Every Catholic church needs to reject Rome, but not for the self serving reasons that this dictator uses. This church started to go towards what satan wants it to do ever since it has been associated with Rome. Remember what Paul wrote. "As we said before, and now I say again, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9. Paul didnt pray to Mary, have churches full of statues, or ask Christ into bread, and he never preached that Peter had any supreme authority over the other apostles, never preached that the apostles should appoint bishops and never preached that any pope was Peter's successor. This all came about years after Paul died, hence is not scriptural. When we get proud and away from scripture, as this dictator, we get into trouble.

Paul didn't listen to radio pastors, either, Clay.

Steeples on churches, collection plates, and pianos aren't scriptural either.

However, the pastors I listen to mention Paul all the time. Steeples, etc dont attempt to change my basic beliefs as to Who Christ is and what He wants us to do, as does believing that communion is a sacrifice instead of the remembrance that Christ said it was to be. Christ said, "do this in remembrence of me." Luke 22:19. The word remembrance means a calling to mind. No where in scripture does it say that the Last Supper (the Passover meal eaten on the night of Christ's betrayal) or the Lord's Supper (the remembrance meal eaten by Christians) is a sacrifice. Nevertheless, Catholic theologians use different passages to justify their position. Christ was referring to the sacrifice He would endure the next day. He didnt simply say "this is my body" or "this is my blood." He said "which is given for you" and "which is poured out for you." He was referring to His sacrifice on the cross. Blood in the chalice cant forgive sins. I dont want to discourage anyone but rather I am trying to encourage people to do the right things. Thanks.

Clay - I’m not going to waste time pointing out all the scriptural references that you ignore that support what you judge. Instead I’ll simply point out your misinterpretation of the only one you quoted. In Galatians Paul is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity. In Chapter 1 he defends his apostolic authority and discusses the influence of the Judaizers in destroying the very essence of the gospel. Salvation through Christ not the Jewish Law.
You are spreading the misinformation and errors most evangelical Christians embrace. Didn’t you argue for no alcohol policy which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible.

I’m sure you will ignore these but I’ll post them anyway. Here are some links. I suggest you spend some time reading what’s there and reflecting and praying on it.

http://users.nni.com/jrblack/Ortho_Evang.html

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm

And you wonder why you are called a bigot. It’s posts like the this one in which you insist on spreading the prejudices of either others or yourself that cause it to occur. You would do well to stop listening to radio preachers or any other ones who insist on spreading half truths and misuse scripture to perpetuate their own bigotries. Try spending your time in prayer and actually studying the church and the Biblical basis for what it does.

Well if you read what I wrote above, there certainly are many people who preach doctrines contrary to that which they have received besides those who didnt preach salvation through Christ but Judaic law instead. I was using what Paul wrote to mean that it applies to today also, regardless of what he was specifically referring to. In the passages I used from what Christ said above, it also applies to what we do today, in making mistakes as well as doing the right thing. I would think and study also before calling someone a bigot. Thanks.

Clay, anyone who studies and thinks about the comments you have made about Catholics, gays, Muslims, Jews, and immigrants,would have to come to the inevitable conclusion that you are a bigot.

You chose that label by continually posting your prejudices. Nobody gave it to you but you.

No one is a bigot because they say that Jews and Muslims arent getting to heaven without Christ. For someone to say that someone is a bigot for saying that, the person calling the other a bigot must think there is some way they can get in without Him. It isnt true. No one is a bigot for pointing out Catholic traditions that arent scriptural, and also saying that if they arent, they are leading away from God and therefore towards the devil. No one is a bigot for repeating what the bible says about homosexuality. When someone like our president says that there should be a "redistribution of wealth" and means that whites should give more money to blacks and Hispanics, who generally make less, to me that borders on bigotry. The bible says that we should help all the poor, not just those of certain races. When he and other Democrats want to allow more people across the border so those people will be more likely to vote for their party, even if those people are here illegally, that borders on bigotry also. Everyone of any country should have an equal chance of coming here. When the Democrats want everyone to be of the same class, creating socialism like in Greece that will go under after continuing to borrow money from China, it is not just bigotry against people who make more money, it is just plain stupid. People should be rewarded for working hard and should take care of the poor through charity and the churches and only through the government when in an emergency, as we seem to be getting more and more into. We shouldnt be forcing people to say, as in Europe, "dont tell people I am renting to you and I will rent you the apartment for 200 less per month. That way I wont have to pay taxes to the government on it." You think these comments are bigoted comments? I disagree. When the government starts telling people to pray to God then they are starting to do the right thing.

It might not be bigoted to imagine that Catholic traditions aren't scriptural. But it is bigoted to refer to the Body of Christ as a “wafer” and say that the Universal Church is “satanic.”

To suggest that a redistribution of wealth “means that whites should give more money to blacks and Hispanics” is bigoted, there is no way around that.

You ignore the bible Clay. You pick a few phrases that, out of context, justify your prejudices. You talk of “imitating Christ” yet you totally miss the point that the very phrase comes from Catholicism, from St. Thomas à Kempis. But you do not imitate Christ Clay when you attack the president for saying the very same thing that Christ told you to do.

St. Teresa of Avila wrote to the Sisters of her order:

“If we turn our backs on Him and go away sorrowfully like the youth in the gospel when He tells us what to do to be perfect, what can God do? For He must proportion the reward to our love for Him. This love... must not be the fabric of our imagination; we must prove it by our works. Yet do not suppose that our Lord has any need of any works of ours; He only expects us to manifest our goodwill.”

Mark 10: 20-22
20 And he answered and said to Him, “Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth.”
21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”
22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Christ himself told you to give up everything you have and to give it to the poor. Rather being an obedient Christian you whine that you should be able to keep yours because you are white, and that the poor do not deserve you help because you fear they may be black or Hispanic. That is not an imitation of Christ. That is a mockery of Christ.

I meant to sign my post and I meant also to include this link to The Imitation of Christ:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.all.html

Dana,

In my ongoing quest to understand you religious folk, could you answer a question for me?

Several times, you have chastised Clay for referring to the Host as a "wafer." In my Episcopal youth, I don't remember this being a bad thing. Does this go back to some fundamental difference between Protestantism and Catholicism -- perhaps dealing with transubstantiation? In my tradition (admittedly low-church Episcopalianism), I don't believe we were taught that the elements of the Eucharist literally became the Body and Blood of Christ, but that they were symbols of Jesus' sacrifice and commemoration for the events of the Last Supper. Why is it so very offensive for Clay to refer to the "wafer," coming as he does from his Protestant tradition?

(The "Satanic" part I get.)

As Clay (and other civil people) would say...Thanks!

Perhaps I'm too sensitive BankStreet. The word is innocuous of itself, just as “queer” is a harmless word until someone is yelling it out their car window. You'll find that on these blogs the word is only used by Clay and by Robert Littel, and that it used to be pejorative. Or in the article about an offensive Chick's tract that read ““The creation of the wafer god was the greatest religious con job in world history, this religious weapon is one of the most powerful idols ever created by man.”

Flap in Tennessee over anti-Catholic tract, March 7, 2010, “1988 tract “The Death Cookie”

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2010/03/baptist_catholic_death_cookie.html

“A priest commands Christ to come down into a wafer? That is a heresy. As I said, If I prayed to Moe of the Three Stooges....” (Clay Oct. 24 2009)

I'll accept that I'm being too judgmental over a word. Still, when the word is in close proximity to comments about the Three Stooges as a reference to the Trinity and the like I am sure I have not misread Clay's intentions, which are in lockstep with the cartoon Chick tracts.

OK ... those *are* offensive!

Personally ... I haven't adopted the "queer" thing. Either I'm just not that edgy ..or I have too many memories from junior high.

My apologies to Mr. Littel. He did not use the word. His name appeared in a search and I made a grievous error of detraction.

Again, Robert. My apologies.

They should put Monsignor Cadieries in charge of this whole mess. He could fix it. I'll never forget, Geraldo was walking down the hall of St. John Vianney and I said "Good ta see ya'" and he thought I said "Barriga'. He said "Why did you call me Barriga?". I tried to explain. But at this point I really have the heft to understand. Anyways, he was a good guy, and I am sure he could fix this mess as one of the highest Venezuelans in the Curia.

My Lord, how will the Vatican ever make any sense to the world when there are hagiographers like Tracey Rowlands around in The Tablet trying to turn the Pope into a Stone Guest? Her recent attempt at apologetics for this bedraggled intellectual is called "Ratzinger the Romantic.' And as usual I can thank my erstwhile seminary friend Michael Sean Winters for the heads up to this masterpiece of conceptual chicanery. (I had to out-wait a few predictable days of malware to get it. I am too busy with really interesting intellectual ideas to skulk around for Catholic ones. thus I must consult La Winters)

Here is the big news on Ratzinger the Romantic. : "Francisco Suárez, who
begins the tradition of thinking of revelation as a series of dogmatic propositions."

Well, this is an old tactic, blame the Jesuits! It has worked before, let us try it again. Are Catholic "intellectuals" really so bereft at this point that they think ANYONE will buy the idea that hyper-dogmatism in theology is all a Jesuit corruption? Apparently the Catholic world is now just the realm of sloppy thinkers, and half-baked intellectual historians. It is disgusting from a scholarly point of view! I really want to throw- up. To think that this person thinks she can spin this tale at this point. It is against intellectual history, it is against the conundrums of our shared common religious heritage which we must all try to help heal.

The relation to the Venezuela post is that
basically Chavez and Ratzinger's minions deserve each other. It is a dictatorship of half-baked concepts, and sentimentality. I thank God that I studied with at least a few really brilliant Catholic scholars or I would think it just the most incorrigible crock of baloney ever devised. They can do a lot better than this1

I havent used the word queer here for anything, on any blog. Also I never inferred that the poor do not need my help because they are black and Hispanic. I said that the churches should be encouraged to help the poor more than the government. The president seems to be the one hung up on race, with his not wanting to crack down on illegal immigrants right now, "lets think about it first" attitude. Also, I never referred to the Catholic church as satanic, there are many people there on fire for God. What I said was that there are many elements about this church that are satanic. If satan can keep people concentrating on Mary appearing here and there and concentrating on things like the communion cup and rituals, then he has accomplished a lot. Have a good one.

Clay, let me refresh your memory so that you might retract your current statement: “Also, I never referred to the Catholic church as satanic, ….”

“The Catholic church is suffering for allowing SATAN to run rampant ….” (Clay | June 28, 2010 8:58 AM)

“There are a lot of things about the Catholic Church that are SATANIC themselves. You can read the Chick tract about the church to find out what they are, but in my opinion the main thing is pride and straying from scripture. That keeps us in the wrong direction....” (Clay | June 17, 2010 11:38 AM)

“The problem is Romanism. This church needs to get rid of it as having anything to do with the leadership of the church. SATAN frolicked in Rome in the days of Caesar and still does.... “ (Clay | June 8, 2010 11:39 AM)

“SATAN is very much a part of the Vatican and the Catholic Church,....” (Clay | March 11, 2010 10:40 PM)

“If I pray to Moe of the Three Stooges and someone's cancer is healed, should I ask the church to give him sainthood? What the church has to keep in mind is that SATAN has a way of sneaking into situations....” (Clay | October 19, 2009 3:16 PM)

“If this is how it is done in the Catholic church it is a huge mistake and probably the biggest one being made by the Catholic church to help SATAN....” (Clay | September 11, 2009 8:54 AM)

Emphasis mine. None of us said that you used the word “queer.” I had shared with BankStreet that your use of the word “wafer” in reference to the body of Christ was offensive in the same way that a bigot shouting “queer” from a car window is offensive. Neither word is denotatively offensive, they are only offensive within the practice of attacking others.

Thanks, and have a good one. Meanwhile look over the direct quotes from your anti-Catholic ramblings. Then go to church and explain it to your maker. He's waiting.

Clay - Maybe you should re-read my post. I never called you a bigot. I said “you wonder why you are called a bigot”. You are the one who has brought the issue of skin color into discussions in more than one occasion. Comments like this are what lead people to call you a bigot "When someone like our president says that there should be a "redistribution of wealth" and means that whites should give more money to blacks and Hispanics, who generally make less, to me that borders on bigotry" The Bible makes no distinction between who we help so why do you? The president isn't hung up on race Clay you are. The only one mentioning race is you. I actually don’t ever remember hearing where the president mentioned redistribution of wealth and race together. You misinterpret the meaning of his statements and actions based on your own prejudices against him, just as you misinterpret the meaning of scripture to support your own biased views of Catholicism. You really should work on getting the log from your own eye rather that worrying about the speck in other people’s eyes.

Like I said, there are many things about the Catholic church that are satanic. There is no way that everything about this church is, so it is not satanic as a whole. Being against abortion for example. Thanks.

So you own up to the fact that you lied, bore false witness, when you wrote: “Also, I never referred to the Catholic church as satanic, ….”

Is that correct Clay. How are we supposed to know when you are telling the truth? Ouija board? Magic Eight Ball? Tarot?

Radio preachers?

Clay,

I think you'll get into a lot less trouble if, in the future, you referred to those elements of the Catholic church with which you have differences as "troubling," worrisome," or even, "contrary to my reading of Scripture." I think no one here will fault you for taking your stridency down a notch, you will have made your point, and ( I dare say), your "witnessing" points will be secure.

Something to think about as you strive to more responsible citizenship in the blogosphere....

Clay the only one doing the work of Satan here is you. You just admitted to bearing false witness against a church different from your own. How can you witness by breaking commandments? Maybe you should listen to Bankstreet. Maybe you should be asking yourself what did Christ say were the greatest two commandments and then ask yourself am I following them? Keep in mind that bearing false witness against a person or church could hardly be consistent with following them.

Clay you have no basis, scriptural or other to make such statements. All you have is your own prejudices reinforced the misintrpretation of scriptures of others.

By the way you seem more concentrated on Mary than any Catholic I've ever encountered. You never answered a question I posed on another strory. Does your church permit divorce and remarriage? Just curious since Christ was pretty specific on that issue.

I never bore false witness against anything. The Catholic church has many elements that are satanic, so many that one could say that it is essentially controlled by the devil. There are many elements of this church that arent satanic. Do I need to repeat it? Why? As far as divorce goes, Christ said that he who divorces his wife and marries another, except in cases of sexual infidelity, commits adutery. What difference does it make what my or any other church permits? If they dont go along with what Christ said, they are wrong. I havent asked my pastor if he marries divorced people so I dont know. I will ask him if it matters. Thanks.

Clay - First you claimed the Catholic Church Satanic then you denied saying it then you basically said it again. You most certainly did bear false witness and now you are trying to double talk your way out of it. You don't need to repeat it you need to prove it which you can't. I’m guessing you never read the links I gave you particularly the one which reveals the error in evangelical views many of which you quote frequently. Did you ever consider that is exactly what Satan would want, Christians arguing amongst themselves over minor theological differences?

If you are going to attack other churches for what you feel are deviations from Christ's teachings then you should also hold your own church to the same standards shouldn't you? What exactly is it about removing the log from your own eye you don't get?

Clay I wanted to make sure I understand you. It doesn't matter to you if the pastor at your church violates a direct teaching of Christ, but it matters to you what a Church you don't belong to and do not fully know about does? Doesn't that seem a bit backwards to you?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2482 "…. The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Clay speaks according to his own nature.

"I never referred to the Catholic church as satanic, ….” (Clay, July 18)

In trying to understand a person like Clay I cannot recommend highly enough the Princeton University Press publication by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt, entitled simply Bullshit. Frankfurt does a thorough analysis of contemporary modes of argument and discovers something very curious. Many people are not really liars, for lying involves a sort of recognition of the truth. Of course this odd recognition comes along with an attempt to avoid that
recognized truth with a deception, a lie. But Frankfurt noticed that this contemporary societal view also includes one which has not respect for the parameters of the truth at all. It is thus a fairly recent phenomenon. Bullshit, and the bullshitter are indifferent to the truth. The do not deceive so much spread the indifference around with a mixture of half-truths and destabilizing, chaotic rhetoric.

This is why what Mr. Clay is doing is technically and linguistically Bullshit. He regularly presents right-wing assertions mixed with politically correct back-pedaling when needed. It is a mixture which makes no sense. The thing about Bullshit is that it can just go on and on. There is no reference point. All realities and assertions are fungible. Assertions of dogmatic implacability come with assertions of phony "understanding". Other people or organizations are "satanic" but then, by some lights ,he interprets them not to be such. The truth does not matter. What matters is the continuance of the Bullshit.

I am certainly not saying that Christianity is Bullshit. Not at all. But Clay's defense of it, like so many others, sure is.

Tomás de Torquemada - I suspect Clay speaks according to right wing evangelical nonsense, or as Concerned Christain put it BS. I suspect his a ctual knowledge is limited and he listens to those he thinks are knowledgable and soaks up their right-wing assertions mixed with incorrect use of scriptures to support anti-Catholic propaganda.

I shouldnt need to say it again but I will. I never said that the Catholic church is satanic, meaning satanic as a whole. What I said is, there are many elements of this church that are. So many in fact, that one could argue that it is satanic as a whole. However I do see many good Christians in this church who attempt to do the right things for God. In that respect it cant be satanic as a whole. I havent backpedaled at anything or changed my opinion at all. However, when you look at Rome and all the influences of the devil there, and consider that even the good people in this church have that satanic headquarters over them, maybe I should just say that this church is satanic period. That is what people here are saying that I am saying, and it certainly could be easily argued. But then I think of the nice guy who is out there trying to stop abortion clinics and I think "he is doing the right thing" so I dont want to say that this church is satanic as a whole. Can I explain my position any clearer than that? It hasnt changed. As for the divorce issue, I will ask my pastor about it and see what he has to say. Even if he does say something contrary to scripture (which I doubt he will) should I go to a church controlled by Rome instead? Why should I? It would have to be worse. And I dont incorrectly use scripture. In cases where someone here tried to argue that my new testament scripture that speaks against homosexuality really doesnt, they made a fool of themselves in my opinion. If Christ said that he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, except in cases of sexual immorality, that is what He said. I didnt add anything to it. Have a good one.

" I never said that the Catholic church is satanic, meaning satanic as a whole. What I said is, there are many elements of this church that are. So many in fact, that one could argue that it is satanic as a whole. "

Give 'em enough rope, and they hang themselves.

Here's a more fair reasonable way to address the whole issue. The Catholics have some real problems.

And concerned, another way of saying it is that not everything about the Catholic church is satanic but there are many elements that are. If any church has real problems, never leave the devil out of it. We are seeing less church attendance today in the end times, less Christians in support of one another, an apathy towards support of Christianity and God's word, less funds coming in to churches and more and more attacks on Christian values, such as courts being asked to rule against prayer in schools, etc. The devil supports all of this. What any church needs to do is to kick him out as much as possible. That doesnt happen easily with the main leader in a church saying "Mary is everywhere." Thanks.

Clay, I only provided direct quotations of your accusations against the Church. Don't try to weasel out of it by making foolish comments like “what people here are saying that I am saying.” They are your own words.

Oh. You didn't mean the “entire” Church. What kind of inane bull**** is that Clay?

"When I called it a brick house I didn't mean the “entire” house was brick, just the outside walls." Is that your logic?

If that poster who keeps referring to you as an “idiot” were to say “I wasn't calling Clay an idiot, just his brain is an idiot, I'm sure his toes are quite intelligent,” would you then believe that he didn't mean to say you are an idiot?

My apologies to Mr. Littel. My intention was illustrative. I do not want to suggest that his reasoning powers are comparable to Clay's.

And again Dana, I dont mean the entire church. With good, God fearing people there, it isnt possible. Thanks.

Clay - You can’t have it both ways. By saying many elements you are calling the Catholic Church satanic. You can’t have it both ways. Why are you so caught up on Rome? The devil has had and still has influence all over the world, including tricking Christians into attacking one another. Something to consider before continuing criticizing things you don’t understand. You have been corrected numerous times and provide links and other reference to try and learn the truth. You just choose to ignore it. You most certainly do misapply scripture. You look for tiny phases and sentence to justify your flawed understanding of the Church. You also ignore sections of the Bible like those about judging others, turning the other cheek, remember that tired of turning the other cheek comment on another article? You add to Scriptures as well with concepts like no alcohol or the concept of scripture only. Neither of which are mentioned in the Bible. You skirted my question on remarriage. I’m sure you know what Christ. My question was does your church or pastor follow it? I suspect you the reason you don’t ask your pastor is you’re afraid he will tell you he violates Christ teachings and it’s easier for you to simply cover your eyes and ears and not know. I feel sorry for you Clay. You cling to your narrow views of Christianity and by doing so miss the real meaning of the heart of what Christ called the two greatest commandments. That’s why you emphasize God fearing as opposed to God loving people.

And again Ravensfan, it cant mean the whole church if there are good God fearing people there. It isnt possible. Can you wait until I ask my pastor on Sunday about remarriage or do you want me to call him now? What is your point? That the Catholic church doesnt allow it so I have no business criticizing them if mine does? I already said that if they go against what Christ says then they are wrong. What are you attempting to do? Also, there are many people in the Catholic church that I love and call my friends, regardless of the errors I see in the church, including the acceptance of the big devil stronghold of Rome. There just may be more to myself than what you are allowing yourself to believe. Maybe you could ask me about things like this instead of assuming. I dont believe that I am assuming anything about this church. I have heard enough about it from too many people, including clergy. I left references here that you said you didnt have time to refute at the time. So here is another one. The Roman Catholic church claims that purgatory has a biblical basis. Their primary evidence is from the book of Second Maccabees where there is a passage about a battle. 2 Maccabees 12:39-46. Catholic scholars say that since the slain "had gone to rest in Godliness" they were not in hell. Since they needed to be freed from sin through atonement, they didnt go to heaven either. Therefore it is assumed that the souls of the slain must have been in some third location, which they call purgatory. These passages do not provide a scriptural basis for purgatory. There is no direct reference to it. Also the passage is generally inconsistent. It says that the slain had "gone to rest in Godliness" but the warriers were idolators who had been judged by God for their sin and died in their guilt. There is nothing in the Law Of Moses that would indicate that offerings for the dead were ever an authentic part of the Jewish faith. Second Maccabees 12 proves nothing more than that the unknown writer believed that sacrifices could atone for the sins of the dead. The money sent to Jerusalem by Judas Maccabaeus was more likely to provide for a sin or trespass offering, not to provide for the dead. His purpose would have been to atone for the defilement that the sin of the idolators had brought upon the camp, in which case the offering was for the living, not for the dead. Roman Catholic scholars also point to Matthew 12:32 where Christ says, "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or the age to come." Catholic scholars argue that when Jesus warns that speaking against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in the age to come, He implies that some sins can be forgiven in this future life. If they can be forgiven after death, there must be a place of postdeath atonement, or purgatory. This both distorts and goes beyond what Christ said. Christ taught that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. The converse of the statement is neither necessarily implied nor necessarily true. It seems to me that when people in a church take what scripture says and use it for whatever they and others have traditionally believed, for whatever reason, that they are doing what the devil wants them to. Isnt Rome the head of the Catholic church? This is one of the reasons I have a problem with it. If you want to debate this or any other points you can feel free to do so. God bless.

As you've pointed out a few times Clay, "When in Rome, do as the Romans".

Clay - The only point with the question about divorce and marriage is to make you consider why you are concerned with pointing out what you perceive as the wrongs of the one church and not concerned with what your own church does. I've asked you plenty of things and usually I don't get a response from you.

I’m going to skip over Second Maccabees and deal with Matthew 12:32. How can you Catholic scholars have distorted anything? If there are sins that can not be forgiven in this life or the next then it stands to reason there are sins that can. If that weren’t so why mention this life of the next? A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:
"For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
The only thing the Church did was give a name – Purgatory. Rome is nothing more than a city Clay. The devil is no more present there than any place else. Your problem is you are locked into one of the classic Evangelical errors

“that the Christian Church had plunged into error and apostasy by the fourth or fifth century AD. This theory claims that corruption was introduced as pagan philosophies and customs entered the Church during the years after the Apostolic Age. Therefore, Evangelicals argue, any writings, customs, practices, beliefs and teachings that date from after the 100's can pretty much be dismissed as apostate error, after the Church was "hijacked" by the forces of evil.”
Here’s something to consider regarding your devil in Rome theory. Bible-believing Christians cannot believe that the Church fell into pagan error. Because the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself spoke these words: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18).
So therefore, if the Church fell into apostasy and error by the 4th and 5th centuries AD, then the gates of hell DID prevail against it, and the Church was corrupted and destroyed; therefore Christ is a liar, and the Bible contains errors and falsehoods. So on one hand, Evangelicals claim to be Bible-believers, and at the same time, they believe in a theory of Church history that makes God and the Bible both liars.
I do have a some questions for you. What clergy are you referring to are the Catholic or closer to your own church? Why do you feel it your responsibility to criticize any other church? How do you reconcile that with Christ telling us to remove the log from our own eye and being without sin to cast the first stone?
“Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14).
Pride. Boastfulness. Being "puffed up." These are all sins condemned in the New Testament. The Evangelicals do a good job of convincing themselves that they are right, and everybody else is wrong. To prove it, they can point to hundreds of Evangelical books by Evangelical authors, all of which say that the Evangelical theory is correct. I guess that if a roomful of people keep slapping themselves on the back, congratulating themselves that they are the only people that know the truth, eventually they will all succumb to believing it.
Clay you may be well intentioned, but all you are really doing is helping satan by stirring up friction with other Christians because of either your own or someone else’s biased views.

To turn 1 Cor 3: 11-15 into a passage about purgatory is to ignore its context. In the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians Paul is addressing a problem in the church at Corinth. Glory seeking false teachers were destroying the unity of the church with their worldly wisdom. In your passage, Paul is warning these troublemakers that one day they will have to give an account to God for it. Paul illustrates his point by comparing ministry in the church at Corinth to the construction of a building. Paul laid the building's foundation when he planted the church there during his second missionary journey. The workers constructing the building's walls are those presently ministering in the Corinthian church. If these workers serve well, it is as if they were building with bricks of gold, silver and precious stones. If they serve poorly-such as those who were causing the division-it is as if they were building with wood, hay and straw.
In the future, Christ will evaluate the ministry of each servant. Paul compares this judgement to the imaginary building he has just described as being set ablaze. If a man's work remains, having been built with durable materials, he will receive a reward. If a man's work burns up, having been built with inferior materials, he will suffer the loss of a reward that might have been his.
The Roman Catholic interpretation completely misses the point. Paul is using an analogy. He is not talking about a real fire. He is not talking about men and women burning. Paul is speaking of an imaginary building that represents a person's ministry, not the individual himself. Figuratively speaking, it is a person's work that will burn, not the person himself. The focus of the illustration is the potential loss of reward for poor service, not the atonement of sin or the cleansing of souls. Though there is no biblical basis for purgatory, there is a strong need for it in Catholic theology. The church views salvation as the objective adornment or beautification of the soul. It is a process which starts at Baptism, through which sanctifying grace is initially infused. This makes the soul holy and pleasing to God. Other sacraments and good works make the soul increasingly attractive to God. The goal is to transform the essential character of the soul into something which is in itself objectively good. It is therefore only reasonable to require the complete cleansing of every vestige of sin before the soul came come into the presence of God. Purgatory, therefore, is the logical extension of the church's process of salvation. Also, according to the church, every sin credits temporal punishment to the sinner's account. Act of penance and suffering debit this account. Since sinners may not make full satisfaction for sin in this life, purgatory in the afterlife is necessary to balance the ledger. Also, the church uses purgatory to motivate Catholics to live righteously. If there were no purgatory, the reasoning goes, people would go on sinning without fear.
Dont make the mistake of thinking that Catholics are the only remnants of Peter's church which will stand. They are part of it. Why I criticize this church, as far as most of what is mentioned above goes anyway, is because I dont like to see satan convince people that they need to go through obsessive and compulsive rituals to get to heaven. It is a huge obstacle to salvation, which is very simple. Salvation is a matter of asking Christ to come into one's life, attempting to live a sin free life even though all of us die sinners, and knowing that we are saved and will go to heaven when we die, and if not, to hell. To make it more complicated than that, being in existence before some other church or not, only helps the devil. Thanks.

This list is a convenient compilation of all the ways to obtain a plenary indulgence. Note that in addition to the described work, obtaining a plenary indulgence also has the following conditions (see Norms which are summarized below):

Sacramental confession. A single sacramental confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences; but Communion must be received and prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff must be recited for the gaining of each plenary indulgence.
Eucharistic Communion.
Prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff. The condition of praying for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion.
It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent. If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only, saving the provisions given in Norms 34 and 35.
Obtainable any time any place

Reading of Sacred Scripture
Recitation of the Marian Rosary (Rosarii marialis recitatio)
Exercise of the Way of the Cross
Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament
Obtainable on special occasions

Papal Blessing - even by radio
Closing Mass of a Eucharistic Congress
During a Diocesan Synod
During a Pastoral Visitation
Obtainable on special days

1st January
Each Friday of Lent and Passiontide after communion
Holy Thursday
Good Friday
Paschal Vigil
Feast of Pentecost [26 May in 1996]
Feast of Corpus Christi - 2nd Thursday after Pentecost
Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus - 3rd Friday after Pentecost
Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul - 29 June
"Portiuncula" - 2 August
November 1-8
All Souls Day - November 2
Last Day of the Year
Visit to a Church or Oratory of Religious on the Feast of the Holy Founder
Titular Feast of the Parochial Church
Visit to a Church or an Altar on the day of its consecration
Obtainable on special days at special places

Visit to the Patriarchal Basilicas in Rome
Visit to the Stational Churches of Rome
Obtainable on special occasions in one's life

First Communion
Attending a mission
Spiritual Exercises
First Mass of newly-ordained Priests
Jubilees of Sacerdotal Ordination
The Moment of Death

In addition, pledging money for the retirement funds of dioceses depleted through legal pay-outs also gains a plenary indulgence.

In Christi,

Fr. Tetzel

Clay. You plagiarized the bulk of your comment from James McCarthy's anti-Catholic web site. I knew it was too well written to be your words. Is plagiarism one of those "Christian" values you fundies hold dear?

Looks like the work of the little red dude on your shoulder to me.

Clay - Nothing is being twisted. You use the same type of quoting to make your case so are you are admitting you twist verses out of context? You also never commented on Matthew 12:32 after I refuted your analysis. In short Clay the Biblical basis is there you just refuse to open your eyes and see it. Instead as has been pointed out you are taking the material from an anti-Catholic website. Funny how you are ok spending time looking those up, but ignore links provided which would expose your flawed understanding of the Church. Without going into too much detail I’ll only a statement of Catechism’s regarding salvation CCC 161.

“Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

Your borrowed definition of salvation is over simplified. Scriptures mention the importance of baptism as well as following traditions handed down which was done before the NT was even written.

Here is some more information which I am borrowing from a website of an evangelical who converted to Orthodox Christianity.
“Christian history and archeological research now show that, in fact, many of the practices and customs of the both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches most definitely existed in the Early NT Church. The writings of the Early Fathers, for example, witness and testify that many of these practices were already in place before the 300's. The prestigious Protestant publication Christian History, in Vol. XII Number 1, (1993), presented a full-issue exploration of "Worship in the Early Church." Among their sources they cited Justin Martyr (150 AD), Hippolytus (215 AD), Cyprian of Carthage (255 AD), and the Didache (pronounced DEE-dah-kay) c. 100 AD. Among their findings:
1. Worship in the Early NT Church was liturgical in nature, centered around the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The laity did not sit around a big room holding Bible studies; no, there was a certain hierarchy proceeding from the local bishop (episcopos), through the presbyters and deacons, for the active, physical worship of God, using hymns, prayers, litanies, and responses. The congregation took an active role in the participation during these services. Understandably enough, these services borrowed much from the cycles and rhythms of the Jewish culture, and made extensive use of the Psalter.
2. Baptism was not optional; full immersion water baptism was generally understood by all to be the sacrament that offered admission into the Church, and which marked the beginning of the live of the believer. Entire households were baptized, including children and infants.
3. Also, they discovered, that by the early 200's Christians everywhere identified themselves by making the Sign of the Cross. This was not a pagan superstition - it was the way in which True Believers in the Holy Lord Jesus Christ secretly identified themselves to each other during a time when the Church was under persecution by the ungodly forces of evil. It is a practice and a piety that was carried down throughout the centuries.
By the way all of this occurred before the Roman Empire embraced Christianity.

Ravensfan. I respect your scholarship. Our faith needs more like you.

I really get a kick out of this discussion. Take heart folks, isn't it great there are still people interested in having this sort of lively dispute? Those who get moody at times -- and I count myself in that number -- and say that nothing has improved in human affairs, well take note. At least discussions like this can be had without people being dispatched by the pointy weapon of a Landsknecht.

The talk of all the apostasy of the Church in the 4th and 5th Century is rich. How many apostasies? At the highest levels of government, Arianism especially. By the same folks who brought us the institution of Roman Christianity in the first place. What is truly remarkable is that there is a CONSTANT market for the latest interpretation of these apostasies showing a sort of inevitable triumph of orthodoxy. People like Clay, and the websites he quotes or cribs ought to be seen in this light, They have a story that explains supposed pagan infiltrations into Christianity. But they scarcely look at the sources. There are so many reasons why. One possible interpretation, and I won't say the only one concerns the Trinity, which they naturally consider part of the original orthodox package of the Scriptures. Sure it can somehow be found in the New Testament. But if you compare the likelihood of reading a Trinitarian God from the New Testament to the likelihood of reading it from Neo-Platonism, well there is difference. A big difference. If evangelical types want to pretend that the fundamental orthodox doctrines have so little to do with Greek thought, well, have it. History can be spun, no doubt. But you have a lot of it to throw out to do it. A very wise and learned Doctor of the scriptures has said in our times that many of the statements of Jesus about central matters fall in the tradition of riddle speech. One conclusion I draw from this, perhaps not in the original intent, is that a riddle has a number of answers. And the answer may not be the whole point. The riddle may be the point. That is why Jesus said it, on this interpretation. But I acknowledge orthodoxy is another matter. Here still, though, the historical record is vastly more complicated than people would like to make it.

If you want my personal opinion, there are two issue here. The life-giving riddles that Jesus (and others) have told throughout history. In Jesus' case these riddles include statements of his Divinity. But like all riddles, what do they mean? These break through the nasty dross of so much of life, with its predictable egoism or worse delusion. And on the other side, there is Orthodox Neo-Platonism, also known as traditional Christianity. With all due respect!

Sorry Peter. The riddle has only one answer. It will be found under the cork disk inside the bottle cap of an old bottle of beer. Sadly, like the whereabouts of the Grail, it has been lost.

For those who are willing to join in the quest I can only say that the beer bottle was opened at a church picnic in 1968, at the Woodstock College in Baltimore County, among Jesuits. But the bottle itself was opened by a Nun of the Sisters of Mercy. She was ninety four years old at the time and it was her last church picnic away from her home convent.

This was before the first "Earth Day" so she flipped the bottle cap onto the ground. The Jesuits, of course, knew that the secret answer to "the riddle" would be revealed via a bottle of beer. In fact they had told the ancient nun, who was visiting from Tennessee. But she was hard of hearing. She misunderstood their question when she was asked what she did with her bottle cap. She looked wistfully towards a group of children at play and said, "Them kids is cute."

I wish I could tell you more. This is all that I know. But like all riddles, what does it mean?

Please, Dana, for the love of all that is holy, don't get Clay started again on the drinking habits (pun entirely unintentional) of Catholics!

Dana,

That was brilliant! Now there is a Catholicism I can get behind without hesitation. With alcohol and nuns you can't go wrong!

Peter

P.S. I knew a former Dominican nun years ago who told me that much of her nun life was devoted to finding ways to hide her tipple in her teacher's desk at school. Anyways, that remains my definition of a drinking problem. If you drink during the day, you might be a nun.

BankStreet, the more Clay writes about Catholics the deeper the pit he digs for himself. Peter, maybe we could take up a collection to supply hip flasks for the nuns. I saw these on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Stained-Catholic-Madonna-Blessed-Nuestra/dp/B00271HLES

Dana,

That flask is great. I just wonder, when they made that product with the Madonna on the flask, at whom were they aiming as the potential consumer? Very curious. Maybe it was Nuns. Anyways, for those of us who went to Catholic schools and saw the poor frazzled Nuns trying to keep peace in overcrowded classrooms, well, would anyone blame them for drinking?

One of the curious things about Catholics and Evangelicals these days is that they are so busy playing nice-nice because they support each other opportunistically on various social obsessions, that a big factor is left out. Namely, that if you want to see real, developed anti-Catholicism check out a lot of the official theological writings of evangelical seminaries no less. To say nothing of myriad websites. Of course this is not a mainstream issue. For instance the members of the Washington Theological Consortium here get along just fine. I can attest to that because I was in several of those classes. But some of the evangelicals really have a regressive theology when it comes to Catholics. Yet the Catholic Church is happy to play footsie with them when it serves a Machiavellian purpose. Then they have blowhards spend their time calling Kathy Griffin a great anti-Catholic danger. First of all, anyone who went through twelve years of Catholic schooling should get a pass anyways. But more to the point, surely comediennes are less important than their "friends" the evangelicals whose whole theology is wrapped around supposedly inexorable notions of Catholics going to hell.

Most of what I wrote yesterday comes from the book "The Gospel According To Rome." Anti-Catholic? Look at the confusing mess written above about plenary indulgences, and I am not saying anything bad about the man who wrote it or his intentions. It is clear that people in this church are bogged down with all kinds of unnecessary rituals. Now who wants them to do that? The devil. Am I being anti-Catholic? Not at all. Do I want Catholics to leave the church? No. The church needs to change. It needs to start by getting rid of Roman control and getting rid of unnecessary routines like trying to completely cleanse the soul before we get to heaven. It cant be done. It needs to stop thinking that one must go to a Catholic church or their mass commitments havent been fulfilled. This is being a worry wart more than being prideful. It is being obsessive. Are all Christians besides Catholics going to hell? Obviously not. So then why mass commitments to this church only? Will it result in a better place in heaven? These routines have too much foolishness in them, and I am not saying that communion is foolishness or anything like that. There certainly are unnecessary rituals surrounding Catholic communion, like asking Christ to come down into the bread. It is horrible. So if I put here something about these practices, I am trying to help, not hurt. Christ in no way approves of many of the practices of this church. Simplify, simplify. It gets us closer to Him.

Dana,

Nice. Looks like something Ale Mary's might want to acquire.

Clay - Yes that book is anti-Catholic. Try reading these “The Gospel According to James McCarthy “ by Gary Michuta. Another one written by a former evangelical is “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” Dave Armstrong the author was working on a lengthy historical and biblical critique to use to entice his Catholic friends in an ecumenical study group out from under “yoke of Rome” what he found caused his conversion to Catholicism.

Since you brought up the topic of pride don’t you think it’s a bit prideful to be looking at other churches and telling them what they need to be doing? Here is some more from a website of a former evangelical now Orthodox Christian.

Pride: Still a Sin, Right?
Now that I'm Orthodox, I can see how prideful we were as Evangelicals. Oh my goodness, how puffed up with Pride! "We're the only denomination that knows the truth! We're the only ones that really know the Lord! We're the only church that really knows the Scriptures! Everybody else is walking in error, but we're not! Our interpretation is right, everybody else is wrong! Thank goodness we're not as those people over there, they're all lost and walking in error. And oh my goodness, look at them over there - they call themselves Christians? I don't think so! They might think they're saved, but they're not saved like we are saved, because we're better than they are! We've analyzed each and every one of their doctrines with a microscope, and we've written a scientific paper that proves 144 reasons why what they believe can't possibly be reconciled with Scripture, according to our interpretation, because our interpretation is right, it's the only way it makes sense, because we're right, and everybody else is wrong, they are all walking in error, but we're not, Praise God and Hallelujah!"
In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, our Savior says,
"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14).
Pride. Boastfulness. Being "puffed up." These are all sins condemned in the New Testament. The Evangelicals do a good job of convincing themselves that they are right, and everybody else is wrong. To prove it, they can point to hundreds of Evangelical books by Evangelical authors, all of which say that the Evangelical theory is correct. I guess that if a roomful of people keep slapping themselves on the back, congratulating themselves that they are the only people that know the truth, eventually they will all succumb to believing it. Even though their entire theory of church history is totally absurd. Even though their understanding of the Christian revelation in other countries is woefully short-sighted. Even though their theory of sacramentality is limited to believing that "if the Catholics invented it, it must be wrong."
The point is Clay instead of going around pointing out what you think is wrong in other peoples lives or other churches you should be looking inward at your life and your church. That is the meaning behind Christ’s words about taking the log from your own eye before telling someone you will help them remove the speck from theirs.

The point, Clay, was that you copied and pasted another person's work and tried to pass it off as your own. That's plagiarism. Gentlemen and ladies attribute quoted texts to the true authors. Fundies are not, apparently, bound by conventions of honesty.

Oh. Now that you got caught you admit it. Honesty, however, was not designed to work backward. Ask any of the gentlemen at Central Booking.

The Fr. Tetzel post was clearly a parody or a spoof based on the Dominican Priest, Johann Tetzel, who was accused of selling indulgences. I didn't write it. But you can be sure it was written by one of our other Catholic posters. We, unlike the fundies, have the ability to laugh at ourselves. You obviously didn't get it.

You know absolutely nothing about the Catholic faith, nothing of our beliefs, nothing of our history, and nothing of our traditions. Rather than swallowing James McCarthy's anti-Catholic ramblings and pretending to be knowledgeable try reading some of the links you have been provided or read our entire belief system right here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Having recently received the Pallium from our Holy Father, I want to let you know what a warm and loving person the head of the True Church is. He would not hate a person like Clay, whose conversation here I have been following with interest. We in the Catholic Church embrace our evangelical brothers in Christ, and are grateful for their help in many matters. This is especially important to me as the prelate of the Carribean Diocese of the Third World because secular humanists and homosexual activists are trying to make inroads into the places where simple faith still exists. This is why I want to let our evangelical brothers like Clay know that we are partnering in faith with a very holy guy from Africa. His name is Pastor Dr. Martin SSempa from Uganda. You may be aware that he has recently become very well -known on the web. Unfortunately, the secular humanists have seen to it that his beautiful sermon on sexual morality goes by the name of "Eat Da Poo Poo" . The video has gone viral on Youtube, and predictably there are anti-religious types making fun of it. I take Dr. Ssempa very seriously and I believe that his message would be great for Haiti as well, just as it is suited to Uganda. I only hope that I can help turn back the clock in Florida too so that we can bring Dr. Ssempa to give his "Eat Da Poo Poo" sermon to our seminarians at St. Vincent De Paul Seminary. They need to hear this uncompromising call to conversion. We have let too many types like Dr. Ssempa describes in the video slip through the cracks. Things are changing in the Church, the Spirit is blowing, and a new ecumenism is afoot with our brothers in Christ like Pastor Dr. Martin SSempa.

Dana - In his the preface to his book " "Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis states:

"I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.

It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.

In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen
different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong
they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you
are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the
whole house."

What a shame that there are those Christians who want to spend so much time debating why someone else’s room is not write for them than concerning themselves with either bringing others into the hall or making sure they have chosen the right room.

I want to second the good Archbishop's praise of pastor Dr. Martin SSempa 's sermon from Uganda available on Youtube. We are trying to get Dr. Ssempa as a consultant or our Projected American Principles. I am considering sending my employee Tom as an emissary to Uganda to meet with Dr. Ssempa. What a holy man. His view of sexual morality is very close to St. Thomas. he would be an asset.

Robert Georgeous

"What a shame that there are those Christians who want to spend so much time debating why someone else’s room is not write for them than concerning themselves with either bringing others into the hall or making sure they have chosen the right room."

Looks like I need to do better job of proof reading. In that first sentence "write" should be "right". Maybe Satan wanted me to do it to discredit that post.

Thanks Ravensfan. Very appropriate words. I don't think anyone has pointed to the plank in my eye with such graciousness before.

I long ago passed through my own dark night of the soul and came out the other side of the tunnel re-convinced that the faith of my childhood is the doctrine that is true and holy. Others have not had and may never have that journey.

I should treat them with the same kindness I offer the souls in purgatory. They are no less the communion of saints.

Dana,

I think your religious journey is beautiful, especially since you are both serious about it ---you can't get more serious than a dark night -- but also open-ended. But as to your returning to the one true faith, may I offer as a respectful reflection one of my favorite poems from a great feminist poet. She expresses what I feel, different perhaps from you, but sharing a similar upbringing. Only the poet didn't grow up Catholic, but still I think her insights hold:

I'm ceded—I've stopped being Theirs—
The name They dropped upon my face
With water, in the country church
Is finished using, now,
And They can put it with my Dolls,
My childhood, and the string of spools,
I've finished threading—too—

Baptized, before, without the choice,
But this time, consciously, of Grace—
Unto supremest name—
Called to my Full—The Crescent dropped—
Existence's whole Arc, filled up,
With one small Diadem.

My second Rank—too small the first—
Crowned—Crowing—on my Father's breast—
A half unconscious Queen—
But this time—Adequate—Erect,
With Will to choose, or to reject,
And I choose, just a Crown—

Emily Dickinson.

Dana - Actually I wasn't pointing at you. Rather trying to give our evangelizing friend who has spent a lot of time bashing the Catholic Church something to think about in addition to your invitation to learn about the Church. It was probably a mistake to address you. I'm certainly in no position to point out planks in you eyes as I have enough in my own.

Dana - That Anonymous post was me obviously. I forgot to put ID on it.

Clay the Catholic teaching on the Eurcharist is most defintely based on the Gospel.

John 6:48 - 63 (KJV)

I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Who so eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Clearly Christ intended more than a simple remembrence. It's not the church, but you who need to change.

Giving money to retirement funds in the Catholic church gains a plenary indulgence? It seems self centered and way out of line. I think God would consider giving money to the poor in general as just as important. And I wouldnt be concerned about doing it for the cleansing of my soul, but rather for the obedience of God's commands. I never said what I was quoting from the book was mine, nor did I say it wasnt. Even if I did use another's words I still see them as being true statements. I wasnt intending to not say where they came from. I really dont see why it matters. I believe them to be true. What difference does it make who wrote them? "The Gospel According To Rome" is tenderly written, scripturally sound, scrupulously fair, and historically accurate. This is a book for all those who genuinely love Roman Catholics." Bartholomew Brewer. "I wish I had read this book twenty years ago! It would have turned me to the bible as the source of truth by which to live. It would have freed me from the doctrines and practices that neither satisfied me nor gave me life." Bob Bush, former Jesuit priest.

There is no indication that the bread and wine actually changed at the Last Supper. What Christ said was symbolic in that He wants us to have Him in our hearts, not actually believe that we are eating flesh and drinking blood. For a Jew, drinking blood would have been something that would have been unlawful as well as repulsive. The Law Of Moses forbade Jews from drinking blood. Lev 17:10-14. If Jesus was asking the disciples to violate this command, more than likely protests would have resulted, or at least questions. There is no indication of this at the Last Supper. The council at Jerusalem instructed gentile Christians to abstain from blood, and this was after the Last Supper. Acts 15:29. There is no reason to believe that the disciples actually thought that the bread and wine
had changed into Christ's body and blood. We dont read of them protecting every crumb of the bread as in the Catholic church or falling to their knees to worship the wine or bread. On the contrary, right after the Lord is said to have changed the wine to His blood, He refers to it again as wine. "But I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom. Matthew 26:29. Yes, God is everywhere, but this refers to His spiritual presence. However, He has only one bodily presence. According to scripture, He is now bodily seated "at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Hebrews 1:3. It is foolish and a satanic distraction to spend time, and much of it at that, with the ritual of believing that bread and wine at any church are actual flesh and blood.

You would do better to write about the benefits of your own religion Clay. I don't recall you ever even mentioning what kind of church you belong to. If it is something you are proud of you should share it with us. Tell us how many members your church has and list some of the major charities it funds, the hospitals it has built, and the international negotiations it has participated in or fostered.

For instance does your church provide any soup kitchens or homeless shelters in Baltimore? Has it built any hospitals like Mercy or St. Agnes? Has it helped to free any political prisoners in Cuba?

Show us the fruits, in other words, Clay. Because it is by its fruits it will be known. If it is bearing fruit of similar nutrition and sweetness as that of the Catholic church then maybe we can discuss doctrine.

If you want to understand what Catholics believe then read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Asking Catholics to read the work of a notorious anti-Catholic to understand the religion we have spent our lives studying is both foolish and offensive. If you believe that constantly referring to our faith as “satanic” is helping your argument you are mistaken. It reveals your real intentions, nothing more.

As I told you earlier the post by Fr. Tetzel was someone's idea of a joke. It was successful at that. It was meant tongue in cheek. The reference to “giving money to retirement funds” that was found in that post was a joke. You still don't get it.

Finally your excuse for plagiarism; “I wasnt(sic) intending to not say where they came from. I really dont(sic) see why it matters,” is as lame as that of the shoplifter who protests that he was planning to pay for the goods that he stole. It matters because it is dishonest.

Ravensfan and Peter, I appreciate the friendship and support. It is a delight that three people can agree on some issues and disagree on others while maintaining mutual respect and camaraderie.

Yes, Lady Dana is correct. I only added the element of funds for dioceses as a modern act of piety. When the coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory springs. I forgot to mention that the donation, also known as a covenant in some dioceses like Seattle, must exceed $1,000 dollars to be effective.

The joke here is on the devil who has had another soul taken from his clutches!

Fr. Johann Tetzel

Thank you for that clarification Fr. Tetzel.

Hi Dana. I go to a United Methodist church and yes the church has done those things and we have a soup kitchen in Baltimore. If the references to the retirement funds, etc. are a joke then I dont think God thinks it is very funny. I think it makes the church look worse than not having the joke. I dont consider "The Gospel According To Rome" to be anti-Catholic. The book is pro-Catholic in that it encourages this church to change in the proper ways, supported by the bible, so that it cant make so many mistakes that the devil wants us to make. If I used something from the book that I didnt say was from the book, it obviously doesnt make what the book says to be not the truth. Since the book uses the bible to examine the church, there is obviously a lot of truth in it. Also the book quotes the Catechism of the church and the practices of the church before it goes to the bible to see what it says. God bless.

Clay there is no indication that scripture alone is the sole source or it’s wrong to consume any alcohol both positions you argue strongly for. You seem to be willing to pick and choose how you apply the Scriptures. You also have no clear understanding of the Eucharist but cling to the flawed understanding promoted by non-Catholics. No one believes them to be actual flesh and blood in the human sense of the word. That is one of the biggest lies perpetuated by anti-Catholics. No one worships anything but God. Why are you so willing to believe people who have no real knowledge of the Catholic Church, and unwilling to actually learn the true meanings? I am assuming you believe in the Trinity? If so why? It there is no indication of it anywhere in the Bible. Think about that before you start looking for clear indications in scriptures.

Clay - Isn't it a bit prideful and arrogant on your part to presume to know what God thinks about that joke? For someone who hammers the Catholic Church for being prideful you come off sounding rather prideful yourself sometimes. Maybe instead of looking outward at others you should focus more effort inwards. Or using C.S. Lewis’s analogy of Christianity and the different denominations help people into the hall (Christianity) rather than try tell people they are in the wrong room simply because it’s different from the one you are in. I wouldn't expect you to see that book as anti-Catholic because you aren’t Catholic and it shares your misguided views. Actually there is a big difference between the book I suggested “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” and “The Gospel According To Rome”. Mine focuses on enlightening one on Catholic beliefs and practices without attacking other denominations while yours attacks Catholicism for what the author feels is wrong without enlightening on his beliefs. There are books that pretty much show the flaws in the book. The biggest being it’s no objective biblical look, but a subjective one starting out with the premise the Catholic Church is wrong and then selectively misusing the Bible to try and prove it. I am curious why would any Christian spend so much time and effort attacking other Christians for differences in beliefs when the core of what we believe is the same? Who really benefits from such attacks? Ask yourself that sometime

Hi Guys. I never said that it is a sin to consume alcohol. If Christ did, why would I say such a thing? To say that Catholics dont believe that the communion bread and wine are the actual flesh and blood of Christ and that to say so is a lie isnt true. There are many Catholics who do believe this, and leftovers are treated as such. God, the Son and the Holy Spirit arent mentioned in the bible? The reason to attack some of the practices in the Catholic church is to help Catholics to not do what the devil wants them to. That helps the core of our beliefs to be much closer. I believe that if the author didnt love Catholics as fellow Christians, he would never have written the book. Why would he bother? Catholics have got to be unprideful enough to admit that some of what they do on a regular basis is wrong and to not say that anyone who questions it is anti-Catholic. The bible is not misused to say that these things are wrong. Scripture is looked at plainly. Nothing is added to what is written in the bible. That is the problem with these practices. A lot of things have been added to what is in the bible, and they usually arent what God wants us to do. What they are is a way of worshiping that is traditionally wrong, and since it has been going on for so long it is assumed by most parishioners that it is ok. It is what they have been taught since childhood. What God wants them to do is to really look at what He really intends for us to do. What the devil wants is for them to go on believing that these additions to scripture are ok. That way time is wasted and people are distracted from God. They may sit and wait for Mary to appear instead of doing something that day to help God and His people. If I didnt care about these people, I wouldnt write about it either. God bless.

Clay you have been pretty vocal about not drinking and very critical of Catholics on that point. In the Eucharist the properties of bread and wind continue after the consecration, but their essence and substance is replaced by the substance and of the body & blood of Christ. Hence the word transubstantiation – change of substance. You are probably correct that there are some Catholics who do not know the meaning which is reason to pray for them. You identified yourself as going to a United Methodist Church. I assume that means they follow the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church. Their Article XVIII Of the Lord’s Supper besides not being grounded on Scripture reduces the sacrament to an empty gesture something you routine criticize the Catholic Church about doing. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all mentioned individually not as one God in three persons. The concept of Holy Trinity, God in three persons, appears nowhere in Scripture.. There is no reason to attack any practices of the Catholic Church except to aid Satan by having Christians fighting among themselves by using Christians who foolishly think they have all the answers about what God wants. If you opened your eyes a bit you’d worry more about the pride and certainty that one must have to violate the very thing Christ said specifically not to do, judge others. I know many people have mentioned Christ’s teaching about removing logs from your own eye. For anyone to go around pointing out the specs in another’s eye presupposes their eye has nothing in it and that is pride at it’s worst because we all do have logs, planks or whatever you want to call then in our own eyes. As I’ve shown your own church is guilty of additions to scripture as well as empty rituals . You may think you are helping others but in truth you are serving the very Satan you claim to be trying to save Catholics from serving.

What about the article adds to scripture? I dont see where the communion in the church I usually attend has been made an empty gesture at all. Now here is a big difference between myself and most Catholics. If an article in any church that I attend adds to scripture, I dont agree with it. I dont agree with everything in the United Methodist church, especially allowing women to become pastors. My pastor doesnt allow women to preach. Neither does the pastor at the Southern Baptist church I attend on occasion, nor at the Church of the Nazarene I have attended. But are there priests who dont follow what Rome suggests in the Catholic church? There is no perfect church as you will agree. However, I see the Catholic church as getting way far from scripture, more than any I have ever attended on a regular basis, and most of the non biblical practices have been there for many years. Thanks.

Clay - There is no way for you to know the authors intent in writing the book. You presuppose it because it conforms to your own views. I've seen and read books like that one as well as Catholic ones offering defense of Catholic beliefs. The one common theme I tend to see is the evangelical ones focus on attacking Catholicism rather discussing their own beliefs and Biblical basis. Ones like “A Biblical Defense of Catholicism” spend their efforts explaining the Catholic faith rather than attacking other like Evangelicals and other Protestant faiths

Why are you so obsessed with what you believe to be pride in Catholics and so blind to your own. Questioning practices would indicate you aren’t sure about them. You don’t question Catholic practices you attack them (your words) assuming you know them to be wrong and do so without a proper understanding of them. That’s what makes you sound anti-Catholic. Your own pride causes you attack practices different from your church’s. The Catholic Church has worked to reconcile with our Christian and brothers. To be sure much more work needs to be done. However, sweeping generalizations like yours only cause more dissent between Christians and who benefits from that Clay? Certainly not either group or God.

As has been pointed out some of your own churches beliefs and practices are not plainly in the Bible. However, I don’t want to venture down the path of arguing against a different Christian Church. I see no benefit to Christians or service to God in that. What I will say is that if you really want to carry on the mission of Christ work to help others find and accept Him rather than trying to tell others who have why they need to change your view of how they should act and worship.

The “body of Christ” is a term used for the Eucharist, but it is also used to describe the Church. The Eucharist is the real presence of Christ:

“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." (CCC 1367)

It might be true, Clay, that there are Catholics who misunderstand transubstantiation. But you believe that because a Catholic has misunderstood his own religion that you have a right to attack the religion. That's nonsense.

Scripture is not looked at plainly, Clay, because it is not plain. Only a simpleton would be able to view the inconsistencies and seeming contradictions of the text and miss its complexities. That's why we have been studying it for over two thousand years. You claim that we say anyone who questions our beliefs is anti-Catholic. That isn't true. Both Peter, the once seminarian, and BankStreet question our beliefs from time to time. But they don't drag your friends, Satan and his minions, into the discussion.

No. We call you, Clay, anti-Catholic, because of your constant hateful comments about our religion. As I told you earlier, anyone who studies and thinks about the comments you have made about Catholics, gays, Muslims, Jews, and immigrants,would have to come to the inevitable conclusion that you are a bigot.

Clay Article I—Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and good; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

That concept God is never mentioned in the Bible. It was adopted by the Church before
the schism with the Orthodox Church. If all communion is to you is a simple remembrance then it is empty and certainly not in keeping with Jesus’s words in John 6:48 – 63.

Wow you can’t see the wrong in attending a church while not believing it’s articles of faith? Why go at all in that case. There is no church which follows any closer to scripture than the Catholic Church with possible exception of the Orthodox Church. That’s why it’s the focus of so many attacks from the media and misinformed Christians. What church do you think would merit the most of Satan’s effort to attack but the one closest to God. I do agree there is no perfect church and since Christ was specific about not throwing stones unless without sin I can’t believe you don’t see the error in what you are doing. You really don’t have a clear understanding of how the Catholic Church functions. Add to that the fact that those practices are not non-biblical and you really ought to refrain from any comments about the Catholic Church. Like it or not all you are doing is aiding Satan.

Clay - What was the story here about? It had to do with the Vatican and Venezuela yet the first post here (yours) had nothing to do with that. Instead was a direct attack on the Catholic Church. You admitted here that you don't hold to the beliefs of any one church, but pick and choose your beliefs based on your own interpretation of the Bible. You have claimed to know what God thinks and wants in the past. You know better than any Christian denomination what God wants and how we should practice our faith. I am truly sorry you can not see how full of pride that is on your part.

Oh C'mon guys, the Catholic Church has worse problems than Mr. Clay -- people are actually suggesting the Pope give up his fabulous shoes and furs.! I can tell you I never really appreciated fabulous costumes that much until we visited the Liberace Museum last summer in Las Vegas. After seeing those get-ups up close I know what a great loss it would be for other over-the-top dressers like the Pope to be forced to go simple. But even loyal important Catholics are making following demands. O the humanity!:

Change clothes: "He should retreat for the remainder of his papacy into a plain and simple black cassock wearing only a simple cross.

u Dump the pomp: "Eschew the external trappings of excess and pomp."

u Ditch the shoes: "The pope's red shoes should go to a museum, replaced by flat black brogues. Symbolism is important for Catholics."

u Toss the fur: "Fur in all its uses should be set aside demonstrating a change of heart on the pope's part."

u Jettison the splendor: "The pope should urge members of the hierarchy to demonstrate similar simplicity by giving up the vestiges of privilege. They should show externally how seriously they are taking the scandal of abuse."

u Fast from food: The pope should invite clerics and hierarchy to spend one day each week in fasting and prayer -- as an expression of public sorrow for failing to safeguard the safety of generations of minors."

u The reason: "A contrite pope will do more than anything else to open doors and windows to people's fears and hurt," she said.

You miss the point dear Peter. None of the comments you have listed border on heresy. While the plasticine robot may not be our worst problem, he is still a problem, a heretic, and a deceiver.

No mater how small the problem it must be squashed. Fortunately clay is much more easily squashed than the rock upon which the saint who's name you bear built the Church.

What it all boils down to is this. The bible says that if we see our Christian brothers and sisters stumble, we are supposed to help them. That is all I am trying to do with any comment I have left here on any blog. Sticking to the bible, no matter what any church says, is always the best course of action. As the book states, "Today Catholics and evangelical Protestants are joining forces in the political arena to fight together against abortion, homosexuality, and other threats to society's moral fabric. Several leaders on both sides have suggested that the moral issues we agree on are more important than the doctrinal differences that divide us. They say Protestants and Catholics ought to lay aside doctrine and embrace one another as true brothers and sisters in Christ.
No matter how noble the motives for such a proposal may be, we must return to the harsh reality that what divides Catholics and Protestants is a disagreement over what constitutes the true gospel. That simply cannot be viewed as an unimportant matter. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Galatia: 'I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.' Galatians 1:6-9. Before we pronounce Catholics and Protestants all brothers and sisters in Christ, we must deal honestly with the question of whether one side or the other proclaims "a different gospel." Whoever is guilty of this is accursed-anathematized by the very word of God. It is not a triviality that can be laid aside and ignored." The Gospel According To Rome, pages 7,8. There is no way you can honestly examine the scriptures when comparing them to the practices of either church and conclude that everyone does a near perfect job. However, when we see so many practices of one church that are not supported by and run contrary to scripture, the best thing to do is to attempt to help our brothers and sisters to not be "accursed" as Paul wrote. Believing that these practices are ok because they have gone on for so long only makes the problem worse. As Paul wrote, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1: 3-6. NKJ. Our salvation was determined before the foundation of the world was created. This makes no church any more important than another because it was former earlier. Rather, the proper church to attend is one that makes every effort to not only follow the gospel according to what was meant by God but also to be sure to not add anything to it. Of all the churches I have attended, the Southern Baptist Church is the one that appears to most closely make the effort to do what God wants us to when worshiping Him. Alcohol is not forbidden among members but discouraged, and it is not allowed in services, regardless of whether or not Christ drank wine. Since Christ meant communion to be a time of fellowship with Him, grape juice is more than sufficient to symbolize that fellowship. There is no need to call Christ to come down into communion bread and to actually believe that the wine or bread are the actual blood and body of Christ. Baptism is also symbolic of this relationship. As the late Pat Kelly said about his baptism, "I went down a dry sinner and came up a wet sinner." It is only the acceptance of Christ into our hearts and having a changed life after that where we make an effort to do His will, according to scripture, that can make the difference. I hope that I can continue to be a positive influence on these blogs. God bless.

Learned Doctor,

Have you considered that there may a tool of enforcement you have not considered. If the Holy House of Loreto could be spiritually persuaded to fly again it could land conveniently on all manner of heretics and dissenters. Just like in the Wizard of Oz. Friends of Dorothy, indeed.

It is presumptuous of you when you say, "I hope that I can continue to be a positive influence on these blogs." You have not been, at least not in the manner in which you presume to have been. You have shown that you are capable of "copy and paste," we are not impressed. You have shown your derision, not only of Catholics, but of all who believe differently from your narrow view. We are not impressed.

Your positive role has been to reinforce for the rest of us the shallowness of fundamentalism. Or as Bertolt Brecht observed:

"On my wall hangs a Japanese carving,
The mask of an evil demon, decorated with gold lacquer.
Sympathetically I observe
The swollen veins of the forehead, indicating
What a strain it is to be evil."

Peter, I suppose the "wheel" is more suited for such substances. That way the mud might be fashioned into something useful. A spittoon, for instance, or a chamber pot.

Far be it from me to defend Mr. Clay. But what I don't like in his style of rhetoric is not the strong belief, but the poor sense of what his faith means in the context of our society. I personally don't see belief as problematic, only its interpretations or consequences. It is amazing how much both interpretations and consequences change from generation to generation. To such an extent that the meaning of the belief changes utterly too. Like many evangelicals he quotes the Bible profusely, and there is always likely some slim tome of biblical interpretation acquired as a free gift from for a love covenant donation through TV on which the entire interpretation seems predicated. But we really underestimate a lot of evangelicals if we think they are all like that. They specialize in a certain cunning prevarication springing from a desire not to have the Bible pinned down by history or real textual scrutiny. (Obviously real biblical scholarship is as different from this as night to day.) Sadly the Catholic Church generally , amazingly, seems headed in a similar direction. How this is possible I don't know. How do you take an organization with a great intellectual tradition and turn it into a simple bulwark. Perhaps it is fear. Fear alone explains it.
In fact they are proud of it, as a article not long ago in the Sunday Visitor apparently makes clear:

“A person with Father Curran’s dissenting point of view would not be hired at CUA today,” says outgoing president of The Catholic University of America, Vincentian Father David O’Connell.

Father Charles Curran was a theology professor removed by the Vatican from CUA’s faculty in 1986 after decades of dissent on sexual morality. Father O’Connell’s comment, in an interview with Our Sunday Visitor, underscores a main theme of his tenure: Catholic identity.

After 12 years as president of the Washington, D.C.-based university, founded by the U.S. Catholic bishops in 1887 as the national Catholic university, and the only university in the United States with ecclesiastical faculties to grant canonical degrees in canon law, philosophy and theology, Father O’Connell, 54, announced in October that this will be his last year at CUA.

For Father O’Connell, the Curran comments come from a position not of exclusion but integrity: “[The] Catholic University of America must be a rigorous and faithful intellectual center in the Church, with the Church and for the Church. Its theologians, philosophers and canonists teach ‘in the name of the Church.’ That’s not where dissenters seek to be.”

I think the most devastatingly awful thing is the last line. "That's not where dissenters seek to be" The word "where" is so telling. They are in a special place, which is different from "where" orthodox people are. In the real world of course any kind of grouping requires loyalty and similarity of point of view. There are no absolutely neutral points of view, and in a sense in life one picks the team that expresses one's deepest convictions. But this is precisely the rub in the Catholic case. I studied with Charlie Curran and a more committed Catholic and passionate Catholic I did not encounter. The hard-of-heart will laugh at such observations. Their lives are blighted by fevered political objectives. Thus they cannot even argue for their own moral points very well anymore.

I feel privileged to have lived through that episode, because I am utterly convinced of the rather technicolor point it makes. Namely, that religious meanings change and shift, even if some of the words do not. this gradually creates a scene where the most fatuous and superficial in a tradition gain more credence than those who are actually passionate, like Curran. Again, if I had not lived through this I would have my doubts. My interest now in this whole matter is a cultural or societal one. How will the world be affected by this massive organization which has gone insular and dumbed-down. The prognosis is not good. To wit, I still marvel that Martin Holley became a Bishop, but he being dumb as a box of rocks fits the pattern I have outlined. Predatory enthusiasm might be said to be the new order of the day, not brains, and he like so many others fits it well.

Hi Tomas. If your mind is made up not to accept Fundamentalism, chances are you wont accept it, no matter what one may say. I would say, in spite of you calling me someone who thinks he knows it all or whatever, that my mind is made up to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is written and intended.
And Mr. Hall, let me include something from the book I didnt put in above. "But far from an enlightened age, ours is an era of unprecedented spiritual ignorance. Many "Protestants" have no concept of what the gospel message is. A recent survey disclosed that half of those who say they are "born again" cannot identify John 3:16. Many of those surveyed defined gospel as a style of music.
At the same time, many Catholics have no idea what the Roman Catholic Church teaches." And also, "Catholic apologists usually complain-and often rightly so-that Protestant treatments of Church teachings tend to be caustic, unfair, or inaccurate. This book carefully avoids such pitfalls. It is a comprehensive guide to Roman Catholic beliefs, based on Catholic sources, well documented, objective, and wholly without rancor. Catholic teachings are carefully examined in light of Scripture, which speaks for itself." The Gospel According To Rome, pages 8 and 9. I would imagine that it is hard for someone to admit that what they have been following for so long may not be what God intends for them to do. I do know however, that those who have changed to what the scripture intends have felt a sense of freedom from being bogged down. As you are probably aware, my opinion of where the bogging down is coming from is that it is from the devil. People have taken this to mean that I am calling the Catholic church "satan's church." Satan is in all of the churches, as we are all sinners and we bring him into it. The major goal for me on these blogs is to help brothers and sisters to do the right things as far as what God wants them to, including those who dont currently know God. That is not something that the devil wants to see. And to conclude, from page 13 of the book, "Before entrusting your immortal soul to the keeping of the church, be sure you can answer the following questions: Is Roman Catholicism the faith received from Christ?
Does the Roman Catholic Church actually extend back to the time of Christ?
Does the church have a legitimate claim to the teaching, ruling, and sanctifying authority of Peter and the apostles?
Are the sacraments of the church able to make a person holy and acceptable to God?
Does the Roman Catholic way of salvation lead to heaven?
This book answers these questions by documenting what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on important issues relating to salvation, worship, devotion, and authority. It then analyzes these doctrines and demonstrates from the bible why the Roman Catholic Church is not the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Christ. My hope is that you will prayerfully read this book and carefully consider the claims of your Church, its doctrines, and your own relationship with God." If I am guilty of "cut and paste," that doesnt make what is being presented to be untrue. Also, as you may know, I also offer my own opinions. Thanks.

If, as you say your “mind is made up to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is written and intended,” then you must follow the usual prescribed courses. You will need a basic understanding of the ancient languages, especially as regards nuances of words that occur in those doctrines upon which reasonable men and women disagree. You will need to understand the cultural differences not just between ancient folk and ourselves, but the differences between the various ancient cultures.

You say you want to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ. Does that mean that you reject the Old Testament?

Be clear Clay. Do you intend to follow the Gospel only, or the entirety of the Bible?

Then you say “as it is written and intended.”

The only way you can understand “as it is written” is to follow the traditions of the Catholic church. The bible did not come down to us a complete book, leather bound with gilded edges, and with those pesky little theft detection devices we find in the nominal “Christian” book stores. The Catholic church decided what books would go in the bible that you read today. And the Church provided the translations that you accept as authoritative.

So unless you are reading Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, when you say you will follow it as written you are saying you will follow what the Catholic church wrote down for you. But in your arrogance you think you are better able to understand the meaning than those who translated it and studied it for two thousand years.

And when you say you will follow it “as intended,” you are obligated to understand the context, culture, and normative commitments of the authors. Otherwise you will never understand the intentions.

Above all else the Gospels are a delightful love story. If all you have learned from it is to bicker with your neighbor then you have missed the point entirely.

The true Church is the Roman Catholic Church, Clay, end of discussion.

I am not concerned with your cut and paste, your fundamentalism, your failure to capitalize the name of the demon, your irrational fear of the apostrophe, or your other peculiar quirks. I am only concerned with your mortal soul and the genesis of your vulgar heresies. I am only interested to know if you bleed when pricked or float when tossed in the water. I want to know how you react to the sign of the Cross, if you burn when sprinkled with Holy Water, if you cower at the mention of the Trinity?

Inquisitive minds want to know.

It never makes sense to make the gospel more complicated than it is. It makes it harder to understand for most people, saved or unsaved. I respect the cross. To say that one should make a sign when they see it is compulsive. Having it in our hearts is what is important. I did go to a faith healer once at a Pentecostal church. When he touched the side of my face I felt a heat and fell back. Some passed out completely. Thanks.

Thank you Clay. The Catechism teaches that :"All practices of magic or sorcery.... are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion." (CCC 2117)

So you have clarified under whose power you fall. Such practices may seem as harmless as reading the astrology column or "playing" with a Ouija board. But I can assure you that all such practices lead to an unsavory end.

A few words of support for our saintly friend Torquemada. Some might think him harsh, and quick to judge. But there is softer side, a nice side too. There always is. How many harsh types in history have turned out to be very fond of dogs too! That must mean something. And Tomas will surely know that his successor Fray Diego Deza had a warm side as well. Which was helpfully shown to the discoverer of the very continent on which we all have our asses planted on at this very moment. Thus we can say that the warmth and kindness of another famous Inquisitor supported the ardor and faith of one Chris Columbus, which lead to the epochal discovery he made. Thus in a certain sense the Inquisition is responsible for the discovery of America. As a work of scholarship neatly makes clear:

"Thanks were chiefly due to the unfailing kindness and sagacious management of Diego Deza....It is difficult to realise that this is the very man who was the successor to Torquemada as the Grand Inquisitor of Spain. We, however, need only know him as the generous and enlightened friend of the great Genoese."

- Life of Christopher Columbus, Sir Clements Robert Markham, 1892.

What a thrill to realize finally that Inquisitors can be enlightened!

Some might think it torture that heretics must spin upon the wheel or puff upon the fire. But compared to the eternal flames of hell such chastisements are comparable to a comfortable chair.

Thank you for understanding Peter.

Well, Tomas, you're welcome. But I can't say I quite have "understanding" of your pursuits. Historically, some people with my committed affiliation have been a matter of interest for the Holy Office. But let that not keep us from cordial interaction, now that you have resurrected after several centuries. Was it election of Benedict that tantalized you back into existence? You may be aware that some want to try the most recent Pontiff for crimes in American courts. Or internationally for Crimes Against Humanity. You might be wise to consider your liability as well, as there may be a precedent for trying the long-dead in the American legal system. Not sharing your
Weltanschauung, if I can put it that way, let me make a practical legal suggestion anyways so you can stay out of trouble. If they try to bring charges, consider this. If you can get Judge Lynn Leibovitz as your Judge, and get Bernie Grimm as your counsel you might get off even though history has ample evidence that you are quite guilty. With aforementioned legal cast of characters apparently no amount of talk of torture and mayhem will surpass the question of reasonable doubt.

You can be assured that laying on of hands is very biblical. It is not magic or sorcery. To call it that is to do what the devil wants you to. There are people who do practice magic and withcraft, etc and I dont believe that the Catholic church is referring to the laying on of hands, which was done by the disciples. And you thank someone for what you believe they have done which you call witchcraft? There are a lot of angry people on these boards and I am not. Thanks.

Clay - If ignorance is bliss, you must be having explosive, never ending orgasms.

I should have given you a more complete quotation from the Catechism Clay. It specifies that recourse to the occult is evil even for the purpose of restoring health and that it is not justified by the gullibility of the subject.

“All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers...even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify the exploitation of another's credulity.” (CCC 2117)

Like I said, the bible says that laying on of hands is not "recourse to the occult" and your church is not referring to the laying on of hands. God bless.

Clay - Please stop promoting the Gospel according to Rome as an objective and biblical look at Catholicism. It is neither. It appears that way to you because it confirms your own misguided views. By the way that comment you made about having ones mind made up not to accept something applies equally to you with regards to Catholicism. What you see as helping Christian brothers who have stumbled is actually your own pride showing that you and you alone no the only path to salvation.

Clay, I hope you are not so foolish as to presume to tell me, Tomás de Torquemada, what the Catholic church believes or does not believe. The “laying on of hands” has its proper meaning explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it has nothing to do with your voodoo mumbo jumbo.

It is discussed in 1288 and 1289 of the CCC:

“1288 "From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christ's will, imparted to the newly baptized by the laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of Confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church."”

“1289 Very early, the better to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit, an anointing with perfumed oil (chrism) was added to the laying on of hands. This anointing highlights the name "Christian," which means "anointed" and derives from that of Christ himself whom God "anointed with the Holy Spirit."100 This rite of anointing has continued ever since, in both East and West. For this reason the Eastern Churches call this sacrament Chrismation, anointing with chrism, or myron which means "chrism." In the West, the term Confirmation suggests that this sacrament both confirms and strengthens baptismal grace. “

If you want to mislead people about what your particular church teaches I suppose it doesn't matter because it is all heresy anyway. But do not speak of what the Catholic church teaches. You simply do not know.

Yes, the only way to salvation is the acceptance of Christ as Savior. And I am certainly not the only one who knows it. There is nothing to be gained by making it more complicated than that. God bless.

And Tomas, you would be much better off looking at what the bible teaches and ignoring these Catechisms in the Catholic church, and I am not being foolish at all in saying that. God bless.

Yes, Tomas...

You'd be better off listening to Clay's radio preachers and titheing (liberally) to the Church of Clay (otherwise known as "The Only Way").

Yes Bankstreet, there is only one way to salvation. It doesnt come from any church, any denomination, or any set of rules or rituals. It is personal and involves our relationship with Christ. "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1Peter 1:18-19. God's plan of salvation is a very simple one, and it doesnt come from giving money to radio preachers or anyone else. And that is what the radio preacher I listen to says. God bless.

Clay,

You are merely having Tomas (who I suspect won't take direction from you...) substitute your "catechism" (interpretions of Scripture spoon-fed over the radio) for his own. How 'bout independent, unguided rational thought? Too scary?

You can never have a relationship with God that is independent and unguided. It is impossible. Sure, Christians have to logically figure things out, but what comes from God and what is in the heart is always more important, even if it doesnt always seem logical. What non believers tend to think when they hear that God doesnt want them to do something that they want to do is that it is illogical and unfair. God is never unfair or illogical. We always get rewarded for being obedient to Him, and our lives couldnt be any happier. Thanks.

You delight me to no end BankStreet. “independent, unguided rational thought” is close to what the Catechism demands of us. Sadly, even Catholics don't always “get it.” But it is essential to our faith that men and women exercise both free will and freedom of conscience in their spiritual development. They must, in other words, think for themselves.

Witness the CCC sections 1781 - 1782

“1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. ….”

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."”

The last two sentences summarize the difference between the way that the universal Church views the human person, and the way folks like Clay view people.

I don't think that non-believers concern themselves with what “God doesn't want them to do,” Clay. You seem to have missed the point of what it means to be a non-believer. Since they don't believe in God they will not be considering his relative fairness or logic.

Clay - Your guided way appears to be to pick and choose what ideas from what pastor or church you listen to so in essence you really are tryomg to do it independent and unguided. You listen to any preacher, indvidual or church when they share your own intrepretations and spend a lot of time making judgemental comments about other Christians especially Catholics in clear violation of scripture. What elludes you is you stumble as much as any Christian so maybe you should focus your attention inward as opposed to outward at others. That is the very heart of Jesus's words on removing specs and only throwing stones if you are without sin.

Clay - Your last post appears to contradict itself. On the one hand you say "can never have a relationship with God that is independent and unguided" yet you also say that "Christians have to logically figure things out" which would seem to indicate having a relationship with God that is to a degree independent and unguided. On the surface that sounds lie a bit of a contradiction Forgive me but it also sounds like what you are saying is that unless one follows your personal catechism that we accept or reject whatever church we belong teachings where in conflicts with our own interpretations we can not have a relationship with God.

If the comments werent helpful, they wouldnt be there. Thanks.

Clay,

Some of your comments sound like Zen koan. Or fortune cookies.

Clay - They aren't helpful so I guess they shouldn't be here then.

Clay - That last response didn't answer my question as to the appearance of contradiction in what you said earlier.

What I said is certainly no contradiction. We are never independent of God. Sometimes church members have to decide what is best for the church budget and balance the books etc and this involves logic. How to erect a revival tent involves logic and not praying at every step. I suppose when we tell the truth about something and people get angry they look for ways to make us look like we dont know what we are talking about. That statement involves logic and also God's word on not being discouraged. God bless.

Clay - you are doing everything but address my question. I'm not trying to make you look like anything. I simply want clarification on what appears to be a contradiction. That one can not have a relationship with God independent and unguided and that Christians have to figure things out on their own which would indicate at times they need to be independent and unguided. Instead of blowing smoke talking about putting up tents and church budgets which really have little to do with ones relationship with God. That's what I'm looking for you to answer for me.

There is one question of whether you think a Church, like the Catholic Church should be in the position of having Ambassadors at all. But then there is the other pragmatic question of whether as a practical matter, given that they do now have them, whether a country should interact in that way. And I acknowledge that there may be some reasons why, pragmatically speaking, it might serve the country's interests. But there are also pragmatic reasons against it too.

If a Church is routinely projecting propaganda salivating over the literal apocalyptic end of the country, well, that might count as a teensy problem. That is exactly what the Roman Church is doing. It is disgusting. But even more disgusting is that now they are aiming this dreadful, frightening apocalyptic propaganda right at children. It really is abusive. Case in point:. This afternoon while channel- surfing I came across an EWTN program called "The Knights of St. Michael". It was a show using kids as the actors for very heavy -handed right- wing thoughts generally. How evil and bad the Supreme Court is, for instance. But worse was a segment called "Mr Positive." Mr Positive is supposed to be an up-to-date figure of the Devil. And he has a sort of mini-Devil with him called Mini-Positive. What were they talking about on this program for children in the after-school hour with impressionable children? They were repeatedly and unambiguously saying that American society was so corrupt morally that it was a sure thing that it would completely end and that this was a good thing in their context. They noted that people don't realize that it is already too late, and that everything will be ruined and end, especially because there are people who disagree with them on abortion. Of course it was all woven in with a pretty lame conniving devil, telling his side-kick that they did not have to do anything because everything was basically over.

If there is a decent person left amongst authority figures in the Roman Church they must stop this type of abusive show. It is psychologically damaging. But more importantly it is societally and philosophically damaging. If people cannot disagree without wishing their own very world hell and mayhem, then they are by definition, not people of goodwill. When I see an outrage like this on Catholic TV I realize that things are worse than I even think.

As I said before, we are never independent in our relationship with God. That does not mean that we cant solve simple things with logic, as God gave us the ability to do. That is all I meant by my comment about logic, and your anger wont let you accept that. Mr Fuchs, I agree that we shouldnt be too pessimistic about our society. Perhaps the kids can be shown how the love of Christ can be used to help solve problems instead of concentrating on the negative. Thanks.

I don't know Clay, but just about everything you say is consistent with the apocalyptic viewpoint expressed routinely by evangelicals. (Catholics have their own style which involves a lot of corrupted and deranged Thomistic tsk-tsking.) The difference between me and those who engage in fanaticism, which is the opposite of true piety by any enlightened definition, is this. If I do not get my way in society, I do not wish destruction on others by way of a Gotterdaemurung of all of society. I may not particularly wish them well, but that is more limited and thespian. I spend my time, truly, trying to think of ways I might contribute to change. Only those in the thrall of religion in its most destructive phase fall prey to these temptations. They are beneath contempt. They are trying to spoil everything for everybody just because they did not get their way. Grow the fuck up.

According to the bible, we are seeing the signs of the end of the age. Thanks.

Clay, I hope it is the end of the age of narrow mindedness.

Clay,

Q.E.D. !!