Don't we have enough homosexual bishops? Why burden us with another one - and a cardinal at that? Randy Engel author The Rite of Sodomy.

Burke and Wuerl have "crossed swords" previously. There is no doubt of their rivalry. JPII turned down the appointment of Wuerl to St. Louis and sent in Rigali. He was followed by Burke. Malachi Martin warned that Wuerl is "liberal". I personally hope that he was wrong. Signs are that he was right.

Burke and Wuerl have "crossed swords" previously. JPII turned down Wuerl for st. Louis and Rigali was sent instead followed by Burke. Malachi Martin labels Wuerl as "liberal".

Wuerl's refusal to chastize dissident "Catholic" politicians has harmed the unity of the Church and fueled confusion among the faithful. His failure to sanction Notre Dame President Jenkins during the obama fiasco undermined the authority of the Bishops to reign in apostasy. Now he's a Red Hat? Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths.

Wuerl is a dud.

The Catholic church was ok when it just meant universal, although there were other early Christians like the Anabaptists. However, when the Catholic church went to Rome it went to hell, with the first pope being the ruler of an evil Roman empire, namely Constantine, not Peter. Peter would have nothing to do with this church as it stands if he came back now. He said "see that you do not do that" when people fell before him to worship. And he would agree with people praying to Mary and himself? Satan is having a good laugh on the whole mess. Not that everyone in this church isnt saved. However many never will be because they think that by being baptized and taking Holy Communion and following mass commitments that they are ok. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All of these things are a distraction if someone doesnt have that personal relationship with Christ in their heart. They are a distraction because instead of someone seeing them as a symbol of the relationship they already have, they see them as being all that is necessary. Please pray for Godly change in this church.

Clay - Constintine was never a pope. Also the Anabaptists movement didn't start until around the 15th century. I would suggest you research topics more before making such statements.

I dont think it makes any difference what a pope is or was. This church should have stayed out of Rome.

If the Church had stayed out of Rome how do you propose that Christianity would have spread to western and eastern Europe?

If this church spread from the Holy Land to Rome, why couldnt it have spread to other places in Europe? It sure got to Greece early enough. God sees to it that His word gets spread. Paul was in Athens spreading the word. There is nothing wrong with bringing the word to Rome. It is that the church put it's headquarters in a place that had such a celebration of evil (the Coliseum etc). Of course, that headquarters is still there today without such celebrations, but one cannot help but think how much influence the Roman govt had on this church. It didnt need that influence. It needs to simplify, simplify. That is how I see what God is saying in the scriptures. Thanks.

There was not much Christian presence in Greece until the Byzantine Empire. For that we can thank Constantine. The only place where Christianity flourished without Roman influence was Ethiopia. If Constantine had not advanced the faith at Rome Christianity would consist of a small cult in east Africa.

The answer to your question as to why couldn't it have spread to other places in Europe is that western Europe was under Roman control at the time Constantine converted to Christianity. If it had spread to other parts of Europe without the empire's sanction it would have been absorbed into the practices of the Romans like the Druids.

If Paul was spreading the word of Christ right after Christ died, perhaps there was more influence in Greece besides Rome for spreading Christianity. This is in addition to the other places that Paul, Silas and others visited and before Constantine. I dont agree that Christianity owes as much to Rome as you think it does. God was going to see that His word got spread no matter who was responsible. In any case, the pomp and ceremony that was Rome was never mentioned by Christ. Anyone who absorbed it was being disobedient to God, and this certainly holds true today.

Clay where exactly would you have preferred the headquarters to be located? For that matter what difference does it make where that location was or is today? It sounds like you are making your own interpretations of what you think God is saying in the scriptures. For that matter why worry about such things? You seem to want to dwell on the little things we don’t agree on as opposed to the larger more important ones we do.

What I am saying is that the pomp and uniforms and traditions of this church are never and have never been taken by this church as "little things." They are a distraction. And, as I have mentioned in the other post, there are many large things that we disagree on, basic things that shouldnt be doing. For example concentrating on works and baptism and then people going to hell because of not being saved. What kind of brother would I be to not point them out? One thing we do agree on. You dont let women preach. Have a good one.

Clay, I don't think Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke ever traveled outside of the Roman Empire. Maybe you should go back to your bible and cross reference it to a map of the Roman empire. Nothing in the New Testament happened elsewhere.

Clay what I’m saying is you do not understand the basis for the Catholic Church’s teachings and probably are influenced by those who probably know little if anything themselves. What exactly do you consider pomps and uniforms? If you consider baptism a pomp then I feel sorry for you as it is mention numerous times in scripture. As for the topic of infant baptisms that has been the subject of debate for a long time as the link below illustrates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

You will also find the Catholic Church isn’t the only church in which this is practiced. You also do not have the correct understanding of the inter-relationship between baptism-faith and works. These might aid you a bit.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FAWORKS.HTM

http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/01/faith-versus-works.html

I realize you believe you are reaching out to your brothers and sisters and I appreciate that. Keep in mind that there is no one perfect Christian denomination. If we want to knit pick we can find flaws in all of them including fundamentalist. I hope this helps you and at least gives you cause to think and pray on the issue. You have a good one as well.

Baptism is never a pomp. It is for those who are adult enough to have already accepted Christ and who want to be baptized as a symbol of their commitment. Thanks.

Baptism predates Christianity Clay. For most Christians it is an act of purification. If your particular sect views it as a mere “symbol of their commitment” that's fine with the rest of us.

You seem much more concerned with impugning the Catholic faith than you are with discussing faith or spirituality. If your religion has so much to offer why don't you share it with us rather than going on and on about your neighbor's religion?

You remind me of a jealous and insecure woman who criticizes every girl who walks into the room, then leaves alone. If you want to win us over you're either going to have to charm us or show us some T and A, metaphorically, of course.

I have gone on and on here about how simple it is to follow Christ and God's word in the bible without adding things to it. So simple in fact, that the last sentence is all you need to know about my faith. The problem isnt that I havent expounded on it. The problem is that people dont want to listen. Thanks.

Clay the problem is you pass judgement on Catholicsm because it doesn't follow your views. The point is if yours is the way you should be able to highlight that without passing judgement on other Christians. Your comment on baptism is not in the bible anywhere I am aware of. In fact there are passages in the NT of whole families being baptized which likely included children. N

My comment on baptism is that it doesnt make someone saved. It is a symbol of a commitment made after being saved. That is why infant baptism isnt mentioned in the bible. John baptized with water but Christ of course with the Holy Spirit. The bible mentions many times about accepting Christ into your heart and making a commitment to Him. No one seems to know how this church started praying to Mary or why. I do know that the Knights Templar had statues of her, along with Christ, gargoyles and whatever, in their temples probably before the Catholic church had them. In fact they built many of the great Cathedrals in Europe. Their descendents are the secret society of the Masons. Anytime something has to be kept a secret, it cant be coming from Christ. I am convinced that there are many good God fearing people in the Catholic church who are saved. I am also convinced that satan distracts them in many ways with the rituals, lets not eat meat on Friday, etc. I heard that was started to help fisherman. It certainly isnt the worst thing in the world to do, but it is a distraction. There are too many rules and routines that keep people concentrated on them instead of on their relationship to Christ. What kind of Christian brother would I be to not point that out? I dont mean to infer that everyone needs to leave this church. What I would like to see is real change. God bless.

Entire households were baptised Clay. It is mentioned in both Acts and 1 Corinthians. Entire households of course would include infants and children. It's fine if you disagree Clay, but pretending that it has no biblical reference is just plain dishonest.

You are reading nonsense Clay. The Knights Templar did not build cathedrals. The were priest nights and they were bankers. They were not construction workers or Masons. Catholics are not allowed to be Freemasons Clay. Put the books away and read what the church teaches, not what anti-Catholic writers say he church teaches.

http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=017244302729534703680:v_mibv-qc_e&hl=en

If entire families were baptized fine. The scripture doesnt say that all in these families were saved because of it. I never said that Catholics were allowed to be freemasons. I said that the freemasons were the first ones to have appeared to have images of Mary in their temples. And you are arong about the Knights Templar not being Cathedral builders. They built castles and cathedrals all over Europe, especially in France. They built a temple under Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem which many say was used to hide the relics they took in the Crusades, including the Ark of the Covenant. They had images of Mary in their temples, along with gargoyles or whatever. Priests in Rome and other places refer to the gargoyles as "angels." If they were in charge during construction, other masons in their temple worked under them. They were of course also knights during the crusades and started the banking system. God bless.

You have been reading too many conspiracy theory books Clay. The holy Spirit was the first to venerate Mary when the Spirit cried out through Elizabeth: “"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. (Luke 1:41-42)”

Regular Marian devotions had become a part of Christian worship by the fourth century. The Freemasons were founded around 1390, a thousand years later. The Templars had been disbanded in 1314. There is no historical connection between the Templars and the Freemasons. The latter use symbolism borrowed from the former. Nothing more. So does the American Red Cross Clay!

You might keep in mind Clay that the books you read by Dan Brown and others are in the fiction section of the library for a reason: They are made up stories.

Praying to Mary is not scriptural, and the statues and gargoyles that were included in the temples are still there. They were not built until the Masons built them, and they were the first to include Mary. Thanks.

Clay actually it's you who doesn't know how things happened in the early Church. Lets take Mary as an example.

The book "The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries" (by Thomas Livius, Published by Burns & Oates) contains a powerful witness to the devotion early Christians had toward Mary. In the year 130 Irenaeus wrote about her. He was familiar with those who had been close both to Peter and to Paul and who "had still the preaching of the blessed Apostles ringing in their ears" He said:

"As Eve was seduced by the speech of an angel, so as to flee God in transgressing his word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the angel's speech, so as to be God within her, being obedient to this word. And though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey him; that of the virgin Eve, the virgin Mary might become the advocate and as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved- a virgin's disobedience by a virgin' obedience." (Against Heresies, 3, 19) (130 A.D.)

St. Justin in 110-165 A.D. writes:

For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One to be born of her should be the Son of God, answered, Be it don to me according to thy word. And so by means of her was he born, concerning whom we have shown so many Scriptures were spoken; through whom God overthrows the serpent, and those angels and men who have become like to it, and on the other hand, works deliverance from death for such as repent of their evil doings and believe in him (Dialogue with Trypho, 100 A.D.)

Eve was called the mother of the living ...after the fall this title was given to her. True it is...the whole race of man upon earth was born from Eve; but in reality it is from Mary the Life was truly born to the world. So that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary became the mother of all living (St. Epiphanius, Against Eighty Heresies, 78,9)

One of the oldest catacombs contains a drawing of the Madonna and Child dating back to the second century, and the oldest known request to Mary, the "Sub Tuum Praesidium", dates back to at least 300 AD!

We fly to your patronage, O holy ;
despise not our petition in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O ever-glorious and blessed Virgin.

Theotokos means "Godbearer" or Mother of God. This title came into Christian use very early. It simply says that she gave birth to Jesus, who any Christian will agree is God.

Instead of continually criticizing a faith you do not understand you would do well to actually learn about it.

I am still referring to the statues in churches. Also I am not sure that what you have quoted (besides the prayer) tells us to pray to her. If it does, I disagree with it, no matter when it started. If Christ or His Father wanted us to pray to mortals He would have told us to. I dont think anyone will go to hell for it, but it is a distraction from praying to Him. One of the problems with the Catholic church is that it is too worried about following tradition. If someone decided to pray to Mary years ago it doesnt make it right. When we follow traditions that God doesnt tell us to we look prideful, trying to be more Holy than somone else who doesnt have that tradition. Thanks for your info and God bless.

Clay it was to show you that Mary has been a part of Christianity for much longer than you realize. Tradition is mentioned in Paul's letters. It was around long before the NT appeared. The only one appearing prideful is you with your insistence that you. Despite the numerous times you've been corrected on your lack of understanding of the Catholic Church you continue to judge based on either your church's or your own intrepretation of scripture. You are the one trying to be more holy by criticizing the Catholic Church because it doesn't adhere to your views on what God wants. I haven't seen one Catholic say anything resembling what you claim. It's apparent you are not knowledgeable on the Catholic Chruch and are either being mislead by others biased opinions or your own arrogance that your way is the only one.

Clay the only statues I've seen in churches is usually one of Mary which are off to the side. Some will have the crucufixtion or stations of the cross. What exactly is your point here? The Bible doesn't prohibit statues or art. It sure sounds like you are adding to the Bible to me.

Clay the only statues I've seen in churches is usually one of Mary which are off to the side. Some will have the crucifixion or stations of the cross. What exactly is your point here? The Bible doesn't prohibit statues or art. It sure sounds like you are adding to the Bible to me.

Here is a link that discussed tradition as St Paul wrote in his letters.

http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/solscr01.htm

If we only pray the way Jesus told us to pray it would be pretty much limited to the Lords Prayer. Nobody was praying to Mary at the time of Christ's resurrection because Mary was still alive and well. They would have just asked her directly the same way you might ask your friend to pray for you. Can't imagine why you get all hung up on this issue Clay.

What's the problem with the statues Clay?

You were trying to make some point about the Knights Templar and the Freemasons. Maybe you are confusing stonemasons with Freemasons. You keep using the word “Masons,” capitalized. If you mean “Freemasons,” then, no, no relation to the Templars.

The Knights Templar were Catholics Clay, yes of course they venerated Mary. I don't get your point. Do you have some problem with the Knights Templar? Is it something about Mary?

I don't get your issue with the Freemasons either. They have nothing to do with the Templars, I already pointed that out to you. The Freemasons were started after the Templars were disbanded. But even if that were not so how could it possibly matter to you?

Gargoyles?

They are architectural ornaments Clay. I can understand a small child getting frightened. But you are a grown man. Get over it.

I am only pointing out that it is an advantage to concentrate on God and His Son instead of also concentrating on all these other things. It is better for everyone to not be distracted. Thanks.

Clay those exchanging posts are only pointing out that there is no distraction. You see distraction because you do not understand Catholicism and are operating under inaccurate views.

When you pray to the saints and Mary, you are praying to them, not Christ. Thanks.

Clay first you operate under the false assumption that all Catholics pray only to Mary or the saints. The vast majority of times it occurs it is imbedded with in larger prayer to God. That aside how is what you claim a distraction? When a Catholic does pray to Mary God is referenced in the prayer. Like I said you oeprarte under incorrect assumptions ased either on your lack of knowledge or someone else's bigotry.

The bible teaches that "God is One, One also is the mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5. The Catholic church teaches that Mary is the sinless co-Redeemer, who "did not lay aside her saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation." She is and "Advocate" and Mediatrix.' 969. This practice is unGodly and unbiblical, regardless of whether God is also prayed to. The bible teaches that "through His blood, God made Him the means of expiation for all who believe." Romans 3:25. Roman Catholicism teaches that sins are expiated in purgatory through a "cleansing fire" and that we "must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace." 1030-31, 1472-75. The bible teaches that salvation is of God, not of man. "Salvation is yours through faith. This is not of your own doing, it is God's gift, neither is it a reward for anything you have accomplished, so let no one pride himself on it." Ephesians 2: 8-9. The Catholic church teaches that "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration.....without which no one can enter the kingdom of God." 1213, 1215. It also teaches that people can obtain their own salvation and at the same time cooperate in saving their brothers through good works and indulgences 1477, 1479. This church denies that justifying grace is undeserved, when the bible teaches that it is in fact undeserved. "We can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to obtain eternal life." 2027. The bible teaches that "this same Jesus, who has been taken away from you into heaven will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven." Acts 1:11. Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus returns daily to the altars of Catholic churches to be worshipped. "The body and blood...soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ...is truly, really and substantially contained" in the Eucharist." 1374-78. There is a lot more to it besides drinking and gambling. Satan has been allowed also to come into this church through basic practices. If you dont know what the church you attend is about, I urge you to pray and seek the word of the Lord through the scriptures along with studying the messages that your church is sending out before deciding if the church you attend is the one which God wants you to attend. God bless.

Clay why do you persist in making false and misleading statements and using selective quotes from both the bible and the catechism? Actually in the case of the catechism I wonder how many of them you actually read. You seem pick and choose what to quote and what to ignore in an attempt to slander the Catholic Church. Go back and read the whole bible and see how many times works and faith are linked. Isn’t there a passage that says faith without works is dead? How many times is baptism mentioned in the Bible? For that matter you still seem to ignore Christ’s words about judgment and removing splinters from your own eye.

Clay the very Bible you quote came from the Catholic & Orthodox Church. All of the church practices have biblical basis but you refuse to see it regardless of how many times it is revealed to you. I guess that’s why you were gone so long. You needed time to come up with something new since you were called on your previous misleading and false statements.

I suggest you follow your own advice Clay. Any church condoning spending time and effort making false and misleading statements about other churches can not be one God would inhabit.

Clay, I believe that the Catholics who post here, myself included, are not trying to decide what church they want to intend. We grow up with the Catechism and study the traditions of our faith as a way of life. We are really quite focused and you are wasting your words on us if your intention is to change our minds. We indulge you out of charity, nothing more.

We attend church for the Mass, to be in the company of the true presence of Christ in body and blood, and to worship among the Communion of Saints. Until you can offer the same your words are a total waste of your time and effort.

I dont see anyone refuting what I have posted with any scriptural evidence. I dont doubt at all that most Catholics stay in their church because that is how they were brought up. However, Roman Catholics can prepare themselves for eternity only by obeying the first command of the Lord Jesus Christ, who called everyone to "repent and believe the gospel" Mark 1:15. To repent is to forsake all efforts to save oneself through sacraments, good works, indulgences, purgatory, obeying the law or participating in the sacrifice of the Mass. To believe the gospel is to trust the Lord Jesus alone, his death for the forgiveness of the complete punishment of sins, and his resurrection for justification and a right standing before God. It is only by grace-God's unmerited and undeserved favor-that sinners can receive the gift of eternal life. Once received it can never be lost or revoked (Romans 11:29.) I certainly have not and do not believe that most of the lay people and clergy that teach Catholic doctrine have any malicious intent. They are passing on what has been taught to them, believing that it is the truth. Many Catholics have a zeal for God but it is not based on biblical knowledge. Prayer, love, compassion and understanding are needed along with the power of the word of God to penetrate their hearts. Patience is needed to untangle Roman Catholics from the dogmatic world in which they are held captive. If I havent been so patient here I hope that I havent hurt anyone. In spite of that, it doesnt make the truth any different, and I can assure you that I am only trying to help. God bless.

Clay, you are quoting directly from Mike Gendron , who has been described as a “vicious Anti-Catholic hate monger.”

For Christ's sake man, use your own words if you have something to say. Plagiarism is a sin.

Now tell me, in your own words, what it is you want us to “refute.”

I look at what I have posted as an attempt to help Catholics. If someone quotes scripture and Catholic doctrine and then someone says that they are a hate monger, it seems to me that someone is trying to ignore the scripture and the Catholic doctrine. It is either true or it isnt, as I stated above. I was thinking about what it would be like to be attending a Catholic church. If I went there every Sunday and took Holy Communion and actually believed that it was the blood and the body of Christ, I would come out of the service and look at someone from a non Catholic church and think that they are not as close to God as I am and how could they be? They dont have the blood and body of Christ in their services. Isnt that what the devil wants you to think? What I have quoted on these blogs is a mixture of sources added to what I add to it, and again I am trying to help. It is unGodly to think that the actual blood and body of Christ is in that service, because it is disobedient to what God tells us. God bless.

Clay whan that someone cherry picks selective quotes from the Bible and catchesim it is not for anyone's benefit. Clay the only one making such comments about closeness to God is you with your continued promoting your own ideas and the ideas of others as the only way to salvation. Try reading " A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" it was written by a former fundamentalist who converted after doing a complete comparision of Catholicism to the Bible. Nothing in the Eurcharist is disobedient to anything in the Bible. Christ's own words called it his body. St Paul in first Corthinthians Chapter 11 places a great deal of significance in the Eurcharist. By bearing lase witness against your neighbors you yourself are being disobedient to one of the ten commandments not to mention your ignoring of Christ teaching to remove the log from your own eye.

Clay you or the whoever you quoted misintreprets Romans 11:29. That verse is part of a larger discussion regarding Israel. It is being misused to try and support a flawed view. Wouldn't the devil want Christians arguing among themselves? How would he accomplish that Clay? Pray and reflect on that.

Clay dear, if your purpose is to help Catholics maybe you should wake up and realize that the Catholics at this blog will not convert to Clayology. I have been following your writings here for about a year and I have yet to see that you have changed anyone's mind. You won't change mine. My family came to Maryland in the 1600's to get away from heretics trying to impose their will upon us. They were compelled to blast the Protestant invaders from Virginia away with the blunderbuss.

I choose words.

Now let me address your concern, you wrote:

“I was thinking about what it would be like to be attending a Catholic church. If I went there every Sunday and took Holy Communion and actually believed that it was the blood and the body of Christ, I would come out of the service and look at someone from a non Catholic church and think that they are not as close to God as I am and how could they be?”

First you must understand that the celebration of the Mass is directed by and toward the Eucharist. It is both private and communal. The term “body of Christ” is used as a synonym for the Church, as well as for the Eucharist. That is why it is called “communion” and the real presence of Christ makes it “holy.” Thus we call it “Holy Communion.” That communion is shared not just with our fellow parishioners but also with the entirety of the faithful, including the faithful departed.

Before we have taken communion we must have first been prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, usually called “confession.” This is dependent on our own conscience regarding our sinfulness. You suggest that the faithful might look down on the person who has not received Communion. I know you meant non Catholics, and I'll get to that. But in the context of a Catholic Mass it is considered quite out of place to concern oneself with the neighbor who remains at the pew. Human nature being what it is though, if a person goes several weeks without receiving little old ladies tongues will start wagging.

But it doesn't go as you imagine Clay. The blue haired ladies can be overheard saying things like “Sam takes his confessions pretty seriously, I wish more men were like that.” Or, “Whatever Sally is going through it's a blessing that she still gets to church with the kids.”

So prior to Communion is Reconciliation. But before we enter the confessional we must do what is probably the most serious thing that we do as Catholic: The examination of conscience, as the Catechism says, “ made in the light of the Word of God.” This is where we examine all of our actions since our last confession in terms of the Commandments, the the Gospels and the writings of the apostles.

Here at my desk I have a family book from the 1800's with interesting instructions on preparing for confession. It lists things to think about. For hotel keepers it implores them to ask themselves if they have overcharged their guests, served strong drink to people close to or already drunk, or “given encouragement to young people without their parents knowledge.” Employers are asked to consider whether they have paid fair wages, asked their employees to go to dangerous places, or “not allowed them sufficient or prudent recreation.”

This old and wise tome asks us to consider our own sins, here are few examples.

Regarding pride it asks us to consider, Have you “entertained too great of an opinion of yourself?” Of anger it asks us to reflect on “violent language, inconsiderate or unnecessary correction, not taken pains to make others happy.” Of gluttony: “over-expense in eating or drinking, injured health by excessive eating or drinking.”

The point is Clay that we examine our actions and our motives. It isn't as though we receive communion and “feel” instantly closer to God. It isn't about feelings at all. What draws us close to God is the accomplishment of doing the hard work that it takes to examine ourselves, the humility demanded by sharing this with our confessor, and our acceptance of His forgiveness. This process (examination, reconciliation, communion) has worked for two thousand years for us.

If we have difficulty in this task it is quite appropriate to ask the priest for guidance. I hope you will see that this approach has a goal towards spiritual development. The Eucharist is a part of an entire process of worship.

You expressed the concern that a Catholic would come out of service and think that they were “closer to God' because they had received the body of Christ and you had not. There is a fundamental error in that view Clay. We do not leave church and immediately start judging our neighbors as Christ himself admonished us not to do. That would be like taking your clothes out of the wash and tossing them back in the hamper with your soiled laundry.

I never suggested that Catholics were gossipy in any way. What I said was that they believe that the bread and wine are the actual blood and body of Christ. How could they ever attend another church and another Holy Communion that didnt contain the actual body and blood if this is what they believe? When you think about it Holy Communion is the largest way that this church ensures that their members dont go elsewhere, and I am not saying that it was set up for that purpose. All of the sacraments that arent followed in other churches are ways for any Catholic to feel that they arent getting the whole power of God in any service at any other church. So how could they leave? The fact is the sacraments and procedures are not what God wants us to do. There is nothing wrong with examining our own conscience. We arent told anywhere to do it on a regular basis to a mortal human, however. If one actually believes that these procedures are necessary from week to week, they would immediately feel farther from God in attendance at another church. In fact, the church teaches that one cannot attend another church unless their mass committments were fulfilled at the Catholic one. One can say whatever they want. These things are not what God wants us to do. Thanks and God bless.

Absolutely Clay as you say we “believe that the bread and wine are the actual blood and body of Christ.” And yes it is true, although I wouldn't use your words, that we aren't “getting the whole power of God in any service at any other church.” We use the term “fullness of truth.” I think you finally got is. No, we don't go to church for a sermon and waving our arms in the air hollering halleluiah. We go for the entirety of the Mass that reaches its most delightful point during communion.

You seem to be under the delusion that we feel somehow trapped when you say “When you think about it Holy Communion is the largest way that this church ensures that their members don't go elsewhere....”

That's ridiculous. We “are” the Church Clay. Nothing is being imposed upon us from the outside. You are correct that the Church teaches that our Mass commitment cannot be fulfilled in another church. Here in my neighborhood most of the bars do not serve food. So if I want to have a meal I have to go to a restaurant. It's that simple. Your church might be able to give the “feel good” stuff like the bar. But it offers no sustenance.

You are correct to that we would feel “farther from God in attendance at another church.” It would be like an extramarital affair Clay, a betrayal of a love that you know is real and true.

You also seem to feel that the repetitive process of examination of conscience, confession, and communion is a burden to us. It is not. It is a joy, well, maybe not for an adolescent. But for a grown man or woman the continual purification of the soul, the inward study of our motives and actions, builds a rich inner life. It is no burden. You misunderstand the meaning of repentance, as well as its value. Let's see what two wise men have to say about it:

“To repent is to change direction in the journey of life: not, however, by means of a small adjustment, but with a true and proper about turn. Conversion means swimming against the tide, where the "tide" is the superficial lifestyle, inconsistent and deceptive, that often sweeps us long, overwhelms us and makes us slaves to evil or at any rate prisoners of moral mediocrity.” (Benedict XVI Wednesday, 17 February 2010)

The scholar turned Pope John Paul II defined repentance more succinctly. He said, “"Repent" (in Greek, metanoeîte) is a call to change one's way of thinking and acting.”

Clay your last statement has no biblical basis. It is your own personal opinion. Why is it you attack the Catholic Church for what you perceive as adding to scripture then do the very same thing yourself? You comment about Catholic’s attending another church is equally true of any other Christian denomination. If one is happy with the church Catholic or any other, why would they wish to leave or attend another? All the sacraments are biblical based. Sacraments like Baptism and the Eucharist were practice before the NT was even written so for you to make comments that they aren’t what God wants shows a complete lack of knowledge not only of the Catholic Church, but of the early history of Christianity. What you can not see is by your actions you are showing pride and vanity as well as judging a denomination which you do have a complete knowledge about. While I’m not 100% certain I do believe the Orthodox Church also holds the same position on the Eucharist. Clay while you may mean well you make far to many assertions based on either incomplete or inaccurate information. If you truly want to understand then do proper unbiased study. If you do not that is fine, but then you might want to refrain from judging doctrine you do not understand.

Anonymous, yes, the Orthodox Churches and the Ethiopian Churches all hold that the Eucharistic species are the true presence of Christ.

For the most part, I have made simple statements and used quotes from scripture and Catholic doctrine that havent been refuted here by anyone. My comment about the Catholic church attendance is not the same as in any other church. I have never heard that If I attend a Catholic church this week that I still am expected to fulfill my commitments to my own church. Never heard such a thing and never will. And this church isnt much different that any other? The largest reason it is different is what it has added to scripture that cant be supported by scripture and then assumes that because of these practices that you just arent going to get this same closeness to God at any other church. People are convinced of it. And then they say that I am not doing what God wants me to by pointing it out? To not point it out is to agree with it. I am not saying that we shouldnt baptize and take communion. I am saying that we should take it as a symbol of what Christ wants us to do. Neither one of those acts gets you closer to God, other than saying that you are agreeing to be obedient and then here is an act that I want to use to show my obedience. As Pat Kelly said, "When I was baptized, I went down a dry sinner and came up a wet sinner." How in the world does weekly practices of such things help any churchgoer when it would obviously be better for them to come to the altar and pray about their sin and give themselves to Christ if they havent already? It's simple. It cant be a matter of anyone needing more knowledge about the Catholic church. If anyone wants me to have more knowledge of the Catholic church, it is either the guy below or someone who (more than likely) unknowingly works for him. God bless.

If you're not interested to know more about the Catholic church then why are you even engaged in this discussion Clay?

It should be pretty obvious to you by now that both Anonymous and myself know a great deal more about our faith than you know. Yet you come here with a few phrases from Mike Gendron's anti-Catholic writings and have the arrogance to think that you know more than people who truly do know. Furthermore when you first started copying and pasting Grendron's hate you tried to pass it off as your own; not very honest Clay.

You have made no attempt to respond to the links that we have given you. I offered you a search engine to look up anything that concerns you in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But you insist that the man you plagiarize knows more than us, more than the Catechism, and more than the Saints about Catholicism than any of us.

With all of that you have offered us no knowledge about your church and why it might be a nice place to visit (but I wouldn't want to worship there). We do, however, have your example, or as the fundamentalists like to call it, your “witness.”

And what we witness is a man who has posted here for well over a year with a history of attacking his neighbors:

-Catholics
-gays
-Muslims
-immigrants
-Hindus
-and everybody who disagrees with him, which so far is everybody.

Of course Jesus told you to love your neighbor, but why should that get in the way of good old fashioned bigotry.

If you are not interested in our faith then stop posting about it. It's that simple. None of us are here to “refute” you. We thought you were interested in what we believe. And will you please start using apostrophes in your contractions.

I dont see Mr Gendron as being a hate monger when he makes statements about most Catholics being well intentioned people with a zeal for God. I see him as being someone concerned for his Christian brothers, as I am. And remember, anytime I see anyone, Catholic, homosexual, Muslim, immigrant or Hindu as not following what God wants them to do to get to heaven, I care enough for them to tell them the truth that God wants them to hear. What God does not want me to do is to be afraid to do this because He sent His Son to show us love. If that was the case, all that Christ would have done with the saduccees and pharisees and hypocrites is to be quiet and hug them. I appreciate the info that you have provided. May God bless you and your church.

He does, that's the other major point you missed.