Answering a Protestant Answer to Why There is Animosity Between Catholics and Protestants

SWB: Came across this gem the other day. I don’t know why I do this to myself. It just irks me. The anti-Catholic ignorance and the latent hostility are unnecessary and unneeded. It certainly did not live up to its seemingly even-handed title.  Sad.  Thought I’d give the other side to this decidedly one-sided answer. My answers are in blue, but also labeled SWB (St. Walburga's Blog) in case the colors cannot be seen.

SWB: On a site called “gotquestions.org” I found this:

Question: "Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"

SWB: Maybe others can see that this article seems like it would be balanced. However, I was mistaken as gotquestions.org claims to be a "volunteer ministry of dedicated and trained servants who have a desire to assist others in their understanding of God, Scripture, salvation, and other spiritual topics. We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational." If I'd read that in the first place, I'd have understand that the article would not be balanced.

Answer: [1^st para] This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups.

SWB: True. There is often animosity between two “religious groups.” However, Catholics and Protestants are both Christian groups. We should have much, much less animosity and much more brotherhood and cooperation. Sure there are doctrinal differences and many prejudices but we are still on the same side. We are all doing our best to follow our Lord’s teachings to the best of our ability.

This particular battle is rooted in history.

SWB: Obviously, “This particular battle” refers to Protestants v. Catholics, but the author does not state it here.

Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome.

SWB:First of all, very little “persecution and murder” happened to Protestants at Catholic hands.  If the author is referring to the approximately 300 years of the Medieval Inquisition, there were in fact less than 300 heretics (not Protestants) convicted or executed; the except to that fact was one “inquisitor” who persecuted the Cathars (a Catholic order of knights) for political reasons and had them declared heretics and had dozens of them executed, leading to the end of the medieval inquisition sanctioned by Rome. And, if this person or any Protestant researched history they’d learn that most people in the middle ages preferred to be tried by the inquisition than local courts because they were guaranteed a much more fair trial. (Just a side note: The Catholic Church did not try or burn anyone accused of being a witch. That was the Protestants, who brought about the death of many women in the “new world.”  Catholic inquisitors generally felt  such accusations were nonsense.)

SWB: Second, if the author is referring to the Roman Inquisition which only had jurisdiction in Rome and the papal states and continued into the 18^th century, it only tried a few dozen “heretics” executing a handful in its about 200 year existence.  If he is referring to the Spanish Inquisition of 1492 into the early 1500's only Jewish and a few Moorish converts to the Church were accused, tried and executed. These trials more of a political than religious nature, as the king and queen really needed to see where people’s loyalties lay in the wake of the defeat of the Muslims and their centuries of rule in Spain. Neither of these inquisitions persecuted or “murdered” Protestants.

SWB:Third, the fact is many, many more Catholics were persecuted and murdered under tyrants like Calvin, Elizabeth I, and princes of Luther’s Germany than all the years of the Inquisition combined.  Catholics were persecuted in Britain and then Ireland (that’s why Ireland is divided today—because the British monarch tried to force Protestantism on the Catholic population of Ireland.) Catholics were persecuted and even outlawed in many of the states of the what would become the United States. One example of the continued prejudice in the US is a history of my state for use by homeschool families. It claimed the earliest church established here was a Church of Christ church early in the 20^th century. There is no mention of the Catholic church and mission established in the late 18^th century and the FACT that many of the Indian tribes here were practicing Catholics when Protestant missionaries deigned to come here. At least these facts are being stated at the state history museum.  Anyway, back to the original “answer.”

Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

SWB: All I can say is that this is very true, that is that Catholics will not “warm up” to Protestants who claim to believe this. There is absolutely no evidence that the Beast of Revelation is the Church—none. No matter how you twist the words of St. John, his vision of the "beast" does not indicate the Church. Seeing that St. John was one of the Apostles of Christ and a founder of His Church, now called Catholic (btw, named such by St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John), why would he aid in the founding of a Church that was a “beast” in his vision? It makes no logical sense. Besides, it is blatantly obvious that Jerusalem is the “whore of Babylon”—the city of seven hills and unfaithful to God. The "beast" is still a mystery.

[2^nd para] For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap.

SWB: I would agree, however, those claiming to be Christians should be able to act with charity towards other Christians and at least be open to the possibility that we are all sincerely following Christ the way we feel is right. I honestly do not understand the close-mindedness of the majority of Protestants in thinking that Catholics are not Christians.

Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save,…

SWB: The Catholic Church has never taught a “works-gospel”. The Church teaches what Christ taught.  He directed His followers to DO.  

"In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." and He said "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me. And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.' (Matt. 25: 40, 45-46) 

SWB: Jesus taught that we have to act upon our faith, and if we don't we will be punished. This is a clear teaching that "works" are necessary to our faith and our salvation.  

SWB: The Holy Spirit inspired James, an apostle of Jesus, to write that works are necessary for salvation.

How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?

If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, 'I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,' without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that?

In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.

But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith.
You believe in the one God -- that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear.

Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?

Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did. (James 2: 14-22)

 SWB: I do have to say that I find it amusing that Protestants claim to use Scripture as their final authority, yet they ignore inconvenient passages of Scripture. I posit that many if not most Protestants have decided or learned certain doctrines and find passages they think supports their beliefs, while ignoring passages they can't explain away without twisting what Scripture actually says.  Christ said we must do acts of charity or we will suffer eternal punishment; that is a clear command. James, the Apostle, said faith without works is dead, and a dead faith cannot save you. But, Catholics believe exactly what Christ and His Apostle taught, but we're the ones accused of not following Scripture. Strange.

…while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism [sic] that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching.

SWB: As a former Baptist (I became a Catholic Christian at age 36, so it was not naïve), I can attest that this is true, at least in my experience. People would go forward at the “altar call” time and again at church, when is the conversion true? When is it the one?  Our (Baptist) church was very emotional. Most of what I learned in church was fluff. I went to a Baptist college; it left me wanting something more substantive. The Catholic Church is always accused of having people blindly follow doctrines; I found that was much truer in the Protestant churches I attended than the Catholic Church. The majority of the Southern, Independent, and Regular Baptist churches, and the Lutheran and Episcipal churches I attended as an adult told the people that they must believe the pastor’s interpretation of Scripture or they’d be going to Hell.

Protestants blame Catholics for worshipping [sic] Mary,..

SWB: I think “blame” is the wrong word here. Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary. I believe many relish the accusation because they think it is a slam dunk in helping them convince people that Catholics are not Christians. It simply is not true; Catholics do not worship Mary. No matter how many ways and how often it is explained this accusation will continue. It is a favorite anti-Catholic lie.

… and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard.

SWB: I don’t believe that is a correct characterization. I don’t know any Catholics, at least any who publicly debate Protestants, who think that Protestants are “too dull” to understand.  In point of fact, most Catholics try to give Protestants the benefit of the doubt that they simply have not heard the arguments for the distinctions. Protestants for the most part simply refuse to see or acknowledge the distinction between the honor we give to the Mother of our Savior and the worship we give God alone.  Mary was after all extremely blessed by God.  She carried God the Son in her womb. She was Christ’s first believer and follower. She is a model of Christian womanhood and a beautiful soul. It is a wonder to me, now, that Protestants are so hateful to Christ’s mother. After all, being disrespectful to anyone’s mother will not endure anyone to another, especially Christ. Even if Protestants refuse to honor her, they should at the very least not be unkind about her.

These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.    

SWB: True, and some caricatures perpetuated in this very article.

[3^rd para] Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority.    SWB: Very True.   How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

SWB: Yes, when Rome speaks, it is settled.  However, the Church neither asks us to be nor assumes us to be mindless drones. Study of Scripture and Church theology is encouraged. There are many, many resources available to Catholics or anyone interested in the Catholic Church if they have any questions. These resources include but are not limited to the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, EWTN television and radio, numerous Catholic online outlets such as Catholic Answers, Catholic Bridge, the Vatican website, and many more.

This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic authority.

SWB: Protestant perception of Catholic surety as retreat is simply false perception. In point of fact, the majority of Catholic History is one of reason. The Church was the foremost supporter of science throughout history (many of the science discoveries were made by monks). The University system in Europe was built by monks. The earliest private school in America was founded by a nun. Most Catholics who publicly debate Protestants have studied theology for years; they have questioned and studied what the Church teaches through her Christ-given authority. The Church, in fact, encourages inquiry and study. The Protestant’s false characterization of the simple mindedness of Catholics is simply that—false.  The “safe zone” is the two millennia of study and reasoning that can be tested and its truth and consistency relied on.

Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

SWB: I would agree with that only if the author also agrees that “private interpretation” not only has led to many diverse Protestant sects who claim to know the “truth” but also makes each individual (or at least there pastor or leader) their own pope, since they brook no argument of their “private interpretation”. And, I would posit that the arguments revolve around individual Protestant interpretations (which by the way cannot all be true) and the study and reasoned theology of a Catholic (which have arrived at one truth).

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their tradition.

SWB: Actually, no, Catholics claim that they can study the actual words of Christ, His Apostles, and the many, many generations of theologians to approach “legitimate problems.” Two thousand years of theology and debate carry much more weight than one man's "private interpretation"  Two thousand years of consistent, intelligent, deep thought and debate is pretty compelling to billions of Catholics.

But this merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

SWB: I love how the thousands of reinterpretations and “truths” are considered reasoned. To admit that, one is simply willing to reject two millennia of teaching and that seems awfully unreasoned. Catholics, at least all those I know that debate Protestants, readily “admit” that they rely upon their own reasoning ability. They (Catholics) are just more willing to actually study the theology and the history of the Church. Protestants unnecessarily start from scratch again and again.

[4^th para] Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments.

SWB: That is not always true.  In point of fact, I know of many, many converts to Catholicism. Many of whom were “fiercely loyal” to the faith they grew up in, but could not in all consciousness stay a Protestant after years of studying the Catholic Faith. That includes me. I studied the Catholic Faith for several years before I entered an RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) class, where I questioned everything.  I did not convert mindlessly or out of loyalty. I became a Catholic because the Holy Spirit answered all my questions at RCIA and led me to the Truth. Christ established one Church, one Body, one Faith. He did not want us to be divided.  His Body was and is to be one.

Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. Beyond that, we can agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in agreement.

SWB: If only we could “agree to disagree.” In my experience as a Catholic, we are much more willing to find commonalities and work together. Christians should treat each other with dignity, respect, and charity. I’ve seen time and time again where Catholics would extend a hand of friendship and cooperation only to be scorned and rebuffed. However and despite our differences, we need to have a united front in the face of the growing violent, Muslim threat. We cannot win souls to Christ with all our infighting. Protestants would do good to at the very least admit that Catholics are sincere, believing Christians. We would all get along better.

When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments…

SWB: Some of which were included in this article.

 – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.

SWB: I agree. I know that the Church does teach what God revealed, and nothing else.

[The original article’s] Recommended Resources: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy and Logos Bible Software.

SWB: My recommended resources: Catholic Answers,  Catholic Bridge,

Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Bible, Writings of the early Church Fathers (theologians), Sixteen documents of Vatican II, Writings of St. John Paul II, The Catholic Faith Explained, EWTN's The Teachings of the Catholic Church. The are many more good sources online but this is a good start for anyone interested in inquiry.

SWB: For anyone who cares, I did earn a Bachelor's Degree (Summa Cum Laude) in Catholic Theology, which makes me just as qualified to speak on theology as those who anonymously author articles on GotQuestions.org.

Copyright disclosure:   Copyright Policy: While all of the material on the GotQuestions.org website is under copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or link to www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our permission to copy, print, and distribute our material.

 

Mary, Mother of GOD, is No Doormat

Something needs to be said. I hope Scott doesn't mind too much, if I jump in here.

[Note:  This was originally posted on CathApol two days ago in a response to a smart aleck response in the Comments section of "Jesus is the Door".  The responder said that if Jesus is the Door (to Heaven) Mary must be the Doormat, if we have to go through her to get to Jesus.  This was my first response in a short series-I hope.  Pictures added.]

The Blessed Virgin Mary is definitely not a doormat. She was and is a beautiful, obedient, servant of God; obedient to both the Father and her Son, the Son of God, Jesus Christ Our Savior, and then the Holy Spirit (after all she was there at Pentecost --Acts 1:14--and received the Holy Spirit at the same time the apostles did) whom her Son promised to all Christians. Mary, the Mother of the Christ, can rightly be called the first Christian.

Mary is the Queen mother. I can tell you one thing that I know for sure about Hebrew royalty, they honored their mothers! Jesus Christ is, after all, acknowledged almost universally by Christians to be the King of the Universe. That would make Mary, His mother, Queen Mother. The queen mother in Israel was not reverenced above the king, neither is Mary, the Queen Mother of Heaven reverenced above Jesus Christ the King of the Universe in the Catholic Church. Remember King Solomon? The Queen Mother, Bathsheba, was at his right hand in the palace. Adonijah asked Queen Bathsheba to intercede for him to his brother, King Solomon.

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king's mother, who sat at his right. In I Kings 2, it says that she did intercede for her stepson, Adonijah.

"There is one small favor I would ask of you," [Queen Mother Bathsheba] said. "Do not refuse me." "Ask it, my mother," the king [Solomon] said to her, "for I will not refuse you." So she said, "Let Abishag the Shunamite be given to your brother Adonijah for his wife." "And why do you ask Abishag the Shunamite for Adonijah?" King Solomon answered his mother. "Ask the kingdom for him as well, for he is my elder brother and has with him Abiathar the priest and Joab, son of Zeruiah." And King Solomon swore by the LORD: "May God do thus and so to me, and more besides, if Adonijah has not proposed this at the cost of his life. And now, as the LORD lives, who has seated me firmly on the throne of my father David and made of me a dynasty as he promised, this day shall Adonijah be put to death."

In John 2, the Blessed Virgin Mary interceded for the wedding couple.

When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine." (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."...Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then He told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it. And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine,...

Queen Bathsheba have the ear of her son the King. Queen Mary, too, had the ear of her Son, sitting as she was near Him, the King. Queen Bathsheba interceded for her stepson. Mary, mother of our King, interceded for the wedding couple. King Solomon said he would "not refuse [her]". Jesus Christ, on the surface, seems to turn His mother down, but note her confidence that Jesus would do as she asked ("Do whatever He tells you.") King Solomon took back his word to his mother; it was not politically expedient to grant his 'enemy', his half-brother, any favors, so he did not honor his promise. Jesus did as His mother asked, without any promise, and miraculously turned water into wine--and not just any wine but the best wine.

Let's approach this from another angle. Here are some generally acknowledged prophecies about the Messiah's mother (iow, MARY):

Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at His heel."

Obviously the "woman" will has a significant role in that her child (offspring) will "bruise" Satan's "head". He made no such statement to the man, Adam. He did not mention the savior without the way in which He would enter the world--through the womb of the woman.

Psalm 22:10-11 (9-10 in other versions) Yet you drew me forth from the womb, made me safe at my mother's breast. Upon you I was thrust from the womb; since birth you are my God.

This is almost universally seen as a messianic prophecy from one of the Psalms. Why does this prophecy talk about the WOMB from which the Savior/messiah would come. His mother's womb (twice), His birth from her, even the breasts that would feed Him. Of course, His mother is significant; they don't just mention the Messiah, but also His mother.

Don't like that prophecy? How about the old stand by, Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name Him Immanuel."

It should be properly read in English as "the virgin shall be with child, and the virgin bear a son, and the virgin shall name him Immanuel." The VIRGIN is prominent in this prophecy; she is the sign of the savior, she carries the Savior, bears the Savior, and names the Savior. Seems pretty significant to me.

There is are at least Seventeen names for Mary, the mother of the Savior.

Woman: Genesis 3:15; Jeremiah 31:22; John 2:4; John 19:26; Galatians 4:4; Revelation 12:1, 4, 6, 13-17.
Virgin: Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27 (twice).
Mary: Matthew 1:17, 18, 20; 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 1:26, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 46, 56, 2:5, 16, 19.
Mary His Mother: Matthew 2:11; Luke 2:34.
His Mother: Matthew 2:13, 14, 20, 21; 12:46, 47; 13:55; Mark 3:31; Luke 2:33, 43, 48, 51; 8:19; John 2:5, 12; (John 6:42); 19:25, 26.
Mary the Mother of Jesus: Acts 1:14.
Mother of Jesus: John 2:1, 3.
Full of Grace: Luke 1:28.
Handmaid of the Lord: Luke 1:38.
Blessed among women: Luke 1:42.
Mother of my Lord: Luke 1:43.

Here are some other significant Scriptures that Catholics (and many, many non-Catholics) believe are types, or figures of Mary, the mother of God the Son mentioned in Scripture (some repeat from above) [List from Catholicbridge.com]:

•Genesis 3:15, 24:43-46 - Rebecca, 28:12 Jacob's Ladder, 30:13?,
•Exodus 3:11-12, 13:2, 13:14 (Magnificat), 15:20, 21, 26 (Magnificat), 25:8 Ark, 34:19-20
•Leviticus 12:2, 8 (Purification)
•Numbers 18:15 (Presentation)
•Judges 6:12, 15 (Annunciation)
•1 Samuel 2:1-10 (Magnificat)
•Isaiah 7:14 (Virgin Birth)
•Ezekiel 44:2 (Mary's perpetual Virginity)
•Mat 1:16, 18-25 (Mary to be found with Child), 2:11, 13-14, 20-23 (Maji flight to Egypt), 12:46-50 (Who is my mother?), 13:55 (is his mother not Mary?)
•Mark 3:31-35 (Your mother is outside), 6:3 (is he not son of Mary?)
•Luke 1:26-56 (Annunciation, visitation magnificat), 2:5-7, 16-19, 22, 33-35, 39, 41-51 (Nativity, shepherds, presentation, finding in the temple), 8:19-21 (Your mother outside) 11:27-28 Blessed is the womb that bore you
•John 1:14 (incarnation), 2:1-5 (Cana), 6:42 (Do we not know his mother), 19:25-27
•Acts 1:14 (Gathered in prayer with Mary), Gal 4:4 (God sent son born of woman)
•Col 1:15, 18 (first born, Head of body)
•Rev 11:19 (Ark in Heaven),12:1-17 (Woman clothed with the sun)

Besides Mary, the mother of God, what other person, besides the apostles themselves including Sts. Paul, Mark, and Luke, is mentioned so many times in Scripture? A doormat? I think not. The woman, the mother of the Messiah was prophesied and honored through Scripture, and the Church. She is no doormat. She is His mother, and she is our mother.

All Scripture quotes from the New American Bible, special nod to this page on Mary in Scripture for names of Mary, and Catholicbridge.com for Mary in Scripture.

My January Rant

Wow!  Being on some of these "discussion" groups where protestants and Catholics are debating, can be so tiresome.  Them repeating the same anti-Catholic propaganda, day after day, forum after forum.  When do they ever listen?  When will it stop?  Even the Scriptures and doctrines that aren't just Catholic are now being denied.  Here is a sampling:

1.  The Body of Jesus is not a miracle.  His body is human like every one else's; only his conception was a miracle.

A:  Really?  So there was NOTHING different about Jesus' body?  Nothing, say, like housing God's soul, right?  Nothing like everything He endured, beating, whipping, torture for hours on end before He was forced to carry His own cross, before He died, nailed to that same cross.  Any body could have done that?

2.  Manna, bread from Heaven, was not the type of Jesus' Body but the type of our faith in Him.

A:  Really?  So, when Jesus talks about manna as the bread from Heaven, then calls Himself the Bread from Heaven, He does not actually mean that comparison.  He's just joking.  He says, "You must eat My Flesh...Drink My Blood...to enter Heaven."  But, He didn't really mean what He said.  One (manna actually eaten in the desert) has nothing to do with the other (Bread from Heaven, His Body, is to be eaten).  Wow!  Are you blind if you can't see that!

3.  Physical baptism isn't "technically necessary."

A:  Really?  So, He didn't really mean it when He told His disciples to "Go, preach and make disciples of all people, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  Guess He was just kidding about that, too?  And there really was no reason, at all, that He was baptized Himself by His cousin St. John.  And they call them selves Bible believers, and/or sola scripturists (Bible alone)?  But when push comes to shove they just completely ignore Christ's own words--His commands--and make up their own doctrine.  "Baptism saves us now."  Obviously that line in the Bible MUST be ignored!

4.  Repetitious prayer is a sin.  Catholics always repeat prayers so they are sinning.

A:  For one thing St. Paul was talking about PAGAN prayers to PAGAN gods.  He was not talking about heartfelt prayer to God.  Isn't Jesus the One Who said the one who asks and asks and asks will be answered?  I do believe it was.  Funny thing is, when I was a protestant we repeated the "Doxology" every Sunday.  That is not repetitious prayer?  Many prot churches repeat The Lord's Prayer.  That is not repetition?  Memorized prayer is for the faithful, especially the young and immature in the faith, to have a way to pray from the heart especially when one cannot find your own words or your own expressions to God.  God wants to hear from us, no matter what the form. 

5.  Praying to saints is a sin.

A:  Number one, Catholics (BTW, Orthodox and other churches pray to saints also) ask the saints to pray for them;  we all know they cannot do anything on their own.  One is erroneous in thinking Catholics do anything but ask a member of the family--God's family--to pray for them.  If you object to this, then you better NOT be asking ANYONE to pray for you--your mother, wife, pastor, friend--ANYONE--because you are doing the EXACT SAME THING you are accusing us of--asking someone else to do your praying for you. 

Number two, Catholics do not worship any but the true God.  Never have, never will.  Have there been Catholics and other Christians who have done this wrong?  Of course, there have.  There has never been a Protestant who has had his "flock" kill themselves, follow them out into the desert to wait for Christ on a certain day, follow him to hell?  Of course, there has.  But all Catholics, at all times, must be perfect or the Church is blamed.

Number three, saints are our family.  Statues, paintings, icons, stained glass windows are the EXACT SAME THING as your FAMILY PORTRAITS--EXACTLY THE SAME.  I know that a lot of prots don't want to see it that way.  That is their problem and their error.  If you have a picture of your grandmother on a shelf, stop by it and think of her, you are just as much an idol worship as a Catholic who stops in front of a statue of Our Lady and thinks of her and asks for her prayers.  It is the same thing.

I really get so sick and tired of prots who say, "Show us where it says that in the Bible."  We do.  Then they do their little prot dance, close their eyes, plug their ears, and say, "La, la, la, la, it's not there, it's not there, it's not there."  All Catholic doctrine was developed in the Early Church long before the NT Scriptures were collected by the Church and put into a Bible.  All the beliefs, all traditions,  and all practiced can be seen in the Scriptures and in the writings of the early Church.  We still believe and practice what the 1st century Church did.  Those who cannot and will not believe that, deceive themselves.

The Adventure Begins

Well, we are now in our third week of the home school year.  One of my five students is up where he should be.  I can't keep my Freshman busy.  My Junior is about 3 days behind schedule already.  I'm pushing him to catch up because once you get behind on High School work it is impossible to make any semblance of a schedule work.  I have high hopes that my fifth grader will be 90% caught up by tomorrow.  My sixth grader is going down in flames.  He pays too much attention to his kindergarten brother's work and not his own.  I got fooled last week into thinking he was doing work.  He pulls out a book, shuffles pages, waves his pencil around, and makes me think he is doing his work.  Well, mom is on to him now.  He is more than a week behind in two of his subjects, and a couple of days behind in most of his others.  I have hope that he will be about 75% there by tomorrow.  My goal is to have him back on track by next Friday.  Now, my kindergartner is not as big a deal, except that I can already see that he is bored.  I can't keep him busy and I can't keep up with the other kids' questions and help requirements while I spend more time with the Kindergartner.  How did those in the one-room school house do it?  I really admire them greatly, now.

In the meantime, I have started my new odyssey in degree completion.  I have an Associates that I earned over 15 years ago.  I started my skills course and my Latin course this week.  My first written assignment for Latin is due Tuesday.  I almost turned in a written assignment for my skills class last night, but didn't trust my bleary brain to make my 2-4 paragraph assignment make sense.  The teacher was really grilling the students' work and I got a little intimidated.  As a Latin course, I'm having my Freshman "shadow" my college course.  He will be reading the same text and doing the same exercises along with me, but I will give him the "school" tests for his High School course.  I hope in that way to fulfill both our requirements.  My older son missed out.  He only completed one semester of Latin.  I have no knowledge of Latin and couldn't help him.  No one I knew could help.  Hopefully, my learning Latin, will help me, help my kids.  Yes, it is a requirement for my degree completion--I have to have a year of foreign language and the school just happens to offer Latin.  However, my main goal for taking the class is to be able to teach my kids.

Math is not a problem for anyone this year.  Praise God for Life of Fred!  I love Stan Schmidt's books.  I can't praise his High School Math series enough.  My son has learned Algebra I, II, Geometry, and is now on to Trig--in 11th grade.  They are wonderful, almost self-taught books.  I've had to help him with a few hurdles along the way, but very few.  My Junior, as I said, is learning Trigonometry this year.  My Freshman is in Algebra I.  My other three are too young but I plan on using Life of Fred Fractions and Life of Fred Decimals and Percents for 7th grade next year, and Pre Algebra for 8th grade.  Looking for a good upper-middle school to High School mathematics program?  Look into Life of Fred.  You won't regret it.

Keeping up with the chores and outside activities becomes the hard part.  I have gotten my lesson plans in for my R.E. year already.  Yay!  All the credit cannot be mine though, as I relied heavily on the Faith and Life Parish guided lesson plans on their website.  It helped me tremendously and got the job done in time and off my shoulders.  I can't wait to get started with class.  I have to contact my assistant teachers and go over all the material with them so they know what is going on and will be able to help me teach.  I also like to consider their ideas.  Fresh perspectives always bring new ideas.

Anyway, that is just the beginning of this year's adventure.  I hope and pray that anyone who home schools and reads this humble blog is also having a great beginning to their school year. 

You Just Don't Understand

I love it when protestants say Catholics just don't understand.  That statement is also usually accompanied by the phrase, but "most protestants don't even understand [insert doctrine here], either."  That way it gives them an 'out' to explain their personal version of [doctrine] and how it is the 'right' or 'true' meaning of [doctrine].  Of course, they are the real arbiters of [doctrine].  That is assuming that all or "informed" protestants agree with their version of [doctrine].  The thing is, many, many of these different groups have different meanings for these so-called doctrines, such as the non-Scriptural doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide, so essential to their protests against the Church founded by Christ.  Why are there so many different meanings of these doctrines floating around?  Isn't it interesting that the Catholic Faith is spelled out for anyone to read in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and supported by hundreds of references to Scripture.  Just about every question one might have on the True Faith is there for anyone to read.

St. Michael on CathApol

On a friend's blog, he actually had the gall the try to explain how the "five solas" could be, at least, aligned with Catholic doctrine if one wanted to find some commonality between Christians.  However, in an effort to distance himself from Christ's Church, one protestant felt he must come back with the "you just don't understand what the words mean to us."  For one thing that is not true, not only is my friend a former Lutheran, but I am a former Baptist, both of us highly educated in those faiths and we do know what you mean by "those words."  Just because when he (or we) give a Catholic answer, or explanation, it doesn't mean we didn't understand your meaning.  And, that is what Catholic apologists have been trying to do for centuries--trying to help our separated brethren understand Catholic doctrine with Catholic, not protestant, meanings of the words we use.  Of course, vocal protestants always know better about what we believe than we do, but we couldn't possibly understand what they believe.    You'd think that so-called Christians would actually be interested in giving a Christian witness to the world, but they seem to rather enjoy posting hate-filled anti-Catholic propaganda rather than actually teaching the Gospel of love proclaimed by their Lord Jesus Christ.  

Michelangelo

Many, many of the apologists I know and read are converts to His Church.  If you've been around the internet "apologetics" enough you would know names of apologists like Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid, Dave Armstrong, and many others.  All converts to the church, as I am, all lovingly but firmly trying to explain the Truth in Catholic doctrine to our separated brethren.  They are not using their time and energy on earth spreading hatred and telling people where they are going like most of the protestants I am unfortunately exposed to on a regular basis. 

I do understand.  Many, many Catholics do understand what you are saying, why won't you even try to give us the benefit of the doubt?  We are the original Christians, the only Christians (not counting heretical groups which came and went over the centuries) up until the 16th century.  Interestingly, the more I read the early Christian writers, such as St. Ignatius, or St. Athanasius, or St. Augustine, the more I see the doctrines of the Church still taught today.  If one can apply the Catholic meaning, the proper meaning, to the Early Church Fathers, one could not help but be Catholic.  Protestants love to take Church Fathers sayings out of its Catholic context to try to make it look as if they disagree with the Church, when point in fact, their writings helped build the doctrine of the Church as we know it.  Many were inspired, many made mistakes, many are admired.   At the very least, let us be what we are -- Bible believing Christians.

My Head is Swimming

This morning my head is swimming.  I can't think straight because I could not sleep last night.  Every long once in a while I have one of those nights (like I can afford to skip sleep).  But my head is swimming because of a member of one of the forums I belong to.  He whined and complained, "No one asked me on this forum for the reason for my hope.  (boo hoo hoo)"  [paraphrased from memory]  That is not the nature of the forum but one of the Catholic members asked him to 'go ahead and tell us the reason for his hope.' 

He quoted one passage in Zechariah about the man who would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, and bring salvation.  Does he go on from there and list verses from the New Testament about hope in Christ?  Does he compare Zechariah's prophecy to the events in the Gospel?  Does he even tell us how he was "saved?"  No to all of the above.   After this brief message of "hope" from the Old Testament he delves into a several paragraph diatribe as to why Catholics are going to hell.  That is your reason for hope, buddy?  Really?

I would have gone more along these lines:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."  John 3:16 KJV from memory.

"...Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 4:17 NAB

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  John 14:6

"Believe on the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved."  Acts 16:31

"Teacher what good must I do to gain eternal life?"  He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good?  There is only One who is good.  If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."  Matt. 19:16-17

"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves Me.  And whoever loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him."  John 14:21

"If I speak in human and angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.  And if I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."  I Cor 13:1-3

"But one who perseveres to the end, will be saved."  Matt 24:13

"This saying is trustworthy:  If we have died with Him we shall also live with Him;  if we persevere we shall also reign with Him.  But if we deny Him He will deny us.  If we are unfaithful He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."  2 Tim 2:11-13

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  Can that faith save him?  If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well.' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?  So also faith of itself, if it does not have works is dead.

Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works.'  Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you by my works.  You believe that God is one.  You do well.  Even the demons believe that and tremble.  Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?  You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.  Thus the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' and he was called 'the friend of God.'  See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.  And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?  For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."  James 2:14-26

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access (by faith) to this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God.  Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us."  Romans 5:1-5

My hope is in the Lord.  Thank God my salvation is not dependent on the judgement of others calling themselves Christians but condemning billions of Christians because he does not agree with the Church's doctrine.