The American Spectator

Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 6:33AM

What I have concluded is that the Catholic church is most endangered by those whose mission is stop those of us willing to follow the tenets of the Catholic Church -- so they will not have to follow them. I am reminded of an exchange between Sam Donaldson (late of ABC) and Steve Forbes regarding the *fair share* dispute vis-a-vis rich folks and taxes. Mr. Forbes informed Mr. Donaldson that he (Sam) was free to give as much of his money to the government as he want to -- and Mr. Donaldson blurted, *But I want YOU to give your money to the government!*

In other words, these folks will not rest until we are all free to do as they tell us to do.

Martyr is a word that means Witness. My Catholic brothers and sisters, Martyrdom is back in town.

KyMouse| 2.4.11 @ 9:19AM

I gladly join with my Catholic co-workers and friends in speaking up for the rights of the unborn, and on other issues.

However, it isn't bigotry to point out where Catholicism has dangerously parted with biblical truth; in fact, it's the duty of Christians to weigh the claims of each denomination or sect that says it is Christian.

As far as I know, Catholicism retains belief in the deity of Jesus; the Triune God; Jesus' virgin birth; and Jesus' bodily resurrection and future return to Earth. But Catholicism denies the essential doctrine of justification by God's grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Catholicism also denies that Jesus' work of redemption was completed on the cross, and that His atonement is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin.

Beyond those essentials, there are grave questions about the authority of the Catholic Church to dispense God's grace (believers need NO mediator other than Jesus, I Timothy 2:5); about giving any degree of devotion or veneration to anyone except the Trinity; Mary's alleged immaculate conception and titles, including Queen of Heaven; and much more.

Scripture, not the Magisterium, has final authority, because it is a direct revelation from God and carries the very authority of God Himself (Galatians 1:12). All that we must believe is found within the Bible, and NO other source is binding or authoritative. Jesus Himself used the Scriptures as His final court of appeal (John 10:35) and affirmed its final authority (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10).

Who are we to contradict Him?

Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 explains, "...from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Messiah Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If, as Paul said, the Scriptures are enough for Timothy, why aren't they for us?

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 9:59AM

KyMouse,

Why did Saint James say in his letter:

"So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without works; and I will show you, by works, my faith. You believe that there is one God. You do well: the devils also believe and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead. (emphasis mine)
James 2:17-26

So, who was right? Saint Paul (as interpreted by Luther, and others) or Saint James?

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 10:49AM

It's not necessarily contradictory.

The position is that faith PRODUCES works, and that those works do not and cannot earn us any favor with God - they are a byproduct, not a means.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 12:56PM

Ryan,

I'm not claiming it's contradictory. I'm stating that it renders "justified by faith alone," i.e. sola fide, a false doctrine.

Saint Paul never said that we are justified by faith alone. That was Luther's doctrine. Saint Paul and Saint James taught the same Good News.

I agree with you, to a point. Works are not a "byproduct," as you state. Saint James clearly says that the two go hand in hand. You can't have faith without good works, and you can't have good works without faith.

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 1:23PM

I think we're at the point where we may disagree on what Justification actually is. The standard definition per Westminster:

"Justification is an act of God’s free grace,wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone."

I think Catholics define it differently, particularly on the "imputed" part, but you may know better on that point.

That being said, the "byproduct" argument simply means that we WON'T truly be able to do good works UNTIL we have faith.

The conclusion that I came to is that both sides of this argument actually agree more closely with one another than they realize; it's just that Catholics get nervous on the "sola" part and Protestants believe that Catholics essentially believe that it's salvation by works, when it really isn't.

Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:18PM

Ryan wrote: "It's not necessarily contradictory."

Luther added the word "alein" to his translation. The word is not there.

Strictly speaking, these two statements:
"You are justified by faith alone" - Martin Luther,
and
"You are justified by works, and not by faith alone" - James 2:24
Aren't these two statements contradictory?

The only place in scripture I can find the words "faith" and "alone" together are in James 2:24, where it says "not by faith alone".

Ted| 2.4.11 @ 10:38AM

KyMouse,

Your understanding of all of the above is incorrect.

Brian Mc| 2.3.11 @ 7:02AM

Why would anyone find rapturous joy in the news that the Church is demeaned, defamed and destabilized? A sentiment blatantly exposed in Appleby's first statement. The Church will be a target until it is 'modernized' so that some can sleep better at night, I suppose.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:10PM

Brian,

The Church has always been a target. Since Day 1.

Nancy in NC| 2.3.11 @ 7:12AM

I am not Catholic, however I see this as an attack on all of those of faith. Any religion that stands on principle can, will and does get attacked by the left (other than Islam).

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 8:17AM

I'll stand with the Catholic Church on this one. Though we have serious disagreements over theology, the RCC is well within its authority to excommunicate here.

Excommunication is about not repenting of sin - of blatantly refusing to adhere to the Word, to correction, and to those under whom which proper authority is granted.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:14PM

Ryan,

Please remember that the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are not the same thing. The Roman Catholic Church is but one Rite within the Catholic Church. The only reason I point it out (in a fraternal manner) is that you appeared to use Catholic Church and RCC interchangeably in paragraph 1.

Also, although it may seem to be a quibble over semantics, the Church did not excommuncate anyone. Those people who were excommunicated did it to themselves by participating in the abortion in question.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:29PM

Us silly American Protestants. Yeah, it's too easy there.

I don't think it's wrong to say that the church hierarchy does the exommunicating, though. It's an active - not passive - process, isn't it?

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:14PM

I was once a Protestant. No worries. I understand from where you are coming.

The excommunication process doesn't have to be an active one. In this case, Bishop Olmstead would simply be acknowledging a state of affairs (if you will) that the excommunited brought upon themselves. No action on the part of the Church (other than acknowledging the state of affairs) is necessary. I know it sounds like one and the same, and at the same time it isn't.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 2:55PM

I got it. It's more of a pre-declarative - if you're for abortion, you're excommunicated as a point of fact without individually going through the process.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 3:27PM

Yes. If one has participated (as is the case in Arizona) in any way with this procured abortion, then by that participation one automatically excommunicates onself. That in a nutshell is the process in this case. The Church simply recognizes that one has done this to oneself.

In this case, participating in an abortion is always wrong, so the excommunication is automatic.

In the "active" process you referred to above, the Church would take a more active role to determine if in fact one had excommunicated oneself by one's actions.

An important point is that a person always excommunicates oneself by their actions. Sometimes (as is the case here) it's automatic because what was done is always wrong. Where the Church takes an active role, they are trying to determine if one has in fact excommunicated oneself.

Vern Crisler| 2.3.11 @ 8:05PM

But if the church refuses to serve communion to them, isn't that a formal act of excommunication?

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:00PM

Vern: It's a good question. Any Catholic who commits a mortal sin is obligated to keep themselves from Communion until they can make a sacramental Confession.

Some sins are so grievous that the statement is a public Excommunication. In the case of abortion, the sin is so grievous that the language used is harsher, and Bishop Olmsted announced so publicly. I'm not a Canon lawyer, but it may be the case now that a simple sacramental confession is not adequate for the people involved, and they may need to confess and publicly reconcile with the (or a) Bishop.

Some sins, for example by bishops against the unity of the church, can actually only be forgiven as "reserved to the Apostolic See", that is, by the Pope only.

The Codes of Canon Law for both the West and East Catholic churches are here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm

Tony in Central PA| 2.3.11 @ 9:14PM

My copy of the Cathechism doesn't exactly say its a formal act of excommunication, Vern. It seemed a bit vague. People in a state of mortal sin ( gravely serious sin by the teachings of the Church ) are not to receive Communion. That doesn't mean they can't attend Mass. If they choose to sincerely repent, they can go through the sacrament of Penance and be readmitted.

FREE tea| 2.3.11 @ 8:26AM

---Lint picking.

AS we slide on along the New World Order's
agenda of spiritual, economic, cultural, moral
and territorial dissolution ----the ONLY topic
in town is undiscussed ---EVEN in the aftermath
of the Pheonix tragedy and its occult connections.

WHAT?

---Capstone, Luciferian FREEMASONRY,
and its VAST host of ultra-rich, TAX FREE,
eugenocide-driven 'charitable' foundations
and their utter infiltration and control of
culture, religion and government ---EVERYWHERE.

THINK the Rockefeller founded and funded,
directed and sustained 'World Council of
Churches' and its deadly effect on sound
Christian doctrine with Arminianism
----and creeping 'moral relativism'.

"Understand, these boys are inbred, interbred,
global genocidal psychopaths. They have engineered and handed us a psychopathic
culture."
-Alan Watt
(online)

'When we get through with you,
you'll WISH you were a tree---"
-Maurice Strong
Globalist ---and, NO DOUBT, a 33rd degree MASON

Keep going! ---everything's just dandy!

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 9:14AM

Does this mean that rich guys have more power than we do?

Le Cracquere| 2.3.11 @ 6:49PM

This guy must be right. Why, I'm a 53rd-degree Mason myself ... and they tell me THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

And why has the Church hidden the fAcT that the precise translation of Hebrew "melech" is not "king," but "branch manager of the Space Bankers"?

NONE DARE CALL IT "invigorating, well-paced CONSPIRACY, the MONSTER screenplay for which I urge your studio to consider on spec, and in which Gary Busey has expressed formal interest."

The damned sheep.

ConantheContrarian| 2.3.11 @ 8:29AM

Don't stop now. Excommunicate some politicians too. Are bishops emboldened now that the Kennedy clan is no longer in positions of power? We can only hope.

Dan Hirsch| 2.3.11 @ 11:28AM

Could we get Bishop Olmsted transferred to South Bend Indiana so those frauds could be straightened out as well? Please, please, please?

Nick| 2.3.11 @ 7:13PM

Mr. Hirsch,

Keep praying!
You will get your own version of Bishop Olmsted someday.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 8:41AM

“You should realize that the community with which you deal is not the one of 42nd Street and Broadway, or Hollywood and Vine. These are the crusts on the great American sandwich. The meat is in between.”

Fulton J. Sheen

gazinya| 2.3.11 @ 8:52AM

I was raised in the Catholic Church. My first eight years of education was in a Catholic school. This was in the years 1953 to 1961. I continued through high school with weekly catechism and of course Mass. I left the Church in 1965. I became agnostic. Then sometime in the early 70's I read, for the first time, something from the Bible. The Gospel of Matthew. In all my Catholic education we were taught the Catholic dogma but I can not remember anything from the Bible. Not in class and not in the Mass. That is why I was so disillusioned with the Church. After reading 'Matthew' I saw what I was not being taught.

Today I am not angry with the Church but I do wish they had taken a harder line against all those who claim faith to Catholicism but deride the tenents. The Church should have, long ago, excommunicated people like Kenneys', Pelosi's, Dodds and any person that supported or voted for abortion. Maybe the Church would benefit from the reading of the Bible.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 9:08AM

“I feel it is time that I also pay tribute to my four writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”

Fulton J. Sheen

PJ| 2.3.11 @ 10:09AM

"...but I can not remember anything from the Bible. Not in class and not in the Mass."

I think you need to read a good book on the meaning & origins of the Mass. It should explain the whys, whens, hows, wheres... all originated from the bible. For instance, did you know the the 1st, & 2nd & gospel readings & the responsorial psalms are taken directly from the bible? Always have, even when you were a child & always will.

Not writing to convert you, but if you are going to be disillusioned with the Catholic Church, pick another reason.

Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 11:40AM

I suggest "Catholicism for Dummies" which I bought because I am a rather new Catholic and nobody adequately explained the nuts and bolts to me (although because I attended Bible College, I had a very good grounding in the Bible itself.) If you don't want to be "preached at" but you do want to know what makes the wheels go round, that book will explain it clearly and objectively.

Bob Grant| 2.3.11 @ 7:21PM

Better yet, just pick up any book including the complete catechism. Gazinya's beef with the Catholic Church has no merit what so ever. She claims she was taught "Catholic dogma" but nothing directly from the Bible?

Each day Catholics are offered readings directly from the Bible. As a matter of fact, today's Lectionary is as follows:
Heb 12:18-19, 21-24
Ps 48:2-3ab, 3cd-4, 9, 10-11
Mk 6:7-13

YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 11:43AM

I'm not Catholic, but do have a lot of respect for the RCC. I understand what gazinya is saying, though. It's one thing to do things derived, and maybe rightly so, from the Bible. It's quite another to delve directly into the Word itself. For example... the Lord's Prayer. An obviously perfect prayer. But to learn it as a prayer in and of itself is one thing. To study it as the direct words of Christ and to study their meaning in the full context of when it was given is quite another.

To be fair... it's not just the RCC that suffers from this. Many churches preach, "Be good and love Jesus!" but often skirt around digging deep into the Word itself.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 11:47AM

Here's the difference, and one of the issues I have with the RCC...how many people open a Bible up in the pews when it is read?

Mike McLaren| 2.3.11 @ 12:38PM

Ryan, that's not a problem with The Church, that's a problem with some Catholics. That is a difference. I might be wrong, but I think it was St Jerome who said ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Again we are reminded of what Archbishop Fulton Sheen said about most people not knowing what The Church actually teaches. A side not, if it is a hundred people who actually hate The Church, I think they must all work at the Times.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:35PM

I agree here, but if it's a widespread problem, is that a failure of church leadership and teaching or failure of the layman in the pew?

InLineFour| 2.3.11 @ 2:53PM

Mike, Ryan has a valid point. Once, during Mass, the parish priest told us that if anyone took issue with what our priests were teaching us, and quoted scripture in their argument, we were not to listen to them because in Acts 15 God gave Catholic priests, and only the priests, the authority to interpret scripture, and make doctrine wherever the scriptures were silent. Therefore we should listen to our priests, and no one else. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. If that isn't discouraging people from studying their Bibles, I don't know what is. Why didn't the priest instead mention Acts 17, where the apostle Paul praised the noble-minded Bereans, "..for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."

But this in no way makes Miss Fabrizio's column no less true, which she so perfectly summed up in her last sentance.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:20PM

Ryan,

That depends on who is following along and who is not. If you attend Sunday Mass and are doing your part, you should be reading along from the Bible during the first reading (usually from the Old Testament), the second reading (usually from the New Testament except for the Gospels), and the third reading (from one of the Gospels).

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:34PM

There's a "should be" and an "is doing" here. Many of the Catholics on this board seem to be diligent about their studies and such. The Catholics that I grew up with in South Louisiana were much less so.

Of course, maybe much of the same could be said about the Protestant faiths, but, as I was growing up, the person who left their Bible at home was the odd man out.

Evanston2| 2.3.11 @ 11:53AM

Clint, It's really swell that the 4 Gospels received the endorsement of Fulton Sheen. Otherwise, who would believe them? PJ, I actually agree that, to a point, the presentation of the Eucharist is Biblical. Also, as you say, that there are many other divisions that are much more clear between Protestants and Rome. That said, Rome says that most Protestant communion rites are invalid. Also, in online discussions with Catholics, I have been told that holding a mass just because it's "In remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24-25) is not good enough for them to want to personally participate. Essentially, Rome's views on the significance of the Eucharist must hold or it's not worth doing. So some "good Catholics" do not want to do what our Lord commanded if they are not blessed according to their expectations. In sum, Rome does not view Protestant obedience to the Bible as sufficient, nor do many laymen. So Rome uses the Bible when convenient but relies ultimately on its own authority on this matter, as it does on all others.

YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 12:17PM

Evanston2... you have pointed out the main difference between hard line Catholics and Protestants. A Protestant, no matter how closely they follow the Bible, is not a good Christian to a Catholic (because if he were a good Christian, to the Catholic... the Protestant would BE a Catholic). A Catholic, so long as they follow the Bible first and man second, is a Christian to Protestant without a second thought.

This has been, at least in my experiences, the biggest difference between the two. And why I find myself happily Baptist.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 12:56PM

No one's holding a gun to your head to be a Catholic Evanston2.
You're a crybaby agendist with an AS Trail of badmouthing Catholics.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:21PM

Evanston2 wrote: "Rome says that most Protestant communion rites are invalid."

Actually, it was Zwingli who first said the Protestant communion rites were invalid. He didn't believe in any communion rites. Luther and Calvin both believed in some form of Real Presence (correct me if I'm wrong).

As for my own belief, I defer to St Justin Martyr:
"And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Marytr First Apology Ch 66,

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 12:21AM

Frisbee,

Great comment!

It should be noted that Saint Justin's Apology was written in A.D. 155, only 125 years after the death of Our Lord.

Saint Justin Martyr could easily have known disciples of the Apostles, i.e. people who were taught, by the people who were taught, by Christ.

Boy, it sure didn't take long for the Church to apostatize, did it?

Makes one wonder why Christ bothered to go through all the trouble of becoming the Incarnate Word; preach for three years; suffer, die, and rise from the dead; if His teachings were going to be corrupted by His disciples fairly soon after His Ascension?

You would think that the same Holy Spirit Who could inspire ordinary men like Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other authors of the Scriptures, and, keep them from error; this same Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, could have kept error from entering the Church that Christ founded?

Why did the Holy Spirit lose the power to keep mere men from committing error, when it came to keeping the Faith true to the teachings of Christ?

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:31AM

Remember who the Prophets were preaching to - they were the ONLY guys who were in line, more or less, in their time.

Same with the NT authors. Most of the NT letters were written to churches with PROBLEMS, not ones that had it right.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 10:01AM

Ryan,

I don't understand your point.
Would you please elaborate?

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 10:53AM

The Holy Spirit inspired individual people in the OT - particularly David and the Prophets. They were over, or spoke to, God's Chosen people.

Who were the biggest screw-ups in the land. The Holy Spirit didn't prevent the masses of the Hebrews from running after other gods, or falling into meaningless ceremony.

The same could be said for early Christians. The Holy Spirit - Who is in all Christians - didn't prevent all the errors that were going on in Corinth, or Phillippi, or Ephesus, hence the need for Paul to write letters to them.

It's not that the Holy Spirit doesn't have the power to prevent; it's about Christians allowing the Holy Spirit to continue its work of sanctification (a process) after justification (a one-time act).

Evanston2| 2.4.11 @ 12:42PM

Frisbee, Interesting point about Zwingli, but my comment wasn't about who was "first" to find Protestant rites invalid. It was simply that Rome has always found them invalid, despite the fact that they quite arguably meet Biblical standards. Rome thinks its interpretation and ceremony are better, fine, I would hope so, do what you believe is right. But to me the best analogy here is to driver's licenses: if you have an Indiana license, you may drive through Illinois. You haven't passed our test but an assumption of competency is granted. But if you choose to reside here permanently, you must pass our test. Rome does not respect the licenses granted by others though they conform with the Word. Rome largely rejects Protestant communion and this part & parcel of its whole "holding the keys" position: if you want real communion with Christ, you must have the Roman eucharist. As I also said, I have found a contempt among Catholic laymen toward communion, to the effect that if it doesn't grant the benefits outlined by Rome (which are speculative) then it's not worth doing. I am not saying that most Catholics hold this position (how would I know?) but there is a holding here toward traditions of men that has at its heart a contempt toward obedience to our Lord. We are commanded to have this rite, so we should do so, regardless of the nature of its benefits. The one reason to hold this rite that we are specifically told is to do this "In remembrance of me" and that should be enough, shouldn't it, for compliance and mutual respect? But perhaps for gents like Clint, if the bread isn't a magic cookie and the wine a spiritual steroid, it's not worth doing? Here's an opportunity to show what is worse: what I say about Romanism, or your personal example of it, Clint.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 12:17PM

"...the responsorial psalms are taken directly from the bible?"

Yes and no. The Psalms are DEFINITELY in the Bible. Using them as a constant refrain to prayer, or as some type of cyclical chant is NOT.

Matthew 6:7 "But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:24PM

But Dr. (most always, but perhaps not in this case) Right,

Are you truly convinced that repeating a Psalm, or Psalms, is a vain repeti0n? I am pretty cure most Christians would recognize that repeating Bible Verse is many things, but certainly not vain repetion.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:32PM

It depends.

It's a matter of sincerity.

If they're just said as a matter of rote, then, yes, it's a vain repetition issue.

If they are MEANT, as it were - in an active sense, where we let the Psalms guide our prayer, then it's genuine.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:01PM

What he said.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:20PM

Yes, agreed (with Ryan and the good Dr.) It is a question of sincerity.

And also Appleby has hit on something as well. At the end, God's judgment will rule regarding the sincerity of a prayer.

Perhaps even insincere repetition may be the opening for God's grace to change that person's prayer orientation from insincere to sincere... What are your thoughts?

Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 2:06PM

As for whether or not the recitation of a psalm, hymn or prayer is "meant", isn't that up to God to decide? C.S. Lewis points out in "Mere Chritianity" that God knows who is driving a wrecked machine, and that it is entirely possible for a sour old maid or tired pipefitter to be a better Christian than the most eloquent priest -- simply because the former are starting from a much more difficult place.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:20PM

He already HAS decided. And He told us so.

Again:

Matthew 6:7 "But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:21PM

Looks like you both are hitting the same nail from different angles.

Bob Grant| 2.3.11 @ 7:33PM

Good Doctor (Who I'm also in agreement with >90% of the time):

Maybe you don't fully understand why Catholics "chant" psalms. I suggest you go to You Tube and watch a few homilies by Father John Corapi. Here's a few:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAyEZR4gUk &

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

The good Father does a great job explaining the faith.

You'd like him. He's like the Vince Lombardi of priests.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:29PM

Doctor Right keeps quoting "use not vain repetitions". But the Bible has built in repetitions, such as "praise and exalt him above all forever" (Daniel 3). You really mean I can only say that verse once?? Do I have to not read it out loud?

The point is the repetition should not be vain, as the heathens do. The fact that Jesus clarified "as the heathens do" means that "vain" is not even a full description. I wonder what the heathens used to do, exactly.

Repetition Good.
Vain, as the heathens do, Bad.

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:23AM

The point is that since it's mere repetition, it IS vain.

Le Cracquere| 2.3.11 @ 6:56PM

No offense meant, but are you positive you've done your research fully? A "refrain to prayer, or ... cyclical chant" seems pretty close to the Psalms' EXPLICITLY designed intention. It's right there in the front material, and at the start of most of the Psalms.

Jeffrey| 2.3.11 @ 1:38PM

PJ, with you on the readings, but much of the rest of the service though done intentionally to celebrate important parts of the bible are abstracted to the point that someone could be very familiar with all of the new testament & still not make the connection with the service.

Mentioning that because I didn't understand the reasoning behind some parts of the service until I listened to a priest explain the service to a bunch of young kids.

Hearing him was kind of an epiphany to me. Suddenly I could look at the service and finally say I get it.

gingadecorgi| 2.3.11 @ 12:55PM

If you were to go to Mass 2011 you would hear scripture from the Old/New Testament. Sadly, the sermon may put you to sleep. But the Mass is the Eucharist. Learn. As for the "catholic hospital." It's about time the rest of the brother Bishops followed this Bishop. There are a few. Archbishop Chaput CO. Archbishop T Dolan NY. The scandals of Catholic public officials needs to be addressed. This hospital? Drop it. These crazy nuns are not good reps for the hospital or the Catholic faith.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:36PM

Catholics get naps in the pews as well? Haha.

Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 2:07PM

The homily (not sermon) in the Catholic church is not the entree; it is the appetizer.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:35PM

gazinya wrote: "In all my Catholic education we were taught the Catholic dogma but I can not remember anything from the Bible. Not in class and not in the Mass."

Thanks for sharing. I had a very weak Catholic upbringing, but we went to Mass every Sunday. The thing that jumped out at me, and planted the seed of faith in me which I accepted eventually, was the words of Jesus in the Gospel.

gazinya| 2.3.11 @ 11:08PM

I do not hate the Catholic Church. I'm not even upset with the organization but my daily readings in school were not from the Bible but from a catechism book. Every Sunday we read from St. Josephs Missle, not the Bible. I knew, as taught, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I knew that these were God. It was not until I was in my 20s, though, that I had ever read anything from a Bible. I don't know what a first reading is or what is meant by a second reading. Remember I said I had not attended Mass since 1965. The only book we used in Mass was the St. Joseph Missle and every sermon for that day was assigned by the dates in the Missle. If the priest had said 'please open you Bibles to Hebrews 4 there would have only an audible gasp. "What is he saying?" We did have two collections though, if that helps. Here's my point. If you are a Catholic then obey the Catholic Church. If you pick and choose then be something else. I did. I chose Christ with out the incense.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 12:47AM

Gazinya,

Please, come back home!

The "readings" mentioned above, refer to the three readings from the Scriptures that are part of the Novus Ordo Mass, or, the New Mass. As opposed to the Tridentine Mass you grew up with.

The Mass today is in two parts: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The Liturgy of the Word ends with three readings from the Scriptures, followed by a homily from the presiding cleric.

The first reading is from the Old Testament. The second reading is from one of the New Testament books, sans the Gospels. The third reading is from one of the four Gospels. This is for Sunday Masses, for the most part.

For daily Mass there are just two readings, the Gospel, and the other from either Old or New Testaments.

There are different Scripture readings for every day of the year, for a three year cycle. So, in a three year period, a Catholic who follows the Mass readings, will be exposed to almost the entire Bible.

I don't know how this compares to the Tridentine rite. I have neve attended one.
I hope this answers your question.

C. S. P. Schofield| 2.3.11 @ 8:55AM

I am not a Catholic. I am not even a Christian. Nevertheless I support the Catholic Church's right to determine its own doctrine. In fact I will echo something I remember from decades ago in the letters column of the National Review;

You say you are a Christian, but you decline to place yourself under the doctrinal rules of the Catholic Hierarchy? Congratulations; you are a Protestant.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 10:02AM

Christians are NOT obligated to place themselves under the doctrinal rules of the Catholic hierarchy. Only Catholics are...If they choose to be.

You say you are neither Christian nor Catholic. "Christian" does not automatically mean Catholic. Catholicism is but one of many denominations under the umbrella of Christianity.

Yes, Catholics believe they are the "one, true faith"...But that's an argument for another day.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM

That's not what he was saying. You're presuming malice where there is none.

It's a reference to even those who consider themselves Catholic, but do not agree with basic tenants of the denomination they hold to.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 11:53AM

I presumed no malice at all, nor delivered any, either.

He's not bothered; what's your problem?

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 12:19PM

Maybe slight misinterpretation on the malice part, but I think that you may have misunderstood the last line about not being under doctrinal rules.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 12:49PM

Actually, no.

The idea that if one is a Christian then one is automatically a) Catholic, or b) Protestant is a HUGE misunderstanding.

I am neither Catholic, nor Protestant. I do not belong to a denomination. I am a Christian. Period.

I do not follow any man-made creeds, codes, laws, rules, councils, edicts, etc. NONE of these are binding, especially if they contradict scripture, which they often do.

Jeffrey| 2.3.11 @ 1:43PM

Do you mean that you attend no church then?

I'm curious. I can't think of any Christian churches that would be neither Catholic or Protestant? If you trace the history, even churches that call themselves only xyz Christian church are a splinter or a splinter from the Catholic or a Protestant denomination.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:07PM

No. I do NOT mean that.

I attend Church regularly, usually at least twice a week.

We have a church building, a preacher, and an actual congregation, too. We pray, we sing, we partake of communion (funny, but when else does anyone use the word "partake"..?)

We're a real church.

We're really Christians. And we're not Catholics or Protestants.

The idea that one must be either/or actually springs indirectly from Catholic doctrine. Since Catholics assume (falsely) that they are the "one, true faith", they naturally assume that anyone who does not follow their faith follows one that is in rebellion ("protest") against Catholicism. From that perspective, it's a logical conclusion, albeit a completely false one.

In actuality, it is Catholicism that is in rebellion against the Church.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 2:11PM

What's a Protestant, then?

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:15PM

A movement that began in northern Europe in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices.

I do NOT belong to a Church that fits that definition.

We are Christians. Pure and simple. I guess you could say we're part of the "No labels" crowd?

Again...Nice try.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:16PM

Catholicism is itself a splinter-movement.

Akaky| 2.3.11 @ 2:19PM

Jeffrey, if you choose to deny the authority of the Pope and still not be Protestant, you could be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, or the Assyrian Church of the East. Martin Luther is not the only alternative to Rome.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:21PM

Or, you could be...a Christian!

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:38PM

Jeffrey wrote: "I can't think of any Christian churches that would be neither Catholic or Protestant?"

Don't forget the Orthodox churches, and the Copts.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:43PM

You're, by standard (not self) definition, Protestant.

And you DID miss the point of the final line as it relates to the article.

It's talking about self-professed Catholics who radically deviate from doctrine, to the point where they practically fall under a general "Protestant" definition.

He's not saying that all Christians are Catholics.

"I do not follow any man-made creeds, codes, laws, rules, councils, edicts, etc. NONE of these are binding, especially if they contradict scripture, which they often do."

Nice creed. Where is it in the Bible?

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:11PM

Nice try. But...

I am NOT a Protestant. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

My statement is not meant as a "creed". It's a statement. It's similar to saying "I don't drive a Hyundai". It's a fact. It's not an article of faith (as would be expressed in scripture, and ONLY in scripture), NOR is it in opposition to scripture...So there's no inherent contradiction in saying it.

Christian DOES NOT by definition = Catholic and/or Protestant. Hate to tell you, but there were no Catholics or Protestants in the Bible...Ever.

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 3:09PM

Like it or not, your statement more or less falls under the definition of "creed." It's a defined theological position. That's the core of what a creed is.

The theology you proclaim comes directly from various creeds and confessions. The Westminster Confession - among others - begins with the authoritative nature of the scriptures above and beyond the creed itself, and every point and statement has scriptural reference. Some you may not agree with. Some I don't.

It doesn't make it non-Biblical.

I bet that you and your church have several beliefs regarding baptism, eschatology, salvation, scriptural authority, toungues, etc, that precisely echo many points of many creeds...and were long-thought out and derived and debated many years ago....by Biblical literalists who desperately searched to figure things out.

And that are vague enough that when directly quoting scripture there is room for debate, and your church decides there is a more defined position.

They didn't arrive there in a historical vacuum.

Unfortunately, you have a minority viewpoint definition of what a Protestant is...and you hold precisely the same or similar theological viewpoints as the early Protestants did.

It makes you a Protestant. Sorry, but the label is there. Neither of us has a choice on whether or not it sticks.

It also doesn't make you NOT a Christian.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 4:12PM

It's NOT a creed. Sorry, but that's just silly, and faulty reasoning.

The theology I embrace is called "Christianity". It has ONE (1) source: THE BIBLE. That's it. The beliefs that the Church I attend also ALL come from the Bible, and only the Bible. They are NOT the result of "long, thought-out and derived debates"; they are the inspired words of God.

Nor do we believe that scripture is "vague". In fact, it's quite unambiguous, especially on the major points. Those who believe or state otherwise are usually people with a worldly agenda that contradicts God's word.

Frankly, I'm uninterested in the popularity of these views. I don't base my faith on how many others share it. I base it on my ability to read, discuss, and discern the Truth. If I'm the only person in the room who believes it, so be it.

Again, you fail to understand that a "Protestant" is one who "protests" something. I already pointed-out that theologically speaking, the Protestant-movement was developed in opposition ("protest") to Catholicism. Since Christianity pre-dates Catholicism, then BY DEFINITION, it CANNOT be "protestant".

So...again...I'm NOT a Protestant. I don't know why you fail to understand this, unless it contradicts your own faith (or creeds).

Finally...You do realize that by insisting that what I wrote IS a creed, then (as you like to say), BY DEFINITION, you are confirming that all "creeds" are man-made, and therefore not valid because they're unscriptural?

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 4:59PM

Sola Scriptura.

From Westminster: "X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

It is NOT a new idea. Using the Bible as the sole source of faith, honestly...is. As in Protestant Reformation new. I'm not arguing against it.
I'm arguing against your lack of historical perspective on the matter.

SOME scripture is "vague." If you brought out some theological position outside of the necessity of the Gospel, I could probably give you several differing positions on what it means...with scriptural backing for each of them.

Your ideas about Christianity "predating" Catholicism come DIRECTLY from the Protestant reformation.

EVERY doctrinal position that your church has I can probably show you where the matter was debated (often more than once) in the past and it probably has a credal "answer" that is an official position derived from the scriptures.

A Noble Effort| 2.3.11 @ 8:09PM

Ryan:

Not really worth it at this point, don't you think?

"I may be someone who believes that there is no God but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God, and that Ali is the executor of God, but don't call me a Shi'a Muslim. The word "Muslim" has unfortunate overtones of submission to domination, and "Shi'a (supporters)" is a derogatory term applied by those who call themselves "traditional" Muslims."

"And maybe I don't view the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy reflected by the tissue of my irises as appropriately described by the color of a leaf, but to everybody else, my eyes are 'green.'"

Maybe I just lack any understanding of the history and meaning of the words "Shi'a," "Muslim," and "green." Or maybe they displease me for some reason. In this case, perhaps I should realize that if I am going to speak English, then I should not criticize others for using the language in a way completely consistent with the way it is used by the cultures which speak English, rather than with my own idiosyncratic and parochial culture.

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:47AM

You are illogical, and somewhat confused on matters of history.

Simply because some Protestant denominations also believe in using only the Bible for direction, etc, does NOT mean that all churches who do so are "Protestant". That's like saying a Ford is a Mercedes because they both have 4 tires and a steering wheel. It's a false conclusion.

Also, you repeatedly assert the Catholic perspective to define what is " Protestantism", and that is faulty logic as well. As I already said, Christinity predates the denomination called "Catholicism". That's not supposition, that's fact.

Additionally, Protestant denominations (Baptists, for example) often insert or elevate specific creeds or doctrines as articles of faith and elevate those items to the level of scripture. The Church I attend does not do this. And if one uses the Bible and ONLY the Bible as the source of Christian doctrine, one will logically arrive arbutus conclusion.

So, once again, and with feeling: Not a Carholic and not a Protestant. If you're unable to understand this, I can't say I didn't try.

Akaky| 2.3.11 @ 5:12PM

"They are NOT the result of "long, thought-out and derived debates"; they are the inspired words of God."

Is that so, Doc? Do you hold that Jesus has two natures, divine and human? And do you hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:40PM

Dr Right wrote: "Nor do we believe that scripture is "vague"."

Who's "we"?

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:29AM

Christians.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:50PM

Dr Right also wrote: "In fact, it's quite unambiguous, especially on the major points. Those who believe or state otherwise are usually people with a worldly agenda that contradicts God's word."

But the Bible says: "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. " 2 Pet 3:15-16

Jesus left us a Church with a Shepherd. He did not leave us a Bible. The Church affirmed the Old Testament (of which protestants reject 7 books), and assembled the New Testament (of which Luther rejected a few books, especially the letter of James because it contradicted one of his pet "Sola" theories).

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:34AM

Catholics often express the arrogant idea that the Bible would not exist without them. By doing so, they improperly assert themselves as principal editors into the word of God. Sorry, but the letters of Paul, the Gospels, and the remaining books of the Bible were written by non-Catholics, long before Catholicism existed.

Also hate to tell you that just because something is hard for you to understand doesn't make it ambiguous; it makes it something you don't understand.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:52AM

Who, then, did edit the Word of God, Doctor Wrong?

As you probably don't know, there were writings known as the Gnostic Gospels back in the second and third centuries A.D. These were written by non-Catholics.

Who decided that these false gospels should not be included in the New Testament?

Or, how about the Book of Enoch, which is quoted in the New Testament, but is not included in the Old? Who decided that?

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count, okay?

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 8:06AM

Oh, it's "Nick"...Protector of the Realm "Catholicus"...

Who "edited" the Word of God?

What a bizarre question. No one.

Yes, I'm aware of the Gnostic Gospels. There are all kinds of Books proclaiming themselves to be "Gospels", such as "The Gospel of Judas". What of it?

You obviously don't understand the difference between "fact-checking" and "editing".

The books in the Bible weren't "edited". They were fact-checked and cross-referenced against each other, as well as against historical documents related to Christ and the early Christians written by men like Tacitus and Josephus. (Please note: Simply because we look at the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, we don't include them in the Bible).

The Bible was NOT "edited"; the contents of the Epistles of Paul, the Gospels, and the other books have not been altered (Yes...there are DIFFERENT versions...King James, NAS, NIV, etc...but the source material still exists, so error can be eliminated in the various translations).

As I've already stated, Catholics arrogantly assume that the Bible would somehow not exist without their divine labors. What a preposterous and pompous assumption! Catholics did NOT write the Epistles of Paul, or the Gospels, or the remaining books...yet they retroactively insert themselves into the debate, and hope that no one notices.

Sorry...We noticed.

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:39AM

"Additionally, Protestant denominations (Baptists, for example) often insert or elevate specific creeds or doctrines as articles of faith and elevate those items to the level of scripture. "

If you knew what the creeds said, you would see that this is a false statement. Did you even READ the Westminster quote that I wrote?

Honestly, your position casts aside about 1900+ years of scholarship by good, believing Christians who studied the Word and sought to enlighten both their time and ours. No, what they did does NOT qualify as scripture. However, ignoring what they did and who they are removes an element from our modern faith, one that arrogantly presumes that we have all the answers we need.

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 9:39AM

You're inserting disagreement where there is none. That's not the first time.

If you're denying that MANY denominations create and elevate extra-scriptural creeds and doctrines to the level of scripture, or deny what is clearly written in scripture, then it is you who is casting aside history.

Studying, reflecting, and commenting on scripture is wonderful. It exposes one to the word of God, increases one's knowledge of the Word of God, and increases the volume of Christian philosophy and reasoning. Those are all admirable activities. However, when one's reading/exploration/etc., of scripture leads one down a false path, and that path is adopted as doctrine, or even an article of faith (such as with a certain creeds), then we have a problem. BTW< asserting that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, or that the Bible is the only source that Christians need, is not a "creed"...it's a fact.

No one is "ignoring" the works of great Christian philosophers of any/all Denominations. However, simply because someone is deemed "great" does NOT mean that they are correct. The best example of this would be John Calvin: a brilliant, dedicated man who was absolutely wrong about the T.U.L.I.P. theory, and who subsequently preached error.

As I have stated...and will repeat for your benefit, since you seem to be purposefully ignoring it:

1. I'm neither a Catholic NOR a protestant; I'm a Christian.
2. The Church I belong to does NOT follow any creeds or man-made doctrines (as do MANY denominations, including Catholicism). We rely ONLY on the Bible as a guide. This does NOT mean that we don't discuss things amongst ourselves, or with others. Far from it, we do this every week.
3. # 2 above is NOT a creed. It is not specifically written down anywhere, or codified by a group of self-appointed wise men into an official tenant.

You're clearly prejudiced against even trying to understand what I've explained in detail, more than once, so it would appear that we're at an impasse.

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 11:08AM

"The best example of this would be John Calvin: a brilliant, dedicated man who was absolutely wrong about the T.U.L.I.P. theory, and who subsequently preached error."

Here's the problem - each statement about TULIP has a solid Biblical underpinning, with good scriptural references that appear plain in scripture...and are derived DIRECTLY from scripture. It was a response to Armenius. It's not extra-Biblical, it's simply a way of interpreting the Word.

And what you just stated is a clear position of Armenianism (more or less) - a theological position that came about through councils that looked at scripture and attempted to form a theological position and stated it in a creed.

Your theological position is "informed" by using historical positions that aren't necessarily extra-Biblical. Creeds and councils aren't necessarily extra-Biblical. They simply clearly define set theological positions - such as TULIP or its opposing views.

The Reformers would agree with you about using scripture as their sole guide, but they believed that there are positions that need to be taken. They looked at scripture, pontificated and debated and wrote down what they believed it to mean.
All the while stating that what they were doing was NOT above scripture as an authority.

And they were all Protestants. You're trying to avoid a label that isn't a bad definition of what we are. You've even been "protesting" the Catholic position on scripture here on this board!

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 10:35AM

Doctor Wrong,

It was you who used the word edit, remember Einstein?

You are really a poor obfuscator, by the way. I asked WHO decided WHICH books belonged in the Bible? Not who "fact-checked" them.

Since you are ignorant of Christian history, I will just tell you: It was the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!

It was formally done at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397.) The canon of Scripture was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.

Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 10:47AM

Nick:

First of all, the Catholic Doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" is false. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...Insisting otherwise proves who's TRULY ignorant of Christian history. Christianity existed BEFORE Catholicism; they are NOT identical.

It's kind of like when I hear that someone is a devoted Catholic who's "well-versed" in scripture. My first thought is usually "If he's really well-versed, he wouldn't be Catholic."

Since I've dealt with you before, I know you like to play this little game of "Who said what when?" It's a tedious little game where you try and back someone into a corner to see if they'll admit something like "Catholics drafted the Bible".

Well, since that's NOT true, I can't say it. The books that comprise the Bible didn't need affirmation at the "Council of Whatever"...They were inspired by God, and written long before Catholicism existed.

Catholics like yourself seek credit for re-affirming the obvious. You're kind of like the people who sue someone for inventing something that they themselves claim to have "kinda' sorta'" thought about a few years ago...

Go sell dogma someplace else.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:48PM

Doctor Wrong,

I don't play games. I just state the facts.

And you, as usual, just obfuscate and refuse to answer simple questions. Because you have no answers.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:26PM

True, no one is obligated to put themselves under any hierarchy. But if one calls themselves Catholic, it stands to reason that they would place themselves in the institution that they profess to confess....

YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 1:45PM

One would think... but if that were reality we wouldn't have Pro-Abortion "Catholics" like the Kennedy's.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:52PM

Even Jesus selected Judas. The Church will not be free of betrayal and scandal until the end of time.

Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:40PM

Ted wrote: "True, no one is obligated to put themselves under any hierarchy."

I cannot quite agree with you. It seems to me that the obligation to obey the successors of the apostles is in Scripture itself. For example, Paul tells both Timothy and Titus to "rebuke" those in their charge. (2 Tim 4:2, Titus 1:13).

In Titus 2:15, Paul says "rebuke with all authority". That's a lot of authority. Do not neglect the authority of Titus and Timothy, and of their successors. The hierarchy in the church is clearly visible in scripture, for anyone with eyes to see.

BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 3:55PM

Good to hear that you "partake" of communion or the Lord's Supper often. It is interesting how many protestant denominations have the Lord's Supper only once or twice a year. Most have it once a month. I think it is best to have it every week or even more. And I see nothing inthe Bible that forbids followers of Jesus from having the Lord's Supper in their own homes.

I don't speak about it often. I am not a Baptist but I have spoken to maybe a half dozen Baptist ministers and asked them what they thought of this idea. Most of the time the minister and I would ahve a good conversation about it. However, on 2 separate occasions the ministers were actually very angry, adamant is the better word, that I would consider this.

I found this interesting but inthose 2 cases they could not cite Scripture to refute me but rather went on about following church leadership or church discipline and order.....

I think there are reasons for this that I will not get in to, but suffice it to say that the more a church practices the Lord's SUpper, the better I like it.

.."This do ye, as OFT as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as OFTEN as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come (1 Cor 11:25b, 26)

Vern Crisler| 2.3.11 @ 8:16PM

The analogy of communion with passover suggests that infrequent observance is better.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 10:04PM

Very interesting argument Vern, but it is weak when compared to so much evidence from the New Testament.

Jesus himself offered a "communion service" at Emmaus a day or so after the resurrection (that's pretty quick, not a year later).

And you're probably aware of Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." What, once a year?

Also, in 1 Cor 11:27 ff, the Corinthians are partaking so often that they become careless., and in "not recognizing the body of the lord", some of them have died as a result.

BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 11:14PM

Jesus said in Mark 2:27 that "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Jesus often showed in practice and in words that he kept the Spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

So, why do you think Jesus would link communion ONLY with Passover when he specifically said, As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me?"

Are we to remember Him in this special way only once a year?

Yes, there is something about observing the Lord's Supper often that actually seems to rankle a small but significant portion of protestants or at least some protestant pastors and leaders. I've seen this before and it is strange indeed.

The argument linking passoverand communion is made by those who do not want to partake of the Lord's Supper often. But in every other way, the same people who make this argument follow the New Testament, not the Jewish Law. They neither observe Passover, the Jewish Law or any other Jewish holy day or festival day. This is incosistent practice and thinking. They link one of the only 2 "rituals" that Jesus wanted, the other being Baptism, with Passover and so minimize its practice.

I repeat what I said in my post, the more a church observes the Lord's Supper the better I like it!

BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 11:46PM

And, Frisbee, you cited good Scriptures. I appreciate it.

And though I think we should partake often of the Lord's Supper, in no way do I think we should trivialize it. One should not partake unless he has examined himself and is in prayer and in a deliberate and thankful frame of mind regarding worship and reverence for the Lord. A long as Christians do this, they can partake of the Lord's Supper often.

Vern Crisler| 2.4.11 @ 1:20AM

Frequent communion has the effect of making it routine. Rare communion might have the effect of making it a superstitious rite. Seems that every three months would avoid extremes.

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:40AM

The argument from the other side states differently - that communion is SO important, that it needs to be done as often as possible.

My opinion is somewhere in between.

YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 10:01AM

Being Baptist... I do wish we celebrated the Lord's Supper more often. However, to do it at each service... I'm not sure. My grandparents are Church of Christ.. and they do it every service. When I would go to church with them the Lord's Supper was just the thing you did after the sermon and before the collection. It was habitual, not altogether spiritual. That's not to say that there weren't those who were spiritual and sincere about it.
As for the few Baptist preachers who were adamant to not have it each service... I'm not sure about. Having grown up Baptist I see nothing binding in our teachings that would say it's wrong. They were probably just hypersensitive too becomming ritualistic (something that many Baptists I know feel plagues the Catholic church). Although, as a leader of a flock, he probably feels responsible (and I would think rightly so) to make sure that our times of worship do not lead people into becomming habitual instead fo spiritual.

But... like I said... I do wish we did it more often.

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 11:10AM

That's the usual Protestant fear about communion - that doing it too often results in empty ritual, and I think it too often makes us run in the other direction.

the Presbyterian-PCA church I attend serves communion about once a month.

Bill| 2.3.11 @ 9:16AM

What is the basis for Ann Rice's alleged belief that Catholicism is "deservedly infamous?" Is Catholicism infamous to anyone other than Ann Rice and others of her ilk?

Pope Testiculus 1| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM

The basis for her statement is the idea that the Catholic Church, an a HUMAN institution, has done much that is contrary to Christian values.

And she would be correct.

PJ| 2.3.11 @ 10:17AM

Bill,

I believe her beef against the Catholic Church is its stance against homosexual acts, artificial birth-control.... the usual stuff that liberal Catholics have problems w/understanding the Church's position.

hunter| 2.3.11 @ 9:30AM

A good example is one I saw on tv several years ago. There was a protest against a abortion clinic and the tv interviewer asked one of the pro-abortion women their veiws on the matter. She replied " The Church (God), is going to have to listen to the will of the people. That things have changed over the years and things are diffrent now". Well I'm sure God will reconize he has been perhaps a little lax in not putting out a updated version of the new 21st century version of the bible. Maybe is is being written at Harvurd right now.

Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 9:58AM

Kudos to Mr. Olmsted for refusing to bow to the current zeitgeist, and for steadfastly enforcing the rules by which the Catholic Church operates!!!

Liberal Catholics are in an uproar? Who cares?!?! They're "CINOs"..."Catholics in name only". They abandoned their faith years ago, but like to hide behind it when it suits their political purposes. As it says in Matthew 7:16, "By their fruits you shall know them", and Liberal Catholics are rotten to the core.

Kudos to Ms. Fabrizio for the oft-stated but little followed admonition for Liberal Catholics to leave the Church and find another that suits their purposes.

I have many disagreements with Catholicism, but abortion is not one of them. I applaud the RCC's efforts to stop the wholesale slaughter of innocents. It is one issue that truly transcends belief, denomination, and faith. ANYONE who considers themselves to be a believing Christian should be against this abomination.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:30PM

True words. Abortion. The slaughter of the Holy Innocents continues...

Mimi| 2.3.11 @ 3:25PM

BRAVO !!!

Nick| 2.3.11 @ 8:22PM

Doctor Wrong,

What happened? Did you take happy pills today?

You sound down right reasonable on this thread. Congratulations!

Ted| 2.4.11 @ 10:53AM

Nick,

He's usually happy, articulate, and reasonable. When it comes to religious threads though, he tends to be somewhat grumpy, easily irritable, generally reasonable, and articulate. Perhaps this is because he has strong feelings on the matter, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:15PM

Ted,

You evidently haven't endured his anti-Catholic bigotry first hand.

I, and several other regular commenters here, like Teflon93 and John II, have. I don't make that claim lightly either.

Doctor Wrong only has strong feelings when it comes to Catholics. He is more than willing to believe anything bad the New York Slimes prints about the Catholic Church. He's a former Catholic, who evidently has issues with his parents.

He has written many vile things concerning the Sacraments and Our Lady. He needs our pity, and our prayers.

mames| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM

'Not a Roman member but I support the Bishop's consistency. Would that the rest of the church do the same when so called catholic candidates and elected officials openly support abortion and homosexual "rights".

Citizen Jerry| 2.3.11 @ 10:13AM

"The Catholic Church is the largest institution in the world, and probably the oldest still in existence."

Lisa, I hope it's just an oversight, but you seem to have forgotten the millions of Orthodox Christians worldwide who have been proclaiming the truth since 32 A.D. Just sayin'

PJ| 2.3.11 @ 10:26AM

It may not be an oversight depending on which angle you are viewing it. There are many Orthodox Churches around the world who are in union w/Rome except of course the Greek, Russian, Ukrainian Churches. (probably others, & that may change too within our lifetime.)

Evanston2| 2.3.11 @ 11:16AM

Citizen Jerry is partially right. Rome has no claim to being the oldest institution -- it must share that with the Orthodox. Where Jerry is wrong is that Romanism may indeed be the largest, but that depends on whether you count official membership (which Rome counts as anyone who is baptized) or actual church attendance. Plus, as PJ says, if another church is "in union" with yours, how formal must it be? Most of reformed protestantism is "in union" in the Creeds. Conversely, many commenters here are critical of "liberal Catholics." Are they really "in union" or are they really out of union with Rome? Many here have said that such should be thrown out of "the Church" but since it fails to enforce its own standards the capital "C" is laughable. The bottom line is if any member of my church said something in our constitution is wrong, they could attend but we would drop them from the membership roll. Lisa should stick with her area of expertise, which is criticizing military men for their lack of church lady etiquette.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:36AM

" When you are getting kicked from the rear it means you are in front."
Fulton J. Sheen

Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 11:43AM

"Objects in the Mirror are Losing" -- Dr. Wolfgang Ulrich, Audisport North America.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 10:07PM

Yes, please don't forget the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. I lived in Israel for a while and met many fine Maronite Catholics from Lebanon.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:35PM

The Catholic Church, despite the Great Schism, included our Orthodox brothers and sisters from 32 AD. Not sure that a slight was meant on the author's part, although I don't presume to speak for her.

And there are many Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome. And both Rome and the Orthodox Churches not currently in communion with Rome have been making great strides in recent years towards repairing the Great Schism.

I highly recommend any Roman Rite adherent check out an Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgy or an Orthodox Liturgy. They are beautiful.

Citizen Jerry| 2.3.11 @ 4:00PM

Yes they are.

Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 10:14PM

Citizen Jerry wrote: "Orthodox Christians ... proclaiming the truth since 32 A.D."

I am aware of the first extant recording of the words "Catholic Church" in the letters of Ignatius (disciple of St John). And of course the Nicene Creed says "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".

But I do not know when the first recorded use of "Orthodox Church" was. The earliest use of the word I can recall was pertaining to "Orthodox Faith", but not the "Orthodox Church". (I am thinking of the Desert Fathers, etc.)

Too Many Tims| 2.3.11 @ 10:16AM

Luke 20
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”
He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”

So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....ersion=NIV

Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 12:14PM

Not the applicable verses to the situation.

Matt 18: 15-18 - among others has far more value in providing the framework for correction of unrepentant church members.

YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 12:22PM

They are in the context that it is not up to man to dictate that whch is right but for God alone. That must be understood BEFORE you can have grounds to justly deal with "wayward sheep".

I think that is what he was getting at more so than the "rightness" of the excommunication.

You are correct, however, that once God's supremecy is established, there are better verses that address unrepentant church members.

Too Many Tims| 2.3.11 @ 1:37PM

Thanks Ryan. Very good.

Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

Vern Crisler| 2.3.11 @ 8:21PM

Notice that the example Jesus gave is a private sin -- something observed by only one other person.

Petronius| 2.3.11 @ 11:00AM

We'd all best hope that Judge Vinsons decision to 86 Obamacare sticks with the top 9. Should we lose this one Dr. Berwick will be in control of all hospitals in the country. On that day, none will remain Catholic. The only way to stop that would be moving the patients out and burning them all down before the government take over.

bill carson| 2.3.11 @ 11:15AM

Good article by a good Roman Catholic. Bless her and bless that bishop in Phoenix!

scythe| 2.3.11 @ 12:08PM

And while we are questioning the NYT and their overt hatred of all things Catholic and by extension Christian, it's time we begin to ask ourselves why the hatred is allowed to be spewed by NON-CHRISTIANS and those nominally so, without the charge of BIGOTRY being leveled loudly and often. The canard of Islamophobe is certainly tossed about with abandon, isn't it? Here's an experiment: the next time the NYT or any of its minions are engaged in Catholic bashing they should be told to halt or....the Koran will be burned. See how fast that gets their attention. Two birds with one stone. The bashing will stop, they will be reminded how the lack of courage is not necessary to bash Catholics/Christians, and our Muslim neighbors will keep them in line. They wouldn't listen to Christians. But you bet your rear-end the Muslim contingent will have an influence.

Richard Baker| 2.3.11 @ 12:56PM

So many of those who describe themselves as "devout" Catholics are not. In America, too many "devout" members of the Church pick and choose that which they believe. When I hear that someone say that they are Catholic and pro-abortion, as an example, I further realize that Satan indeed lives.

DaveS| 2.3.11 @ 6:40PM

For one example - yes.

carolinem| 2.3.11 @ 1:04PM

Why hasn't the Church excommunicated all the bishops who lied and protected child rapist priests that they moved from parish to parish? Why hasn't the Church excommunicated Catholic politicians who advocate and vote for abortion? It's easy to pick on a nun, but Church leaders have no courage when it comes to dealing with powerful people or their own comrades.

scythe| 2.3.11 @ 1:54PM

Dead on. They lost a lot of credibility for not doing so. Read Bella Dodd's book published in the 1950's- communist activist would converted to Catholicism. Revealed how the Communist Party recruited over a thousand homosexuals to infiltrate the Church by pursuing the priesthood. The Communist Party and communism have been responsible for the collapse of traditional virtues and institutions for over a half century. It's now become too glaring and horrid to ignore or pretend otherwise. The reason why the Church ignored it was because many were placed there to DESTROY. The Church needs to be more forthcoming about who their internal enemy has been and let the public in on the plot and the outcome. Their problem is they think their protracted silence will make the problem go away. It only made it grow larger and larger especially since the lefties in the Mastodon Media were natural enemies.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:10PM

You are correct to a certain extent. The KGB and other satellite Warsaw Pact security services tried (and did) infiltrate the Church, with varying degrees of success. This also happened to our Orthodox brothers and sisters as well.

As for those Bishops, I wish there were a short, easy explanation. The truth is, some Bishops tried to protect the Church's name, when they should have been protecting the innocent first and foremost.

Some moved priests and allowed them to continue in ministry because they had been assured by psychiatrists and psychologists that the priest in question had been "cured." Much of this was based on the psychiatric/psychological knowledge at the time, which was not as extensive as we have now. And in truth, it seems that back then abusing a child was treated as similar to violating one's vows of celibacy with an adult women: as simply a sin and a moral failing. It was that, and it was far more.

Also, please bear in mind that the vast majority of reported abuse was not in fact pedophilia (although there were cases of that). If you take the time to read the studies, it becomes quickly obvious that the vast majority of the abuse cases were not pedophilia, but rather homosexual in nature.

One sees rather quickly that it was adult male priests with homosexual inclinations preying on middle school and high school aged boys/young men.

scythe| 2.3.11 @ 6:26PM

"that the vast majority of the abuse cases were not pedophilia, but rather homosexual in nature." That's why the left wants to do to the Boy Scouts what was done to the Church. They howl about the Scouts, and they howl about the Church. Nothing outs a covert agenda faster than overt hypocrisy.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 2:29PM

"Insurance companies, child advocacy groups and religion scholars say there is no evidence that Catholic clergy are more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct than other clergy or professionals. Yet ongoing civil litigation of decades-old cases against a church with deep pockets keeps the Catholic Church in the headlines.

“There is no plausible evidence that Catholic priests are gangs of sexual predators, as they are being portrayed,” said Pennsylvania State University Prof. Philip Jenkins, eminent religion and history scholar, and a non-Catholic who’s studied the church’s abuse problems for 20 years.

Jenkins said there has been no formal study comparing denominations for rates of child abuse. However, insurers have been assessing the risks since they began offering riders on liability policies in the 1980s. Two of the largest insurers report no higher risks in covering Catholic churches than Protestant denominations.

Wisconsin-based Church Mutual Insurance Co. has 100,000 client churches and has seen a steady filing of about five sexual molestation cases a week for more than a decade, even though its client base has grown.

“It would be incorrect to call it a Catholic problem,” said Church Mutual’s risk control manager, Rick Schaber. “We do not see one denomination above another. It’s equal. It’s also equal among large metropolitan churches and small rural churches.”

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 1:07PM

Same Goes For Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Reformed Druids, etc.

Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:56PM

For an interesting take on all this check out today's article at The Catholic Thing by Todd Hartch. He discusses Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Sapientiae Christianae. In it, Leo defined the duties of Catholics in civil society"

This is tangentially related in that it applies to all the Catholics in Name Only (CINOs) and especially CINO politicians. It's worth a look.

BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 4:06PM

I've said something similar before but I think it bears repeating with this article that hatred of Christianity is at the root of the liberals "philosophies."

It is why liberals can support any religion that is not Christian with the exception if Judaism. But even Judaism is not hated as much as Christianity is.

It is also at the root of their hatred for America since our constituional form of government is perceived as too much in the Christian camp. Or at least it allows for too much freedom and with too much freedon there is the possibility of massive movements in the forms of conversions and revivals.

Just got to have that control one way or another, the left thinks.

It is why they hate Republicans since Republicans are "perveived" as more Christian. I think that is debateable but that is the perception nevertheless.

"If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. John 15:18

Ted| 2.4.11 @ 11:00AM

Remember also John 16:33

"These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world."

Larry| 2.3.11 @ 4:38PM

It's easy for conservatives to rally round the church when it rails against abortion. But I wonder if that support erodes when it comes to divorce. Divorced people also excommunicate themselves because they have defied the teachings of the church and the gospel.
"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery." Mat. 19:3.
Likewise those who practice any form of birth control are excommunicated.
Anyone want to take a headcount to see who is still a Catholic in good standing?
Lisa, how about you?

lisafab| 2.3.11 @ 5:01PM

Larry,

Guilty as charged: I am a Catholic in good standing...sorry!

I participate in the Sacrament of Penance once a month and the Holy Eucharist every day. You'd be surprised how many of us are out there.

Nick| 2.3.11 @ 7:55PM

Larry,

Getting divorced does not result in latae sententiae. Getting married again, i.e. bigamy, does. It leads to an adulterous relationship, a mortal sin, making one unworthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

If a someone's spouse leaves them, and divorces him, that person can still receive the Sacraments, as long as they don't "remarry" or commit mortal sin.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 6:07PM

Larry bloviates,"Likewise those who practice any form of birth control are excommunicated."

Wrong Anti-Catholic Agenda Buffoon.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 6:13PM

"If I am divorced can I still receive communion?

If your marriage was not annulled and you chose to remarry, then no. Otherwise it is perfectly acceptable to receive the Eucharist."

Shut Your Anti-Catholic Pie Hole Larry.

Larry| 2.3.11 @ 7:30PM

Wrong again. Unlike you Clint, I know my church laws and abide by them.
Birth control is a mortal sin and the person who commits a mortal sin is not allowed to receive the Eucharist unless that person confesses their sin and exhibits a desire not to repeat the sin.
As for divorce..what part of Matthew 19:3 don't you understand?
I love my church and am tired of cafeteria Catholics posing as good church members.
Unlike you, I don't believe that rudeness and name calling are Catholic virtues.

Nick| 2.3.11 @ 8:19PM

Larry,

See my response, above.

Latae sententiae is a legal judgement that the sinner puts upon themselves. It is automatic and one must go to his bishop to become reconciled with the Church.

Using birth control does not require one to go to the bishop. Receiving the Sacrament of Penance is all that is required, as long as it is heartfelt and you are truly remorseful.

Only an annulment issued by the Church will allow a "remarried" Catholic to again be in communion with Christ's Church. Simply being divorced, as long as you are not the one who initiated it, does not incur latae sententiae excommunication.

Vern Crisler| 2.3.11 @ 8:27PM

What right does the Roman church have to grant annulments? Where does Jesus make any exceptions?

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:18PM

"What makes a marriage invalid?

Some common reasons for annulment in the Catholic Church are:

1. At least one partner didn't fully & freely consent.
2. Someone wasn't mature enough to understand the full extent of what they were doing.
3. There was never intent to be faithful.
4. One or both partners did not intend to be open to children.

Obviously, the Church places a tremendous value on marriage. Couples seeking marriage are required to attend pre-marriage education sessions precisely so they can be fully informed about what they're committing to.

Note that it's important to distinguish between what the couple intends when they marry, and deviations later in the marriage. "

Vern Crisler| 2.4.11 @ 1:23AM

So again, where does the RC get the authorization to annul a marriage for the reasons you cited? Jesus didn't list any exceptions did he?

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:37AM

Mr. Crisler,

Yes, Christ did list an exception. In the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter 19, Verse 9, Christ gives the exception for divorce in the Mosaic Law.

Most Scripture translations list the exception as the act of fornication, or adultery. But, the better translation is illicit. The Greek word used in verse 9 is porneia, which means impurity.

Christ was referring to all the forbidden marriages in Leviticus that are in some degree incestous. If a marriage is forbidden, it was never legal in the first place. Therefore, the two were never married in the eyes of God.

This is where the Catholic Church gets the power to annul marriages. A Church tribunal decides if the marriage was licit in the first place. If they find it wasn't, the marriage is declared null and void, i.e. it never happened. Just like Jewish marriages were in Christ's time.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Vern Crisler| 2.4.11 @ 9:16AM

So it's not just a matter of unchastity, or what part of Matt. 19:3 don't we understand?

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 10:11AM

Mr. Crisler,

I don't understand the question.
Would you please elaborate?

Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:25PM

Vern: the Church does not have nor claim to have the power to un-do a real marriage. It has the authority to declare that a supposed marriage never existed because of defects in the original vows, etc.

So even the Church admits that it cannot dissolve an actual true sacramental marriage.

Larry| 2.3.11 @ 10:35PM

Nick,
My understanding in regard to the birth control issue is that a person can not receive absolution unless they have a sincere resolve not to commit the sin again. So if a person practices birth control and intends to continue that practice, they are not absolved from their sin.
I don't understand your reference to latae sententiae excommunication. That can occur only under very specific circumstances. But a person can be denied the sacraments under a wide variety of circumstances.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:03AM

Larry,

Yes, I was not very clear. My apologies.
You are correct about making a sincere confession and resolving not to commit the sin again.

Latae sententiae excommunication happens automatically to anyone who has, commits, or assists in procuring an abortion. It is not a decree that is handed down from some legal proceeding. It is not a declaration from a bishop.

Anyone guilty of such an offense must go to his bishop to be reconciled with the Church, receive Christ in the Eucharist, and receive other sacraments. They cannot simply make a good confession to be reconciled. It takes more than that.

Those who practice birth control must not receive the Eucharist. They are committing a grave sin. But they are not automatically excommunicated. If they know what the teaching of the Church is, and reject that teaching; and/or fall to temptation, and consciously disobey Christ's teachings, they are guilty of mortal sin and cannot receive the Eucharist. They are not in a state of Grace.

As I stated, if they make a sincere confession, and act of contrition, which includes resolving not to sin again, then they may receive the Sacraments. This is what I meant when I wrote: heartfelt and you are truly remorseful.

Receiving the Eucharist is usually a private act. What I mean by that is this: A priest almost always doesn't know if the person in front of them is in a state of Grace. It is up to the individual to use the gifts of the Church to make himself worthy. But, anyone can profane the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, and only he and God will know.

Public officials are completely differerent, of course. So are married people. They made a public vow of fidelity. If they violate this through divorce, they must reconcile with the Church, either through annulment, or don't get "married" again. This was my main point, that divorced Catholics are not automatically excommunitcated, latae sententiae. They can be, if they continue to compound their sin by taking the Eucharist unworthily.

(If it wasn't their fault, i.e. they didn't want to get divorced, their spouse did; as long as they are chaste, and wait for their spouse to make ammends, or die, they are in communion with the Church, and can receive the Sacraments.)

Catholics who are public figures can be excommunicated if they publicly refuse to accept the teachings of Church. As was stated by others in this thread, this starts with educating them privately by their priest and bishop. Then comes public calls for repentence from the bishop. Finally, excommunication.

This is starting to happen in this counrtry, Praise the Lord!
I hope I was more clear this time, my apologies again.
God Bless!

Evanston2| 2.4.11 @ 1:16PM

Nick, Any thoughts on this Flannery O'Connor quote: “Well, if [the Eucharist] is just a symbol, to hell with it.”

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:44PM

Evanston2,

Sorry, I'm not very well read. I had to look up who she was.
So, I guess I have no thoughts on this quote.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:10PM

Unlike You Larry, I know the difference between mortal sin and excommunication.
Before You run your uneducated mouth act like A Real Catholic and learn The Tenets of The Catholic Religion.

Shove Off Buffoon.

DaveS| 2.3.11 @ 6:38PM

The whole matter in Phoenix is about outing the feminist religious women, their orders, their supporters and their fellow travelers in opposition to Church authority. These dames try to run their own shadow church with a duped following.

Kingofthenet| 2.3.11 @ 7:12PM

11-week-old baby had been aborted

CALL THE POLICE, A MURDER HAS OCCURRED!
OR perhaps you mean FETUS?
Look out for the Big bad Atheists we are going to take away your FAITH

Nick| 2.3.11 @ 8:07PM

Kook of the Net,

FETUS is Latin for unborn baby.

Felix| 2.3.11 @ 7:24PM

When the NY Times et al spew hatred for the Catholic Church one can be sure that this hatred is intended for all who consider themselves Christian. The RCC is just the biggest target. However, it goes even deeper than that. Statists hate anyone who believes in objective truth. To them truth is relative. Truth becomes whatever they can rationalize. The statist religion is made up of believers in their own "correct" view of reality.

Vern Crisler| 2.3.11 @ 8:29PM

Right, that's why true Protestants will support Roman Catholics when they are attacked by liberal media. We know such attacks are meant for us too.

Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:46AM

True enough. As much as I disagree with Catholic structure and theology, I do admit that the Pope is more or less the Christian representative to the world, and I have a vested interest in a good man being there.

Evanston2| 2.4.11 @ 1:01PM

Vern & Ryan, We may agree often with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. too. But since Rome (in the person of the Pope, ex cathedra) claims to be able to draft holy writ to this day there is a reason it is a special target. Any Christian dependent on the Bible cannot be moved: Rome potentially can. It could conceivably change its position on women priests, celibacy, homosexuality, purgatory, etc. and that's why it is pressured by its own liberal members and outsiders as well. In my lifetime many changes were ushered in by Vatican II, devotion to Mary has continued its expansion, and Rome has seemed to change its position regarding Islam and cultural matters. All of these involve a labyrinth of statements, interpretations, supposed clarification, more interpretations, etc. but the bottom line is the impression that Rome is a political animal that can be moved. For example, why do homos picket Catholic churches? Could it be that the picketers often "socialize" with the priests from those very same churches? The tipping point for change in its positions, on matters both trivial and salvific, may be much closer than most here believe. When you claim to speak for God (yes -- ex cathedra -- I get it) and "hold the keys" then you've got a lot of leeway. The bottom line is we should defend Rome when it conforms with the Word, not when it over-reaches or distorts.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:35PM

Evanston2,

Name one doctrine on faith and morals that the Catholic Church has ever "changed position" on?

The celibate, i.e. non-married, priesthood has changed over the past two thousand years. There are married priests today, who are Protestant converts. This is not a doctrine. It was just decided that a married priest had too much to deal with when it came to his flock and his family. The Church was given the power "to bind and to loose" by Christ Himself.

As far as women priests, homosexuality, and Purgatory go, those doctrines are not going to change.

And, as I showed you in another thread, homos are not a problem particular to the Catholic Church.

Kingofthenet| 2.3.11 @ 7:35PM

The Author is DEFINITELY a 'Catholic Utilizing Neoclassical Theology' ...That's too long perhaps an Acronym?

Akaky| 2.3.11 @ 7:46PM

King, if you're going to be insulting put some thought into it. Scrawling dirty words on the side of the church is something a cheeky sixth grader in a parochial school would do thinking it would shock the nuns. Try again.

Paul| 2.3.11 @ 8:15PM

Actually, given the general tenor of the English-speaking internet, I am inclined to believe that he actually is its King.

Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:21PM

The Kingofhens is Definitely A Troll.

Get Lost Twerp.

Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 12:59PM

Lest we forget, the nun in question and her co-workers at St. Joseph's approved the abortion because the mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension and would have died (along with an inviable fetus the size of a penny). Lest we forget, had the Catholic tenets been followed, her four children would be left without a mother. So yes, lest we forget, the condemnations of the Catholic church in this case are monstrous, callous, cruel, and hopelessly out of touch with reality.

I'd be remiss to say I don't expect that from an organization that refuses to condone contraception in Africa, where mothers and children die young from AIDS as a result.

I'd be remiss to say that I don't expect that from an organization that excommunicates a 9 year old girl for getting an abortion after she was raped by her stepdad.

I'd be remiss to say I don't expect this kind of behavior from the faith that failed to excommunicate any of the evil men in the Nazi regime save for Joseph Goebbles, who was excommunicated for marrying a protestant.

Work of the "Lord" indeed.

Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:21PM

Then don't be a Catholic.
Man, that was easy!

Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:22PM

Typical faithless arguments. "Do evil that good may come from it." Save (and the planet) moms by killing children. Sorry - not buying your tough case. These were precisely Hitler's arguments: destroy the weak and useless to gain the upper hand for the ubermen and the deserving.

Trust in God - not in your ability to kill.

Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 1:26PM

I'd like to hear you explain "trust in God" to a 9 year old girl whose stepdad has sexually abused her for three years. Would you like to explain to me what you'd tell her mother to justify letting her twins come to term, killing her and the fetuses in the process?

Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:47PM

I'm not explaining trust in God to a 9 year old girl. I'm explaining it to you.

I'm all for punishing rapists and abusers and incestors. I would happily make abortion illegal, if we had to also advocate the death penalty for abusers.

Those twins you refer to... are you.

Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 2:01PM

No John, you are the demons.

Imagine if your own daughter was raped, tragically impregnated, that little ray of sunshine you adore now a frightened and perpetually scarred victim. Imagine for a moment the kind of unbridled agony you would feel.

And you're telling me that you would let your daughter die, forever lost to you and everyone you love, because you refuse to let her get an abortion for the fetus that will never come to term?

If so, then you Sir are a monster.

Alyosha| 2.4.11 @ 1:48PM

My friend, you have unfortunately given away your anonymity. You're obviously my brother, Ivan Fyodorovitch Karamazov.

Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 1:56PM

"Why must children be the manure for someone else's salvation?"

- Vanya

=)

Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 1:25PM

When people die as a result it is irresponsible not to care.

Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:43PM

Great article and great comments. These are times of great portent. While reviewing Paul's letter to Bishop Timothy, I came across this"

"Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning." 1 Tim 5:20

The church proclaimed by Paul is alive and well in Bishop Olmsted.