The American Spectator : He Called Me Friend

Text Size

He Called Me Friend

By Michael Novak from the July/August 2011 issue

John Paul II was a Pope both blessed and great. A special memoir.

In the autumn of 1991, I was in Italy for a conference on economics and religion in Foligno, a beautiful town south of Florence. One morning I was driven to Rome where, as I often did, I was staying overnight with the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. At dinner, a phone call came for me, for which I had to leave the table. It was the Vatican, and I was being invited for dinner with the Holy Father the very next evening. I should enter at the Bronze Door next to the Basilica, and the Swiss Guards would show me up. Back at the table, everyone was excited, no one more than I was, although I did my best to look suave and cool.

In a way, the background of the Pope’s invitation to dinner was, it seemed, the publication of my book The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism in 1982. That book made two points that seemed to many others around the world, not only myself, useful to those who helped Pope John Paul II in the drafting of his historic encyclical of 1991, Centesimus Annus—the “hundredth year” after the first of all social encyclicals in 1891. The first point grew from my experience as a grandson of immigrants to the United States from Central Europe (the villages of the Tatra Mountains in northern Slovakia). What they found in the United States was not only “capitalism” the economic system, but simultaneously the political system that protected their individual rights and the cultural system that strengthened the rights and duties of the free public exercise of multiple religious traditions under the protection of law. The United States also allowed for each people of the world to sound distinctive notes in the one national cultural symphony: English, German, Irish, Latin, Slavic, Jewish, etc. The tripartite definition of this free system—economic, political, and cultural—showed up very clearly in paragraph 42 of Centesimus Annus. (More on that encyclical later.)

My second political thesis was that the most under-reported fact of the 20th century was the death of socialism as a plausible idea for the future. In practice, it did not work. More than that, its underlying theories made it impossible for socialism to work. The best hope of the poor in the world was not socialism. The actual history of my own family and millions of other poor families showed Marxism to be the opiate of intellectuals and students. The much despised “capitalism,” combined with a polity of law and rights and a culture of spirit, routinely turned workers into middle-class families, with positive attitudes toward personal initiative and personal responsibility.

Two of the closest colleagues who expressed gratitude for my work (without necessarily agreeing with all of it) were John Paul II’s own immensely talented papal secretary, Monsignor (later Archbishop, and in 2006 Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow) Stanislaw Dziwisz, and the philosopher and Italian political leader Rocco Buttiglione.

After I arrived for dinner, during the very long climb up the three flights of stairs, accompanied by a serious Swiss Guard, my lungs were burning with the strain, but my tall, young guard was not even red in the face. I was ushered into the reception room where Monsignor Dziwisz met me. “Welcome, welcome,” he said, “we know who our friends are.” He told me Rocco was to be a guest, too, and should arrive shortly.

In about 1985, Rocco had raised very difficult questions for me (especially about the “common good”) when I first lectured on capitalism and democracy at the Catholic University of Milan, but over the years as he read more of my work he had come to grasp the good parts of it better than I did, and fixed them into his own vision. Later, become good friends, we were making plans to begin a summer program to bring Eastern European and American students together to study economics and democracy, preferably in the West. So it was great to learn that Rocco would be a guest, too. Rocco arrived, and then the Pope silently entered, with his trademark smile, slightly ironic, and in a white papal soutane.

A bishop from Poland who worked in the Vatican and whose English was fluent also joined us, so we were five. I was so awestruck I hardly said a word for a while. One thing I noticed is that Monsignor Dziwisz wanted to keep the conversation light, and instigated some bantering between Rocco and the Pope. Rocco was a professor at two Roman universities as well as the International Academy of Philosophy in Liechtenstein, but the Pope had come to know him well in Krakow, where Rocco had gone to study the famous Polish phenomenologists. There Rocco learned Polish passably well, and became a good friend of Wojtyla, a fellow philosopher.

When Cardinal Wojtyla was then elected Pope John Paul II, he invited Rocco to come back to Italy with him as a close intellectual friend. In the autumn of 1978, the election of a man from behind the Iron Curtain to become the new Pope was a startling choice. It sent shockwaves throughout the Communist side of the Iron Curtain. The Communists immediately started laying plans to try to limit Pope Wojtyla’s influence, to undermine him, and if necessary to wipe him off the chessboard of European political leadership.

They feared Wojtyla, but they did not fear him enough. Wojtyla was a lot more clever than they, and nearly always moved before they did, a step ahead of them on the chessboard. By natural talent a warm-hearted and eloquent communicator, an actor who enjoyed being in crowds large or small, a skier, a poet, and a very brave man, Karol Wojtyla seized the imagination of the world almost immediately. He was young, vital, vigorous, and very handsome, with a flair for dramatic action and swift repartee.

When I had first seen him in Washington, D.C., on his first papal visit to the White House, standing alongside President Jimmy Carter, I was struck by the Pope’s naturalness and ease. It was a beaming Carter who seemed a little stiff.

Then, later, the Pope stood on the balcony of the priests’ house at St. Matthew’s Cathedral on Rhode Island Avenue, just east of Connecticut Avenue. My wife, Karen, had brought my excited mother with us, and we stood right below him, across the street. The happy crowd all around us filled to overflowing the street below him, and began to shout very loudly: “JOHN PAUL II, WE love YOU! JOHN PAUL II, WE love YOU!” After a little while, the Pope held up his arms to ask for a pause. He smiled and then shouted into the microphone: “JOHN PAUL II—I love YOU!” Laughing, clapping, and with not a little weeping, the crowd picked up as before. I was glad my mother and my wife were at my side, drinking in and enjoying every moment of it.

SOME MONTHS LATER, the Pope flew to the New World again, this time to Canada, to consecrate a new Eastern Catholic basilica, near Toronto. William Baroody, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, belonged to the Maronite Rite, one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and took me with him for the occasion. Our host was Stephen Roman, the Slovak immigrant who was called “the richest man in Canada.” Steve had bought cheap a lot of farmland to the west, under which some time later the largest uranium deposits in the world were found. From then on, wags said, Steve dealt only with heads of state.

Steve Roman belonged to the Byzantine Catholic Rite. It was typical of Pope John Paul II’s larger ambitions, even from the first, that he undertook this long trip across the Atlantic Ocean to consecrate a small Eastern Catholic basilica. All through history, unlike many other of the Eastern Rite churches, including the Greek Orthodox of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox of Moscow, the Byzantines and the Maronites and some others stood tall in a long and faithful communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Pope took the view that 1,000 years of separation between Rome and Constantinople/Moscow was enough. He wanted, before he was done, to end it. In that, he didn’t quite succeed, but he made lots of valiant attempts and took many initiatives and made many visitations to Eastern patriarchs. It was a terribly annoyed Wojtyla (I have always imagined) who after his death protested to St. Peter that he had not been given a few more years to achieve the required unity of the Church of Christ.

On that occasion, with a fairly cold Toronto wind blowing our scarves about our faces along the whole reception line, the vigorous young Pope at last approached our small group. He lingered for some time with Roman and Baroody, and then looked at me closely and seemed trying to recall something as he briefly held my hand. Slightly younger than he, I had attended two sessions of the Second Vatican Council, at which Wojtyla of Krakow had emerged as a coming star, especially for his leadership on the 1965 document on religious liberty.

True, my report on the second session, The Open Church, became fairly well known among the world’s bishops. A Polish friend of mine assured me that the Pope knew of me from that time. Then, too, as I shall explain below, the Pope had been sent an early copy of the illegal Polish translation of my The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism being handed around in Poland in samizdat. Still, I always got the feeling that the Pope was a bit uneasy with my left-wing past. He asked some of his friends who knew me well some questions about me, they reported. One, from Philadelphia, gave him a very clear and clean recommendation.

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Michael Novak is the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. He wishes to express his indebtedness to his sister, Mary Ann Novak, for her tireless researches, which have uncovered many heretofore unknown facts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (398) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jd| 8.15.11 @ 7:08AM

If there is one person whose wisdom, grace, humility and presence I miss the most in the world today, it is Pope John Paul, II. I am in my second reading of all his encyclicals and writings. The insights his writings offer is breathtaking. Santo Subito!!!!!

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 8:45AM

As a Protestant, I echo your sentiments toward JPII. A good man.

The Pope, for good or ill, is the general representative of Christians to the world. All Christians have a stake in a good man and a true Christian being in the Vatican.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 8:49AM

I couldn't disagree more.

The Pope is NOT the "general representative of Christians to the world."

Sorry, but that's false. The Pope represents Catholics and Catholicism -nothing more.

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 10:04AM

Not quite. If you or I have a major screwup publicly, it doesn't necessarily reflect on all of Christianity. If the Pope has an egregious sin, it affects the witness of every Christian everywhere. That's the perspective that I take.

If I am wrong, how?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:26AM

Are we talking opinions and preferences, or facts?

If you prefer to accept that the actions of the Pope in Rome can be reflective of your own faith (which is admittedly non-Catholic), then that's choice, and far be it from me to try and dissuade you.

As for myself, I reject Catholicism, and I wholly reject the notion that the Pope speaks for my views, or represents them in any way, shape, or form.

And if others around the world are ignorant of Christianity, and lump all Christians under an umbrella that assumes that the Pope represents Christianity at-large, instead of the views of one denomination that claims to be Christian, then that is their problem, but it's also mine.

To that end, I make sure that people I speak with on this matter understand that:

1. Not all Christians are Catholic
2. The views of the Catholic Church do NOT represent all Christians
3. Millions of Christians worldwide reject Catholicism

In other words, I'm not willing to stand idly by and allow someone else to either aggressively or passively "represent" my religious beliefs. That way is folly.

If you want to know what I believe, you don't need the Pope. Just pick up a Bible.

JOSEPH| 8.15.11 @ 12:41PM

Which Bible, the Jewish, the Protestant, or the Catholic.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:55PM

The Old Testament, inspired by God but written by Jews and gentiles in antiquity...

...And the New Testament, written by former Jews/early Christians during and after Christ's time on earth.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:55PM

...and ALSO inspired by God.

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 12:59PM

It's not about what you believe or accept or reject. It's just the way it is.

The Pope is THE most vocal and public figure in Christendom. That's the FACT we deal with.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:25PM

It's NOT the "way it is."

"Christendom" is not a lumpen, unified mass.

The Pope is the most vocal and public CATHOLIC figure. What he says or does does NOT affect me. If others think it does, who cares?

What makes the Pope anymore influential than Rick Warren, or for that matter, Gordon Hinckley? Warren sells more books, and Hinkley's followers in the LDS are more doctrinaire and obedient to their faith and their Church leaders.

Most Catholics are more in love with the pomp and pageantry of the Catholic Church than with any 1 "Pope" or any set of Church dogma.

Sorry, but I don't compromise on core principles or convictions.

YeloStalyn@hotmail.com| 8.15.11 @ 3:06PM

Wanting the Pope to be a good man is not asking for anyone to compromise their convictions. I want him to be a good man, but I still see him as just a man and not some sort of Holy Father. But, as a Christian, it is only to my benifit, that he be good. It is only to my detriment that he be bad.

None of that is a statement on the authority he has over me, or as my representative... but it is directly related to my image as a Christian in the world. And, as a Christian, it would serve me well to not be tarnished or tainted before I even have a chance to interact with the lost myself.

That's all he's saying. Nothing more.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 3:59PM

A "good man" by whose standards?

WHAT does that actually mean? He's nice to children, and like kittens?

I have no stake in the Pope's character. To me, he's just another guy.

Another guy who lives in a Palace in Rome and controls billions of dollars...

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 3:10PM

The Pope is more influential because:
1. He is the head of the largest Christian denomination on the planet.
2. He is THE most recognizable Christian leader on the planet - Most American Christians aren't recognizable beyond our shores. The Pope is recognized almost everywhere.

I'm not arguing that Christianity is a "lumpen, unified mass." I'm simply arguing that the Pope is the most visible Christian on the planet, and that ALL Christians have a vested interest in him being a decent guy. Most non-Christians don't view him as separate from the bulk of Christianity as we distinguish ourselves from each other.

And, like most things in life, we don't get a vote in the matter. If the current Pope acted like some past Popes, it WOULD affect you, because there would be plenty of people who would assume that if the most visible Christian in the world acted a certain way, then all Christians act that way, thereby hurting our individual witness.

How is this wrong?

Mister Grady| 8.17.11 @ 2:52AM

The Pope is not a Christian. He is the emperor of a pseudo-Christian pagan cult, and as such, he is NOT a good man.

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:22AM

Mister Grady,

You came back!
Why don't you ever answer any questions?

p.s. You do realize that you are violating Christ's command not to call any man master by calling yourself Mister, don't you?

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 1:44PM

None of the NT works were written "during Christ's time on earth."

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:05PM

They were first-hand, eyewitness accounts written (in some cases) by men who walked with Christ.

Some of them were written within 30 years of the resurrection.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:22PM

That's more accurate.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:17PM

Please see one of Clint's greatest Hits: Why Clint believes the Pope would support the beheading of a 3 month old baby:

Occam's Tool| 3.14.11 @ 9:12PM
You think the Pope would like your attitude on the 3 month old baby, Clint? I don't. he's a good and decent human being, unlike you.

Reply to this
Clint| 3.15.11 @ 7:35PM
You're A Serial Slandering Liar Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.
Do Your Homework on Our Pope, Israel Firster Screwball Tool Job.
"The Pope gave his most forthright endorsement of a Palestinian state yesterday as his Holy Land pilgrimage took him to a refugee camp in the shadow of Israel’s controversial “separation barrier”.

“The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with your neighbours, within internationally recognised borders,” Benedict XVI told Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President.

The German pontiff, who had incurred Israeli anger for not appearing to show enough remorse during a visit to the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, was greeted with exuberant warmth in Aida, a shabby suburb of Bethlehem that started life as a camp for Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war with Israel. "

I stated that the POpe would NOT support the beheading of a 3 month old, and Clint disagreed with me.

RCV, this is what makes it difficult to say thatpeople are REALLY Anti-Catholic when they pull a strip off Clint. You know, I don't see Margie or Dr Right going haring after Nick, for example.

I was thinking of getting the one where you slammed the crap out of Judaism and the Jews, Clint, but this was so much more fun. I defend the Pope saying he would condemn the murder of a 3 month old baby, you tell me I'm wrong and do my homework.

Whoops, there it is!

I got lots more, Clinton. Lots more.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 6:50PM

The Pope is Catholic. He believes in the universal brotherhood of all men. He wants peace in the land of Jesus. Jesus believed in loving one's neighbor as yourself. That is what the book of Leviticus AKA the Law of Moses says. It also says to the Jews. " Treat the aliens among you as you would yourselves. " Jesus is the Prince of Peace. He wants all men to live in peace and brotherhood. The crimes of the Israeli state are everything a good Christian or Jew should oppose.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 8:00PM

Occam's Tool,

"You know, I don't see Margie or Dr Right going haring after Nick, for example."

Then, you must have missed the thread, from a couple of weeks ago, where Margie threw me in with the lying Papal Inquisitors!

That's okay, I still love Margie and consider her my sister in Christ. And also Victor.

Me and Doctor Right have gone after each other like rabid dogs, in the past. I have tried to make amends for this atrocious behavior. And, DR has been receptive and cordial. We no longer SHOUT past each other, which is good.

We will just agree to disagree on the Catholic Faith. And, I will keep him in my prayers. He is a brother in Christ. We should not be enemies.

And, I will pray for you, and your family, too, Occam. I consider myself as a spiritual Semite, after all. As Pope Pius XI said:

"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we are all Semites."
- Pope Pius XI, 1938, Address to Belgium pilgrims

Shalom!

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:10PM

That's right, Nick, I do. Because you agree with them.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 10:59PM

Margie,

With whom do I agree?

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:18PM

If it is impossible or inadmisable for Christians to be anti-semites, what do we call those Catholics in the middle ages that persecuted and martyred Jews?

And if we can't call them Christians (said Catholics), does that also apply to the Catholics that martyred Christians for 600 years?

Therefore Catholicism is not Christianity. Which it surely is not.
After hundreds of years, it still hates and abuses Bible believing Christians, and it still teaches the same false doctrines it did from the beginning~ those exact same teachings that led them to commit murder.
The teachings haven't changed.
The anabaptists were severely tortured because they rejected the false teaching of infant baptism~ which is unbiblical~ and for this thousands upon thousands were martyred.

And yet~ YOU defend theses false teachings, so yes, you are no different. You defend this false Religion.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:21PM

A little studying of history is in order for all Catholics:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 11:12PM

Margie,

"[...] what do we call those Catholics in the middle ages that persecuted and martyred Jews?"

Would you please provide some specific cases, and I will look them up and comment on them.

I hate to make blanket general statements, except to state that I condemn any killing of innocent people, no matter who they were, or, who committed the crime.

Whether it is a Catholic killing an innocent Protestant, or a Protestant killing a Catholic. A Christian killing a Jew, or a Jew killing a Christian.

The intentional killing of innocent human life can NEVER justified. It makes no difference what the guilty party calls himself or to which church/denomination he belongs.

Hope that helps.
God Bless!

Jack in Wi.| 8.17.11 @ 8:54PM

Mitt Brender Sorge is one of my favorite Papal lettters. I don't what you can disagree with me about. I just put up basic Catholicism 1001. We believe in peace and the universal brotherhood of all mankind. The criminal government of Israel and the way it abuses it's Palistinian residents is nothing a real Catholic should speak out against. Jesus said. " The truth will set you free. The only way the Jews will ever get right with God is when they treat their neighbors as themselves. " Jesus was about peace, brotherhood, and love. Nothing in modern Israel has anything to do with that.

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:19AM

Jack in Wi.,

You do not put up any Catholic teaching.
You put up anti-Israeli propaganda, making you an anti-Israeli propagandist.

Christ never said that a nation didn't have the right to defend itself.
Which is all that Israel has been doing for the past 63 years.

Frank| 8.16.11 @ 1:39AM

It is a shame that your views are so negative. It is wonderful that some Protestants can find a positive message in what the Pope represents. Even Billy Graham referred to John Paul II as 'our Pope'. If you feel the need to be negative, may I suggest you keep it to yourself?

Le Cracquere| 8.15.11 @ 10:05AM

In light of the last two popes, all the worse for us non-Catholics, then. I am glad to think of them as my brothers, at least, and hopeful that the future can lead to a unity in which they truly DO represent us all.

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 10:18AM

They never will TRULY represent us all. As a protestant, I reject the Papacy and in its place put Jesus Himself. As such, I pray that someday Jesus, through His Bride and her obedience, will be the representative of us all... not some man.

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 10:08AM

"The Pope, for good or ill, is the general representative of Christians to the world."

I think he's right. As Protestants, it matters little if we want him to represent us or not... to the world, the Pope is the GENERAL representative of Christiandom. And, he's right in saying that becaus of such, "all Christains have a stake in a good man and a true Christian being in the Vatican."

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 11:17AM

Exactly what I was aiming at.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:29AM

I don't really worry about what "the world" may think about Christianity, especially if they're not Christian.

Additionally, I have no stake whatsoever in the man who occupies the Vatican.

And I'm NOT a Protestant.

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 11:37AM

I agree that we, when given the opportunity, ought to explain the difference between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. I reject the papacy as much as you. However, it is in our benifit that when the Pope is seen by someone in the world that he provide a good image of those who believe in Christ. That way, when they meet us, they don't start out turned off. We can, and should, explain that he does not represent us, but that we are also, sometime, not that far apart. If the Pope feeds the poor... do we not want to encourage that image of Christians? Catholic and non-Catholic alike?

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 1:00PM

You DO realize that much of what you say about rejecting Catholicism has been said by the original people who called themselves "Protestant?"

You PROTEST against Catholicism quite a bit...

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:12PM

So?

There's A LOT more to the word "Protestant" than a rejection of Catholic Doctrine. "Protestants" don't always agree with each other on matters of Christian doctrine, so they're not exactly a united opposition.

The often discussed principle of "Christian unity" can only be found in the scriptures, NOT in Catholic doctrine.

Also, the term "Protestant" implies one who belongs to a Christian denomination.

Additionally, it subtly implies the legitimacy of Catholicism.

I don't belong to a denomination, and I reject the legitimacy of Catholicism (as the "one, true Church").

I'm just a Christian.

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 3:13PM

Actually, "Protestant" is simply a descriptive GENERAL term that all who are Christians and NOT Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican fall under. It's not a "denomination" per se. We don't get to select it ourselves or define it. It is simply what we are. We don't always get to determine the categories we fall under.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:06PM

No, it's NOT.

That's absolutely false, on many levels.

My faith is NOT in opposition to Catholicism. That legitimizes Catholic doctrine by lumping all who disagree as being in open, active opposition, or "protest".

I don't "protest" Catholicism, or disgaree with Catholicism anymore or any less than I disagree with Mormonism. To me, they're different faiths, but both equally in error.

I'm NOT determining the category to which I am philosophically and spiritually aligned. I'm merely accepting it as true.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct.

In that case, since Catholicism is NOT the "one. true" faith it claims to be, hence forth, if Catholics insist on calling all other Christians "Protestants", then I propose that Catholics be called "Falsists", since their doctrine has so many inconsistencies, errors, and falsehoods that are in direct opposition to scripture.

Sound fair?

Ryan| 8.16.11 @ 11:14AM

"My faith is NOT in opposition to Catholicism."

Actually, it is. Practically every post you make on these lines places your faith in active, open opposition to Catholicism's teachings...and you still consider yourself a Christian. That is the veritable definition of Protestant. Many Protestants - particularly the Reformers - held many of the same positions you do.

It's not a bad label. It just is what it is.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:38PM

Dr Right---you do have some stake in who occupies the throne of St. Peter. Allow me to briefly explain.

If he is a puss on Sharia, it will make the job of defending the West much harder. I don't see much spine in the RC church on this topic. It makes it harder. On this, I think you would agree.

Otherwise, not my schnauzer in this one, and I respect you greatly, as you know.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 2:44PM

Occam's Tool,

Did you forget about the brouhaha that Pope Benedict XVI caused, back in September of 2006, when he mentioned a 14th century dialogue between Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar?

When the Holy Father visited Turkey two months later, he was greeted with huge protests by tens of thousands of Moslems. When he left, he had the respect of many Turkish people.

Pope Benedict is working with the reasonable Moslems, few as they are. The spine is there, you just have to look for it.
G-d Bless!

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:17PM

No, I know he did that>

But then after, he backed off.....

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Europe is dead, and with scumbags like Paul achieving such heights, we may be next.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:18PM

But Nick, you are very fine, sir. G-d Bless to you.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 4:20PM

Occam's Tool,

"But then after, he backed off....."

How did he back off?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:57PM

He stopped. Didn't stay in their face. Europe is dying, Nick. We need an inspiring father figure who warns against Sharia as John Paul warned against Communism. Do you really see that in this Pope? Really?

My view is that things will be cold and lonely and dark because only Bibi Netanyahu faces the problem head on (or Allen West).

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:18PM

Please see the quote from Clint above. He's an idiot on the 3 month old, of course, but I don't see Papal Pronouncements on Sharia not being universal, do you, Nick?

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 11:33PM

Occam's Tool,

"[...] but I don't see Papal Pronouncements on Sharia not being universal, do you, Nick?"

I'm not sure I understand the question. Would you elaborate, please?

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 7:16PM

Occam's Tool,

I think that I understand where you're coming from.

But, as a Catholic, I believe God is guiding His Church, and, that His ways are not our ways.

So, whether it is the priest abuse scandal, or the threat of militant, radical Islam; I trust that the Holy Father is doing God's Will, and, that His Will be done, according to His plan, not mine. God allows evil to happen so that a greater good can come from it.

As I previously stated, Pope Benedict made a great impression on the Turkish people who were protesting him when he arrived. Thinking long term, it is only the moderate Moslems who can change the radicals, not us non-Moslems.

This is a two-front war. One front is against the Wahhabists who take up arms against us. The other front is undoing the damage inflicted by the liberal academics of the 19th century who infected the world of Islam with hatred for the West.

The pope has no physical, armed divisions, as Stalin rhetorically asked, pointing out the obvious. So, Pope Benedict has to fight the second front of the war.

Although, Stalin was really begging the question, since, as an atheist, he didn't realize that the pope had divisions of angels on his side. Of course, the Soviet Union is dead, along with Stalin; while the Catholic Church continues to live on.

(Forgive my historical spiking-the-ball-in-the-end-zone triumphalism, I couldn't help myself!)
Shalom, and be well!

C Smith| 8.15.11 @ 11:33PM

"... call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9).

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 1:18AM

C. Smith,

"But be not you called Rabbi [Teacher]. For one is your [teacher]: and all you are brethren."
- Matthew 23:8

"Neither be called masters: for one is your master, Christ."
- Matthew 23:9

Have you never called anyone teacher? How about doctor? Don't you call your physician doctor? Doctor is Latin for teacher. Do you call people Mr. and Mrs.? These are forms of master.

You seem not to understand what Christ is trying to teach the disciples, in chapter 23 of Saint Matthew's Gospel.

Saints Paul and Stephen used the word father:

"And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised: that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: And he might be the father of circumcision; not to them only that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faith that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham."

"And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father."
- Romans 4:11-12; 9:10

"Who said: You men, brethren and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan."
- Acts 7:2

Saint John, the Apostle, also, called men on earth father:

"I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one."
- 1 John 2:13

Hope that clears this up for you, C. Smith.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:09PM

Obviously, one must study the Bible, and in the original Greek in order to see just how God means to use the word, father.

But it is clear that He does not want us to honor any man as father, But Him.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 5:40PM

Margie,

Obviously. Just as it is obvious that the Apostles referred to their disciples and entire churches as their children, making the Apostles their fathers.

"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

This how this tradition of the Church got started.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 5:41PM

Oops! That should be: This IS how this tradition of the Church got started.

Jack in Wi.| 8.17.11 @ 8:57PM

It is the Popes duty as God's vicar on earth to speak and seek peace and truth. That is what Pope Benedict is doing in reaching out to all in an attempt to find as much common understanding as posssible between different groups.

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:12AM

Jack in Wi.,

Are you ever going to reply to my questions, from the other day?

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:01PM

The Catholic Church is better off without the bigots who post here. They claim they are not protestants. Who knows what they are. They read their Bible, believe every word, and believe they understand every word. Each has created his own little world and is confortable in his beliefs.

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:16PM

To the World? To the World the Pope is indeed representative, but NOT to Christians.

As it is written:

"We know that we are of God, and the whole World is in the power of the evil one." 1 Jn. 5:19.

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:57PM

In the following verses the Apostle John wraps it up:

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 Jn. 5:20 & 21.
~~~
The Bible says we can actually know God. And it tells us how.
But it isn't through Religion. It is through Christ, and by the Spirit of God that whoever calls upon Him can be saved:

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Jn. 4:24.

How?

"But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.
The Scripture says, "No one who believes in Him will be put to shame."

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows His riches upon all who call upon Him.

For, "every one who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved." Rom. 10:8-13.

This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the standard by which we all must find life!

God bless.

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 1:01PM

I never said "to Christians."

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:05PM

Ah hem..

You said, "I'm simply arguing that the Pope is the most visible Christian on the planet."

You already categorized him.
You're a master at what you do, Ryan.

Ryan| 8.17.11 @ 8:37AM

Ummm...how does that translate into "to Christians" exactly? He's the representative OF Christians, not TO Christians. You've misinterpreted.

How am I wrong that the Pope is the most visible Christian on the planet (even if it's the broadest term of the use "Christian?")

C Smith| 8.15.11 @ 11:46PM

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19).

So sad that one day the whole world will recognize the "angel of light" they worship, but it will be too late....

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:07PM

Indeed, C. Smith, "..every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and give praise to God."
Rom. 14:11.

Alan Brooks| 8.15.11 @ 8:29PM

Margie, if you would please reconsider your position on the Catholic Church, those who call it 'Mammon' and the Church of the Anti-Christ ("the Pope is Satan" one nut told me) are taken in by white trash eschatology.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:55PM

I will NEVER reconsider any such thing.

And neither did the millions of Christians like me who were tortured and murdered by the Papacy for 600 years!

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:01PM

By the way, Alan. When are you going to give your life to Christ?
Do you think you've done a very good job at running it yourself after all these years, or are you willing to admit what all Christians do~ that you can do nothing apart from Him, and need Him as your Saviour?

No physical building can save you~ what you call "church", neither can Religion.

Only Christ can save you.

"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.

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:03PM

White trash is a good description of these bigots.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 7:19AM

If you were such a great friend of the Pope why did you oppose him and support the Iraq war which was against every Catholic theory of Just War. He and Pope Benedict were right. Iraq has been a disaster for the Iraqi people, especially the Christian population. You and the other Catholic neocons should appologize publicy for your sinful and vigorious support for such an evil enterprise.

Le Cracquere| 8.15.11 @ 10:13AM

BRAAAAPPPPP! Sorry, try again.

The Pope's opposition to the war was pointedly NOT couched as a magisterial teaching--i.e., Catholics would probably want to consider his opinion, but were not--NOT--required to agree with his viewpoint on the war's justness or permissibility. What's more, scores of Catholic theologians and scholars seemed to think that the allies' actions DID meet the Catholic criteria for a just war. And the status quo ante bellum was certainly safer for a few pet Christians ... such as Tariq Ali. If that's your idea of a juster and better situation, I have something you can spin on.

P.S. I'm not a Catholic, and frankly I'm a little sick of knowing more about the Church than people like you do. I'm a tad embarrassed for you, which seems to make one of us.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:41PM

Le Cracquere: Jacque in Cheeseheadbois is "un idiot." His views are as smelly as his fromage.

You do beautiful stuff.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:58PM

Introspection of "the faith" is not a Catholic characteristic.

DaveS| 8.15.11 @ 12:06PM

George Bush consulted more than one American bishop on exactly the just war application to Iraq. His actions were not contrary to the just war doctrine.

Chef Schnauzer| 8.15.11 @ 7:40AM

Thank you very much. You combine the intellectual and the personal threads beautifully. Your article is a reminder that I may have shelved his Holiness' writings too soon.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 7:45AM

Please allow me to translate Jack's Paleo-con, Paulista drivel:

"You filthy neocons (Jews) pushed this pro-Israel, anti-Christian war on this nation, and now you're gonna pay! It's bad enough that you control the banks, but now your Zionist infiltration has gone far enough! Pope John Paul II was a great Pole, from a wonderful country with a long and rich anti-Semitic tradition. All of you so-called "catholics" (small "c" intended) who ignored your faith and threw in with these lying, bloodsucking neocons (Jews) should be denied Holy Communion and excommunicated! Heil...I mean, "Hey! It's Ron Paul!"

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 8:03AM

Pope JohnPaul was against this war and tried to stop it all cost because, it violated every Catholic theory of Just War. Pope Benedict also has condemned this war as in complete violation of a Just War. Mr Novak and the other Catholic neocons, who claim so much love for the Pope, publicly opposed him and gave cover to the warmongers. Catholics should follow Jesus who said. " Blessed are the peacemakers. " That is what these Popes were doing, working for peace.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 8:11AM

Since Anericans aren't bound, legally or otherwise, by Catholic doctrine, dogma, or drivel, then your point is not only irrelevant, it's irrational.

Here's a clue: Non-Catholics don't really cate what the Pope thinks about how we conduct our foreign affairs.

It's funny that so many Catholics on this board are critical of American Jews for their devotion to Israel, but fail to see their own devotion to a foreign Head-of-State as being even slightly problematic.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 8:19AM

It's Funny that The Anti-Catholic Bigot Dr.Reich & His Fellow Travelers Trash The Catholic Church & Dr. Ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Dr.Reich's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

JOSEPH| 8.15.11 @ 12:45PM

This is a tough choice. Do we respect the opinions of Dr.Right who hates blacks, gays, and catholics, or do we respect the opinions of John II.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:57PM

When all else fails, and despite one shred of supporting evidence, scream loudly and proudly:

"Racist! Homophobe! Catholic-basher!"

You've just revealed yourself to be an intellectual fraud.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:43PM

Dr. Right doesn't hate Blacks, that's Seek. He doesn't feel that homosexuals deserve additional "rights" and he doesn't think that Catholic views have much validity (neither do I).

Poland has a long antisemitic tradition---read Jan Peczis on this. Ron Paul's paranoia towards Jews has been increased by his Pot consumption.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 1:49PM

Occam, not quite sure why you feel compelled to throw your hat in with the anti-Catholic crowd, but it does not do you proud.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:55PM

Because Occam doesn't confuse criticism with prejudice.

And as far as not doing one's self proud...We've been reading your posts for months. What's your excuse?

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:25PM

But Occam -- a good, decent and honorable man, I might add -- doesn't acknowledge the divinity of Christ, as a practising Jew, so he rejects a lot more than Catholic doctirne, DR.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:38PM

Logic, please..?

Are you implying that all those who ACKNOWLEDGE the divinity of Christ should lock arms under the umbrella of Catholicism?

Catholic Doctrine DOES NOT EQUAL Christianity.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:48PM

Of course it doesn't. But to deny that Catholics are Christians is quite another thing. What I was saying is that Occam of course rejects the doctrines of Catholicsm; he also rejects all Christian doctrine. But, unlike you and others, I am confident that God has a special place for His Chosen people. His mercy and love are far greater than those who would simply try to own Him for themselves.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:29PM

Because I don't confuse dislike of Catholicism with hatred of Catholics, RCV. I don't care for a lot of Catholic teaching myself.

In a Jew's world, the Pope has two primary purposes---1) to minimize anti-Catholic prejudice towards Jews (I think he's OK on this---I do not blame him for Clint and Jacques mishegas) and 2) To stand firm as an historic bulwark against the spead of the power of Islam. Do you really see much of that, RCV?

If the Catholics on this Blog were as semitophilic as Margie and Dr. R (and he is---you have to parse through things and recognize that criticism of one's theology can come in many forms, and not all of them are hostile to your life or practice) I would feel somewhat different. But the primary Catholic bloggers here are two idiots. I am perfectly comfortable with disagreeing with Dr Right and margie because they do not believe in compulsion in religion, and they want to keep my kids around. The world is not ideal; it is what it is, and my friends don't have to completely agree with me.

But my major concern about the Catholic Church is that it is a VERY weak reed against Islam now---check the bloggings of Clint and Jacque, and look at the Vatican's backpedalling. So, from a Jew's perspective, it is again kowtowing to evil and authoritarianism. It is going to fail us. But the Protestant Evangelical Right will not. They may lose, but they will go down fighting.

I don't reject all Christian doctrine---I believe in the concept of the Righteous Gentile. I don't believe it applies to me, however. But for Margie and Dr. R, it IS their path to salvation. I agree with them on that.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 3:42PM

Clint and Jack are no more representative of Catholic thought that Noam Chomsky is of Jewish thought. You might look more to the editors of TAS, who like William Buckley, are intellectual Catholic conservatives. As for the bloggers, Nick is a better example of a conservative Catholic blogger who is not an anitsemitic libertarian lunatic. (I dare say that Clint and Jack are about the only libertarian Catholics I've ever met -- the two schools of thought are pretty much incompatible.)

I don't share your confidence in the steadfastness of the Protestant Evangelical right to Judaiism. To them, you and your co-religionists are useful tools to their own ends. That might comfort you, Occam, but they will be happy to confine you to the fires of eternity if you fail to think their way, and if that's their attitude for eternity, I wouldn't trust their steadfastness in the short run either. But you're smart enough and autonomous enough to make your own judgments, which I always will respect.

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 4:05PM

Being a Southen Baptist (one of those Evangelicals) I find it odd that you claim that we wouldn't back stand firm with Israel. In fact, two good friends of mine and I were talking about religion one evening. One went to church with me... a fellow Baptist. The other a devout Catholic. We (the Baptists) were amazed at how borderline anti-semitic some of the feelings our Catholic friend expressed.
Granted... that's just one story. But what examples are there of mass Evangelicals that do not back Israel? We are brought up with great reverence for God's chosen people. In fact, about a month or so ago our preacher went on a tear about how we should stand fast and defend them and reject the world's attempts to destroy them.
Heck... even Glen Beck (not the most typical Evangelical being Morman and all) has been on a very pro-Israel tear lately and calling for fellow Christians to stand firm in our defense of the Jews. He's even hosting a large event this week in Israel in an attempt to, as he puts it, promote courage. Courage in the truth in all things... and especially when it comes to the dangers that face the Jewish people in the world today.

TrueBlue| 8.15.11 @ 7:29PM

It's odd to me the number of anti-semitic Catholics people here seem to know. The majority of my family, and my wife's family, are Catholic. None of know us anyone that isn't Pro-Israel.

Of course, given the number of "Catholics" out there that are Democrats, and vote for Pro-abortion candidates, I guess I shouldn't be surprised there are a number that don't like Israel amongst that crowd.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:25PM

I do agree that some in the Christian Evangelical community, especially those in the millenialist movement, view Jews and Judaism rather oddly, to say the least.

However, that view is decidedly passive, and highly favorable. I disagree with the millenialists, but I have never heard one of them say anything that is even remotely anti-semitic.

Additionally, no one, neither you, me, or anyone in the "Protestant Evangelical right" will be confining ANYONE to the "fires of eternity." That's just plain silly. I have neither the power nor the inclination to judge anyone's soul, or condemn them. That power is reserved for God alone.

Additionally, as a Christian who believes in the inherent free will that inculcates Christianity, I have NO wish to make anyone think "my way", unless you count by persuasion. The decision to come to Christ MUST be personal and of 100% free-will in order to be genuine.

Of course, I realize that having an "exclusive" view of one's own faith (gasp!) is controversial in certain circles...But that's life.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 4:37PM

I appreciate the response and the spirit in which it was offered.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 4:47PM

I agree that Nick is a lovely guy and a good heart. But, and here's an important point, and I welcome Margie and Dr Right to kick me if I misstate this:

The idea of evangelical Protestantism that I got from TCU is this---1) If you don't believe in Jesus, you will not reach heaven, and you will not be saved. 2) G-d does have a plan for Jews, and they are to be protected (Margie's view, not Dr Right, although he holds a secular protective view) as part of G-d's plan. Margie is actually more mainstream than is the Dr., but the Dr. also is philosemitic on purely secular grounds.

Now, since the plan regarding G-d's redemption (Margie's view) is to come when the Messiah comes, it can be assumed by me to be rather long term. In the meant time, she wants me to have my kids healthy and well and to be physically and emotionally and intellectually safe. Dr. R does too, for secular reasons.

Neither of them hate Catholics (well, may be Clint, but he's hateable), but both believe that Catholicism is not a true form of Christianity (heard that ALL the time at TCU) and belief in Catholicism will NOT lead to salvation.

However, compulsion in religion is wrong, because a forced faith is worthless. Therefore, the Conversion is to be accomplished by reasoned argument and G-d's Grace.

Now, RCV, I lots of Catholic friends who are fine, and Protestant ones, too. I keep my nose out of the religious tussle save when it involves my welfare. But kicking Clint is always fun. As for the steadfastness of the Protestant Evangelical Right, well, when the Moshiach comes, they'll be owing me Matzoh ball soup (Dr.R) and Lemon Meringue Pie (Margie). But, seeing as I had many girlfriends who were evangelical in college with much pillow talk, married a Protestant girl from an Evangelical family, have all my in-laws as Evangelicals, have tons of Evangelical friends and not ONE hates Israel (I also have Catholic friends who are Pro-Israel and I don't hate Catholicism; I'm neutral myself), I sure the hell am not going to view anti-Catholic prejudice as a deal breaker in my friendships, just as I'm not going to view anti-Protestantism as a deal breaker. I need my friends too much; I have too few of them, and I tend to like most people who don't want to kill me. It's an advantage in my job.

But I believe that Protestant Evangelical Christians are steadfast in their beliefs. I believe that Dr R is steadfast in his beliefs. The theological I regard as theoretical---I know too many of these folks to worry. Pastor Hagee and I don't agree on much theologically, I'm sure---but the guy takes hits defending my right to live in peace, and I respect him for that. And I do believe in his authenticity on this.

I hope that wasn't too incoherent---it is based on life experience. If I'm an useful tool, I will be useful in a situation that I do not forsee happening, RCV. The next 30-40 years, the time of your grandchildren's maturity, is going to be about staving off Sharia. It is not going to be about Global warming or any of that. Europe is dying demographically, and Islam is spreading---a very nasty type, no Sufi Mystics. We are going to have VERY difficult times ahead. Anyone who wants to fight with me is welcome, really. Would I be as vocally anti-Catholic as they are? Really, only to Jack and Clint because they are such incredible smegheads---myself, I'm neutral on the subject save where his Holiness imperils me. Do I think they pick fights with Catholics just to lay into them? No, no I don't. I don't see much hounding of Nick, for example. (Of course, he's a Gentleman.)

But on this, as many things, I agree to disagree with Margie and Dr. R. I still think they are very good people. Read Margie on Amy Winehouse to see a different view of her than the one you may think predominates. And Dr R and I have played hold and hit with Clint so often we know each other's moves quite well.

So. Hey, it's a blog. If you're Catholic, and don't want to see me dead, you will see no theological arguments from me. I'm focussed on demographics and the Avoidance of the Death of the West, anyway. Only Bibi Netanyahu, of all the world's leaders, has shown sufficient spine on this one. He, at this time, is the Leader of The Free World. And he would prefer that position be held by the POTUS.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 5:48PM

Thanks for the long, heartfelt explanation. I understand your attitudes since they were inculcated by your alma mater and all those fine evangelical women you loved, and married. As I said, I know Margie and Dr. R are sincere in their beliefs (even if a tad too vehement in their expressions at times) and are headed to the right side of the divide as far as my mortal mind can ascertain. And I know where Jack and Clint are headed, though it has absolutely nothing to do with their Catholicism. (Just as I am sure that Naom Chomsky is not one of God's chosen people, either.)

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 6:13PM

Thanks for the compliment, Occam.
I really appreciate it.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:21PM

You deserve it greatly, Nick.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:50PM

O.T.,

You're a very kind man. More so than most of the Catholics that post here, who are supposedly Christian.

As to what I believe about the redemption of Israel, I must say that I believe what the Old and New Testaments say, as they agree with each other.

The Bible says that there is a remnant:

"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by Grace." Rom. 11:5.

And it also says that "all Israel will be saved." Rom. 11:26. In fact Romans 11 spells it all out.

When God says, "all Israel," is where some Christians think it could include, or mean physical Israel, and some think it means spiritual Israel, spiritual Israel meaning everyone who believes in Jesus, no matter Jew or Gentile, because the Bible says that one who is a real Jew is one who is one inwardly~ that it's spiritual and not physical. (Rom. 2:29).

The spiritual circumcision spoken of here is that of the heart~ and it is what God does when we are saved~ or "regenerated from above". (Jn. 3:3).

I do not know if when God says, "all Israel will be saved" ONLY pertains to spiritual Israel (believers), or if it includes physical Israel.

If physical Israel rejects the Christ, I do not see how it could, so I'm pretty sure it isn't speaking of the physical land, but to those whom God Himself is going to save, and who He considers "Israel" in that verse.

Did you happen to see my post to you not too long ago, where I replied to yours~ you had stated that you didn't think I thought you could be saved.
I so wanted you to know that that isn't what I think at all.
I went on to say what Jesus says, because, after all~ it is up to Him who can be saved. I mentioned this verse:

"For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the Name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward." Mk. 9:41.

And then, I asked you if you would do that.

Occam, would you?

And then I said, I think I know the answer. :^).

You are much beloved.
God bless you.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 11:52PM

Margie,

"The spiritual circumcision spoken of here is that of the heart~ and it is what God does when we are saved~ or 'regenerated from above'. (Jn. 3:3)."

You are mostly right. The new circumcised heart we get, when we are regenerated from above, happens at baptism. Just as God told the prophet Ezekiel:

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]."
- Ezekiel 36:25-27

See, God even says to sprinkle, like many non-Catholics accuse the Catholic Church of doing. Although, we actually pour the water over the forehead during baptism rather than sprinkle.

Sprinkling only occurs when an aspergillum is used, such as during Palm Sunday Mass.

"I do not know if when God says, 'all Israel will be saved' ONLY pertains to spiritual Israel (believers), or if it includes physical Israel."

Haven't you told me several times that the Bible is self-interpreting, and, that it explains itself? How then, can you not know what the Word of God is saying, in Romans 11? Just curious.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 5:20PM

As usual, you are misinterpreting the Bible.

Spiritual birth is not by baptism.

John chapter three is all about it.

Catholicism says it is, but Jesus says it isn't.

I choose to believe in Jesus.

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 8:40PM

Margie,

As usual, you have no answers to my questions.
God Bless!

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 5:57PM

I have a picture of myself and William F. buckley. I was a subscriber and financial supporter of National Review for 42 years. I went to the 25th aniversary dinner of national Review at the Plaza Hotel in New york. I sat with him for an hour at a political dinner in 1991. I could more then hold my own with him. He is another Catholic neoconservative who backed the immoral Iraq war. The neocons took over his magazine in the early 1990's. I hung around till about 2002. all the lies about iraq were the last straw. You boys don't seem to understand that being for peace and justice for the Palistinian people is not antisemitic. I know plenty of Jews who never wanted to go to Iraq and don't support Israeli brutality and racism. To be an antsemite you must hate the Jews as a people. I love the Jews and all people like a good Christian should. I hate the way Zionism works not in theory but in fact. No real Christian who believes in the Gospel can support people like Netanyahu, Liebermen and Sharon.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:02PM

Well, Jack, some men just love seeing little girls in Burkhas, and some don't. Some support clitoridectomy and stoning, some don't. Some think homosexuals should be killed, some don't.Some are antisemitic and some aren't. Some wish you'd pick up a bet not to post anymore if Ron Paul doesn't win a single state primary, and some don't. The Palestinians (learn to spell) want to kill all the Jews in Israel. Leadership down. Some people see that, some don't.

I despise you utterly. Some don't. Who you know impresses this Cousin of a British Knight not at all.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:03PM

No you don't, Jack. The comments you have made about Jews on this site are disgraceful. Not as bad as Clint, but horrible.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 6:58PM

They are not horrible they are just the truth and I have never ever condemned Jews as a people only crazed Zionist criminals who have no regard for human life. Just because the shoe fits in your case doesn't mean there aren't a lot of Jews I agree with. By the way all I have done is explain Catholic doctrine 1001. We believe in the universaal brotherhood of all mankind and the 10 Commandments. That includes Muslims , Jews Protestaants and everyone else.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 7:14PM

Jack, the only "crazed Zionist criminals who have no regard for human life" that I know of are that fanatic who assissinated Yitzhak Rabin, and that other despicable nut Goldstein who sprayed bullets atthe Cave of the Patriarchs. They were prosecuted by the Israeli government, as they should have been. Israeli soldiers who defend their country against attacks by Islamicists do not fall into the category you've described. They're called heroes.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:20PM

There can be no Christian defense of the way Israel treats half it's population. Tey treat it's Arab israeli citizens far worse then we treated our black citizens under segregation. It treats the people in the territories and Gza worse then Htler treatedthe Jew until the war.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 11:09PM

Jack in Wi.,

When was the last time you were in Israel?
Israeli forces left the Gaza strip in 2005, by the way. It was in all the papers.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 11:30PM

What nonsense Nick. Gaza is nothing but a huge walled concentration camp. the whole world knows it. Even the Vatican has finally spoken out against this crime. The Israeli's are treating the Palistinians worse then Hitler treated the Jews up until 1938. You have lost all credibility.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 12:28AM

Jack in Wi.,

I will take this non-answer as a confirmation that you have never been to Israel. And, therefore, have no idea how Israeli Arabs are treated.

Your sick comparison of modern Israel with Hitler's Germany, up until 1938 (because up until then, things were just peachy for the Jews,) shows that it is you, Jack, who has no credibility.

The Arabs of Gaza are where they are, because they prefer Hamas terrorists over semi-reasonable people. The Arabs of the Trans-Jordan (West Bank) are where they are, because they followed Yassir the Terrorist, and, now, his yes-man, Abu Mazen (a.k.a. Mahmoud Abbas.)

If the Arabs want peace, it's up to them. Israel has yielded more than she should have.

Jack in Wi.| 8.16.11 @ 2:07AM

Up until 1938 Hitler had a policy of harassing Jews into leaving the country. There civil rights and citizenship were stripped in 1935. Then in late 1938 the worst pogram in Nazi Germany took place on Kristalnacht. About 100 jews were killed and many were imprisoned and injured. It went down hill from there. Israel has been using similar methods for since it's founding. It has gotten far worse since the election of Sharon 11 years ago. Hell they have killed a lot more people then Kristalnacht since then. I have been working for peace in middle East for a decade on the internet. If I had a dollar for every time some Zionist called for genocide or ethnic cleansing I would have 10,000 dollars in the bank. I have a large olive wood carved rosary which I bought from a Palistinian Catholic who was selling them at my Church. I plan on being buried with it.

The Palistinians are being harraased out of their homes and little farms and being pushed into ghettos and concentration camps. Shame on you for supporting such a monstrous policy. The only thing a good Christian can do in such a situation is to push for truth, peace, justice, and reconciliation for all.

RCV| 8.16.11 @ 1:15AM

Jack, that's just a flat lie. Have you been to Israel? I have. I must have missed those "Jews Only" signs everywhere. Or those Blacks who were elected to the Southern legislatures during segregation. And the Jews in Germany weren't lobbing missiles into German schools, or blowing up public buzzes, or massacring German families. And I missed the Israeli Kristallnacht where Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock were destroyed, and Muslim businesses in the Old City smashed, and every Arab pulled off busses and beaten by the roaming Jewish mobs.

The parrallels are just uncanny, at least to a Father Coughlin admirer. You're a sick puppy, Jack.

Jack in Wi.| 8.16.11 @ 2:17AM

The schools and neighborhoods are mostly segregated. There is virtually no intermarriage. If a couple does get married they will be subject to alot of harrasment. the police and courts have far differnt standards for Jews then Arabs. It has rightfully been called an apartheid society. The Jails are full of disidents who they love to call terrorists. The only solution. in my opinion is full integration, full equal rights for all, and massive payments of reparations to the Palistinians for the theft murder and tortue of thee last 63 years. If Missisippi can be integrated so can Israel. The world is disgusted with all that the Israeli's are doing.

RCV| 8.16.11 @ 10:11PM

If a Palestinian Arab girl married a Jew, she would not only be "harassed", she'd be murdered by her own family! What world do you live in, Jack. Whenever I've been to Israel, I've seen thousands of young Israeli Jews actively working for peace, for Arab rights, for reconciliation. It's a free, thriving, vibrant democracy. I've also been to Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian territories. Do you know how many times I've ever seen a single expression of reconciliation or of dissent? Never. Not once. Every Islamic society in the area is closed, intolerant and repressive. Arabs in Israel have far more freedoms and opportunities than they do in any of the surrounding Arab states. A sad fact, but true.

It doesn't have to be that way. Turkey is a vibrant Islamic democracy, although recent developments there are troubling as pressure builds from Islamicists.

But to single out Israel for criticism is ludicrous. It's an island of freedom, democracy and pluralism in a sea of repression, squalor and medieval values.

Jack in Wi.| 8.16.11 @ 2:26AM

Blacks had rights on paper, a lot more then Israeli Arabs. They weren't worth anything. in the whole history of Israel there has been one Arab cabinet minister. it was nothing important. the Arabs with Israeli citizenship are 20%. they are treated worse then blacks were here. At least blacks were well covered under our Constution. Shame on you people. You have forgot a few of God's Commandments.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bare false witness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors property.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 6:03PM

RCV,

Thanks, again, for the kind words. You flatter me.

I would say that there are better examples of Catholic defenders of Israel, here at AmSpec. People like John II, Teflon93, Tony in Central PA, PJ, and others, who I can't recall at this moment (sorry!).

I would consider it an honor if I am included in such company, by others who comment here.

And, you, RCV, are a better example of a reasonable, and respectful, liberal who is willing to debate and defend his positions; rather than the drive-by posters who come here, not to debate, but to spew their bile.

You improve the conversations here. Thank you.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 6:19PM

Feeling's mutual, Nick. Thanks. And John II is indeed a good guy and always a pleasure to read.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:23PM

Yeah, RCV does improve the tone, and he's quite gentle. Of course, he knows that if I'm ranting about attorneys, I always exclude him and Tom Kratman, as well as Linda, one of my ex-girlfriends.

Query for you RCV. I have an 8 and a 7 year old. I want to introduce them to the Constitution in homeschool. Suggestions?

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 7:02PM

Occam: My wife teaches Fifth Grade, with heavy emphasis on American colonial history. She also taught second grade for many years. Two books that she likes and that she has used, to stimulate discussion and reflection, are "We The People: the Citizen and the Constitution" published by the Center for Civic Education, and "If You Were There When They Signed the Constitution" by Elizabeth Levy. Both widely available in bookstores.

My wife teaches at a private school in Santa Monica. Every May, she takes her Fifth Graders on a field trip to Philadelphia and Boston, where they visit the great events of our nation's founding. It's the highlight of the year, and the kids are so well prepared that they are just thrilled to visit Lexington and Concord, Paul Revere's House, etc. She also uses a program called "Teaching Values Through History" where the kids learn about colonial customs and the human issues that faced the colonists at the time of the Revolution. The course ends in a dinner, staged at one fo the families' houses, where everyone is in colonial costume, they have to stay in role and discuss the ongoing struggles of the Revolution, etc. By the end of the year, her students know (and retain) more about the Revolution, the formation of the Uni0n and the writing of the Constitution and its antecedents than most college students today.

I know your children are in good hands under your wise guidance.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 9:59PM

Then why do you get so upset when people don't agree with you Jewish Israeli views.
And what does Poland have to with anything.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:53PM

Joseph (and all of us), ought to "respect" the opinion of God, and whoever espouses His Words.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 9:59PM

Agree.

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:05PM

You can devote yourself all you want to whatever country you want, just don't ask me to fight for any country except the US. The pope isn't asking us to fight for anyone.

potkas7| 8.15.11 @ 8:31AM

According the the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"All citizens and governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war... However,as long as the danger of war persists and there is no institutional authority with the necessary competence and power, governmente cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense once all peace efforts have failed." (2308)

"The strict condition for legitimate defense by military force requires strict consideration...the damage inflicted on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain; All means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; There must be serious prospects of success; The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders than the evil to be eliminated...These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine." (2309)

The the 17 UN Resolutions ignored by Saddam Hussein are relevant here, so it seems to me that, while your opinion may differ from his, Mr. Novak has made his case.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:12AM

Israel s ignored dozens of Un Resolutions. It isn't being attacked.

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 10:23AM

How can you possibley say that Israel isn't being attacked? They live in fear every day of rocket attacks, bus bombs, suicide bombs, military invasion, mob attacks, etc.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 11:10AM

You use the ignoring of some UN Resolutions as a reason to invade Iraq. Israel ignores dozens of UN resolutions and many international laws and it isn't attacked, by US and the our allies. Israel will soon ignore the UN resolution recognizing a Palistinian state. Will it be attacked then?

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 11:18AM

So....where are all the rocket attacks coming from?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:53PM

The Israelis, in conjunction with the Bildabergers, are responsible.

Ask Lew Rockwell...

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:12PM

Natch, Dr R! Along with the Trilateralists, Michele Bachman, and Allen West. Thank G-d for Ron Paul....

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:26PM

Dangit! And I liked Bachman, too...

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 11:19AM

OK... I see your point. It was hard to figure out at first.

Israel ignores UN Resolutions, like Iraq. But, unlike Iraq, it isn't being attacked. That's what you're saying. Got it.

For the sake of argument... what UN Resolutions has Israel ignored that lead to violence, by Isael without instigation, to other people? I mean, Iraq violated the No Fly Zone and shot down US planes. Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Iraq possessed conventional weapons that posed a threat to their neighbors (which constituted a real threat given their aggressive recent history, ie, Kuwaite).

I don't see how Israel's defensive nature has constituted a real threat to anyone. Heck... if they were as bad as you say they are, there wouldn't be a Palistinian problem because there wouldn't be any Palistinians. Isreal could "wipe them off the map" if they wanted... but they don't.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 3:43PM

Just google Israeli ignoring UN resolutions and International laws. You will get many thousands of references. Israel is by far the largest violater of International law on the planet. It doesn't get attacked by the USA. Cuba is a massive dictatorship 90 miles from our shore that actually had weapons of mass destruction pointed at us. It has never been attacked. Every time Israel builds another house on the West Bank it violates international law.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:14PM

Our allies can do Jacque merde militarily, as you know, fromage de tete. And the US is hardly going to go to war with Israel, as you would choose that it do? Can't follow your logic...smell of cheese overpowering...must get out...

potkas7| 8.15.11 @ 11:16AM

I'm sorry but I don't see how this is a response to what I wrote.

You raised the issue of "Just War" as an argument against Novak. I Pointed out that Novak's citation of paragraph 2309 of the Catholic Catechism was correct.

Raising Israel is a non-sequitur. Do you actually have anything useful to say?

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 11:40AM

I know Novak wrote some BS and quoted the catechism as an excuse to attack Iraq. The fact that he ingnores 2 Popes is the issue. Mr. Novak thought more of his jobs at neoconservative think tanks and foundations then he did about the Pope who he claims was his best friend. He is saying he is more Catholic then the Pope. The attack on Iraq was a disaster for the Iraqi people, especially Iraqi Christians. It have also been a disaster for the USA. It is part of the reason we are headed for bankruptcy. All the the whole Iraq war did was give the Shia friends of Iran control of Iraq. Jesus said. " Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. " The Iraq war is a prime example of that. the wars was nothing but a pack of lies. How come Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Bob Novak, Brent Scocroft Norm Schwartzkoph and me knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction and Cheney, Powell, Bush, Rice the Clintons and Rumsfeld didn't? Pope Bendict said the Iraq war doesn't come close to the catechism's definition of a just war. He is right

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 3:26PM

Jack in Wi.,

Catholics who supported, and still do, Operation Iraqi Freedom were not ignoring or opposing the Holy Father. Pope John Paul II never condemned OIF. Neither had Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger.

They just wanted more diplomacy. Which is understandable, seeing as they both lived through WWII. And, they didn't know what President Bush knew.

The financial costs of OIF was only $709 billion over 8 years. That's less than a hundred billion a year. This was less than O'Bama's 2009 stimulus act. How is this "the reason we are headed for bankruptcy"?

You sound like Keith Olbermann-child, not a conservative.

p.s. Come join our Zionist-American love-fest. You can bring the kreplach.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 11:05PM

Hello? Jack?
What, no reply?

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 11:36PM

Pope Benedict said that what was happening in Iraq was not in any way compliant with the Catholic teaching on Just War. So did Pope John Paul. To support the Iraq war is like Kenndy supporting abortion. It is against all Catholic teachings

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 12:07AM

Jack in Wi.,

"Pope Benedict said that what was happening in Iraq was not in any way compliant with the Catholic teaching on Just War. So did Pope John Paul."

Source, please?

"To support the Iraq war is like Kenndy supporting abortion. It is against all Catholic teachings [sic]"

Whoever taught you this was completely wrong, and, distorted actual Catholic teaching. Abortion is intrinsically evil and can NEVER be justified, unlike war. That is why it is called Just War Theory.

Also, why didn't you address my links. They show that your assertion about the debilitating cost of OIF is, in fact, FALSE. Did you just make-up the part about bankruptcy, like lefties are prone to do?

Again, you sound like a bleeding heart liberal, not a conservative. Your arguments are the same as Phil Donahue and Michael Moore, not Rush and Mark 'the Great One' Levin.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 12:58PM

Hello? Jack?
What, no reply? Again?

This is becoming a habit with you and me.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:31AM

You're either in complete denial of reality, or you have an axe to grind against Israel and Jews in general.

For the record, I think it's both.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 1:23PM

Kind of like you grinding your axe against the Vatican and Catholics. For the record, it is both....

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:50PM

Vlady,

Do you believe that non-Catholic Christians will be saved?

Do you believe that non-Catholic forms of Christianity are false?

Now be honest, Vlady.

Don't be a coward. Admit what you believe.

Unlike you, I don't hide behind the Pope's robes.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:05PM

Sorry sweet pea, I have no need to hide behind the Pope's robes. I am Jewish, not Christian. Nice try there, Dr. Das Reich.

How's that picture of Heydrich looking these days?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:11PM

Vlady, if you are Jewish, why the hell are you supporting Clint?

If one admits that Dr. Right is anti-Catholic as opposed to anti-Catholicism, then one certainly must note that Clint wants Israel destroyed and has called Jews Sand Monkeys? So? Ya Nyeh Poneemayeteyeh?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 3:05PM

It's a tad faded...

But Reinhard looks so handsome in black that I've decided to hang onto it!

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:47PM

Doctor Right---Clint and Jacque from tete de fromage land are peas in a pod. Eat your peas and crap 'em out.

I love your stuff.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:52PM

O.T.,

As a devout Jew, you might not want to converse with me.

That's because I've been officially "outed" as "ant-Jewish" by Vlady.

You know Vlady, right?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:08PM

I have mentioned that below, Dr. Right. When you find yourself going to be in the region of Fargo or the Twins, let Ken know.

I don't know who Vlady is. Is it another pseudonym for Clint? I know where you stand, it is consistent, and I am comfortable with it. You want to protect my babies, Clint wants to see them killed. I have a good daddy complex. Makes it simple to choose. (In addition, you are erudite, knowledgeable, don't rely upon clippings, and etc...I have lots of evangelical friends and relatives, and I truly have them, unlike Clint and his mythical Jewish friends who love it when he calls them sandmonkeys.)

My only concern with the Catholic church is---do they want to kill or destroy Jews (not at this time) and, as in the Middle Ages, are they a bulwark against the spread of political Islam and sharia (no---look at Jack and Clint---these guys, like Paul, are Dhimmis R Us.).

I think the world of you and Margie. I appreciate your bravery and intellectual fortitude. And yeah, I compliment my friends. My nurses love me because of this trait---life is short---unless you are forced to (Clint and Jacque fromage de tete are good examples) one should always strive to be as kind as possible. You certainly deserve it.

That's about it, pal. I hear Norman's is a great Steakhouse in Fargo, and I always like Ruth's Chris, which I haven't yet tried in Minneapolis. My kids are 7 and 8, and are almost ready for a real fine dining experience.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:35PM

Yes, he only criticizes Catholicism, not Catholics. Kind of like when Farrakhan called Judaiism a "gutter religion." No offense meant against Jews pesonally.

When one labels Catholicism "demonic", one is necessarily saying something about the millions of good decent intelligent Catholics -- including John Paull II, Mother Theresa, Gary Wills, William Buckley and Michael Novak -- who are indeed Christians, love God and live good and decent lives.

I disagree with Margie and Dr R's interpretations of scripture, but I surely do not consider them "demonic". And, unlike the virulent anti-semite Martin Luther, I believe both of them will join the Savior in Heaven, as you will Occam.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:38PM

...and, I might add, if I'm right, neither of you will have to put up with Clint or Jack for eternity.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:36PM

I agree, I think they are overstating. But I don't see the catholic concentration camps stemming from this. And I'm used to this type of talk from my days at TCU.

Dr. Right was a Catholic for 30 years. What we see is reaction. Hey,he doesn't believe in killing Catholics, or preventing them from holding official offices. He believes that their religion is fraudulent. So does Margie.

Margie and Dr Right have been kicked heard by the two Catholic Dolts on this site. So have I.

Besides, there are 900 million Catholics and 13 million Jews. I think they are big enough to take care of themselves. They also evangelize. We don't. If you want to go messing with other people's beliefs and take away their kids, you're messing with it.

So, while I have lots of Catholic friends, and don't agree with Margie and Dr. Right on their views on this, I sure the hell am not going to offend them to protect gutter scum like Clint. When there is a nice Catholic blogger, let me know and I'll tell them to be kind, rewind.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 3:45PM

Nick, for one.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 4:49PM

I agree. My apologies, Nick.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 5:43PM

Occam's Tool,

No problem.
And, thanks for the compliment, RCV.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 10:05PM

They think your religion is fraudulent. You are too dense to notice, or else you don't care because you think they hate Muslims which is your main concern here

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:13PM

RCV,

Not true, though you try and make it so.

Saying that doctrine is demonic is NOT saying individual Catholics are. Unless they behave same, such as Clint does as all he seems to be able to do at the Word of God is spew hatred and filth.

God hates sin, so are you going to try and say He must hate all of us, since we are all sinners?

You know you can't.

RCV| 8.16.11 @ 4:26PM

Well, Margie, let me sk you this: Do you believe Catholics (1) are Christian; (2) love God and want to please him; and (3) will go to Heaven if they remain faithful Catholics.

I'm not talking about doctrine here, I'm talking about individual Catholics, from the Pope down to Nick. That will tell me if you respect them individually as Christians.

Obviously Clint is demomic and evil, but not because he professes to be a Catholic.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 5:32PM

God's Word is the Judge, so nice try.

Catholicism isn't Christianity~ it's Catholicism.
It's doctrines are not biblical.
No one can say they are Christian if they don't adhere to the teachings of Christ.
That's not what I say, it's what He says.

And I don't have to "respect" anything that isn't biblical, nor anyone who espouses lies. My only respect is toward them as a human being, but I'm not required to call them a brother or sister in Christ if they preach another gospel, which is what Catholicism does.

Love doesn't mean saying nice words~ it means telling the truth when you see others being fooled by a false Religion:

"And convince some, who doubt; save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Now to Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of His glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen." Jude 1:22-25.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 10:37PM

Then that answers my questions - you don't respect individual Catholics as Christians. I think it's legitimate to say that you not only disagree with Catholic doctrine, but you are indeed "Anti-Catholic". That's not a "lie".

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:08PM

RCV, Marge doesn't answer tough questions. She is afraid to say her real opinions.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 3:46PM

If this is the Vlady I think it is, he is a long time contributor to this magazine. I didn't know he was Jewish.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:24PM

Funny, he doesn't LOOK Jewish!

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:31PM

I read in the Forward, the Jewish Newspaper that Rome has the longest continous Jewish community in the world over 2000 years. the Pope was absolute ruler of Rome for over a 1000 of those years. The Church allowed Jews in Catholic countries to practice their religion freely and pass it on to their children. Forced conversion is against basic Catholic teachings. That is not to say it never happend but it is against basic Church doctrine. Sure on occasion the were crimes committed by both sides but we have lived together for 2000 years in a bad marriage.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 7:51AM

Uh Oh !
Dr. Reich, The Serial Screwball Anti-Catholic Bigot Is In The Building.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 1:24PM

It's Dr. DAS Reich!

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:47PM

It's Vlady the Apologist!

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:48PM

So sorry. Dr. Right has no Judenhass, nor Catholic hass. He simply feels that Catholicism is a wrong belief. Given that Clint has much Judenhass, he is Gallic fromage calling perfectly clean feet smelly.

KyMouse| 8.15.11 @ 8:31AM

Mr. Novak imagines that John Paul II protested to St. Peter that he had not been given more time "to achieve the requested unity of the Church of Christ."

As long as the Catholic Church deines that Jesus' work of redemption is finished, and that His atonement is sufficient, many of us will continue to steer clear of Catholicism.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of authority: Only the Bible is God's authorized teaching for us (John 10:35, Galatians 1:12, e.g.), not tradition/the Magisterium. The Catholic church teaches that it is authorized to dispense God's grace, but the Bible teaches that anyone can receive God's grace directly, through faith in Jesus (John 3:14-18, Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9). For a good overview of the differences between biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism, visit www.carm.org.

Here's a good question for any of us: When the teaching of your church (or sect, denomination, etc.) differs from the Bible, which do you believe? In 1545, the Catholic church decreed that its traditions are equal in authority with the Bible. In practice, however, Catholic tradition is placed above Scripture (for example, the Bible never gives Mary any titles such as Queen of Heaven, nor claims that she can intercede on behalf of sinners).

Catholic teaching opposes the doctrine that is most essential to the Christian faith -- the doctrine of justification by faith alone. "He [Jesus] saved us, not because of any righteous deeds we had done, but because of His mercy" (Titus 3:5).

People are required to prostrate themselves before Catholic popes; however, we read in the Bible that Peter told a man not to kneel before him (Acts 10:26). In Revelation 19:10, an angel warns John not to prostrate himself, because any and all forms of worship are due directly to God alone.

After John Paul II's funeral, Gene Edward Veith wrote in "World" magazine, "...[T]hough the pope was eulogized for all of his good works, the prayers begged God to let him into heaven, calling on Mary and the saints to intercede for him. Sadly missing was the liberating gospel of salvation through faith in the free forgiveness won by Christ alone."

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 9:07AM

Luke 10:16

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 9:32AM

Please explain how the verse you referenced supports Catholicism.

Go ahead...

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 10:30AM

Figure It Out, Serial Anti-Catholic Bigot Dr.Reich.

" If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:32AM

Got it.

You have NO idea how it relates to the verse you referenced; you're just mouthing Father Flannagan's talking points.

What a good little drone you are!

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:30PM

Clint,

And where do we ALL get our forgiveness from?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:45PM

Margie:

From the source of ALL good things: Ron Paul.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:49PM

For that bon mot, someone deserves a steak!

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:41PM

Make mine medium, please! With a HUGE slide of beef-steak tomato, please.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:49PM

I knew it. Anyone who would ruin a steak by letting it go to medium does not deserve one!

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:37PM

I don't like rare, and I don't like well. I get mine medium--it's best that way. Unlike my politics.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 4:23PM

Moderation in the pursuit of a good hunk of beef is no virtue. I think Barry G said that.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:30PM

I thought that was Liberace..?

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 4:39PM

Moderation in the pursuit of anything was a vice in Liberace's mind.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 4:51PM

Tartare, or rare...?

Do either of you guys know of any good Entrecot house in the Twins? Jean Louis Delezande,a good friend of mine who I have been out of contact with for about 20 years, made the best steak and steak sauce---worth doing a Snoopy dance for.

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 11:58PM

Oh no! LOL.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:01AM

That was in response to Dr. Right's hilarious comment.
Snoopy dance, indeed!
As to steak, I like mine medium rare. Yum.

RCV| 8.16.11 @ 1:18AM

Now there's a woman who knows how to eat a steak properly.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:14AM

the Holy Bible comes from the Catholic church. So called biblical christians ignore that fact at their peril.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:33AM

No it doesn't.

That's absurd.

Are you suggesting that the letters of the New Testament were written by Catholics?

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:20AM

The Bible comes out of Catholic Tradition. It is just one of the tools developed by the Church to spread the Good News. There was no formal cannon of the Bible four almost 400 years of Christian existence. The Church issued the Bible by it's God given authority. It is laughable to see 30,000 Protestant sects using the Catholic Bible as its final authority.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:34AM

Wrong again.

And which "traditions" are you talking about? The ones that directly contradict the Bible?

That's illogical.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 11:53AM

The formal canon of the Bible was put together by the Councils of the Church in the late 4th century. They were agreed to by the Popes of those times. the Church decided which of the numerous Gospels about Jesus and Epistles of Paul were the oldest and most authentic. It put these New Testament books together with the Old Testament Books of the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the translation of the Bible used by Greek speaking Jews at about the time of the birth of Christ. It was translated and transcribed by holy rabbi's and scribes. The Church put all these books together and used them for the whole life of the Church. They have been used in the Catholic Mass and services since the formal canon was issued.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 12:10PM

I forgot the most important point. They did this because they had the God given authority to so. It is the mission of the Church, given by Jesus to spread the Gospel to all nations We have been the people who spread the Gospel to the whole world.

We have given the world as part of that mission. The idea of the universal brotherhood of mankind, mass charity to the poor, The Holy Bible, Holy Tradition, The Just War theory in an attempt for a more peaceful world, the University, the Hospital, modern science which comes out of the universities and monastaries of the Church, great art, music, theology, philosophy, literature and architecture.

Numerous heresies, Islam, 30,000 Protestant sects, The French Revolution, Atheism, Commnunism, Socialism, National Socialism, and the new Neopaganism have all tried destroy and replace the Church. They have not as yet succeeded. The Church is God's greatest gift to man and will be with us till the end of time.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:44PM

"The Church is God's greatest gift to man and will be with us till the end of time."

Agreed.

But what's that got to do with Catholicism?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:44PM

You're illogical.

The reason that these Church "fathers" met in the first place was because it had been known for centuries that these books/letters represented the Inspired Word of God.

The Word of God existed BEFORE the Catholic Church.

So a bunch of self0-appointed Church "fathers" go together and proclaimed that these books were important???

Big deal.

That's like me saying "You know, this computer thing, it's going to change the way we communicate", and then claiming credit for creating the internet...

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 1:02PM

Ha Ha ha: You reasoning is farcical. The Church was God's editor of the Scripture. You can't answer one fact I have given you. Christ is the head of the Church. The Pope is his general manager on earth.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:42PM

So you think God needed an editor, but MY logic is farcical???

Can you say "ironic"?

PJ| 8.15.11 @ 10:22AM

I know you, & others like you, hate the Catholic Church for your erroneously perceived interpretation of its beliefs. I dare you to find out what exactly the Catholic Church believes in by watching on PBS this coming FAll, called Catholicism written by Fr Robert Barron. If you still hate the Church ------fine. At least hate it for what it actually believes in. Don't live in a fog of ignorance!

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:35AM

So criticism of Catholicism equals hatred of Catholicism?

How very Al-Sharpton of you!

PJ| 8.15.11 @ 11:53AM

It's 1 thing to rationally criticize, it's another thing to vitriolically condemn something you know nothing about! I have read your past drivel on Catholicism.

All I'm saying is learn then criticize. And don't give me your excuse that you were once a Catholic---- maybe a Catholic who was never taught his faith at home or at Sunday school.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:47PM

Nice try.

You exhort me to "learn", but then try to delegitimize >30 years of knowledge gained through membership in the Catholic Church.

Ex-Catholics understand Catholicism better than "practicing" Catholics...

...That's why we left the Catholic Church.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:23PM

Dr. Right says: "Nice try"

Oh, got it now... You are like a Democrat liberal who sees the light, realizes that the Democratic Party is run by and for leftists with no true liberals like Scoop Jackson left, and then goes crazy overboard trying to show you are a conservative...

Stop being so angy. If the Catholics are wrong, then they are wrong. State your case and let it be. You don't see me fussing with them about their interpretation of the "Old Testament." By the way, "Ex-Jews" say the same about Judaism (that they understand it better than practicing Jews).

If it all becomes too much, you can convert and become a Jew. I'll do your bris for free... And buy you a beer.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:44PM

Not really.

I'm more like someone who has been exposed to the TRUTH, and is willing to stand up for it.

And "angry"? Please...The only anger in these discussions comes from Catholics who can't stand being challenged.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:50PM

Offer still stands to become Jewish, all else aside.

Clint really seems to like you and Doctor Occam.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 3:03PM

WHY would I choose to convert to Judaism?

Let me see if I follow your logic...

1. If someone is critical of Catholicism, then...

2. They want to be Jewish..?

Are you sure that you don't hang out with Clint? 'Cuz you make about as much sense as he does...

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 3:11PM

That's your logic, not mine. I only offered a bris. Naw, there's not room for me to hand out with Clint. With you and Marge and Doctor Occam, Clint's plate is full.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:40PM

No, boychick, you want to be Jewish to really understand Yiddish! ;)

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:32PM

...Oy gevalt...

Actually, I dated a few nice Jewish girls in high-school. I was the token shagitz. I didn't mind, as long as they were prretty

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 4:53PM

Good man. One of them should have snagged you...

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:39PM

Occam, by the way, is 110% Jewish. Clint is an anus; his Catholicism is just an aside.

By the way, Vlady, if you're Jewish, do you LIKE being called "SandMonkey?" It offends me.

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:11PM

Occam Tool, do you like being called a cult member, a false religiom, a pagan?

Vlady| 8.19.11 @ 1:21PM

"By the way, Vlady, if you're Jewish, do you LIKE being called "SandMonkey?" It offends me."

I never saw him do that Dr. OT... No, I have the same feelings on that as you.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:48PM

I WAS taught Catholicism in Sunday school.

It was the Christianity that was lacking...

PJ| 8.15.11 @ 4:33PM

Your 30+ yrs of Catholicism amounted to 30+ yrs of kindergarten learning. Sorry, but most of the Catholic baby boomers & after had the same type of catechesis including myself. The difference between you & me is that I taught myself the facts & found learned theologians to help me understand further those issues that are mystical or symbolic before I made any decision to leave the Church. You on the other hand must of had a bad experience & is using it as an excuse to hate everything that remotely smells Catholic.

Btw, if you know anything about Catholicism you would know that the basic beliefs are in sync with the Protestant faiths. But you wouldn't know that because you have only a cursory level of Catholic understanding (& probably of Christianity in general). Increase your knowledge, watch Catholicism, narrated by Fr Robert Barron on PBS this fall. You might actually learn something, maybe a few extra buzz words to use against the likes of me. God bless & I will always pray for you.

JOSEPH| 8.15.11 @ 11:25PM

You were taught, but you did not learn.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 1:28PM

KyMouse,

Your quotes of John and Galatians do not say that the Bible is God's only authorized teaching. In fact, you will not find any verse in the Sacred Scriptures that commands Christians to only use the Scriptures as their authority.

On the other hand, you will find Saint Paul telling the Thessolonians this: "Whereunto also he has called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:14-15; emphasis mine.)

Tradition is not above Scripture. It is the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, together, that make up the Magesterium. They are both needed and have been part of the Church from the beginning. The only reason the Council of Trent defined this teaching was because of the spread of Protestantism.

The doctrine which you state "is most essential to the Christian faith," i.e., justification by faith alone, is contradicted by: the Bible. "Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? [...] For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:24, 26; emphasis mine.) It is faith and works that justify and save.

Also, Paul was referring to the false teaching that it was the works of the Mosaic Law, and the additions by the scribes, which were necessary to be saved. In other words, Paul's letter to the Romans is a rebuke of the Judaizers. James' letter is a rebuke to those who have misconstrued Paul's words to mean that a Christian doesn't have to do any good works, if they have faith.

By the way, Saint Peter told us that the work of baptism saves: "Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saves you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:21; emphasis mine.)

Finally, people are not "required to prostrate themselves before Catholic popes [...]." I saw Pope John Paul II at the Pontiac Silverdome, in 1987, and none of the almost one hundred thousand people in attendance prostrated themselves before the Holy Father.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:16AM

I guess the "Catholic" Bible conveniently left out the most important words in that verse, and it is why this Religion is a fraud.

You do know what God has to say to those who add or take away from His Words, yet you persist.

The verse actually says 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.

I'm glad you mentioned this verse, because it reveals to all one of the biggest fallacies of Catholicism~ and that is tradition.

Catholicism perverts God's intent.
This verse says the traditions taught by the Apostles, not by just anyone.
And certainly not by the so called "early church fathers" who most of them brought in all kinds of horrendous unbiblical teachings.

You consciously choose to adhere to unbiblical doctrine, even after it's been shown to you.
It's your "choice" to do so, but you should really fear the consequences.
And the Word of God is your Judge~ not me.
I just won't remain silent concerning the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
I abhor twisted Religion.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 1:57AM

Margie,

Hello! I hope all is well with you and Victor. And, I'm glad that you responded, since I enjoy these discussions. I don't want you to be silent.
But, I have not added to the Word of God, I have quoted it. And the Sacred Scriptures say that the Gospel of Christ was taught by word of mouth and by epistle.

Now, last time we discussed 2 Thess. 2:15, you claimed that the Greek word was teachings, not traditions, if I remember correctly. I assume that you have found that Saint Paul did, in fact, use the word traditions? You said that it was important to use the word teachings, that it made a difference. Does it make a difference that the word traditions was used?

I also showed you how Paul told Timothy to pass his Gospel on to others, so that they could teach yet others:

"[a]nd what you [Timothy] have heard from me [Paul] before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
- 2 Timothy 2:2

Paul meant for Timothy to teach his Gospel to others, who would teach others, and so on. So did all the Apostles, like John:

- 1st to 2nd Generation: Saint John the Apostle teaches Sts. Polycarp and Papias the teachings of Christ.
- 2nd to 3rd Generation: Polycarp teaches Iranaeus and Florinus what John taught, i.e., the Gospel.
- 3rd to 4th Generation: Iranaeus teaches Hippolytus of Rome what Christ taught, as handed down by John, through Polycarp.

If the Holy Spirit could keep the Apostles (and disciples such as Mark and Luke) from teaching error, He certainly could keep the early Church Fathers, like Polycarp and Irenaeus, from teaching error.
To deny this, is to limit the power of God.

God Bless!
Your brother in Christ, Nick

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 11:43AM

Nick,

I want all to be well with your soul! And that's why I am saying what I am saying.

Since you left out the words "were taught by us", then who is it that is leaving them out? Is it the Catholic version, or you yourself that's doing it?

Because leaving out the words "by us" completely changes God's intent, which is what the harlot does.
A harlot perverts the Word of God.

As I have pointed out and will continue to point out for the sake of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ~ no one is permitted by the Creator to take away His Words from what is clearly written.

To remove the words, "by us" allows for anyone to accept the teachings of anyone, and not just the Apostles teachings, to which God clearly wrote.

To say, simply, "hold to the traditions" allows for the traditions of anyone.

But GOD says, "hold to the traditions taught BY US".

Us? Well, who was speaking? The Apostles.. not just anyone.

Catholicism has twisted the Word of God. You know it, too. Yet you continue to persist in disregarding Him.

So, you see, you have then gone on to add the names of the men that were NOT Apostles, and who we were taught NOT to listen to, since they brought in false teachings of which Catholicism still teaches to this very day, and has NOT ever repented of.

You say, "If the Holy Spirit could keep the Apostles from teaching error."
Yes, because they were actually appointed by God, and you know this.

The others you mention were NOT~ and were NOT Apostles.
Their teachings were not in agreement with what the Apostles taught.

Namely:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

You need to turn away from this, because you are knowingly continuing to choose false teachings over the written Word of God.

"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love Him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Jn. 14:23.

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

I'm praying for you, Nick, that God opens your eyes.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:01PM

Can't get that link to work. Here's another:

http://www.bible.ca/catholic.htm

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:12PM

I am new here. Why do Margie Dr Right hate Catholics?

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 2:50PM

Margie,

I know you want all to be well with my soul.
I don't know how calling me a liar and Papal Inquisitor accomplishes this, but, hey, whatever floats your boat. It's all water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I was not nefariously leaving out words of Scripture. I quote from the Douay-Rheims for convenience. The King James has almost the same wording: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
Is the KJV altering the Word of God?

My RSV-Catholic Edition reads:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

But, this is all moot anyway, because, contrary to your claim, this does not "completely [change] God's intent." The words "which you have learned" clearly imply that the traditions were taught by Saint Paul.

And, I never denied who was doing the teaching. Did you miss this part: "Paul meant for Timothy to teach his Gospel to others, who would teach others, and so on. So did all the Apostles, like John:" You are arguing with a straw man.

The clear point of 2 Thess. 2:15 is that Paul preached the Good News of Jesus Christ, both orally and by epistle. These traditions were first taught by word. Some traditions were written down, but, not all of them, as Saint John tells us:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
- John 21:25 (KJV)

So, Paul is telling the Thessalonians to follow his oral traditions and his written instructions, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Paul later tells Timothy, in his second letter to him, to teach others, so they may teach yet others, and so on.

These traditions were written down, later, as heretics (e.g., Gnostics) tried to deny them. Along with the early Church Fathers, we have the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) which was probably written while the Apostle John was still alive. There are teachings about appointing bishops and deacons as well as about the Eucharist:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs." (cf Matthew 7:6)

We know that the "faithful men" who came later (e.g. Iranaeus, etc.) were teaching what the Apostles also did because their churches were fruitful, and mutliplied, and spread over the whole earth, as Christ commanded.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 4:15PM

Yes, you do know how wishing it to be well with one's soul can be so even if you agree with the liars and therefore place yourself amongst them.

Is it not the same that you say you wish for me? You say nice words but yet you are in agreement with the twisting of Scripture and adhere to your Religion.

I could ask you or charge you with the same falsehood then~ and put it to you, then: how can you say you love or care for me as a supposed sister in the Lord when you say what I believe (the Bible) is in opposition to your "Mother Church"?

And God hates sin, so I guess He must hate all of us? NO!

The Bible (God's own Words) say this:

"The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Peter 2:9.

So, I'm going to try my best to be like Christ, and be forbearing.

And the only one presenting a straw man is you.

You left out the most important words in that verse, and you know it~ and now you have included them~ or have you?

Which is it?

I'm not going to repeat myself, I already showed how leaving the words "taught by us" means exactly what it says.

As it is written:

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." Lk. 8:8.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 4:24PM

I explained it all, and furthermore, the "Catholic" Bible you just quoted from is just that. Catholic. It is not part of the Bible.

Further perversion.

You consciously and purposefully disregard the Word of God.

You know full well that the US in that verse means the Apostles, and is a warning to all Christians.

As in:

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter 2:1.

Your friends the "early church fathers" brought in horrible and perverse unbiblical teachings~ to which only Catholics abide by~ and not Christians.

I refer all to the link I posted, which Nick ignores.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 8:51PM

Only Margie's Bible is the real one.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 5:13PM

Margie,

"Yes, you do know how wishing it to be well with one's soul [...]."

As I stated, it's all water under the bridge. Call me a liar, I don't care. I will not call you a liar.

"I could ask you or charge you with the same falsehood [...]."

I consider you a sister in Christ because we both love Christ with all of our heart and soul. We disagree on what certain parts of Sacred Scripture say. I believe that you are mistaken, you believe I'm lying.

Also, God hates the sin, but, loves the sinner. If a sinner is ignorant of their sin, the sinner is less culpable for that sin. So, please, keep up the forbearance, it will lead you home to Rome, Sweet, Rome.

"You left out the most important words [...]."

I did not leave out "the most important words." I quoted a different translation. Again, what about KJV? Is it perverting the Word of God? Don't you have an answer to this question?

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 5:32PM

Margie,

My Catholic Revised Standard Version is word for word what you, yourself, quoted at 8.16.11 @ 12:16AM. So, I guess we are both perverting the Word of God, huh?

I don't know how I can be any more clearer: Paul is referring to his Gospel, recieved from Christ, as an Apostle, in his letter to the Thessalonians. Paul is telling them not to listen to teachings that do not agree with the traditions taught by himself. And, those traditions were past on, from generation to generation, as Paul instructed Timothy, protected by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And, I don't ignore your links. But, every time I that I disagree with what they claim, and show their their blatant mistakes, you tell me that you don't subscribe to everything they say. If you are going to pick and choose which of their claims are true, what point is there in my referring to them, or, showing how they get facts wrong?
God Bless!

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 5:42PM

You're being what I'd call wiley. Like a coyote.
You sir, are playing games, and I am tired of it.
You continue to try and take me in circles. I have already explained at length, that the Bible says we are to listen only to the teachings of the Apostles, yet you try and use it to include others that came after them, who taught false doctrines~ and I have listed these false doctrines~ but you don't care~ you go on defending them and saying that the men who taught them are somehow included in the teachings of the Apostles.

You are blatantly lying when you say that every time I disagree with you that I say I don't subscribe to everything they say.

Nick~ you are a liar!

What I said was that I did not know anything about the owner of the link. What was included in the page of the link was the truth though~ as to the false teachings of your Religion.

I am through with you... you are not genuine.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 8:50PM

Anyone who disagrees with Margie is a liar and will burn in hell.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 10:18PM

That is a lie. Anyone who disagrees with God is a liar, and will burn in Hell.

As it is written:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 8:37PM

Margie,

Actually, the Bible says that we are to follow the teachings of Christ:

"Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." (Emphasis mine.)
- Matthew 28:19-20

Did you catch that last part? Also, why did Christ tell the Apostles to become teachers, when He told them not be called teacher? I guess He wasn't being literal, in Matthew 23, huh?

How could the Apostles "teach all nations," since most of them were martyred before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, if they did not pass on Christ's teachings to "faithful men"?

The traditions of Christ, which we are "to observe," as taught by the Apostles, are the teachings of the Catholic Church. You seem to believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit left the Church, after the death of Saint John the Apostle.

That would make Christ a liar, which is impossible. So, it must be you who are mistaken.

"You are blatantly lying when you say that every time I disagree with you that I say I don't subscribe to everything they say."

That is not what I wrote. Try reading it again: "And, I don't ignore your links. But, every time that I disagree with what they [your links] claim, and show their [your links'] blatant mistakes, you tell me that you don't subscribe to everything they [your links] say."

Also, the only one who ignores links, is you, as you have admitted. Have you ever read any link that I have provide to you? I doubt it.

"Nick~ you are a liar!"

Don't beat around the bush, Margie. Tell me how you really feel! Ha-ha! By the way, you wrongly asserted that I claimed that Martyrs Mirrors was mostly fiction. You never corrected the record, and, I never called you a liar.

"What I said was that I did not know anything about the owner of the link."

This is what you wrote: "First, I do not know or subscribe to the man's site, I just found it to be truthful as to what he said."

This was after I listed several factual mistakes Mr. Job had made. I did this with a few of your other links, but, I don't remember if you ever addressed their factual errors. I don't think you did.

So, the claims of fact from your links, that are easily proven wrong, you disavow and throw under the bus. The opinions from these sites, with which you agree, are the gospel truth. That is called picking and choosing.

Please, keep challenging me. Sharing the Word of God is a good thing. And, I still love you and Victor, my sister and brother in Christ.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 10:15PM

"The traditions of Christ, which we are "to observe," as taught by the Apostles, are the teachings of the Catholic Church."

No, they are not. I listed a lot of them here already.
Suit yourself though, Nick. You choose to belong to a cult that God condemns.

You are really getting more and more twisted. What a disgrace.

"The traditions of Christ, which we are "to observe," as taught by the Apostles, are the teachings of the Catholic Church."

No, they aren't.

Must I list the false teachings again?
No, because you couldn't care less.

"You seem to believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit left the Church, after the death of Saint John the Apostle."

Uh, yeah, YOUR "church", yep, pretty much.
NOT the church of Christ though, which are those individuals who were Martyred for rejecting the false teachings of your Religion.

Your Religion indeed calls God a liar.

And so are you. You're a twisted, deceitful scumbag, both for twisting everything that I say, and for trying to make me out to be a liar.

And most of all, Nick~ for being amongst those who perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You are no friend of mine, nor of Christ's. You make yourself an enemy of the cross of Christ.

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:04AM

Margie,

I still love you. You cannot hurt me, no matter how hard you try.

I have not twisted anything that you have written. Nor, have I tried to make you out to be a liar. I would never do that to my sister in Christ.

All I do is ask questions, quote Sacred Scripture, and try to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church. Even though I am a poor instrument for the LORD to use, but, I try my best.

Luckily I have a treasure trove of writings, by hundreds of men and women from the past two thousand years, to whom I can turn, to explain things better than I ever could myself.

I'm still your friend and will continue to pray for you and your family. Please, keep me in yours, as I need all the prayers I can get!
God Bless!

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 8:59AM

St. James’ epistle attempts to clear up the difficulties of those who mistakenly feel that justification is imputed by faith alone without consideration of works of righteousness in grace. He tells us, "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? (James 2:14-17)."

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 9:22AM

Works without faith are meaningless.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 10:37AM

Duuuuhhhh, Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich.

James 2:17

New International Version (NIV)

" In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. "

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:37AM

So you admit to contradicting yourself?

Seriously, Clint...You're a parody of a hard-right clown. If someone wanted to create a caricature of an ill-informed Paulite, they couldn't do any better than you.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:58PM

Dr R---he's not hard right---he's hard Libertarian. hard Right doesn't sup[port legalizing Drugs. Ask the Clown. Yo Clint, what about Paul legalizing drugs?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 3:00PM

Well, he's hard for Ron Paul, that's for sure...

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 11:42AM

Works are related to faith. Salvation is related to faith. That does not mean that works are related to salvation. They are merely a by-product of true faith... true faith that, on its own and without regard to the works that it necissarily produces, is what allows us to recieve salvation.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 9:31AM

You've misinterpreted James. Not surprising, really. Denominations that purposefully avoid the crystal-clear admonition to Grace through Faith often pursue this line of thinking.

Works alone do NOT save, but the Faith that saves will ALWAYS seek to do works.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 10:40AM

Fixated Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich Repeatedly Attempts To Pound His Square Eisegesis Peg Into A Round Hole

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:37AM

Meaning what?

Do you even know?

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 1:59PM

Yeah, But Apparently, You Don't Anti-Catholic Bigot Punk,Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 3:00PM

So educate me, Einstein.

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:33PM

Clint,

Right now, you are a walking square peg.
But Jesus is looking to round you out and form you into His image. :^).

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:01PM

Aaand You're An A Chronic Joisey White Trash Anti-Catholic Bigot, Margie.

Go Roll Victor Around.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:45PM

Clint,

No one in New Jersey actually says "Joisey".

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:19AM

It's part of his attempt at smear.
The truth nails his sorry rear, no matter who dares to speak it to him, and no matter how kindly some may try.
The only thing a snake is able to do when confronted with a threat, (truth), is to spew venom. He threatens to bite too, but can't do it in cyber space.

He is like the media~ they think if they lie about someone's character to the world, then everyone will believe it's the truth.

He who lives by character assassination, shall die by character assassination.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 8:49PM

As you well know by yours

RCV| 8.16.11 @ 4:28PM

Dr R - A confession ("Bless me father for I have sinned...): When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, I said "Joisy". Honest

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 5:58PM

Haha, well that's the good old Brooklyn accent!! I lived in three different areas there back in the 70's and then in the 80's, as well as in Manhattan for several years.

I am aware of the fact that some in the Northern NJ areas speak with that type accent, but I grew up in central Jersey, and never heard it.

I was actually born in the Mohawk Valley in upstate NY. Both my Parents grew up there. My ancestors are Canadian French, and though my Father's Parents spoke Canadian French, my Father spoke perfect English, as did my Mom, with no hint of French in their speaking of English!

I love New Yawkers.

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 10:45PM

I only lost my Brooklyn accent when my family moved to California when I was 15. My first day in LA, I went to the park where some kids were playing football, and I yelled, "Hey - trow me da bawl!". All action stopped and they looked at me like I'd just arrived from Mars. I went home and began practicing non-Brooklyn English until I could say, "Throw me the ball". Even today, at 64, when I go to New York on business, if I'm there for more than a week, I come back saying "cawfee" and such, and crack up my wife -- a fourth generation Californian.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:27PM

You mean, like the part in Biblical doctrine where it says to curse the people of Israel and support Islam in the work of destroying Christianity? That Eisegesis, Clint?

RCV| 8.17.11 @ 10:47PM

It's in the Book of Ishmael, Occam.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:56PM

Yup, that's what they taught me in Biblical Literature and Life at TCU. Correct again, Doctor.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:03PM

We Note That Tool Job Gave Himself A Heretic Catholic's Moniker.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:19PM

Yes, and he was forgiven by the Church later. Nice if you follow your theological history, but it's difficult with 302 brain cells my little nematode, isn't it?

besides, I picked him for the Razor---a Jew doesn't give two shits what Clint's theological stands are, because whatever they are, Clint is still a "smeghead."

Or, to use another Red Dwarf quote that fits here:

"So let me get this straight, you want to fly on a magic carpet to see the king of the potato people and plead with him for your freedom...and you are telling me you are completely sane?
--Chris Barrie as Arnold Rimmer."

That's what it is like arguing with Clint.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:46PM

You give Clint far too much credit...

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:51PM

Clint---you have faith, but your works are of Satan, pal. You work to allow little girls toi be raped and clitorectomized and beheaded. You are scum.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:54PM

Sorry, "to be raped." Comment otherwise stands, with cleats on.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 1:56PM

Apparently, Tool Job's Runnin' For American Spectator's Zaniest Crazed Bastard.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:57PM

Having you as my enemy is a pleasure. Just a point---try to step on my face and my Kabar may have something to say about your success.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:06PM

You Try To Stick Me With A Kabar Neo-Chickenhawk & I'll Have To Show You How I Defend Myself With A Bowie, Coward Tool Job.

Bring It, Cupcake.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:20PM

I'm scared, puss. I just said try to step on my face, little puss puss.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:23PM

Clint has a Bowie, OOOOH.

One of us threatens all the time. One of us never threatens. One of us is a puss who doesn't show up. One of us cuts into humans professionally. I'm not threatening you, little punk. Just don't try to step on my face.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:27PM

Then. Ya Might Wanna Stay Outta My Way Little Short Fat Aging Bloviator Tool Job ,Who's Body Can't Cash The Checks Your Mouth Writes.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:32PM

O.K., It's Alright If You're Scared Short, Fat, Aging Pussy,Tool Job.

Maybe, You Can Call Yo MaMa, Big Pussy.

Just Sayin'

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:41PM

Actually, it's my dad who has the Mob ties. Chi-town, ya know.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:37PM

"And with a discussion of mob ties, Clint, knowing that Doc Occ does not brag about that which he does not have, runs fleeing into the darkness."

Clint, I would never do that, so don't worry. As my father put it, when a friend of mine was being screwed over in Kazakhstan trying to adopt his little boy and the lawyer was screwing him over for another thousand every other day and I was having to do my friend's call for weeks and I was getting tired so I called my dad up and I said---

"Dad, how much does it cost to break a leg in Kazakhstan? I think I have to encourage an attorney."

His response to me was classic: "Son, why would you want to get involved with such people?"

He was right. To protect my kids from pro-Islamic scum, in a heartbeat. To deal with a piece of human excrement, no.

So yeah. I'm related to a Knight, count The Playboy Playmate of the 1970s among my friends, and can get ahold of people in low places. Just part of living a very interesting life.

Mimi| 8.15.11 @ 9:15AM

John Paul II , most powerful message to mankind
is that GOD ALMIGHTY is involved in the HISTORY of MAN..... and says what God says...
" BE NOT AFRAID "
The last century put an end to Communism...The remnants of a failed policy...continues to creep out. We are NOW enduring a blatent attempt to institute Socialism on this free country...The central PLANNING will end... the fog will lift...be not afraid God is with us!!!

Gary B| 8.15.11 @ 11:06AM

“Getting rid of that Mickey-Mouse system was no miracle. It was a matter of time. It was built to fail.”

And, so it will be for socialism in America. Will 2012 be the year?

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 11:24AM

Thanks for the remebrance, Michael. John Paul II was one of the moral and political giants of the twentieth century. Although I'm not a Roman Catholic, I had the privilege once of atending a Mass that he officiated at, and merely being in his presence conveyed such a sense of peace to me that I will never forget the experience. A great, great man.

DaveS| 8.15.11 @ 12:11PM

The liberals had their way with Paul VI, so to have this 1991 publication go out without their preferred text was altogether appropriate and delicious. JP2 knew who the leakers in the Magesterium were.

JP2: a giant comporting as a village priest.

Too bad JP2 was not a good liturgist; we're doing better on that front with Benedict (e.g. for the first time in over 20 years I heard at Mass ad multos instead of ad omnes during the consecration! Yay!) Long way to go, though. Reform the trash music selections next - by getting rid of the 'about us' 'songs.'

albert constantine jr| 8.15.11 @ 5:54PM

Ditto on the need to discard any just about any song in the musical liturgy published after 1968.

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:24PM

Christ, not Man, is King.

jd| 8.15.11 @ 12:59PM

I see you're still around. Didn't you threaten to leave AS the last time you posted anti-Catholic rants? Lying IS a sin, you know, even for holier-then-thou people like yourself, isn't it?

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 1:27PM

She's been posting Anti-Catholic screeds since I have been here...

She and Dr. Das Reich remind me muchly of the Nazis and Communists. So sure of their own opinions. And so terribly anti-Catholic. And of course Anti-Jewish, though these two twits profess to love us Jews... But I don't see how that's possible when they can't even love fellow Christians, or even politely make their case, agree to disagree, and move on to joust against the 'Bamster....

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:41PM

Anti-Jewish? You mean like the Poles were anti-Jewish??

Yeah...I'm anti-semitic. That's why I spend so much time defending American support of Israel.

I'd say you're intellectually dishonest, but that would infer an intellect...

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:16PM

What doe the Poles have to do with you Dr Right

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:53PM

No Vlady, this son of Rabbis, Cousin to a British Jewish Knight (Dr. Jonathan Miller), and ardent Zionist declares Margie and Dr. Right to be Righteous Gentiles.

I don't know about you, Vlady, but Clint and Jacque tete de fromage are antisemites by their words, and, I presume, deeds. In Clint's immortal and eloquent words, "get bent."

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:07PM

Brother, you haven't seen me defending Clint.

Cousin to a knight, eh? Go you!

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:14PM

American Spectators Obsessed Joisey White Trash Bigot Margie Attempts To Play The Anti-Semite Card On Tea Party Clint, For The Umpteenth Time.
Now, Tell All American Spectator Readers Where You Say Practicing Jews & Muslims Go When They Die.

I Say They Go To Heaven.

You're Up Joisey White Trash Bigot, Margie.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:47PM

...How do you respond to such a bizarre post..?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:45PM

Clint, you do not say Sand-Monkeys go to Heaven. You say that their religion is no longer appropriate and that G-d has disowned them. Want the quote, asshole?

Vlady| 8.19.11 @ 1:25PM

"Clint, you do not say Sand-Monkeys go to Heaven. You say that their religion is no longer appropriate and that G-d has disowned them. Want the quote, asshole?"

Dr. OT, I would like to see the quote.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:43PM

Dr. Jonathan Miller. Look him up. Related to me through Dr. Donald Miller. Look him up.

No need to bullshit.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:44PM

You will find Donald in who's who in World Jewry. Jonathan you simply need to look up. His knighthood was not for his medical work (double boarded in Neurology and Pathology) but for his work in theatre---he was with "Beyond the Fringe."

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:37PM

That reminds me of a GREAT joke! (Stop me if you've heard it; you probably have).

The USA's first Jewish President is being sworn in. As the Chief Justice delivers the oath, a man leans over to the President-Elect's mother and says "You must be VERY proud!", to which she replies, "Oh, I am! But you know, his brother is a Doctor!"

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 4:55PM

Yup. Almost as good as 'Help! My son, the doctor, is drowning!"

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:24PM

Well, Vlady, first learn to READ. It's FUNDAMENTAL.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:32PM

To read their drivel?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:42PM

Criticism is not "asnti-Catholic"...except to a Catholic who can't stand being criticized.

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:29PM

I'm not a Catholic. Like you, I'm an ex-Catholic. But I recognize rabid bigotry when I see it.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:48PM

So where do you see it?

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 8:46PM

Look in the mirror Dr

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:24AM

So jd doesn't agree with the fact that Christ, not Man is King! big surprise there!

All she has is personal attacks and vitriol towards Christians who aren't Catholic, like the rest of her pals.

And if she really thought that lying was sin, she'd quit doing it.

Mistral| 8.15.11 @ 1:23PM

What a pity this man had not spent more time sorting out a church that was falling increasingly under the plague of clerical child abusers and sexual perverts aided and abetted by their episcopal supporters. This was a pope who did not govern the church properly - reflected in plummeting sunday attendances; massive loss of faith in many once Catholic countries; closures on a massive scale of churches, seminaries and religious houses. Put alongside that the liturgical chaos in the Catholic church at present and we soon understand that this writers view of "great and blessed" is politcally jaundiced by secular imperatives.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 1:37PM

Mistral,

Check your facts. The Holy Father was the one who began the process of stopping the abuses and shuffling the guilty criminal priest from parish to parish, once it was revealed.

The vast majority of abuse cases ranged from the 1950's to the 1970's. Pope John Paul the Great wasn't elected until the end of 1978.

Your comment is a great calumny against a great man.

Mistral| 8.15.11 @ 3:24PM

Sorry Mr Nick but you are lamentably wrong - one example such as Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, who founded the Legion of Christ movement for priests and its lay organisation Regnum Christi was already known to be suspected of abuse but JP II chose to ignore this establishing a close friendship with him and supporting his movement. This was characteristic of the man. Both he and Ratzinger tried to keep the abuse issue under wraps and go for legal settlements without any further publicity. If he had truly begun the process of dealing with the matter fully then we would not have one country after another now exploding with revelations about systematic cover-ups and silent complicity of the episcopate of which any pope is chiefly responsible. Even since then, as we can witness now in Ireland or Belgium, for example, the church authorities have been stalling and attempting to thwart full exposure of episcopal complicity.

Time to wake up Nick - read all about it! get your head out of the sand. JP II also appointed his personal friend Cardinal Joseph Bernadin as Cardinal Legate - he, if you remember dies of AIDS and was responsible for propagating homosexuality among the American catholic Church - read Paul Likoudis " Amchurch comes out". All that alone in JP II's pontificate - no wonder Cardinal Amato head of the beatification process stated that they did not take into accounbt any of JP II's 27 years as pope in deciding on his alleged "holiness". THat is a very phenomenologically subjectivised approach to such a momentous decision. One that has very profound consequences for the church in future similar processes - we cannot discern holiness by someone's actions only by our positive perceptions of invisible inner processes.

Yes, and who was it who tried to rush through Pope Paul VI's beatification - the same JP II who called this man his "spiritual father". Dom Luigi Villa, with Padre Pio's encouragement years prior, wrote a book "Paul VI beatified?" which stopped the process in its tracks. Read it - it's a stunner. Paul VI will never be beatified ever as a result.
Remember too that in 1984 the beatification process was stripped of 24 regulations that made it slow, safe and sure. Now it is quick and less cewrtain as a process for sanctification. Bring back the Devil's Advocate, eh?

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 4:07PM

Mistral,

I don't need to wake-up. I am well aware of Paul Likoudis, as I was reader of The Wanderer for years. I also wasn't defending the actions of bishops guilty of covering up the abuse scandals.

Do you have anything like a source, rather than mere assertions, to back-up your claim that the Holy Father was aware of Father Degollado's sinful acts at the time he was committing them? That is, other than wiki or anti-Catholic reporters from The National Catholic Reporter?

Cardinal Bernardin died of pancreatic cancer. Your bogus claim that he died of AIDS is false. You need to correct the record, or, repent, if you made this libelous calumny knowingly.

Pope John Paul the Great will indeed be cannonized. And that will be a good thing.

Mistral| 8.15.11 @ 5:16PM

There's more than Likoudis - there's a whole canon of legal cases indicating a regime at The Vatican covering up sexual abuse and sodomy among the clergy. Dom Luigi Villa has documented plenty of evidence but it is ignored by the politically corrt novus ordo estalishment. Robert Sungenis hasalso plenty of things to relate to us about JP II also. You just want to gloss it over and call it calumny. It just does not wash Nick.

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 5:39PM

Mistral,

By any chance, do you belong to the SSPX?

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 1:28PM

Dr. Das Reich and Mullah Margie Dear are so trite, and so predictable.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:39PM

And what exactly do YOU have to offer the dialogue, Mr. Plescinski?

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:10PM

Nothing beyond pointing out that you both are trite, and predictable. Unlike you, I make no pretense of having a "great intellect."

And sweet pants, I'll make you the same offer I gave to Mullah Margie Dear. Anytime you want to go down range with me to Afghanistan and show me how much b*lls you really have, let me know. Provoking (or responding) to Le Clint doesn't count, even if you are right about Les RuPaulistas.

Semper Fi.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 2:25PM

Why are you attacking two friends of yours, and defending antisemite Clint, Vlady. I don't think you've seen the Elephant, boy. I know a lot who have and have treated many. They don't brag, Clint. Sorry, Vlady.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 2:40PM

Brother, I don't think anyone can really defend Clint. Even Clint.

Seen the elephant? Unfortunately yes. Brag? There's nothing to brag about. I did my job. No more, no less. Your patients likely will say the same. You ever hear of the peer counselling program (I forgot the actual name)? Do you think it's effective?

Do you treat patients in at the St. Paul VA? May have some business coming your way.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:49PM

I've Always Been Able To Defend Myself, If I'm Forced To.

It Ain't Braggin', IF Ya Can Do It.

Don't Drag Me Into Your Fight, Sport.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 3:07PM

Why not? Everyone else is dragging you in. Wouldn't want you to miss the verbal joust.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:20PM

Real Men Don't Need To Drag Others Into Their Fights, That's Why Cunt.

Vlady| 8.19.11 @ 1:59PM

Ooooh, getting a little nasty. Did my comment about the RuPaulistas ruffle your feathers?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:49PM

Yet, I find you always talking about stomping on faces and giving people boxing lessons. Interesting, Clint.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:48PM

No. State. Trained at Sepulveda VA. G-d Bless, Vlady.

You are starting to see the problem with Clint. You are teachable. Thank you for your service.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:57PM

Peer counseling can be quite effective. The VA actually does VERY good work with PTSD. But you have to push to get the best care, and ask. I believe the St Paul VA has an affiliation with U of Minnesota, and no doubt their residency program, which is solid, although not as good as Mayo, which is number 8 (and not as good as UCLA, which is number 5).

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 4:58PM

The more you get to know them, Vlady, the more you will like Dr. R and Margie. Dealing with Clint could make a Saint anti-Catholic. But again, I think the conflict is theological, not personal. For example, I am damned in his theology. But it is a theological argument, not a personal one. By the way, Dr. R, the best steaks are done (sacrilege coming) with butter, not tomatoes.

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:26PM

Occam,

he is no friend. You, on the other hand are more a friend than any of them.

And isn't it weird how these so called men actually present physical fighting to a woman as some sort of boastful provocation?

Swine that!

Bless you, sir.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:50PM

Afghanistan..? Sure, I'll be right there...

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:52PM

...As soon as I get out of Iraq.

As a member of Delta Force, I'm pretty busy here.

Vlady| 8.15.11 @ 3:05PM

A smart aleck, too. I like that.

jd| 8.15.11 @ 5:21PM

Sure have a lot of time to blog. Sheesh.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:54PM

So Be There Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich.

What's Stoppin' Ya ?

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:58PM

What's stopping you, Clint?

You already wussed-out last week.

Your incessant need to appear tough on an anonymous message board is amusing, to say the least.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:58PM

I Forgot, The Catholics Over There, Are Our Real Warriors.

You Could Talk Your Anti-Catholic Trash Over There & See What Happens To You, Cupcake Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:39PM

Well, since I'm surrounded by Muslims, I doubt they'd care...

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:33PM

So Let's See Ya Badmouth Catholic Americans To Their Face, Little Anti-Catholic Bigot Cupcake Dr.Reich.

Go Into The Nearest Knights Of Columbus Meeting & Trash Talk Them & Find Out What Happens.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 2:42PM

Uh Oh !
The Zany Crazed Little,Short,Fat Aging Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job Is Playin' Army Again.

The IDF Wants You, Tool Job.

They Need Latrine Seals.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:49PM

Fine by me. At least I'd be on the line against Sharia that way, unlike you and Dr. paul.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:30PM

You'll Find That If You,Tool Job Keep Askin' For Your Punch In The Mouth, Pretty Soon You'll Find Someone To Oblige You.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 7:40PM

Again the threat from the pussman. I haven't been punched successfully in over 20 years. Maybe that comes from skills in taking down psychotics. You keep threatening, moron. Care to take my bet, below?

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:54PM

How am I "playing army." I treated Vets. That is the extent of my military experience. It apparently is more than yours.

My Grandad was an infantry man in the US Army in WWI. My father in law was in the OSS in WWII and the Navy in Korea. All of my brothers in law have served. My wife's college roomie is a Major in Air Force Intelligence. My nurses/HSTs count among them one CPO, one Green Beret, and one Marine.

But the last job I had offered to me on a military base would have killed me, so I'm lucky I turned it down. It would have killed me because of assholes like you, Clint.

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:41PM

So Join The IDF, Neo-Chickenhawk Coward & Show Us That You're Man Enough To Back Up Your Israel Firster Rough Puff Mouth.

Mimi| 8.15.11 @ 3:18PM

Clint for Gods sake ...Have some respect and QUIT the name calling....You and I both know if any NUN heard you you'd be kicked out of class by the SCRUFF of YOUR NECK !
To All: it's not O.K. to bad mouth anyones FAITH! God, the way this dreadful secular, liberal anything goes WORLD...We should Love and RESPECT every-ones Religion. None among us is perfect...but we who believe should Love one Another and look for Gods Will in our lives...We are all good people. Clint you need [prayers and I'm gonna " HAIL MARY " you back in shape. LOVE, Mimi

Clint| 8.15.11 @ 6:38PM

Tell Your Crap To The Anti-Catholic Bigots Mimi.

I Didn't Badmouth Their Faith, They Badmouthed Catholicism & Sided With Anti-Catholic Bigots,

Don't Play Games, Mimi.

Mimi| 8.15.11 @ 7:52PM

I don't PLAY games,....I enjoyed the article Michael Novak wrote on John Paul II.
There was no controversy there but remembrance with HONOR of a truly great man!
We just must stick together all people of faith. In this NATION it matters not! We are given the Freedom to worship or not worship any faith! We allow this to others...it matters not! Why waste a good article on discussing Religious differences....It all was settled in 1783...and thank god!

Mistral| 8.15.11 @ 3:39PM

John Paul II (RIP) good man in many ways but great pope? the beatfication smells of rush at all costs - even at ignoring his 27 years as pope, as Cardinal Amato, head of the process, stated.

W| 8.15.11 @ 6:13PM

Occam, Margie, RCV, Clint, Margie, Vlady, et al.
I am almost sorry I was in meetings all day and missed all this fun.
Let me add my two cents.
The Muslims believe their Koran is inspired by Allah, and every word the truth. And the radical Muslilms will kill you to prove they are holy and pure.
Catholics and Protestants have killed each other over how many books are in the bible, whether there is a purgatory, and prayer for the dead, and limbo, and is Mary the mother of God(Catholics say yes since she is the mother of Jesus). I just finished a fine book on this, "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, agreements and differences" by Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie., and there are fine arguments for all views. But we will not know the correct view, if there is one, until we die, and maybe not then.
Protestants, and Catholics have killed Jews because Jews do not believe the Jesus is the Christ. Muslims have killed Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, fellow muslims, and anybody else in their way.
Everybody believes their religion is inspired by God, and is the true religion whether they call it a religion or not.
I do not buy this bull that you can like Catholics but hate Catholicism any more than you can like Jews but hate the Jewish religion or like Muslims but hate the Muslim religion.
I admit I made nasty remarks to Margie and Dr.Right because of what I perceived is their intolerance and hatred of Catholics. Looking back, it was a waste of time and did not accomplish anything, and I apologize for it. I should not have, but I got into the spirit of things. The jokes about rosaries, priests, confession are as funny as jokes about skull caps, long beards , and sidelocks. They are funny from good friends in jest but not from strangers who intend it to be mean and mocking.
I don't care what Bible your read or your religion, even if it is your personal bible based belief, and you can believe your have the direct line to God, but if you really are this wonderful understanding person who reads the Bible then why do you have to mock other religions? And don't pull a bill clinton and say your are "criticizing" when it is clear you are not. If we want to have a real discussion of the differences in religions, that is fine, but we will not convince each other that ours is the correct one. Ultimately, it is based on faith, you believe it.
So, you may believe this is more hot air, but as Rodney King said, let us get along, and defeat the real enemeies who want to kill all Americans. We can have spirited debates with the intelligent liberals,such as RCV, but this religious stuff is nonsense.

W| 8.15.11 @ 6:15PM

PS
forgot to include Dr.Right in the salutation. sorry.

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 7:37PM

Hokay. I've tried explaining this before. I've got to do some work for my ABPN re-cert, so I'll have to leave after this. Here goes.

There is a difference between pure theological disagreement and theological agreements attached to violence. I have slept with a number of women who have believed that my soul was damned to hell. Nonetheless, they believed that my right to practice my religion was inviolate (as Americans) and that my people's refuge should be protected (for a variety of reasons.). I did not find their theology antisemitic, because I knew where it sprang from, and I KNEW THE LIMITS OF COERCION.

On the other hand, you have folks like Jack, who state they love the Jewish people but Israel must be destroyed and we musn't lift a finger to stop Sharia law. I'm sorry, but by my definition of antisemitism, which is simply this---beliefs which are likely to get me killed or limited in my life potential experiences because I am Jewish--Jack is a blisteringly brutal antisemite. He sides with the beheaders of 3 month olds. margie and Dr. R want to protect them and keep them, and me, alive, and for me to have the broadest possible opportunities, limited only by my own limits. Jack and Clint don't care if Sharia becomes the law of the land. That would STRONGLY limit my daughter's life choices.

My view of their religious beliefs is that I don't care. I care only whether or not they will get me killed or my children killed or increase their risk of that and impoverish their future.

Withdrawing from the world stage is dangerous as hell right now. There is no one trustworthy to leave the burden to, no US to relieve Britain. It will get us destroyed, as power abhors a vacuum, and all the vacuum fillers HATE US, including Dar-Es-Islam. Unlike Russia and China, the other tow competitors, Dar-Es-Islam is demographically robust.

Now, do I think Margie and Dr Right pound on Catholics a bit too much? Well, may be, but for them it is theological and not physical. catholicism, if it is to convert people and be vibrant, must have its arguments tempered in the hammer and anvil of debate. Judaism desn't seek to convert and has the concept of the Righteous Gentile in place and has been scourged by forced Conversions over the years, which is why attacks on it are more problematic.

However, we have some people here who believe that Islamists are going to sweetness and light once we give up the ssacrificial lamb that is Israel. That is moronic, on mutiple levels. First, it ignores the fact that population pressures are the primary cause of war, and second, it ignores 1400 years of Islamic history, the bloodiest religious history on Earth. We are facing monsters who wire their own children to die, and wire pregnant women as well.

The real religious fanatics here are the Paul-bots, who are morons. It just so happens that two of them also claim to be Catholic, and one of them is one of the rudest sonuvabitches ever to walk this Planet. The funniest thing about him is how much they both love Islam, which makes NO flinkin' sense if they are at all aware of the history of Catholicism. Their stupidity and ferocity and idiocy and sheer denial of reality hurts to deal with. So, again, I'm offering them a challenge, which I doubt they will take: If Paul wins ONE Primary or Caucus this year I will stop blogging. If he doesn't, I want you two clowns off this blog. You are annoying as hell, and you will have demonstrated your complete stupidity if you lose the bet.

Then we can go back to being Catholics and Protestants and Non-denominationals and Jews and the occasional John the sharia fleabag and not have to deal with AllCaps boy or Fromage de Tete, and you will watch the religious comments from Dr Right and Margie dwindle away as we go back to discussing the important issues under a Republican President---things like, Is Nathan's better than Vienna? or "How many Centuries will elapse before the Cubs win the World Series again?" We will be able to turn to these important issues because taxes will be cut, the economy will improve, ObamaCare will be destroyed, and America will be secure as a world power again.

Zbig wants to put a thousand on it. I don't think Clint is good for it, quite frankly. I prefer to hit 'em where it hurts. Paul ain't gonna win a race, and no one will name him VEEP. Come on, put up or shut up. I'm tired of having to read you two, and I'm sure you're tired of reading me. You are such believers in Paul triumphing, where's the Faith?

W| 8.15.11 @ 8:20PM

If I implied we should not criticize anti semitism and not supporting our ally, Israel, then let me be clear that was not my intention. I am merely referring to this intramural argumeant about who has the best and true religion.
I am all for spirited debate, even ugly debat, if the issue is the abandonment of our allies, such as Israel.

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 10:42PM

I don't think Israel should be destroyed. I just think it should be integrated and all the people who live there should have equal rights be they civil, religious, or political. I also believe that the Arab residents are entitled to massive reparations for all the theft, tortue and murder of the last 63 years. No group was more forceful then the Jews for equal rights for all in the American South or South Africa. It is now time to practice what you preach.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 10:42PM

You are wasting your time asking them to stop.

Bill S| 8.15.11 @ 9:06PM

The pope was a godless man who preferred a non-biblical version of Mary instead of the living God. He said this,
http://www.catholicbible101.co.....quotes.htm
His motto was "Totus tuus", or "Totally yours" (of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 9:53PM

Stuff it, Bill

vatvince37| 8.15.11 @ 10:33PM

I really am appalled by the drivel and back biting that has appeared in reaction to Novak's article. He was writing about a man he knew, and an event that brought back pleasant memories of that man he considered "great." Although I'm not included in the article, I wish state that, to paraphrase, I was "present at the creation." In 1991, I served as the Adviser to the US Ambassador to the Holy See, and on a Sunday morning, Mr. Novak called me to get my take on the papal encyclical, Centesimus Annus. I had read, but not analyzed the encyclical, but our discussion seemed to coincide with Mr. Novak's initial impressions. He thanked me for my "take," and I heard from him no more.
Pope John Paul II was a charismatic force, something you felt when you met him as I did during the annual papal meeting with accredited diplomats, but I suspect that Novak has stepped over the bounds of right reason and moved into what can only be referred to as "papadolatry," and I say this as a (Traditional) Catholic. While there were positive aspects of the late pope's tenure, the decline of the Church in the West under JPII's watch continued unabated, while those Traditional Catholic churches, which believe that the Second Vatican Council was a major mistake, are making major gains in membership. I, for one, believe that John Paul's desire for Christian unity has led to serious and devisive ruptures within his own church, and the Protestantization of the Mass. His attitude toward a rapprochement with Islam was misugided. That is beyond cavil. To repeat: Pope John Paul was a great man, but his successes as Pontifex Maximus cannot be so considered.
De mortuiis nihil nisi bonam.

POST American| 8.15.11 @ 11:08PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------

'90's Show' Tavistock Institute 'Calm-place-n-see' SAP OP --with necromantic trimmings
--ALERT!--

Certainly worship of the dead is unbecoming to
the church of the living God. IF John Paul is,
indeed, one of God's own ---he's more alive now
than he ever was sitting in the carpeted presincts
of the Vatican.

----------------------------BTW----------------------------

I'm NOT and NEVER have been catholic, but
stumbled across a most intriguing papal encyclical
from the 1860's 'The Syllabus of Errors'.

It decries and calls out a list of evils of its time
but, in one article, utterly denounces the school
of art and literature known as 'naturalism' or now,
'realism'.

WHY? ---'Because the very term 'realism'
betrays the truth in that it DENIES the REALITY
of the INVISIBLE.

Here in 2011, as the ruthless Rockefeller social
programming of 7?-8? -9? decades comes to
its final, demoralizing 'fruition' we can reflect
ALL of it ---from doctored text books, to movies,to TV, to media, to pornography, has been overwhelmingly engineered and upheld by the cunning use and deployment of the 'seen'.

ALL this, of course, further enabled by the
TRUTH that mankind is fallen, and given the
chance are ----EYE--DOLL--EATERS.

Think about sometime when you're relaxing
with a cup of GM Latte under those CHEM-trailed
skies which you refuse to see, themselves invisibly saturated with Fukishima fallout.

C Smith| 8.15.11 @ 11:14PM

Raiders of the Lost Menorah Rome’s Arch of Titus depicts the triumphant return of Roman’s legions from the destruction of Jerusalem. Titus, on horse drawn chariot, accompanied by the winged goddess Victoria leads a laurelled procession carrying the temple menorah, the symbol of the Nation of Israel. Biblical Archeology Review (July/August 2005), with cover featuring that relief, recounts a meeting between Israel’s Minister of Religious Affairs Shimon Shetreet and Vatican officials: A “tense silence” was reported when Shetreet suggested that Israel’s golden menorah may be in a Vatican storeroom and requested the Pope’s assistance in its location. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs explains why this and similar requests have met with a similar response:

The requests by Shetreet, the president, and the chief rabbis reflect the long-held belief that the Catholic Church – as the inheritor of Rome, took possession of the empire’s booty – as documented by the Arch of Titus. … This is not to say that 2,000 years or so have been enough time for the [Vatican’s] Foreign Ministry to formulate a policy on the matter. Unofficially at least, we look forward to the restoration of the treasures of the Jewish people … but do not anticipate this will occur before the coming of the Messiah.

After almost 2000 years of erecting monuments on every “holy” site, launching crusades to recapture the “holy” land, and instigating negotiations to declare the “holy” city an international city under the papal control, it is obvious that the raiders of the lost menorah want more than Israel’s symbol, they want “ISRAEL”! Therefore, we should not anticipate that the Roman Church – as the self proclaimed inheritor of Israel’s promises, will ever consider themselves other than “THE ISRAEL OF GOD” before the coming of the Messiah.

The purpose and the primary emphasis of Romanism has always been and will be to the end, a desire for total world dominance. Now they have laps where they are not as influential as at other times. But their goal as clearly stated by the dogma of the church is a total dominance of the religious world (The Valley Church)

http://theisraelofgod.blogspot.com/2007/02/raiders-of-lost-menorah.html

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 11:29PM

C. Smith,

Yes, and George W. Bush is an alien reptile, who offers up the poor for human sacrifices, during wild orgies at Bohemian Grove.

I believe there is a sale on Reynolds Wrap at Wal-Mart. Don't miss it, Smith.
If that's your real name.

W| 8.16.11 @ 7:48AM

Nick, my Deeetroit friend, if you read C.Smith together with PostAmerican, as part of one message,it makes sense.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 12:54PM

Aaaah, yes, I see it now.

It is all so clear, to me. Something is going to happen.
Something wonderful.

Mistral| 8.16.11 @ 8:51AM

Your assertion I might be SSPX demonstrates the type of person you are Nick. It does not matter who we quote as an authority or reference you like to write them off as "calumnies". If The Vatican was not afraid it would have considered the man's 27 year pontificate but did not because as a Catholic it condemns him to non-beatification - just as it did Pope Paul VI when Dom Villa wrote his timely book stopping JP II rushing through another rapid process under our very noses. This is a laundered process to facilitate what is unacceptable from a Catholic perspective. No wonder Fr Paul Marx OSB (RIP stated the modern church was in utter chaos, refernce made under same pontificate, and that from a priest who had worked in 80 countries. Indeed, he had read the chief indicators of the church under the same pope - they are a disaster. This is why both modern and traditional Catholics petitioned the current pope to stop the rushed beatfication process: we want his ponticate studied and included in the process and not placed on one side as if it is irrelevant. After all, what is The Vatican afraid of?

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 12:48PM

Mistral,

Please, look up the word "assertion". I did not assert anything. I asked a simple question, which you did not answer.

In fact, you seem to have a pattern of not answering questions. As you never did provide a source for your calumnies against John Paul the Great. You couldn't even provide a source.

Knowingly spreading falsehoods about someone, with consent of the will and forethought, is a mortal sin. Better consult a priest, who is in communion with Rome.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:23PM

Rome has NO AUTHORITY over anyone~ and GOD is the Authority over Rome.

Come out from among her, Nick.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 4:51PM

Margie,

You are correct, Rome has no authority, at all.

The Holy Father, on the other hand, is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and leads the Body of Christ. He speaks for all Christians on matters of Faith and Morals.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 6:02PM

Your Pope speaks not for my faith, nor is he holy, nor is he the vicar of anything but of those stupid enough to believe it.
Jesus Christ is Lord, and my faith is in Him.

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 7:26PM

Margie,

You are the only one who speaks for your faith.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 9:57PM

You are wrong, Nick. Millions speak for Jesus Christ, not only me.
That is another lie.
You may or may not see them where you are going.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 10:16PM

Nick, you should know better. Margie speaks for Jesus. It is true, she told you. Sort of like infallibility.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 10:47PM

Christians speak for Jesus, we speak His truth, as it is written in the Bible.

Jesus Himself gives authority to those that receive and believe in Him. Don't you know this:

"But to all who received Him, who believed in His Name, he gave power to become children of God; ho were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.

And~ that has nothing to do with baptism, as the false church teaches.

Only God is infallible, not the "pope" and surely not me, and surely not you.

Even Jesus says that His Father is greater than Him. (Jn. 14:28).

Something else the Catholic church perverts.

Do you even care?

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:20PM

New here, you Margie have only one thing on your mind, you hate Catholics, and you think you know it all. Reading your stuff, learn humility, learn history, learn manners.

LeonG| 8.16.11 @ 4:24PM

Not only assertions, Nick but insinuations. Come on! Answer the reports by recognised authorities and the wealth of photographic evidence that count against a liberal who was camouflaged as a conservative. He should have disciplined hundreds of de facto schismatic clergy and their supportive bshops but did not have the courage to do so. It was well-recognised by contemporaries that he did not want to be unpopular with his brother bishops. The Frenc episcopate thtreateed him with open schism if he gave any privileges to traditionalists such as the SSPX. Ths is well-known in France. This is why he backed off at the tme - and you do not seem to now about that either. Now the church reaps the bitter harvest of a negligent pope who wasted time on lost ecumenical causes that have produced little or no good fruit while the church was being eaten away by sexual perversion on a vast scale; financial corruption by hundreds of presbyters and bishops; scores of seminaries going over to queer politics and many other damning signs of dysfunction. He might have usefully applied time spent gallavanting around the world at great expense with immense publicity to managing a church in desperate need of attenton.
As you should already know but do seem to be aware (once again) many priests are no longer in proper communiuon with Rome because they no longer preach the faith - many even have the effrontery to use their positions to promote sodomy, adultery, feminist politics and many other forms of disobedience to the magesterium of the church. There are bishops who are freemasons - excommunicated latae sententiae and thus no longer in communiuon with Rome. Yet we are being told they are in communionb with Rome. Very difficult to find priests today in real communion with Rome. You've fallen asleep in the meantime Nick. Shame on you for swallowing the "springtime of the church" propaganda of the same papacy. The Church is waking up at last to the fact it really is in crisis. Bu, of course, to you this is a mere "calumny" and without any evidence or sources. Well, Nick, I am signing off now and will leave you to your culpable ignorance. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 4:49PM

"He should have disciplined hundreds of de facto schismatic clergy [...]."

Sorry LeonG, you are not the Pope, so, you don't get to make such decissions. And, the SSPX are the schismatic group, since they disobeyed and excommunicated themselves.

You want to be your on pope? Go become a Protestant.
God Bless!

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 11:54PM

That should be: You want to be your OWN pope?

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 9:54PM

Since there are no popes in the Bible, and God never wanted them, nor does He want a church hierarchy, the pope is a fraud, and needs to repent.

The Bible tells us that Christians that are born of God, need no one to teach us anything because the Spirit of God dwells in us.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.." 1 Peter 1:3.

"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you." Romans 8:11.

Jesus is the Head of the church, not any one else, and certainly not "pope."

"He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is the Beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything He might be pre-eminent." Col. 1:18.

I thank my God that He gave us the Bible so that it is impossible to be led astray by false teachers.

Praise His Holy Name. (Jesus, that is).

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 9:56PM

"..but the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as His anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in Him." 1 Jn. 2:27.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 6:04PM

Nor does your Pope get to make the decision as to who is saved or not saved, since the Pope himself needs to get saved and repent of being the Pope.

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 7:25PM

Margie,

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the Pope decides who is saved, and who is not.

Another statement that is not true.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 9:46PM

See my post below.
Its actions speak louder than your words.
It's all deceit, and you're taking part in it.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 10:18PM

I just read in the King James Bible that woman was created from Adam's rib. Is this true.

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 11:43PM

Margie,

I never deceive.
It violates the Eighth Commandment.
It's spelled out very clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
God Bless!

Mistral| 8.16.11 @ 8:53AM

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 6:07PM

The vatican is a hideout for pedophile priests. Everyone knows it, but they excuse it~ and in the Name of God.

But don't worry~ the Word of God tells us what HE thinks about pedophiles and those who protect them.

As it is written:

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea." Mk. 9:42.

Yoda| 8.15.11 @ 11:55PM

All Hustlers need to be 'Good Communicators' it helps sell the Con...

Yoda| 8.15.11 @ 11:55PM

All Hustlers need to be 'Good Communicators' it helps sell the Con...

Frank| 8.16.11 @ 1:36AM

Thank you, Mr Novak, for such a wonderful recounting of your time with John Paul the Great. It was very touching, as well as educational. How wonderful such a friendship must have been.

Mistral| 8.16.11 @ 11:25AM

Mr Novak is writing in the public domain. Therefore, he deserves to be answered as objectively as possible by correspondents whether they agree or disagree. Many of you here who write off necessary criticism as "backbiting", "calumnies" and other trite retorts should sort yourselves out first. My Novak may well have been called friend and flattered by John Paul II (RIP) but to then quote the ecumenical and interreligious ambitions of the man as making him worthy of greatness and saintliness is not only very subjective but also devoid of the context of an entire papacy which also had its glaring faults: thousands or more of the sexually abused children bear the scars of this while the hierarchy sought ways out of facing up to the scandals and being transparent and responsible about them. To claim JP II was doinhg something about it does not stand up to the test as today's situation attests. Many of JP II's so-called Christian public gambits merit severe critique such as embracing the Q'uran; the blasphemies at Assisi (a scandal to millions of Catholics as well as those of other Christian denominations) and his inculturation of the catholic liturgy which has led to exponential abuse on an international scale which Pope Benedict XVI appears keen to resolve in the face of massive episcopal & presbyterial opposition. This opposition was let loose under the previous two significant papacies which permitted clerics to more or less do as they pleased without official repercussion.
There were many good aspects to this man's character but he was also very flawed like most of us. Let us be a little more realistic and less fantasist in the way we perceive public figures - yes, that includes George Bush, I suppose.

Mistral| 8.16.11 @ 11:30AM

John Paul II's condemnation of the Iraq War was a personal one which I certainly supported and lauded him for. However, let us be informed correctly that his perspective did not necessarily represent the Catholic viewpoint on war as a general phenonemenon.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 10:27PM

I agree the Iraq War was a mistake.

patroness| 8.16.11 @ 11:57AM

A Theology of the Body~ Man and Woman He Created Them
JPII's greatest work:)
(Love this discussion!.. from one looking out with appreciation of Catholicism!... at those still searching and looking in.)

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 4:02PM

I prefer the Word of God and oppose the teachings of your Pope.
It tells me (and is the very Words of God, Himself) that I am saved by Grace through my faith in Christ. That I am justified by faith.
Thank God for that!
I am much too weak to adhere to some Religion that tells me I must bow to some man in robes and kiss his ring or else I'm damned.
That I must sit, kneel, stand and pray by rote.
That I must consider Mary the Mother of God.
That I must baptise my infant (if I had one) or else I wasn't in keeping with "Mother Church."

There is no Mother Church. There is only the Body of Christ who is made up of sinners saved by the Grace of God, who put Jesus Christ as Lord, and choose to worship and to bow only to Him.

I pray God opens the eyes of patroness, and all Catholics everywhere.

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 4:42PM

Margie,

"I am much too weak to adhere to some Religion that tells me I must bow to some man in robes and kiss his ring or else I'm damned."

The Catholic Church doesn't teach or command any such thing. Whoever taught you this was badly mistaken.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 6:09PM

You're lying, Nick.
If you make it to Heaven, be sure and ask the MILLIONS of my brethren who the Papacy tortured and then murdered (Martyrs) for 600 years simply for standing on the Word of God as I do here, if this is the case!!

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 7:18PM

Margie,

Sorry, but that is not an argument, or a rebuttal.
Show me where Catholics are commanded to "bow to some man in robes and kiss his ring or else [they're] damned"?

What you wrote is not true.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 9:42PM

Which isn't true, Nick?

That my brethren weren't tortured to death by your Papacy for 600 years~ men, women and children together, sometimes in groups of thousands? Entire Christian communities?

What was their crime, Nick?

They refused to bow to the Pope.

Get honest, Nick.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

Nick| 8.17.11 @ 11:36PM

Margie,

I was only commenting on the singular statement of yours of which I quoted. Not your whole comment.

I dealt with the rest in a reply to you, yesterday, from above:

"'[...] what do we call those Catholics in the middle ages that persecuted and martyred Jews?'

"Would you please provide some specific cases, and I will look them up and comment on them.

"I hate to make blanket general statements, except to state that I condemn any killing of innocent people, no matter who they were, or, who committed the crime.

"Whether it is a Catholic killing an innocent Protestant, or a Protestant killing a Catholic. A Christian killing a Jew, or a Jew killing a Christian.

"The intentional killing of innocent human life can NEVER justified. It makes no difference what the guilty party calls himself or to which church/denomination he belongs."

Hope that clears things up.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:14AM

The Jews didn't have an inquistion, nor did the "Protestants."
They were the victims of your false Religion~ Catholicism.

And as I've said before, the reason they Martyrs were put to death by your Papacy?
For simply clinging to the Words of Christ, who is the Word of God, and rejecting the false and unbiblical teachings of Catholicism.

Have the teachings changed? Has this "church" repented of them? No, it has not.
You cannot be a part of something that still teaches another gospel and not that of Jesus Christ, and defend it when still teaches the same teachings that led those "popes" to murder my brethren, true Christians~ and yet say you don't defend their murders.

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 4:48PM

Margie,

"The Jews didn't have an inquistion [sic] [...]."

Maybe you should re-read the Acts of the Apostles. Who stoned Saint Stephen, while Saul the Pharisee (Saint Paul) watched their garments and looked on? (Cf Acts 7.)

Who killed both Saint James, son of Zebedee (the Greater) and Saint James, son of Alphaeus (the Less)? What was Saul going to do when he got to Damascus, if Christ had not intervened?

Was it not the Jewish Temple priests and rulers who persecuted the early Christians? Up until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, that is. Didn't they try to kill Peter and Paul several times?

"[...] nor did the 'Protestants.'"

Don't get me started on the Protestants. Not ALL, but some Protestants, of course. You will get no blanket condemnations from me.

Have you never heard of Saint Thomas More? Who was martyred by King Henry VIII? He is just the most famous one from England. Here is a list of but a fraction of those killed, imprisoned, and persecuted by your brethren in England.

I covered Calvin, and the Huguenots, in my comment, below. Shall I list some of the Catholics killed in Lutheran Germany and Scandinavia?

Again, I will keep repeating, I do not condone the intentional killing of innocent people.

"For simply clinging to the Words of Christ, who is the Word of God [...]."

You also claimed that William Tyndale was executed for the act of translating the Bible into English, but, that was not true.

He was tried and executed for heresy, not translating the Scriptures into the vernacular. There were already several English translations in existence, because the Church encouraged the reading of the Scriptures.

You did correct the record concerning your mistake about Wycliff, though. I commend you for that.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:58PM

You are so very disingenuous, Nick.

You are actually going to try and relate the stoning of Stephan to the Catholic Inquisitions?

When Saul (Paul) was unenlightened? Before God called him to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ?

LOL. Very funny, but not, it's actually sickening.

The Papacy murdered Bible believing Christians~ they are supposedly "Christians" themselves~ enlightened souls (supposedly).

You cannot see the difference here? Then you are in utter darkness and worse than I thought!

You are not enlightened yourself~ you are following a false Religion which you continue to defend and have made yourself no better than the murderers you continue to defend here.

You now have taken to also trying to make me look like a liar~ but you sir, are the liar, and your continuous posts prove what you are about.

You speak smooth words, but are no different than Clint/Tim* in your vehemence and disdain for Bible believing Christians, and the defense of your Cult.

"herefore thus says the Holy One of Israel, "Because you despise this Word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and rely on them; therefore this iniquity shall be to you like a break in a high wall, bulging out, and about to collapse, whose crash comes suddenly, in an instant; and its breaking is like that of a potter's vessel which is smashed so ruthlessly that among its fragments not a sherd is found with which to take fire from the hearth, or to dip up water out of the cistern." Is. 30:12-14.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 2:01PM

You say this yet you continue defending them.

"They were heretics."

"They did not repent."

This makes you either insane, or a hypocrite.

JOSEPH| 8.17.11 @ 10:26PM

Nick, you must be a therapist or psychiatrist, very patient and willing to put up with abuse and never responding in kind. Congratulations.

Margie| 8.17.11 @ 10:39PM

LOL.
And God is patient too, but only so far:

"He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck will suddenly be broken beyond healing." Prov, 29:1.

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:28AM

JOSEPH,

Thanks for the compliment.

But, wrong on both counts. I'm just a heating and air conditioning mechanic. And, I've just come to the realization that Christians should not war against each other, that's all.

I want to be a member of the Church Militant, not the Church Belligerent.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.18.11 @ 1:40AM

A militant Religion you belong to, indeed.

Here is just one example of slaughter your papacy committed upon some Christians in France:

In France, Pope Gregory XIII funded and supported the actions of Charles IX in slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children known as the Huguenots. On the same day when over 20,000 Huguenots were massacred, Pope Gregory VIII celebrated a Te Deum at Mass in Rome. He later commissioned three frescoes depicting the events in the Sala Regia of the Vatican Palace commended to painter Giorgio Vasari and a commemorative medal, with his portrait and on the obverse a chastising angel, sword in hand and the legend UGONOTTORUM STRAGES ("Slaughter of the Huguenots ").

Remember when I said for 600 years they slaughtered Bible believing Christians? Remember when I said that a man, an ex-Catholic who became Christian researched the history, and said probably 50 million were Martyred?

That is just one example by one "Pope."

Now, your Religion has never repented of those false teachings by which they make themselves God, as they still do~ and you are one of its promoters~ and do not think that God will hold you accountable for what you believe~ but these false teachings are adhered to today~ and Christians like me are still despised and rejected by your false Religion, just as Christ was and still is by this false Religion.

And you adhere to it. You defend it.

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:21PM

Stuff it, Margie.

patroness| 8.17.11 @ 8:05AM

salvationhistory.com

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 3:44PM

Margie,

Yes, Militant for Christ!

Your source is riddled with errors and only tells half the story.
The Catholics called them Huguenots. They called themselves the Réformés (Reformed). They were French Protestants who followed Calvin. You have told me repeatedly that you are not a Protestant and don't follow the teachings of Calvin. How can these Huguenots be your brethren? Do you even consider Calvin a Christian?

Persecutions against the Huguenots actually began under Francis I, in the 1530's. Your source conviently leaves out the fact that Calvin also persecuted Catholics and executed them. Between Francis I and Charles IX edicts were signed and trials for heresy waned and eventually stopped.

Charles IX's mother, Catharine the Queen regent, was lenient with the Huguenots, as long as there was peace. Prince de Conde, a Huguenot, started the first of the civil wars (the so-called Religious Wars) under the pretense of enforcing the Edict of January. Huguenots were killed, but so were Catholic monks and religious. Catholic churches were ransacked, statues and crosses were mutilated, and relics of saints burned.

I assume your source is referring to the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. The claim of 20,000 deaths is a gross exageration. The Catholic Encyclopedia lists 2,000 deaths for Paris and 6,000 to 8,0000 for the rest of France.The Huguenot Society of South Carolina's website states: "Coligny was murdered and the frenzy spread through Paris and throughout the provinces, resulting in the deaths of an estimated three thousand men, women, and children in three days."

Your source also states that on the same day the Pope celebrated a Mass. How could the Holy Father have known what had happened? When messages took days to travel from France to Rome? Your source is seriously flawed. I wouldn't use it anymore, if I were you.

The real history is that Charles IX lied to the Pope and claimed that the Huguenots had plotted against the king and his lords. Pope Gregory XIII thought that Charles was defending himself and his realm. That is why the Pope commemorated the event. He didn't have all the facts.

At any rate, I do not condone these persecutions, civil wars, or executions for heresy. Also, Pope John Paul II apologized for instances, like this one, and asked forgiveness on behalf of the Catholic Church.

Now, what you, and your source, do not seem to understand (even though I have explained it to you in the past) is that at the time of the Protestant Reformation (16th century A.D.), besides the Papal States, the Pope had no temporal authority over the kings, princes, lords, barons, etc, of other countries, only spiritual authority. Heresy was a state crime. Guilt of heresy was pronounced by the local church authority. But, the sentence, and implementation of the sentence, was carried out by the state authority.

In other words, the Church was called in to verify that the accused was in fact a heretic. The accused was given ample opportunity, in most cases, to repent. If the accused refused to repent, the cleric informed the state court that he was a heretic. The trial continued and the court pronounced a verdict. If found guilty of heresy, the defendant could, but not always, be sentenced to death. If he was to be executed he was given one more chance to recant. If he did not, execution was usually accomplished by burning at the stake. This probably came from Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 21:9, as heresy was believed to come from evil spirits. Which it did, in some cases, but not all.

The point is that it was not the Church, or the Pope, or the bishops, or the priests who executed heretics. Canon law forbade any cleric from shedding blood, for any reason. Capital punishment was always performed by the state, not the Church. And, it was the state, by way of kings, princes, lords, dukes, barons, and parliaments, who passed laws against heresy, to protect the state and society.

When abuses occured, it was the Catholic Church who spoke out and attempted to rein in ruling authority, more often than not. This is how the Inquisition got started, to curb the abuses of the state.

Study this history, Margie, it is very interesting.
God Bless!

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 1:45PM

"In other words, the Church was called in to verify that the accused was in fact a heretic. The accused was given ample opportunity, in most cases, to repent."

Repent? Repent of what? That they believed in God? That they believed the Word of God? Repent of not bowing to the Popes~ yes! (And by not bowing you know exactly what that means so don't bother parsing your words again).

Disgusting!

The ONLY Man that ANYONE needs to bow to OR repent of their sins to, is God Himself and the Lord Jesus Christ. And believing and obeying the Word of God and not the false teachings of Catholicism is not nothing to repent of!

OR what? Off with their heads? Torture and then murder?

Your "Holy Mother Church" is a whore, and anyone who followers this murderous, blasphemous false Religion is a fool.

NO ONE, NOT ANYONE EVER needs to "repent" of believing the Word of God as written in the Bible.

They have NO authority over ANYONE'S soul.

Only Christ does~ and His Martyrs will serve as Judges along with Christ Jesus on the Day of Judgement against your Papists.

"And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly." Rev. 17:6.

This is the whore that you serve, and defend in your posts.

I hope you repent.

Brian Richard Allen | 8.20.11 @ 1:26AM

.... It was a heckuva way to begin the millennium ...!

Nope.

There is no Year Zero.

It was It was a heckuva way to begin the millennium's final year!

(The new millennium began on January 1 2001)

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|35 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|23 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|23 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|38 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|4 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|14 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|11 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Feature

He Called Me Friend

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (398) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jd| 8.15.11 @ 7:08AM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 8:45AM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 8:49AM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 10:04AM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:26AM

JOSEPH| 8.15.11 @ 12:41PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:55PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 12:55PM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 12:59PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:25PM

YeloStalyn@hotmail.com| 8.15.11 @ 3:06PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 3:59PM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 3:10PM

Mister Grady| 8.17.11 @ 2:52AM

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:22AM

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 1:44PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:05PM

RCV| 8.15.11 @ 2:22PM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:17PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 6:50PM

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 8:00PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:10PM

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 10:59PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:18PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:21PM

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 11:12PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.17.11 @ 8:54PM

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:19AM

Frank| 8.16.11 @ 1:39AM

Le Cracquere| 8.15.11 @ 10:05AM

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 10:18AM

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 10:08AM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 11:17AM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 11:29AM

YeloStalyn| 8.15.11 @ 11:37AM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 1:00PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 2:12PM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 3:13PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 4:06PM

Ryan| 8.16.11 @ 11:14AM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:38PM

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 2:44PM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:17PM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 3:18PM

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 4:20PM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 5:57PM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 6:18PM

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 11:33PM

Nick| 8.15.11 @ 7:16PM

C Smith| 8.15.11 @ 11:33PM

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 1:18AM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:09PM

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 5:40PM

Nick| 8.16.11 @ 5:41PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.17.11 @ 8:57PM

Nick| 8.18.11 @ 12:12AM

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:01PM

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:16PM

Margie| 8.15.11 @ 12:57PM

Ryan| 8.15.11 @ 1:01PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:05PM

Ryan| 8.17.11 @ 8:37AM

C Smith| 8.15.11 @ 11:46PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:07PM

Alan Brooks| 8.15.11 @ 8:29PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 12:55PM

Margie| 8.16.11 @ 1:01PM

Tom| 8.18.11 @ 4:03PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 7:19AM

Le Cracquere| 8.15.11 @ 10:13AM

Occam's Tool| 8.15.11 @ 1:41PM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 1:58PM

DaveS| 8.15.11 @ 12:06PM

Chef Schnauzer| 8.15.11 @ 7:40AM

Doctor Right| 8.15.11 @ 7:45AM