Father, Forgive them, please, because I, the sinner can yet not do so

There I was, reading along on one of the blogs I follow, and happened upon a post by a Protestant blogger, who is challenging the credibility of Catholic Answers in the all too familiar inflammatory fashion. I read the post, and as expected, it contains Contempt prior to Investigation about CA's influence and whether CA is sufficiently "overseen" by the local Bishop.
Catholic commenters, including myself tried in many attempts to keep the argument focused on the point, showing that CA is moderated and has imprimaturs on most publications, and a Priest on staff, but every Protestant (except one and you know who you are, H/T) escalated diversional opinions without fact finding or exercising any level of mutual observancy. One Catholic commenter put the argument well into focus, and then received the following Protestant take:

Protestant poster states:

"CA is engaged in a 'bait & switch' maneuver: in effect they are saying "we have trained apologists and a Dominican on staff, we're authoritative, but not binding; you can trust us." They remind of me of those "Bankruptcy advisors" who for a fee will help you fill out the IRS and legal forms you could have downloaded for free and filled in yourself. It's "magesterial-lite...".

To which I replied a 4th time:

6:28 PM, January 27, 2009
Blogger The Catholic Journeyman said...

...you just lied to try to advance your point
...and its no small deception
...you quoting CA as:

"...we're authoritative, but not binding..."

CA has never claimed such a thing or even implied it. You havent even read their mission, or all the other responses here which are consistent therein.

With that instigative dishonesty, you are not an example of any kind of Christian I would find credible.

The vast majority of Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalists that I have direct or face to face contact with, exhibit such wicked hate in defiance of logic, reason, scriptural support and/or a loving approach. Upon repeated encounter, one wonders how not to fall into sinful cynicism about these,.... individuals. Who would follow such a Christian? What Holy example is this person emulating? Not one that I would find as Christ taught.

I would likely pay a cover charge to converse with a Protestant that understood this perspective, and could maintain a dignified conversation.

It happens that we studied Matthew again tonight with the RCIA class and with the CA comments still in my memory...all these passages, teachings from Christ, flashed in front of me like Neon:


Mt 5:44 - "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven..."

Mt 7:1 - " Judge not, that you be not judged..."

Mt 7:5 - "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brothers eye."

Mt 7:12 - "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."

Mt 12:31 - " Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit wiil not be forgiven."

Mt 12:36,37 - "I tell you, on the day of judgement men will render account for every careless word they utter, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Mt 15:10,11 - "And he called people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand, not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."(this parable fully explained by Christ in 15:15-20)

While it may appear this is solely aimed at the instigator...these scriptures speak to me as well, and by demonstration, the 3 people who read this blog occasionally can confirm...I have intentionally stopped posting the ongoing" a-C debate" content. I am through casting pearls before swine (thank you Tim Troutman). That approach results only in the same non-productive hate speech and I now deny giving it any platform other than an example of what not to follow.

We all deserve respect, and as Christ struggles to get it through our thick heads over and over again...this respect, this "communication", this reaching out...must be postured in Love, Mercy, non-judgement, or it is not of Christ. Its the way he ministered, personally with respect and dignity even for those who we as cultured humans often find undeserving of it.

Am I alone here? Can anyone dig this?

Lakeside Chapel of Hypocracy

Ecumenical warning. There is a 100% chance that this post will have zero Catholic ecumenism.

There is a "Chapel" in this town that needs serious evangelical revision. Lakeside Community Chapel.

Years ago (prior to my full immersion in Catholicism), a "Christian" friend of mine who attended there talked up this outfits Bible Study sessions after service on Sunday's. So I went, alone.

The sign outside the "Chapel" states "VERSE BY VERSE BIBLE TEACHING". The 9 am service was ordinary 10 minutes of hymns 5 minutes of prayer and 45 minutes of monologue by a Pastor on Romans. An alter call followed. I wasn't particularly enlightened by the Pastors take on Romans but being a benefit of doubt kind of guy, I stayed focused, figured all Pastors have their challenges, stuck it out and headed for "bible study".

I sit down in bible study with about 10 other people and wait for the study Leader. In walks a man who positions himself at a podium and begins to talk about Paul's conversion and the Road to Damascus event. He used practical analogies of thought and was getting my attention on a few levels, I was impressed, he had a take and it was on point and was not overly interpretive. During the study (rather...another monologue) heads nodded throughout the room frequently and the train of comprehension was consistent. At the 40 minute mark it was apparent the topic was concluding and then suddenly, the punch line came out.

This man then begins state "truly converted believers would never be Methodist". He cited a recent decision by the UMC (at that time 5 years ago) to allow a convention of Gay Methodists at the UMC National retreat facility. For 10 minutes the verbal attack escalated, it was as if this man underwent a personality change...real anger began to be displayed. He called for everyone in the room to write protest letters to UMC leadership with names and addresses given. He tried to convey an obligation to anyone in the room that hearing this "cooperation of the UMC with Satan" meaning...biblically...that we were also passively approving of this sin by the UMC and are accountable as well.

Oy.

After leaving the room stunned by the philosophical whiplash I just experienced, I noticed a rack of Tracts at the lobby exit. There for sale, with retail price tags, was more inter-christian hate publications than a Hotel tourism rack. I stood there reading the cover of each one slowly, MacArthur, Sproul, John Piper, tracts with titles like "The Mormon Road to hell"..."Lutherans Retreat from the Word". One after another, every Protestant denomination, Catholic, Jewish Faith was attacked.

You can imagine my plight. I knew fully I was in Protestant territory, but not a Christian minefield. It was mind numbing and memorable. Since then, I have run into a few members of this "Chapel" and had similar but less intense encounters. One of their members has an active blog in this domain. You will find similar but subtle language there.

I called my Friend that day and discussed the extreme attacking of other Faiths and potentially those in the room, he wasn't surprised at my discovery. "Whats wrong with that? Biblically we are all obligated to save lives from Sin" he said. I told him that in no way biblically is there any call for this type of "ministry" against other Christians, and that even in a Secular approach, attacking a practicing Christian believer of any Faith, that is, initiating an aggressive denouncement of a given Christians spiritual standing using "Satan-sided Faith" language is judgementally hypocritical. I continued to say, the basic principle of denouncing Gays lifestyle as not biblical is not the point, its the twisted interpretation of Christian obligation that those made aware of it are accountable... that is not only hogwash but hypocritical in the "Chapel's" own stated mission...Verse by Verse Bible teaching. Go attack Islamist extremists, and Abortion mills and clear up that mess. Friend stated then.."well its like any Church, take what is uselful and discard the rest".

Again, Oy.

Later that week after, this friends wife called me to agree with my position on the "Chapels" attack of Christians. They subsequently left Lakeside within that year.

The UMC has long had a history of waffling on the Gay/Marriage issues, there are still somewhat divided in their doctrine even as late as the 2008 UMC General Convention. But my point in specific here is twofold:

1) - Don't go to Key West if you cant stand the feather boa's. Pray for those souls in their state of no grace at a minimum.

2) - Don't hold all non-gay citizens of Key West accountable for the AIDS virus worldwide. No logic argument biblically or otherwise supports this approach.

Am I hereby committing hypocracy by posting an "attack" against this "Chapel", I think not. I have balance and have conveyed that here. I am not stating it should close its doors, or denouncing it as Satan-sided. I am saying there is some truth there, but the contrary occurs to overshadow any of its Christian benefit. Have you ever heard the saying "what you do speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say'? I cant join into a "Church" or "Faith" and take what I like and leave the rest that I don't find true. I need a majority of the content if not 100% to square with Christs teaching.

No Abdication here

Back to the a-C's request that I go line by line IE.:

"GO POINT BY POINT AND TELL ME THAT THIS IS NOT DISHONORNING AND AGAINST SCRIPTURES IN WHAT I SAID....WHAT BIBLICAL SUPPORT IS THERE FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS ………………………….. I WILL NOT IGNORE THEM…FULL OF GRACE IS ALL THAT YOU HAVE CONVEYED AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS STEPHEN OR JOHN THE BAPTIST…NONE HAVE BEEN IGNORED"

JP3 claimed that Mary was his savior when he was shot, his view of Mary is far and above that of simply a departed Saint, she was actively involved in his life and responsible for aspects of his life….She was responsible for his protection, she was responsible for saving his life….He wore her initials on his clothes and so on and so on.

First, his acronym is JP2 not 3.
Second, the fact that I wear a "Fender" logo on my shirt does not mean I worship Fender. It can be said, as you say above, JP2 is a big Fan of Mary. There is nothing in Canon prohibiting anyone, even Peter's successor, from having a tatoo of Mary on his forehead. It does not dishonor or disrespect, just as wearing a Fender shirt does not disrespect Fender.

What Catholics do with Mary is wrong…I don’t have to defend it against your definition of worship. The reality is that it is wrong. Wether you call them worship or not is ridiculous…to say that I don’t understand why Catholics do what -they do is ridiculous…but even more decieiving is to laugh and say….see,,,,,I told you this Is not worship is silly….what ever name you give these is blasphemous against scripture.

What we have discussed, on many occasions, must not have been clear enough. In our conversations your assumed emphasis on the attention Mary receives is far greater than the level of attention most practicing Catholics pay in real life. I nor any Catholic I know, including Priests, Deacons and Catechists dont walk around with a constant adoration and mental vision of Mary. Your emphasis greatly exagerates the proportional amount of attention Mary actually receives in the daily life of a Catholic in general in my experience. In fact, to try and convey this with absolute clarity, Mary is hardly mentioned in the Mass on a regular basis. Its all about Christ.

What Catholics do with Mary is engage her closeness to Christ. All aspects of Mary point to Christ. Everything about Mary is Christocentric. Look at the Wedding feast at Cana in John 3:5 she says "Do whatever He tells you". She said herself in the Gospel of Luke 1:46 "My soul magnifies the Lord".

Her singular role as virgin Mother is engaged via prayer to get results with Christ. JP2 must have gotten results with her engagement/intercession and advocates doing this by wearing her insignia. What is essentially important to address is a distinct difference between Worship and Honor that must be understood. When anyone prays to God, they attach "latria" to this communication. Latria is sacrificial in character, and may be offered only to God. Catholics offer other degrees of reverence to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to the Saints; these non-sacrificial types of reverence are called Hyperdulia and Dulia, respectively. Hyperdulia is essentially a heightened degree of dulia provided only to the Blessed Virgin. This distinction, written about as early as Augustine of Hippo and St Jerome, was detailed more explicitly by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, A.D. 1270, II II, 84, 1: "Reverence is due to God on account of His Excellence, which is communicated to certain creatures not in equal measure, but according to a measure of proportion; and so the reverence which we pay to God, and which belongs to latria, differs from the reverence which we pay to certain excellent creatures; this belongs to dulia, and we shall speak of it further on (II II 103 3)"; in this next article St. Thomas Aquinas writes: "Wherefore dulia, which pays due service to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which pays due service to the Lordship of God. It is, moreover, a species of observance, because by observance we honor all those who excel in dignity, while dulia properly speaking is the reverence of servants for their master, dulia being the Greek for servitude." From St. Thomas it is apparent that a clear distinction exists among latria and forms of dulia within Catholic theology.

True practicing Catholics know the difference. When a non-Catholic attempts to blur the Worship radar screen with what he sees on the outside, not knowing what is on the inside of said Catholic, thats subterfuge.


We don’t need someone to intercede for us

We agree here. Essential it is not, however it is biblical as stated in Rev. 5:8, thus: "And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" There are accounts as the benefit of praying to Saints. One either accepts this or does not accept it. What one cannot do is read it, then ignore the content and twist it beyond its intent.

God does not need assistants to bring our requests to him

Even if he did, scripture does not distinguish assistants.

Scripture does as stated above and in Mark 12:26-27, your assertion of the term assistants is not relevant.

Full of Grace is used of other in scripture

Correct but not to the exclusion of Mary.

No one participated in our atonement NO ONE>>>>>>FOR HE MADE HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN TO BE SIN FOR US, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM

NOT IN THEM!

We don’t need one to pray for us at the hour of our death (at the instant of death believers go to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Thes) why do I need her to pray for me….

This is repetitive, the "need" may not be there, but the benefit is historically validated by thousands.

deceived Roman Catholics do not go to purgatory, they perish in hell eternally, Mary praying will be of no avail.

Scripture makes reference to Purgatory as a place of cleansing for those believers who are in Christs Grace but who are not sinless enough for admission through the narrow gate:

"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (Matt. 5:25-26).

"Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:13-15).

These passages mark plainly the path which Purgation shall take place.

We don’t pray in vein repetition TO GOD OR TO ANYONE

You must be referring to Matthew 6:7–8. "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Jesus says explicitly that we should not "heap up empty phrases." You may be aware that the word battalogeo is used only once in the New Testament: here in Matthew 6:7. It seems to be a word of special importance. It also can be translated "to babble on" or "to repeat endlessly." You would also logically ask if praying the Hail Mary is not a vain repetition.
Don't stop at the end of verse 8. In verse 9, Jesus says explicitly, "Pray then like this." He then goes on to teach us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father). If Jesus was against standardized prayers, why did he give us one to pray? And I presume you would agree that he wanted us to pray this on many occasions.

In addition, not all repetition is vain. Consider the prayers spoken of in Revelation 4:8 offered day and night without ceasing: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!" Another repetitious prayer pleasing to God is contained in Psalm 136: "For his steadfast love endures for ever." This phrase is repeated over twenty-five times. Finally, Matthew 26:44 tells us that Jesus himself prayed the same prayer three times in the garden in Gethsemane.

Statues and images of Mary are bowed down to around the world and prayers are offered to her directly...Idols are sold by the millions every year with her as a pendant on woman

It isnt that hard to come to an understanding that we mortal humans are limited in our expression of spirit. Showing reverence for any Holy symbolic statue, image or material thing when it is done with intent to acknowledge the supreme reverence of God is based in respect. One should have a compassionate and loving heart to comprehend that the things put in Gods House are for the purpose of glorifying Him.


Mary was a servant of God to bring about the fulfillment of our Mesiah…John the Baptist was declared to be above all other Men…let’s carve a statue to him and light candles and pray to him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while were at it, think of the take if we make one’s for money boxes and kneeling to all the popes….Oh I guess my thoughts are old news…that is what the Vatican did

Now you're getting sarcastic...no comment.

Recent Post Summary

Below I unloaded a few weeks worth of apologetic futility with my friend. The futility lies in said friends fierce unwillingness to even ponder one single Catholic postion, based (even) solely on scriptural meaning. The only time he backs down in a receptive posture always leads to him pleading to get me to study Romans with him, which as you should know, is where Luther inserted the word"alone" where it was never written by divine revelation. My posture might be viewed here by some readers as non ecumenical...and it has to be with this particular individual as he views "interfaith" as a wound to manipulate into his sola scriptura Calvinist bent.

Much work has to be done on his end with the approach to an open mind....I dont see it happening...

-Peace

Did Calvin play a role in Servetus execution?

Karl Keating @ Catholic Answers has written that this is true. In my debate with the a-C on the instigation, culpability and guilt professed by Protestants that Catholics/Rome created Christian Martyrdom during the Crusades, I mailed the a-C the following summary of Calvins involvement published by one Reformist Encyclopedia (citation ^ John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History), Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0-521-65114-X p. 325).

(Dave writes to a-C):
Servetus, a theologian and follower of Calvin and close personal friend of Calvin, was publishing non-trinitarian theology....John Calvin had him executed.

Heres an excerpt from a Reformist History encyclopedia from 1553:

When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September 8, chided him for undue lenity, On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his
book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."[24]
The common view of the age, that heretics like Servetus should be subject to punishment, was explained by Calvin as follows:

" Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."

-Dave


(a-C responds):
Wow is that so off it is sad

When you have the time, this will be an incredible derivation from trusting in what is written in one source from another. Many good sources report the opposite and John’s own writings reveal the opposite.

John Calvin served this man day and night and was merely a witness called by the state….he was not the accuser, he was not the source of the condemnation, he was in fact a loving follower of Jesus Christ who availed his entire library and every resource he had to help Servetus to see the truth, he was overwhelmed with grief at his demise….

There are many villainizations in history. I have never read one quite more painted than this one.

Many professed evangelicals hate John Calvin and the doctrines of Grace…there could be many sources for this untruth, all are likely and valid, but like our Lord, we know his servants are not above his master, they will be persecuted (Rom 8). Simply stated, truth is truth, and every aspect of biblical truth is truth from the bible, not from men. Calvinism and the doctrines of grace are unmistakably in the bible, and men will go to any length to reject the things they hate.

I make it clear to my kids Encyclopedia’s are not truth, they are a version of the story. The only knowable truth is scripture, all is else is perspective that changes with the fashions.
-a-C


Fair assessment on both sides I think reveals some ecumenical possibilities. The conversation went on and degraded somewhat, so I will leave it here to return to sometime in effort to explore the possibility of common dialogue.

"Roman Catholic Bafoonary"

I am evidently damned to hell for practicing Catholicism, and so is my family I am responsible for, according to the a-C. I ask YOU, my readers, to absorb the content of the following conversation and comment accordingly....I turn this one over to you and Christ for response...until I am lead otherwise:

(a-C writes):
Was reading 1 peter this morning and was overwhelmed at the love he had for the once for all, one time act of redemption that was accomplished in Christ Jesus my Lord

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver or gold, from your aimless conduct [received] by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

To think that Popery could esteem him to be the establisher of traditions is contrary to the 2 books of Scripture that he wrote…..aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers….he called such tradition, AIMLESS CONDUCT and pointed the reader and us to the blood of Christ alone….The Roman Catholic Mass is aimless conduct in every sense of the word…it does not accomplish anything and Peter would reject this hypocrisy BOLDLY….for the love of the precious blood of Christ

(CJ responds):
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). "

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

"There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). (Peter referring to Pauls Letters)

Sacred Scripture does not contradict itself. Your personal, out of context, judgemental interpretation of 1P1:18 has lead you astray again.

(a-C responds):
Scripture does not commend the worthless practices of lighting candles and praying to dead saints, being sprinkled with smoke, having a cross with ashes rubbed on your head, doing a criss cross with your hands, praying a rosary, praying to departed saints, making staues of dead saints, sprinkling water on infants heads, Paul nor peter handed these traditions to the church, the letter of 1 corinthians explained the construct of what he was emphasizing to maintain…he is not referring to traditions not mentioned, he goes on in 11 and edifies the traditions he is enumerating…head coverings, woman not shaving their head,

You can not show me one refernce to praying a rosary for the atonement of sins, yet this is a supposed practice handed down…I can show you 100’s of scriptures which would cause a bible reading person to discern such a practice not only worthless, rather an abomination

I must do acts of penance for the forgiveness of sins

There is a treasury of merit

Dave I know a lot of tradtions that are outright damning, and you and your family by practicing them are trusting in them…or as Romans 1:32, not doing them, but approving of those who do them, you are deserving of death….so affiliation with the practices affirms you in affirming others

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone…you do not cooperate with traditions and your prescriptive works by a priest, you come to Christ and trust him alone

Join the true believers who worship Christ in spirit and truth, not in traditions and sacraments and all the idolatry, spirit is the indwelling of the holy spirit, and truth Jesus said clearly in John 17, I do not pray for those in the world, but for those you have given me, he prayed that they would be sanctified by truth, your word is truth

Jesus made it clear…you must be born again – does your wife know what that means

It is the only YOU MUST that Jesus conveyed in all of scripture

Can you teach your children the truth of what this means or are they confident that all this popery is what they are trusting in

Unless a man be born again, he can not enter the Kingdom of God

Nicodemus was as close to the Pope as they come and he was astounded…by God’s grace he came to saving faith

You are responsible for your family and your abominations will be to the third and fourth generations….you are a reproach to the name of Christ to defend this bafoonary

I am here to explain scripture not refute your cults holdings. You need truth, not Catholicism for dummies to explain their holdings, you need to read scripture for yourself and let scripture interpret scripture. My one email alone on saints should have caused tremendous concerns…over a 100 passages that totally refute the notion that a saint is a departed person who was recognized for their life….and we pray to them….

To think that this text somehow supports all this popery is ridiculous…read the chapter, he tells you what tradition he is addressing and reinforcing

Catholics "made up" the Rapture

So heres how it happened...ahem...according to a Protestant, who engaged said CJ in a non Religious forum, here on the old InterWebNet:

Mr. Protestant said:
"I dont want to step on any toes, but were you guys aware that the whole Rapture /Tribulation thing was made up by the Catholic church to counteract Martin Luthers movement, and the belief that was becaoming predominant among Protestants that the Pope was the Anti-Christ? I have all the historical evidence and the names of the two authors if anyone is interested."

To which I replied:
"Oy, .....yeah I'm interested....John Nelson Darby invented the "Rapture" (dispensationalism) in 1830-31 after he left the Angelican Priesthood. No previous Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant, had ever proposed or taught such an thing. It is not the same as the Tribulation based in 1 Thes. Ch 4-5 and Revelation sources."

MP Response:
"OK, Im not sure this is the place for it, and maybe we're opening a can of worms here-but here goes..........The foundation of the rapture theory was laid over 400 years ago upon the specific orders of the Catholic Church. Every Christian needs to understand how this fabrication of error was designed to neutralize the great Protestant Reformation. If the facts of history were known by Protestants today who defend with such great emotion the rapture theory and the futurist antichrist doctrine, they would be horrified. Luther and his fellow reformers boldly identified the pope as the "man of sin," and labeled the Catholic Church as the antichrist of prophecy. In response to those charges, the hierarchy assigned two Jesuit priests to develop counter- interpretations which would turn the onus away from the Catholic Church. In spite of the fact that the two men founded opposing schools of interpretation, their theories have survived to form the basis of most modern Protestant theology today. Not only did they effectively blunt Luther's assessment of the papacy as the antichrist, but they cleverly divided and diluted the "protest" of all the churches which grew out of the Reformation movement. Modern religious observers were astounded in January, 1984, when men like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell meekly accepted and defended the establishment of United States political ties with the Vatican. Why could those famous Protestant spokesmen see no danger in being allied with the Church of Rome? Because they are deceived, along with millions of others, by the Catholic-contrived theories of those two priests which have almost eclipsed the historic, biblical position of the Reformers. If the spiritual descendants of Luther and Wesley now had the same doctrine which they taught, not a single Lutheran or Methodist would favor any kind of alliance with the papacy today. Now let's take a look at these two Spanish priests who flooded the sixteenth century with their counter-Reformation propaganda.Alcazar of Seville applied all the beast prophecies to Antiochus Epiphanes, who lived long before the popes began to rule in Rome. His system of interpretation came to be known as the Preterist School of prophecy.On the other hand, Jesuit Francisco Rivera invented a system known as the Futurist School of interpretation. He taught that the antichrist was to be some future superman who would appear near the end of time and continue in power for three and a half years. It is his clever, unscriptural theory which has been resurrected by modern evangelical Protestant Christians. And today millions of Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc., hold this anti-Protestant concoction of the Jesuits as some kind of infallible doctrine. Yet, those same denominations claim to be faithful supporters of Protestant theology. Luther and other stalwart protestors against Catholic errors would be astounded if they were suddenly resurrected to hear what is being taught in the name of Protestantism. In the early 1800s the futurist view of Jesuit Ribera passed through certain refinements and additions, including the seven-year tribulation and the snatching away of the saints. For the first time, it was espoused by Protestant teachers who were seeking ways of reconciliation with Rome. Through the influence and writings of John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren Church in England, the new doctrine spread to the United States. During the middle and latter nineteenth century, it received its biggest boost from Cyrus Scofield, who incorporated it into the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909."

After gaining my composure, I did a good bit of digging, confirming and happened upon the following info and responded:

"Mr. Protestant, here's where your post was copied from, word for word basically.
http://apologetics.scriptmania.com/3400.htm

...which in my view is a highly political attack on Catholics today and in the past. Too bad you didnt post Catherine Andrew's appropriate response as a balance, as the site and your quote is a Catholic Apologetic site resource. I stand by the fact I stated above and Catherine Andrews response in the link. Specifically "The Catholic faith has had a line of her own would-be prophets speaking about the Last Days......The fact that certain Protestant groups borrowed from Catholic eschatology does not constitute a conspiracy on her part." Whats really more important than engaging you, Mr. Protestant, in a "chicken or egg" contest about a warmongers motives in 175 A.D. (Antiochus Epiphanes), is that Catholics today, with any reasonable knowledge of that faiths origins and practices, bear more fruit with Protestants in finding common ground and biblical basis of debate. Catholics did not make up the Rapture theory. "

(End of said lively debate.)

Notice the distinct attack language by MP in his first statement, baiting anyone to challenge him "if anyone is interested". Without regard to the narration that follows (which is opinion and not historically supported), this is a perfect example of intentional ignorance. MP read something emotionally charged against Catholicism, valid or not, and not only chose to repeat it as truth, but published it with a request for engagement!

This is the danger of a Protestant attack, and why I have a specific post category for it. We, as Catholics must research all angles before any assertion, so as not to fall into the same intellectual laziness trap. As well....we have an obligation to our Church to defend it. A non-response is validation, in the perception of the writer. This is actually the essence and primary purpose of this website.

Now, did I win him over to my point here...I couldnt tell. My motive is not to spew "Down
Goes Frasier!" at conclusion. Maybe calling out the partial source of errant info by Mr. Protestant played to the Catholic credibility...I hope so. Maybe the no fluff answer and a call for finding fruit bearing common ground will prevail. Its all I can do to leave it there for someone, just one maybe, to see a misinformed conclusion get a valid, factual response, and remain approachable.

I want to believe thats what He wants me to want, so I do.

R. C. Sproul has it wrong.

I just spent a few hours with a recording of him...again.

I had been given a cd of Dr. Sprouls speech to the Shepards Conference a few years ago. I had listened through the entire hour once back then, and he addressed the Catholic practice of indulgences and the Lateran Church Relics in an outright attack on RCC Doctrine and Trents councils published practice for receiving indulgences. 3 years ago...not having researched Trents documentation at all, he had a convincing argument against the RCC's practice. He quoted several Trent documents directly with what sounded like accuracy, and certainly, most undeniably, Dr. Sprouls talent and articulation of public speaking added to a high level of perceived credibility to his Lutheran points of attack.

So this week I loaded that speech into itunes, and sat down with some resources on Trent from the Vatican. It didnt take long to uncover why Dr. Sproul turned down a direct debate offer from Robert Sungenis. which is summarized by Mr. Sungenis as follows:

"Upon receiving the letter, Sproul had his secretary call me. She said he was simply too busy to engage in a formal debate, citing his many activities: books, radio, tapes, and so on. I asked her to tell Sproul that if he is going to travel the country accusing Catholics of heresy, he should stop hiding behind his schedule and engage with some respectable opponents who can answer his claims. After all, I said, 1 Peter 3:15 commands us to "give an answer of the hope that is in you to everyone that asks."

Not receiving a return call, I wrote Sproul another letter asking him to reconsider. I also asked that if he maintained his option not to debate, to let us know in writing rather than have his secretary call us. That he did. (See sidebar.)

In reading the letter I was immediately struck by the two-sided answer he gave. First, he attributed his incapacity to debate to the board of Ligonier Ministries, which apparently does not let him out but twice a year. I'm sure, however, that if Sproul really wanted to debate us he could. The second answer probably gives the real reason for his reluctance. He says that the "speaking committee doesn't see the value of my being involved in a debate on sola fide, and I am in agreement with the committee's decision." Here is a man who has spent virtually half his life attacking the Catholic view of justification and now has the audacity to say he doesn't see any "value" in being involved in such a debate."

Sprouls well delivered verbal painting that we can buy indulgences for days off in purgatory were actually dealt with by Trent directly, and are shown to be false.

I think its time someone take him on. I plan to do a podcast on this specific attack by Dr. Sproul, then hopefully some unsuspecting victim will catch our truth before falling for his false conclusion and incomplete research.

You cannot be Serious....

I really should'nt have to excercise this much self restraint.

The a-C just got off the phone with me, after a lengthy diatribe by him stating that the Crusades/Inquisition murder of Heretics era of Catholicism is active in the minds most Anti-Catholic Protestants. (Um...tell something new please)

Essentially, I was pointing out to him that calling himself an "Anathema" (see previous post)was misinformed of current doctrine. Here is his answer to that:

"So were they (Rome) wrong with the tradition then? It really wasn’t meant to be a tradition? Do we issue an apology to all that were murdered or was that correct for the time and now we now longer do that…so God intended this truth for a brief period of time…I know you see the problem you face here…there is no way around it, the answer is no, you can’t redefine it the word…you are merely muddying the discussion to evade the need to realize that there is nothing that Rome can do with the papal decrees here popery issued in the 1400’s, are you saying they were wrong and now you are correcting? You answer is insufficient…your example is grossly minimizing the significance of this decree (anathema for faith alone, anathema if you don’t hold that the priestly order is only capable of discerning scripture, anathema for many things), these decrees resulted in condemnation both physically and pronounced spiritually….do you have formal issuances from popery that addresses this, NO, they unlike the mormans have never written anything to correct the issuances because they were inerrant in their giving…. You can’t answer no…. don’t they can’t answer this question, and I trust they can’t dupe you into thinking a logical answer is warranted…Rome is not the church and the traditions they prescribe are lies as this one scenario clearly renders…."

The a-C, while I find this attack language offensive, (note: well trained restraint required to absorb Content and not Tone) has a point worthy of addressing. While gathering my answer, I cited a portion of Mr. Akin's article on this subject, thus:

"8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one."

I see the a-C's point of linking an Anathema definition to the "victims" of the Crusades is that he would suffer far more greatly if today was...say the year 1067, and he denounced Catholicism. Valid point. So lets address the statement:

"Do we issue an apology to all that were murdered or was that correct for the time and now we now longer do that?...do you have formal issuances from popery that addresses this, NO,.... "

Pope John Paul II did in fact make as formal an apology and penance act as one could today....to obtain forgiveness for the acts of long ago deceased Catholic "Instigators". This CNN article of the 2000 JP II apology takes a mid-line view.

So, the answer is yes, "we" did apologize for all that...although I'm still not sure Catholics had anything to apologize for. I have read purportions by Catholic Apologists that state Calvin executed Servetus, which in plain fact is also not true, factually. So when this kind of debate spurs, coloring Catholics with the brush of murderous motive against Protestantkind, and its left to non-biblical, fallible history books to get right, I cant get conviction from those sources on fault. Fair is fair.

CJ Podcast #001 is up

CJ Podcast 001

The beginning of a Christian discovery.

Hypocracy or Intentional Ignorance

I read a blog post comment today that rang my bell severely.

A while back, I was given a tract at a "Bible Church" that has 52 reasons the Catholic Church was a Cult. I cant seem to locate that tract now but a few things stuck with me enough that when I read this particular post comment it came back vividly.

Many of the "reasons" in that tract were way off, so far off Catholic doctrine and Scriptural Basis that I was dumbfounded. Something like this:

#37 - Catholics worship Mary = Idolatry - The Bible says thou shalt have but one God....blah, blah, blah..." you know the verse language, etc. etc.

Its one thing to outwardly oppose the doctrine of a given religion. Its a whole other thing to misrepresent that religion entirely. That's like me saying Mormons find polygamy acceptable today...basing my assertion on ancient Mormon history/rumor/hearsay, which is not today's Mormonism (as a general rule).

How audacious is it to proclaim a non-fact (Worship Mary) and then print it up and distribute it? What picture does that convey to anyone, once the facts are made known? It conveys intentional ignorance, that is, the Protestant wants to believe a lie in order to save some kind of face with their peers. There is nothing biblical about this kind of attack. The a-C says in doing this he is following scripture in leading Catholics to Christ...away from the false prophets of Catholicism. But he wont hear the correct facts to begin his effort.

That doesn't work, plain and simple. Let alone being a loving attempt at moving someone to his view, right or wrong. Loving approach, not attack is biblical.

Apologetics don't even enter this kind of situation. Its futile, to explain away a non fact is useless wind. Catholics don't worship Mary. End of story. Now, should you require an explanation of why Catholics pay so much attention to Mary, then see my first post....that's when Apologetics find a worthy use.

-Peace

The a-C has a take on Lanciano

"Hey...a-C, ever heard of Lanciano?

What is it?

Google it...better yet, I'll send you a site link."

I then emailed the a-C 9 different website links, one is a secular science publication article on the testing done on the Holy Sacrament validating its biology. Here's his take after maybe looking at one site:

a-C says....."you believe that hoax?"

"yup"

"Thats the mark of the Devil" says a-C.

When all logic, facts and supporting tangible evidence prevails, he goes with evil supernatural, and then proceeds to find a way to insult me as gullable enough not to see through the "hoax" of the miracle of Lanciano.

nice, huh?

Scripturally handicapped?

Its true. The a-C and I had a chuckle recently. He tells me he went to a Charity Dinner, with mostly Catholics, and proceeded to challenge one of them by introducing himself as a "Non-Catholic Anathema". The Catholic looked at him really puzzled and replied..."you're a what"?"

"Anathema, isnt that what you Catholics say the Bible says I am, since I dont believe in Catholicism?"

The Catholic Man replied...

"Um, no, not at all!" with a smile.

The a-C stated..." well Romans Ch3, ver........" The Catholic man then walked away.

I said "a-C, you ought to know better than to attack a Catholic at a casual Secular Dinner Event with Scriptural Apologetics."

He says "Why not?"

I said "a-C, you know we Catholics are Scripturally Handicapped, why rub it in the poor guys face?."

(Of course we know why now don't we?)

(Now for my comments)
This is a typical example of the lack of fundamental basis for the a-C's hostility toward our Faith, and why it is so dangerous.

1. He has no accurate grasp on the specific definition of an "Anathema". An Anathema was a Publicly excommunicated Catholic. It required a proclamation by the Priesthood no less to fit this definition. The RCC abolished this ecclesiastical law as well (as it is free to do so). The a-C doesn't know that and doesn't care to research its specific basis. He abandoned the Church voluntarily...too bad he doesn't see the embarrassment of his technical ignorance.
2. The attack is not based in love let alone a cordial or even friendly introduction on his part to another Christian. Its an antagonizing selfishly motivated attempt at inducing the "enemy" into his fight. The motive is clear, even with a display of sarcasm, one could not in any reasonable fashion find this kind of introduction to a person as approachable.
3. The lack of respect is blatant and intentional. Imagine having a level of righteous arrogance high enough to brush this off as a passing funny exchange.

Protestants like him (not all) are too quick to disdain Catholics, driven by narrowly researched postures, opinions of Catholic practices that are twisted and flawed. Should you run into one of these fragile souls, be kind but keenly aware to defend a sudden attack. Represent our Faith with love in return. It may be the only way to contrast their approach enough to cast a bit of visible light to them of their sinful attacks.

-Peace

Fair Enough....

Its time I put out a description of the a-C and myself, for context sake and to better level the playing field for him. Know this...currently the a-C does NOT know this blog exists. I am private enough to only post stuff that is relevant and private info wont be revealed....we all deserve that respect.

The a-C is a man on fire Fundamentalist. He will tell you he is not in any specific flavor of Religion or Doctrine....he doesnt need a Church...he attends a Nondenom but only for meaningful Bible teaching and connection to other like "Saved" Christians. He is in my experience a Calvinist. He was born and raised a Catholic...I have liitle background on what that entailed, confirmed or not, but he shared his exit from the Catholic Church like this....

He sincerely searched for truth there, took part in Sacrements with no results, and being frustrated met up with a Christian (Fundamentalist...my guess) who had him study Romans verse by verse privately. Thats when he was Saved.

These days he wont get near the RCC. I asked him to attend a Contemporary Christian Concert I was playing in at my RCC and he said...and here I quote:

" Dude...If I made it to the parking lot without puking, I still wouldnt go in. To watch a self glorified Priest, resacrifice Christ in blasphemy, insult our Savior is too much to endure." The a-C believes the following"

• No Catholic is Saved and there are No Catholics going to heaven....due to
• The Catholics disrespect of Christs one time Sacrifice by Re-Sacrificing him repeatedly
• None of the Catholic Sacrements are Biblically based
• None of the Catholic Practices are found in the Bible
• Tradition is not Biblically supported
• No Indulgences or forgiveness is ever needed after one is saved, and believing that such things exist is proving to God you do not trust his intial Sacrifice...therefore you truly dont believe...therefore you are not Saved.

The a-C and I in our friendship have come to an affection for each other, sometimes strained, but nonetheless, he is today a well read Bible follower. Sola Scriptura all the way. Very convincing to any non-exposed secular person who encounters him, I must admit.

He has agreed to my ground rules for this comparison and investigation...that being....I will present nothing but biblical based evidence for all the RCC practices....all of them, and he will counterpoint. Do I believe I will ever prevail in bringing him home? I think his unfruitful RCC experience is an enormous obstacle to that, I can only hope. My main motivation here is to discover if his points have merit.

Are we (Catholics) bound for hell by taking in Communion?

It is my intent to intellectually, spiritually and religiously discover that here, in real time.

Ave Maria

or better known as "Mary, Full of Grace". The a-C stated to me...."Where is there any reference in the Bible to Mary being full of grace" ...its just not there". I had to dig deep in reply...I know its there...I hear it at Mass every week...Hup! there it is:

One of many Bible sources of Mary's condition:
a-C,
- read Luke 1, vs. 26 through 38, specifically verse 28 as follows:" And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren. 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Interesting that you didnt know this a-C. The Devotion to Mary of the Universal Church is widely documented, and as to her intercessionary role and its biblical sources. Her position is further clarified in Revelation 12-1 through 6:" 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered........"Now a-C, objectively speaking, who do we know from the bible that fits this description? Is it not reasonable to tie this to John 19 where Christ on the Cross told his disciple "Behold they mother.." pointing at Mary? The Crown of 12 stars in Rev 12-2, what do they represent to you a-C? Not a statement, but a question of research.

The a-C then replies...
"This is revelation that indeed the Lord would come thru her…but to say that she is an intercessor is simply not there, there is no worship or otherwise…the Lord said I will share my Glory with no other…let alone a woman that he created

(Whoa....This is a huge statement...imagine the Chicken/Egg debate going on there...we will have to address this philosophical broadbrush at some point)

She declared that he was her Lord! (well...duh)

The NASB has the proper translation of the word which is used often, she declared herself to be his slave!

38 And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

You would agree that the angel did not pray to her, nor worship her, nor did anyone any where in scripture…nor did Elizabeth become the object of worship or adiration…

When Jesus was on the Cross, he directed John that Mary was now to be taken care of by him…it was a directive to him as she was a widow and her children had not come to faith yet…

This really does not support anything to the notion that she is an intercessor and if she were, would she be mentioned in texts like Heb 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. 16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

There is nothing in scripture about her intercession…"

My reply to this assertion...

a-C, you say and I quote"There is nothing in scripture about her intercession…"

I found reference in Romans: The doctrine of one Mediator, Christ, in no way excludes the invocation and intercession of saints. All merit indeed comes through Him; but this does not make it unlawful to ask our fellow-creatures, whether here on earth or already in heaven, to help us by their prayers. The same Apostle who insists so strongly on the sole mediatorship of Christ, earnestly begs the prayers of his brethren: "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God" (Romans 15:30); and he himself prays for them: "I give thanks to my God in every remembrance of you, always in all my prayers making supplication for you all" (Phil., i, 3, 4). If the prayers of the brethren on earth do not derogate from the glory and dignity of the Mediator, Christ, neither do the prayers of the saints in heaven.

Romans is clear. "Supplication" or petitioning is clear. Just as if I asked you to pray for me Jim, that is valid intercession. So I would be diminishing what God did for us by asking you to intercede for me in prayer? The Bible states otherise.

This particluar conversation went offtrack with the a-C pointing at Romans passages that are interpreted by him to make broad attacks on our Catholic "rituals" which of course is avoiding getting to the bottom of the Mary position.

I asked the a-C to go get me a rebuttal...biblically based, not interpretive...that proves praying to Mary or Saints is ineffective as praying to "dead people". In 3 days no reply so far......

Mary and her place

Further conversation from me with the "anti-Catholic" (now called the a-C) when he professed the typical falsehood that "we" worship Mary...went like this... ( the a-C response is in CAPS)

"I imagined we were already beyond the false Protestant belief that Catholics "worship" and "Adore" Mary....I guess we need to go back there and clear that up first. The first thing we have to get beyond is that she is not just a dead person...that would mean she was an unjustified sinner and went to hell. If she entered into heaven, then the RCC goes with the following logic, these are my words:A DEAD PERSON OR ONE WHO HAS FALLEN ASLEEP HAS EITHER WENT TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST OR THEY ARE IN THE OUTER DARKNESS ENDURING ETERNAL SEPARATION FROM GOD The Roman Catholic rite does not hold Mary to any level higher than a Saint. SAINTS ARE THE ELECT OR CHOSEN OF GOD WHO HAVE BEEN BORN AGAIN…IF THEY ARE DEPARTED THEY DO NOT MANIFEST QUALITIES THAT GOD HAS, NOR ARE THEY WORTHY OF ANYHTING MORE THAN YOU AND I, Take my word for it. The volumes of Biblical callouts to the Blessed Mary in that vain do not allow or depict worship of Mary. Only that esteem which the Mother of God would naturally and logically be given is recognized. I DON’T THINK IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE BIBLE SAYS WE ESTEEM MARY, GOD EXISTED AND WAS LONG BEFORE MARY BROGHT THE GOD MAN INTO HIS EARTHLY FORM…SO GOD DOES NOT HAVE A MOTHER IN THIS SENSE OF THE USE…JOHN 1;1 AND MANY INFERENCE THAT OUR LORD SAID, BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM That esteem or singular position, as there was only one Mother of God...(in contrast to multiple apostles cannonized into sainthood). So Mary's unique part in the reality of Jesus, and those passages which bestow her Divine communion with Jesus on earth and the hereafter give Mary posture that no other has ever had or will ever have, in the view of the Universal Church . SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ESTEEM FROM JESUS HIMSELF, HE ESTEEMED THE CHOSEN AND IDENTIFIED WITH THE BRETHREN, YE ARE MY MOTHER AND MY BROTHER AND SISTER…That logic was never hard for me to swallow. I dont see any worship or adoration of Mary practiced in my Church locally, in the 6 or so other RCC's I've been to in this area, or the Diocese Offices. I dont find that in the Catechism as well. I do find her unique role being defended and used as a conduit for communication in some sacraments, but not worship. NO SUCH CONDUIT IS VALID, AT ALL There are certain liturgical works, NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS WORD, LITURGICAL WORKS? such as the sacrament of the sick and dying which point to Mary as a source of strength MARY IS NEVER DEPECITED AS A SOURCE OF STRENGTH IN DYING…SO IT IS NOT SO OBVIOUS TO ME, for obvious reasons, she being one who lived through the worlds most horrific loss of a Son, and being a Mother figure of care and love. SHE DID NOT LOSE A SON…HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD THREE DAYS LATER AND IS RULING HIS KINGDOM…THE EXPERIENCE WAS HORRIFIC FOR ALL WHOSE SINS HE BORE ON HIS BODY AND MADE THE WRATH HE ENDURED NECESSARY I suppose one would on the surface view a person, kneeling in a Church, praying out loud to Mary directly as worship, however, that is not what is taught in the Roman Catholic rite. SPEAKING TO SOMEONE IN PRAYER IS A HUGE PROBLEM!!!! HUGE IF YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT, IF YOU STOP DISASSOCIATING IT FROM WORSHIP AND TRULY THINK ABOUT SPEAKING TO A BEING IN PRAYER IS ELEVATING THAT BEING TO A LEVEL WITH GOD, WHICH SHE IS NOT Most likely anyone praying the rosary to Mary is praying for a loved one through that posture of respect and esteem. Cant judge that book by its cover, but I can see how it appears to the uninitiated. I LOVE YOU VERY MUCH, I ENCOURAGE TO NOT BE OFFENDED WITH THE CONTENT NOR THINK THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SO COMMON TO US BOTH (MYSELF BEING A CATHOLIC FOR 35 YEARS) IS ACTUALLY TRUE ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE…THESE THINGS ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE AND IN FACT ARE WARNED AGAINST IN SCRIPTURE IN MANY MANY WAYS

Keep in mind that I am making a soft approach here and it may not be entirely accurate per the canon...but in a breaking the ice kind of way using personal experience as well. Cant we all get along? sheesh.