How to celebrate your patron saint!

My wife and I are currently in the pueblo of Jinotepe in the state of Carazo in Nicargua. As it turns out, this little town has what´s called "El Tope," which literally means, "The Encounter." Jinotepe´s patron saint is St. Antony of Padua and every year another nearby town brings their patron saint - via procession -  into Jinotepe and the two saints meet, or "encounter" one another. Needless to say, this is much cause for celebration, so much so that the following day is officially a holiday! This year, Jinotepe was visited by the town of San Marco`s patron saint which is St. Mark, the Evangelist.

In keeping with their native tradition, the participants of "El Tope" dress in their folklore wear as they enter into the Church:

Meanwhile inside the church, the Mass is almost finishing. This Mass is the literal "tope" of the two saints but, it is afterwards, when they both come out of the church, that the "tope" of both saints is actuallized to the faithful:

The saints are then both lead out of the town and into another nearby town - via procession by the faithful -  to encounter a third patron saint of a third town! This year, that third town was the pueblo of Diriahamba whose patron saint is St. Sebestian.

The most amazing thing about this is the fact that the faithful walk miles with their saints, all the while singing hymms, chanting prayers to the Most Holy Trinity, reciting the rosary, praising Jesus and giving thanks to God almighty. I really enjoyed this experience since this is almost non-existant in the U.S.. I´ve never, in my 7 years as a Catholic, seen nor have been part of a procession of this magnitude. It´s really a sad fact but, after witnessing the lay faithful rekindle their Catholic faith in such a beautiful and colorful manner, I´m thinking about perhaps petitioning my parish to do the same; acts like these is what being a Catholic is all about, we shoulc exude and display our faith with pride, honor and reverence.

Lastly, the most particular part of "El Tope" is the fact that there is a HUGE party when the patron saint is returned to Jinotepe! You see, when towns celebrate their patron saints the preceeding Sunday is a special day where the saint is returned back to the town after their "topes." Don´t ever let anyone tell you that Catholics don´t know how to party!

The beautiful Cathedral of Matagalpa

As promised, I´m attempting to document local Catholic Churches as my wife and I wind our way through Nicaragua. Yesterday we went to Matagalpa (NW of the capital, Managua) and found the magestic and awe-inspiring Cathedral.

The most interesting thing about this building is the all white facade. I have to admit, seeing such a huge building in dazzling white was pretty cool. Another neat feature in the front of the Cathedral was a motif of a lamb atop of an altar, seen here:

As you can also note, the Cathedral was first installed in 1879, not too shabby. The interior is enormous as well! That´s me in the left hand corner genuflecting as we walked in.

One thing that I´ve noticed is that most of the Churches in Nicaragua have a pulpit located to the right of the altar. Here´s a better shot, couldn´t get too close since a funeral Mass was going on

Pic from the corner across the Cathedral!

Sorry for the mini hiatus!

I'm currently on vacation with my beautiful wife in her native country of Nicaragua. Since I'll be out and about, I'll be documenting my travels via all of the local Catholic Churches we encounter on our journey! So stay tuned for an interesting and introspective view at the beauty of our Catholic heritage.

How every Catholic knows they are part of the One True Faith

The following excerpt comes to us from St. Justin Martyr's seminal work, The First Apology. Written around 150 A.D., this is one of the very first (if not THE first) apologetic writings in defense of Christianity. Justin was attempting to demonstrate the rationality and philosophy of the Christian religion to the Roman Emperor at the time,  Antoninus Pius, since Christians were being actively persecuted within the Empire. In Chapter 67 of The First Apology, titled "The Weekly Worship of Christians," we read the following:

"...And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

ANY, let me repeat that again, ANY person who calls themselves Catholic clearly saw what St. Justin Martyr was describing. In short, he was describing the Catholic Mass in 150 A.D. - over 1,860 years ago! Stop for a moment and comtemplate that. We, as Catholics, can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was such a thing as the Mass right from the beginning of Christianity. Also, there is clear and concise proof that the Catholic Church was around less than 2 generations after Christ; if that doesn't let credence to the Catholic Faith then I don't know what does.

Since I happen to know that this blog is visited by Protestants and in order to form a clearer understanding of Christianity and Catholic teaching, let's dissect Justin's statement and verify it to our modern day Mass.

"...And on the day called Sunday..."
To start off with, one question that no Bible-Only Protestant can ever answer is why do you go to church on Sundays? Sunday certainly isn't mentioned as the day of worship anywhere in the Bible but yet, most Protestants continue with THE CATHOLIC TRADITION of worshipping on Sunday. Interesting. As a side note, most Protestant denominations also celebrate Christmas on December 25th and Easter in accordance to established CATHOLIC TRADITION!

"...all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits..."
So, in other words, the early Christians gathered together on Sunday and start off their worship by reading Scripture. One thing that any rational person has to bear in mind is that at this time, there was no established canon of Scripture, it wouldn't be until about 400 A.D. that the early Catholic Church would do so. The simple fact that St. Justin Martyr stated that the first thing the faithful do is read from Scripture denotes that, just like the modern day Mass, the very first part of the 2nd century Sunday worship was the Liturgy of the Word.

"...when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things..."
Clearly seen hear is that there is a "reader" and a "president," the "reader" is what we call the lector at the Mass and the "president," or the presider, is none other than the priest. If anyone dare to challenge the notion that the presider is none other than the priest, endowed by the Holy Spirit to consecrate, then I would suggest reading St. Clement of Rome's first epistle to the Corinthians, written around the same time as the Book of Revelation, which clearly states that the priests are to be respected and in charge of the happenings at the church. Most importantly though we see that the priest gives a homily AFTER Scripture is read. Just like in the Mass today.

"Then we all rise together and pray..."
Wait a minute, you mean that they were actually sitting and rising back then too?

"...bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen."
What is mention here is the offering of the gifts, or the Offertory; this is when one or two (sometimes more) lay faithful present the celebrant (the priest) with the gifts of bread and wine which will become the Body and Blood. Notice how water is also brought to him, just as it is in the exact manner today when a Catholic priest mixes the wine with a little bit of water (symbolizing the hypostatic union of Jesus' divine and human nature) and then offers prayers and thanksgiving in the same way that Justin recorded it over 18 centuries ago. Below we see this action repeated, just as St. Justin described! At the :42 mark we see two of the lay faithful present the celebrant with the offering of gifts.



Also, St. Justin states that there is an Amen said after they assent. This is none other then The Great Amen which happens after the the two species have been consecrated and have become the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Below are two examples of this, if you watch closely you'll notice that the congregation are all kneeling at their pews and then they stand AFTER the Great Amen.

"...and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

Describing the distribution of the Eucharist as well as sick/homebound visits done by Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion done to this very day. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum #113:

"A Priest or Deacon, or an extraordinary minister who takes the Most Holy Eucharist when an ordained minister is absent or impeded in order to administer it as Communion for a sick person, should go insofar as possible directly from the place where the Sacrament is reserved to the sick person’s home, leaving aside any profane business so that any danger of profanation may be avoided and the greatest reverence for the Body of Christ may be ensured. Furthermore the Rite for the administration of Communion to the sick, as prescribed in the Roman Ritual, is always to be used."

Also, note how the Liturgy of the Eucharist comes after the Liturgy of the Word, just like it does today!

"...But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead..."

And now you know why Catholics celebrate Mass on Sunday's, because of the Tradition of the Church.

As it was plainly visible to see, the Catholic Mass is the same now as it was then. Don't ever let any Protestant tell you otherwise; the simple fact that we can trace our heritage back almost 2 millenia validates the Church's stake in history, which in turn validates our claim of Apostolic Succession to St. Peter, which ultimately makes the Catholic Church the church that Christ spoke of when he told Peter in Matt. 16:18, "Upon this rock, I will build my Church." 

I challenge ANY non-Catholic Christian to go to a Sunday Mass and not only prove me wrong but, prove Justin Martyr wrong.

Refutation of a pro-choice "c"atholic

The screen shot above is from a question I posed to a pro-choice “c”atholic on another blog site. You can visit her blog here. In trying to promote a form of dialogue, I’ve invited her to this blog to view my rebuttal of her answer. Although she doesn’t really go into full detail, what she does mention raises several red flags in her understanding of the truth of the Catholic Faith. I sincerely hope that my rebuttal causes her to rethink some of her presumptions and forces her to look more intensely at Catholic teaching.

Where do you find scriptural, traditional or doctrinal works that defend both your pro-abortion stance and your assumption of being a catholic? Are there some scriptures that you can demonstrate that show that the Catholic Church is/was pro-choice?

Not so much of the Catholic Church but actual scripture from the BIBLE. 

Right off the bat, she is attempting to justify a personally held belief by simply using scripture as the only form of authority. While this is useful in understanding Christianity, what she fails to understand is that as a Catholic, there are two other forms of authority that we hold to be true; that being, the Magisterium, i.e. the teaching authority of the Catholic Church as well as Apostolic Tradition. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Christian denomination that uses these 3 sources of authority and, it is precisely because we have 3 sources of authority that the Catholic Church is considered to be so traditional, so conservative or so “stuck in the mud.” Additionally, it is because of these authoritative sources that the Catholic Church can proclaim and teach what She teaches; we also have something that other Christian churches don’t, that is, we have the pedigree that demonstrates our direct link (via Apostolic Succession) to St. Peter and thus to Christ Himself.

Since none of these sources of authority can ever disagree – they are after all inspired by the Holy Spirit – the only way that this “c”atholic feminist can rationally substantiate and validate that being pro-abortion is acceptable for any Catholic, is by her also citing any of the Early Church Fathers who taught towards abortion as well as doctrinal evidence that the Catholic Church supports her claim in addition to using the Bible as well. Alas, she cannot do this, instead she will attempt to quote a passage of scripture and try to squeeze out her personal point of view. For more information on the Catholic Church and Her authority, click here.

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: “so that her child comes out”], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Ex. 21:22–24). 

Bible passages like works of art can look from different ways…

Let’s just stop here for a second. What she is saying here is that the Bible is open to ALL forms of interpretation, unfortunately for her, the Catholic Church – the Church she claims to be a member of – says something a little different. CCC #111 states, there are 3 criteria in order properly interpret Scripture: 1) you have to be attentive to the content, 2) read the Scripture in light of Church Tradition and 3) to be “Be attentive to the analogy of faith,” which basically means that there must be an agreement of spiritual truths that conform to God’s design and His purpose. Unfortunately, she misses the mark on all 3 criteria! #1 – she doesn’t read this passage within its proper context; it is plain to see that this passage is simply describing Mosaic Law and Justice, not the right to an abortion. I challenge ANYONE to read the whole of Chapter 21 of Exodus and demonstrate how abortion is justified! #2 – Where in the 2,000 year history is there ever any mention of the “right” to willfully chose to abort a child? Where in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers do they ever, even remotely, suggest that a woman has a right to chose whether or not she wants to be a mother? Show me whole and entire documentation please, not selective sections of writings! Lastly, #3 – How exactly is the God of Life, the God that sustains us and nurtures us, the same God who knew our name from our formation in the womb, how is it that this God who creates is somehow reconcilable with the deliberate action of ceasing the continuation of life?

This is diametrically opposed to who and what God is, it is so counter to the nature of God that this premise alone could negate the existence of the Holy Trinity as we know it! So, there you have it, you can either chose to look at SELECTIVE BIBLE PASSAGES as “a work of art” or, you can read it WITHIN ITS PROPER CONTEXT and in its entirety and fully understand what God expects of you.

…but I feel this is a sign that if you take a woman’s right to have children or not, you are dealt with harsh consequences.

No, this is stating that life must be protected, why else would there be a penalty if a woman has a miscarriage due to violence? This passage is dealing with the unintentional act of causing a miscarriage NOT the conscious and intentional destruction of life. Additionally, this is an application of the lex talionis or “"law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury, in this case, it is establishing justice for the unintentional act of creating a miscarriage.  

Now the Church change their laws several time over two thousands like allowing girls to become alter servers but forbidding women to bless the eucharist (That law is new considering the early Church was controlled by both men and women.)

While the Church does and can change Canon Law by its own authority, I seriously doubt that abortion will pop up anytime soon as acceptable actions that can be done by the laity. Pope John Paul II maintained in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) that the Bible forbids abortion in the same manner that it forbids murder but yet, YOU claim that the Bible permits a woman to chose; so who’s right, the Supreme Pontiff or you? The Catechism (#2270-2275) states clearly that human life is to be respected and protected from the moment of conception and that abortion is a moral evil, Pope Sixtus V, in the late 1500’s, set church teaching that an abortion can get you excommunicated. Hippolytus writing in 222 A.D. stated that women who have an abortion are “lawless,” St. Basil in 374 A.D. states that a woman who deliberately gets an abortion is a murderer, I could go on and on but, I won’t.

The simple fact of the matter is that I can give you mountains of examples to justify the Church’s position but all you have is one simple passage that you took a cursory reading of and, taking it wholly out of context, you try to validate your pro-abortion belief. As a Catholic, the burden of proof is on you, YOU need to show demonstrable evidence that there is room for abortion in the Catholic Church, if you can’t, then why are you even calling yourself a “c”atholic if you can’t conform to its already established doctrines? If YOU can disregard the Church’s teaching on human life, then why not disregard adultery? How about doing away with the Real Presence in the Eucharist? How about we nullify the reading of the Gospel at Mass? You see, once you start to pick and choose what YOU like and what YOU don’t like, you become a schismatic, indeed, if I were to take an educated guess, I’d say you were a pro-abortion Protestant. You also stated that the early church was controlled by both men and women...documentation please.

Another question is whether the Zygote (yes we all started as Zygotes.) is human are not. That is up for debate…

Actually, it’s not. The Catholic Church has followed the explicit instructions handed down to it via Sacred Tradition since the beginning. Look at the Didache, written in the early 1^st century, in Chapter 2:2 it reads:

“...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”

That very first statement for the defense of life is the starting point for one reason that the Church views that life begins at conception. Furthermore, the untold truth about this Catholic teaching is that its condemnation of abortion are philosophical and humanitarian, based on the right to life of innocent human beings.

…but Scripture has pointed that we are born with sin, obvisouly original sin. Surely, because of the death of Jesus, we are free from original sin…

This is where I will ask with all sincerity: Are you really a Catholic or a pro-abortion Protestant that is pretending to be Catholic in the hopes that many will believe your heretical lies? The reason why I pose this question to you is for the plain and simple fact that: WE ARE NOT FREE FROM ORIGINAL SIN BECAUSE OF JESUS’ DEATH, we are freed from original sin BECAUSE OF BAPTISM, which washes it away. CCC #1213  states:

“...Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission...”  

At #1263 it says:

“By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin…”

So, sorry, but you are mistaken about the nature of Original Sin and the Sacrament of Baptism.

...thus we don’t have to worry about unborn fetuses going to hell because they are with sin because Jesus already saved us.

Looks like you may have to rethink that notion now in light of the fact that Jesus does not “undo” Original Sin, this statement you made makes no sense. If in fact unborn fetuses are with sin but Jesus has already saved them, then how do you explain what happens in 2 Samuel 12:14 where God tells King David that his first born will die because of David’s adulterous and murderous ways? Was this first born child saved by Jesus even though Jesus still hadn’t been born, crucified and died for us yet? Wouldn’t this mean that David’s first born child went to hell? Wouldn’t this also mean that the very first heir of King David – the child who would’ve had as his (or her) birthright the throne of Israel - is, right now, burning in hell because of what his (or her) father did? How is this justified through God’s eyes? I would really like to know how you would answer this.

Moving on, let me ask you yet another question, you made the statement, “Jesus already saved us” does that mean that none of us are going to hell because we’re already saved? Does solely believing in Jesus save us? Or, is it our faith what saves us? If you do believe that Jesus has already saved you then my question to you is this: Are you dead? Because the only way to truly know if you are saved is if you’ve already received eternal life. Are you really sure YOU’RE saved? In Matthew 24:13 Jesus says that Christians must endure to the end for salvation and in Revelation 2:10 Jesus says to be faithful until death, why would Jesus say this if you are already saved? In Philippians 2:12 St. Paul says to “workout your salvation with fear and trembling,” why didn’t he just mention that he was already saved in the same manner that YOU are stating? In 2 Timothy 4:7  St. Paul says that he has fought the good fight and completed the race and HAS KEPT THE FAITH, if he was already saved and he was assured of his salvation, why did he even bother to mention that? After all that St. Paul went through even he didn’t have assurance! How can YOU be so sure that you are saved? If we are indeed saved, then isn’t Satan wasting his time? Why should we bother praying? Why worship? Why go to Church? Still don’t believe me? Then look at what Hebrews 10:26-27 says:

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

The grace to come to salvation is a free gift. We are to cooperate with that gift in order to attain salvation. Automatically meriting salvation by virtue of faith is a wholly alien concept within Catholicism.

Also, Catholics believe that our bodies are disposable but not our souls.

Clearly, you have never heard of or unaware of the Theology of the Body. You see, the Catholic Church has this crazy view that the human body came from God (crazy right?!?!) and, it is in His image (weird right?). Since it is a creation of God, are you completely certain that it is just simply disposable? Is your body disposable right now? Was Jesus’ body, as it lay in the tomb, disposable? Are all of God’s creations therefore also simply disposable like disposing of a chopped up post-aborted fetus in a trash can? If the body is in fact disposable, then it means nothing, I would suggest to you that the human body means way more than what you think it means. St. Ambrose of Milan contended that the body can be made perfect by chastity and consecration, in this perfect type of body God can will all things as well  

Our bodies are a vessel or vehicles for the souls. Hence Catholics are so conscious about bodies because we have to “return to” when Jesus will rise us from the dead but hasn’t he done that already the moment we die, we enter a new life and join Jesus in paradise already?

Once again, you are assuming that YOU are saved and that when we die Jesus rises us up and take us all to heaven. Well, what about purgatory? Or have YOU chosen not to acknowledge this Divinely revealed truth? The assumption that you are saved is not only unbiblical, it goes against what the Church has always taught. Let’s see what the Church Fathers had to say about salvation:

“It is certain that few are saved.” -Saint Augustine

“What I am about to tell you is very terrible, yet I will not conceal it from you. Out of this thickly populated city with its thousands of inhabitants not one hundred people will be saved. I even doubt whether there will be as many as that! -Saint John Chrysostom

“Christ's flock is called "little" (Luke 12:32) in comparison with the greater number of the reprobates.”-Saint Bede the Venerable

“The number of the saved is as few as the number of grapes left after the vineyard-pickers have passed.”-Saint John Mary Vianney

“The number of the elect is so small — so small — that, if were we to know how small it is, we would faint away with grief: one here and there, scattered up and down the world!”-Saint Louis Marie de Montfort

“How few the Elect are may be understood from the multitude being cast out.”-Saint Hilary of Poitiers

So then, the Catholic Church does not teach in automatic salvation based on faith alone, Catholic Tradition holds the same view (as just demonstrated) and, biblically speaking, automatic salvation doesn’t hold water (as demonstrated earlier). How exactly sure are you that YOU are automatically saved and destined for heaven?

Souls enter the body for a period of time and leave the body whenever.

No, not whenever but, when God decides so. As CCC #2258 states plainly (with my emphasis):

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

I, personally, believe when a baby is born, they receive their soul the moment they take their first breath.

So, in other words, YOUR belief trumps the truth of Divine Revelation? Pray tell, where exactly could we find this belief? Is it biblical? It wouldn’t happen to be from a simple cursory-out-of-context reading of Genesis 2:7 would it? It states:

…the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

Is this how you are attempting to support your notion that life begins when you draw your first breath? Well, let’s examine this passage within its original and contextual concepts; The Hebrew term used in Genesis 2:7 for breath is “ruach” which, coincidentally, is also the same word for “spirit.” So, what is being said here in the creation narrative is that God not only infuses man with mortal life but spiritual life as well – not from the moment of physical birth but even before that. Hence, even before a physical birth, God has already formed a new life of whom he already knows (Jer.1:5), who He has already “breathed life” into. Thus, to state that life only begins when a child physically breathes - from a biblical stand point is nonsensical and takes away from the Creator the very act of creating perfectly.

They are animated and are now born.

As I’ve demonstrated, children are alive before they are born. If indeed animation is a trait of life – and it is – then when do we see movement in life? Any biology book will tell you that as soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, it begins to divide, that is, it has movement. So, by your own definition then, could we not state that life truly does begin at conception when the movement of cell division occurs?

But when we die, we have our last breath and release our soul in the air, leaving our bodies behind. Bodies of the dead are called “lifeless” because they took their last breath and their souls have abandon them. A soul is not bound to the body for eternity.

It is plainly obvious that you cannot defend your personally held position of being both pro-choice and Catholic for you fall into too many self-inflicted traps due to your illiteracy of the Catholic faith:

1) You cannot cite any specific Catholic teaching to support your argument for being pro-choice

2) You attempt to legitimize your argument – that a person can be pro-choice and Catholic – on the basis of proof reading 2 verses of Sacred Scripture taken completely out of context and twisted to conform to your liking without ever taking into consideration the proper way of interpreting Scripture.

3) You grossly and obscenely misunderstand simple Catholic truths (i.e. Original Sin, Salvation, Damnation, when life begins) to the point of total ignorance.

Do tell us why we should believe what you believe and do demonstrate to us why the Catholic Church is wrong ONLY AFTER you have a better grasp at what it is that you are trying to attack. As such, without you knowing theological principles behind the teachings of the Catholic Church, you not only have no room in the conversation but, you relegate yourself into idiotic banality.

I pray that you do your homework and really look at the issue and, more importantly, understand the issue from the Catholic Church’s perspective, that is, from the perspective of truth handed down to us from the authority of Christ’s One True Church and not from the ideology of feminism.

The slow descent into evil via the heresies of Protestantism on full display

Here are 3 examples of what happens when a church has no authority whatsoever. Since they can basically do whatever they want, they can even go so far as to accept basic intrinsic evils, that is, things or actions which by their very nature are evil.

Episcopal Church leaders set to consider blessing rite for homosexual couples

Sixteen fractious years after it allowed the ordination of homosexuals, the Episcopal Church appears poised to adopt a blessing rite for same-sex couples wishing to wed...

...Advocates of the blessing - already written, down to the "We have gathered here today" and "I do" and the exchange of rings - stress that it is not a sacrament and would not confer "marriage" on the couple.
Episcopal Church law defines marriage as the union of man and woman, and there are no plans to change that this year.

So, the Episcopal church that started to allow "ordained" - and I do use the term loosely - homosexuals and now, 16 little years later, they are blessing homosexuals who have chosen to commit sodomy and engage in what is clearly condemned not only in the Bible but throughout Christian history. So, why is this "blessing rite" a bad thing? Well, let's look at the Presbyterian Church of the USA. Note my emphasis.

Lesbian reverend at heart of Presbyterian gay marriage quandary

As the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.'s legislative body considers this week whether to allow ministers to perform same-sex marriages, Reverend Jane Spahr will not be present. But in some ways she will be at the center of the proceedings.

Spahr, a 69-year-old lesbian evangelist who has defied the church and been rebuked by a church court for performing same-sex weddings in California, has been an outspoken advocate for liberalizing church policy on weddings.

The Presbyterian Church allows ministers to bless same-sex unions but prohibits them from solemnizing such civil nuptials. But at its biennial convention, which is being held in Spahr's native Pittsburgh, church leaders are debating whether to change that and may reach a decision this week.

One proposal is to change how church doctrine defines marriage. Another would interpret the constitution's language on marriage as descriptive, rather than prohibitive, and allow pastors in states where gay marriage is legal to immediately begin performing same-sex weddings.

Notice several things: 1) the Presbyterian church, much like the Episcopalians, allow openly gay men and women to be "ordained" - once again, I use the term very loosely. 2) The Presbyterians are one step ahead of the Episcopalians in that they already bless gay unions. 3) What follows from these is the natural inclination toward accepting same-sex marriages, thus, the Episcopals are merely a couple of year away from performing same-sex marriages, and why not? These Protestant denominations have long ago thrown out the practice of having a celibate priesthood, a male-only priesthood, heterosexual men be their only form of priests, and of not accepting contraception as the evil that it is. It is from this last point that we can trace the steps towards damnation. R. Albert Molher, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, recently stated in an article the following:

Can Christians Use Birth Control?

The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age - and one of the most omnious. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.

Most evangelical Protestants greeted the advent of modern birth control technologies with applause and relief. Lacking any substantial theology of marriage, sex or the family, evangelicals welcomed the development of "The Pill"...

...For many evangelical Christians, birth control has been an issue of concern only for Catholics. When Pope Paul VI released his famous encyclical outlawing artifical birth control, Humanae Vitae, most evangelicals responded with disregard - perhaps thankful that evangelicals had no pope who could hand down a similar edict. Evangelical couples became devoted users of birth control technologies...

...we must start with the rejection of the contraceptive mentality that sees pregnancy and children as impositons to be avoided rather than as gifts to be recieved, loved and nurtured...

...we should look closely at the Catholic moral argument as found in Humanae Vitae. Evangelicals will find themselves in surprising agreement with much of the encyclical's argument. As the Pope warned, widespread use of the Pill has led to "serious consequences" including marital infidelity and rampant sexual immorality. In reality, the Pill allowed a near-total abandonment of Christian sexual morality in the larger culture. Once the sex act was severed from the liklihood of childbearing, the traditional structure of sexual morality collapsed...

...the Bible must be the ruling authority. For most evangelicals, the major break with Catholic teaching comes at the insistence that "it is necessary that each conjugal act remain ordained in itself to the procreating of human life." That is, that every act of marital intercourse must be fully and equally open to the gift of children. This claims too much, and places inordinate importance on individual acts of sexual intercourse, rather than the larger integrity of the conjugal bond.

The focus on "each and every act" of sexual intercourse within a faithful marriage that is open to the gift of children goes beyond the biblical demand...

...Christian couples are not ordered by Scripture to maximize the largest number of children that could be conceived...

...evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed...

...Therefore, Christians may make careful and discriminating use of proper technologies, but must never buy into the contraceptive mentality.

Wow. Simply amazing. The President of the Seminary of the 2nd largest group of Christians actually admits that those crazy Catholics have it right in stating that contraception leads to other evils (see here) BUT, he stops just short of fully accepting the truth as it is laid out right in front of him. Talk about being stubborn, and that final statement, what a way to straddle the fence! On the one hand, don't buy into the contraceptive mentality but on the other hand, you can use contraceptives. W...T...F? How is this possible?

Mr. Mohler made it a point to distictively set Catholics apart from Protestant when he said that Humanae Vitae went too far in asking all Christians not to use contraceptives and that every time a married man and women share in the congugal act, it must remain open to life, always. This is, apparently where the Southern Baptist HAVE TO draw the line, because to agree with this Catholic statement is to agree with a whole slew of Catholic thought and teaching. This is where Mr. Mohler attempts to reconcile heretical beliefs with reality. He states that Catholic view "goes beyond the biblical demand" but, what he is stating is an absolute fallacy: Use contraceptives because you can but don't used them IF they're abortifacients and IF they somehow in some manner might, perhaps, contradict YOUR PERSONAL religious convictions which may or may not be acceptable as a Christian. In other words, Mr. Mohler doesn't even know if contraception is evil or not!

Instead of erring on the side of caution, he instead leaves it up to the Protestant to decide for themselves. No other explaination is needed other than this to sum up what Protestantism is: a personal conviction of a religious Christian belief with a collection of books canonized by the Early Catholic Church minus, 7 books. This is what having no authority breeds, it breeds ever increasing docrinal changes that are usually of Ceasar and not of God. Think about it, how much is the Episcopal and Presbyterian church willing to change? At this point anything is possible! Why their whole liturgy and worship could change and it would be perfectly fine, they could give Communion - and I do use the term in the loosest possible manner - to a dog and it would be okay. Have sex out of marriage? Don't worry about it, you're not sinning, because everyone is doing it just make sure you don't have a baby out of wedlock and don't become part of the contraceptive culture! What a joke, honestly, in 100 years would modern day Episcopalians and Presbyterians church members even be able to recognize their church? Would it even matter by then?

This is why the Catholic Church is what she is, the pillar and foundation of truth and, as such, the truth NEVER CHANGES. If Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, then He too can never change. If in fact all of these Protestant groups claim to be following Jesus, then why must they constantly change and update their fallacious doctrines to be in tune with society? Were they wrong in what they penned originally, because if that is the case, then they never had the Spirit of truth to begin with, right? Are they wrong now and simply biding their time until the next great societal change occurs so they can adapt their teachings to it and continue to evolve as a church?

The simple fact that Mr. Mohler can't address these questions and leaves the artificial contraceptive question obscenely open to interpretation could only lead a rational Christian to conclude that IF contraception could be construed to be a sin, why even entertain it?  IF there is the slightest chance that contraception could take you away from God, why even gamble on that assumption? How interesting that these Protestant churches could so easily look at evil in the face an yet not recognize it. As Matthew 7:16 says:

By their fruits, you shall know them.

Quite frankly, I've never been too fond of eating rotten fruits, are you?

Young priest lays the smack down on LCWR schismatics!

NOTICE: Video has been taken down. Click here to view.

Look good and look hard. For what you see here is the definition of what a priest should be: knowledable, compassionate and not quick to shy away from defending the faith! The video is a bit long but definitely worth viewing.

As a side note, I did a little investigative work on who Kim Franke - the organizer of this rally to support the LCWR sisters in their fight against the Vatican  and the main woman in the video - and I found some interesting things about her. To begin with, she's a member of Call to Action.

Just who are the Call to Action group? Well, according to their website's FAQ section, we read this:

Our vision is broad and rooted in the gospel message of justice. We hope for a Catholic Church where:

 - the call for justice in church and society is the church’s major priority,
 - the church is called to be a model of openness and justice at all levels,
 - theologians and church institutions are called to be free in their search for the truth,
 - laity and clergy are to be consulted in the formulation of church doctrine and discipline, including human sexuality, academic freedom, roles of the laity and liturgical issues,
the priesthood is open to all people: single, married, women, men,
 - the people of a diocese should be consulted in the selection of their bishops.

So, in their call for justice, they are demanding that: Church's should be "free to seek out" whatever it is that they think might be the truth, that regular shlubs (who may or may not have ANY idea of Church History or Doctrine) should have input as to what constitutes official doctrine and what doesn't, THE SACRAMENT of Holy Orders should include priestesses and married men and women and, the regular shlubs (who may or may not have ANY idea of Church History or Doctrine) should be consulted as to who becomes the bishop of the diocese. Wow. You wanna talk about heresy, here it is in plain view for all true Catholics to see!

This group of so-called Catholics want so have Jesus in their own way, additionally, they want the Catholic Church to hand over its full fleged authority to the laity because apparently only the laity know where the resources of our Holy Mother Church could be best distributed AND, to top it all off, they want priestesses as well as the power to select their favorite pro-LCWR/gay/women's ordination/insert-your-heresy-here bishop who, naturally, will do their will at the local parish level and bring a sense of gravitas to their heretical justifications.

Is it any suprise that in 2006, the Vatican supported a call to ex-communicate all members of Call to Action in Nebraska? Want to hear more heretical ideas from Kim Franke? In the Detroit, Michigan chapter of Call to Action, we read in the following exerpt, written by Eileen Burns a staunch supporter of women's ordination. In it we read that (with my emphasis):

In his book, The Future of the Eucharist, (Paulist Press, 1997) Bernard Cooke broadens our understanding of “real presence” and extends the concept to include Christ’s dynamic presence in the community. Cooke believes that while individuals may have specific functions at the Eucharist, the entire community performs the eucharistic action (pg. 32). If this is so, then the community gathered is the celebrant of the Eucharist. It is the community that “does” the Eucharist. This is another example of a type of intentional community. Kim Franke and Jim Rose, co-chairs of the Kalamazoo branch have worked to form an intentional community for a number of years, and now a seed of hope is germinating. “We began out of our frustration with parish liturgies that were not inclusive, nourishing or life-giving,” said Kim. “We are all tired of wasting time, energy and talent on trying to influence the hierarchy.” The group meets twice monthly to break celebrate Eucharist, open Scripture and enjoy one another’s company...

...The CTA-MI Board of Directors is committed to helping facilitate this process for anyone trying to form an intentional community...people are looking for communities that provide spiritual support and nourishment. “What could bring us together is dealing with our grief in losing our Church,” said one presenter.

Simply amazing. These heretics not only want to take away all of the graces that make the Catholic Church unique in every way to all other Christian denominations but, they also want to re-vamp the litugy of the Eucharist as well. Don't be fooled, these heretics are only out to destroy the Church, Her flock, Her message and Her teachings. They are a force of evil which seeks to undermine the Catholic Church's sole prerogative of getting souls into heaven, as such, this is a dangerous group of anti-Catholics heretics which need to be confronted and called out by what they are!

Kudos to the true light of Christ as it shone through the words of this young priest, let's continue to pray for more seminarians, deacons and priests like him. Awesome job Father! You've convinced me to go bone up on my Vatican II knowledge!