This is how you market the truth! Very well done by these Spanish priests!
Monday, April 30, 2012
Awesome Spanish priesthood advertisement!
This is how you market the truth! Very well done by these Spanish priests!
What the H-E-double hockey sticks are they thinking???
Oh those craaaaazy Austrians! Gee, is it any wonder that the Vatican has reprimanded several Austrian dioceses for their litugical abuses? Above we see the Easter Bunny hop in and tell the children they to need to be more understanding and forgive people who don't agree with them, that's right a freakin' clown in a bunny suit actually takes to the mic - with oh so many children in the Sanctuary - and gives a little moral discourse. I especially like the part where he bunny hops though the aisle, Jesus would be so proud. But such are the latter day group of Austrian priest who, among other things, want women priestesses, priests to marry and give unannulled divorced Catholics Holy Communion. Want to see more? Here's a "mass" being done outside, with food, cigarettes and beer. Best part? It's a Country-Westerned themed "mass" that was given the okay by a Cardinal:
These are the same dissident priests that have let regular lay people officiate the Holy Mass! It's one thing to disagree with the Church but, it is wholly another to let non-consecrated people attempt to be celebrants at a Mass. Honestly, do these priests think that a lay person can consecrate the Hosts and wine into something else??? Apostolic Succession clearly dictates otherwise. These dissident priests are - unknowingly or not - leading the faithful down a path not of salvation but of heresy. Please, pray for these priests that they may submit to the only authoratitive Christian church on the planet and the only church which Christ founded. Also, pray for those devoted and faithful priest that are fighting these heretics, pray that God continues to give them strength and courage against this evil.
Click here, to read a previous post about the leader of this dissident group of priests.
If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past fifty years.
If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Outrage that the Catholic Church will only give to charities that uphold Church teachings!
This article recently appeared in the Huffington Post and, per the usual modus mundanarum of so many so-call journalists, the author of this hit piece misses the mark on a lot of serious Doctrinal and Dogmatic teachings.
I don't know who Pablo Eisenberg is but, by a quick look at his bio, it's obvious that he's a very learned man. It's a shame really, that such a worldly man could be so ignorant to the Church and her ways.
The first ideological fallacy is that Mr. Eisenberg considers there to be a conservative vs. non-conservative, or liberal, form of Catholicism. This, however, is not the case: to state it simply and as plainly as possible, Catholics either abide by the Church’s teaching authority invested to by Christ Himself, or not. Mr. Eisenberg went on to mention of the latest restriction to charities by stating that no monies will be given to organizations “not closely in line with official Catholic teachings.” Is this really a surprise? Honestly. If anything this should be proof positive of where the Catholic Church in the U.S.A. stands and where it draws the line, and that line begins where official Church doctrine and dogma begin.
In defense of Mr. Eisenberg, I have personally been one of the vocal many that have stopped giving to the USCCB’s annual CCHD drive precisely because of the groups that my and other faithful Catholic’s tithe went to. Just where was our donation going to? Here’s a brief list:
And the list goes on. So why is it so unexpected that the Catholic faithful who fill the pews every Sunday as well as the collection plate, why is it so out of the ordinary that they would protest such a blatant disregard for simple and fundamental Church teachings? I wonder if Mr. Eisenberg would be surprised if an Islamic mosque decided not to give monies to the Pig Farmers Association of America? Furthermore to insist that splinter groups, who support the anti-Church teaching groups, shouldn’t get any money is utterly preposterous. As smart as he is, Mr. Eisenberg fails to see that guilt by association, especially when one knowingly and willfully goes against dogma, MOST DEFINITELY is part of Catholic doctrine.
The most perfect of examples is the one Mr. Eisenberg uses himself, that of Compañeros. He mentions that it is a small nonprofit in Colorado that helps Hispanic immigrants, he also mentions that the money stopped flowing into Compañeros because they refused to not be affiliated with the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, which advocates for homosexual marriage. According to Mr. Eisenberg, just because Compañeros is in partnership with CIRC, this is no reason for defunding them, unfortunately, he couldn’t be more wrong. A simple interwebz search to the CIRC website shows the soliciting donations for Compañeros. However, the language that they use if VERY telling. They use “first person” language in saying that they – not Compañeros – had to make the choice between funding and the coalition and that they - not Compañeros – sent “a clear message” to the CCHD.
Now how is it that the CIRC, an organization that had NOTHING to do with the CCHD, now has an official capacity to speak on behalf of Compañeros? The only way this is possible is if both of these organizations are one in the same or whoever wrote this donation solicitation tipped their hand a bit and let us know exactly why the CCHD was correct in negating their claim to funding. Speaking of funding, the Executive Director of Compañeros was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “I was shocked that our money was all of a sudden in jeopardy, and confused about why…” Notice how it was “their money.” Not money from the Church, nor money from the faithful but – almost automatically it’s “their money,” as if they had a right or entitlement to it! Not exactly the words I’d expect from a nonprofit whom were apparently (?) thankful for funding from the Church.
Mr. Eisenberg further exacerbates this issue by actually giving lip service to a “c"atholic dissident group who favors giving donations to nonprofits regardless of who they support. Additionally, Mr. Eisenberg quotes the head of this group and how he feels that it’s a “right-wing witch hunt” by the bishops and because of this, they are pushing immigrants “under the bus.” Eisenberg ends his post by stating:
“Tolerance for diverse perspectives and views is a hallmark of democracy and civil society. Guilt by association is antithetical to the American tradition. The sooner the conservative bishops realize this, the sooner the campaign can once again regain its luster and place of honor.”
I wonder if Mr. Eisenberg has tolerance for the bishop’s stance against the contraception mandate? Guilt by association may be antithetical to the American way but, when it comes to God, knowingly and willingly associating yourself with sin can cut you off from His grace. The sooner dissident Catholics and people like Mr. Eisenberg realize this, the sooner they’ll be able to merit the saving grace that so desperately wants to be part of their lives.
I don't know who Pablo Eisenberg is but, by a quick look at his bio, it's obvious that he's a very learned man. It's a shame really, that such a worldly man could be so ignorant to the Church and her ways.
The first ideological fallacy is that Mr. Eisenberg considers there to be a conservative vs. non-conservative, or liberal, form of Catholicism. This, however, is not the case: to state it simply and as plainly as possible, Catholics either abide by the Church’s teaching authority invested to by Christ Himself, or not. Mr. Eisenberg went on to mention of the latest restriction to charities by stating that no monies will be given to organizations “not closely in line with official Catholic teachings.” Is this really a surprise? Honestly. If anything this should be proof positive of where the Catholic Church in the U.S.A. stands and where it draws the line, and that line begins where official Church doctrine and dogma begin.
In defense of Mr. Eisenberg, I have personally been one of the vocal many that have stopped giving to the USCCB’s annual CCHD drive precisely because of the groups that my and other faithful Catholic’s tithe went to. Just where was our donation going to? Here’s a brief list:
- Somos un Pueblo Unido – supports contraceptive sex and “reproductive justice”
- United Workers Association – this group joined a coalition that supports same-sex marriage
- Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center – supports pro-abortion advocates National Organization for Women (NOW) who in turn supports pro-homosexual P-FLAG
- Coalition LA – Produced a voter guide calling for a NO vote on Prop 22, which was a ban on same-sex marriage
And the list goes on. So why is it so unexpected that the Catholic faithful who fill the pews every Sunday as well as the collection plate, why is it so out of the ordinary that they would protest such a blatant disregard for simple and fundamental Church teachings? I wonder if Mr. Eisenberg would be surprised if an Islamic mosque decided not to give monies to the Pig Farmers Association of America? Furthermore to insist that splinter groups, who support the anti-Church teaching groups, shouldn’t get any money is utterly preposterous. As smart as he is, Mr. Eisenberg fails to see that guilt by association, especially when one knowingly and willfully goes against dogma, MOST DEFINITELY is part of Catholic doctrine.
The most perfect of examples is the one Mr. Eisenberg uses himself, that of Compañeros. He mentions that it is a small nonprofit in Colorado that helps Hispanic immigrants, he also mentions that the money stopped flowing into Compañeros because they refused to not be affiliated with the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, which advocates for homosexual marriage. According to Mr. Eisenberg, just because Compañeros is in partnership with CIRC, this is no reason for defunding them, unfortunately, he couldn’t be more wrong. A simple interwebz search to the CIRC website shows the soliciting donations for Compañeros. However, the language that they use if VERY telling. They use “first person” language in saying that they – not Compañeros – had to make the choice between funding and the coalition and that they - not Compañeros – sent “a clear message” to the CCHD.
Now how is it that the CIRC, an organization that had NOTHING to do with the CCHD, now has an official capacity to speak on behalf of Compañeros? The only way this is possible is if both of these organizations are one in the same or whoever wrote this donation solicitation tipped their hand a bit and let us know exactly why the CCHD was correct in negating their claim to funding. Speaking of funding, the Executive Director of Compañeros was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “I was shocked that our money was all of a sudden in jeopardy, and confused about why…” Notice how it was “their money.” Not money from the Church, nor money from the faithful but – almost automatically it’s “their money,” as if they had a right or entitlement to it! Not exactly the words I’d expect from a nonprofit whom were apparently (?) thankful for funding from the Church.
Mr. Eisenberg further exacerbates this issue by actually giving lip service to a “c"atholic dissident group who favors giving donations to nonprofits regardless of who they support. Additionally, Mr. Eisenberg quotes the head of this group and how he feels that it’s a “right-wing witch hunt” by the bishops and because of this, they are pushing immigrants “under the bus.” Eisenberg ends his post by stating:
“Tolerance for diverse perspectives and views is a hallmark of democracy and civil society. Guilt by association is antithetical to the American tradition. The sooner the conservative bishops realize this, the sooner the campaign can once again regain its luster and place of honor.”
I wonder if Mr. Eisenberg has tolerance for the bishop’s stance against the contraception mandate? Guilt by association may be antithetical to the American way but, when it comes to God, knowingly and willingly associating yourself with sin can cut you off from His grace. The sooner dissident Catholics and people like Mr. Eisenberg realize this, the sooner they’ll be able to merit the saving grace that so desperately wants to be part of their lives.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Catholic YouTube Singer’s comments need some explaination
Jose Orlando Ponce is a South Florida Spanish Catholic Singer and Music Minister for his parish. I’ve followed his blog and YouTube Channel and I was quite interested in one of his latest songs particularly since it’s in English. I couldn’t help but notice the comments on his YouTube Channel, especially those from a seperated Protestant brother. So, in an ecumenical attempt to arrive at the truth, here’s my rebuttal.
To begin with, the big bugaboo has to do with our Lord’s words, specifically those found in John 6:53-56 which reads in part:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
DuhEnlightenedOne states that, “the Greek word for drink is pino which also can be defined as ‘figuratively, to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen, nourish it unto life eternal’…If literally drinking His blood was important, don’t you think He would have mentioned it at some other point in his ministry?” He further adds by saying, “Body = soma (Greek)…the Greek word Soma - a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body so in the NT of the church.”
This is an oft used Protestant rebuttal of an undeniable Catholic truth, indeed, most heresies are. While DuhEnlightenedOne is correct in the words that Jesus used in John 6, he mistakenly (or purposefully) chose not to translate the Greek terms of eat and flesh.
You see, in John 6:23,26,31,50,51,52 and 53, the Greek text has Jesus using the term “phago” (φάγω) which means literally to eat. But, at verse 54 when Jesus says:
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”
The verb for eat changes from phago to the verb “trogo” (τρώγω) which means literally to gnaw, chew or to crunch – this word is continuously repeated, instead of phago, in verses 54,56,57 and 58. When this change of wordage is noted, it is easily seen that Jesus doesn’t want us to figuratively or metaphorically “eat his flesh,” quite the contrary; Jesus is commanding us to do the literal action of the word, to actually and physically eat his flesh. An interesting thing should be noted here, Protestants rightly claim that the Holy Spirit inspired fallible men to pen God’s infallible word, why then did the Holy Spirit inspire John to change the verb used from one word to another if not to emphasize the actual meaning of what Jesus was trying to say?
So undeniable is this fact that Jesus IS FORCED to explain the literal sense of what he means after the Jews gathered around Him are dumbfounded by His words in John 6:52, remember, these are Jews and it is wholly against Jewish dietary laws to consume blood or bloody meat (Lev. 7:27 and Lev. 17:10-14). So it is plainly visible that the Jews would quarrel amongst themselves over the meaning of His words but, in order that they might understand, he OVERLY EMPHASISES His words so that there is no confusion. What ensues is some of His disciples rejected His words and returned to their former lives and stopped followed Him (John 6:66), why? Because they knew exactly what he was saying! That being, that as followers, they have to eat his flesh. As Orlando Ponce correctly stated in his rebuttal statement, “…don’t you find it a bit telling that Jesus - throughout most of the Gospels - is quick to interpret the meaning of his words and yet, He failed to tell the Jews in Jn 6:51-56 that he was only speaking figuratively or metaphorically??”
DuhEnlightenedOne, also stated that “Body = Soma” in the Greek. He is correct in saying this BUT, he grossly omits the fact that during the dialogue through John 6:51-58, Jesus never uses the word soma (σῶμά) but, instead, uses the word sarx (σάρξ) which literally means flesh, NOT body. And therein lies the distinction: Jesus isn’t telling us to partake of his figurative body/flesh, He is commanding us to trogon (chew) upon His sarx (flesh).
DuhEnlightenedOne notes, “John 6:63 says point blank the flesh profiteth nothing. It is the spirit that gives life.” Yet again, a misinterpreted verse used to justify a Protestant heresy. What Jesus is referring to is mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. The beauty of John’s Gospel is that it is so theologically deep when compared to the Synoptics Gospels, one interesting thing that runs like a bright red thread through John’s Gospel is the comparison between the earthly flesh and the divine flesh. As Francis J Moloney & Daniel J. Larrington state in their commentary of John’s Gospel:
“…one must distinguish between the sarx of Jesus and the sarx of human beings. Sarx is used thirteen times in the Fourth Gospel, and its use is consistent. The sarx of Jesus tells the story of God (1:14,18), and is essential for life (c.f. 6:51,52,53,54,55,56). But the sarx of human beings is confined to the human sphere, that which is “below” (1:13; 3:6; cf. 8:23), and is the source of judgment limited by the superficial criteria provided by the physically observable (8:15; cf. 7:24). In 17:2 “all flesh” (pases sarkos) is used to render a Hebraism that means “every created thing.” There is no contradiction between the use of sarx in vv. 51-58, where Jesus speaks of his own flesh, and v. 63 where he speaks of the superficiality of the limited human expectations the disciples have of Jesus…”
But, don’t take their or my word or, the Catholic Church’s authority for this interpretation, let’s see what the early Christians believed (see more here):
St. Ignatius of Antioch, 100 A.D.
“…have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.” - Letter to Romans 7:3
“They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” - Letter to Smyrnaeans 7:1
St. Justin Martyr, 150 A.D.
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [being born again in Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” - First Apology 66
St. Irenaeus, 180 A.D.
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly…” - Against Heresies 4:18:4-5
Tertullian, 197 A.D.
“The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground…” - On the Crown 3:3-4
St. Clement of Alexandria, 189 A.D.
“Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word…The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. “Eat My flesh,” He says, “and drink My blood.” The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. He delivers over His flesh amd pours out His blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! - Paedagogus 1:6:42,1,3
Bear in mind that these Early Church Fathers were writing all of these things over 300 years before the canonization of Holy Scripture! With that being said, I’ll ask one more time to those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: Does your church celebrate in the same manner as these early Christians? Why not? If they were wrong in their belief, how is it that these – distinctly Catholic – Christians, were able to infallibly canonize the Bible by the year 400, especially if they were so gravely mistaken with what they thought was a command from the Lord himself? If these early Christians were mistaken in the Eucharistic belief, how do you know that they weren’t mistaken in the books they put together to form the Bible?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
How do I know the Catholic Church is right? Two words: Humanae Vitae
One need not look to far back into Church history in order to prove her right. In Pope Paul VI’s seminal encyclical he pronounced Church teaching on contraception and the true value of not only sexuality but, human life. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Supreme Pontiff came to some conclusions in 1968 that have, with 100% accuracy, come to pass. I’m not calling Pope Paul VI a prophet but simply taking notice of the infallible nature of the Pontiff’s office. In his encyclical he wrote:
“…this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards…Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires…” Adding, “… careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.”
Among MANY other points, these 4 grossly standout, that being:
1) An overall lowering of moral standars
2) Rise in infidelity (thus a rise in illegitimacy)
3) Reduction of women to objects of men’s pleasures
4) Governmental influence in reproductive matters.
As you can easily and plainly see Paul VI was right and, as statistics demonstrate, he was painfully accurate (thanks to the Holy Spirit!). Just take a look at some sobering stats:
In 1960’s, about 5% of all children were born to unwed mothers, as of 2010, the number is closer to 40%.
In the 1960’s, over 3/4ths of all houselholds with married couples, as of 2000, 50% of all households belong to married couples.
U.S. illegitimacy rate is 51 percent for births to women aged 20 to 30.
The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
So, the next time someone aks you, “how do you know Cathoicism is true, you mention Humanae Vitae!
“…this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards…Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires…” Adding, “… careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law.”
Among MANY other points, these 4 grossly standout, that being:
1) An overall lowering of moral standars
2) Rise in infidelity (thus a rise in illegitimacy)
3) Reduction of women to objects of men’s pleasures
4) Governmental influence in reproductive matters.
As you can easily and plainly see Paul VI was right and, as statistics demonstrate, he was painfully accurate (thanks to the Holy Spirit!). Just take a look at some sobering stats:
In 1960’s, about 5% of all children were born to unwed mothers, as of 2010, the number is closer to 40%.
In the 1960’s, over 3/4ths of all houselholds with married couples, as of 2000, 50% of all households belong to married couples.
U.S. illegitimacy rate is 51 percent for births to women aged 20 to 30.
The pornography industry has larger revenues than Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple and Netflix combined.
So, the next time someone aks you, “how do you know Cathoicism is true, you mention Humanae Vitae!
That picture up there is from this week’s Newsweek cover. It depicts an urban style Jesus with the title “Forget the Church, Follow Jesus.” I rarely buy Newsweek but I just had to buy this one, if for no other reason than to prove this article wrong, in that, the Church is needed in order to know and follow Jesus. Right off the bat, I don’t want you to think I’m being standoff-ish but, any good Christian (especially us Catholics) worth their salt should automatically recall Jesus’ words from Matt. 16:18: “…upon this rock, I will build my CHURCH…”
You can read the entire article here.
The author of this article, Andrew Sullivan, a married homosexual man who wrote a piece entitled Why Gay Marriage is Good for America, starts off the article by mentioning the “Jefferson Bible” which has recently been on display at the Natural Museum of American History in D.C. The bible itself is a heavily redacted and abridged version of the King James Version of the the Bible. Jefferson painstakingly cut out all of the “misconceptions” and and embellishments (whatever he must’ve thought they were) of Jesus. What was left was a critical view of the life and moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson thought that by doing this he would get to the heart of what Jesus wanted for us.
While still in his introduction, Sullivan states that:
“If Jefferson’s greatest political legacy was the Declaration of Independence, this pure, precious moral teaching was his religious legacy.”
An interesting note that is wholly absent from this is the fact that Jefferson was a man of his time; it was during this time that Jefferson was most likely influenced by the predominant European beliefs that came from the Age of Enlightenment, which pretty much stated that reason, rationale and logic must overcome any form of superstition or mythology. If this wasn’t the main reason for Jefferson’s “bible” then I don’t know what was.
Sullivan then proceeds to tell us that because of this bible, we are able to see an apolitical Jesus and somehow better understand His doctrines and teachings. What he attempts to do next is to strip Jesus of his Divine nature and portray Him as a wise and knowledgable teacher. He states,
“If we return to what Jesus actually asked us to do and to be—rather than the unknowable intricacies of what we believe he was—he actually emerges more powerfully and more purely.”
I have a little bit of an issue with that, namely that Mr. Sullivan assumes that we can know what Jesus wants us to be without the “intricacies” of faith. The real question that he, and other who think this way about Jesus, is this: How would you know of or about Jesus if it wasn’t for the Early Catholic Chruch? If it wasn’t for that Early Church who collected, interpreted and canonized the teachings of Christ, how indeed would any of us know what Jesus actually wants “us to do and to be?”
This all lead us to Mr. Sullivan’s prime thesis for his article, that being that it is because of politics that Christianity, as a religion, is in a crisis. In a nutshell that is what the author’s conclusion winds down to but, what type of crisis is this and how can it be rectified? Let’s see what Mr. Sullivans says.
He begins by reminding us of the atrocities of the Catholic Church by stating of the decline of parishoners in Catholic Churches across the U.S., unfortunately, he must’ve missed the a study released in Febuary of 2010 by the National Council of Churches, a collection of Protestant church groups, stated that the membership within the Church as actually increased in 1.5% while membership in the top 4 Protestant denominations actually decreased. Additionally, Mr. Sullivan makes no mention of the fact that last year, 2011, Catholic memberships were up once again. Instead, Mr. Sullivan recycles the familiar pedophile priest scandal and the “unilateral prohibition of the pill in 1968 by Pope Paul VI” as reasons for the resignation of the Church’s hiearchy. Painfully obvious is the fact that Mr. Sullivan has refused to accept the Church’s history against contraception or he has merely chosen to ignore it. Indeed, he even attacks the Church over the birth control mandate, very interesting really when one takes into account how he approves of an apolitical Christ through the eyes of Jefferson; who famously quoted the phrase ”seperation of church and state.” Yes, truly interesting that Sullivan would question the Church’s stance on the government forcing a religious body to do something against its teachings and yet laud Jefferson’s point of view for a seperation between both. Hypocritical if you ask me.
Following his erroneous assumptions of the Catholic Church, he dives right into Protestants. He makes the claim against them which is the very same claim that everybody can make against Protestantism and that is: that they can’t seem to agree on anything on the major issues - from literallism to scripture and even to the defense of torturing, Mr. Sullivan runs a quick gaunlet of the reasons why mainline Protestantism is also in a crisis of its own. He ends it by stating the following:
“Something has gone very wrong. These are impulses born of panic in the face of modernity…This version of Christianity could not contrast more strongly with Jesus’ constant refrain: “Be not afraid.”
So, it’s Christians who are afraid of the modern world! Of course! This explains everything! NOT. Mr. Sullivan once again rehatches the old hackneyed excuse of Christians being “old fashion” or too “traditionalist” in our views as one of the reasons for the current crisis he is attempting to demonstrate. Quite the contrary, any good Christian will tell you that we have hope and have been redeemed to have life for eternity but, with that being said, Christians aren’t blind to the world: we see the moral decays and the unethical societal norms that are taking place all around us so, as Christians what do we do? We put our power into the voting booth, we organize to rally for Christ-centered causes and we most certainly use our wallets to do so.
So, then what are we to do about this “crisis?” Mr. Sullivan tells us that, much like Jefferson’s bible, we should trim the fat out of our faith and go to the true message of Jesus. He uses as an example, the life of Francis of Assisi from a new biography which strips the legend of Assisi from being an “erstwhile hippie, communing with flowers and animals” to the “typical young secular figure who suddenly found peace in service to those he previously shrank from.” Interesting really since St. Francis of Assisi wouldn’t be a Saint had he not of become a Catholic priest, that is, a practioner of the Catholic faith! Indeed, the Catholic Church’s view of St. Francis has never been the one who says: “I love birds and trees and people who smile,” quite the contrary. The Church’s Assisi is the one who said the following in his Second Letter to the Faithful:
“To all those men and women who are not living in penance and do not receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; who practice vice and sin and follow wicked concupiscence…See, you blind ones, you who are deceived by your enemies: by the flesh, the world, and the devil; because it is sweet to the body to commit sin and it is bitter for it to serve God…And you have nothing in this world or in the one to come…The body becomes sick, death approaches, and this man dies a bitter death. And no matter where or when or how a man dies in the guilt of sin without doing penance and satisfaction…the devil snatches up his soul from his body with so much anguish and tribulation that no one can know it unless he has experienced it…And they leave their substance to their relatives and friends, and these have taken and divided the inheritance among themselves…Worms eat the body. And so they have lost body and soul in this passing world, and both will go down to hell where they will be tormented without end.”
Verily so Mr. Sullivan, the Saint that you praise in your article would indeed view you and your marriage to another man as a sin and ask you to repent of it…in the same way the Catholic Church - the Church that gave rise to Assisi’s order - views it today.
And thus we come to the crux (pun intended) of Mr. Sullivan’s arguement. The only way we can save Christianity is by getting rid of the theological docrines he argues that if we get rid of these significant doctrines (Incarnation, Resurrection, and the various miracles) we can get to the greatest miracle of Jesus and that was His message. Now, truth be known, I agree that Jesus message as well at the deposit of faith he left us are of the utmost importance. But, the real question lies in where do we stop stripping Jesus down? If we take away certain things, why not others? What is to stop us from picking and chosing the things we like and or don’t like? WHO is to stop us from picking and chosing the things we like and or don’t like?
This is the danger that Mr. Sullivan has entered to. By wanting to have Jesus conform to him, he has simply alienated the true Christ from himself. And has very easily become that which he has already denounced: a Protestant. What would make Mr. Sullivan’s form of Christianity different then the other 35,000 different denominations? To put it bluntly: this article isn’t about how we should just follow Christ, it’s a view of someone who wants Jesus Christ his way. Period. He has managed to turn Christianity from a God-centered religion to a man-centered one; one where the wants and need of the man are met first and foremost.
I will pray for Mr. Sullivan as well as individuals who share this view. It is critical that they understand the need for acceptance of what Jesus really wants for them and of what the Church says is demanded of them to serve Christ.
You can read the entire article here.
The author of this article, Andrew Sullivan, a married homosexual man who wrote a piece entitled Why Gay Marriage is Good for America, starts off the article by mentioning the “Jefferson Bible” which has recently been on display at the Natural Museum of American History in D.C. The bible itself is a heavily redacted and abridged version of the King James Version of the the Bible. Jefferson painstakingly cut out all of the “misconceptions” and and embellishments (whatever he must’ve thought they were) of Jesus. What was left was a critical view of the life and moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson thought that by doing this he would get to the heart of what Jesus wanted for us.
While still in his introduction, Sullivan states that:
“If Jefferson’s greatest political legacy was the Declaration of Independence, this pure, precious moral teaching was his religious legacy.”
An interesting note that is wholly absent from this is the fact that Jefferson was a man of his time; it was during this time that Jefferson was most likely influenced by the predominant European beliefs that came from the Age of Enlightenment, which pretty much stated that reason, rationale and logic must overcome any form of superstition or mythology. If this wasn’t the main reason for Jefferson’s “bible” then I don’t know what was.
Sullivan then proceeds to tell us that because of this bible, we are able to see an apolitical Jesus and somehow better understand His doctrines and teachings. What he attempts to do next is to strip Jesus of his Divine nature and portray Him as a wise and knowledgable teacher. He states,
“If we return to what Jesus actually asked us to do and to be—rather than the unknowable intricacies of what we believe he was—he actually emerges more powerfully and more purely.”
I have a little bit of an issue with that, namely that Mr. Sullivan assumes that we can know what Jesus wants us to be without the “intricacies” of faith. The real question that he, and other who think this way about Jesus, is this: How would you know of or about Jesus if it wasn’t for the Early Catholic Chruch? If it wasn’t for that Early Church who collected, interpreted and canonized the teachings of Christ, how indeed would any of us know what Jesus actually wants “us to do and to be?”
This all lead us to Mr. Sullivan’s prime thesis for his article, that being that it is because of politics that Christianity, as a religion, is in a crisis. In a nutshell that is what the author’s conclusion winds down to but, what type of crisis is this and how can it be rectified? Let’s see what Mr. Sullivans says.
He begins by reminding us of the atrocities of the Catholic Church by stating of the decline of parishoners in Catholic Churches across the U.S., unfortunately, he must’ve missed the a study released in Febuary of 2010 by the National Council of Churches, a collection of Protestant church groups, stated that the membership within the Church as actually increased in 1.5% while membership in the top 4 Protestant denominations actually decreased. Additionally, Mr. Sullivan makes no mention of the fact that last year, 2011, Catholic memberships were up once again. Instead, Mr. Sullivan recycles the familiar pedophile priest scandal and the “unilateral prohibition of the pill in 1968 by Pope Paul VI” as reasons for the resignation of the Church’s hiearchy. Painfully obvious is the fact that Mr. Sullivan has refused to accept the Church’s history against contraception or he has merely chosen to ignore it. Indeed, he even attacks the Church over the birth control mandate, very interesting really when one takes into account how he approves of an apolitical Christ through the eyes of Jefferson; who famously quoted the phrase ”seperation of church and state.” Yes, truly interesting that Sullivan would question the Church’s stance on the government forcing a religious body to do something against its teachings and yet laud Jefferson’s point of view for a seperation between both. Hypocritical if you ask me.
Following his erroneous assumptions of the Catholic Church, he dives right into Protestants. He makes the claim against them which is the very same claim that everybody can make against Protestantism and that is: that they can’t seem to agree on anything on the major issues - from literallism to scripture and even to the defense of torturing, Mr. Sullivan runs a quick gaunlet of the reasons why mainline Protestantism is also in a crisis of its own. He ends it by stating the following:
“Something has gone very wrong. These are impulses born of panic in the face of modernity…This version of Christianity could not contrast more strongly with Jesus’ constant refrain: “Be not afraid.”
So, it’s Christians who are afraid of the modern world! Of course! This explains everything! NOT. Mr. Sullivan once again rehatches the old hackneyed excuse of Christians being “old fashion” or too “traditionalist” in our views as one of the reasons for the current crisis he is attempting to demonstrate. Quite the contrary, any good Christian will tell you that we have hope and have been redeemed to have life for eternity but, with that being said, Christians aren’t blind to the world: we see the moral decays and the unethical societal norms that are taking place all around us so, as Christians what do we do? We put our power into the voting booth, we organize to rally for Christ-centered causes and we most certainly use our wallets to do so.
So, then what are we to do about this “crisis?” Mr. Sullivan tells us that, much like Jefferson’s bible, we should trim the fat out of our faith and go to the true message of Jesus. He uses as an example, the life of Francis of Assisi from a new biography which strips the legend of Assisi from being an “erstwhile hippie, communing with flowers and animals” to the “typical young secular figure who suddenly found peace in service to those he previously shrank from.” Interesting really since St. Francis of Assisi wouldn’t be a Saint had he not of become a Catholic priest, that is, a practioner of the Catholic faith! Indeed, the Catholic Church’s view of St. Francis has never been the one who says: “I love birds and trees and people who smile,” quite the contrary. The Church’s Assisi is the one who said the following in his Second Letter to the Faithful:
“To all those men and women who are not living in penance and do not receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; who practice vice and sin and follow wicked concupiscence…See, you blind ones, you who are deceived by your enemies: by the flesh, the world, and the devil; because it is sweet to the body to commit sin and it is bitter for it to serve God…And you have nothing in this world or in the one to come…The body becomes sick, death approaches, and this man dies a bitter death. And no matter where or when or how a man dies in the guilt of sin without doing penance and satisfaction…the devil snatches up his soul from his body with so much anguish and tribulation that no one can know it unless he has experienced it…And they leave their substance to their relatives and friends, and these have taken and divided the inheritance among themselves…Worms eat the body. And so they have lost body and soul in this passing world, and both will go down to hell where they will be tormented without end.”
Verily so Mr. Sullivan, the Saint that you praise in your article would indeed view you and your marriage to another man as a sin and ask you to repent of it…in the same way the Catholic Church - the Church that gave rise to Assisi’s order - views it today.
And thus we come to the crux (pun intended) of Mr. Sullivan’s arguement. The only way we can save Christianity is by getting rid of the theological docrines he argues that if we get rid of these significant doctrines (Incarnation, Resurrection, and the various miracles) we can get to the greatest miracle of Jesus and that was His message. Now, truth be known, I agree that Jesus message as well at the deposit of faith he left us are of the utmost importance. But, the real question lies in where do we stop stripping Jesus down? If we take away certain things, why not others? What is to stop us from picking and chosing the things we like and or don’t like? WHO is to stop us from picking and chosing the things we like and or don’t like?
This is the danger that Mr. Sullivan has entered to. By wanting to have Jesus conform to him, he has simply alienated the true Christ from himself. And has very easily become that which he has already denounced: a Protestant. What would make Mr. Sullivan’s form of Christianity different then the other 35,000 different denominations? To put it bluntly: this article isn’t about how we should just follow Christ, it’s a view of someone who wants Jesus Christ his way. Period. He has managed to turn Christianity from a God-centered religion to a man-centered one; one where the wants and need of the man are met first and foremost.
I will pray for Mr. Sullivan as well as individuals who share this view. It is critical that they understand the need for acceptance of what Jesus really wants for them and of what the Church says is demanded of them to serve Christ.
Many Catholics, unknowingly or not, may deem themselves to be pro-choice; that is, they want to stand up for the right for women to have access to an abortion. One of the many reasons that they misguided “catholics” have recently claimed as justification for this stance comes from a 2004 letter penned by Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
One of the main documents that many “catholic” pro-choicers use is called “Worthiness to Receive Communion.” It was mainly written for the U.S. bishops since certain “catholic” politicians who supported abortion were said to be ineligible by some of the bishops here in the U.S. A call was sent to Rome and in mid-2004 Vatican Cardinals Francis Arizne and Joseph Ratzinger agreed with the nay saying bishops and issued 6 distinct issues that must be taken into consideration by pro-abortion politicians (indeed pro-abortion lay people as well). But, in much the same manner that Holy Scripture is taken out of context in order to proof-read a text, so too has this very important letter. The main part of the letter that abortion proponents cite is the Note Bene at the ending of the letter which states:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
So, much like all relative moralism, the pro-choice “catholic” now takes whatever meaning he/she wants from the term “proportionate reasons” and justifies their stance on the grave evil of abortion. BUT, all one has to do is read the entire letter and it becomes clear that in no way is the Catholic Church promoting, endorsing or even remotely stipulating that pro-abortion politicians, as well as lay people, are correct in their personal judgment. The third paragraph is very telling:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
There it is in plain English. There is no legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics with regard to abortion and euthanasia. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. End of Story, Rome has spoken.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
NOTICE: This post was originally the very first post that I ever did for my blog (4/12). I light of Benedict XVI's resignation, I thought it apt to re-present this post. The original video was taken down from YouTube, to see the full vid, click here.
An excellent example of why I started this blog. MSNBC anchor, Lawrence O’ Donnell, attempts to showcase the Catholic Church in a negative light. He not only attacks the Pope but defends a borderline heretical dissident priest in his quest to undo the teachings of the Catholic Church. Buckle up, this is gonna be a long post.
Pope Benedict the XVI earned the name “God’s Rottweiler” according to the New York Times…”
STOP! Mr. O’ Donnell, wouldn’t be mentioning the same New York Times that recently refused to place an anti-Islamic ad in its newspaper but, opted instead, to run an anti-Catholic ad in its place? Yeah, I think the NYT would be the last place I’d look for unbiased information about Catholicism.
An excellent example of why I started this blog. MSNBC anchor, Lawrence O’ Donnell, attempts to showcase the Catholic Church in a negative light. He not only attacks the Pope but defends a borderline heretical dissident priest in his quest to undo the teachings of the Catholic Church. Buckle up, this is gonna be a long post.
Pope Benedict the XVI earned the name “God’s Rottweiler” according to the New York Times…”
STOP! Mr. O’ Donnell, wouldn’t be mentioning the same New York Times that recently refused to place an anti-Islamic ad in its newspaper but, opted instead, to run an anti-Catholic ad in its place? Yeah, I think the NYT would be the last place I’d look for unbiased information about Catholicism.
What Mr. O’ Donnell hasn’t told you about is the outright liturgical abuses that have come from Austrian dioceses over the last couple of years. Indeed, it could be seen as a hotbed of heretical behavior, from priestless Masses celebrated by lay people, to Country/Western themed outdoor BBQ-style Mass complete with beer, food and cigarettes, and, more recently, a cardinal overruled a local priest’s decision to not have an openly gay man, who lives in a “registered domestic partnership,” not be part of his parish council.
Since it’s obvious that Mr. O’Donnell has no grip with Church teaching, let’s see what the Church says about these 3 heretical “reforms” that have been put forward by these band of dissident priests. Why can’t women be priestesses (is that even the politically correct term)? CCC #1577 states in part:
“Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops…makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
Going back two sections we also read that in #1575-1567 (with my emphasis):
“Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority…Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops. Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the "gift of the Spirit,” The "apostolic line." Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”
In other words Mr. O ‘ Donnell, ONLY A BISHOP MAY ORDAIN ANOTHER MAN TO THE PRIESTHOOD. It called Apostolic Tradition, we Catholics are big on it because we’re the only Christian church that has it.
As for priest being able to get married well, they are, to the church. Any good Catholic will notice that a priest wears a ring on his left hand “ring finger,” this is supposed to symbolize the marriage between the priest and the Church – or, as the Catholic Church and many other Christian theologians call her – the “Bride of Christ.” Living a chaste lifestyle is done to imitate the life of Jesus and to sacrifice the married life for “sake of the Kingdom” (See Lk 18:28-30, Mt 19:27-30, Mk 10:20-21). Additionally, it’s not only priests who are called to live a chaste lifestyle put ALL Christians!
Lastly, as for divorced and remarried people who’ve never had an annulment, this is not going to happen. To begin with, MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT, this must’ve been lost in Mr. O’ Donnell’s Catholic High School education. As such, it must be treated with the due respect and honor it deserves since it was Christ Himself who instituted it as a Sacrament. In order for the Catholic Church to rescind the validity of this Sacrament and consider it null, there has to be insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death (See Canon 1095).
In other words, just because you decided you don’t want to be married anymore doesn’t constitute an annulment or, just because things “got rough” in your marriage, doesn’t constitute an annulment. It’s a Sacrament people! But, in order to have idiots like O’ Donnell understand, I’ll ask a simple question: “Can you get ‘un-baptized?’ That is, can the gift of grace bestowed at baptism be undone?” The answer is no, for the most part the Catholic Church recognizes most of all Protestant baptisms as being valid, since Baptism is a Sacrament, there is no need to re-baptize a person who converts from Protestantism to Catholism (See Canon 869).
Now, apply this to the Sacrament of Marriage, just because the secular world finds it okay to marry and remarry and divorce at the whim of one or both spouses, does not mean that the truth of Christ’s True Church can simply be ignored, deferred or done away with? Can the grace – if it truly was there – of marriage simply be ignored, deferred or undone simply because a couple doesn’t want to acknowledge it? The answer is no.
As for priest being able to get married well, they are, to the church. Any good Catholic will notice that a priest wears a ring on his left hand “ring finger,” this is supposed to symbolize the marriage between the priest and the Church – or, as the Catholic Church and many other Christian theologians call her – the “Bride of Christ.” Living a chaste lifestyle is done to imitate the life of Jesus and to sacrifice the married life for “sake of the Kingdom” (See Lk 18:28-30, Mt 19:27-30, Mk 10:20-21). Additionally, it’s not only priests who are called to live a chaste lifestyle put ALL Christians!
Lastly, as for divorced and remarried people who’ve never had an annulment, this is not going to happen. To begin with, MARRIAGE IS A SACRAMENT, this must’ve been lost in Mr. O’ Donnell’s Catholic High School education. As such, it must be treated with the due respect and honor it deserves since it was Christ Himself who instituted it as a Sacrament. In order for the Catholic Church to rescind the validity of this Sacrament and consider it null, there has to be insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death (See Canon 1095).
In other words, just because you decided you don’t want to be married anymore doesn’t constitute an annulment or, just because things “got rough” in your marriage, doesn’t constitute an annulment. It’s a Sacrament people! But, in order to have idiots like O’ Donnell understand, I’ll ask a simple question: “Can you get ‘un-baptized?’ That is, can the gift of grace bestowed at baptism be undone?” The answer is no, for the most part the Catholic Church recognizes most of all Protestant baptisms as being valid, since Baptism is a Sacrament, there is no need to re-baptize a person who converts from Protestantism to Catholism (See Canon 869).
Now, apply this to the Sacrament of Marriage, just because the secular world finds it okay to marry and remarry and divorce at the whim of one or both spouses, does not mean that the truth of Christ’s True Church can simply be ignored, deferred or done away with? Can the grace – if it truly was there – of marriage simply be ignored, deferred or undone simply because a couple doesn’t want to acknowledge it? The answer is no.
It is thus very pivotal that the Catholic Church is so conservative with her view of marriage, people like Reverend Schuller and Mr. O’ Donnell would simply love it if the Catholic Church allowed it’s priest to simply give away Communion to those laypersons whom have simply given away the grace of marriage. Why, you may ask? Simply put: if the Catholic Church changes its stance and gives Holy Communion to remarried “catholics” whom have not gotten an annulment, AND THUS LIVING IN SIN, then what is to stop the church from giving Communion to openly cohabitating heterosexual couples or same-sex couples? It is precisely because she puts so much emphasis on the holiness of matrimony that so many anti-Catholics want her to change her teachings in order to justify many tenets of modernism.
“..the ban on women priest and the ban on priest marrying is not, in his words, ‘a matter of theology but of history and Tradition and those are constantly evolving.’ ”
Really? Then history has nothing to do with the Catholic Church? I mean, it’s only the oldest institution in the Western World, surely its history must have some influence in its teachings, right? Oh, no! There’s that word again, “Tradition!” Damn you Catholics! Why can’t you stop being so traditionalist and start being more modern? Once again, it’s not like Tradition (especially Apostolic Tradition) has anything to do with Church teachings, right?
If in fact these are constantly evolving, show me where, when and how they evolved from something old to something new. I also find it rather interesting that this statement were the words of the dissident priest AND NOT OF THE VATICAN! This priest, although he can question Church Doctrine has absolutely no authority to disavow any of the Church’s teachings because he personally deems it unworthy. This is where I facepalm myself.
“…he [the Pope] did not cite any authority from the Lord forbidding women priests.”
Okay, here we go. Let it be understood that the Catholic Church DOES NOT HAVE authority to ordain priestesses (is that politically correct?). CCC# 1578 states (with my emphasis & comments) :
“No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. Anyone who thinks he (or in this case she) recognizes the signs of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.”
You hear that Mr. O’ Donnell? The priesthood isn’t a right for women, it is an unmerited gift sacramentally given to those THAT GOD CALLS TO BE PRIEST IN HIS CATHOLIC CHRUCH! Just because a woman wants to be a priestess, doesn’t mean that God has chosen her to be one – this isn’t a case of equality but a case of the will of the Lord. As Peter Kreeft puts it:
“The Catholic priesthood was not the first priesthood that God invented, He created two others before it: the Levitical priesthood, which was set aside and vanquished by Christ and, the priesthood of Melchizedek which was fulfilled by Christ. Just as the Jews were not free to institute priestesses, neither are Catholics because no one can choose, much less demand, a priesthood; for it was Christ who said: “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you,”with those words the case is closed. The chosen people did not establish the Jewish priesthood it was established by the Supreme Being; did God then discriminate against the other 11 tribes because they weren’t Levites? Of course not, that’s an absurdity because God picks his priests and they serve at his pleasure.”
“Many Catholics…have been watching with worry the dramatic decline of the number of priest, especially in the United States were the number of priests has declined by a third since 1975…”
- Number of priest has increased since 2000 from 405,178 to 408,024 in 2007.
- As of December 2010, the number of bishops in the world increased from 5,065 to 5,104; the number of priests went from 410,593 to 412,236, increasing everywhere except Europe.
- The number of priests have increased from 2009 to 2010 by a total of 1,643 units. The increases are recorded in Asia (+1,695 priests), in Africa (+761), Oceania (with +52) and America (with +40 units), while the decline has affected Europe (with -905 priests).
- New religious vocations are being filled by younger and better educated men and women.
The Wall Street Journal recently stated in an article that, “…today the number of priestly ordinations is steadily increasing…There were 467 new priestly ordinations in the U.S. last year, according to a survey by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, up from 442 a decade ago.”
“Father Schuller insists that rewriting the rules of the priesthood – liberalizing those rules – is necessary for the very survival of the priesthood and, therefore, the survival of the Church…”
How naïve, Apparently, Mr. O’ Donnell has never heard about the failed experiment to “liberalize” Anglicanism. The Anglican Church started ordaining women priest, they have married clergy, they have ordained an openly gay bishop, they allow Holy Communion (or whatever form they believe it to be) to divorcees, they allow their faithful to use contraception and, there is currently a big brouhaha over the ordination of women as bishops. Seems to be the very model of what Mr. O’ Donnell wants the Catholic Church to be like, right? Too bad that the Anglican Church has been literally cut in half because of these liberal rules! It got so bad that in 1980, Blessed Pope John Paul II established a pastoral provision for Anglican priests who wished to become priests in full communion with Rome. In January of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI officially established the Anglican Ordinariate in the United States as a refuge for disenfranchised Anglicans, more recently, 2 Canadian Anglican bishops entered into communion with Rome via the Ordinariate and, an Anglican Vicar converted to Catholicism and took half of his congregation with him, saying, “it just seems that everything has come up for grabs…Those of us who believed in traditional values and opposed the ordination of women and other innovations, who were once an honoured and valued part of the C of E (Church of England), are now just being told to ‘sod off’. That’s the bottom line.”
“Father Schuller’s critizism of the Church’s rules is aimed at strengthening the Catholic Church, not weakening it…”
See above.
How naïve, Apparently, Mr. O’ Donnell has never heard about the failed experiment to “liberalize” Anglicanism. The Anglican Church started ordaining women priest, they have married clergy, they have ordained an openly gay bishop, they allow Holy Communion (or whatever form they believe it to be) to divorcees, they allow their faithful to use contraception and, there is currently a big brouhaha over the ordination of women as bishops. Seems to be the very model of what Mr. O’ Donnell wants the Catholic Church to be like, right? Too bad that the Anglican Church has been literally cut in half because of these liberal rules! It got so bad that in 1980, Blessed Pope John Paul II established a pastoral provision for Anglican priests who wished to become priests in full communion with Rome. In January of 2010, Pope Benedict XVI officially established the Anglican Ordinariate in the United States as a refuge for disenfranchised Anglicans, more recently, 2 Canadian Anglican bishops entered into communion with Rome via the Ordinariate and, an Anglican Vicar converted to Catholicism and took half of his congregation with him, saying, “it just seems that everything has come up for grabs…Those of us who believed in traditional values and opposed the ordination of women and other innovations, who were once an honoured and valued part of the C of E (Church of England), are now just being told to ‘sod off’. That’s the bottom line.”
“Father Schuller’s critizism of the Church’s rules is aimed at strengthening the Catholic Church, not weakening it…”
See above.
“…and it follows a rich history of such criticism, of the catholic church , from within the catholic church.”
Like Martin Luther, who was a Catholic Monk, or Huldrych Zwingli as well as Jan Hus who were both Catholic priests, right? Yes, their concentrated efforts did more to divide the Body of Christ then to keep it whole. Mr. O’ Donnell wouldn’t be trying to suggest breaking the Body of Christ into more Christian segments then there already are, would he? WHY wouldn’t he?
“The first married priests and the first women pope will owe prayers of thanks to Father Helmut.”
Highly unlikely but, if it were to come to pass, I doubt Father Helmut would be the one to thank. Instead, I suggest this verse:
You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies. – John 8:45
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)