The American Spectator

Appleby| 12.11.09 @ 7:05AM

Of my friends and family who have been Episcopalian/Anglican in the past ten years or so, most have left that denomination because they are sick and tired of the ceaseless worship of homosexuality. I have become a Catholic; my sister has returned to her Methodist roots; her daughter has joined the Lutheran Church; and my brother has turned Orthodox. I could cite many others. I know only one person who has left the Catholic Church to become Anglican, and he is homosexual.

Alan Brooks| 12.11.09 @ 1:15PM

Finally, something I really want to write about, to get away from today's gobbledygook politics.
The worst religion today is better than the best entertainment. Only when you superlatively combine the two-- A Man For All Seasons is the outstanding example-- do you get what you want.

Or need.

Alan Brooks| 12.17.09 @ 10:28PM

"The one-world religion that you fear is not the Catholic Church."

David got the source of anti-Catholic bias above, the Pope is the considered by white trash eschatologists, and some serious Christians to be the AntiChrist, or the Beast, etc.
They want to think the AntiChrist and the Beast are far away, in someone else's country.
Well what if these Creatures are in Bel Air?
Or San Francisco? Or at the Dakota in NYC, chanting "Hail Satan!"
Or at a university teaching that little Eichmanns deserved to be killed at the WTC?

Alan Brooks| 12.17.09 @ 10:30PM

What if the AntiChrist is an editor at the NYT?

Now THERE is a frightening thought.

Alan Brooks| 12.17.09 @ 10:32PM

The "Beast" could be an attorney for all we know
-- and probably is!

Richard L. Kent, Esq.| 12.18.09 @ 8:36AM

Well, we know that Satan is, in fact, a member of the New York state bar. (See: "The Devil's Advocate", 1997.)

The question of course is: *which* member? There are so many to choose from.

Ryan| 12.11.09 @ 8:29AM

The Anglican Church is such an oddity anyway, that I would think that its membership who are "true believers," so to speak, would find a better home in the RCC anyway.

There's scant hope that it would embrace the rest of us Protestants however, mostly over the issue of "sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, and sola Christos." We could probably find much common ground in service to God and man, but as long as the RCC stands on faith and works, equates church Tradition with Scripture, and a handful of other essentials, we'll never really "come home," as it were.

ds80| 12.11.09 @ 11:04AM

au contraire: the RCC does not "equate church Tradition with Scripture". The deposit of faith is revealed through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Ryan| 12.11.09 @ 11:47AM

How is that different?

unger| 12.11.09 @ 9:37PM

I don't speak for ds80, but the difference seems to be tradition=scripture vs tradition+scripture.

Mike| 12.14.09 @ 9:08PM

Without Sacred Tradition, how do you even have scripture? Without Tradition, how would we even know about the Bible? The Bible itself is a part of Christian tradition! The Gospels weren't even written until decades after the Ascension. The canon wasn't finalized until a couple hundred years later. Yet somehow, the faith survived.

I don't understand how some Protestants think an independent reading of scripture without any context or insight into 2000 years of Christian Tradition is a better way to understand and interpret it.

Austin Scott| 12.11.09 @ 11:51AM

Or, to see it through a more Orthodox lens: The Church is the repository and guardian of the Sacred Tradition, the most important part of which is the Holy Scripture. But the Church, in its custodial role, decided what would constitute Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the present canon) and continues to guard how the text should be interpreted in the light of the whole Tradition.

Ryan| 12.11.09 @ 12:14PM

That's a more clear explanation. Theologically I think that it doesn't hold up, but it states the position clearer.

bob alou| 12.11.09 @ 11:54AM

I agree with Ryan. The RCC does elevate tradition as equal with scripture, which you would easily and clearly recognize if you read scripture. As a protestant I look for opportunities to heal the, far too many, divisions of the church catholic. When the Catholic Church becomes more interested in doing so by renouncing the, more than a few, church doctrines that are clearly contrary to the express wording of scripture, or nearly as bad, merely unsupportable by other than the most tenuous of scriptural connections, then perhaps substantive re-approachment can begin.

John II| 12.11.09 @ 9:13PM

I'm not sure I want to get into this one, bob alou, but you and Ryan both sound suspiciously RC to me--something about your manner of expression.

And I should be up front in admitting that I'm an RC convert; both my folks were atheists, and the extended family is either vaguely Protestant or indifferent-secular. I don't know what it means, precisely, to be a "cradle Catholic"; my grown kids do, and I'm even hesitant to ask THEM what it's like.

That said, full disclosure and all, I have one question for you and Ryan: Where in Scripture can you find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? If you can't cite it or find it (and I don't think you'll be able to), then Sola Scriptura is itself a (Protestant) tradition. Tradition. In which case, again, I think you have some 'splainin' to do.

No offense.

KyMouse| 12.12.09 @ 10:48AM

John II, a doctrine need not be explicitly taught in Scripture in order for that doctrine to be recognized as true. Take the Trinity, for example -- the term is not found in the Bible, but belief in the triune God is essential to Christian faith (see Deut. 6:4, Matt. 3:q6, 17; 28:19).

Concerning Sola Scriptura, Jesus used the Scriptures as His final court of appeal. He said that "Scripture [not tradition or the Magisterium] cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and said, "It is written..." (e.g. Matt. 4:4-10). He affirmed the Bible's divine inspiration (Matt. 22:43), its infallibility (John 10:35) and its final authority (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Please read what Paul said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -- he affirmed the full adequacy of Scripture, making it clear that Scripture gives us the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus. The Scriptures alone are the Christian's infallible source of spiritual knowledge.

If the Scriptures were sufficient for Timothy, as Paul says, why aren't they for you (and me)?

KyMouse| 12.12.09 @ 10:53AM

I should have said "2 Timothy 3:15-17" -- "...from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproff, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Again, if, as Paul said, the Scriptures for enough for Timothy, why aren't they for us?

Jen| 12.12.09 @ 12:17PM

Several comments on this. First of all, during the life of Christ, the only Scriptures that existed yet were the Old Testament, and it is those scriptures to which his comments literally refer. Of course, Christians interpret those words as referring to the New Testament as well, but precisely because the heremeneutics bequeathed to us by the Tradition teach us to.

As for the quote from 2 Tim above, Paul says that *all* Scripture is from God, etc., but neither here nor anywhere else does he say that *only* Scripture is inspired, valuable, etc.

But he does say this: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. " 2 Thess 2:15

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 8:37AM

However, all scripture being from God, I would offer that every tradition of man must measure up to Scripture as a litmus test of sorts.

Also, I'd have to find it, but Peter also refers to some of Paul's writings as scripture.

John II| 12.12.09 @ 9:50PM

"John II, a doctrine need not be explicitly taught in Scripture in order for that doctrine to be recognized as true."

Then I rest my case. But Jen beat me to it anyhow, so I don't have much else to say, except: You too, KyMouse, sound suspiciously RC to me. I wonder if it has anything to do with the possibility that we both agree on about 96.6% of all disputed issues in the universe. It's been said that such close agreement sparks the most bitter disagreement about what's left.

In any event, it's understandable why Scripture leaves the doctrine of the Trinity implicit rather than gabbing about it overtly. God works that way. He doesn't philosophize, particularly. He tells us stories, and leaves it to us to get the point. When we're both on the other side, KyMouse, I suspect that we'll both have a good laugh over how minutely significant our differences turned out to be. But I also suspect that we'll both have to get involved in what's still happening on the other side--that's my idea of Purgatory, but let's not get into THAT tradition.

R Wolf| 12.13.09 @ 1:30AM

Another word never mentioned in the New Testament, other than "Trinity", is "Incarnation".

Kev| 12.18.09 @ 3:35AM

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Jesus was careful not to add to what Moses had taught (but expansively interpreted it for us). He was also careful to insist that He does not "abolish the law".

Paul also was careful not to add to, nor subtract from, the teachings of Moses. Even though a convert to Christianity is "no longer under the supervision of the law", nevertheless the law stands.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that reflects these truths.

JP| 12.12.09 @ 9:16PM

Both Holy Tradition and the Holy Scripture carry the same weight. As there was no Canon for almost 400 years, Tradition (which began with the Last Supprt) was all there was. And it was Tradition (the Magestirium) which cannonized the Bible. There is nothing in Tradition which contradicts the Bible and vice versa.

Richard L. Kent, Esq.| 12.18.09 @ 8:43AM

Well, unrepentant embrace of contumacious heresy can be a bit problematic.....

In the immortal words of Emo Philips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over....

KyMouse| 12.11.09 @ 11:09AM

Agreed, Ryan. As I commented on another thread the other day, I gladly join with my Catholic co-workers and friends in speaking up for the rights of the unborn, and on other issues.

However, it is not "bigotry" to point out where Catholicism has dangerously parted with biblical truth; in fact, it is the duty of Christians to weigh the claims of each denomination or sect that says it is Christian.

As far as I know, Catholicism retains belief in the deity of Jesus; the Triune God; Jesus' virgin birth; and Jesus' bodily resurrection and future return to Earth. But Catholicism denies the most basic Christian belief -- the doctrine of justification by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9)-- and condemns anyone who believes that. Catholicism also denies that Jesus' work of redemption is completed, and that His atonement is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin.
Beyond those essentials, there are grave questions about the authority of the Catholic Church to dispense God's grace (believers need NO mediator other than Jesus, I Timothy 2:5); about giving veneration or devotion to anyone except the Trinity; Mary's alleged immaculate conception and titles, including Queen of Heaven; and much more.

Scripture, not the Magisterium, has final authority because it is a direct revelation from God and carries the very authority of God Himself (Galatians 1:12). All that we must believe is found within the Bible, and NO other source is binding or authoritative. Jesus said that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), not "Tradition (or the Magisterium) cannot be broken."

Unity among Christians is a fine thing, but it must not come about at the expense of biblical truth.

Austin Scott| 12.11.09 @ 11:55AM

There is an intrinsic flaw in the logic of the penultimate paragraph here. Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken," but he cannot have been referring to the as yet unwritten books of the New Testament. The very quote you use is drawn from the Christian writings that had to be recognized as Scripture, a process that took several centuries and Church councils to conclude (and which remains vexed in some cases.)

Is your proposition that the tradition about Jesus, which became Scripture, cannot be broken? That is Catholic and Orthodox teaching.

Ryan| 12.11.09 @ 12:13PM

Stating, essentially, that tradition established scripture is a bit of a stretch. Yes, it took a while do determine what the canon was, but there had to be pen put to paper FIRST before it could be debated. The Gospels aren't just "tradition about Jesus," they were essentially penned or recorded from the Apostle's own accounts, not a passed-down tradition, but directly. Paul's writings are the same way.

It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg argument.

Here's the other rub - scripture is scripture in and of itself, not because a council decided it was. Scripture is its own authority - man never had the authority to define it.

cdc| 12.11.09 @ 4:28PM

Various councils decided what was scripture and what was not, most famously the council of Nicaea. This ongoing disagreement as to what is scripture has led to all sorts of amusing schisms.

JP| 12.12.09 @ 9:45PM

Ryan,
There were literally thousands of letters, documents, epistles, pastoral letters, etc... that were deemed unfit to be put into the Bible. Europe was hugely backwards, isolated and scattered in the 4th and 5th Centuries. Most of the churches were unaware of most of the books that eventually made up the New Testament. When Jesus spoke about scriptures he was referring to the OT. The works of the Gospels and the Apostles did not get written until decades after his death. Also there is no mention about concepts like the Triune God. And orginally, the authority of the Church rested with the Aposltes and especially St Peter.

Other concepts you write about such as "Once Saved, always Saved", or redemption by Faith alone were debated for over a thousand years by Catholic theologians and clerics, but were rejected after a long carefull process. Newman once quipped that there is no new heresey, but only old ones that get re-manufactured. After Luther, an entire host of heresies continued to rear or re-rear thier ugly heads. From a theological and philosophical point of view, there are many problems with the ideas of Justification By Faith Alone. Divine Justice is never satisfied, despite the gift of Christ's Mercy. A person who died in Christ's friendship is destined for Heaven. But, almost all Humans dies with some attachment to this world. And knowing what we know of God, he does not allow anyone into Heavan with an impure soul. Christ washed away our sins, but it is up to us to clean our hearts. With the rejection of Purgatory, Protestants have constructed an idea of Divine Justice that is too good to be true. Catholics don't believe that Purgatory is a "Get out of Hell Card". We also believe that Christ's death redeems Man. However, like the Jews of Christ's time, we believe that there is a place of purgation. A place where our carnal attachment to sin is purged. This isn't a new concept, but a continuation of the Jewish belief. Christ certainly never said anything to counter such beliefs. And if he did, it would certainly have been recorded or mentioned by the Aposltes or His Mother. Christ parable about the debtor jailed, and that he had serve his time "until the last penny" was paid-off alludes to Purgatory. And the early followers of Christ certainly believed in it. Also, this idea of purgation fits Christian theology. Christ suffered for our sins, but he would not by some divine magic remove this attraction sin (or any other thing that gets between us and God); otherwise, we would cease being ourselves. Purgatory is a place where we are purged of those things we put before us and God, but still remain ourselves. In Purgatory we are pefected.Purgatory is a place were our longing for God becomes so great that everything else pales in comparison.

But probably the greatest problem for Protestants is the removal Holy Communion and Confession. The Eucharist is the source and the summit of our Worship. The only reason to have Mass is the Eucharist. This is Christ's greatest gift and blessing. It is well recorded in scriptures, and this sacrement (like others) has survived 2000 years.

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 8:46AM

A few oversimplifications here.

First, Divine Justice is totally satisfied for the believer at the Cross. Christ never mentions any in-between manner about it - "my grace is sufficient," and He is seated - not standing - at the right hand of the Father. There was no chair in the Jewish temple, because the priest always had work to do; yet Christ sits at the Father's side, for "it is finished." Christ was sacrificed once for all; to state that Divine Justice was not satisfied at the Cross is to state that His work was left incomplete there.

Eternal Security (Once saved, always saved is an oversimplification)? Can we really undo something that God has done?

How am I capable of cleaning my own heart? I don't deny that we all die with some sin, but it is Christ alone who can wash that away - He makes it VERY evident that I am incapable of doing anything about my own sin. How can I? What in scripture points to my ability to satisfy His justice? If I can satisfy, then why did He have to endure the cross?

See the problems? It places far too much on man's incapable powers, and takes too much credit from God, in the Protestant view. The less I am able to do, the bigger God's grace becomes.

KyMouse| 12.12.09 @ 11:05AM

Mr. Scott, I am among those who believe that the Bible contains exactly those writings that God intended to be there. He has preserved it through the centuries, and its truth has been demonstrated through archaeology, the fulfillment of prophecy, etc. As God, Jesus knew exactly "how the story would end," so to speak, and told future generations, as well as His contemporaries, to put their faith in Scripture.

Paul warned the Corinthians "not to exceed what is written" (I Cor. 4:6); and in Revelation 22:18-19, God Himself insists that what is written in Scripture is not to be taken away from or added to." Again, God (being God) knew how His Scriptures would be assembled and preserved, and they still speak for Him today.

It isn't wrong to respect tradition, but it is wrong to attribute to tradition the authority that belongs only to Scripture.

Jeremiah| 12.12.09 @ 3:24PM

Tradition has a specific meaning in the RCC that it doesn't have in Protestant Churches. For Protestants, tradition largely means customs. In the RCC tradition is the accumulation of the teaching of the Magesterium (the categorical teachings of the apostles, confirmed by the Church, through the ages.) Until just about 400 A.D. there were a whole host of books competing to be included as part of the New Testament canon. It was the RCC, which was the only Christian Church, which determined which books were canonical and which would be excluded. It is logically inconsistent to maintain that the Catholic Church had the lawful authority to determine the New Testament we both hold binding and no other authority whatsoever. It is also logically inconsistent to believe that the RCC canonized a New Testament that contradicted its own teachings - and that it took over a thousand years after they did it for anyone to notice.

One commenter puts the line in Revelation enjoining people from adding to or taking away from this book. (It seems to me the inspired author is talking about the book of Revelations, but most Protestants interpret it to be about the whole Bible - which is a sort of library of books. For arguments sake, I will go with the Protestant interpretation here). Yet up until shortly after 1500 A.D. the Christian Old Testament was that which is found in Catholic Bibles. It was Martin Luther who insisted on the removal of some books. Now the Protestant Old Testament is simply the old Hebrew Canon - which, along with the Greek Septuagint (which is the Catholic Old Testament) were both considered canonical by Jewish leaders until the rise of Christianity. They adopted the Hebrew Canon exclusively to differentiate themselves from this new sect of 'Christians.' This does not trouble me terribly - I still love my old Kinf James version is both accurate and marvelously poetic and literate. It does create some problems, though, for over 30 references in the New Testament by Jesus and apostles cite as scripture things that are only found in books in the Greek Septuagint. I must say, when Jesus and the apostles say they are Scripture and Protestants say they aren't, I'm going to have to go with Christ.

More troublesome was Luther's efforts to delete several books from the New Testament. Luther hated the Epistle of James, particularly, because it directly contradicts his doctrine of faith alone. Luther called it the 'straw epistle', and though he could not get his fellow reformers to agree to tinker with the New Testament, he refused to reference James at all except to condemn it. The 'ancient' Christian doctrine of 'faith alone' is less than 500 years old. That said, many Protestants misunderstand what the authentic Catholic teaching regarding faith and works is. Works, the sort of legalisms common among Pharasiacal Jews 2000 years ago, will save no one. But authentic faith always leads to good works. So works are the visible fruit of the faith that does save - and a profound absence of works is evidence of a profound absence of faith. (That's not me speaking - read James. That is one of his prime messages.)

In my journey, having been taught that the RCC was the 'whore of Babylon' by my fundamentalist forebears, I had a profound aversion to her. But I also knew that the Protestant Church I attended emphasized some matters of Scripture (which they could cite by heart on command) while utterly ignoring whole swaths that seemed to contradict their scriptural emphasis. I started going to various Protestant denominations, staying until I found the place that sticked - the pieces of the Bible that they did not quote or even acknowledge because it contradicted their emphasis. I figured that a system is not necessarily true if it is internally coherent, but it can't be true if it is not - and until I found a home that embraced the whole Bible rather than just parts of it, I had no home.

I am thankful for the respect for Scripture my fundamentalism imbued in me. When I first, reluctantly, considered the Catholic Church, I was astonished. In those first six months I read over thrity books of history and theology, trying to find the catch. And though I was astonished at how many cradle Catholics are miserably catechized, I was more astonished to find that, finally, I had found the Church that, in its authentic teaching, embraced the fulness of the Bible and was internally coherent.

It has done my heart good to see the growing respect these last 20 years between Catholics and Evangelicals. Whatever our disagreements (and some are serious) we both believe profoundly that Christ is Lord. But it is compelling for me that Christ did NOT give his disciples a New Testament and tell them to go build a church with it. He established them as His Church and gave them real authority ("He who hears my apostles hears me and he who rejects them rejects Me...Luke 10;16"). Christ did not give each of us authority to interpret His teachings and His Scripture however we want - He gave that authority to specific apostles and their successors - and condemned us if we reject their teaching. Some of those successors determined with canonical certainty which books would comprise the New Testament. It is crucial that each of us determine, with clean consciences, who the authentic successors are.

The divisions are so old now - almost 500 years - that to be Protestant is certainly no act of conscience rebellion as it was hundreds of years ago. In almost all cases where sincerely held, it is a profound reaching out to Christ. But I sincerely recommend to anyone who is seeking that they study history that goes back more than 500 years and read the Church Fathers that both Catholics and Protestants venerate: Augustine, Ireneus, etc. What many Protestants call Church history is the history of European Protestantism of the last 500 years that studiously ignores the 1500 years of Christianity that preceded it. And while the innovations of 500 years ago (sola scriptura, faith alone, dropping books of the Old Testament), they are not nearly as old as the Christian teaching that goes back 2000 years. And there will be peace.

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 8:55AM

From what you state about Faith and works, we pretty much agree; I think the bigger controversy comes from the matter that it really doesn't seem to be what the RCC teaches from the pulpit, that there is somehow something that I can contribute to my own salvation, where it is Christ who does everything.

Jeremiah| 12.14.09 @ 6:09PM

Not necessarily, Ryan. Do you really know what is taught from the pulpit of Catholic Churches or do you rely on what others tell you? Over the years, quite a few members of my family, out of curiosity, have gone to Mass with me. Most are more than a little surprised to hear the Bible read, obvious worship, and that we don't sacrifice goats or chickens. Almost every one has told me it was not what they expected.

Do not be deceived by what you are told Catholics believe. Read the literature written by Catholics. That said, we are as troubled by modernists (relativists) as the so-called Mainstream Protestant Churches are. I always shudder a bit if a non-Catholic friend is walking into a church I haven't been to before, praying that it is not one of those relativist parishes that take pride in dissenting from authentic teaching. But we do have, accessible to all who want to look for themselves, a trove of work that focuses on authentic Catholic teaching - and an authority that can keep even the most troublesome parish from utterly descending into the new-age nonsense that has so badly hurt so many mainstream Protestant parishes.

Finally, though I don't think we really disagree - and it is really a matter of linguistics - I do not agree that there is nothing we can do to facilitate our salvation. When the man with the withered hand asked Christ for healing, Christ told him to, "stretch out your hand." It had to be terribly painful for the man. Certainly, Christ could have healed him without anything more than a look or a word. Nonetheless, the Lord told him to stretch out his hand. We most assuredly cannot save ourselves - but we can and must stretch out our hand or, if you prefer, turn our face to Him.

Richard A| 12.14.09 @ 8:19PM

I guess you'd disagree, then, that the sufferings of the saints could add anything to what Christ accomplished by His suffering for the church. And I guess you'd have to say that we don't have to work our our own salvation in fear and trembling.

Jeremiah| 12.15.09 @ 2:11AM

To the contrary, Richard, you have been misinformed or misunderstood why some saints have been revealed to us. It neither adds nor detracts from Christ's slavific work. It is to give us examples of all the varieties that sanctity can come in - to give us heart and hope. It is a sort of divine caress. Contrary, also, to what most believe - including some poorly catechized Catholics - we do not pray to saints as to some sort of sub-gods. Rather, we ask them to pray for us, just as we might ask a friend to pray for us. Catholics believe the Communion of the faithful includes all (Mark 12:26,27). God is God of the living, not the dead - and all are alive to Him. Also, the Catholic Church has no power to 'make' saints. Rather, she has the limited power to recognize with certainty some small number of saints - in order to give us example and comfort.

And I certainly believe in working out your salvation in fear and trembling, a passage which along with I Corinthians 9:27 firmly rebukes some fundamentalists doctrine of once-saved, always saved.

But sinse you brought it up, what do you make of Colossians 1:24 where Paul says, "...in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ..." Now there is an answer that is consistent with our mutual belief that Christ's salvific sacrifice was complete. But I never found it in any of the Protestant denominations I frequented. They don't do it intentionally - it just becomes a cultural gloss, but so many read the Bible and don't even see, much less examine, those passages that contradict what the preacher says.

Perhaps you do know what Paul is talking about here (and please don't use one of those tortured explanations so many use in a tight place - the answer is elegant and obviously true.) There is one thing missing in the afflictions of Christ that is necessary for our salvation.

R Wolf| 12.13.09 @ 1:38AM

The first historical document to list the 27 books of the New Testament appears, if I recall correctly, in a festal letter written by the Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, in A.D. 367.

What does one do about the historical situation of a vast illiteracy rate among the people living at this time, say, the first four centuries?

Jeremiah| 12.13.09 @ 2:02AM

Excellent 0bservation and question, Mr. Wolf. When I was young I occasionally heard the smear that Catholics, before the Reformation, kept the Bible away from people - even chaining it in churches so people could not read it themselves. A sheer ignorance of history and its implications. Before the printing press, books were rare and precious things which most often had to be copied by hand. Equally so, vast rates of illiteracy have predominated through most of history. Few of the oringinal apostles could read or write. Certainly Luke could - and Paul could. But oral traditions were taken much more seriously then - and spoken teaching was often handed down almost verbatim. It is a skill that is lost to us now, but could be easily recovered if necessity forced it. As an example of how such skills are lost, before the advent of cell phones with speed dial lists, I had a prodigious memory for phone numbers. I didn't need a book because I remembered them all. Now, I can barely remember my own phone number. New technology made things easier, but also caused a useful skill to atrophy.

Fortunately, learned people were drawn to the liberating influence of Christianity and its openness to intellectual exploration (yes, yes, I know...the modern atrophied mind, ignorant of Christian theology and philosophy, wrongfully fancies it as a burden and an anti-intellectual one at that). So there were ample devotees to write down what was taught.

The irony is that, if Christ HAD handed the disciples a New Testament and told them to found a church, the results would have been little different. The mass of illiteracy would have caused the great majority to still have to depend on the oral apostolic teaching to know Christianity. As a serious student of history, it was one of the first things that struck me about the error of many religious fundamentalists - good heavens, they think that all of history is composed of the sorts of people who have populated North America over the last two centuries, with the same mores, customs, and levels of education.

Thank God for Christianity in the dark ages. Modern, benighted sophists delude themselves that it was the Church which brought on the dark ages. To the contrary, when kings and warriors, out of ambition, dumbed down their own people to solidify their own power, the sole defender of the light of reason was that hated institution of the faith - the Catholic Church. It was during this period that the monastic movement flowered most strikingly - to hold back the darkness and keep the light of reason, learning - and books - alive until better times returned.

Peter| 12.27.09 @ 6:29PM

alleluia, I loved your article or should I say your response. I grew up Baptist but am now Orthodox. I too herd many lies from the pu;pit about the RCC and her beliefs, And this buy supposubly men with Years of theolpgical training. It amazes me that so many christians of all demoniations are so ignorant of Church History. Like you implied so many think it all began with Luther. I guess the Holy Spirit was off on vacation for 1500 years. it doesn't take a PHD to find out about what the churches teach, Theirs a book called The Encyclopedia Britannica, that does a good job ( non-biased) of explaning it all. But so many perfer to be and remain ignorant. God Bless - Pete

Margie| 12.11.09 @ 12:15PM

Of course I am in agreement with you, KYMouse. One is not a bigot for speaking the truth about the Catholic religion. There will never be peace between the two. Where there can be agreement, is as you say, among individuals believing in Jesus, and can agree on the uniting in saving the unborn, and other issues.
I was raised in a Catholic home, but became a Christian by the saving Grace of Jesus Christ Himself. No religion can save you. And you can't know Christ by it. Jesus does not wish for any Church to with hold Scripture from the rest of the world, and allow it to a select few men. Neither does He with hold Himself personally, from those who seek Him.
Praise God!

Alan Brooks| 12.11.09 @ 1:50PM

"There will never be peace between the two."

See, you are just as pessimistic as I, my little Margie..
If Christian faiths can't get along then how can secularists? But of course you will argue-- hell hath nothing like a woman scorned.

JP| 12.12.09 @ 9:56PM

You are correct: Christ did desire a Church. But he never intended for Christians to be divided. The Traditions that so many despised were created by the Apostles. The Deposit of Faith has remained continous for 2000 years, only because of the Holy Ghost which works through the Magesterium. There are few very Dogmas the Church has. It has added a few, but it has never retracted any. You cannot find this in any Protestant sect. No, no religion can save you; but many can lead you astray. In these times, many people have left the Church because of either immorality of the clergy, or because the Chruch demands so much of the individual.

R Wolf| 12.13.09 @ 1:45AM

Once, I searched for the correct interpretation -- what Jesus intended -- when he uttered the Last Supper words: "This is my body".

I seem to recall the site listing around 124 different meanings.

Here's a similar site that offers the possibility of some 200 interpretations for those same four words.

http://www.totustuus.com/ThisIsMyBody.pdf

Jeremiah| 12.13.09 @ 11:16AM

Of course, it could mean, "This is my body." But as Bill Clinton would say, that would depend on what the meaning of the word is, is. When many followers threatened to leave if He literally meant they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, Jesus let them leave. He seemed determined to make it clear that on this, He was being literal. But one of the reasons so many different interpretations are offered is that literalists can't stand the idea of interpreting this literally. Another irony.

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 10:50AM

I think the biggest problem is the theological implications - that there is someting salvific in nature from doing something so easy and so physical - which is contrary to the rest of the NT, where Grace is predominant...

Richard A| 12.14.09 @ 8:05PM

KyMouse, the Catholic Church does believe in sola gratia, and solus Christus, and does believe in justification by faith (because it's in Eph. 2:8-9) but not in justification by faith "alone" (because that's NOT in Eph. 2:8-9).

Derek Leaberry| 12.11.09 @ 11:22AM

As someone who drives 100 miles every weekend with my large family to attend a Latin Mass at a church sympathetic to the Society of St. Pius X but not part of it organizationally, I can tell all that there is a long way to go for there to be a reconciliation between the SSPX and the Roman Catholic church. And I write this as someone who is on the left end of my parish on reconciliation. Although a big part of the reason for SSPX's disaffection is the Roman Catholic church's support for echumenicalism and other Vatican Two reforms, a bigger part, in my humble opinion, is the visceral dislike most attendees of the Latin Mass have for the Novus Ordo Mass. Most people at my parish don't even think the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. My own position, and this is why I consider myself on the left end of my parish, is that I agree that the Novus Ordo is valid because the Pope says it is but I obviously think it inferior to the Latin Mass. Why else would I drive 100 miles.

Inevitably, I see the SSPX as a parallel church which nominally accepts the Pope as its head yet ignores him as an authority figure. As a parallel church, the SSPX is more like a rival to some Medieval throne, ready to overthrow the Novus Ordo rulers when an opportunity presents itself. Where I differ from the majority of my fellow parishioners is that I believe it would be wiser to infiltrate the Roman Catholic church from within and retake the dryrotted structure of the church. Retaking the seminaries would be a first step.

Ryan| 12.11.09 @ 11:49AM

This point has ALWAYS confused me. Is there anything "holy" about Latin? How many congregants understand it, and how is it at all useful?

Big Leo| 12.11.09 @ 12:19PM

While I am not Catholic, I recognize why Latin is a valuable tool in worship. It is a form that is recognizable to all Catholics whatever their native language may be. Too often we have seen national and linguistic differences divide not only the world, but the church. In former times, most people who had any education at all understood Latin, and even those who didn't understood the basic meaning of the words being used in the Mass. It was a way of maintaining unity in a very diverse world. In the same way, a lot of Orthodox churches uses Church Slavonic, which is otherwise no longer a living language, or Greek, which is, in order that the church be seen as universal rather than merely local.

Patrick| 12.11.09 @ 5:04PM

Oh, that's easy.

1. It's because there is something "unholy" about Esperanto. I'm not saying it's evil, just artificial and brimming with banality.

2. Imagine trying to organize a billion people who speak over a hundred languages and thousands of dialects. Consider cross-communicating all of those. It's a handy linguistic clearinghouse.

3. It IS a dead language. Read the King James Bible. It's not as easy to understand as it was a couple hundred years ago. This linguistic drift happens to all living languages. "Vulgate Latin" is useful because the words and meanings are "set in stone". Therefore, it is harder to misconstrue meanings, which would require a re-translation for a day old or thousand year old document on both ends. Imagine the number of legacy languages and dialects required for a theologian to know just to read a sermon from half a world away. It's bad enough with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Many Protestant's still hold to the original KJB (without the Apocrypha at the end) translation for that very reason.

4. Most of the Romance Languages (Spanish, French, Italian, etc.) take little effort to transition to Latin. Sure, it's harder with English, but even so, something like 40% of a high school educated American's vocabulary is derived from Latin, and likewise 60% for college educated Americans.

Remush| 12.12.09 @ 10:39AM

"Esperanto brimming with banality. "
Examples please!
( probably answered somewhere in http://remush.be/rebuttal/index.html )

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 8:58AM

So, Latin is used because it was originally meant to be understood from the pulpit.

So what is the point of using a language when one is incapable of understanding it?

Mike| 12.17.09 @ 7:34PM

Ryan, the prayers are said in Latin, but the scripture readings are done in both Latin and the spoken language and the preaching is done in the spoken language. The prayers themselves can be memorized, and you can easily read along, but I think you have a mistaken impression that the priest is actually preaching in Latin. That's not the case.

The idea is the prayers are in Latin as a symbol of our common faith heritage and in unity with all the other Catholics in the world. We are all saying the exact same words. It's pretty cool.

Patrick| 12.11.09 @ 7:37PM

Catholic/SSPX relations is currently a very sensitive issue. The wounds are very deep, and the healing has only just begun. Even so, I believe I will live to see a full reconciliation in my lifetime.

First, the funny thing about the actual text of Vatican II is that it is terribly _vague_. It was meant by unscrupulous Leftists to be vague, that they may run roughshod over the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre rightly recognized the bad intent of these dissident theologians. Even so, the vague nature of the documents allows for orthodox interpretation and execution as well. I find that when such theological jujitsu is used, liberals find themselves both confused and enraged when Gregorian Chant takes its "pride of place".

As for the New Mass (for reading benefit of non-Catholics)... Yes, it's valid, just as a Bud Light is technically beer (excepting the views of Reinheitsgebot loyalists). The real question is, "was it a step in the right direction?"

This is the reason why the remaining Leftists (the dirt takes 'em all in the end) fear the Summorum Pontificum so much is that the licit availability of the Old Mass exposes the glaring weakness of the New Mass and the attendant liturgical abuses.

As for infiltration of the hierarchy...ah...that's a little on the late side of things. You see, not every traditional-sympathetic went to the SSPX. Yes, sneaking past the watchful eyes of dissident theologians is difficult, but the most cunning and talented seminarians succeeded, and the momentum has already shifted.

If you don't believe me, read Fr. Z's blog, "What Does the Prayer Really Say?" Look up "brick by brick".

Margie| 12.11.09 @ 12:59PM

"You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to Me.." Jn. 5:39.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

~All the answers are in Him.

Road Kill| 12.11.09 @ 2:51PM

Dear Margie:

I am no expert on the Catholic Chruch. However, an effort to re-unite the churches into one is predicted by writings, and is a insite to those congregations that are aware of the end times. Luther was a brave man to go against the church, but fortunately for us he was willing to point to the errors of the church. If I should ever be forced to join the Catholic Church I will be branded a heathen and not allowed to buy or sell. Jesus knew what was in store for Jerusalem and he wept for it, he knew of his death and how it would be carried out, as he knew other things things to come. I find it most reasonable that the scriptures bore witness to him.

Margie| 12.11.09 @ 3:25PM

The book of Revelation does speak of a one world "Religion" that will be under the rule of the Anti-Christ. The Catholic church doesn't acknowledge this book of the Bible, to their detriment. I'm leaving this conversation with this~
"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." Rev. 1:7.

David T.| 12.11.09 @ 4:24PM

Margie--Martin Luther wanted to remove the Book of Revelation from the Bible. The Catholic Church has always acknowledged and revered it. Catholics, however, do not subcribe to the silly "Left Behind" interpretation of the end times. The one-world religion that you fear is not the Catholic Church, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1Tim 3:15), because it rests on the Rock of St. Peter, established by Christ himself.

Margie| 12.11.09 @ 4:52PM

David~~
1. I don't "follow" Martin Luther. From what I know though, he was wrong in lots of things.
2. Either you believe Revelation completely, or not at all.
3.. I did not say (above) that the one world Religion is the Catholic Church. But according to the Bible there will be one, and it is already trying to rear its ugly head now. The go along to get alongs will all compromise the truth and "join it."
3. Left Behind series? Never saw it. Never read it. All I know is, like the Bible says, Jesus is coming back soon. I hope that's not what you consider "silly."
4. Jesus Himself is the Truth. Jn. 14:6. His Church are the body of believers the world over.
God bless.

Patrick| 12.11.09 @ 5:39PM

2. The Catholic Church does fully believe in the Book of the Apocalypse (aka Revelation). Its writings are foundational to Catholic worship of Christ. Within that book is a wide array of imagery, metaphor, and context. As such, interpretations tend to vary. The Pharisees in Jesus' time were fully expecting the Messiah and knew the prophecies by rote. Even so, they did not recognize Who was in their midst, and failed because of it.

3. There may well be a "one world religion", a counterfeit religion, glorifying the Antichrist. I'd even go as far as to say that I expect it. You won't find it in the unpopular Catholic Church. The Church stinks at marketing, financial contributions have dwindled, and the Swiss Guard is an absurdity in terms of national threat. If you really want to know what Antichrist-ism will be like, consider Election 2008 as a modest rehearsal.
Also, please note that the Anglicans who are leaving for Catholicism are doing so because they are drawn to our Lord and Savior, rather than Jeremy Bentham.

3. Left Behind is a popularized fiction that draws heavily upon the Pre-Tribulation interpretation of the Apocalypse. It was also produced into a movie series. If you're interested, it's probably available at the local library.

4. Amen!

Tony in Central PA| 12.14.09 @ 2:49PM

Margie, what you wrote is absolutely not true about the Book of Revelation and the Catholic Church. Readings from this book are quite frequent at masses.Where did you hear or read this ?
I am often amazed at some of the provocative, fact - free assertions I hear about the Catholic Church. I suppose hearing these sort of calumnies, good Catholics can only repeat the words of our Savior, " Father, forgive them, they know not what they do ".

Margie| 12.14.09 @ 10:04PM

Hi Tony,
I heard it from individuals who are Catholic. Probably their own opinions, then. At any rate, I don't wish to argue about the doctrine of this, or any other denomination, as it is of no avail. As to my sins, I was forgiven for them by the amazing Grace and Mercy of God through Jesus on Aug. 19, 1975. He continues to show me His mercy to this day, even though I am utterly unworthy of it. I made a mistake, above, but I didn't know.
"For whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." Jas. 4:17.

Patrick| 12.11.09 @ 7:59PM

I suppose some perspective may be in order. It would take centuries of unflagging reassertion of secular influence and an unforeseen reestablishment of hereditary monarchy for the Church to have that kind of power.

I predict that there will be a re-uniting of Christian churches in the coming years, though how that happens is another matter.

It is far more likely that such occurs secretly in basements and abandoned buildings than in the halls of power.

William M. Klimon| 12.11.09 @ 6:23PM

A couple of corrections:

"Pastor's option"? I think you're thinking of the Pastoral Provision:

http://www.pastoralprovision.org

Beatification as the "first step toward saint-hood"? Actually, it's the penultimate step, preceded by a local examination, an examination in Rome, an exhumation and declaration of "non cultus," and a declaration of heroic virtue.

jd| 12.11.09 @ 6:29PM

David T. is correct, Margie. Jesus pronounced Peter (meaning "Rock") to build the Church ... he was the first pope. The pope's significance is as a shepherd guiding the flock to seek the Truth which is revealed in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Remember, the CATHOLIC church was the original Christian church from which every other Christian denomination left for various reasons. The Anglican church out of all Christian denominations, is the one closest with Catholicism and if it were not for Henry VIII leaving the Catholic Church because the Pope would not grant him a divorce, then Pope Benedict would not need to reach a reconciliation. Kudos to the Catholic Church, starting with the efforts of the late, great Pope John Paul II, for its ongoing efforts to bring the errant flock of sheep home to the one, true Church.

John II| 12.12.09 @ 12:00AM

Right--but a kudos to Margie too and the other "separated brethren." What the Church implicitly teaches me--and one of the many, perhaps uncountable things that finally drew me to her--is that we're all heretics, most Catholics included much of the time. We pick and choose what we prefer to believe. The Church has been established by Christ because He knows that we can't go it alone; we're too damaged by original sin. So we need the helping hand--all of us, including those stuck with the duty of articulating the Church's magisterium in any given era.

That's part of what drew me to her, what I found so appealing: she doesn't pretend to know what she can't know; she merely safeguards and puzzles over what she's been told by Christ Himself, the God-man Who became one of us to try to explain it all in a way that our fallen nature can grasp. Or rather, Who BECOMES one of us: there are no tenses in God; He's dying on the cross for us right this eternal moment to atone for our stubborn resistance to His grace. Nothing in all the philosophies or religions I've studied over the past 50-plus years comes close to that staggering revelation and its preservation and communication in Christ's Church. Nothing.

KyMouse| 12.12.09 @ 11:15AM

Please show me where Scripture indicates that Peter was supreme over the other disciples. Why did they argue (in Luke 22:24-30) about who would be greatest, if Peter was the first pope? Jesus treated all of His disciples with an equal level of respect and trust.

In 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul affirms that he is not inferior to any other apostle. If the papacy were existence, why would he have said that?

And in I Cor. 12:28, there is no mention of a pope ("And God has appointed the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers).

Why is Paul, not Peter, the prominent figure in Acts chapters 13 through 28?

Why didn't Peter play a supreme role in the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15:1-35? James seems to have been the dominant one (see verses 13-35).

In Acts 8:14, why was Peter sent by others to Samaria -- why didn't he do the sending?

If Peter was the pope, why did Paul correct him on a matter of faith and practice in Galatians 2:11-14?

John II| 12.12.09 @ 8:25PM

"Please show me where Scripture indicates that Peter was supreme over the other disciples. Why did they argue (in Luke 22:24-30) about who would be greatest, if Peter was the first pope? Jesus treated all of His disciples with an equal level of respect and trust."

1. Matt. 16:16-20. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock ["Peter" is Greek for "rock"] I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

2. Your citation of Luke 22: 24-30 bears quoting as well: A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves."

So you're quite right: Scripture does not say that Peter was supreme over the other disciples, but it does suggest strongly that he was the servant of the servants--which happens to be one of the titles of the Roman Pontiff. The answers to all your other questions follow, and I don't think you need me to belabor the obvious.

But there IS a story I'd like to share, KyMouse. Quite a few years ago, when John Paul II was Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, was the Vatican Prefect, Ratzinger asked the Holy Father to relieve him of his duties in Rome so that he could return to Bavaria and spend his remaining days teaching at the university and doing parish work. He was homesick and tired. The Pope said no--sorry; you're needed here.

Ratzinger is now stuck with being Pope, permanently cut off from his homeland and his most cherished personal memories for the rest of his days. Unlike the amazingly few scoundrels one can number among the 260-plus Roman Pontiffs of the past 2000 years, Benedict XVI fits the basic mold of the good leader: he'd rather be doing something else.

Mark in Bavaria| 12.14.09 @ 2:51PM

John II,

You don't know just how right you are saying "Ratzinger is now stuck with being Pope, permanently cut off from his homeland and his most cherished personal memories for the rest of his days." I have met Benedict's brother Msgnr Ratzinger, and I know from talking with others who know the family well that the Pope telephones with his brother, frequently. The people here love their Pope and he loves his home. I've never been told it, but I think I can imagine just how much Benedict misses home.

JP| 12.12.09 @ 10:10PM

The Book of Acts is only one record of the early Church. It is recorded by Roman historians that both were martyred in Rome, and from the works of Ireaneus and Polycarp (among others) that Peter was made Bishop of Rome, and with it the authority to lead all parishes (Polycarp was a follower of St John) This authority was a death sentence, as most early leaders of the Church were martyred. St John was the only orginal Apostle who wasn't martryed. Christ warned his Apostles about what layed ahead. They hadn't a clue what was in store for them.

The Acts of the Aposltes were not written to be a concies history and organizational templete as many Protestants have made it into. We do know that there is a direct lineage of every Pope (including Peter) and every ordained priest. Cardinal Neman (a former Anglican) once wrote, "To know history is to cease being Protestant." What he meant is that there is direct, verifiable history of almost everything the Church did from the very first years after Christ's death.

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 10:47AM

However, we must compare everything that isn't in Acts with the rest of acknowledged scripture, with scripture as the final word. Certain groups have a certain need to underpin their power by being able to "trace" their "lineage" back to Peter.

Most of them dishonorable. The RCC rarely picked good men to become Pope.

Yosemeti Sam| 12.12.09 @ 12:29AM

" ... to consolidate the faithful under a rule of faith that is both flexible and at the same time unyielding
...."

" flexible" ?

Christ straight forwardly preached the
utter obedience to GODs' behavioral demands of mankind.

One is either in - or out - in adherence. Sitting on a convenient fence of putative religiosity is not
an option - as in making burnt sacrifices to PC.

Christopher Manion | 12.12.09 @ 9:27AM

The author doesn't mention two critical points that some non-Catholics (and even Catholics) might have missed as well:

first, Priests and bishops originally ordained in the Anglican Communion who want to "come over" under the new rule must receive the Catholic Sacrament of Holy Orders, since Anglican orders have for centuries not been recognized by Rome (while Orthodox orders are, for instance);

and, second, the "Latin Mass" of post-Vatican II vintage, called the "Novus Ordo," has always been permitted by most bishops; Moreover, the other "traditional" Latin Mass, often referred to as "Tridentine" and called the "Extraordinary Rite" by Benedict's letter "Summorum Pontificum" of July 7, 2007, was also permitted and encouraged by Pope John Paul II in the 1980s.

Pope John Paul’s recommendations fell on deaf ears among most of the American hierarchy, who were caught up instead with the zeal of "renewal" led by Cardinal Bernardin, Obama's favorite bishop. That spirit was, alas, largely modernist and political, and anti-traditional. Evidently, Pope Benedict has problems with it. So do a lot of Catholics.

John II| 12.12.09 @ 10:50AM

"That spirit was, alas, largely modernist and political, and anti-traditional."

Good post. The keynote is "was." In retrospect, the long-term effect of the pontificate of John Paul II started kicking in within a year of his election by the College of Cardinals in 1978, and that year was a kind of watershed. The Apostolic Exhortation "Catechesi tradendae" (1979), though little noticed by a secular world fascinated with the new Pontiff's moves against communism, was the gauntlet--not exactly flung down, but dropped pointedly: The Catholic school, wrote the Holy Father, "would no longer deserve this title if, no manner how much it shone for its high level of teaching in non-religious matters, there were justification for reproaching it for negligence or deviation in strictly religious education."

Well, the trendy juggernaut among so-called modernist Catholics continued for some decades, but when my older kids attended a Jesuit high school in the 1990's, a school no longer recognizable as Catholic (and because of which we finally turned to homeschooling for the rest of the kids), we found it fascinating that the ghastly texts still being used in the religion classes all had copyright dates antecedent to 1979. The trendies were already reactionaries, living in a wistful past.

And now they're simply dying off. The true renewal sparked by Vatican II was missed by the Catholic left and the Catholic right both. The particularly noxious secular version of renewal fancied by the left, it turns out, was hugely destructive, for sure, but merely generational.

Derek Leaberry| 12.14.09 @ 3:36PM

What is your view on the willingness of SSPX Catholics to reconcile within a Roman Catholic Church which retains the Novus Ordo Mass as its normative, dominant Mass?

Richard Baker| 12.12.09 @ 12:19PM

The Holy Father has decided to be a builder and rectify the "schism" that occurred due to Henry the VIII. He is to be commended for the effort to give these disaffected Anglicans a Church home. Of course, his critics will, once again, bring up his evil "fundamentalism" and his having served in the German Army at the end of WWII, as if he had a choice, (He served Hitler! How awful.). Too many of his critics prove that Satan is alive and well in the World.

Clay Barham| 12.12.09 @ 1:02PM

WHY THE LEFT HATES CHRISTMAS
Two thousand years ago, the Christmas Revolution began with the birth of Jesus. His teachings, not the mystic aspects, were a rebellion against Old World governments. It started a brutal counter revolution against Christians and their teachings that continue today. Christians teach sovereignty of the individual with interests and aspirations unique to each. It was individual freedom limited by the Golden Rule. Christians were outside the rule of elite few. It was a new world order in itself. It took root 1620 years after it began in the Middle East with a small band of Pilgrims settling in Massachusetts. It spread across North America. It proved itself successful. The individual interests and freedom to pursue life, liberty and prosperity proved harmonious in American communities. A free and prosperous people ruled themselves. They rejected the power of the few elite in whose arrogance thought they could do better. Christianity, because of its teachings, is targeted for defeat by those who believe community interests are more important than are individual interests. Its celebration is ridiculed and prohibited in many areas of America today. It says individual freedom is the best answer to the problems facing the world. Prosperity and freedom are not found in the dictatorships of elite still infecting the rest of the world, the modern American Democrat Party and their allies on the left. The New World, founded on the Christmas Revolution, proved freedom and prosperity. The Old World, on the other hand, prefers slavery and chains for the many. Claysamerica.com

Mike| 12.14.09 @ 9:28PM

Nice little paragraph, except for one thing... The Puritans banned Christmas. It's a pretty well documented fact. This isn't a scolarly link, but it gets the point across: http://masstraveljournal.com/f.....ned-boston

Basically, they forbade the celebration because they considered it a pagan remnant of Catholicism and the Church of England. I know a lot of Evangelicals today who don't celebrate Easter for similar reasons.

Richard Baker| 12.12.09 @ 3:02PM

Latin was once considered the language of the Educated and Literate in all manner of Science, Theology, and other fields. Remember, Isaac Newton's great book was titled "Principia Mathematica" as Latin was the form in which Science/Mathematics was written. Latin was the form of literate address used by the Romans and the early Church continued using it. Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover, he later the President of the United States, translated "De Re Metallica" by Georg Agricola, a mining text, into English. Nothing "holy" about Latin, however.

JP| 12.12.09 @ 10:15PM

The use of Latin had the great benefit of preventing the Church from being a French Church, Italien Church, African or Eastern Church. The very fact that is was dead, allowed the true meaning of scripture to get set in stone and prevent national schisms. Many people underestimate how prevalent heresey was in the Church from the very beginning. St Augustine, a pagan convert, fought off heretics left and right. And some of these heretics were brilliant thinkers, men of towering intellect (sounds familiar?).

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 10:52AM

Of course, that's according to Jerome's translations. We can study Greek and Hebrew better now, and we know better - and sometimes, it clouds the meanings - about what was stated.

A similar argument arises from the very few KJV-onlyists out there, that the KJV interpretation is the only valid one.

Richard Baker| 12.13.09 @ 8:28AM

JP:
But heretics , nonetheless. THOSE sorts still exist. I refer you to the Anglican/Episcopal contretemps occurring at present regarding homosexuality and clergy.

Margie| 12.13.09 @ 2:21PM

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Lk. 12:32.

"Let not your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in Me." Jn.14:1.

"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. (Jn. 3:35) "My Father, who gave them to Me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand." Jn. 10:29.

Derek Leaberry| 12.14.09 @ 10:23AM

A problem for my Protestant brothers is that they must presuppose that Jesus made a mistake by either 1) naming St. Peter as the rock/pope of His church when only His words had any meaning or 2) affiliating himself with St. Peter and the other Apostles at all as they must have formed the Roman Catholic Church at opposition to what Jesus wanted. I would also add that my Protestant friends must also maintain that Christian history from the death of Jesus to the beginning of the Protestant Reformation must have been one grand error, a fraud in fact. Three-quarters of the history of Christianity must be a big lie.

Ryan| 12.14.09 @ 10:44AM

The problem is in what Jesus meant. Was Jesus talking about Peter, whose name means "rock," or about the phrase, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God?"

There would be little debate if those who held Peter's (supposed) seat were decent, honorable men. Typically, it was simply another political position of power. Protestant denominations have had similar, if not greater issues.

If the RCC - and all denominations - admit their faults, which few are wont to do, then there may be some other reconciliation. Little has been done in that path.

Bob S| 12.14.09 @ 7:54PM

Sorry, this simply won’t do, (speaking as one born in the Roman church.)
Yes, I know, Matt. 16:18 says: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”.

But if a text out of context is a pretext, we have a little problem.
A mere five verses later when Peter doesn’t want to hear Christ prophesying of his death in Jerusalem, Matt. 16:23 tells us,

“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

In other words, the horns of the dilemma upon which we are cast is how can be Peter be not only the Rock upon which the Holy Roman Church is built, but also Satan at the same time, if not a few minutes later on the same day?

Answer: he can’t. Christ is either consistently referring to the statement Peter made in both instances - not literally Peter himself - or else Peter really is the first “pope” as Rome teaches, though he is married (Mk.1:30), fallible (Gal. 2:11), apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7), absent from Rome (Rom.16) and ignorant of his office of pope (1 Pet.5:1) - as well as the Satanic antiChrist as the Protestant Reformers taught (2 Thess. 2:3-10).

Yeah, I know, sola scriptura is not “taught” in the Bible and 2 Tim. 3:16,17 is inapplicable.
Why of course it’s inapplicable. Because it tells us that Scripture is not only inspired, it is given that the man of God may be “throughly furnished unto ALL good works”. IOW there is no good work that is left out of Scripture that we need to supplement it with man made Roman tradition.

Oh, but the Bible teaches the good work of tradition in 2 Thess 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Notice rather that there is no contradiction between the oral and the written teaching. That is the plain language. The problem then is that Rome might must find purgatory, Mariolatry, penance etc. in the Bible, you know the same book she claims to reverence and believe.

The Left Behind Series. Try again. After the Protestant Reformation and the historic postmillenial view of Revelation pegged the pope as antiChrist again - there were many in the Roman tradition that did so also - the Jesuits fielded futurism and preterism as pre-emptive options. Ribera and Bellermine championed the future fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation, while Alcazar majored on their fulfillment by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Google.

With all due apologies for the length of the above.

Tony in Central PA| 12.15.09 @ 2:07PM

A couple of small points, Bob. In the passage about Peter being declared " The Rock ", the Catholic explanation makes much more sense in light of the translation shifts for the word " rock " going from Aramaic to Greek to English. Its too long to post here.
As far as purgatory, I believe Corinthians 3:10 needs a lot of explaining if its referring to something else. There are some other verses, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

As far as the infallability of the Pope, my understanding is that it only applies to pronouncements concerning matters of the faith made in conjunction with the Magesterium.

Tony in Central PA| 12.15.09 @ 2:19PM

Bob, I goofed on the Corinthians passage referencing purgatory. I should have checked before posting. Its 1 Cor 3:15. Sorry about that.

suzane| 12.15.09 @ 4:35AM

I used them and they were great, I did direct debit They send you a monthly statement to show how the money was disbursed. The customer service representative are all very friendly and understanding.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Enha.....id=3397587

Bob S| 12.19.09 @ 11:51PM

Tony in Central PA
I am sorry, your reply would be laughable if it wasn't the typical obfuscating Roman apology/damage control. Never mind that souls are at stake, Rome must maintain the infallible facade.
But even if the whole language shuffleroo gets the benefit of the doubt - and that is being unreasonably charitable - Christ still plainly called Peter, Satan. Again, how can Peter be the first Pope and Satan also, unless he is the Reformation AntiChrist that arises from the midst of the church, but contradicts and usurps the Lord's authority and prerogatives?
ICor., 3:12-15 plainly refers to the judgement of the works of believers. What is trash will burn. If Rome wants to insist on an intermediate state such as purgatory, there needs to be a whole lot more references to it in Scripture - that aren't there. What does Heb. 9:27 plainly say but that "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".
Thank you.

Caroline| 1.16.10 @ 10:48PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,
HOLD IT! This is hardly the place to debate such deep theological questions. Please go to the Catholic Answers web site. They also have a nightly radio program 6 to 8 PM Eastern time. You can find answers to questions about what the Roman Catholic Church does teach. You can find a station through the EWTN web site or listen on line. Let us all pray for one another. Peace be with you.

pamela| 3.10.10 @ 7:26AM

Finally, something I really want to write about, to get away from today's gobbledygook politics.Scanning on demand

asdasd| 4.7.10 @ 5:39AM

iTunes Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can convert iTunes support formats, such as MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC, Apple Lossless, etc. to any other format and vice versa.
AVI to MP4 Converter is a professional and multifunctional software which can not only convert AVI to MP4, but also support converting between all other video formats, HD video formats included. In addition, AVI to MP4 Converter also functions as excellent AVI codec, audio converter, audio/picture extractor and video editor.

poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 8:15PM

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica

Getting Hercules to Help You

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. poptropica
Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you.poptropica
. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out.Poptropica When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 2:23AM

I have not had much interest in football in 20 years. I watched no NFL games this year. Only one thing interests me. The NFL needs to get rid of the field goal and the pat kick. All pat's should be run or pass. It is absurd to have a have fought game decided by a cheap kick. A four touchdown game should be settled by real pat's; 27-25 or something. A close game should be decided by a last minute touchdown. This would make for more exciting games as the teams would have to work on pat drills as well as two minute drills. No more foreign soccer players coming in to keeck a touchdown.

Wii| 6.26.11 @ 10:37PM

No lonely gaming anymore. With Wii, to have a dazzling experience with your family is a piece of cake. Select Wii! Add Wii as one of your family members for happiness of your kids and for happiness of yourself.

Cheap Flight to Bangkok| 6.26.11 @ 10:38PM

Do not have a hard time searching for the cheap flight to Bangkok anymore because the cheap flight to Bangkok is already provided here and now. Join our cheap flight to Bangkok and have fun in the charismatic city, enjoy the sun, and shower yourself with amazement. Remember Bangkok is not far away as you think.

Game| 6.26.11 @ 10:38PM

Find some fun! Find some game ! You can experience various styles of game; action, RPG, sports, and horror. Take yourself into the world of imagination, and forget about your stress in the real world for a period of time. Playing a game can help you more than your thought. Bring it on!

Gentech| 6.26.11 @ 10:38PM

Today is the era of “quality”, not that of quantity. To gain the word “quality”, you have to start from high quality ideas. Are your business ideas within your own organization good enough? No need to answer by yourself. Try consult Gentech! Gentech is a source for more business opinions and suggestions. Share some work with Gentech and enjoy your high quality high profit business.

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 12:52AM

A little more creativity could have made the accusations so much more damning, or at least interesting. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online

yanyan| 10.10.11 @ 11:24AM

you give a chance to everyone and also me thats great i love reading here thanks for postingmesothelioma attorney

malibu real estate| 10.11.11 @ 1:33AM

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.

wow| 10.17.11 @ 11:43AM

Some information are helpful that can support the research in informational eduction while some other message are very non-sense how can we find interesting?
actos lawsuit

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 1:55PM

can you give distinctions between democratic and a federal?

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 12:55PM

cool very amazingly powerfuly and effectively for people need blog and im one of them thanksmas200

yaz class action| 10.22.11 @ 1:52PM

i really like to see most of the issues here, like politics, vip's stories and the like. we can learn everything here

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:25PM

I have really satisfied by the great technology is visible in this blog and hope you very much impressed with the nice info in this blogzoloft lawsuit

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:34PM

In fact after reading, I had to go show it to my friend and he enjoyed it as well!
Yaz lawyer

Rinah| 10.17.11 @ 5:30AM

No doubt this is an excellent post I got a lot of knowledge after reading good luck. Theme of blog is excellent there is almost everything to read, Brilliant post,

spot price of silver

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 9:07AM

thank you for the blog i mean this great blog helps us a lot thanks for the effor also..

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:47PM

Thank you for taking the time and sharing this information with us. It was indeed very helpful and insightful while being straight forward and to the point.
fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:15PM

I want to say that it is especially good and informative. Thanks.
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:32AM

Whatever behavior it is that you are unhappy with, you can change it by using positive motivation.
Actos Cancer

accident attorney dallas| 10.20.11 @ 1:42PM

Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks!

accident attorney dallas

L Tod Schlosser| 11.4.11 @ 11:34AM

Excellent .. Amazing .. I’ll bookmark your blog and take the feeds also…I’m happy
to find so many useful info here in the post, we need work out more techniques
in this regard, thanks for sharing.

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 12:52PM

I will be sure to post a link to this page on my site. I’m certain my subscribers will find this article really useful.

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:43AM

Looking for and hiring the services of an Article writing company is very helpful for a number of reasons.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:16AM

like what i do today reading the blog please do to put some comments with this page. i like this page you know?

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:46AM

This blog is perfect for me.This is such a wonderful useful resource that you’ll be providing. You got so many points here, that’s why i love reading your post. Thank you so much.!

mesothelioma lawyer