are not miracles.

That confidence could be shaken (because the ability to change your mind when presented with new facts and evidence is a virtue). I know I would not be able to persuade everyone in all cases.

If you are predisposed to believe in miracles, have a strong personal stake in the story, have repeated it many times to others so that your own reputation is at risk, and value faith (ie: belief not just in the absence of evidence, but in the presence of evidence that contradicts that belief), then I won’t be able to convince you.

I don’t believe that everyone who believes in miracles is mad, a liar or a fraud. Clearly at least some who do are. Clearly there have, over the years, been a number of tried and trusted ways of faking miracles.

My definition of a miracle is basically an unusual event that is directly linked to a plea to the divine and where it would be *more* unusual - to the point of practical impossibility - if there was a mundane explanation.

If I was in a meadow and bumped into a Catholic who hadn’t known I was coming and said ‘prove it’ and the Catholic prayed and out of a clear sky a giant metal weight fell from the sky marked ‘There is a God, Steve Jeffers’ ... well, there are non-miraculous explanations. It could be an elaborate scam, involving subtle manipulations that led me to that meadow, the Catholic could have known I was coming and told his friend with a transport plane or an enormous see-saw to propel that weight our way the moment he saw the signal. Rationally, I know that priests of all religions are routinely caught daubing statues with fake tears and doing other bits of stagecraft. It may still all be a trick - magic tricks can be extremely elaborate stunts. The Catholic might be an entirely innocent patsy in a scam targeted at me.

But the simplest explanation, in the absence of evidence, would be that it was a miracle. I would try to find the evidence it wasn’t. If I couldn’t find it, I’d concede my atheism. God would exist.

As I say, something like the Cardinal Newman ‘miracle’ works the other way. I don’t think Jack Sullivan is lying or personally fraudulent. I’m sure he sincerely believes it was a miracle. It’s very possible that no one, anywhere in the process, was anything other than 100% convinced. You don’t ask the patient what the cure was, you ask the doctors. You look at the life of Newman - he specifically said he didn’t believe in miracles and he didn’t want to be a saint. You look at the political motivations for the beatification - the Vatican is aggressively recruiting in the UK and exploiting schisms in Anglicanism, Newman was British, the Pope was visiting the UK.

There’s a ton of mundane possibilities and reasons, ones that rely on things we know for a fact exist. I’d look at those before calling it a miracle.

If you follow a football team and they need to score once more and there’s thirty seconds remaining and you pray and they score ... well, yes, it might have been your prayer at that moment, it might have been God intervening (cheating, I think a better word would be) to ensure the goal was scored. But isn’t it more likely it was the actions of football players than angels?

Steve,
With respect, your arguments with respect to the beatification of Cardinal Newman (even assuming the author of Hitler’s Pope is able to write objectively about the Catholic Church; after all, that book has been pretty much been debunked by Historians), even if accurate, are irrelevant.  I think we can safely agree that one can not invalidate miracles as a whole by invalidating a single miracle.  By your standard, I could debunk the existence of Irish people by showing that a single person who claimed to be Irish wasn’t.
—
In regards to your second argument.  The basic problem with this argument is that it is built around the notion that Miracles are somehow either rewards for good behavior or somehow simply an exercise in divine whim.  In fact, miracles must be looked at in the context of both the totality of the person receiving the miracle and the totality of God’s plan for the world and for us. 
—
Death and suffering are allowed in this world both because of sin and because they can help us turn away from sin.  Some might forget God if these were not around to remind them that our stay in this world lasts but a short while.  If one is spiritually prepared and ready to enter heaven, then death is a good thing. 
—
If God grants a miracle cure, then perhaps it is because the receiver of the miracle still has work that needs to be done in this world.  Or, perhaps the purpose of the miracle is to help edify the faith of others or perhaps a combination of both. 
—
Your Homeopathy argument is frankly silly.  Homeopathy makes universal claims about the homeopathic cures; the Church’s position on miracles makes no such claims.  The whole point of a miracle is that it is suppose to be extraordinary.
—
The thing that amazes me about so many atheists is that they tend to define God, and say that this god can’t exist, therefore God doesn’t exist.  In contrast, many theists freely admit that they don’t understand God and that God is beyond human understanding.

> I think we can safely agree that one can not invalidate
> miracles as a whole by invalidating a single miracle.

That’s not my argument, as I very clearly stated. My argument is, no, I can not categorically rule out ‘miracles’ as a category. Even if there hadn’t been one miracle, yet, anywhere in the universe, there might be one tomorrow. What I can do is take each claimed miracle and look at it on a case-by-case basis. And, at some point, I think it’s fair to say that if one source is constantly claiming that things are miracles when, no, they’re plainly not ... well, you can tentatively discount them as a source.

The *point* of science is that you can take the claims of partisans and assess them. The author of an anti-Catholic book versus the Vatican? OK, let’s treat this objectively - we know what medication Jack Sullivan was on, we know its effects ... wait, the known effects are exactly what happened ... what was the question again? 

“In fact, miracles must be looked at in the context of both the totality of the person receiving the miracle and the totality of God’s plan for the world and for us.”

And the problem with that view is that *it is impossible, even according to the teaching of the Church to do that*. We don’t have access to the divine plan, not at that level of locality. God’s decisions may not *be* capricious, but it is impossible to demonstrate they are not.

I have triplet aunts, Agatha, Barbara and Cruella. We’re all devout Catholics, except Cruella, who has written a bestselling book Why the Pope’s A Complete *&^%&. We get them to hospital. Many prayers are said. Cruella spits at them ‘if I live, it will be proof God doesn’t exist’, she snarls. The other two keep humble and quiet. Agatha dies, Barbara recovers, but is cripple and renounces her faith, Cruella lives for another fifty years, writing a bestselling book a year, each of which deconverts millions of the formerly devout. 

Now, that may have been God’s plan ... but, if so, don’t you think his wife should have a word? It is possible to do some theological gymnastics to explain how God might have planned that but ... heart of hearts, you’d feel silly doing so, wouldn’t you?

“Your Homeopathy argument is frankly silly.  Homeopathy makes universal claims about the homeopathic cures; the Church’s position on miracles makes no such claims.  The whole point of a miracle is that it is suppose to be extraordinary.”

Yes. But that’s what I’m saying - you can’t look at *one case* and draw general conclusions like ‘it was God at work’. The Cardinal Newman ‘miracle’ is ... well, I don’t think Jack Sullivan was lying, and so I want to be careful. Perhaps everyone involved was utterly sincere. But you have to concede that, well, there are other possible explanations. 

If all you do is note when your system works, not when it doesn’t, you’re like a gambler who only counts the wins. And gamblers who do that ... well, they manage to win $40,000 on the horses yet still have huge gambling debts.

Can I throw this question to the people reading this: please read the links and comment on the miracle of the pain that disappeared after painkillers were taken. Do you count that as a miracle? To me, it’s about as ‘miraculous’ as being told a man was thirsty, then drank a bottle of water, then he wasn’t.

No one’s rallied to the defense of the Vatican on this one and said ‘yes, yes, it was obviously a miracle’. The best you could do was smear the reporter. Where was his report factually incorrect?

“The thing that amazes me about so many atheists is that they tend to define God, and say that this god can’t exist, therefore God doesn’t exist.  In contrast, many theists freely admit that they don’t understand God and that God is beyond human understanding.”

Do you accept that the Bible and apostolic tradition makes claims about God’s motivations, properties and requirements?

I’m treating God as a hypothesis. ‘IF God THEN ... ‘. How else can you examine claims made for God? Specifically, here, I’m not even talking about the supernatural. I’m not even talking about ‘proving God exists’, just the sort of thing that would satisfy me that the best explanation is that he does.

Just a clarification to Steve Jeffers - I saw this phrase, and wasn’t sure of its context.  If it’s either a true statement or just an example.
This is the quote, “But ‘I paid some exorcist $500 and he told me the creaky pipes were the devil’ stuff you can dismiss instantly.”

Cradle’s reply-
For the record, no exorcist is allowed to take money for that work.  If the exorcist DOES take money, he is not a proper exorcist.  No need to respond to this, if you were just using an example, and it’s hyperbole.
This is just an FYI to all- in case someone thinks an exorcist gets paid.
Thanks.

Steve,
So you are not sure about demons or miracles.
I am.  They exist.
and you have taken my words out of context.
To be honest, the arguments you are using are stale.
Nothing I didn’t buy into about 25-30 years ago.
God is never boring.
NE-VER.
Which is why I enjoy discussing Him so much.
People who don’t believe in Jesus as God pretty much use the same words as they have for the last two thousand years.
People who believe in Jesus find ever new and intriguing ways to describe their Faith in Him.
I don’t mean me.

Steve to be really honest, I was a heretic and moral relativist 25-40 years ago, meaning for 15 years.  Twenty-five years ago, my heart changed.

> For the record, no exorcist is allowed to take money for that
> work.  If the exorcist DOES take money, he is not a proper exorcist.

So Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s chief exorcist ... he receives no reimbursement from the Vatican at all?

I think there’s something interesting here. Jennifer’s talking about recent converts needing to be told about ‘spiritual attack’ - what she seems to mean is ‘literal demons’. The Vatican are clearly very nervous talking publicly about demons in a literal sense, though.

Now ... demons exist or they don’t. If I was persuaded that demons existed, well, thinking about it that wouldn’t prove there were also gods or one God, but it would mean the Catholic worldview was very right about something I had been very wrong about. It would shake my atheism, clearly.

So ... OK. There’s this thing the Vatican keep quiet about, that recent converts need to be aware of, that Anne Rice has apparently fallen foul of, that people here believe they have direct experience of.

Why not throw sunshine at this? If you can *prove* demons to the general population, wouldn’t that be a huge boost for the Catholic worldview?

So why only ‘recent converts’? If you could show me demons, then show me Catholic priests exorcising them, with a team of skeptics along, checking it wasn’t just some stagecraft and they came away convinced ... well, I don’t think I could be an atheist any more. Who could?

Steve - Angels and demons are of the spirit world.  As such, it’s impossible to prove they exist by natural means.  It’s my opinion many of the priests that are “official” exorcists, are not actually encountering a demon when they perform an exorcism, but rather, a mentally disturbed person has come to them for help.

The manner of what’s described seems odd to me - as if a person may have been self-hypnotized, or even most likely the person is fond of attention, as in some countries, the priest is needed for exorcisms as regularly as an American would reach for an Aspirin, to get rid of a head-ache.

I haven’t read much about Fr. Amorth, but if he is on the level, he would not be able to take money from a PERSON, for an exorcism.  That’s not to say the Vatican does not pay for his upkeep, as an exorcist, or whatever other duty he has in Rome. 

When someone is on staff at even a parish, one does not charge for ones services, like giving a lecture, because it’s considered part of the job.
But if one is a guest at a parish, one could take up an offering, because he/she is not on the staff.

It’s the same principle with all priests, including ones that would be considered exorcists.  There is no exchange of money between a priest and a person seeking his help, particularly for an exorcism.  If someone calling themself a “Catholic priest” charges for his exorcism services: RUN - then report it to his diocese.

> many of the priests that are “official” exorcists, are not
> actually encountering a demon when they perform an exorcism,
> but rather, a mentally disturbed person has come to them for help.

I don’t think I’m going to shock anyone when I say that’s precisely what I think ‘demons’ are.

Now, that’s not to say that it might not be a useful way for people to think of their problem. I’m not a mental health expert, but I know that some cancer patients are encouraged to think of their cancer as a separate, alien thing. This does seem to help in some cases - it looks like a psychological effect, where your mind sees the cancer as an invader, not ‘part of you’ and that unconsciously triggers some kind of immune response.

Steve - that explanation of yours was fine with me about 10 years ago.  No longer.
Nora - you are right.  Any Truth can be used to manipulate people.
The Catholic Church is very up front about the battles we face daily - which is why this very popular prayer is said by millions of Catholics around the world, in many instances daily and publicly.
St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle.  Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.  May god rebuke him, we humbly pray and do though O prince of the heavenly hosts, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
There are loads of publications and writings.
May God have mercy on us all.
And God bless you all with many graces.

For what its worth, since my name and my return to the RCC have been mentioned in this article and in this thread:  I returned to Roman Catholicism with the belief that it was an honorable and honest religion on all levels.  What I found in 12 years of living Catholic, and studying the church and Scripture was that the church was neither honorable nor honest, and I felt that I had to leave it.  I had to leave it publicly because I had become a public Catholic.  I never felt at any time the presence of any supernatural entity involved in this process, no spiritual assault.  Could I be wrong? Obviously anybody can be wrong about what he or she perceives, feels, thinks, etc.  But I have not ever in my nearly 70 years on this earth encountered anything resembling a demonic, or a Satanic attack.  As much as I acknowledge that the New Testament insists on the literal existence of Satan, and demons, I find it impossible to find any evidence for such beings in life.

To Anne Rice - Just read the Bible, and you’ll be fine.  It’s God’s Word.  If I want to know you, or what you wrote, I’d read one of your books or articles.  I wouldn’t bother with what someone else said ABOUT you. 

Reading any authorized version is good - not some New Age book that has words tweaked to fit the times…

I have a Wednesday night Bible study at a Catholic Church, and we have fellow non-Catholic Christians joining us. We all stay on the same page.

Although I am a life-long Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education, I knew nothing of Eternal Value, until I read the Bible.  I “met” God in the Old Testament, in terms of His character and His nature.  It was the best thing I ever did.  It took me 4 months to read the Bible from cover to cover, and all along, I remember saying, “Why did they never teach me this?”

The only problem with reading the Bible, is when you believe it, and when one understands my hero: Paul, fellow Catholics (that do not read the Bible) will say in an almost confused manner, “You sound Protestant.”
You’ll get over it.  I promised.  I did.

Cradle,

Do you seriously think that Anne Rice hasn’t read the Bible or thought about the life of Jesus Christ, *given that she’s written two bestselling books of a trilogy about his life*?

As I’ve said, Magda’s experience and Jennifer’s of coming *to* Catholicism are the exceptions. Far more people have walked away (thirty million Americans describe themselves as ‘former Catholics’). To say that none of them have thought about it, or that it’s demons doing it, or lack of sexual discipline or the herd instinct of the secular society ... that’s exactly the same excuses the Church used for the child abuse scandal.

How about this: there *are* structural problems in the Church, members of the Church hierarchy have lied, many of the things the Church pushes very hard are local politics and not in Scripture. Denying that only allows the problems to grow, it will only increase the rate of people abandoning the faith.

I’ve read the Bible. All of it. There are some really fun stories in there. But there are contradictions, mistakes, limitations because of when it was written, blatant rewrites, and some pretty obvious dishonesty - given that ‘The Gospel According to Luke’ or ‘Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians’ aren’t *by* Luke and Paul, that’s a hole below the waterline of ‘the Bible never lies’ before we’ve got past the list of contents. 

There are other reasons to doubt the Catholic Church than ‘demons’ and ‘ignorance’.

Steve
Hey
Look I left the Church not in body, but in heart and mind, gradually, staring in my teen years. I came back after having four children.  No great crisis in my life.  Lots of social perks.  Lots of good stuff, with more on the way.  Never did drugs.  Never an alcoholic. Plenty of education and married to a tested genius. Etc.
What happened to me came out of the blue.  It started my return to the Church.  The reasons your arguments are not new to me is that none of them haven’t run through my head and my heart before. 
Things became so clear - and still my way isn’t straight.
True Roman Catholic teaching calls a sin a sin. That is what is hard to handle.  Guilt can be mitigated by circumstance and predisposition, but sin is evil and is what it is.
Virtue is good and beautiful and true and one with God.

Oh - and In the St. Michael prayer it should read
May God rebuke him we humble pray, and do thou, o prince of the heavenly host, BY THE POWER OF GOD, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Steve - For an avowed atheist, you sure spend a lot of time thinking about Jesus.

Magda- Michael the Archangel is at God’s beckon call, not ours.  I know someone that prays to Michael, to find her a parking space.  It’s ridiculous.  Further, how can an angel be a “saint”?  Angels are spirits.
 

To thwart the devil, or any demon, just read Ephesians Chapter 6 = the Armor of the Holy Spirit.

I believe Paul wrote Ephesians.  I see *no* contradictions that would be worthy of note.  Ask two people what happened at an event today, and you’ll get two different perspectives of the same thing.

But Steve, if you disagree, that’s fine.  The key is: Everything in the Bible, regardless of a particular author of a book, is the Word of God.  So accept the point of the teachings, or reject it.

As long as you have breath in you, the choice is yours.  Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah for which the Jews were waiting.  It takes more faith to reject it, than to accept it.  The kingdom of God is at hand, as John the Baptist said.

Born Again - I love St. Paul, have read his stuff, and I ask for his intercession a lot.
Is their a rule against St. Michael being a saint? I think he deserves the title.

“Steve - For an avowed atheist, you sure spend a lot of time thinking about Jesus.”

I want to understand why something that seems like howling, empty madness to me doesn’t to a lot of other smart, thoughtful people. If I sound like I’m interrogating, I apologize, but that’s why - at heart, I want to know what believers think happens, how they see the world working.

As I’ve said, I’m not trying to talk people out of their beliefs, or looking to convert. I’m at the ‘just trying to get the sense of it’ stage. What do modern Catholics think happens when they pray? I know what the doctrine is, I know the (to my view convoluted to the point of absurdity) theology about how it’s not *really* a Saint getting God to change his mind, what I don’t really get is ... well, prayer’s not very reliable, is it? You’d rather see a doctor than a priest if you were sick.

I can understand it all in atheist terms, as discussed - I can see it as psychology, as tradition, as ritual and all of those things are real and powerful.

I’ll be perfectly honest: I was twenty five before I realized that when someone said they actually believed in God, deep down, they weren’t lying. I just assumed it was what people said around their gran so they didn’t upset her. That, when push came to shove, there weren’t any theists in foxholes. And that’s clearly not true.

Magda - Believers in Jesus Christ are called “saints” and a “priesthood of believers” in the New Testament.  Thus, one has to be human, in order to be called a saint.

The Catholic Church plays fast and loose with many terms, and “saint” is one of them.  They’ll say, “Oh, don’t judge anyone!” - but then go on to tell us who is in Heaven, and who is a “saint”.

JPII is on the fast track - frankly, tons of people have been speaking up about stopping that process.  But do they listen?  No.  If that’s not “judging”, I don’t know what is.

When we read Revelation, Daniel, and other books, showing us how angels work, and what they do (for God) we see that no spirit would qualify as a “saint”.  They are not human.  Qualification number 1= be human.
Qualification number 2= be a believer and follower of Jesus Christ.

Steve,
The power of prayer does not just belong to Catholics - or to Christians - or Jews.  There are nonbelievers in the Gospels who had prayers answered.
The power of prayer can be misused (by appealing to the fallen spirits, which you do not believe exist), by cooperative appeal through mediation, by pagans, by hypocrites, by witch doctors.  By atheists, for that matter.
When my prayers for mercy, love, virtue, forgiveness, conversion, healing, and protection are aligned with the saints in heaven and the faithful on earth,  I am taking advantage individual and collective means, given by God, to influence the outcome of events and to nourish my soul.

“When my prayers for mercy, love, virtue, forgiveness, conversion, healing, and protection are aligned with the saints in heaven and the faithful on earth,  I am taking advantage individual and collective means, given by God, to influence the outcome of events and to nourish my soul.”

OK ... forgive me for this, I’m just trying to figure out something that I’ve never ‘got’.

Now I know that Catholics believe that prayer doesn’t work in the ‘popular’ way - ‘I want, I pray right, I get’. As far as I can tell, most people would *like* it to work that way but they know it doesn’t.

And, as I say, I know the rather intricate Catholic theology of intercession and I *think* I get that (I do have the lingering feeling it’s nonsense, even relatively, but that’s by the by).

But I’ve heard this ‘aligning’ thing a couple of times, and I’m just wondering about that - is this like a teamwork thing, or a supply chain: everyone playing their role, with the human being the weak link in the chain?

Because I find it very easy to be cynical and think ‘well, yes, if you only ever pray for what was always going to happen, God or no God, your prayers will always “be answered” ‘.

I suppose I could boil it down this way: when you pray, is it to alter the outcome or is it to put you more at ease with the outcome? Or is it to give you the sense of participation?

Wow. I was excited to find some info on this, and based on what I’ve read here, it looks like spirtual warfare is very real. Christian against Christian, what more proof does one need? Some of you should really listen to yourselves. I converted to Catholicism last Easter. I won’t bore anyone with the hell that has come upon me since then. I’ve thought at times I may even be going insane. To utter the words “spiritual attack” sounded insane coming from my mouth. There is no doubt left in my skeptical pseudo-intellectual mind that demonic attacks are actual reality. Satan is real. He wants us away from the reality of Christ in the Eucharist. He never cared that I was Christian(non-Cathoilc) but as soon as I looked at the Catholic faith, it started. It hasn’t stopped or subsided either. In fact it’s worse since Lent. I really need some prayers. The irony is, as crazy as this all sounds to me, my mind has never been this lucid and rational.

“There is no doubt left in my skeptical pseudo-intellectual mind that demonic attacks are actual reality.”

You were where I am now - the idea that being attacked by Satan is about as plausible as catching myxomatosis from the Easter Bunny - and now you’re convinced it’s ‘actual reality’.

So ... I’d be really interested in hearing what made you change your mind.

Steve Jeffers, you wrote, “I suppose I could boil it down this way: when you pray, is it to alter the outcome or is it to put you more at ease with the outcome? Or is it to give you the sense of participation?”

Cradle’s reply-
Here are a couple more questions to add to your list:

1) How was it possible for the writer of the hymn, “It is well with my soul” to have written that hymn at the sight of the ship accident that took the lives of his three beloved daughters, an accident where only his devoted wife (and the girls mother) lived?  He was in agony.  I think the first line is, “When sorrows like sea billows roll, it is well with my soul.”

2) How was it possible for Jeffrey Dahmer, a man that committed heinous murders, to come to believe in Jesus, while in prison (never to get out- he was doing something like 14 life sentences, no parole), and of whom, a book was written, “The Dark Journey to Faith: the life of Jeffrey Dahmer” - I think that’s the title.  He just read the Bible, recognized that he was a sinner, and repented - repent meaning to CHANGE ones life and turning FROM the sin, and TO God.

3) How is it possible that drug addicts and alcoholics have been able to STOP the self-defeating, and damage causing behavior, on a dime, after accepting the message of the Bible, as true for themselves?

Namely, all of us are sinners.  All sin is against a holy God.  That our sin separates us from God.  That God, in His mercy and compassion provided a way for us to reconcile us (sinners) to Himself, through Jesus, who although He was sinless, took upon Himself the sin of the world - past, present and future - reconciling us to God, and giving us access to the Father, through PRAYER.

That Jesus acts as an Advocate to the Father - because He knows what is like to be human: to be tempted.  He knows what it’s like, but He never failed. By His wounds, we are HEALED.  We are covered in His blood and become adopted children of God, and heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven - by humbly admitting that we are sinners, and that we need help.

God resists the proud.  But God gives grace to the humble.  Doing God’s will is to know what He wants - and God reveals Himself to everyone in the Bible.  The choice is ours, to be nudged into reading it, or not.

Jeffrey Dahmer was wise.  It’s not how anyone starts.  It’s how we finish that counts.  I expect to see Jeffrey Dahmer in Heaven, based on what I heard about the last months of his life.

The same goes for Son of Sam-he’s in prison now, a Born Again Christian. Tons and tons of people have similar stories, though not many are as “high profile”.  What would you think would account for all this?

Steve -
sorry, that should have read ” OF individual and collective means, given by God, to influence the outcome of events and to nourish my soul.”

How does that not answer your question?

@Steve Jeffers:
Think of God as an engineer.  Think of yourself as a circuit board. Think of grace as electricity.  Think of prayer as a circuit breaker. Now, because you were designed for a specific purpose there are certain things that you are never going to be able to achieve because you are limited by your design. When you pray, the circuits connect and the current flows and as a result action will happen in direct response to the prayer. Since you didn’t design yourself you may not realize, though, just where the current is going to flow so the response you get may not be what you expect it to be. You may end up resisting the flow of current because it’s not going where you think it should and that resistance can weaken the flow of current. However, if you are working with the designer directly and you know what it is He has in mind for you, then you will know how to put your prayers into alignment with His design for you and the current flows exactly where expected without any resistance.

As for intercession, let’s think of God as the CEO of a vast corporation that has global interests and a massive staff.  You want to get the CEO’s attention about a project you are working on, but you’re a low level employee. You can try the direct route of talking directly to the CEO, but you don’t have a lot of clout and you don’t have a proven track record so the chances of him giving you what you want are slim to none.  However, if you can convince someone who has a proven track record of success in the company and who knows the CEO personally to listen to you and buy in to what you have to say, you have a much better chance of getting him on board with your plan. That’s how intercession works. You’re asking someone who has a close personal relationship and a proven track record of success for help with your prayer request.

Does this help?

“how to put your prayers into alignment with His design for you”

When you pray, are you praying for things to change, or praying for a better sense of why things are just going to happen they way they will?

One of the things I don’t like, aesthetically, about religion is that ‘it’s the divine plan’ is not a helpful answer, because ... well, yes, if you accept religion where there’s an omniscient, omnipotent God with a plan, everything’s part of the plan. But that’s not an explanation of *why* it’s part of the plan.

If you get free candy - God’s plan. If you get punched in the face - God’s plan. Foreclosed? God’s plan to humble you. Lottery win the day before foreclosure? - God’s plan. And it’s always about stuff happening *to* you or *through* you. It just seems like a very passive, complacent way to interact with the world.

Now clearly the sense that everything happens for the best, and someone cares for you, and while the world may look a mess it isn’t deep down or whatever are all healthy states of mind to have ... they can be taken too far.

I know he’s not a Catholic, but Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life disgusts me. It’s a ‘know your place’ book, and at first I thought it was the standard line to the poor and to women and to black people - known your place, stay there. Don’t worry slaves, the Romans are mean, but God will sort things out in Heaven. But no ... it’s worse. It’s for rich white people. It’s saying don’t be guilty about that SUV, don’t be guilty that you send your kids to a good private school, don’t worry about global warming. It was *God’s* plan for you to live in a gated community - and he actually says at one point that Heaven is basically the ultimate gated community.

Now you don’t exactly have to be Karl Marx to realize that all that attitude ends up doing is perpetuating poverty, ignorance and injustice.

Jesus’ message was clearly not ‘everything’s fine, the people in charge know exactly what they’re doing, don’t change a thing’.

Steve -
I agree with a lot of what you said.
What puzzles you here, also puzzles me.
Jesus had a caveat with Thy Will be done - in the Our Father, he added, on earth, as it is in heaven
Heaven is a place where God’s Will is done with love, selflessly, with virtue -  I’m not sure why people ignore this part of the Our Father.
Sometimes they seem a bit masochistic or sadistic in their interpretation of this instruction from Jesus. 
There is a difference between willed sacrifice (like Jesus’ death on the cross - or the life of Mother Teresa or the Little Flower or Father Ho Lung, who lives in Jamaica now, and the acceptance of evil as God’s Will.
Jesus told us to pray to be delivered from evil -
The call to prayer is a natural part of man.
Prayer can be good or bad, beneficial or detrimental depending on intent. 
You can use it with love or not love.  It is not passive - it is an action. Or you may not use it at all, if you choose.
But it is your choice to pray, how to pray, what to pray for and who to pray to.
Prayer, used properly, directs one’s actions to accomplish God’s Will as it is accomplished in heaven.

I think it’s important to define terms as well.  “God” = A triune diety, Father, the Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit: co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent.

Revealed Himself to Abraham & led the people of Israel, as their King.  Among His characteristics are that He is everywhere at the same time, He is an all-knowing, all-powerful, Sovereign, Compassionate, Loving, and Just Spirit- being Just, there is a limit to His patience with man, and at some point, God exhibits wrath.

Jesus, the Word made Flesh, became man, the perfect Lamb of God, and sacrificed Himself for all sin of the world, providing access to the Father for us directly, dying for the many who accept His gift.

Steve,
The creator of the universe humbled himself into a human. A baby at that.
Most people didn’t and still can’t wrap their minds around that. Some believe, most don’t. He entered death in a manner that our minds can’t process. The Author of life…brutaly murdered? Deicide? Most didn’t believe and still don’t. He remained behind in a way that the human mind can’t comprehend and most didn’t and still don’t believe. Is it possible for the Author of quantum physics to humble Himself into a piece of bread? Is this even rational? It’s reality however. Everything He said was absolute Truth, including the satan stuff. Obviously you’re a seeker or you wouldn’t hang out here. Go seek. Approach it with pure skepticism. The evidence is there and He wants us to use our reason and intellect. Look at the first apostles for example. They claimed He rose from the dead. Now, either that’s a fact or they were lying/delusional. They all suffered crual deaths because of this claim. I may die for a few things, maybe even for some things that are true. The earth is round, this is something I know to be true. Rest assured though, if the members of the “flat earth society” started stoning round earthers, I’m out. These guys went to horrible deaths for a different kind of truth. They all couldn’t have been lying or delusional. Read the church fathers; Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatious of antioch. Crazy as it sounds, He’s in the bread. They were decapitated, impaled on stakes and set on fire, etc. for this one Truth. Were they delusional? Go find out.

Start with the evidence for the existance of God. How did mathematics evolve? Where did the information in human DNA come from? Can any information evolve and not have a source of origin? It can’t. How could the book of Job, possibly the oldest book in the bible, have described the earth from space?(Job 26:7)Imagine Job’s reference point for the world around him. What concept of gravity could he have possibly had?
The evidence for Christ is much more compelling. First of all, it’s an historical fact. The ability to use human reason in this quest(while seeking) supersedes the use of faith. The evidence for the Catholic Church actually being “The Church” Christ founded is very easy to prove. The use of apostolic succession allows anyone to look, see, and deduce. The apostle Thomas, doubting Thomas, was a first hand witness to the ministry of Christ. He saw Him walk on water of all things. But after the resurection, he wouldn’t believe unless he saw it for himself. Christ appears to the apostles in the upper room again and notice how he treats Thomas. He didn’t rebuke Thomas for his lack of faith. He allowed him to put his fingers in the wounds so he would believe. I was a doubting Thomas. Seek and I promise you He will give you faith. Read Thomas Aquinas also.

“How could the book of Job, possibly the oldest book in the bible, have described the earth from space?”

Satan took Jesus up a mountain and showed him ‘all the kingdoms of the Earth’. (Matthew 4:8). Did that happen? And, if so, where’s the mountain that’s so tall you can see the opposite hemisphere of the Earth from its top?

“The earth is round, this is something I know to be true.”

The only way you can climb a mountain and see the whole world, as it is claimed Jesus did, is if you live on a flat surface.

“Where did the information in human DNA come from? Can any information evolve and not have a source of origin? It can’t.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

“These guys went to horrible deaths for a different kind of truth. They all couldn’t have been lying or delusional.”

There’s a more obvious possibility: they were genuine in their beliefs, but mistaken.

Do you believe that any cause that anyone, ever, has died for is true? That the atheist suicide bombers of the Tamil Tigers and the Muslim ones, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland, the kamikaze pilots, both the Germans and Russians fighting on the Eastern Front are
all equally reflecting a truth. People died in the Paris Commune, gunned down by soldiers who had Catholic priests next to them, shouting assurances that it wasn’t a sin.

I think it’s interesting that Jesus inspired so many people to risk (and lose) their lives. Is it extraordinary that a belief can spread so quickly - no, we see it all the time. There are many millions of Mormons who utterly and sincerely believe in something that is layers of nonsense - a convicted conman saying God had given him golden tablets that no one else was ever allowed to see, that told a story about a pre-Columbus America much of which is plagiarized from Paradise Lost and
much of the rest is non-historical nonsense about Native Americans riding horses and eating pigs and wearing silk two thousand years ago.

That was a belief that sprung up in modern times, fully documented.

The UFO cults that commit suicide believing they’re going up to space? As true as Catholicism?

The willingness to die for a belief is something that religions treasure. It’s appalling, though. It feeds into a mindset of morbidity and persecution.

Steve,
I had to read what you said a few times. That actually made very little sense. That sounded like a response from Bill Maher or some other angry athiest. I used to use similar empty arguements in my agnostic days. Read Thomas Aquinas, he was a lot smarter than both of us. He gives a much more coherant theory for the existance of God than I could ever give. Aquinas took the teachings of Aristotle and Plato and gave them completion and rational. Either Christ was insane, or He was who He said He was. He claimed to be The Way, The Truth, and The Life. God made flesh. Mohammad, Budah, and the Hindu equivalent never made the same claim. I’m just saying, use your mind. We are at a better avantage in terms of the ability to assimilate inforamtion than any prior generation in history. We have no excuse not to seek. He said become like a child. If you have kids you know how inquisitive they are. I hear “Why”? all day.
Children want to understand the world around them. If you prove Christ wrong beyond a reasonable doubt, I’ll turn Morman again.

>Either Christ was insane, or He was who He said He was.

No, there are plenty of other possibilities - it’s irrefutable that the record we have of his life is somewhat garbled and contradictory, a product of political compromises made long after the events it depicts, not written by the credited authors. If we’re talking about ‘truth’, then start with a fairly obvious lies - nearly half the ‘letters of St Paul’ *couldn’t have been written by St Paul*. There was no census that forced Joseph back to Bethlehem. The authors got their Herods mixed up. 

Jesus could be completely sincere but just *wrong* - the Bible shows him making mistakes, predicting things that don’t happen, stating facts about the world that subsequent discovery has disproved and so on.

Jesus was living at a time when great men had magical feats assigned to them - Augustus did, Alexander did. It is possible (likely, I think) that there was a great man known for his feats of healing whose life story was distorted after his death.

I think it’s absolutely fair enough to point out that there have been many, many messiah figures throughout history, and that they follow a pattern. Just as a Catholic has rejected Odin and Zeus in favor of their God, they’ve rejected Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard as the earthly representative of their God.

There is clearly a positive message in much of Christianity. But it’s ‘be nice’. It’s not unique to Christianity, it does not spring from God, and much of the supernatural stuff obscures that - as Jennifer said in another post, she’s not being nice because that’s the right thing to do, she’s doing it, at least in part, because she doesn’t want God torturing her after she dies.

I’m sorry if what I said didn’t make sense. Let me spell it out:

When the Bible says that Jesus stood on top of a mountain and saw the whole Earth, that can not possibly be true, as it’s physically impossible.

People die for causes all the time. This is not, by itself, admirable. Horrible, horrible people have been martyrs to their cause. *Opposing sides in the same conflict* have died for their causes. Jesus inspired people to die for their cause? So did Jim Jones.

Your assertion that evolution can’t create information is simply false.

I am not seeking to deconvert you, and I’m certainly not trying to make you a Mormon. I have read Aquinas. He is smarter than me. But he lived at a time when we didn’t have telescopes that can see the early universe forming, or quantum physics. The first cause argument just doesn’t work any more, its premise that ‘everything has a cause’ is just not true. It’s certainly not *necessarily* true, which is what the argument depends on.

Steve,
You’re too lengthy with your assertions, which you speak with such assurance. If I didn’t have the ability to think objectively you might actually turn me back to my old days of subjective reality. Maybe all Christianity/Religion has really needed the last 2,000 years was for you to be born to set us all straight. One question, why do you bother interacting in a site like this? And why read so much of a book you think is false?

Steve,
I forgot to ask, how does information evolve? If given enough time would this message I’m sending simply come to be without a sender? Explain so I can understand how the information in our DNA evolved. Don’t simply dismiss it as false without a reason for that assertion. Stephen Hawking claims that gravity existed before nothing, and it may have caused the big bang. But he can’t explain how the gravity got there.

> Maybe all Christianity/Religion has really needed the last
> 2,000 years was for you to be born to set us all straight.
> One question, why do you bother interacting in a site like
> this?

Neil, you stated:

“How could the book of Job, possibly the oldest book in the bible, have described the earth from space?”

All I did was point out another bit of the Bible and show how it’s impossible. You admit that it’s impossible that Jesus went up a mountain so tall he saw the whole Earth, don’t you? Are you only accepting evidence that supports your view?

As for ‘how can evolution create these words’ - click the link to the New Scientist article in my earlier reply. You’re making one of the claims that’s a creationist cliche, and has been thoroughly answered.

> And why read so much of a book you think is false?

Neil, pick one. You told me to look at the Bible before. I have. There are many, many inconsistencies that have been known for a very long time. The Gospels that were written later, and many of the Epistles, incorporate corrections and clarifications to earlier mistakes. Then there are the more recent discoveries that have ruled out a lot of other things - we know now that God didn’t ‘stop the Sun in the sky’, for example, because the Sun doesn’t go round the Earth.

> You’re too lengthy with your assertions, which you speak
> with such assurance.

Let’s take them one at a time, then.

Do you accept that men have been willing to die for non-Christian causes?

Steve,
I’ll answer the last one first, I guess. As long as you answer how information can evolve. Of course men have died for causes. I never mentioned dying for a cause though. The apostles died for a truth, not a cause. Can you imagine being skinned alive and then crucified for a cause? Go find one suicide bomber that will sign up for that one. They gave eyewitness testimony to an event(the resurrection) and were put to death because of it. It’s just one piece of evidence so don’t crumple it up until you’ve looked at all of it. As far as Jesus on the mountain during His temptation, you have to have a better understanding of what the author is attempting to say when you read it. Was He literally on a mountain and viewing all of the earth? I don’t know. To compare this passage to the reference in Job makes me scratch my head. The creationist cleche thing baffles me. Usually when someone answers a question with a question and sarcasm, it’s typically a red flag, but I’ll engage it nonetheless. You don’t seem like you’re called to task often on your rhetoric. Information is not matter or energy, therefore it can’t evolve. Most athiest physicist or mathematician will acknowlege that. Bottom line, science can’t and never will be able to answer everything. I would encourage you Steve to look at everything you’ve written here and remind yourself the context of the site. Catholics/Christians/Human Beings that are concerned with spiritual attacks, that may be going through difficult emotional circumstances right now are coming here for answers. I can appreciate an honest debate, but you’ve called Christ a liar and the Bible a book of inconsistancies. And you base your subjective opinion on what you read on a few web sites? I read Elron Hubbard’s “Dionetics” years ago in my search. It’s bogus. I won’t waste my time going to scientology sites telling them they’re a bunch of idiots though. Now, go on with your explanation of how information evolves.

I’m sorry Steve, I just re-read your earlier comments. What basis do you have in saying that the New Testament was revised due to inconsistancies? When you make a claim base the facts as well. That’s how honest debate works. I have a friend that thinks we didn’t go to the moon. When I ask him on what basis, he says, “just cuz”. Anyway. As far as God stopping the sun, my understanding is He is God. If He wants to stop one little star out of trillions why not? He made a donkey talk too and paid His taxes with coins from the mouth of a fish. Does that make more sense? He’s God because He decided to be God. He can follow His own laws of physics if He wants to and defy them as well. The universe is nothing more than a fleeting thought in His mind. The moment He forgets about it, all the stars will stop. We are only creatures and understand very little about God. Our desire to seek Him is His gift to us. Either way, it doesn’t add anything to Him or take anything away.

Steve, Jesus could be completely sincere but just *wrong*
Come on man. Listen to yourself. Would a sincere person claiming to be God allow himself to be crucified? Crucified? I think a sincerely wrong person after a scourging like that would have told Pilate, hey I was only trying to start a cool movement I didn’t sign up for this though. Put aside your ideology for a second and think. Either He was insane or He was who He said He was. Humans crack under far less torchure. Look at water-bording and then look at crucifixion, you make the call. There are other independant accounts of His death than the Bible. Josephus wrote about it. The creed specifically states crucified under Ponitus Pilate for that very reason. It was proof of a historically proven incident.

“As long as you answer how information can evolve.”

I’d already linked to someone who can explain it far better than I can:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

Steve,
That’s how you explain your positions? Let me get this straight, you pop in here with over-confident assertions and a few big words and all you can do to back these claims is dodge most and plagiarize some guy’s thoughts on a website? I’ve been around your type too many times. The irony about subjective thinkers like yourself is you can’t think for yourself. You’d make a horrible attorney Steve. It amazes me that you’re so dogmatic about things you have little knowlegde of. At this point I will give you a dare, not assuming you’re a teenager so don’t be offended. I dare you to close your eyes and just say, “Jesus if you are real then show me.” I double dare you. Good luck to you Steve.

> That’s how you explain your positions? Let me get this straight,
> you pop in here with over-confident assertions and a few big words
> and all you can do to back these claims is dodge most and plagiarize
> some guy’s thoughts on a website?

No, Neil. You asked me a question, I linked to a website that comprehensively answers it better than I can. It’s crazy to call that ‘plagiarism’.

> At this point I will give you a dare, not assuming you’re a teenager
> so don’t be offended. I dare you to close your eyes and just say,
> “Jesus if you are real then show me.” I double dare you.

Tried that, nothing. Does that mean I win the argument? I also clapped my hands and said there was no such thing as fairies, so presumably I just killed a fairy. But don’t worry, I said ‘candyman’ into a mirror three times and so the candyman will soon be coming for me.

Neil, the arguments you’re employing are not good ones. You can’t say that Job depicts modern astronomy and that’s proof it’s true and ignore Jesus up an impossible mountain, or where it says the Sun moves, or the bit in Genesis where it says the Moon emits light.

You can’t say anyone willing to die (or be tortured) for Christian belief proves it’s all true, but that when someone dies for another belief, it doesn’t mean that.

Information can be created by evolution. I linked to that article precisely to show it wasn’t just my opinion, it’s been demonstrated by scientific observation.

The thing you have to understand - I’m not on some anti-Catholic vendetta here, this is just how people deal with the world: a claim is made, you test it. I treat religion as I would anything else, by asking questions.

If the Bible depicted the Earth as modern astronomy did, that would be extraordinary. It would be strong evidence the Bible was true. But it does exactly the opposite in most places. There’s a very simple argument here, no ‘big words’ needed. If the Bible is an accurate record of what Jesus said, and he said ‘I went up a big mountain and saw all the Earth’, then Jesus was lying. No ifs or buts. That mountain can not exist. The account is wrong or Jesus is wrong (or both). Or it’s to be understood metaphorically.

Steve,
You’re a closet seeker or you wouldn’t keep coming here. Keep seeking. The thing about trying to reason with an unreasonable person is it goes no where. Your type of discussion works best in a group sitting around a water bong, not in a Catholic blog on spiritual warfare. Like I said, and I’m sincere, good luck to you Steve.

Alright. Anyone up for a change in subject?

Neil - I re-read some of your posts on this blog.  You don’t sound Catholic, though I see you are a Catholic convert as of Easter 2010.

You are too well-read about the Bible to be an average pew person.  You write in your own words, not opting for miles upon miles of cut-and-paste apologetics from the “Catholic Answers” boys & the umpteen church fathers.

So congratulations!  You’re on the right track.  Hope you had a Happy Resurrection Day & many thanks for your posts.

Subject change suggestion *for believers* in Jesus Christ as the Messiah:

How come among all Christian denominations, the Catholic Church, claiming Jesus Himself as it’s Founder, does not teach or preach ” The Good News”?

Defining my terms: “Good News” is the assurance of salvation, upon one’s belief in Jesus, evidenced by a changed life that bears fruit, reflecting the choice to follow Him, as Lord.  From Paul’s letter to the Romans, and repeated over and over in Paul’s other letters.  We should be shouting the Good News, from the rooftops!!  I know…  I don’t “sound Catholic” either.

Born Again Cradle,
I think the average Catholic could and should do a better job at that. I do like St. Francis’ assessment on spreading the Gospel; preach the Gospel and use words when necessary. What does a Catholic “sound” like anyway?

> You’re a closet seeker or you wouldn’t keep coming here

I seek to understand why people believe, yes. I come here to ask people, and I’ve had a number of very useful and interesting discussions. 

My suspicion was that a lot of people - not all - believe first, fill in the reasons why later. That a lot of the time, these reasons are extremely poor, but don’t seem so to them, because they’ve flipped the switch that goes ‘it’s true’. If you think something’s true, any evidence in favor (however feeble) ‘counts’, and you can safely discount all the evidence against. I think that’s true in life - psychologists call it ‘confirmation bias’ - but particularly true of religious belief, which goes on to add that this process, which it calls ‘faith’, is a virtue.

An argument like ‘information can’t evolve’ is not original to you, it’s one you can find on every creationist website, and it’s not a good one. Your tactic is not to answer very simple questions which you think are rhetorical but which aren’t. It’s to declare *after raising the subject yourself* that we’ve gone off topic. It’s to imply I’m on drugs and make all sorts of other personal insinuations. It’s to use a double standard when assessing evidence. It’s to challenge me to do things, which I do, to no effect. Let me do that Jesus thing again, the thing where I close my eyes and say ‘Jesus if you are real, show me’ ... OK, I’m back, nothing happened. Of course. If it was as simple as that, we wouldn’t need theologians. As the old saying goes, it’s great to talk to God, but when you start hearing him talk back, you need to get your medication changed.

Neil, after a few weeks talking to people here, I’ve come to understand a little more about why people believe. I confirmed that many people were thoughtful, troubled, bringing their own experience and imagination to things. I’m very grateful that people have been willing to share their experiences, positive and negative. I’m not ‘nearer to God’, and some of the conversations - this one, about ‘spiritual attack’ in particular - half convince me that the religious worldview is so divorced from the real world that it’s almost dangerous. (Anne Rice doesn’t think the Church is 100% truthful, so she’s *literally* been possessed by a demon?). I have a higher opinion of believers in general and Catholics in particular than I did a month ago.  If I’d found you first, I think all my preconceived notions would have been confirmed.

You still haven’t found that mountain Jesus went up that was so tall he could see the opposite hemisphere of the Earth from the summit. Keep thinking about that. Perhaps close your eyes and ask Jesus which mountain it was, and come back here with what he tells you. Or, y’know, if that is too awkward a question, perhaps you could try changing the subject.

Thank you for your time, Neil.

Have a good day Steve.

the religious worldview is so divorced from the real world that it’s almost dangerous-
*fact* over 100 million human beings were murdered under communism(in the 20th century) a system by which god is the state,  the state is god. That sounds more dangerous. What are the ods that a Galalian peasant could tell a few local fisherman to spread The message throughout the whole world, and two thousand years later that same Church would operate in the smallest country on earth and be the largest humanitarian organization on the planet? Conlusion…Christianity helps, atheism kills. Atheism has been the most “dangerous” movement in human history.

I’ve been studying Paul’s letter to the Hebrews in the revised standard version(the most accurate translation). Chapter 11. “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear”. Any opinions on what Paul might be describing here?

> Conlusion…Christianity helps, atheism kills

OK. We’re back on topic. In Jennifer’s original post, Anne Rice was inspiring and wise and learned and thoughtful when she converted to Catholicism, but somehow ignorant, deceived and not thinking things through when she left the Church again.

The double standard. And Neil’s assertion that all atheists are somehow culpable for Stalin is such an obvious example of this thinking. So ... Neil, let me see. Are you dealing fairly? If, as an atheist, I’m somehow guilty of every atrocity committed by an atheist, are you guilty of every atrocity committed by someone who was baptized Catholic? Or is this yet another double standard where your logic only works when it supports your argument?

Oh ... whatever I say, it won’t get through, will it? Knock yourself out. Have a wonderful time. A bunch of billboards around here are telling me that the Bible guarantees Jesus will be back on May 21st this year. I’ll ask him when I see him then. Not long now!

Steve,
You’ve got the stage again. I said “atheism” not “athiest. You said religion is dangerous, I came back with a fact to point out your absurdity. How old are you Steve?

Why do you hate Him so much Steve? Why do you hate His Church so much?
The Catholic Church brought about the university system along with all the natural sciences, the hospital system, and provides for more lepers and AIDS patients than any organization in the world. It is the largest humanitarian organization on the planet. It doesn’t cut the heads off of people for not believing it’s doctrine. To the contrary, it embraces muslims, buddhists, and athiests, and provides it’s services to all. Are you this angry with the united way or unicef? Why are you so angry?

“You said religion is dangerous”

No, I most definitely didn’t. I said a religious worldview that easily declares that someone who thinks the Catholic Church has not always told the entire truth must be under an attack from a literal demon, an external supernatural creature, is so divorced from the real world as to be dangerous. It’s demonizing people who disagree with you, literally. And if you think that’s a good thing ... well, you need to think about that.

Posted by Neil on Wednesday, Apr 27, 2011 12:22 PM (EDT):Why do you hate Him so much Steve? Why do you hate His Church so much?
The Catholic Church brought about the university system along with all the natural sciences, the hospital system, and provides for more lepers and AIDS patients than any organization in the world. It is the largest humanitarian organization on the planet. It doesn’t cut the heads off of people for not believing it’s doctrine. To the contrary, it embraces muslims, buddhists, and athiests, and provides it’s services to all. Are you this angry with the united way or unicef? Why are you so angry?

Let’s use the 12 apostles as a good mathematical reference point. Judas, one of the 12, sold Christ out for money. Peter denied even knowing him. 9 of the remaining 10 comletely abandoned Him. Let’s do the math; According to above reference 1 out of every 12, or 8.33%  members of His Church should be corrupt. 1 in 12, or 8.33% should deny their faith. Only 1 in 12 or 8.33% should stand beside Him no matter what. If this is all about the child/sex abuse scandal, which is disgusting to me, let’s look at the facts to be fair; Here we go Steve;
Your child is 8 times more likely to be molested by protestant clergy and 17 times more likely to be sexually abused in the public school system. The study was done by a protestant and you can check me if you want. I would never deny the faults of The Church, starting with Judas. The child abuse scandal is despicable. Again, I’m not defending it, but be fair about your assertions on The Church lying. I’m not aware of any stats on The Church declaring Ms. Rice a demon or anyone else for that matter. If you have stats on this then share it with the class. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Steve,

Two thoughts.  First, the contrast of Anne Rice joining the Church and then leaving it is consistently applying the same standard.  Either her joining was crazy and her leaving was the reassertion of sanity or, as we Catholics believe, her joining was wonderful and her leaving was crazy.  Those really are the only two possible approaches if you want to evaluate what Anne Rice did with a value judgement.
—
Second, Neil did not blame every atheist for the sins of atheist ideologies.  He blamed the world view itself.  I think that is fair, as it is fair to blame Christianity for the Inquisition but not every Christian.  Likewise, I think we need to keep in mind that not every murder committed by a Christian or an Atheist should be blamed on Christianity or Atheism unless it can be shown that their actions were directly related to their belief system.  Neil’s mistake here, I believe, is that it is a fool’s game to compare numbers.  Yes, the Atheist Ideologies of the 20th century killed more people in 70 years than Christianity and Islam together killed in the last 1500 years… but they also had much better (or worse depending on how you look at it) tools to work with.
—
What makes ideologies built on atheism dangerous, in my opinion, is that man ultimately is the measure of himself.  While certainly a religious fanatic can do a lot of damage, even the most extreme believer knows that he will have to answer to God if he is wrong.  In contrast, an atheist fanatic doesn’t necessarily have that brake on his behavior.

Good point on the tools to work with MD Bill. I accept your critique. I’ve done some research on the inquisition and crusades. What I found was it was the Spanish Christian government and not The Church. The Church looks like it tried to intervene in the matter. I definately concede that if there were cluster bombs during the crusades it would have been nasty. I’m new to the faith and one of the obstacles for me was the inquisition and the crusades. Once I took a closer look at the two, most of what I thought I knew was inaccurate. It can be a fool’s game to play numbers, but I didn’t expect to come here and hear someone claim Christ was a liar. Hard to stand idle.

> Those really are the only two possible approaches if you want
> to evaluate what Anne Rice did with a value judgement.

No. The double standard is that when Anne Rice agrees with you/Jennifer/Neil she’s a wise, learned, well-read, smart, inspiring woman, but when she disagrees, suddenly she’s possessed by the devil and clearly hasn’t even read the Bible.

It’s that when the Bible gives an account that, if you squint, sounds a bit like Job went into low Earth orbit, it’s a brilliant demonstration of how it was divinely inspired ... but when it says something nonsensical - the Moon gives off light, the Sun orbits the Earth, Jesus up his mountain - then those don’t count.

An honest appraisal of an argument can’t just look at the evidence that supports your position. But it seems endemic - the last Pope is going to beatified this weekend for curing a woman’s Parkinson’s. Except he didn’t cure her, she’s sick again. And her doctors now don’t think it was Parkinson’s. And it’s one case. 

> even the most extreme believer knows that he will have to answer to
> God if he is wrong. 

I agree with just about everything else you say, particularly the need to take a nuanced position on what someone does and whether it was their religious belief that was responsible. I think there is a distinction, though, between atheism (which is simply a lack of belief in gods) and Catholicism (which very specifically draws on a long history and tradition).

Maryland Bill,
I’ve been studying Paul’s letter to the Hebrews in the revised standard version(the most accurate translation). Chapter 11. “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear”. What do you think the “things” are that Paul is describing here?
Praise be to The Alpha and the Omega

Steve,
“The double standard is that when Anne Rice agrees with you/Jennifer/Neil she’s a wise, learned, well-read, smart, inspiring woman, but when she disagrees, suddenly she’s possessed by the devil and clearly hasn’t even read the Bible”-
You would also make a horrible journalist Steve. I never said anything about Ms. Rice being wise or possessed by the devil. If you can’t get your facts straight on trivial things, how do you expect anyone to take you serious with your deeper theological/ideological points?

> I never said anything about Ms. Rice

Neil, read Jennifer’s original post.

> I didn’t expect to come here and hear someone claim Christ was a liar

I never said Jesus was a liar. It is undeniable that the Biblical account contains untruths. It’s undeniable it shows Jesus making mistakes (whether he ‘really’ made those mistakes is not really the issue - the *account* we have shows him making them). It’s undeniable that the Gospels are not independent, unedited documents written by the disciples they are named after. It’s undeniable (and the Catholic Church has always clearly asserted) that the later books of the New Testament have been selected and edited to fit a particular version of early Christian beliefs.

Did you talk about Anne Rice? You certainly demonstrate the same double standard. Your interpretation of the Inquisition, that it was all the Spanish government’s fault, is yet another example to throw on the pile of discounting evidence that doesn’t fit your theory.

I’m not *angry*, I’m just bemused. The endless No True Scotsman tactics you adopt - ‘Jesus/Bible/the Church would never lie, this was a lie, therefore the it wasn’t the *real* Jesus/Bible/Church’. *This is itself* an example of ... not lying exactly, but a self-deception. It’s not the *whole* truth. Anyone can declare themselves undefeated if they just ignore the defeats. All books are inerrant if you don’t count the mistakes in them.

Is it that you don’t see the problem, or is it that you’ve rationalized it away?

> how do you expect anyone to take you serious

Neil, rest assured I don’t take you seriously and therefore have no interest in whether you take me ‘serious’.

Steve, “I never said Jesus was a liar.”
” If the Bible is an accurate record of what Jesus said, and he said ‘I went up a big mountain and saw all the Earth’, then Jesus was lying.”
These are your words Steve, which makes you the liar.

I vote we change the topic of this blog from “spiritual attacks” to;
“The world according to Steve.”

-“Did you talk about Anne Rice? You certainly demonstrate the same double standard.”
“The double standard is that when Anne Rice agrees with you/Jennifer/Neil she’s a wise, learned, well-read, smart, inspiring woman, but when she disagrees, suddenly she’s possessed by the devil and clearly hasn’t even read the Bible-”

Steve,
Give me one example where I’ve used this double standard of yours with respect to Ms. Rice. Show me O’ Great One of Truth.

Still looking? I didn’t have anything to do with Jennifer’s original post, nor any subsequent discussions about Ms. Rice. The double standard lies in you Steve. I didn’t stumble on the blog you’ve managed to hijack until April 17th.
Light exposes darkness. You’re being exposed for the charlatan that you are Steve.

*The world according to Steve*
“If we’re talking about ‘truth’, then start with a fairly obvious lies - nearly half the ‘letters of St Paul’ *couldn’t have been written by St Paul*.”
In the words of St. Peter;
2 Peter 3:15 - “As our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

*The world according to Steve*
Original Post-
“Can I ask two questions, please, as an inquisitive atheist? I have absolutely no desire to deconvert, this isn’t an attack, please don’t misconstrue it as one, it’s just a couple of questions.”
Harmless little curious athiest? You be the judge…
Latest post-
“It is undeniable that the Biblical account contains untruths. It’s undeniable it shows Jesus making mistakes (whether he ‘really’ made those mistakes is not really the issue - the *account* we have shows him making them). It’s undeniable that the Gospels are not independent, unedited documents written by the disciples they are named after. It’s undeniable (and the Catholic Church has always clearly asserted) that the later books of the New Testament have been selected and edited to fit a particular version of early Christian beliefs.”

Colossians 2
verse 4- “I say this so that no one may decieve you by specious arguments.”
verse 8- “See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.”
Thanks be to God

> ” If the Bible is an accurate record of what Jesus said, and
> he said ‘I went up a big mountain and saw all the Earth’, then
> Jesus was lying.” These are your words Steve, which makes you the
> liar.

Do you really not know what the word ‘if’ means, Neil?

Neil.

You accuse me of going off topic, then state outright that you’ve never discussed the subject of Jennifer’s post.

You raise subjects like the Biblical account of Job’s view of Earth from space, then refuse to count the various bits of dodgy astronomy that are also in the Bible.

You boast about your ‘research’ then think that if I link to a site that demolishes your unoriginal, ill-thought-through argument that I’m plagiarizing.

You think that the Church can do no wrong, that the Bible contains no errors. The *Church* doesn’t believe that, the whole point of *having* a Church is to act to clarify what’s open to interpretation in the Bible.

You don’t even understand that these are double standards. You have your belief, and nothing will shake it. You have been taught that that’s a virtue. You have been mistaught. Faith, when it is contrary to facts and reality, is the greatest sin.

Worst of all, it’s just you and me having this conversation. I’m sure everyone else is long gone. 

I came to this site to learn, to have a discussion about why people believe. I can learn nothing whatsoever from you. The first rule of the internet is that if you find yourself arguing with a complete fecking moron, you need to stop or there’s a good chance the guy you’re arguing with is doing the same. I have reached the point where I will stop.

*The world according to Steve*
“Do you really not know what the word ‘if’ means, Neil?”
Now you sound like Bill Clinton. You would make a good politician Steve.

*The world according to Steve*
“You have your belief, and nothing will shake it.”
(That’s the most logical thing you’ve said Steve.) Let’s see if Steve means it though…
” You have been mistaught. Faith, when it is contrary to facts and reality, is the greatest sin.”
Now let’s listen to Steve’s reassuring comment from his earlier post;
“Again, I’m not trying to win a debate or persuade on this point, I fear that one’s a lost cause!”

*The world according to Steve*
“As I’ve said, I’m not trying to talk people out of their beliefs, or looking to convert”.

*The world according to Steve*
“I came to this site to learn, to have a discussion about why people believe.”
You came here to torment believers. I’m just calling you out.

*The world according to Steve*
“The first rule of the internet is that if you find yourself arguing with a complete fecking moron, you need to stop or there’s a good chance the guy you’re arguing with is doing the same. I have reached the point where I will stop.”
Actually this is pretty good Steve. I couldn’t agree with you more.

*The world according to Steve*
“Worst of all, it’s just you and me having this conversation. I’m sure everyone else is long gone”
You ran everyone off you nit-wit. I’m calling you out on behalf of everyone that has looked at this blog, and especially for the people you’ve engaged here with your lies. You’re a charlatan. The irony with someone like you Steve, especially on this “Devine Mercy” Vigil/Sunday, is that according to Christ Himself YOU are more entitled to His mercy than I am. Go chew on that paradox for a bit.

*The world according to Steve*
“I never said Jesus was a liar. It is undeniable that the Biblical account contains untruths.” <——(He says the Bible is inconsistant)

The Bible is the written Word of God. “And The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”

This is for everyone that came here with a sincere heart in search of comfort during your trials;
1 Peter 4:12 “Beloved, do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening to you.”
1 Peter 5:6 “So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exault you in due time. Cast all your worries upon Him because He cares for you. Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. The God of all grace who called you to His eternal glory will Himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. To Him be dominion forever. Amen.
In the words of soon to be Saint JP The Great; “Do not be afraid.”

Thank you for just giving us wisdom of Scripture to chew on, Neil.  It’s refreshing to read His Sacred Word, and in context for a change.

Now if only the Vatican would preach and teach the New Testament letters on Sundays to Catholic pew people world-wide!  Up till now, those few that can: do.  But those multitudes that can’t: pontificate drivel.

May 21 is likely to come and go, without notice.  2012, the end of the Mayan calendar, is likely to come and go without notice.  It is written that no one knows the day or the hour.  The Vatican would have been wise to spend the $5 million they allotted towards the beatification of JPII to buying Bibles, and educating us pew people instead.  Catholics need to know the doctrine contained in the New Testament letters.

Cradle,
I hear more of the New Testament on Sundays than I ever did as a protestant. I hear more readings from the Bible as a Catholic than any church I’ve ever attented. And I’ve tried so many I lost count. In fact, I am able to have a much deeper understanding of Sacred Scripture as a Catholic. You should take another look at the Catholic Church. I can see you clearly have a deep love for Our Lord. The notion of institutionalized religion never appealed to me, but as it turns out, it is indeed His Church. Sinners, Saints, and people like me who are in most need of His mercy.

If you want to find Christ’s Church, just find the most hated institution in the world…

Cradle,
One of the biggest hurdles for me in my conversion was the “institution” of Catholicism. I really struggled with it. Look in the book of Acts though, mainly the council of Jerusalem in chapter 15. Here is the early Church, actual eyewitnesses to Christ Himself, on fire with The Holy Spirit, and they are debating about whether a man’s foreskin pertains to his salvation in Christ. Can you imagine the scandal that would cause today? “Catholic Church not sure if foreskins are acceptable.” Why would the Holy Spirit deem it necessary to include this event in Sacred Scripture? Perhaps so that we could see that it’s always been a human institution, but guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide His Church in all truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it. I just take Him at His word now.

Neil - I am a cradle Catholic w/ 12 years of Catholic education. I never left the Roman Catholic Church physically.  The last time I was at Mass was last weekend.  You are correct there is a LOT of the Bible read at Mass - Old Testament, an Epistle letter and a Gospel passage.  It is WONDERFUL - I LOVE IT.  But priests do NOT PREACH it.  Frankly, they are ill-equipped as teachers.  One can’t teach what one does not know.

Allow me to share with you a sermon I heard on Saturday night:  The priest said his hero was a Maryknoll priest that went to the mission field to work among Muslims.  He said this priest NEVER ever preached to them, or shared the Gospel with them, or told them anything that would draw them from their Muslim faith.

He said that was “okay!”, and his friend just “lived” in a manner that described what St. Francis presumably once said, “Preach the Gospel always.  If necessary, use words.”  He said when his friend died, Muslims by the hundreds came to pay their respects to him, he was so well-liked.

Now, Neil, I ask you this:  St. Paul was shipwrecked on the island of Malta.  It is due to Paul that country became Chrisitan-Catholic.  If St. Paul just wandered around Malta, offering to help folks repair their tents, being just an all around nice fellow to them, never telling them of Jesus, would that be fulfilling the commmand of The Great Commission?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with a retired bishop, and I lamented the fact that ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS DO NOT PREACH Paul and the other New Testament letters.  He said, “Oh, yes they do.  Paul is included in the Gospel.  It’s all about the Gospel that we preach.”

I told him, “I disagree.  The Gospel is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  Paul’s letters and the other New Testament epistles are about dogma and doctrine that’s important for a Christian to know.  Paul wrote clearly about Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, and the coming again of Jesus.  Catholics do not hear that, as a rule.  Never.” 

This bishop looked at me with such a clueless look, I knew I was dealing with a fool.  So I just asked him, “So what’s the most fun thing about being a bishop?”  To that, he perked up and said, “That I’m retired.”  We went onto talk about how much he liked baseball, a subject of discussion he could handle.

Neil - I don’t know the non-Catholic churches you went to, but I know a LOT of Roman Catholic FAMILIES that go to Mass on Sunday, and then they go to a non-Catholic Christian parish to LEARN THE WORD.  They are hungry to know about their faith, so they won’t fall prey to some new doctrines, and false teachers that like to “tickle their ears”, priests like the one that preached on Saturday night, and clueless and weak bishops, like the one I met on Sunday.

Instead of the Vatican getting a clue about what’s happening in the pews, they spend millions trying to get good PR by declaring JPII a saint, a man that clergy abuse survivors (and just observant pew people, like me) have been writing about for years, complaining that he did nothing to stop the sexual abuse and exploitation by priests (and bishops) of pew people.

In his 27 year “reign” as pope, he appointed other do-nothing bishops, world-wide.  They could have spent those millions, buying Bibles for parishes, and *forcing* Catholic clergymen to get educated about matters that have ETERNAL VALUE.

You do not have to go to third World countries anymore to reach people that are unchurched.  Just go to any Roman Catholic parish, anywhere in the United States, on a Sunday morning, and you will find pew people that have no idea about matters that have ETERNAL VALUE in the Christian faith.

They may be nice people - good and generous, and helping the needy, etc.
Too bad it is written that all of our good works are like “dirty rags” to God.  I didn’t say that, by the way.  It’s just another verse in Scripture that priests don’t preach about.  It’s too controversial.  I’m sure Fr. Nice Guy Maryknoll that worked among the Muslims never preached on that topic either.

This morning, I heard something that hit the nail on the head with JPII’s canonization attempt: He can be The Patron Saint of Looking the Other Way.

Cradle,
We have a Phillipino priest here and I seldom understand what he’s saying. He could be preaching the gospel like no other, or he could be one of the one’s that you say just don’t get it. Like I said, I can’t understand his dialect. I do however hear the systematic Word of God and not simply a random reading that came to the mind of a preacher the night before church. The Word of God is read and then the most phenominal miracle takes place in the Eucharist. For myself, it doesn’t matter that I couldn’t understand the sermon. If I went to a third world country and listened to the best sermon ever in a language I couldn’t understand, I would still get the same out of the mass, The Word of God and the Word made flesh in the Eucharist. One of the big questions for me by my protestant friends was how could I enter the Catholic Church at the height of the child abuse scandal. They didn’t and couldn’t understand my response. It was the Eucharist.  My humble opinion on the average Catholic is most don’t seem to fully believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Church should address that and then look at handing out bibles. Look at the title of the blog here, assuming we agree on spiritual attacks. Who would satan want to attack more than any other human? Probably the only human beings that can bring us the Eucharist. As far as the Vatican’s expense account for JP The Great, I don’t have enough information to have a opinion. I love JP’s writings though. Every Christian should read what the man wrote. All of it.

By the way, I’m a red neck in Texas so you can imagine the vernacular here. We have a hard time just understanding proper english.

“This bishop looked at me with such a clueless look, I knew I was dealing with a fool.”
1 Thessalonians 5:12- “We ask you brothers to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and show esteem for them with special love on account of their work.”

I just have to say something here. For a Catholic web-site, this is about the most anti-catholic rhetoric I’ve heard so far. I came here hoping to interact with catholics that may be experiencing spiritual attacks. Instead, I find an out of control athiest and a cradle catholic that doesn’t like the Church(Luke 10:16 on that one). Truly unreal. The spiritual attacks are actually worse in here. I think I’ll just move on down the road, the opposite direction Steve went of course. Take care all.

Neil - I also know a wonderful Vietnamese priest that tries hard to pronounce English correctly.  While he, too, is not Scripture-literate,  he is so kind, so warm, and so friendly, and he is a good example of Christian charity.

He would be wonderful in either his homeland, Vietnam, or in a parish that had more people that speak his language.  Instead, he is in a primarily English-speaking parish, because there are too few priests to go around to all the churches.

A friend is in a parish whose pastor is from the Phillippines.  The pastor is also Scripture-illiterate.  For his homilies, according to my friend, he “reads from some papers”, about 3 pages, going on and on, and no one in his parish knows what he’s saying, but it appears to have nothing to do with the readings.  They just know he goes on talking for about 20 minutes, hoping for him to stop.

I suggested to my friend that he ask the pastor for a copy of what it is, as my friend is older and hard of hearing, to give the priest the benefit of the doubt.  But either my friend is not comfortable with asking for that special favor.  Further, no one else in that parish feels comfortable with speaking up. The priest only surrounds himself with a few fellow parishioners from the Phillippines.

Would it not be better for the Vatican to RECOGNIZE what ails our church, and to make corrections to it?  First, teaching the writings of St. Paul IN CONTEXT, seeing that our men in the ministry are ideally, married with children?

Ending celibacy would not solve all that ails our church, but it would go a long way towards fostering health, and trust, and it would bring more priests (back) to the church, resulting in fewer parishes that have situations such as you described when you wrote, Neil: “We have a Phillipino priest here and I seldom understand what he’s saying.”

Being Roman Catholic these days, with pew people still putting clergymen on a pedestal & the Vatican turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to us results in a case of “Let the Buyer Beware”.  It’s not that I don’t like the church, Neil.  It’s that I do not TRUST the church. Our Roman Catholic church leaders do not honor Scripture, in context.

And while they talk a good talk (sometimes) about the Bible, God’s Word holds very little water for them, when it all boils down.  Jesus’ “The Way” and “The Deposit of Faith” is on the sidelines & I do object to that.  It has nothing to do with “spiritual attacks”.  It comes down to the Vatican ignoring the Bible, and surrounding themselves with “Yes Men”.  Neil, are you a yes man?

Lastly, regarding the clueless retired bishop: ‘Do not cast your pearls before swine.’  At some point, when a person shows us who they are, it’s better to believe them, and not try to get tomato juice out of a carrot.
One can only give what they possess.  Scripture knowledge is not there.

Neil -

“Who would satan want to attack more than any other human? Probably the only human beings that can bring us the Eucharist. As far as the Vatican’s expense account for JP The Great, I don’t have enough information to have a opinion. I love JP’s writings though. Every Christian should read what the man wrote. All of it.”

Very true.

‘Every Christian should read what the man wrote.’

What about the things he didn’t write and say?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/05/01/rush_to_elevate_john_paul_ignores_victims/?s_campaign=8315

People should be wary of mindless adoration of a very flawed human being, a man who drove so many from the church by his hardline management and unwillingness to acknowledge the financial and sexual scandals that swirled inside his church and left it far smaller and weaker than he found it. He was a human being, and just because he was Pope for a long time doesn’t mean he was a particularly good one. But, of course, we’ve had so many years of propaganda telling us otherwise that even breathing a single word of dissent is seen as hatred.

As for his ‘miracle’? He cured a woman of Parkinson’s ... except now her doctors say the disease is back, and it’s not Parkinson’s. It’s a shameless political move on the Vatican’s part, a distraction from the self-evident fact that the current Pope’s pretty much nothing but flaws by trying to tap into the appeal of the last one. 

Admire the good things the last Pope did, but ignoring or excusing the missteps helps no one.

Jemima Cole - you wrote the most profound of all these posts.  Thank you.
A reporter in Our Sunday Visitor (John Norton) wrote a recent article about *why* Catholic pew people refuse to see even obvious flaws in their clergymen, putting them on a pedestal, & considering priests as Magda wrote, as “the only human beings that can bring us the Eucharist”.

The reporter’s guess was Catholic pew people live vicariously holy lives through priests, and to admit they are less than perfectly holy is a threat to them.  He said it would be too much effort for pew people to live “holy” lives, so just being convinced that priests are “holy” works for those Catholics that choose to look the other way on everything bad.
 

The only good thing I’ve heard about the effort to make JPII a saint is that he can now officially be known as “The Patron Saint of Looking the Other Way.”  Frankly, no one with a mind would take his beatification seriously.  The sad part is by going full speed with this effort, in spite of all the people asking Rome to “slow down!”, is the Vatican is making itself irrelevant.

It is causing the priesthood to become irrelevant too, except, of course for those folks that are just brainless, and that refuse to see the clergy through anything but rose colored glasses.  With the economy being slower and jobs harder to find - it’s no coincidence men are lining up for seminaries, to be priests.  It’s a job.  And no matter what they do, their adoring public (pew people) will support them. 

I didn’t know the woman’s Parkinson’s came back.  Thanks for that mention.  Anyone dead having the wherewithal to intercede with God to cure someone is problematic.  Who gets the credit for the cure?  Was it God?  Actually, no.  It’s JPII.

Your last line is wise - you wrote, “Admire the good things the last Pope did, but ignoring or excusing the missteps helps no one.”  Well said.

The only reason I’m bothering with this again is it came across my e-mail and didn’t go my junk e-mail like it should have. Let me just tell you a few things I don’t like;
I don’t like radical islam, guess what, I don’t go to their sites and challenge them on their beliefs. Cutting off heads of non-believers, etc.
I don’t like the oprah winfrey show, guess what, I don’t watch it.
I don’t like the wisdom of fools, so I stay away from atheists that put more faith in their belief of no god than I do in my belief in One.
Cradle, I don’t believe for a minute that you are a practicing Catholic. You have an unhealthy vendetta against the Church. And Jemima, you sound like Steve. I’m not discounting the possiblity you’re the same person. You think Jemima is profound? Wow. Why do you people bother coming to a Catholic site and wasting your time like this? It’s a big, big internet with plenty of like-minded people. I’m perplexed. Do you think your jargon will bring any true Catholic to come around to your distorted way of thinking? Do you really think you’re that “profound?” Is there that much hatred in your hearts? Why do you hate Him and His Church so much that you obsess on going to a CATHOLIC web site? Now, shoo. Live and let live, Golden Rule it if nothing else. Go start your own church or movement or something. If david koresh can pull that off, so can you.

Neil:

I think that of all places they should find welcome here among Catholics. Born Again does sound very protestant, but there was a time in my life when I did, too, because I was ignorant of the truth about my faith and thought I was defending it.  Jemima is here for the same reason Steve is - they are struggling to understand something that just doesn’t seem to make sense.  Please don’t shoo them away. If you find that what they are saying frustrates you, aggravates you, or wounds you go and sit and pray over it. Ask the Lord to guide you and give you the right words, to calm you and help you through it.  Remember that God loves each of them with the same love that He has for you, and His desire for them is that they reach Heaven just as it is for you. 

One more thing I will tell you.  Do not shoo Jemima, Born Again, or Steve away. God has placed them in your path for a specific reason and purpose. It is His earnest desire that you learn something important from them, just as He desires them to learn something important from you.  They are a gift to you from God.  Don’t throw it away.  The gift may not be wrapped in pretty wrapping paper or carry a lovely bow, but I find that the uglier the wrapping paper the more beautiful the gift. It’s God’s way of testing you and asking you whether you trust Him or not. Trust that He loves you, trust that His plan for them and for you is for your good, and love them. Befriend them. Get to know them. Value them.

Brandy,
I apologize if I’ve offended anyone here. I actually did pray over the things said, before I said them. And not to sound munipulative but I actually prayed for Steve before The Blessed Sacrament last Saturday night(Divine Mercy). If challenging the accusations mentioned here were not done with charity on my part then I truly am sorry.

Thank you, Brandy.  Mostly what I try to do is encourage fellow Catholics to read the Bible, pleading for priests to preach about matters of Eternal Value on Sunday, when they have pew people’s attention, teaching the Bible in context & in full, and not ignore the obvious problems that have surfaced in our church.  For that, I’m told I don’t sound Catholic, but Protestant.

@Born Again: It is statements such as this “My guess is God would tell Ms. Rice: THE VATICAL SYSTEM IS CORRUPT -“Obey God, not men.”” and “How come among all Christian denominations, the Catholic Church, claiming Jesus Himself as it’s Founder, does not teach or preach ” The Good News”?” that have a Protestant sound to them. Martin Luther and John Wesley both stated the same things. Martin Luther, as you do, truly believed he was only correcting the Church and was shocked to find himself ex-communicated.

I’m not sure where you’ve been going to Mass, as you claim to have been doing, but you either aren’t listening to the Mass readings or have some serious problems in your home parish. The Mass readings are typographical - meaning that each one is related to the other. They are specifically chosen to help the reader better understand the Gospel.  On most Sundays, we will start with an Old Testament reading which relates to Christ. Then we will hear a Psalm that relates to Christ and which further expounds the message of the Old Testament reading. Then we will have a second reading pulled from the New Testament letters that relates to the Gospel reading. Finally, we will have a reading pulled from either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.  Afterward, the priest gives a homily and it is his duty to teach those who listen how this reading relates to their lives, and what it means. 

If, for some rather bizarre reason, your Mass doesn’t include those things then go and look up the daily mass readings. Some sites will even give you instruction and reflection.  Pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it. Know what your Church teaches, because it’s clear to me that you do not. This is why you sound Protestant.

Brandy- The Vatican wanted to KILL Martin Luther for posting his list of problems he had with the church.  They did away with him for disagreeing with their methods, by just declaring him anathema - excommunicated.  Yet, indulgences were being sold.  This is why even today, priests can only preside at no more than 2 Masses per day; to preside at more, they need a bishop’s permission.  It resulted from corruption, and from the top, down.

Much of our clerical “system” even today is from feudal days, days that were corrupt, when clergymen SOLD offices, or appointed their children (even those born outside of wedlock) to clerical offices, in order to maintain control over church, government AND people’s money.

The Vatican “system” IS corrupt.  Look at JPII being put on the fast track to sainthood, in spite of people that were ignored by him being hurt by it, and pleading to be heard.

Our church leaders ignore the writings of Paul, and most of the New Testament too = the Deposit of Faith.  The D o F doesn’t square with much of what Rome has held as true, for generations.

We need another Martin Luther now, someone that holds to Scripture as the Gold Standard of Measure.  Luther wasn’t shocked to find himself excommunicated, he was blessed that the rabid clerics didn’t succeed in killing him.

I am aware of all that you wrote in your post, as the last time I was at Mass was Saturday 5PM and again at the 9AM on Sunday - at two different Catholic parishes.  You wrote, “Afterward, the priest gives a homily and it is his duty to teach those who listen how this reading relates to their lives, and what it means.”  ....

Brandy, that is where I have a problem.  I pray that from the Vatican on downward, our clergymen will study the New Testament AFTER the Gospels: Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Peter, Hebrews, the 13 LETTERS Paul wrote, and TEACH and PREACH that to us pew people, VERSE BY VERSE, in context and in full.  That is the Deposit of Faith, and it is ignored.

Neil - There’s no need to apologize.  We are all just interested in bringing health to our Church.  I would like to see trust brought to it too, and it will only be trustworthy, when clergy begins to preach and teach the Word, in context and in full.  It is when Catholics are taught the Deposit of Faith - left to us by the Apostles, not the tweaked version, with all the additions left to us by popes and cardinals, down the line, like a bad game of “Pass it along”, where a message gets distorted.

Cradle,
What if this “new martin luther” removed more books from the Bible like the first one did? He took it upon himself to determine heretical books 1,200 years after the canon was assembled and removed seven books from the original canon. Most protestants do not know this. What good is sola scriptura if pieces of the puzzle are missing? Although I doubt it was Luther’s intention, look at the end result of his “reformation.” Christianity has fractured into literally thousands of pieces. Hours before Christ was to sweat blood He prayed(John 17) that His Church would remain as ONE. He clearly didn’t want division in His Church. Let’s just follow a few precepts for the sake of argument; Christ started a Church and not a movement or world view. Where is that Church? Which one is it, or did it fall off the face of the earth at the death of the apostles? Did the Roman Catholic Church hijack it? He said that His Church would be guided in ALL Truth and the gates of hell would never prevail against it.

“Although I doubt it was Luther’s intention, look at the end result of his “reformation.” Christianity has fractured into literally thousands of pieces.”
-Let me clarify this statement-
The protestant churches, starting with the Lutheran church, fractured into thousands of pieces while the Catholic Church remained congruent. It’s still ONE. 2,000 years later. The reformation less than 500 years later is a total mess and complete disaster. Now everyone wants to be “non-denominational” which is a denomination in and of itself. I’m telling you satan wants Christians away from the Eucharist, which is another thing Luther disagreed with.

The Church needs more Francis of Assisi and Ignatius of Loyola more than another Martin Luther.

Neil - Regarding the seven Old Testament books taken out of the Bible: I have a Catholic Bible that I read mostly, because it has ALL those books.
There is nothing in those books that couldn’t be in a non-Catholic Bible.
To my knowledge, even they see it as Jewish history, even the Feast of Hanukkah is contained in Maccabees.  So non-Catholics would not disagree with what those books contain.

BUT - herein lies the problem: non-Catholics would not use anything in those books as DOCTRINE or DOGMA.  Catholics do.  For instance, much of the Vatican’s defense of praying for the dead and the Vatican idea of Purgatory comes from Maccabees.  One teensy tiny verse taken out of NEW TESTAMENT context, and used to form a “new” doctrine.  Non-Catholics since the time of Luther had a problem with that.  So do I.

The Catholic Church is not necessarily congruent, as you wrote.  2,000 years later, we have certain proclamations coming out of Rome, but we also have Lone Ranger Bishops all over the world, doing their OWN thing.
My own bishop is 100% liberal.  He couldn’t care less about what official church teaching is about same-sex marriage, and God’s word (Romans 1) is disregarded too.  This lack of sound education is causing the Roman Catholic church to be irrelevant.  It’s sad because much of what Rome teaches is good.

But they have strayed from the Deposit of Faith, and away from God’s Truth (found in Scripture- Old Testament AND New Testament), that only the most brain-washed pew people pay attention to what they say.

Just look at the so-called “Roman Catholics” in politics.  Look at the ungodly laws they so vocally support.  It’s Catholics that have destroyed the morals in our country.  So Catholics are really all over the place, and every bit as much as non-Catholic Christians, Protestant and non-denominational.

The “Real” Body of Christ is alive and well.  It is composed of those people that abide IN Jesus, accepting Him as our Lord and Savior, and knowing we are safely protected by the Holy Spirit - growing every day in the knowledge of Him.  As John said, “He must increase.  I must decrease.”  That sums up being a Christian.  It also means having a VERY HIGH regard for the truths found in the Bible - in context.

As for Luther and the Eucharist - I was a guest at a Missour Synod Lutheran church several years ago.  Neil - I was shocked to see that in order to receive Communion at those parishes, one must REGISTER first, filling out a form that indicates you believe you are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus.  No form?  No Communion.  Catholics should treat Communion as reverently.

They do not believe the priest has “powers” to cause Jesus to obey and enter the elements, like Catholics do.  They would never think “No priest?  No Eucharist.”  In non-Catholic churches, pew people are not held hostage to the whims of their clergy, as are we Catholics.

“BUT - herein lies the problem: non-Catholics would not use anything in those books as DOCTRINE or DOGMA.”
Christ said what you bind on earth is bound in heaven. I don’t know why we have such a problem with that. St. Paul spoke about the faithful being obediant to pagan authorities. Under that premise, why is it so difficult to be obediant to the Church? By nature I’m a non-conformist. What’s strange about my new life as a Catholic is I’m actually more free in my obedience to the Church than I ever was as a born-again-pagan. His yoke truly is light. Who decides what is right or wrong? Good or evil? Is it up to each individual’s own concience? All 6 billion of us? Modern secularism and relativism have destroyed the morals of our country, not Catholicism.

Neil - The Church needs another Peter and Paul.  Until our clergymen become educated in Scripture, we pew people need to self-educate, and SPEAK UP about what Truths we learn.  Not my truth or your truth, but God’s Truth.  Even Francis of Assisi and Ignatius Loyola wasn’t perfect.
Peter and Paul were being led directly by the Holy Spirit.  We KNOW they spoke Truth.  We can take what they said to the bank.

While bishops like to claim they are successors of Peter and Paul, they sure don’t act like it; they don’t know squat about what Peter and Paul did.  It’s so much easier to push some desert father or another saint on us, that’s why they spend so much time and money making even MORE saints.
There’s never enough - THAT’S the distraction.  It comes from within.

How about Peter?  How about Paul?  We have their writings.  In his two letters, Peter even mentioned Paul’s writings, calling them Scripture.  Why are these two men overlooked?  Peter was an eye-witness!  Paul learned what he wrote about DIRECTLY from the Holy Spirit, when he was in the desert.  [Refer to his letter to the Galations.]

I would LOVE to see a world-wide Bible study done on the New Testament in every Catholic parish - during the week, where a PRIEST reads to the flock, verse by verse, in an EXPOSITORY fashion, exposing truths the New Testament contains.  Leave the Gospel for Sunday- leave the insipid reflections of the priest: those 7 minute sermonettes that produce infantile Christianettes, for Sunday. 

CATHOLICS NEED MEAT.  THE CATHOLICS I KNOW ARE HUNGRY.  THE CATHOLICS I KNOW ARE CRANKY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING FED THE TRUTH.

We pew people need the Truth of God’s Word.  Give us New Testament doctrine - in context, and in full ... or the Roman Catholic church will continue to be irrelevant, ignored even by its own “members” and it’s own “bishops”, while the REAL Body of Christ does just fine, in non-denominational churches.

The only thing my own bishop can lead is the way to a buffet table.  It’s thanks to JPII and his 27 years of hit or miss bishop-appointing that their priorities remain skewed, & they know nothing of Scripture.  Nothing.  It’s downright embarassing.

By the way, tomorrow, May 5, Thursday, 12 noon, Christians (the Body of Christ) are gathering at City Hall’s all over the United States, to pray for our country.  If you can’t be at an official gathering, you can just pray silently wherever you are.  Or you can go to a city hall, and walk around by yourself, and pray there.

I know Christians that began to fast and pray *tonight* for a prayerful and successful “National Day of Prayer” tomorrow.  You can join us in prayer, even now.

“CATHOLICS NEED MEAT.  THE CATHOLICS I KNOW ARE HUNGRY.  THE CATHOLICS I KNOW ARE CRANKY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEING FED THE TRUTH.”

Just read John 6 and know if you and the others are recieving the Eucharist, you’re being fed The Finest Meat in the universe.

Neil - one cannot be a born-again pagan.  When Paul wrote that we are to submit to authority, he meant the authority of a government, an employer, a wife with a husband of good will, a church leader teaching the Deposit of Faith.

He did not mean we submit to everything - like an employer that asks us to do something illegal, or that we submit to FALSE Church Teachers.  We are warned elsewhere in Scripture to beware of “some new doctrine”.

We need our leaders to be on the lookout for new doctrine.  The COMMAND to search the Scriptures so we do not fall prey to FALSE teaching is all over the New Testament.  We are to be on our guard.

But Catholics have a reputation for not paying much attention to the Deposit of Faith, not even knowing what it is.  Only the Gospel stories are important to them, and to most priests & bishops.  It’s baby steps.

Unfortunately, our leaders refuse to honor God’s Word (in context and in full) so pew people need protection from many of our own leaders.  If I bought everything my own bishop said - God help me!  The man has no morals, and he has no good sense.  As long as the money continues to roll in, everything is A-okay with him.  The money is rolling in.

Not making waves is what’s high on his list.  And supporters of same-sex marriage have a lot of $$.  My bishop either does not know what Romans Chapter One says, or he knows what it says… and he does not care.

You asked, “Who decides what is right or wrong? Good or evil?” 
Cradle’s reply-
God decides.  We know what God thinks is good and evil, by reading the Bible.  It’s all right there.  It’s clear.  A child can understand it.

Neil - I’ve noticed my fellow Catholics have an EXTERNAL view of God.  We GO TO church to EAT Him.  We GO TO adoration to SEE Him.  We need a priest in order to TALK with Him.

Last Sunday, we had the new “Gloria” sung.  I felt like I was being entertained by musicians and cantors, and even worship was being taken FROM me, being made EXTERNAL and usurped by others.

“FAITH comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of God” - in our ears.
“Without faith, it is impossible to please God.” - it’s really important.
It is written, “ALL things will pass away, but MY WORD will NEVER pass away.”  Paul said “All Scripture” is useful for correction, reproof, etc.

Neil - you called yourself a red=neck from Texas.  So you must not be a wimpy kind of guy.  Please - HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We Catholic pew people need to know God’s Word.  We need it NOW.  NOW!!!!

“Until our clergymen become educated in Scripture.”

Cradle,
Have you ever seen the level of education/training priests go through?
Jesuit Priests for exampl go through 12-14 years of theological studies. Most speak multiple languages. I would almost be willing to guarantee you that the average priest in America would have more extensive knowledge of scripture than the upper echelon of protestant ministers. Look at Fr. Mitch Pacwa. The guy knows 12 different languages. Look at the level of post-graduate studies these guys do. One thing priests do not lack is education in scripture. You’re really just complaining to complain. There’s no merit to what you’re saying. Without getting too personal here, did a priest or bishop hurt you or someone in your family?

“You asked, “Who decides what is right or wrong? Good or evil?” 
Cradle’s reply-
God decides.  We know what God thinks is good and evil, by reading the Bible.  It’s all right there.  It’s clear.  A child can understand it.”

Contraception, euthanasia, and stem cell research can’t be found in the Bible. Along with a plethera of other modern issues we face. As an example, if The Baptists think euthanasia is acceptable for the greater good and the Methodists think contraception is as well, then who’s right?
Many protestant churches think abortion is a free choice. At least the Catholic Church is consistant with these issues. Read Pope Paul VI encyclical on contraception, absolutely prophetic as to what the end result would be. Someone has to decide just like someone had to decided who would replace judas and the whole foreskin issue I mentioned earlier.

““FAITH comes by HEARING, and hearing by the Word of God” - in our ears.”

No doubt Cradle. Who interprets Sacred Scripture though? The second letter or Peter states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” I heard a sermon once in a non-denominational church on John 6. The pastor spent an hour explaining that Jesus said some really crazy stuff. Without the magisterium it’s litteraly a free-for-all. Again, look at some basic precepts, Christ founded a Church. Why a Church? Why not just a message?
The fact is without a magisterium the Bible would have never been. Without Sacred Tradition, the Bible wouldn’t exist. We would all be sifting through the Tora and New Testament letters singing kumbaya. Forget your disfunctional parish for a bit. Go find the Church Christ founded. By process of elimination you can exclude all protestant faiths so it’s not a time consuming project. Then trust that Jesus knew what He was doing.

“Neil - one cannot be a born-again pagan.”
No true. I was a born-again-pagan more than once. I tried pretty much everything. I loved my paganism. I was the most pathetic sinner you’ll ever know. I would have made Augustine look like a saint before he was a saint.

Neil - I was silent for all my life about the Church, just sitting in the pews with the other pew people, believing the clergy knew what was best for all of us.  I too, believed diocesan priests & bishops OVERALL were savvy in the faith, and lived lives that honored God.  I believed they were well-meaning, and a few rotten eggs, or just human fraility, would be an anamoly among them.  *Well, I was wrong.*

When the news came out in Boston about the scandals, I was shocked.  I didn’t see that coming.  It was when I learned the MENTALITY that caused the abuse to flourish was so widespread, I got angry.  I have been angry ever since.  I had no idea scandals had been so in your face, since the days of St. Peter Damian, and everyone (and I mean everyone - from pew people to the diocese to the Vatican) ignores it, making excuses for it.
That is NOT the Body of Christ.  The real Church knows better and honors God.

When I was a child, I knew of a priest that was an honorable man.  He met and fell in love with a woman, and after having been a priest for 15 years.  I learned that he was treated by his diocese as if he was a leper, when he decided his love for this woman was such that he could no longer function as a celibate (and chaste) priest.

When he chose to leave the priesthood and marry the woman, his “brother priests” and his bishop treated him in a manner that said, “Thanks Sucker.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.  And good riddens.”
To my knowledge, he never heard from any of them since.

So much for the ooey gooey “holiness” lingo we hear from diocese and pew people.  So much for Christian charity, love & forgiveness.  So much for being there for their “brother priests” through thick & thin….like they do for CHILD MOLESTERS, AND RAPISTS, AND THOSE THAT COVER-UP FOR THEM.

JPII appointed bishops for 27 years.  It was not due to their stellar leadership skills.  These men just played ball, not rocking the boat.  They, like Cardinal Law, just *do not know right from wrong*.

By the way, that priest and the woman he married 45 years ago, had been living a chaste life.  There was no cause for “scandal”, with the exception that they had fallen in love.

So priests inappropriately touching teenage boys (or younger) and experimenting with other men or teenage girls or women - oh, all forgiveable.  Normal even.  That’s their mentality. “Boys will be boys” is how they think.  For bishops, a “boy” can be 80 years old!  Clergy never has to grow up and be MEN.  Our church is filled with males, and few MEN. 

After I graduated from high school, I heard another priest that all of us liked, left the priesthood to marry a well-liked nun.  From what I heard years later, that marriage was also very successful.

Neil, I know a man from Mexico who has a third grade education.  He is a godly MAN.  He LOVES to read the Bible.  He has a three-ring binder with lined binder paper where he keeps his notes on the inspiration he gleans from God’s Word.

I would TRUST that man MORE than ANY PRIEST with 16 years of religion bookwork.  The devil can quote Scripture.  The demonic world knows Jesus is God.  It’s the HEART that counts.  The FEAR* of God is the beginning of all wisdom. *fear = meaning respect, honor.

This man, who works as a bus boy, with his wife, a waitress, in a local restaurant - welcomes gang members into their home, teaching them Bible studies every Wednesday night.  When I last saw him a few weeks ago, he was SO happy because he told me a gang member who had been shot, but who survived, is willing to join them in the Bible study.  He said in broken English, “Oh, he will bring others with him!  I’m so excited!  God is turning his life around!”  He has a THIRD GRADE education.  He works as a bus boy.

Neil - Several years ago, I had a 45 minute conversation with the rector of a Jesuit retreat house, trying to get him to allow a harmless & well-liked Catholic local homeless man to live just during the winter in one of his rooms - which is in a high-class area, in exchange for work.  This Jesuit, with manicured fingernails, refused not only to think about it, he didn’t even think of any way to help me help this homeless man.
The rector was a pampered .... well, you supply the word.

When I knew I was getting nowhere, and had nothing to lose, and the conversation turned to the topic of clergy sex abuse- I told him priests ought not be having sex with *anyone* and it’s not just the abuse of children that is objectionable, but also the exploitation of women and other men.  I knew that among these Jesuits, a local order pays for vascetamies and Viagra for their “brothers”, frankly, I was annoyed. 

This educated Jesuit refused to admit that clergy having sex was wrong.  He said it was “consensual”.  So much for good sense and 16 years of Scripture.  By the way, my homeless friend died of pnemonia on January 2, 2011, and on the street.  When he died, I thought of the pampered Jesuit, and remembered how my homeless friend knew right from wrong, and he would NEVER harm a child, and he always treated women with respect.  My homeless friend and a man with a 3rd grade education are more God-honoring than this Jesuit rector.  And by the way, a lot of good it does to have Jesuits with 16 years of Scripture under their belt, if they CANNOT TEACH IT.  All their education stops with them.

Cradle,
Put aside rogue priests and bishops for a second. Just answer in one or two sentences; Do you think the Holy Spirit is still guiding The Church in All Truth? Have the gates of hell prevailed?

Neil - This is what “Born Again” means:

In the middle of the most famous Bible verse, John 3:16, Jesus has a conversation with a Pharisee named Nicodemus documented in John 3: 1-21.  In it, Jesus said we must be “born from above” or we cannot enter the Kingdom of God.  Nicodemus questions how it’s possible to be born as an adult, physically, a second time.  But Jesus tells him He is referring to being RE-born *spiritually*.  Spiritual re-birth happens only once.

We are all born once, physically.  But we are born with a sin nature.  As such, we are all born separated from God.  Separation from God is death.  So spiritually, we are dead at our birth.  Left like that (born once, physically) at our physical deaths, we will have died twice: physically and spiritually.

But if we are “re-born” from above - spiritually, when we die our natural physical death, our spirit remains alive, and forever.

An easy way to remember it is:
Born Once = Die twice (physically and spiritually)
Born Twice = Die once (physically only)

Natural births do not save. The Pharisees thought they had it made in the shade with God the Father, because they were the offspring of Abraham, and as such, they were circumsized.  But Jesus disputed that concept, and that thinking is denounced all over the New Testament.

It is the Holy Spirit that gives us new life in Jesus; it is He that “seals” us, and our position is changed, forever.  We go from being separated from God to being adopted into the Family of God, through being re-born of the Spirit.

Having accepted Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross as ‘imputed’ to us for our sins, we are heirs of the Kingdom of God, and our position is secure.  The “fruit” of our new position in Christ is that we want to live for Him.

It’s like when a mother or father, Mr. or Mrs. Smith, sends his/her child out, and says, “Remember, you’re a Smith!”  When we know New Testament letters, it’s like God sends us out saying, “Remember, you’re a Christian!”

The impulse to sin, and the predisposition to sin, is still there.  St. Paul wrote that he sinned more than everyone.  But it’s really that reading Scripture is like seeing our lives in a mirror.  We can “see” what we didn’t see before.  Our conscience is honed in, and the Holy Spirit has us on a short leash.

This is why it’s always a good idea to turn people to the Holy Word of God, the Bible, because if folks do not know what’s in it, it’s like getting angry at a blind person for stepping on our feet.  They just can’t help it, not being aware of what is right & wrong, according to God.

A real Christian self-corrects, not wanting to grieve our holy and loving Father.  We become regenerated.  We are not our former selves.  We see things differently.  It’s not like before.  We want to bear a good witness to Christ.

Once we are re-born spiritually, we can’t be UN-born.  Just like when we are physically born, we can die, but we can never be UN-born physically.  Our position in the Kingdom of God is secure.

What I described above is the doctrine of Justification - where our position in Christ makes us children of God the Father, brothers and sisters to Christ, and in His family, as adopted heirs, secure and we will never lose our position. —We can grieve the Holy Spirit.  We can quench the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  But He will never leave us, once He is in us, and we “abide” in Him.

Sanctification - where we live, day by day, living on His mercy and His grace, supporting each other (fellow Christians in the Body of Christ) being led by the power of the Holy Spirit, who lives inside of us, and Who promised never to leave us.  We have direct access to God the Father in Heaven, and Jesus, who is our Advocate with the Father.  We have tools, such as in Ephesians Chapter 6, the Armor of the Holy Spirit, when we are in a ‘battle’ such as was the purpose for this article.

Everything I wrote above is right there in the New Testament letters.  Read Romans, which is like the Christian “Constitution”.  Thanks for allowing me to share this with you, Neil, and I hope all is well in Texas.

Neil -
I believe the Body of Christ, the Church, is fine.  The Holy Spirit is guiding Christians of all denominations into Truths found in Scripture.
To be a Christian is all about relationship with Christ & with other Christians.  It’s not about religion or denomination.  God will not be put into a box.  Want to know something really funny, Neil?  It’s easy for Christians of any denomination to communicate.  We’re literally all on the same page. = New Testament!

That is the longest sentence I’ve ever read, and you didn’t answer the questions. I’m going to bang my head on the floor a few times. I’ll be right back.

Ok. “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Notice He didn’t use the plural. Christians are all part of the mystical body, no matter the denomination. Where is The Church though? (one sentence)

Neil - you’re funny.  I like you.  Let me think about how to rephrase this.  Back tomorrow.

Sleep on this thought then. The first 1,500+ years of Christianity was Catholicism(Eastern Rite). If you were a Christian for the first 1,500+ years, you were Catholic.

@Born Again: There is corruption at all levels of the Church. If you listened to the New Testament, you would not be surprised to find it nor would you be losing heart.  You would have seen it coming.

2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

You have such sympathy for men who took vows to the Church and renounced them for women. It’s misplaced charity. It’s like feeling sorry for a guy who married a woman as a young man and then, 15 years into the marriage, leaves his wife for another woman rather than working out the problems with his wife. Those men were married to the Church, just as that nun was a bride of Christ. They forsook their vows. I do not know their circumstances nor can I judge their hearts, but their actions are not to be commended and if there is sympathy to be given it is to those they harmed in this sin by the example they gave to others.

You stated earlier the Vatican ordered the killing of Martin Luther. This is not accurate. Pope Leo X issued a papal bull declaring that Martin Luther’s teachings were heretical and ordering him to stop teaching them. Martin Luther ignored the Pope’s declaration and refused to stop leading the people into heresies - heresies such as sola scriptura. It was Emperor Charles V of Germany that decreed that Martin Luther could be killed without punishment, a common punishment for heretics. It was deemed that it was better to put to death one man than to imperil the souls of hundreds of thousands by allowing that man to spread his errors across the world.

Is there corruption even at the highest levels of the Church? Yes. Sadly, this is so. Does this mean that ALL of our priests, bishops, and cardinals are corrupt? Most certainly NOT. For those in our leadership who are corrupt, I will say along with David, ““The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD.” So David restrained his servants with these words, and did not allow them to rise against Saul.”

The thing that Luther had in his favor that the Catholic monks who had been transcribing the Bibles by hand for centuries was the printing press. Once Luther determined the books he felt were not the Word of God, his new bibles could be reproduced in a way never seen before. Then in the 19th century the books Luther didn’t want were completely removed from protestant bibles. I never knew this until RCIA 2009.

Neil, Brandy et al - I just got back from a funeral for a friend, 62 year old woman w/ pancreatic cancer.  Such a loss.  While I gave much thought to what points with which to respond, I need to think about how best to say it.  Will be back tomorrow -

Re: Eastern Catholic, Neil - you’re correct.  I think it was the Church in Jerusalem that was first, evidenced by Acts of the Apostles and the Council of Jerusalem, with Paul having approached Peter and the other apostles re: Gentiles and circumsion, and with James being the primary spokesperson for the whole group.

re: Eastern Catholic. I just included the Eastern Rite in the first 1,500+ years of Christianity so it wasn’t thrown back in my face. Christianity was all Catholic until the great schism. Eastern Orthadoxy is still part of The Catholic Church. I need to dig a little deeper in this area because it seems interesting and my knowledge in it is limited. The point I was making is if one was a Christian, until the reformation, one was Catholic. So for the first 1,500+ years of Christianity, Christians were Catholic. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, first mentioned the word Catholic in the year 110. He wrote, “wheresoever the Bishop shall appear,there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike(universal)church.” aka-Catholic Church.

“wheresoever the Bishop shall appear,there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the katholike(universal)church.”

If you really let what Ignatius wrote sink in, it’s an amazing piece of evidence. Another way to say it is, If you want to find “The Church”, find the Bishop. This helped me get passed my conversion issues with respect to the whole Pope thing.
P.S. Ignatius was martyred shortly after this letter by the romans. He was thrown to the lions and malled to death for professing Christ and His Church.

Neil-
I given thought about responding succinctly to your question.  You asked if I thought the gates of hell prevailed against the church.
***********************************************************
Before I answer, while you had no way of knowing, your Ignatius quote was a blow to me.  It is because I just learned the retired bishop I met last weekend has accusations of child molestation to his name on www.BishopAccountability.org So if my thoughts are not honed, I apologize.  I write with sadness & renewed disappointment in the Roman Catholic Church:

Cradle’s response-
It is evident the gates of hell *have* prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church.  Our leaders are no longer of the caliber of Peter, Paul, Polycarp or Ignatius, men that died for the Deposit of Faith.  The Vatican puts so much emphasis on “apostolic succession”, taking the focus off the Deposit of Faith, it caused the RCC to implode.

Deuteronomy 29:29, teaches there are many things about God we do not know.  But we do know what He revealed to us in Scripture.  We are told the way to walk, & to the left or the right of that, we should NOT go.  Yet our leaders take us to the left and to the right constantly, putting little credence on Scripture, instead placing high value on extra-biblical sources that grow daily.  Average pew people buy into the Vatican being “The Capitol of the Kingdom of God”.  It is not.

I spent time reading Acts 15, in order to respond to you, Neil.  That chapter of the early church is primarily about conflict.  First the Council of Jerusalem, with Paul taking Peter to task.  Then Paul & Barnabas having a dispute over John Mark, causing a fall-out so bad, those two friends went separate ways and ended communication, resolving their conflict only after much time passed.

So was the Holy Spirit not working during the time the early church was in conflict?  Did the gates of Hell prevail over the church when they were separate?  No.  The church grew.  God used their conflict.  Why?  Because the apostles, even while going their separate ways, *stayed on message*.  The message of The Deposit of Faith. 

The “deposit” did not grow.  No one took anything away from it, or tweaked it.  They preached what they saw as eye-witnesses.  Paul preached what the Holy Spirit taught him.  Peter wrote that Paul’s letters were Scripture.  Each man protected the doctrines in place from the time of Pentecost.

When Stephen was being martyred, in Acts 7:48 he said, the Most High *does not* dwell in houses made by human hands.  Yet, Catholic pew people are taught God *does* dwell in houses made by human hands.  In the RCC, the priest & the Magesterium are of more importance to pew people than is Jesus.  Our allegience must be to the Magesterium: a recipe for disaster.
 

Catholic pew people are taught so many things that differ from Scripture (the Deposit of Faith), I lost count of how far our church leaders have allowed us to stray.  Not long ago, popes sat on Chinese-like lounge chairs, carried by 4-6 men, with feathers everywhere, presumably to fan the pontiff.  I’ve seen those pictures.  Pew people bow and kiss their rings.  “His holiness” is a term that must be reserved for God.

Neil - When anyone showed deference to Peter and Paul, they told them to “get up!”  They would not accept the homage paid to them.  Our hierarchy laps it up.  Even the retired bishop I met last week lapped up the deference shown him by the parish where I attended Mass last week.  And “retired” before one’s mandatory retirement age is commonly known as a clerical code word for: “A credible allegation was made against him”. 

Peter, Paul, Polycarp & Ignatius gave their lives for the Deposit of Faith.  The Roman Catholic church does not enjoy that kind of leadership anymore.

The REAL Church: The Body of Christ, is alive, led *and protected* by MEN like Peter, Paul & Barnabas.  MEN that preach and teach the Word of God, in context and in full, focused on Jesus.

The REAL leaders of Jesus’ Church, are not those that through apostolic succession enjoy playing dress-up, & getting accolades for *what* they are, not for *who* they are.  The leaders of Jesus’ Church have integrity.

Many of these allegations involve silliness too, with boys: inappropriate touching, and voyeurism.  I once had a priest ask me, “It’s okay if a priest has a lapse every once in a while, isn’t it?”  That priest has several priest-friends “retired” due to inappropriate touching of under-age boys.  One even admitted to it, and put himself into a monastery.  Can you imagine the priest asking that question to Peter, Paul, Polycarp or Ignatius?

Cradle,
“It is evident the gates of hell *have* prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church.”

You need to be really careful saying this. I almost feel a little responsible for asking a question I didn’t know the answer to. You’re essentially calling Christ a liar. Just ask forgiveness and I’ll do the same.

Mathew 16:18
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(words of Christ)
First Bishop of Rome; St. Peter (this is the type of Bishop Ignatius was refering to)
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”(words of Christ)

I’m truly at a loss here.

Mathew 16:19 -Christ speaking to Peter-
“I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be boubd in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Peter alone, and not the other apostles, is given authority in the context of Christ’s Church mentioned in the same chapter of Mathew.
John 20:23 -Christ gives the Holy Spirit to the apostles-
“Recieve the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven the, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
Although Peter is given authoritative power, the apostles are given power through the Holy Spirit to forgive sins. i.e. Sacrament of reconciliation

I have pressed Catholicism, squeezed it as hard as I could, wrestled with it actually being “The Church” mentioned by Christ, thrown it away and started all over again. I have driven down the road screaming out the window, “there is No Way this is His Church!” I grew up Southern Baptist and was taught the Catholic Church was the anti-christ. Since I was confirmed last year in The Church, I have lost every single friend I had, quit a six figure income job, and have a wall between myself and my family. My father won’t even speak to me. I don’t say these things to sound dramatic, I’m saying this to prove a point. All of the “devout” Christian friends/family members that have ostracized me because of my conversion when asked a simple question by me, “would you just let me show that it is His Church?” Not one will challenge me to disprove my assertion. My only conclusion is that most “devout Christian” people in my life really don’t want to know the Truth. Apparently it means nothing to most in my little corner of the world that Christ started a Church, and it ain’t the Southern Baptist Church. When I say “I found it,” it falls on deaf ears. If one person, whether you Cradle or anyone else here, or any person in my little world can prove to me where “His Church” is I will listen. If someone can prove to me that the Catholic Church is not “The Church” I will be the first to leave it. If Jesus said to seek and you will find, why don’t we seek? I think it’s because we all like our comfortable little Christian Buffets out there. I like this, not that, a little of this, never mind that. It’s rediculous. We as modern Christians are rediculous, not just the pathetic priests mentioned here. It’s all of us. When we have the slightest disagreement with any Church, just go find another one. Go start another one. We don’t want to know the Truth beacuse we think that might require too much of us. He said the Truth would set us free. We say we love Jesus and we trust Him, but we don’t take the most fundamental things He said serious.

“Put aside rogue priests and bishops for a second”

Neil, that’s consistently your problem. You can’t ‘put aside’ the pieces of evidence that don’t fit your theory. Can you imagine what would happen to a drug company that ‘put aside’ all the people who died when they tested a new pill, and called those ‘rogue pills’?

“Ignatius was martyred shortly after this letter by the romans. He was thrown to the lions and malled to death for professing Christ and His Church.”

No. He was sentenced to death for atheism - defined then as not acknowledging the city gods.

Who rattled your cage Steve?

“Who rattled your cage Steve?”

You said something that was an untruth, I corrected you. You say you’re interested in the truth.

Rome was a large, multicultural city where a million people from every part of the known world had to get along. There was a city law saying that you were free to worship in any way you wanted, but also had to respect the city laws and the city gods. ‘Respect’ was extremely loosely defined, you didn’t have to make any act of worship.

Ignatius preached that there was only one god, and when asked said, no he didn’t respect the city gods because he didn’t believe they existed. The charge against him was therefore ‘atheism’, not ‘Christianity’. He was executed for what he *didn’t* believe, not what he believed.

Who pulled your string Steve?

“The point I was making is if one was a Christian, until the reformation, one was Catholic.”

Neil, do some research. He did not appoint a Pope and hand him legal documents with full planning permission for the Vatican and some sketches of possible hats the bishops should wear. The first three hundred years of Christianity was a huge squabble between rival factions, all with radically different ideas about ritual, the Trinity, whether Jews could be Christians, female ordination, whether Christ’s return was imminent, missionary activity, infant baptism, observation of the Sabbath, the church hierarchy, the exact divine nature of Jesus, which writings counted and which didn’t.

Christianity adopted and absorbed countless bits of local mythology - it added the virgin birth from the cult of Isis, gave Jesus Mithras’ birthday, added iconography like the halo from the Sol Invictus cult. It threw away things that people didn’t like - circumcision, not eating pigs, only Jewish males being allowed into Heaven. 

To say that Jesus left everything entirely in the hands of the Catholic Church, and everything every Catholic clergyman has done since is just what Jesus would have done, and woe betide anyone with a word of criticism is ... well, foolish.

I’m sorry you lost your job and family over this. Next time you flip your belief system, try reading the Wikipedia entry for it first.

Get behind me satan. You are an obsticle to me.

“Get behind me satan. You are an obsticle to me.”

I’m not the devil, Neil, this isn’t a ‘spiritual attack’. If you’re not exaggerating and you really lost your job and your family over this, if you really can’t deal with the simple factual statement that Christianity has been fragmented and factionalized since the immediate aftermath of Christ’s death and has ever been so ... well, I’m sorry. But you need to stop and take a reality check. I’m sure you’re a lovely guy in real life, everyone’s more of a dick online, but online you sound like you bought a first class ticket on the crazy train. If you’re even a little bit like you are here as you are in real life, just calm down.

Family’s more important than any story in any book. Tolerance is a virtue. You have one life to live. In the grand scale of things, if God exists or not, whether you’re a Baptist or a Catholic is about as relevant as whether you’re on Team Edward or Team Jacob. It’s Mother’s Day. Phone your mom and start to fix the things you broke.

O’ Great One of reality. One thing I know to be true. I guarantee you wouldn’t speak to me like this face to face. You’re an internet bully. A coward’s coward. My guess is you probably spend your days doing this sort of thing.

I didn’t lose my job, I quit. I haven’t lied or exaggerated anything here.

> You’re an internet bully.

And now ‘phone your mom on Mother’s Day’ is ‘bullying’?

I’m sorry, Neil, that you lost your friends, your family and your job because you switched brands of Christianity. If, deep down, you feel you’ve made a net gain, that you are up on this deal, then good luck to you. If you need this sense of persecution to function, I’m sorry. And I apologize for enabling it again. I’ll step away, now. Live your life how you want to, but just remember those are your mistakes you’re making.

@Steve: Wait…I’m sorry…correct me if I’m wrong but did you just tell Steve to get his facts from Wikipedia? That made me laugh, so thank you.

Wikipedia is no substitute for genuine and thoughtful research on a topic. While I understand that you have rejected religion, your comparison of the importance of whether God exists or not to which Twilight fan club you belong to makes you sound really ignorant and very shallow.  I know you’re a better person than this, and it’s a shame that you aren’t behaving in that way.

Tolerance - meaning allowing people to do whatever they want to do whether it’s good for them or not - is NOT a virtue. It’s laziness. It’s callous. It shows that you don’t care at all what happens to them. Christians are called to practice true charity - which means that we dare to challenge those we know to live up to their best selves and not sink to their worst.

Let me put Neil’s decision in terms that you can understand. Imagine that Neil’s family is involved in slavery. Neil has decided he can no longer support that slavery, and that he must stand with those who seek to set the slaves free.  Neil’s family has cut him off completely because of this disagreement. Is your advice to Neil still going to be that it doesn’t matter? It isn’t Neil who has chosen to disown his family. It’s Neil’s family that has disowned him for his beliefs. 

@Neil: Don’t let Steve get to you. He most likely would speak like this to you face to face because he sincerely believes what he’s saying. Follow Christ’s example and ask God to forgive him because he knows not what he does.

O’ Great Understander of All Things. Thank you for sanctioning my life and allowing me to live it how I want to. I’ll tell Mom I’m free now.

Brandy,
@Neil: Don’t let Steve get to you. He most likely would speak like this to you face to face because he sincerely believes what he’s saying.”

No mam. I guarantee you he wouldn’t. I’m not spiritually mature enough yet to turn the other cheek this many times face to face. I never have backed down to bullies.

I’m not advocating backing down to bullies. If there’s one thing my stepfather taught me well it’s that no matter how much bigger a bully is than you never back down.  The bully’s greatest fear is someone who will stand up to them and mean it.

You are standing up to him by sharing the truth. No matter how many times he takes a swing at you and your faith, you are doing the brave thing, the right thing, by continuing to proclaim the truth in the charity of Christ. Remember that our goal is not to be right, but to save a soul and plant the seeds that may one day lead others to the love of Christ.  Every time you get angry with something Steve says or does, just remind yourself of all the times you did something like that to a Catholic before your conversion and thank God for the opportunity to experience this small suffering now in reparation for your sins of the past rather than suffering what that should have earned you in eternity.

Steve is helping prepare you to become an online evangelist. Every time he presents an objection, pray over that objection. Ask God for guidance in how to respond to him.  Research the truth.  Every encounter sharpens your skills in dismantling the deceptions people like Steve have fallen prey to.  If you let Steve upset you to the point where you stop engaging him in dialogue, then you’re missing out on what he has to teach you.  Don’t let your anger get in the way of the gift God wants to give you through Steve.

To Steve Jeffers- May I respectfully suggest this blog is not the place for an atheist, such as yourself, to have a conversation with believers, such as Neil and myself.  I say that, because if you do *not* believe in God (which is your right, by the way, I respect your right to choose to reject Him), the you do not believe in Satan either.  This blog is about supposed satanic attacks on believers.


Your time is best spent writing to those that either feel like you do, in that they reject God; or on blogs where there are Agnostics, or seekers, that do not know what to believe, and you can give them an option with how you think.

Without sounding rude (and this will sound blunt, because the print form always comes across as more severe than in person) - so for that, I apologize, I do not intend to reply to your posts anymore.  Please know it’s not against you personally, Steve.  You have shown restraint in your comments, and I’m grateful.

But I do not want to spin my wheels, defending to someone that cannot be convinced otherwise of what I know to be true = namely, that there IS a Creator of the Universe; He has revealed Himself in Scripture to be God the Father, the Son, Jesus (my Lord and Savior) and the Holy Spirit;  Jesus lives and He will come again, and Satan, is real.

I know you do not believe any of what I just wrote.  So please, I ask you not to comment on anything I write either to Neil, or to other like-minded CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS.  I have neither the time nor the interest to go back to the basics of “Is there a God?” on this blog.  Perhaps we’ll meet again on a different blog, Steve.

To Neil -
You wrote, “If someone can prove to me that the Catholic Church is not “The Church” I will be the first to leave it.”

Cradle’s reply-
There is no need for you to leave the Catholic church.  No church is perfect.  The key for every Christian is to stay in Scripture (particularly Paul’s New Testament letters), so we grow as Christians, and our faith will be on secure footing, and to love God above all else, and our neighbors as ourselves.

The rest is just “how” we worship.  Neil, I just came from Mass this morning!  I brought my own Bible with me today too.  I noticed there are lots of verses omitted from Sunday missals.  Mass was lovely - and the worship, terrific.  I like the priest at this parish I attend, and he knows I speak out for church reform, and he likes me too.  <grin>

Good for you for being your own man, and for holding firm to the faith, in spite of family, friends, co-workers, Neil.  You are your own MAN, and for that, I congratulate you!  If your family are indeed Christians,
they will look for what all of you have in common, and seek to grow in their faith and knowledge of Jesus.

The problem, as I see it, with most Catholics is replacing faith in God with faith in “The Church”, and that is “The Vatican”.  The Latin Rite RCC church is - like it or not - is run by men.  They are not all “holy” men.  When they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they’ll agree they are just men.  But until they are humbled, they will have you believe they walk on water and they speak for God.

Non-Catholic Christians church hop too.  And even Catholics church hop, when they have changes, such as a new pastor.  The Main Thing is = Jesus.  And Who we say He is.  This is why I said the Church is BIG.  It is composed of Catholics, like me - you, Neil, and it is also composed of Anglicans, Baptists, Evangelicals, and non-denomincational Christians, etc, etc, ... Bottom line, anyone that confesses Jesus Christ as their LORD (we follow Him) and Savior.  “The Church” is not a denomination.  The key is to be a confessed = Christian. 

After that, we become like coals in a fire - together, we burn brightly and stay on fire.  But isolated, we can burn out.  The key is to find a church where we can fellowship with like-minded Christian believers, so we can be salt and light in the world.

A Catholic Church is fine Neil- just be sure it is Bible-based, and growing in Him through His Word.  I don’t even need a good pastor anymore - frankly, there are just too few.  And as for a good bishop?  One is hard-pressed to find one in my area.  I do not let it bother me anymore.  I just surround myself with as many like-minded CHRISTIAN believers as I can - and I stick to reading the Word.

Frankly, if your Baptist family members really shunned you as you wrote, Neil - I question whether they are REAL Christians.  Just because they go to a Baptist Church and read the Bible, does not mean it’s changed their behavior.  Christians seek to reconcile - not to ostracize.

“Church Membership” ought not be important.  What IS important is to be in the “Kingdom of God” here on earth, so we will be with Jesus forever in Heaven.  I can’t stress the importance of just reading the Word - especially Paul’s letter to the Romans.  Please will you do that for me, Neil?  Will you please slowly read Paul’s letter to the Romans, praying before you begin that God will open your eyes and ears, to see and hear God’s Truths?

By the way you write, Neil - I would say you are most definitely in the Kingdom of God.  I can see good “fruit” by how you write.

Brandy Miller - You make an ideal Barnabas!  You give good and sound advice, and are both an excellent cheerleader & model for Christianity.  Kudos and thanks to you!  Let’s keep our noses in Scripture, and all of us: multiply!!  By the way, the one priest I really like (and most importantly, who likes me too), LOVES the Bible.  He “frames” each and every reading at Mass, telling us the background of each reading.  He is the only priest I know that would hold his own at our Wednesday night Bible study (held at a Catholic church, lay-run, and with a few fellow non-Catholics among us) and would even make a contribution to it.  WE NEED MORE CLERGYMEN LIKE HIM to equip us saints to go out into the world with God’s Truth, being salt and light.

Brandy,
“Don’t let your anger get in the way of the gift God wants to give you through Steve.”
One thing about reading what one writes online is the absence of tone and voice inflection. I haven’t been angry with any of Steve’s jargon. What I’ve written in response to him is actually calm. That being said, if he spoke to me like this face to face I’d probably bust him in the nose. In love and charity of course.

Cradle,
” I like the priest at this parish I attend, and he knows I speak out for church reform, and he likes me too.”
I am so happy for you. Keep going there. That’s why it’s Universal.

Cradle,
” Will you please slowly read Paul’s letter to the Romans, praying before you begin that God will open your eyes and ears, to see and hear God’s Truths?”
I will. I love the letters of Paul. I love Romans. Imagine a Roman Pharisee preaching the gospel to a pagan Rome. The pinnacle of heroic virtue. How’s that Roman Empire thing working out now?

Brandy,
“Remember that our goal is not to be right, but to save a soul and plant the seeds that may one day lead others to the love of Christ.”
I planted a seed with Steve in an earier statement to him. I told/dared him to ask Jesus, “If you’re real then show me.” Of course Steve responded like a todler that planted a literal seed in the ground that didn’t grow that second. It’s the same little prayer I prayed three years ago while deep in my agnostic beliefs. I had a sister only 11 months older than me who shot and killed herself in the summer of 2008. I asked Jesus with complete contempt in my heart, “if you’re real then show me.”
One year later I was attending a Catholic Church. A year after that I was confirmed in The Church. He showed me. And He still is showing me. The sad thing about human beings is it usually takes a tragedy in our lives to get us to even look.

@Neil: How right you are about that. I think I wouldn’t be in the church today if not for my 8 year old son (he’s 15 now) telling me not just that he was going to commit suicide but exactly how. It completely shook me up and, not out of any faith at all but because I wanted him to know I loved him, I agreed to go to the Family Apostolate group my mom had been bringing him to on Friday nights. He had begged me for a long time to go but I wasn’t interested in “Jesus stuff” at that point in my life. That is where I began to learn the truth about what the Catholic faith really teaches, began to see the beauty of our faith, and took my first steps on the road to reconciling with Christ.  It’s sad that we are often motivated only by tragedy, but I have always said there are only three real ways to test any assumption: 1) review the results of other people who have followed that assumption and see how it turned out for them; 2) test the assumption by following it and see how that works for your life; 3) test the assumption by ignoring it and see how that works for your life. At that time in my life, I was testing the tenets of the Catholic Church by ignoring it. The result was disastrous. Not only was I hurting, but I was hurting everyone else around me too even though I wasn’t trying to do that.  I’m still not perfect, but the more perfectly I follow the teachings of the Church the less I hurt others and the more filled with joy and peace I find myself. I am happy to say that 7 years after my son threatened suicide he is a happy and healthy teenager with many friends and a healthy dose of self-esteem, a young man who can find reasons to be thankful in the midst of every adversity.

Brandy,
That situation demonstrates how evil the modern age is. Hopeless children? And yet we’re supposed to be so enlightened and wise in this age. So evolved. My second child will be 8 shortly. I can’t imagine anything like that. We should all be on our faces for having a Creator that is this interested in the trivia of our lives. Thanks be to God.

> Let me put Neil’s decision in terms that you can understand.
> Imagine that Neil’s family is involved in slavery.

OK ... first up, I’m going to step away from the blog. I’m not a troll, I don’t want people to think I am. I don’t want to upset people. I ... worry for Neil, he is saying things now that, well, if we did meet face to face, I think I’d be calling in social services. He’s converted to a new religion, lost his job, friends and family as a result and thinks he’s hearing the voices of supernatural creatures. Put yourself in my shoes - if he’d just converted to Scientology and was saying these things, would you be happy for him or really, really worried? I don’t want to bait him, I hope he comes to a point of happiness.

As for analogy ... again ... words fail me a little. They’re *Southern Baptists*, not slave dealers. I understand the theology, I understand there are differences, I understand how vicious sectarian rivalry can get, but ... c’mon. They worship the same God, in virtually the same way. This is not like he was born a dog and he’s converted to being a cat. This is like he was born a Highland Terrier and now he’s a Yorkshire Terrier.

Honor your father and mother. I believe in that. If Neil’s belief in a God that commanded him to do the same has blinded him to that ... well, forget irony, that would just be extremely sad. I’d be a lot more comfortable if people here were explaining to Neil that friends and family are important, not comparing his family to slavers. A way to live a happier life, to serve goodness and truth, to make sense of the world? Great. Do it. But compelling you to disown your family and friends, quit your job? That’s what cults do.

O’Great One of Most Profound Thought. Thank you for clearifying the world to us. I stand behind my statement that if this conversation took place face to face I’d punch you in the nose. Right before you called social services of course.

Jemima Cole
John Paul II wasn’t perfect, but he is a saint.
Neil is right about reading what JPII said.  He isn’t caught up in a “gotcha with some facts you didn’t know” mentality.  He doesn’t seem to be overly impressed with his own brilliant analysis.  He sees the Truth.  And he is free.
And he has courage.
Steve - you might take a gander at these words of Jesus Christ: 

<< Matthew 10 >>
New International Version  

37“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”

The Eucharist is Jesus Christ.

Just to clarify a few things here. I quit my job because the organization was corrupt in its practices. This was becoming apparent to me prior to my conversion. When I started RCIA I knew I had a decision to make about my employment. It was the toughest decision I’ve ever made. After I resigned, 9 other people left as well in the worst economy of our lives. Perhaps all 10 of us are crazy. I don’t no. Also, I didn’t disown any friend or family member. My Father is the only family member who won’t speak to me. It’s complicated. My friends became uncomfortable with me and little by little they were gone. Like I said, I was a pagan so I expected this. Other family members still speak to me, but like I said, there is a “wall”. The “devout Christian” friends and family that I have seem to have the biggest issue with my conversion. If you’re brought up believing the Catholic Church is the ant-christ what can I expect. I’ll let Steve figure that one out. I can’t. So for the record, I did not disown anyone, in fact I love them all more than ever. I made a moral decision about my employment and feel that I made the right decision. If I’ve joined a cult here, well, it’s a big one. Over a billion members.

Oh, I forgot. I’m not sure what Steve was talking about but I’ve never heard voices from any supernatural creatures. I am sane, lucid, and truly happy for the first time in my life.

Mathew 10:34- The words of Christ-
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
-This is probably more fitting to my set of circumstances-

Neil - Most families are messed up, to some degree or another - because we are all just human.  I know a lovely Baptist pastor who was Roman Catholic, as was his wife (before they married).  They have not seen her family in years, because her side objected to the switch to the Baptist denomination.  They did not attend the wedding.

These Catholic parents have not seen any of their grandchildren, and the pastor, his wife, and their kids are LOVELY.  A grandparent should be bursting at the seams with joy at how wonderful this little family is.  His 45 minute sermons are EDUCATIONAL.  He equips his flock to go out, being salt and light to the hurting world.  Over their back door hangs a banner that reads, “YOU ARE NOW ENTERING INTO THE MISSION FIELD.”

Everything this couple does is in the Name of Jesus.  Yet it was hard yesterday for the wife, on Mother’s Day, because she misses her oh-so-Catholic mother who puts emphasis on “The Church” - meaning, “The Vatican”, “The Capitol of the Kingdom of God” OVER Jesus.

Everyone is flawed - even JPII, who had blind-spots as large as the good contributions he made to the world and to the church.  But many Catholics wear blinders too, and they turn him into a Wonder-Worker, a “saint” in Heaven (whether God likes it or not) because - frankly, “the people want it!!”  “Saint NOW!!”

From what I heard of the wonderful Baptist’s wife’s family, they would be in line to call JPII a saint, while they slap Jesus in the Face, by not being salt and light in a hurting world.  In fact, they add to the bitterness of the world, by their actions.  Whether or not they are saved, is to be seen.  At the end of their life, they may find they won the battle here on earth, and they lost the “war”.  Paul wrote that we are in a battle.  And REAL CHRISTIANS from all denominations, Catholic, Baptist, non-denominational, etc. need to know how to handle it.

So - Neil, I’m glad you will read the Book of Romans, slowly.  And as for your own father - I’m sorry to hear he is distant from you.  But the key is to not repeat his behavior with your own little ones, and to “leave and cleave” to your own wife and family.  See Ephesians 5 for families, and Ephesians 6 (The Armor of the Holy Spirit) for the battle.

Brandy - I’m glad you were able to overcome your spiritual problem with your little one, by exposing him to God’s truth too - and a good support group of fellow believers.  We really are just ONE family: Jesus is the vine and we are the branches.  Plural: branches, as in Christian denominations, and all over the world.

You know, if the Vatican were really THE head of “The Church”, they would not be such a sorry group.  I was shocked that they gave a pink slip to a pastor in Australia, in record time, just because among the ways he suggested for vocation candidates, the church look for married men and women.  NOW - please allow me to say that I do NOT support the ordination of women.  I am 100% against it.  Women are NOT to lead men, as ordained priests. 

But - at the drop of a hat, the Vatican gave this man the boot, while at the same time, they allow and almost coddle clergymen that molested children, and that have “lapses” with women, and are sexually active with other men.  The churches own statistics show there are 22-45% homosexual men in the clergy (priests and bishops), while the given statistic in a population is between 2-3%.  With that - the Vatican drags its feet.  It does not think there’s a problem.

JPII protected Fr. Marcial Maciel.  JPII ignored that nuns in Africa were being used for sex by priests, and when forced to have an abortion, and one died, the priest that empregnated her presided at her funeral.  All of that, the Vatican finds satisfactory.  At least “Silence is consent.”
But suggest a woman be ordained?  “HEY!!  YOU’RE OUT FELLA!!  YOU’VE CROSSED THE LINE.”

I ask all of you (except Steve and Magda), does that not seem odd to you?

The Church is Holy, this I profess daily. Not the Bishops, Priests, or members, but the institution itself. If the Church were not Holy we wouldn’t have the notion of the Trinity. We wouldn’t have the Bible or the Eucharist, etc. My position on corrupt clergy is the same as anyone’s.
It’s horrible. When Jesus had given Peter the keys to the kingdom and pronounced He would build His Church upon Peter, notice what Jesus said to Peter shortly afterward. “Get behind me satan!” Now imagine the expression on Peter’s face when he gave the correct answer to Jesus about who He was. He must have felt special beyond anything he’d ever experienced. And moments later Jesus calls him satan? Can you imagine the confusion Peter must have felt. This passage in Mathew is actually pretty disturbing if you think about it. Christ proclaims Peter as the rock He would build His Church because The Father revealed through Peter who Christ was, and then satan enters Peter and forbids Christ to enter Jerusalem, prompting Christ to call him satan. At the very moment Christ proclaims His Church, there is satan. But somehow, the Church is Holy. It doesn’t mean that evil can’t emerge through clergy but the Church itself, the institution, is Holy. If we as Christians, Catholic or Protestant, refute that the Church is Holy then we may as well throw our Bibles away. How could an un-holy institution compile a book inspired by the Holy Spirit? These were all some messed up characters Jesus chose. We have to meet Him on His terms though. This is how He did it. It’s a mystery.

Neil - I agree The Church is Holy.  But we Catholics are taught to believe the current crop of Vatican leaders *are* the keepers of the keys, as such: God rubber-stamps what they say & do. I have a problem with that.

We must consider what happened AFTER Pentecost = the real birthday of “The Church”.  Not what happened BEFORE Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was coming & going, and Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan.”

AFTER Pentecost, Peter, Paul, etc., spoke with AUTHORITY.  They lost their lives for the faith as they knew it.  We are told to teach THAT same faith; not to tweak it, or add to it.  Rome adds to the faith, daily.

The current crop at the Vatican would object to losing wine with dinner.  These boy-men leaders would not lose their life over you, your children,  or me.  If we remain Catholic today, it must be with an attitude of “Let the Buyer Beware”.  We do not have trustworthy men in charge.  The fox is guarding the henhouse.  Just read the news.
 

Thus, I strongly believe the Vatican leaders do NOT speak with the same authority as did Peter, et al.  Most certainly, they do not speak for God.  Jesus told Peter to *care* for His Church, not to lord over it, to abuse it, and to not protect it, for the sake of saving their own face. It’s much easier to keep track of what these men are doing, because of immediate news and the Internet.  So I don’t understand how literate people can continue to be fooled by the trappings of ‘holiness’.  I can understand folks in the Middle Ages falling for that.  But now? 

The Vatican, by claiming to have the “keys”, lords over the Church. Why?  So they can enjoy power and control, (MONEY) and folks (like Magda) will praise them, holding them up high and saying they are ‘holy’ and in the place of Jesus, even when we know they are making egregious mistakes in judgement.

They get off the hook for it because of what you said: individually, they are sinners ... except when they die, like JPII.  No error he made will take him off his pedastal or his fast-track to sainthood.

The sad part is that stupid moves like that makes the Roman Catholic church irrelevant.  No wonder so few people listen to us.  We lost credibility.  Even Catholic regulars do not always pay attention to the church teachings.  And that’s sad, because not all of what they teach is wrong.  Much of what the Vatican says is right on target.

Like it annoys me when left-leaning Catholics call for women priests.  The Vatican is 100% correct in not allowing women to be ordained.  But they have no credibility - no authority.  Only in their minds, are these men legends, with “keys”.

The Vatican holds Catholic pew people hostage, saying if we do not have more vocations, then we can not have “Eucharist”.  We *need* the priest to “Bring us Jesus” - Neil, I know someone that believes that drivel.

Pew people are encouraged to bring in vocations - single men.  They need not BE holy if they have the holy-looking act down pat, it’s fine.  All they need is a pulse, 1/2 a heart and a college education, that’s a must.

St. Peter would not be accepted as a priest today.  St. Paul would intimidate the average seminary rector & JPII appointed tow-the-line bishops.  So Peter and Paul?  No work for them in the Roman Catholic Church today. 

The church is composed of mostly weak men.  No need for any of them to understand Scripture.  In fact, understanding Scripture [in context] is a drawback.  Keeping them away from understanding Scripture is good, that way, they won’t ask questions.  Do you know how many canon lawyers we have in the Church, compared to those that can just teach the Bible?  It’s ridiculous.
 

You described the “Mystical Body of Christ”, Neil, where Jesus’ Body is composed of EVERYONE, in all denominations of Christianity - followers of Jesus, I agree with that.  But the Catholic Church is a TOP, down institution.

One of my pet peeves is - as hard as I try to focus on prayer during the Consecration, it often perks my ears to hear the rote prayer when the priest prays for, the Pope, the bishop, the religious and consecrated…
I almost expect the clergy’s pets to have a higher billing over “and the laity”.

The message I hear is: “You peons that pay the bills but you don’t really count.  The more we abuse you, you nameless pew sitters, the more you cower to us.  Why?  Because WE have the keys and you don’t.  So put that in your pipe, and smoke it.”  That’s the message I hear.  It’s subtle.

So much for ONE mystical Body of Christ.  The RCC is 100% top, down, and the top is *not* Jesus, it is the pope. The top is *not* the Word of God, the Bible, either, God’s Word would rank after the clergy’s pets too, and it may as well be used as fish wrap, since it’s taken so lightly.  It makes me grieve.  I love the Bible.

Thanks for reading Romans for me, Neil.  If us pew people would only read the Bible - let’s do a world-wide Bible study in every Catholic parish, on Romans!  Now.  Then Evangelicals won’t feel sorry for us Catholics, for our lack of Bible-knowledge (in context).  Really - I can see parishes filled to the brim, on a week-day night, with priests teaching Romans, verse by verse, in an expository fashion.  Wow.

Uncle…

I feel like I’m in the twilight zone.

Neil - You may be in the twilight zone, but you have opened a window to reality while you are there.

“He isn’t caught up in a “gotcha with some facts you didn’t know” mentality.  He doesn’t seem to be overly impressed with his own brilliant analysis.  He sees the Truth.”

Someone said earlier:

“Approach it with pure skepticism. The evidence is there and He wants us to use our reason and intellect.”

So which is it?

‘Truth’ is made from ‘facts’. Not falsehoods or untruths. If someone introduces the idea that X is true and someone else demonstrates X isn’t true, that’s not a ‘gotcha’, that’s exposing a falsehood.

And if you’re going to try to use reason, you can’t appeal to eternal truths and say even if everyone in the world believed slavery was good, it wouldn’t make it good one minute and say “If I’ve joined a cult here, well, it’s a big one. Over a billion members” the next.

If God didn’t create the universe and a billion Catholics think he did, a billion Catholics are wrong. The way to settle it is not to put it to the vote, it’s to investigate how the universe was created.

Make a testable claim, test the claim. That’s how you establish what’s true and what isn’t.

One persuasive piece of evidence, or even one semi-coherent argument that doesn’t run away crying ‘no fair’ within about ten seconds and I’d believe in God. ‘The Catholic Church never lies, therefore there’s a God’ is, for example, an argument that deserves a laugh track.

I’m not so sure about that Magda. It’s strange up in here. Have I died and gone to pergatory?

Born Again - Having studied and been active in developing programs to educate, protect and heal victims of sexual molestation, and to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators, I think it is critical not to simplify the matter as many do today.  If you really want to do something about it, study the methodology of the perpetrators and educate the parents about how to protect their children.  Teach JPII’s Theology of the Body in an appropriate manner to all age children and young adults.  Work to propagate the virtue of chastity. 
The sins and neglects of others will not serve the purpose of turning me against those things instituted by Christ which, when faithfully observed, produce such rich fruit.

Neil - Maybe it’s a head-start

Jemima Cole - whose facts?

That sounds like Steve. This can’t be pergatory.

Neil - you do mean purgatory ?

Neil - sorry - I totally missed your point on that last comment -

but I really hope Steve makes it to purgatory.

@Jemima Cole: Glad to see you accept the Church’s doctrine that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Do you understand that the science you so love has faith as its foundation, and that when you remove this foundation science ceases to have any real meaning?  Let me explain this statement to you.

Science was created by men on the basis of several presumptions. The first presumption was that there is one God and only one God. The second is that this God created the universe according to laws which He established. The third presumption was that since this God does not change, neither do His laws.  The fourth presumption was that this God desires a relationship with mankind and therefore He has made it possible for man to discover these laws and therefore to discover the One who made them.  The fifth presumption was that God gave man reason and intellect so that he could apply them to the phenomenon observed in the world around him and, by doing so, discover these laws.  The sixth was that it was possible to discover and, therefore discard, any false paths of reason through testing, since what is false will be revealed when tested but what is true will remain true no matter how often it is tested.

Now, science today has discarded God as its center and therefore has begun to succumb to logical fallacies.  The first and most grievous is that random chance is a sufficient explanation for either the origins of the universe or the origins of any species.  This is an error because science cannot co-exist in any universe in which random chance is the rule.  Science, after all, depends upon the fact that even the smallest of particles behaves according to a set of unchanging laws.  Therefore, if we control all variables then the particle will behave in the same way every time.  The six sided die toss, for instance, will always render a 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 no matter how many times it is tossed. Furthermore, the results are not truly random but are a combination of variables such as height from which the die is tossed, velocity at which it is launched, angle at which it strikes the table, etc. etc. Control all the variables and you can control which side lands face up every time.  In any universe in which random chance existed, though, you would be unable to predict the results of a die toss no matter how tightly you controlled the variables. You could end up with a 1,2,3,4,5,or 6 OR you could toss the die and have it land with 20 sides. You could toss the die and it might never land.  You could toss the die and it could collapse in upon itself and render a null.  There would be no point to conducting experiments in such a universe because you would never be certain of receiving the same results.
There is nothing random in our universe, only things which are affected by many complex and poorly understood variables or else are operating according to laws which have not yet been discovered. 

Darwinian schools of thought rely upon random chance, and are therefore illogical and opposed to science. Similarities between species are no more indicative of one species having evolved from the other than similarities in style and paint types show that one Rembrandt painting “evolved” from another. It does suggest a single source for all life, just as the similarities in style and paint types show a single source for all those paintings.

“Science was created by men on the basis of several presumptions. The first presumption was that there is one God and only one God.”

The first people to use the modern scientific method were Greeks like Aristotle and Pliny. I’d always been taught the ancient Greeks were polytheists. I didn’t realize they were Catholic.

“Darwinian schools of thought rely upon random chance”

No they don’t. Please just read any book about evolution, and on the first page it’ll explain why that’s nonsense. There is a random element to evolutionary mechanisms, but the crucial element is that it can save things that work and pass them on.

Here’s the difference, and please note it’s just an analogy to explain the difference between ‘random’ and Darwinism, nothing more. Please just try this and you’ll see the difference: take six dice. You have to get all six of them to show the same number. It doesn’t matter which number.

Method 1, Random: keep rolling until all six come up the same number. This will happen eventually.

Method 2, Darwinism: roll the dice. The first time you get at least two numbers the same, put them aside and keep rolling the others until that number comes up. When it does, put them aside.

Repeat this process ten times.

*At least* nine times out of ten, Method 2 will get you to all six numbers showing the same result in fewer throws than Method 1 (with fair dice, it should do that 45,999 times out of 46,000, I think).

Please remember that I was very clear that this was just an analogy for the difference between random and Darwinism.

“Jemima Cole - whose facts?”

Why, *God’s* of course!

Only kidding. Look, all I’m saying that to reach an understanding of what’s true, we have to discard untruths. Are we all agreed on that?

Take a very simple statement: “Jesus never said anything that was false”.

The statement is itself either true or it is false. How can we assess it?

Well, the first thing we can do is decide if it’s axiomatic. If you really think that BY DEFINITION Jesus never said anything that was false, that redefines the terms a bit. It means, in short, that if any apparent falsehood is actually the truth, however nonsensical it seems to us. If Jesus said that pigs had wings, pigs somehow have wings. It is the position of a lot of evangelists that the Bible is inerrant, that if it’s in the Bible it’s true, and that if the Bible says pigs have wings then they do, but that’s not Catholic teaching, so I’m assuming that we can move along.

So ... ‘Jesus never said anything that was false’. How do we assess whether that’s true or not? First of all, we can’t do this perfectly. The man we now call Jesus Christ presumably said all sorts of stuff that’s not been recorded. He might have looked up in the sky and said ‘it’s going to rain later’ and it didn’t rain. We’ll never know.

So we have to redefine terms. We have to set some underlying assumptions, for the sake of this argument. What we mean is ‘does the Biblical record of what Jesus says contain anything that we know to be untrue?’. IF there is one example of that, THEN the statement ‘Jesus never said anything that was false’ is not true.

Yes?

All you need then is one example in the Bible of Jesus saying something that’s not true. This is very easy to do.

1. Take your Bible.
2. Read Mark 2:25-26
3. Now read 1 Samuel 21:1-7.

At this point, the people who talk about inerrant Bibles usually start talking about scribal errors and the people who talk about absolute truths start stammering about how it all depends on definitions.

That might be a ‘gotcha’ fact, but it’s all we need. The Bible has Jesus saying something that’s not true. It doesn’t make it a lie (I would suggest it’s a perfectly understandable mistake). It doesn’t mean everything he said was wrong. It might have been the only thing he said that wasn’t true (there are plenty more, as it happens). It doesn’t mean I shouldn’t love my neighbor. It doesn’t make me infallible because I’ve pointed that out. It doesn’t prove God doesn’t exist.

It is a fact that the Bible has Jesus saying something that is not true.

Jesus was capable of saying things that were false, so any claim that is based on him being inerrant starts from a false premise.

Magda - No unmarried Christian person should be having sex with anyone - most especially, priests with CHILDREN.  Even in third world countries, the use of children for adult sex is frowned upon.  I ought not to have to have a ministry to warn parents - or to shine light on that.

With that said, an ordained priest that promised to remain sex-free needs to keep that promise.  He ought not have a “lapse” with anyone: not a woman, another man, or an under-aged teen boy or girl.  No sex - none, zip, nada.  I can’t tell you how hard it is to read that priests should just not touch a child.

Only 2-3% of the Catholic priesthood (priests and bishops) molested CHILDREN.  That’s not much.  It means a whopping 97-98% of our clergymen are INNOCENT of molesting children!!!  Cause for celebration? No.  Why?
Because at any one time, 50% of priests are having sex with SOMEONE- another man (because 22-45% of the clergy- priests & bishops) have homosexual inclinations, or a woman - many priests are conflicted and go both ways.  For men that are not supposed to think about sex, they obviously think about sex a LOT.

Look at Fr. Marcial Maciel - founder of the Legionaries of Christ and JPII’s good friend, that enjoyed Vatican protection.  When he was finally investigated, his list of survivors included male children(his OWN), and seminarians that were young men at the time, and at least TWO WOMEN, with whom he had illigitemate children.

Frankly, I think it’s the relationship with the women that got him removed from ministry.  The Vatican and most bishops have a high tolerance for priests using children for sex, and having homosexual relationships with other men.  It’s WOMEN that our esteemed leaders object to as being priest’s sex partners.  It’s twisted thinking. 

Pew people need to realize that to insist priests remain celibate is unscriptural, and only a man-made Vatican PRACTICE that could change tomorrow, if we had MEN in the Vatican, and not weak man-boys.  As long as they ignore God’s instructions for how to structure the church, there will be problems.  As long as pew people look the other way (and continue to pay $$) priests will be able to have two lives: one foot on the altar, and the other foot in the bed of a man, a woman… or even a child.

Neil - there is no such place as “Purgatory”, although the Catholic Church does teach it.  They finally got rid of the idea of “Limbo” (a concept never completely endorsed by any pope) when women in third world countries that had high infant mortality rates, refused to accept their precious babies were not safely in Heaven, in the Arms of God.  Whereas, for centuries, European women, & later American and women of other developed countries, were good little girl pew people, and they bought into Limbo, because that’s what they were told.

Now that converts & new pew people in Third World Countries is the fastest growing Catholic group in the world, our esteemed leaders in Rome had to scramble together a group of “theologians” a few years ago, coming out with a formal proclamation from the Vatican that the idea of Limbo is now off the table.

So kudos to the women of the 3rd world that got the Vatican’s attention.  That won’t happen with Purgatory, because some pope made it an “official” doctrine.  Since these men have “the keys”, and God rubber-stamps what they say - Purgatory is carved in Roman stone.  There is no way any of them will have the courage to call ANY former Vatican administration: wrong.  It will not happen.  Just look at how Mary Magdalene got the reputation for being a prostitute - it’s the same thing with Purgatory. 

Since Catholic pew people consider the Bible of such little importance, and Paul’s letters are totally ignored (like Romans) and all those wonderful Christian doctrines tossed out, it’s okay for the Vatican to still preach Purgatory, just as it’s fine to slander Mary Magdalene’s name.  Who will know?  Who will care?

So God’s elect that were Catholic will find themselves in Heaven upon their death - or if our fellow Catholics are merely pew sitters, not part of God’s elect, they’ll find themselves in Hell.  Any Catholic, including all of us on this blog, can easily sit down with the Bible and read God’s truths for ourselves, so we won’t be taken in by teachings that differ from Scripture.

The Vatican teachings square with God’s Word in many cases.  But it OTHER cases, it differs.  Just like Joshua said, “As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.”  And “all things will pass away” including the Vatican and St. Peter’s Basilica, “but MY WORD will never pass away”.
Teach your kids the Bible, when they are young, Neil, and stay involved in what they are taught in Catholic circles to see if it squares with the doctrines in Paul’s letters.

Jemima - took a course in scripture and heard that one from a Catholic priest about twenty years ago. 
Jesus IS the Way, the Truth, and the Life. 

Born Again - I know priests who have been removed.  I know priests who have been defrocked.  And, having studied the pathology of molesters, I know the limitations of any judicial system in prosecuting them.
  Look, you are showing your ignorance here of a larger, grievous situation. If you were really concerned about the children, you would get the truth to them.
That is what JPII did.  He taught the Truth to young people, not disillusionment, but enlightenment.  I know children who grew up learning what he taught and they are way past where I was as a young adult.

Magda - Have you read anything I’ve written?  I ask because you insist on saying things like, “If you were really concerned about the children, you would get the truth to them.”

Frankly, it is up to PARENTS to get truth to their children.  It is PARENTS that need to be educated & warned about our Roman Catholic Church, and about our priesthood - priests and bishops.  These men cannot be trusted, just because they wear collars. 

Magda, if you know priests that have been removed and even DEFROCKED for molesting children, your area sounds really bad - it’s a clerical mindset that needs to be changed.  Perhaps it is YOU that needs to go on a quest to 1) Change the mindset of the ordained men in your diocese, and 2) Educate your own pew people to realize we are “ALL” Church, and not separate - priests being superior and pew people (laity) being lower on the totem pole and 3) Educate the greater society in your area that the molestation of CHILDREN IS A CRIME, and 4) That NO PRIEST should be having sex with ANYONE.

Magda - I thought my area was bad because it is “liberal” with a liberal bishop and even Catholic pew people that are liberal.  But with that said, it’s priests having sex with WOMEN AND MEN that are the problem here.  They get NO PUNISHMENT for it.  I believe it’s because “those that live in glass houses can’t throw stones.”  Each cleric must have his own secrets, and if he’s not sexually active, he has a friend that is.  But we don’t have *rampant* cases of sex with children or teenage girls and boys here, such as you obviously do.  Magda - you need to do something about that.

For the record, JPII was not all bad - he taught some good things.  And I’m glad young people have taken what he taught that was good, to heart.  But JPII had blind spots.  Those blind spots are being overlooked.

Cradle - you are naive.  Please take an FBI course on predators.
You must be young and unchurched in current and historical Catholic teaching on these matters.  You seem not to understand the magnitude of the current efficiency in communication when compared to the snail mail and antiquated phone systems still in use by all no more than twenty years ago.  You also are not taking into account the difficulty that existed no more than twenty-five years ago in public sentiment regarding public airing of sexual crimes.  Unless a victim is willing to go through the pain of testimony in a case against someone they probably loved, there can be no case.

cradle - Who said I was only talking about children?

My maternal Grandmother had a simple faith.  She was raised in a small farming town in Pennsylvania, of ethnic peasant stock.  Enough “faith formation” to make her First communion and be Confirmed in the Faith a couple years later.

She had a great personal devotion to Our Blessed mother, and to the Sacred Heart.

In all things, her response was to turn to Mary.

My Paternal Great-grandmother on the other hand, had a full catechist formation, a brother was a priest, and a sister who was a nun.  Great-grandma would talk of “spiritual combat” once I was confirmed, and how through “little things” and seemingly harmless “stuff” it would come crawling like a slimy slug, but tainting everything in its wake.

I was too young, and too much of the “world” at age 13 and 14 to heed her, although at her death I inherited her missals, prayer books and a book, “Instructions to a Catholic Girl” that was all about “temptation”

It is NOT JUST CONVERTS, each and every child needs these types of instruction, as well as their parents.

Opps, I hit the wrong button…

Is there EVIL? Yes. Can it be felt, witnessed? From personal experience I would have to say yes, definitely.

I was in Lourdes for the Annual Military Pilgrimage; military representatives, military service members, their families and their chaplains from around the world come.  This particular year, was May 1993.  I felt the presence of EVIL during the candle-light Rosary procession to the Church and the speeches and prayers afterwards.

It was in the form of an “ill wind” that would come and blow out our candles, and as quickly as people were to relight from other candles, it came again. The phrase “something wicked this way comes” repeated over and over at the same time.

I told someone I was with that I was afraid, that something evil was brewing and even Our Lady might not be able to stop it.  In retrospect, I was correct.

There was a sizable number of military members from the Country of Rwanda, and their Bishop, Augustin Misago, came with them.  In April that following year (1994) from April 6 to July 16, was the 100 days of terror and genocide in Rwanda.

I know I am late to this post, but the topic is so vital. I returned to the Faith after 40 years—most of the time as an atheist. spiritual attack is very real. A common experience that several of us reverts experienced was:
As we first thought of going back to the Church, we would start driving to a sunday mass and we would experience a very frigtening panic attack—no kidding.

On my third attempt to go to mass, the panic attach hit again. I thought to myself, ” Now evelyn, you never have panic attacks! You have a reputation as a tough ol’ bird (actually another word came to mind).” As soon as I got inside the church—the fear left and didn’t return.

Although I didn’t - others said that they were haunted by nightmares during the time of decision. I am not surprized by Ann Rice falling back. At moments of deepest prayer I still may hear the gruff words: you look like a fool.”

Don’t let prayers ever cease! Evelyn

Born Again Cradle Catholic:

I believe you are increasingly out-of-date in thinking that cradle Catholics do not consider the Bible important. Having been a Catholic for only two years now, and having spent the last year-and-a-half in a popular parish Bible study, I can provide at least anecdotal evidence of a contrary trend. I certainly agree that this was the case from roughly the 1960’s to the 1990’s. It is a shame that Biblical literacy was largely lost for a generation of Catholics; but even so, judging by history, that seems par-for-the-course for a post-conciliar generation.

But the main issue is one of authority.

In the Catholic world, the Magisterium’s authority is backed by the promises of Jesus Christ, recorded in Scripture, the canon and preservation of which was given to the world by Catholic bishops. A person who sees Scripture as merely a historically reliable account of the words of Jesus can thereby discover the Magisterium, and from that discover the Magisterial teaching on the canon, and thereby discover the inerrancy of Scripture, and thereby have a Bible as you know it today.

In the Protestant world, without the Apostolic Succession and the Magisterial authority of the King’s Viziers to speak in His behalf, one has only non-Scriptural formulae for determining the canon, and non-Scripturally-authorized teachers for interpreting its contents. Where then is the locus of authority? If it is not in Christ’s viziers in communion with Christ’s grand vizier, it is nowhere.

I was Protestant, and well-read, and knew the Bible well. I became a Catholic when I realized how much more fundamentally Biblical the Catholic faith was than the denominational Protestant Christianity I had been practicing.

Yes, more Biblical. Far more.

You mention, for example, that you don’t believe in the existence of Purgatory. The Bible teaches:

(a.) Nothing which is impure in any way may enter Heaven;

(b.) For those of us who are Christians but still “in the body,” if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves;

(c.) There are sins which are mortal; but there are also sins which are not “unto death”;

(d.) The works of the dead shall follow them;

(e.) Anyone among the saved, whose works follow them, who have some works which are not built on the foundation which is Christ, shall “suffer loss,” but the man himself will still be saved, but only as through fire.

C.S.Lewis, then, had it right. He himself rejected some of the sillier and non-Magisterial notions of Purgatory which had cropped up in the popular art of the Middle Ages, with devils poking the saved with pitchforks and the like. But he agreed that after death, we would want to have our dirty rags taken off before we enter the heavenly feast. “It may hurt, you know,” he has our heavenly Host warn, before answering, “Even so, sir.” For of course we must enter Heaven perfectly clean. How to do that, if our works follow us? How to do that, if we are not already entirely sanctified, entirely 100.0000% perfect, before our death?

Paul tells us: The man will be saved, but only as through fire. God has provided us a way to be purified of our remaining stains, to change our filthy rags for white robes, before we enter the wedding feast of the Lamb. And it is important that we do so, lest the Bridegroom ask us why we’re there without our wedding clothes, and leave us abashed and cast out.

Who cares, then, if you call it “Purgatory?” “A rose by any other name….” But we know from Scripture that most if not all of us will not yet be perfect at the moment of our death, and that the imperfect cannot enter Heaven, and that God gives us a way to be perfected prior to entering Heaven, and that it will hurt “as through fire.” Call it “God’s purifying fire” if you like, although “purifying” is all that the word “purgatory” means. But a Christian faith without Purgatory, under whatever name, is a Christian faith which is, for either most or all Christians, utterly without hope of Heaven.

You could, of course, argue that I have misconstrued some Scripture, or neglected some other passage. Very well: Prove that I have. You can’t do so just by giving me your interpretation, however: You and I are 21st century Westerners removed by such a vast divide from the time and culture and words of the apostles that we each have little credibility. To whom, then, shall we turn?

The obvious choice is to look at the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers. Look at the Didache, look at Clement of Rome and Hermas and Papias and Polycarp and pseudo-Dionysius and Tertullian before he went screwball later in life. Look at the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John and who was made presbyter by Peter before succeeding Evodius as bishop in Antioch. (Shouldn’t he have some notion of how the apostles intended their writings to be understood?) Look at Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons.

Remember that these are folks who (a.) were taught Christianity by the Apostles themselves, or by the direct disciples of the Apostles, (b.) seem to have insisted on a very conservative, nearly hidebound, approach to Christian teaching, constantly appealing to what they were told by the Apostles, (c.) pre-date the canonization of the New Testament, (d.) doctrinally informed the faith of those Christians who eventually did canonize the New Testament like Athanasius, who in 370 was the first Christian in history to state a canon that matched the 27 books we use today, and (e.) were far, far closer in time and culture to Jesus and the Apostles than we.

If anyone knows how to correctly interpret the Christian faith, it is these guys.

So I ask you: Read their works, and how they approach the Scriptures, and what assumptions they make when. Kindly check to see if there be a Baptist or a Presbyterian among them. Unroll the succession of Christian bishops from the Resurrection to the time that the 27-book canon of the New Testament was first pronounced, giving the Church for the first time a “Scriptura” which they could use “Sola,” and tell me if there be a believer in Sola Scriptura anywhere in that list? (Indeed, how could there be a Sola Scriptura Christianity in the year 70, prior to the completion of the “Scriptura?” Or the year 270, prior to anyone having certainty which books belonged in the canon?)

When one has discovered that call Christians for the first thousand years of Christianity were either (a.) Catholic (or something so close to Catholic that it falls somewhere between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) or (b.) folk whom Catholics and Protestants would today equally call heretical, then…one faces a choice.

One can either choose to believe that in all the history of Christianity, the Holy Spirit never bothered leading anyone into the important truths of the Christian faith until around 1500 or so; or,

One can start investigating which Church to belong to, from a very narrow list of options.

And, hey: It seems the whole clerical abuse scandal, which I of course agree is desperately wicked, has put you off the Catholic Church. Fine, why don’t you at least enter communion with an Eastern Orthodox bishop? At least then you’ll still receive the true Christ in the Eucharist, have access to the sacrament of reconciliation, and be in a historically plausible Church. I mean, I think you’ll still suffer spiritually if you’re not in communion with the Grand Vizier (or Chief Steward, if you prefer a more conventional translation of the reference from Isaiah 22) of Christ’s Messianic Kingdom, but if you can’t handle your liquor straight, then perhaps a relatively undiluted mixed drink will do?

Great article!  Thank you!

I recall a time when a thought kept at me; what was the use of one tiny Hail Mary?  Or an Our Father?  Or even a thousand?  How in the world could my one tiny prayer, or even a million of them, ever make a difference in the vast sea of need in this world?
My guardian angel must have been hovering near by, because after a while, somewhere inside I knew THIS was a spiritual attack by the forces of evil.  So I brushed aside this thought with a calm assurance that, no matter, I still will offer my tiny prayer.  God will fix it.  And that was that!  Begone, Satan!

I am Mariam used every single spell worker on the internet, spent untold amounts of money and discovered they are all fakes…i was the fool though; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In the end, I decided that I wanted a tarot reading to know what my future held for me; I contacted a woman who lives locally to me and she told me about a man named (Priests Iromole); he does not advertise on the internet, has another job for income, has no set prices, makes no false promises and refuses to help anyone that cannot be helped and even helps
for free sometimes, he will give you proof before taking money. He is a wonderful man and he was the only person who actually gave me real results. I really hope he doesn’t mind me advertising his contact on the internet but I’m sure any help/ extra work will benefit him.contact him as spirituallighthealing101@rediffmail.com He travel sometimes.i cant give out his number cos he told me he don’t want to be disturbed by many people across the world..he said his email is okay and he’ will replied to any emails asap,love marriage,finance, job promotion ,lottery Voodoo,poker voodoo,golf Voodoo,Law & Court case Spells,money voodoo,weigh loss voodoo,any sicknesses voodoo,Trouble in marriage,HIV AIDS,it’s all he does Hope this helps everyone that is in a desperate situation as I once was; I know how it feels to hold onto something and never have a chance to move on because of the false promises and then to feel trapped in wanting something
more.