Selfish Catholics whine lyrical about the English New Mass Translation a year later.

It never ceases to amaze me. People who call themselves Catholic end up turning on the Church when She flexes her authoritative muscles.

An internet article from the U.S. Catholic published early last month reported about a survey they conducted which illustrated that 49% of English-speaking Catholics worldwide find the new translation as, "wooden, tortured, terrible, ridiculous, inaccessible" and, my personal favorite, "abominable." However, from reading this article, it quickly becomes obvious that this apparent 49% of Catholics have deeper issues that they need to deal with, on a host of different levels, before they can even attempt to sully the Holy Mass.

It would seem that these Catholics have three major gripes with the New Translation, according to the article:

"Catholics feel betrayed by church leadership and treated like children thanks to the way the translations were implemented; they're concerned about the theology implied in some of the new wording; and the new words themselves make it difficult to be prayerful because they don't feel natural and are difficult to memorize."

So, they feel betrayed and have been treated like children due to the new translation? I'm going to go out on a limb here and easily state the obvious: the vast majority of these Catholics did no homework outside of church with regards to the new translaton. As a CCD teacher, I am privy to the level of Catholic education that the parents of my students have, time and time again, I've seen several (not all) parents ask me why do we know say "with your spirit" or, my favorite, what does "consubstantial" mean? Was it a big secret that this new translation (which is actually a misnomer since we are now more in line with the original Latin then before) was to become the norm? Didn't anybody inform them of the new differences? Did they just show up to Mass one Sunday and, BOOM, something different? I hardly think that this is the case, what really happened here is very simple: Faithful Catholics forgot to be faithful.

What do I mean by this? Well, this minority of Catholics failed to keep up with the teachings of our Church, period. They didn't proactively engage themselves in finding out why Holy Mother Church is doing what she is doing. Indeed, I had some difficulties with it but, when I researched the reasons behind the changes, it made perfect sense. Ironically, the New Translation is only "new" for English speakers. As a Hispanic-American, all of the Spanish-speaking Masses that I have ever attended, before the new English translation implementaiton, HAVE ALWAYS HAD ALL OF THESE CHANGES! The reason being is that Spanish and Latin have a lot in common so there was never any need to change certain verbiage from Latin to Spanish. Think of it this way, if it sounds weird to say "and with your spirit," ask any Spanish Mass attending Catholic how have they always said it and you'll see that it HAS ALWAYS been, "y con tu espiritu." Here's the same phrase in Latin: "Et cum espiritu tu o," so similar that it was DIRECTLY translated from the original wording to Spanish. This is precisely what the Vatican and the USCCB have done; they have better translated the original words to better reflect the English language.

So, what we have here is simple ignorance of fact coupled with laziness from behind the pew. The article quotes several of these wayward Catholics and what they have to say. Here are some quotes of these disenfranchised "c"atholics. I've added my rebuttals in bold.

Rosemary Keenan of Gwelup, Western Australia:
"I have been disappointed from the outset that so little consultation has been organized between the church leaders and laypeople" In other words, the Shepherds should first consult with the sheep as to how they should be shepherded! What an insult to the dignity of the Magisterium. 

Eric Brown of Louisville, Kentucky:
"The new translation was presented as an edict. The official catechesis looked suspiciously like political propaganda." Really? Political propaganda? Come on! What this "c"atholic is objecting to is the mere fact that the Church has gone, over the last several years toward a more traditionalistic and less heterodox practices (thank God!). Since this new liturgy wording now demands more of him, Mr. Brown has not only taken it as a religious insult but has somehow managed to make the new wording of the Mass more political. What a crock.

Joseph Weber of Arlington Heights, Illinois:
"The new translations have placed the laity further from the center of the eucharistic celebration. We have again become spectators to a 'magic show.'" In other words, the center of the eucharistic celebration is the laity, not Christ, and Mr. Weber hates the traditional Latin Mass! Once again, how insulting. 

At this point, let me make this simple observation: Just how selfish are these people??? Listen to their responses and you'll soon see that the problem isn't in what the Church has done as much as it is what the Church is asking them do! How selfish of Ms. Keenan to make the preposterous and haughty assumption that the bishops need her permission to do right by the faithful! How selfish of Mr. Brown to interject HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL opinions into the Mass, way to make this about you Mr. Brown! And, just how selfish is Mr. Weber in thinking that the Eucharistic Celebration has to be centered around him and everybody else?!?

This is the reason of discontent that these "c"atholics have, they want Jesus and the Mass their way. Let's look at the second excuse they're using to pout about and thumb their nose at the Church.

The second point of malcontent follows the first: 49% of Catholics dislike the wording because of the theology behind it. That's right, the words used mean something that they don't personally like! As if they had a say in the theology itself! According to the article, the main reason why these "c"atholics hate the new translation is because it "doesn't accurately express their relationship to God or what the Mass is about." Again we see that the issue here isn't the Mass' language but, the notion that the Mass should revolve around the laity's whims! According to the 49%, the Mass should there for express their personal relationship with God and, the Mass should be about what they personally like. Let's analyze some more quotes, shall we?

Christina Ross (no country info given):
"The new words take away from the 'we' of celebrating the Eucharist communally to 'I'..." So, now there is no sense of community because the word "we" has been replaced by "I." Well Ms. Ross, riddle me this, are you alone culpable for your eternal destination or, is the whole group supposed to get you to heaven? The reason why we say "I" instead of "we" is because we are proclaiming, not only our faith but, our personal conviction of the truths as taught by the Catholic Church. Don't even think for a minute that any of the dozen set of hands that you shake during the sign of peace will ever get you into Christ's eternal presence, that is up to YOU; through YOUR faith within the Grace of God and as well as by YOUR works and actions, only YOU are responsible for your eternal fate. It is up to the individual "I" to workout their salvation, the group, "we," has no bearing! So, if you choose not to proclaim that YOU personally believe in God the Father Almighty, the Holy Spirit, in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church or if you don't confess that there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins as well as looking forward to the resurrection, well then Ms. Ross, what makes you think that the group can make YOU believe it?

Joan Jennings of Baltimore, Maryland:
"I don't like the words for the consecration...Jesus did not use a chalice. It was a cup." Notice how Ms. Jennings says "I don't like," reinforcing yet again my position against these selfish "c"atholics. What Ms. Jennings isn't understanding is that by saying chalice something more is conveyed about Christ, anybody can have a cup but, who are the owners of chalices? Princes, kings and nobility, that is what is being proclaimed here, that Christ is THE king not a common man. 

Eileen Amatrudo of Dowingtown, Pennsylvania:
"Consubstantial! Who talks like that?" Allow me to introduce Ms. Amatrudo to other "crazy" Catholic words that she is all to familiar with:

- Transubstantiation - used by the Church to describe the change in state of the 2 species at consection
- Trinity - a doctrine divised by the early Catholic Church to describe God's communal nature
- Purgatory - a place where souls are purged of their sins before entering heaven (Rev 21:27)
- Homousios - a key term made up in 325 A.D. to describe Christ's Trinitarian nature with God the Father; Homo - "same," ousios - "substance"
- Mass - from the Latin, ite missa est. This literally means, "go, you're dismissed." Why would we call the name of our liturgy as some sort of dismissal? Because it isn't simply a sending away of as much as it is a commissioning! The Mass is a commissioning of the lay faithful to go and spread the good news, the Gospel of Christ.

Therefore, Ms. Amatrudo, in response to your question, it is Christ's ONE and ONLY Church that has the authority to speak, proclaim and talk like that.


Lastly, the final complaint is by far the lynch pin of my argument here. By stating that the new words are difficult to pray to, aren't natural and can't be easily memorized is to simply state the obvious: you're a lazy and apathetic Catholic who only knows one way to pray and depends on memorizing words an motions just to get through Mass. How selfish. To relegate the liturgy to something that you have to memorize instead of know and understand? Really? How pitiful.

Let me ask one last question to all of you "49%ers" out there: what happens when a child simply memorizes a school lesson in preference to actually comprehending and incorporating the lesson? Will that child fully grasp the fundamentals needed to build upon to reach other learning plateaus or, will that child simply slide by with the minimal knowledge that is required in order to pass and, ultimately, never really know why the lesson was taught?

Congratulations, now you know that what you are doing is not spiritually profitable. Don't be a child who memorizes, be an adult who knows and, if you're still a spiritual baby, put away all of your personal and obstructive bulwarks and come to know and accept the truth of the Catholic Church and Her teachings. As St. Peter told the churches of Asia Minor:

"Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, insincerity, envy, and all slander; like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation"

2012 Election...a prelude to the upcoming persecution.

With the election over and done with, it is now time for all devout and practical Catholics - not "c"atholics - to take stock of our current situation. To begin with, the American people have elected a man who, for all intents and purposes, is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion. Additionally we have the Obama Administration's HHS contraception mandate which directly effects the Catholic Church's 1st Amendment right to believe in what She has always taught. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church in the U.S. is currently embroiled in one of the largest federal lawsuits in U.S. history with over 50 different Catholic institutions listed in the lawsuit itself.

Couple this upcoming storm with several facts: 1) Obama just won re-election, which only serves to emboldens his ideological resolve. 2) Several states, for the first time in history, passed gay marriage via the electorate; which only serves to embolden Obama's ideological resolve. 3) With the prospect of choosing 1 or 2 new Supreme Court Justices, Obama has all the ammunition needed to bend the courts of the U.S. towards pro-death and anti-religious sentiment for at least one generation; which - as you may have already guessed - only serves to embolden his ideological resolve.

Indeed, the time has come for all men and women of the Catholic faith to stand up for the truth no matter how uncomfortable or socially unacceptable it may be, as well as, standing up for the truth that has been proclaimed by Christ's one and only Church for over 2 millennia; The clouds on the horizon might seem a little greyer then they did yesterday but we mustn't quake nor tremble for with us abides the Spirit of Truth and it is our responsibility as the Ecclesia Militans here on earth to fight for our Holy Mother Church, give testament to the Gospel and, if need be, give up our lives for Christ Himself.

As Ephesians 6:12 proclaims:

"For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens."

Our battle as Christians may seem to be against an earthly foe but the real enemy are the powers of darkness and evil which seek our end, blur our vision and hurl us towards destruction. But we shouldn't be afraid, on the contrary, as St. Paul wrote to the Roman church:

"...If God is for us, who can be against us?"

Without a doubt, if the Creator of all is with us in our fight against evil then we cannot fail and, as members of the Catholic Church we can take solace in the words that Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18:

"...you are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

This is my clarion call to all Catholics. Get right with the Church or, get out. For far to long too many cafeteria "c"atholics have been able to find a cozy home within the confines of our Church - picking and choosing what they like from the faith and conveniently doing away with what they don't - it is now time to call them out for what they really are: ignorant and lazy christians. Because as Revelation 3:15-16 demonstrates, halfhearted commitment to the faith is nauseating to Christ:

"I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

There will be a persecution of us faithful, the question ultimately is whether you stand with Christ or with the persecutors. Whether you choose to stand up for what's right or whether you deem it inappropriate to take action for fear of what people will think about you. Will you defend the right of any religion to practice as they always have or, would you much rather see them changed established dogma to accommodate the current status quo or societal trend?

A choice is soon in coming; choose wisely and know why you've chosen as such, because sooner or later - in this world or in the next - you'll have to give an account as to why you believe what you've chosen to believe and you better be sure that you're right...your eternal destiny might depend on it.

The Al Smith Dinner: With friends like these...

For quite some time now, there has been a big brouhaha over the fact that Cardinal Dolan had invited Barack Obama to the Al Smith dinner. The big issue here was very simple: how could a Cardinal invite a man who not only is for same-sex marriage and abortion but, his very own administration is currently in a lawsuit with over 40 Catholic institutions due to the HHS contraceptive mandate? This controversy came to a head last night when both presidential candidates were seen roasting and poking fun at themselves and one another at this white-tie Catholic charity event.

It's all fun and games until the government forces you marry homosexuals!

I managed to catch some of live feed from the event and what I noticed, threw me aback. Right there on my T.V., sitting with a Cardinal was pro-death advocate and U.S. Senator Charles Schumer. Oh, and look! There’s pro gay marriage “c”atholic and governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo! And there’s Obama-lovin’ “c”atholic Chris Matthews as well! The more I looked, the more I noticed that a lot of the people within camera view – never really saw all of the other audience members – were all mostly well known CINO’s , that is Catholics In Name Only.

But, it wasn’t until I saw the list of last night's attendees and CINO celebs, that I realized something; why was there even ever any controversy about inviting Obama to begin with, if all of these wannabe Catholics were going to be there? But then it hit me, if Cardinal Dolan knew that these people where going to be there, WHY WAS HE THERE??? Why would a Cardinal, whose very job is to shed his blood for the Church, sit down and laugh and guffaw and be caught up with the very same people who not only undermine the Church and her teachings but, flagrantly and publically demonstrate the exact opposite of what the Church believes?

Here are just some of the people that the good Cardinal sat down and ate with yesterday:

Tom Moran, writer for NJ.com, lapsed former catholic who supports same-sex marriage and who recently wrote an article lambasting Newark Archbishop John Myers for having the audacity to tell Catholics to vote against same-sex marriage as well as abortion and that Catholics should refrain from Holy Communion if they don’t agree with the Church’s teachings. Imagine that, getting mad at an archbishop for upholding Catholic teaching!

Christine Quinn, candidate for NYC mayor and staunch pro-gay and pro-abortion supporter. A “married” lesbian herself, she urged NYU to evict Chick-fil-A off campus earlier this year over the company’s stance on traditional marriage earlier this year.

Thomas P. DiNapoli, NY State Comptroller, is a huge proponent of same-sex marriage.

Ed Koch, former mayor of NY, is a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood.

David Dinkins, former mayor of NY, is also a supporter of gay marriage. 

Chris Matthews, the left-leaning host of MSNBC’s Hardball, stated earlier this year that the Catholic Church is a ”haven for conservative bigots” and a few days later, scrutinized the bishops with dissident nun, Simone Campbell, by inferring that all the bishops might be republicans because they oppose the HHS contraceptive mandate! He even went as far as saying that if one wants to really be anti-gay, they should become Catholic right away. 

Charles Schumer, U.S. Senator, is a dedicated vote in favor of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and he’s pro-contraceptive. 

Andrew Cuomo, NY Governor, this “c”atholic lives with his mistress, is pro-gay marriage and pro abortion.

Michael Bloomberg, NYC mayor, recently donated $250,000 to help same-sex marriage in Maryland and he is a long time supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Mary Kay Henry, head of the SEIU, is a lesbian who also considers herself to be Catholic and has been with her partner for 20 years; she is an adamant supporter of gay rights and gay marriage as well as the founding member of the SEIU’s gay and lesbian Lavender Caucus. She first caught national attention late in 2009 when the USCCB learned that she was a member of their Subcommittee on Catholic Health Care.

Like I said, this is not taking into consideration the rest of the people sitting on the stage nor those in the audience. Indeed, if a full roster were ever to be posted, I would bet that there would be more than a fair share of attendees who are not only against the Catholic Church but ardent anti-Catholics as well. I didn't think I'd ever really ever want to say this but, it is time for the Catholic Church in the U.S. to exercise Canon 915, which states:

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."

If these so-called Catholics cannot abide by the simple, basic and fundamentals of the Church then they have deliberately placed themselves out of communion with the Church and therefore out of communion with Christ. I really do hope that the USCCB grows a pair and starts imposing this upon lukewarm, cafeteria "c"atholic celebs and politicos, it's time that the Church flexed her authoritative muscle and trumpeted the Christian truths found only in Christ's one, true Church!

Why the German Bishops are correct in asking for the "Church Tax."

You may of already of heard of this one, if not, listen up. The Catholic Church in Germany is requiring it's faithful parishoners to pay a "Church Tax" not only by official members of the Catholic Church but, in order to receive ANY Sacrament...including the Holy Eucharist. Sounds medieval, doesn't it? It almost behooves us to beckon back to the days of Martin Luther when some Churches were selling indulgences and all of the bad things that those mean, greedy, old men of the Church did during the [Spanish] Inquisition! How dare those German Bishops stop anyone from partaking in the Sacraments!

Well, I'm here to tell you that if that's the mentality that you currently have, then I would suggest looking at it the perspective of the Catholic Church's teachings - not from the view point of a certain heretic group who is calling the so-called Church Tax "pay and pray."

First let's establish one thing. The tax in question IS NOT a tax that is being levied by the Catholic Church; I repeat, the Church Tax IS NOT an instrument of the Church in Germany. The "Church Tax" is, however, AN INSTRUMENT OF THE GERMAN STATE, Germany has had this tax on all government approved religions since the 18th century. What this tax does is very simple: it taxes 8-9% of every church-goers income and then the state funnels/redistributes the monies back into the church-goers religious community for such things as church improvement projects, building new churches, new outreach ministries, etc.

So, if I'm a Catholic in Germany, when I go and do my taxes, I will be charged an 8-9% tax simply because I'm an official member of the Catholic Church, as stated in my tax documents as submitted by my employer to the state. Once again, this tax IS NOT charged by the Catholic Church, IT IS charged by the state per state law and it applies to all major Protestant denominations as well as Jews whom live in Germany. In other words, pretty much every member of every major religious group in Germany gets charged the "Church Tax" on their income taxes at the end of the year.

Now, we come to the brunt of the argument: "Why then is the Catholic Church barring faithful Catholics from the Sacraments and from official Church functions if they don't pay the tax?" 

The answer is a very simple one, indeed it is so simple that to miss it, totally invalidates the German Bishop's position. You see, there is only one way in which a faithful Catholic, Protestant, or Jew can escape the German "Church Tax," and that is to OFFICIALLY RENOUNCE their religious affiliation to the state via their income tax form. Any member of a church can save 8-9% of their income simply by doing this - by stating that they are no longer a member of any religion, a citizen can receive a larger tax rebate! This is where the Catholic Church in Germany has drawn the line and, as I will demonstrate, with good cause.

Let's look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2088-2089 which states (with my emphasis):

...There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief...Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

This is where the German Bishops have to take issue with the laity whom have WILLFULLY and DELIBERATELY renounced their membership within the Body of Christ in order to save less then 10% of their income. Let's think about this rationally: a member of the One True Church of Christ has formally denounced their membership, that is, they have repudiated not only the Catholic Church but her teachings as well. Now this former member of the Church can enjoy more of his or her income but, since they have FORMALLY DENIED their membership within the Catholic Church, they have WILLFULLY and DELIBERATELY placed themselves outside of the Church and hence, not eligible for any Sacrament nor participation in the Church. 

What is the difference from someone who has renounced the Catholic faith and an anti-Catholic Protestant? None! Both have chosen not to abide by the Divinely revealed truths as well as the authority invested in the Catholic Church, therefore, denying "c"atholics who have denounced the faith in order to save more income is no different than denying these clowns the Holy Eucharist. Why? Because both have placed themselves outside of the Church. 

In accordance to CCC #2088-89, these former members have incredulously and willfully refused to accept the truth found in the Church. They have also fallen into heresy by denying the Bride of Christ, they have become apostates by repudiating the Catholic faith and have, therefore - through their own actions and refusal to not be in communion with the members of the Church (including the Pope) - become schismatics.

Make no mistake, the German bishops are correct in what they have done, any Catholic or Protestant knows that as a Christian we must take up our cross each and every day and try our hardest to follow Christ. Not wanting to pay 8-9% of your income to the state barely qualifies as a huge burden to any faithful Christian in Germany, as Jesus said in Mark 12:17:

"Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."

Indeed, all Christians are bound by these words but, as Catholics, we must also acknowledge one Church teaching that should settle any doubts about ever formally renouncing our faith. It was stated in the mid 3rd century by St. Cyprian of Carthage in his epistle on The Unity of the Catholic Church (6,1):

"...whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger, he is a profane, he is an enemy."

St. Jerome writing in the 4th century in his Commentary on Titus 3:10-11 states from Scripture the following:

"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation."

This teaching is also seen in 1215 when, during the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope Innocent III declared:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

The same statement is reiterated 1442 at the Council of Florence and again one hundred years later at the Council of Trent and by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's and, it is also found in the Catechism! CCC #846 states in certain terms the following:

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: 

          Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Don't get it twisted: the Church has always proclaimed and will continue to proclaim that she is the way to Christ and therefore to salvation, the church is the upholder and protector of all truths; only she is endowed with the authority properly given to her to proclaim the truth. So now the question comes down to a very simple proposition: do you want the truth or do you want to pay less taxes?

Answer carefully. Your eternal soul depends on it.

Regarding the "Gospel of Jesus' wife"

The little scrap of papyrus that "threatens" to undermine Christianity. NOT!

The whole internet is abuzz with new revelation that Jesus may of had a wife. This is not based Dan Brown's latest novel but on a small 1.5" x 3" fragment of papyrus. The fragment, apparently from some 4th century book, has a line that says: "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...' " I guess that must prove that Christ was married then right? Well, let's take a look at some historical Christian facts in light of this new "evidence."

300 years after the death of Christ we have St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-387), who's writings demonstrate that he fought stridently against heresies during his time. One of these heresies, Arianism - which denied that Jesus was divine and not of one substance with the Father - was officially condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., a council that St. Cyril himself attended. Cyril also denounced two forms of Gnosticism, Marcionism and Manichaeism, both of which he addressed in his 18th Catechetical Lecture entitled On the Words, And in One Holy Catholic Church, and in the Resurrection of the Flesh, and the Life Everlasting. Of particular interest is Section 26 of this writing in which we read the following (with my emphasis):

"...I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Catholic Church in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God..."

Notice what St. Cyril does, he cuts down other Christian sects and uplifts the One True Church, the Catholic Church, whom he refers to as "the spouse of our Lord." But, where did St. Cyril get such and idea from? In The Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 5 verse 25 we read the following:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her...

Indeed, the New Testament is peppered with references to Jesus as a bridegroom. Bear in mind that NONE of these writings were yet canonized as Scripture, it would take almost 100 years from the time of St. Cyril before they would be part of established Scripture:

- John 3:29 - John the Baptist refers to himself as a friend of the Bridegroom.

- 2 Cor. 11:1-3 - St. Paul likens himself as a father of the bride for he introduced the Corinthians to Christ.

- Rev. 19:5-8 - Depict the marriage supper of the Lamb and his bride dressed in white.

- Mark 2:19 - Jesus refers to Himself as the bridegroom as the reason why His guests weren't fasting.

- Matthew 25:1-13 - Jesus tells of the parable of the 10 virgins waiting for the coming of the bridegroom.

Easily seen is a comparison between Jesus and a husband, that is, Jesus is "married" to the Church. This analogy was not lost on yet another one of the Early Church Fathers; St. Cyprian of Carthage writing over 100 years before St. Cyril in his The Unity of the Catholic Church (251 A.D.), writes the following in the sixth paragraph of his treatise:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous, she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty and the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.

So, if we were to take this little, itty-bitty piece of papyrus at face value we can easily justify that - if it is in fact Jesus Christ speaking in this fragment - the "wife" that He is referring to could competently be assumed to His Church. If no other reasoning is used and we simply look at what the Early Church Fathers thought and wrote about at the time this fragment was allegedly written, this conclusion not only becomes feasible but in fact, probable. Now, let's analyze what this fragment says and see if my theory pans out.

The Harvard Divinity School has dedicated a web page to the fragment and, if nothing else, it could be argued that Christ could be talking about His Church. The fragment lines read thusly (brackets indicate sections missing form fragment):

Not [to] me. My mother gave me li[fe]...The disciples said to Jesus'[]...deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it []...Jesus said to them, "My wife []...she will be able to be my disciple []...Let wicked people swell up []...as for me, I dwell with her in order to []...an image []...

If we are to take these words at face value and place them within the already established view of the Church being the one and only Bride of Christ, then we can extrapolate the following translation:

My mother gave me life = Mary is very important, she gave life to me

The disciples said to Jesus = If Mary is so important, will she lead your Church?

deny. Mary is [not] worthy of it = No. Mary will not lead my Church

Jesus said to them, "My wife = Jesus told them, "My Church...

she will be able to be my disciple = She will be my pilgrim here on Earth (See Eucharistic Prayer III, Intercessions para. 2)

Let wicked people swell up = Let those who do not believe, continue to not be part of my Church

as for me, I dwell with her in order to = I will be with the Church always (See Matthew 28:20)

an image = My Church will be physical for all to see

So, in speaking within the context of the Early Church, we could loosely translate it into following:

Mary, the mother of Jesus is very important, after all she not only saw her son give Himself up for us but, she was born without Original Sin and is our mother as well. The disciples ask Jesus, therefore, is she to lead them as they spread His Word as commanded, after all Mary too was in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Jesus tells them, "No. Even though she magnifies my presence, she will not lead my Church," Mary's role as a spiritual intercessor will be much more important then anything she does here on Earth. Jesus continued to tell them, "My Church, my devout pilgrim here on Earth will be the ultimate disciple, as my Bride she will dispense all forms of knowledge without ever faltering. Therefore, those who do not believe in my Bride that is, My Church, do not believe in me, for I dwell with her and she with me, bounded together for eternity. She will be my physical presence for all to see here on Earth."

The above is just a simple and personal translation from all the information that I've been able to attain since this story broke yesterday. Indeed, if this is the case, how beautiful a picture that Christ paints by explicitly describing his Church as such. However, in the process of researching this new-fangled attack against the established teachings of the Catholic Church, I found one thing that struck me as rather suspicious when it came to the scholar who first deciphered this apparent 1,700 year old piece of paper.

The scholar in question is Karen L. King, a Harvard Divinity School professor. I did a bit of research on her and what I found was a bit telling as to how she determined what the translation of the papyrus scrap says. Turns out that Professor King is the author of such essential Gnostic literature as: 

- The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle
- Images of the Feminine Gnostic (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity)
- Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity

In other words, the person who translated this fragment may have an embedded interest in manifesting a so-called "Gospel of Jesus' Wife." I can truly see that she is without a doubt an expert in early Gnosticism but, for her to automatically assume that this is a Gnostic Gospel of Christ, may be a bit far fetched; how does she know it's a gospel and not some epistle? Honestly, how easy would it be to take 8 non-consecutive lines from any of the epistles of the New Testament and say that they must be a "gospel?"

Her motive for objective truth also comes into question when her past dealings in feminism come to light. She wrote a response for a 2006 feminist movie entitled Period Piece, which was a short film about the attitudes, experiences and the images about menstruation. The movie was done by Emily Culpepper who, according to her profile at the University of Redlands, has academic expertise in:

- Women and Gender in Western Religions
- Contemporary Goddess Spiritualities
- Women Reproductive Health and Medical Issues
- Lesbian and Gay Issues in Religion
- Feminist Ethics
- Menstrual Attitudes

But wait, there's more! Turns out that the Co-author of Professor King's 2007 book, Reading Judas: the Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity, is Elaine Pagels who authored a 1998 book called Women and Goddess Traditions (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity) as well as the Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, written in 2003.

To re-cap: We have a feminist friendly scholar who has gone so far as to state that piece of faded papyrus is a gospel in which Jesus Christ has a wife whom apparently is one of his most trusted disciples. Among the company that this scholar keeps are feminists who are well versed  and drawn to Gnosticism - a heresy in it's own right. So now we come to the million dollar question: Why are these women so drawn to Gnostic thought? The answer is simple: Gnosticism is awash in male and female egalitarianism, in fact, one could argue that Gnosticism tends to treat the feminine as superior. Simple proof of this attitude is seen in the  last page of Dan Brown's, The Da Vinci Code:

Like murmurs of spirits in the darkness, forgotten words echoed. The quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one.

With a sudden upwelling of reverence, Robert Langdon fell to his knees.

For a moment, he thought he heard a woman's voice...the wisdom of the ages...whispering up from the chasms of the Earth.

This "woman's voice that brings wisdom" is what is referred to the Sophia Myth in Gnosticism. Most if not all of the Gnostic works tend to have this in common, so much so that one could make a substantial claim in saying that the modern day view of the Gnostic works amount to feminism in Christianity. And therein lies the issue, what we are seeing with all of these Gnostic books is not an objective view of a wrongfully thought out form of Christianity but, AN ALTERNATE view of what Christianity is and, in essence, a heresy.

At this point I'm going to make three predictions: 1) Professor King will come out with a book that takes 8 lines of ancient Coptic writing and proceeds to flesh out an unsubstantiated theory about Jesus "wife," who better to write such a book with her scholarly background and feminist ideal? She will therefore win the accolades of all forms of feminist theologians, female "pastors," and schismatic nuns; This just might be the reason for her interpretation of this little piece of dated paper as being a "gospel" of Christ's wife. 2) The fragment will be proven to be authentic and will be relegated to a 4th century Gnostic writing. Since the Early Catholic Church was already in the process of determining what books would be canonized as Scripture by the late 4th century, it is especially telling that the Early Church Fathers did not see this as being inspired nor of relevance for it to take a place among the 27 books of the New Testament; therefore, if the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) - who all agreed on the 73 books of the bible - were privy to this Gnostic writing, it is patently obvious they didn't view it as authentically Christian. Lastly, 3) This fragment will be proven to be fake. Time will only tell if any of these possibilities pan out.

Mark you DVR's for Sunday September 30th in which the Smithsonian - purveyors of such fine art as the "Ant covered Jesus" video in a gay-friendly exhibit - is set to do a special on the tiny little fragment.

!!! UPDATE - 10/5/2012 !!!

Well, well, well. Turns out that the little scrap piece of papyrus was a hoax! Gee, who would've ever thought that this would've been a forgery? Too many news outlets have already deemed it so that to list them would only take up more of your precious time, instead Google it and see for yourself.

I will, however, briefly mention this article which was published yesterday as the last and final "nail in the coffin" for this poor attempt to circumvent Christian Tradition and Teaching. The article states the following:

Next time Professor Karen King receives an oblong scrap of papyrus with an explosive text and an owner wanting to remain in the shadows, she will probably pass. It is now more than likely that the "Jesus had a wife" manuscript, which she sensationally unveiled in Rome a couple of weeks ago, is a fake. There is little point in repeating the arguments for forgery. Far more puzzling is how an intelligent woman like Professor King could possibly have fallen for it...

...As for poor Professor King, it is likely that her publication record of feminist readings of early Christianity made her susceptible to being duped. It is even possible that a hoaxer crated the "Jesus had a wife" manuscript with her in mind so that she could act as the "convincer" for a buyer deciding whether to part with hard cash... 

This is what happens when a person views Christianity through a biased lens, Professor King - in all of her scholarly glory and aptitude - miserably failed in the common sense department! If she had only read the so-called papyrus scrap within the context of Church History and not a feminist ideal, then perhaps she could've saved face. As it stands, take note of all of the female scholars I've listed in this post; I have no doubt that we will eventually hear from them again.

Dissident nun at the Democrat National Convention speaks [volumes about herself and her beliefs].

How fitting that the leader of the schismatic troupe, "Nuns on the Bus," would speak at a political convention that disavowed the existence of God only to later on, due in part by political national pressure, reluctantly accept God as part of their political platform. While I will not concentrate on the political aspects, there were certain things that happened in Charlotte that not only caught my attention but, as a devout and practicing Catholic, demand further explanation from this nun.

First, there is the topic of GOP VP nominee Paul Ryan's budget. It is true that the USCCB issued several statements that were none too favorable to Ryan's budget; the bishops basically mentioned that cutting social programs for the poor was not a justifiable solution. It never once, however, mentioned how Congress' lack of a budget for the pass 3 years has effected our national deficit - the very thing that Ryan's budget is attempting to tackle. Indeed, to massively accumulate so much debt towards our children and grandchildren is an issue unto itself, one that the USCCB did not (sadly) address. Additionally, it could also be argued that, since Ryan is attempting to minimized governmental reach and influence, this could technically allude to the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity in which smaller and more localized solutions are heavily favored instead of larger or more complex ones.

Secondly, Sister Simone states that she agrees with the Bishops! How odd, since it was the LCWR who fully rejected the Vatican's assessment of the group's collective ecumenical and evangelization efforts! That's right, they agree with the U.S. bishops but, the bishops and priests of Rome who audited your ministry? Nah, not them and especially not "him!" Well how about the fact that it was the USCCB who published the Vatican's review of the LCWR? To accept the God-given authority of one set of bishops but not others is not only hypocritical but very questionable. I guess the good Sister agrees with the bishops when they both have a common enemy.

Thirdly, while I agree with Sister Simone in that "I am my brother's keeper," the real question with regards to President Obama's healthcare reform act is whether the individual is allowed to be charitable - out of their own free will - or whether the state has the right to compel a citizen to become his "brother's keeper" under penalty of law. Additionally, Sister Simone fails to mention exactly how she reconciles the healthcare reform act's funneling of tax payer monies to help assist in murder, er, excuse me, abortions now that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment of the Affordable Care Act has been stripped away? Furthermore Sister, how can you look at the evils of contraception and accept a political party that mandated, the very religious institution that you claim to be fighting  for, to go against established Tradition and teaching and provide contraceptives and abortifacients to its employees?

Could it be that Sister Simone is for abortion and the culture of contraception? Well, let's see what she told The Weekly Standard in an interview yesterday before her big speech:

TWS: On the legal question, do you think there should be penalties against abortion doctors? I mean, should it be illegal to perform abortions?

CAMPBELL: That's beyond my pay grade. I don't know. 

How telling and how unoriginal:

The very same words used by Sister Campbell were used by the very same man who has provoked the Catholic Church to be part of the one of the biggest lawsuits against the federal government solely based upon Her teachings about contraception. How duplicitous of Sister Campbell, on the one hand she is ready to destroy a fellow Catholic's political capital because she disagrees with proposed legislation but, she can't comment on whether or not murdering an innocent child should be outlawed? Well Sister, this is where Rep. Ryan can show you a thing or two about his political beliefs in light of his Catholic faith, you see, Ryan has - in the course of his political career - co-sponsored 38 anti-abortion measures; how is it that a lay Catholic can, without question, apply pro-life views into his political life and yet a consecrated "c"atholic nun cannot state that the intrinsic evil that is abortion must be done away with??? What a pity that a woman religious who belongs to the One True Church and has an active public and vocal life, can't answer such a simple question, I think a quote from St. John Chrysostom could best describe Sister Campbell:

"We know that salvation itself is a property of the One Church, and that no one can be outside of the Catholic Church and yet share the Faith of Christ, or be saved...Neither do we offer any part of that hope to the ungodly heretics, but we place them entirely outside of that hope; indeed, they have not the least participation in Christ, but vainly assume for themselves that saving Name."

Anti-Catholics don't want to debate my rebutal.

I'm always interested in starting a dialogue with Protestants in order to not only understand their point of view better but to also elucidate them to the truths of the Catholic faith and why it is we believe what we believe in. Even though I may sound factious and facetious at times, I still do respect all fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However misguided their beliefs may be, I can honestly say that most - if not all - of my Protestant friends and family members do share a burning love for Christ and His message; we not only respect each others' beliefs but usually tend to have very spirited (pun intended) conversations when we do talk about religion and Christianity and, more often than naught, I have been able to clearly and explicitly define and defend Catholicism. Indeed, I usually end up stumping them with deeper theological probings of Christianity and Christology, questions that only Catholicism has answers to.

Which is why this took me aback:

Interestingly enough, they answered a question with regards to excommunication just 4 days ago and yet couldn't find time to answer just ONE of the many questions I posed. 

That is a screenshot from the YouTube page of Christian Answers, in particlular, that is the page from which I recently refuted a pair of Anti-Catholics and their personal view of Christian History (see here). Apparently, the two gentlemen in the video are either too busy to debate me or, they've taken notice of the fact that I wholly decimated their lies against Christ's One True Chruch. Kind of ironic really, since I definitely do not [yet] have the level of schooling that Mr. Wessels and Mr. Morrison have and yet, I was able to rightfully, honestly, truthfully and, to the best of my ability, defend Catholic teaching and Christian history.

As soon as I posted my rebutal, I logged on to YouTube and sent a message to them stating that I had made post on my blog (address included) that challenged their take on Christian history. I didn't get any response so a week later, after viewing all of the rest of their Christian "history" vids, I decided that their individualistic representation of Christian history needs to be cleared up.

As a history buff and a student of the history of the Catholic Church, I found it simply amazing at how these videos glossed over and omitted HUGE chunks of historical evidence that legitimizes Catholic thought and teaching. As such I decided, in the interest of creating a dialogue, to communicate with them in hopes of doing a debate and that's when I found out that CAnswersTV had decided to block me.

How sad and yet how telling. Let it be known that I in no way harassed, spammed nor trolled their page, I sent them a message as to my rebuttal in hopes of perhaps communicating with them and to see if they could answer the questions that I posed in my two-part post. I can therefore state two things:

1) CAnswersTV cannot defend their flagrant misinterpretation of Christian history against my counterargument. I fully demonstrated the colossal holes of their thesis as well as proved and substantiated various Catholic positions and dogmas.

2) CAnswersTV isn't truly acting as charitable Christians. This duplicitousness cannot come from Christ. They might think that they are but easily seen is the fact that they are not only against the "Romanist" Church but, they maliciously slander, misrepresent, misconstrue, distort, exaggerate and pervert Catholic teaching to their whim in order to malign it against their personally held Christian beliefs.  

As such I can only conclude that in choosing to block me (as it's within their right to), they have chosen to do away with any view, however truthful, that decisively disproves what they personally believe; and that is exactly what they are doing, they are using their PERSONAL BELIEFS of whatever Christian denomination they believe in, in order to disprove the ONLY Church that Jesus Christ invented. They have chosen to selectively use portions of Christian history that they have deemed pertainent to their PERSONAL BELIEFS and done away with every other instance within Christian history that goes against their claims.

Hence, their counterfeit and deceptive arguement against the Catholic Church is simply contrived lies that not only display their lack of compassion when evangelizing but, it also demonstrates how hard their hearts are to the truth.

Latest internet meme attack against the Sacrament of Marriage, undone.

Pictured above is the latest internet flow chart that attempts to pervert Sacred Scriptures in order to justify same-sex marriage as well as to mock those of us who hold to the Holy and inspired Word of God. I'll keep this one a little entertaining and I'll tackle each statement from left to right.

1) JESUS NEVER UTTERED A WORD ABOUT SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS. True, He never mentioned anything about this but, if you’re attempting to argue for what the bible doesn’t say instead of what it does say, then unfortunately, you’re venturing into the land of assumptions. Jesus also didn’t mention that He had two wills, one divine and one humanly (see hypostatic union), so I guess that makes Him either 100% man or, 100% God but not both. Jesus also didn’t mention that He was "of the same substance” as the Father, that is, he was homoousios and not heteroousios; indeed, without this concept, God as Trinity cannot stand. Additionally, Jesus never mentions – nor does the bible ever use the word – the Trinity, I guess that means that we must throw out 2,000 years worth of established history for the doctrine of the Trinity, right? >facepalm<

As stated, attempting to argue for what is not mentioned instead of arguing against what is stated is an unintelligent and intellectually dishonest endeavor that leads nowhere (perhaps this is the reason for this assumption?), furthermore, what we see here is an crude venture into trying to extrapolate non spoken words into some form of concrete meaning...how foolish. If anything, the argument can successfully be made that Scriptural silence proves that homosexual marriage wasn’t even an issue because everyone in the Judeo-Christian faith fully understood that it could never be justifiable: Christian history advocates for man-woman marriage, Christian theology advocates against homosexual acts and, Scripturally speaking, the notion of same-sex marriage is comes to an abrupt dead end. Only someone without any knowledge of Church history, tradition or scripture would try to suggest there is room for gay marriage within the Bible. Hey, since Jesus is silent about bestiality and the New Testament fails to mention anything about this, then does that legitimize a person’s sexual attraction to an animal? Because by the definition of this very first statement, it should. >mega facepalm< 

2) THE O.T. SAYS IT’S SINFULL TO EAT SHELLFISH, TO WEAR CLOTHES WOVEN WITH DIFFERENT FABRICS, AND TO EAT PORK. True, it does say this in the Book of Leviticus which describes Kosher dietary laws as well as other miscellaneous laws pertinent to the Jews. Let me state that again: pertinent…to…the…Jews. You see this only sounds crazy to the ignorant masses who attempt to distill their own personal belief from Sacred Scripture. To begin with, Jesus has already done away with the old law and therefore, Jewish Kosher dietary laws don’t apply to Christians, in the same manner that circumcision (see Acts 15) doesn’t necessarily apply to the Christian faithful. These practices could be observed if the average Christian wanted to but, it has absolutely no bearing on salvation, sanctification or appeasing God.

I challenge ANYONE who believes this misleading notion to talk to any Orthodox or Hasidic Jew on a Saturday and see if they’re going to go eat a cheese and pork sandwich after temple services. You see, to this day, all good devout Jews STILL OBSERVE THE MOSAIC LAWS INCLUDING ALL KOSHER LAWS but, you already knew this, it’s not like you’ve never heard of Kosher foods before right? It’s not like you never asked yourself what Kosher means right? Or maybe your just uninformed? Either way,  Jewish Mosaic law has already been fulfilled via Jesus and no longer applies to the Christian.

3) THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE N.T. ACTUALLY REFERS TO MALE PROSTITUTION, MOLESTATION OR PROMISCUITY, NOT COMMITTED SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS. PAUL MAY HAVE SPOKEN AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY, BUT HE ALSO SAID THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENT AND NEVER ASSUME AUTHORITY OVER A MAN.  There’s only one place that this “confusion” could’ve taken place so, let’s look at the word used (in the Greek) in the N.T. in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, states:

“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The issue taken here is with the words “practicing homosexuals,” in the Greek the word is ἀρσενοκοῖται,

it’s transliteration is the word arsenokoites. According to Strong’s Concordance, this word come from ἄρσην, which translates to “male” and  koítē, which means “a mat, bed.” Properly stated it means a man in bed with another man, i.e. a homosexual. The same exact use of this word is found again in 1 Timothy 1:9-10:

“…with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching…”

Again here are the words “practicing homosexuals” and, in the Greek, we find the word ἀρσενοκοίταις

which again means homosexual, not male prostitute. A simple look at 1 Cor. 6:9-10, demonstrates that Paul mentions not 9 different types of sin but 10. But, this in no way takes away from a homosexual person’s ability to be saved, if we continue with 1 Cor. 6:11, we read the following:

“That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

Notice what Paul says, you “used to be” sinners but now are sanctified but, how is this possible? In verses 15-20, Paul lays out why our bodies are our temples and why giving ourselves up to Christ – and not the needs of the flesh – join us ever closer to Him. Undeniably, this is exactly where the Catholic Church extracts it’s teaching on homosexuality as read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358 (with my emphasis):

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Remember, the Catholic Church isn’t against the homosexual, therein lies not the sin but, it is against homosexual acts; which, as Scripture and Christian history attest to, are immoral. Thus, as stated in 1 Tim 1:10, it is the unchaste for whom the law is meant for and as CCC# 2359 mentions:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity…

Homosexuals are called to be chaste in THE SAME EXACT MANNER as all non-married Christians are called to be chaste, there is no difference. As for women staying silent in Church, this is from 1 Cor. 14:34 which states:

“…women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.”

Well I guess that proves that Christians are evil, misogynistic, backwards cavemen, right? Let’s see what Pope Paul VI said in his encyclical letter, Inter Insigniores (with my emphasis) said about this matter:

“…the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.”

And what, pray tell, does Galatians 3:28 say?

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Yup, definitely sounds sexist and misogynictic to me. >triple facepalm< 

4) THIS WAS WHEN THE EARTH WASN’T POPULATED. THERE ARE NOW 6.79 BILLION PEOPLE. BREEDING CLEARLY ISN’T AN ISSUE ANY MORE.  Attempting to reduce Adam and Eve to simply procreative status is disingenuous. This notion very cleverly also strikes at what marriage, as historically defined, is; it is a social union designed not only for procreation but, to legitimately attach children with their parents. If in fact, same-sex marriage would be justified using this argument, then clearly it is at odds with homosexuality itself.

Hypothetically speaking, if we were to take 100 monogamous heterosexual couples and 100 monogamous homosexual couples and put them on two different islands (with all of the modern conveniences) and then come back to their respective island in 100 years, which island would have a greater population and which island wouldn’t have a “breeding problem?” Easily seen then is that when taken at face value, this statement could be seen as an indictment against the homosexual lifestyle. It is nonsensical to assume that too many people = no need for children  and that, therefore, no need for children  makes same-sex marriage justifiable – to make such a leap is not only absurd but negates the very differences between the God-given natures of women and men.

But, did Jesus say anything about this, because after all, if he didn’t utter a single word about this then gay marriage is okay, right? Well, let’s see what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-5:

He [Jesus] said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

Here we see that Christ is recalling the creation narrative as read in Genesis 2:24, He is stating that the reason that man will “leave his father and mother and cling to his wife” is because man is inherently incomplete, he must regain what was once part of him, namely the woman that came from him. Man therefore becomes complete when he is of one flesh with his wife, that is, in the conjugal marital act man and woman become one not only physically but spiritually as they, having given themselves up selflessly, can now participate with God towards procreation.

5) THE BIBLE ALSO DEFINES MARRIAGE AS  ONE-MAN-MANY-WOMEN, ONE MAN MANY WIVES AND MANY CONCUBINES, A RAPIST & HIS VICTIM, AND CONQUERING SOLDIER 7 FEMALE PRISONER OF WAR. Once again as state rebuttal #2, this is pertaining only to the Old Testament. Jesus has already fulfilled the Old Law and ushered in the new and everlasting covenant. Picking up Matthew 19, we read that the Pharisees are testing Jesus when they ask him in verse 3,

“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

To which Jesus replied in verses 4-5:

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?”

To which the Pharisees ,quoting Deuteronomy 24:1-4, state in verse 7:

“Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?”

Uh oh! They trapped Jesus, game over! What ever will Jesus say or do now? Well in the very next verse, Jesus says:

“Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

There it is, Christ in his own words, proclaims that the old Law allowed for divorce because of their stubbornness towards God but now, as Christians, the old Mosaic laws are fulfilled in Christ and the New Covenant and through this fulfillment comes the true meaning of the Old Laws. As such, this is why the Catholic Church is against divorce because the Savior Himself decreed that from the beginning man and woman were and have always been one. Additionally, notice how Christ allows for unlawful marriages to be dissolved, in the same exact manner as Canon Law #1055-1165 allows for dissolution of marriage based on certain criteria.

So, I guess this leaves me with one question: In regards to the very first statement of this post (about what Jesus didn’t say), since Jesus here explicitly condemns divorce, does this therefore mean that because Jesus uttered several words about it, divorce should be condemned? After all, to argue against what isn’t said is foolish and trivial so therefore, I must conclude, that anyone who believes in what this silly and misinformed picture above says must believe soley in the words that Jesus uttered. Hence, to believe this insignificant .jpeg is to believe that divorce is wrong because after all, Jesus uttered those words. You see, even heretics can come to believe in some Catholic truths!