Questions For Catholics

I am confused about something.

Coming from several years in mainstream Protestantism, most  ''saved" fundamentalist talk with casualness about their relationship with Christ. Their love and joy of being born-again is all over them with enthusiasm--which by the way, I believe is the number one reason Catholics are running into Protestantism.

My husband's godfather (sponsor) told us that he grew up when Catholics bowed their head at the holy name of Jesus and felt it was disrespectful to take the Lord's name on your lips unless it was said in complete sacredness. That was why I assumed that Catholics didn't constantly share all the things that Jesus did for them--like, "He sent me an apron that I wanted in the shop the other day!" and "He got me the best parking lot space at Wal-Mart." I actually am using examples I have heard.

So, I totally understand if we Catholics don't go around shouting "Jeeeezzuzzz SAVED me! Hallelujah!" like the televangelists with big gold cufflinks.  Ah! That always makes me cringe. Sorry Lord.

But then, since becoming Catholic, I have heard more Catholics remark with a cynical roll of the eyes, "Oh my God" over just about anything. Even a priest I know says it.  I asked a nun in that church why everyone took the Lord's name in vain, she told me that the priest said it was okay and that they don't teach (whoever she meant by "they") that saying "God" flippantly is a sin anymore.

So, what's the deal all you cradle Catholics? Did you just go from NEVER saying the name of Jesus lest He be offended and confusing all the Protestants about your lack of religious verve, to bursting through with saying it in anything BUT a religious, sacred context and CONTINUING to confuse your Protestant brothers with your lack of verbal respect?

It sounds like I am angry and complaining but I am not. This is a real, sincere question. Await your answers.

God bless.

Catholics and the Written Word

My grandfather, James J. Ling was the founder of Ling-Tempco-Vought (LTV) which was a pretty big deal in Dallas as I grew up. My uncle Rob, as a collegiate getting his CPA, took a business class about my grandfather’s rise to multi-millionaire as a titan conglomerate genius. The professor was unaware that Rob was Ling’s son, so when the final grades were passed out and he received a “C” it ruffled my uncle’s feathers. As he exited the classroom for the final time, he let the professor in on the secret and indignantly insisted that he’d know more about his own father than the professor would ever know--no matter how many books he’d studied.

 **************** 

Since a little girl, dutifully enjoying my daily worship, I have worn out several bibles with notes and highlights. In college, I thought, “the lips that ‘boy, that Teresa knows her Bible’ rolled off of just didn’t realize they were making the understatement of their lives.” 

Through the years I have felt incredibly grateful that the Lord placed a passion in my heart for His written Word. Because knowing it better than anyone else around me, placed me in a position where I could clearly see that the church I grew up in, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, taught heretical doctrines. I knew my Bible and later, when I began looking into Catholicism I made sure the priests felt intimidated by my knowledge. They couldn’t trip me up, those wily papists.

Once I really began studying Catholicism intensely.... the phrase “rude awakening” comes to mind. As God opened up for me just how He had infused the Catholic church with two thousand years of spiritual giants, of men and women who, well, made my knowledge of scriptures look like Crayola-scribbled refrigerator art next to The Louvre-- or my adding and subtracting next to their quantum-mechanics-theoretical-astro-physicism. I now think the lips that say, “boy, that Teresa was humbled” don’t realize they are making the understatement of their lives. Eventually I was grateful that the Lord placed such a passion in my heart for His written Word, that I could clearly see that the church I was studying was teaching me orthodox doctrines.

It’s hard... hard... for us Bible-believing Protestants to humble ourselves and realize that all our study, all our scholarship melts in light of Catholicism. It confusing when most of them get a “C” when we test them on our Bible knowledge. 

What I have learned is that Catholics have a different understanding of the Word of God. They have more of a perspective of my uncle in a classroom situation with that professor. The Catholic worldview is from inside. They do not completely understand Protestants placing a book as the final authority, when they believe knowing God is about being in a covenant relationship with God--your Father. To Catholics, studying a written word is a good thing and nothing written in scripture is false. But there is also what He has said to the church that was not written down--family traditions. These hold just as much weight because they came straight from the mouth of God--their family heard Him say it. To a Catholic, Christ’s body is still on earth with His church and that is where we go to get the fullness of understanding of our Father.

Michel Voris and Real Catholic Television

If I could talk  to Michael Voris this is what I would say:

First off, I wish to thank you for your programing. It has expanded my love for my faith and Jesus Christ whom I have come to worship in such a deeper way  in the Catholic Church. For my husband and myself, we couldn't be more thankful because our RCIA classes just couldn't do what your premium channel has done with the "One True Faith" series as well as the other instructive programs.

Please don't take this as criticism in any way, for it is certainly not. (I usually brace myself for some "constructive criticism" when those words are written to me... but do not fear... I am not going to criticize.)

It is more than apparent that God has chosen you for the position of a modern-day Erasmus. (I would say Martin Luther for many of those reading, but I doubt Michael would take that as it was meant. Maybe he’d prefer a comparison to the prophet Jeremiah!) You have been called to a very, very difficult task--to rebuke the leaders of your church. 

Whew. What a position. You get the Devil trying to snuggle up to you on one side, because he will heartily use your words in fomenting hatred for the the Catholic faith. So you hear warnings from inside the church to shut up and sit down because you are hurting Catholicism and creating disunity. And there is some truth to that position. And you know it. And it can be REALLY confusing.

Then on the other side you have people who desperately need to hear your message because the CHURCH leaders are hurting the church and someone has to stand up and say what everyone is thinking or should be thinking. So you plead with the Lord  to show you if you are doing the right thing. Is my criticism hurting the faith more or will my criticism in the end hurt the faith less than the bishops and priests? (I am assuming I understand you and I may not...) 

However, usually those who benefit from your rebukes aren’t going to pat you on the back and thank you. They most likely resent your pointing to their faults. 

People in your position, Michael, often have great and agonizing debates within their spirits as to the validity of their calling. I would think, with the perspective of Catholicism where criticism of bishops and priests is taboo, it would be even more difficult to be confident of one’s vocation to be a voice crying in the wilderness. (not comparing you with John the Baptist--just using Biblical phraseology.)

It is heart rendering to stand and admonish those whom you love the most. Each word of criticism is arduous and you suffer as much to say it as those who hear it. (I am assuming you feel that way.)

Michael and Simon and those working at St. Michaels Media--you get bombarded on all sides from within and from without. Nobody can handle being in your position and being labelled the “bad guy” for long. 

So,

To Everyone else: 

I encourage everyone: Catholic liberals, Catholic conservatives, Protestants and anyone else who prays-- to pray for Michael and those working at their ministry. 

If he is from the Lord, then we need to hear his message whether we want to our not. We need to pray for him to continue his mission without bitterness, without despair and without loneliness. We need to pray that our hearts are open to hear his reprimands and change. If his message is not from the Lord, then of course he also needs our prayers just as much. 

http://www.realcatholictv.com

Did Jesus set His Kingdom Up for a Fall?

Take a look at the early church:

ACTS 2: 41-47

So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

Luke reports in the book of Acts that in the early church, the Apostles accept gifts to the church, that all their property was held in common and distributed to those in need. A. Someone had to accept, house and protect the donations. B. Someone had to decide to whom it was distributed based upon their assessment of the community's needs. Therefore:

If the church accepted donations, then the church HAD to be a visible organization. It could not be a community of autonomous believers. 

ACTS 5: 1-14 excerpts

But a man named Ananias ...kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" ... the people held them in high esteem. Yet more than ever believers were added to the Lord, great numbers of both men and women...

The church was organized to receive and distribute contributions. Those who accepted the donations were the apostles and they chose an administration to assist them (I Cor. 12:28). Those who speak against an institutionalized church need only look at Acts to see that the early church, by necessity, had to be an organization and could not be simply a spiritually amorphous group of independent believers. 

Point #1: The church was by necessity a visible, identifiable organization.

*************

The early church had a head, a recognizable leader that was obeyed.

The scripture doesn’t record that the early church was a democracy where everyone voted on what to do with the gifts. No, the Apostles called the shots. Notice that Ananias in the above story laid his gift down at the Apostle’s feet. That is a sign of subservience. He didn’t just drop the land title into a basket passed around during the offering at Sunday services. Also take note that when he fell down dead that Peter, as the head of the Apostles did not say that he personally had been lied to, but said that when you lie to him or the church authority, it is the same as lying to God himself. There was a direct fusing of God and His organized church as to make one indistinguishable from the other. It is also recorded that the miracles and wonders were at this time done, not the general church membership, but specifically by the Apostles.

Point #1: The church was by necessity a visible, identifiable organization.

Point #2: The early church had a head, a recognizable leader who was obeyed. 

************

Point #3 The Apostles were not perfect in their administration of the church.

For those who instruct the Protestants that Christ abandon his corrupted church because the leaders were unfaithfully mismanaging the funds, the scriptures remind us that Judas was among the chosen by Christ himself as one of the twelve. Judas, who was in charge of Jesus’ finances (John 13:29), was found to be a thief.

John 12:4-6 

But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages. " He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 

Notice that Jesus did not dismantle the twelve disciples because one was a thief, nor for that matter because they all scattered when he was arrested and his head apostle betrayed him. Jesus simply replaced Judas. The position was still viable and was filled by the next generation of believers (Acts 1: 20-26) by the current leaders. This would be later called apostolic succession.

Scripture records members of the church criticizing how the Apostles distributed the possessions and deacons were appointed as administrators.  (Acts 6:1)

As we read, we must ask ourselves does the book of Acts record the derailing of God’s plan for His church? Should Peter have refused to baptize members until they were fully vetted at Pentecost and afterwards? Should the early church have steered clear of accepting donations, avoiding any misuse of funds by fallible leaders?

Point #1: The church HAD to be a visible organization.

Point #2: The early church had a head, a recognizable leader who was obeyed. 

Point #3 The Apostles were not perfect in their administration of the church.

Was this to be a temporary measure and did this practice later become wrong? Would later Christian leaders become so faithless themselves as to be unfit to handle the finances? Did the Bridegroom entrap His Bride by allowing financial practices in the beginning that would, when followed four centuries later, cause her own fall? 

Let’s take a trip into history, the fourth and fifth centuries:

AD 380. From Constantinople soon-to-be-ruler of the entire Roman Empire, Emperor Theodosius, made Christianity the official religion. 

Having recently been decriminalized, over the next century many people (converted and non-converted) flooded the Christian church which was sorely lacking in priests to properly disciple those being baptized. For various altruistic and spurious motivations, the church received huge monetary and property contributions--starting with Emperor Constantine who bequeathed the Lateran Palace to the popes when he picked up his capital and moved it to Constantinople. Burgeoning membership put stress upon the leadership in not only ministering to the spiritual needs of their parishioners but also the administration of these immense contributions.

Large churches were being built and filled with lavish and beautiful gifts. There was, of yet, no official seminaries where priests could be taught. Bishop became bishop, priest became priest by the anointing and consecration of their own cities’ bishops. Heresies have come and gone. The one still menacing the church, due to waves of Gothic invasions, was Arianism.

By the fifth century, the cities all over Italy had fallen into decline and often the Germanic tribes who came to conquer simply walked in and took over the smaller cities without lifting a sword. That facilitated the sack of Rome in 410 by the Visigoth King Alaric. After 423, western emperor after emperor is murdered, executed or appointed to the position by the dominating Germanic tribes. The western empire is virtually abandon by Constantinople and the popes became de facto civic authorities in charge of city water, food supplies, roads, and wall fortifications.

In 452 Pope Leo, as the only spokesman for Rome since the murder of the western emperor, met Atila the Hun on the Micino River and convinced him to leave the city untouched.  The official “fall” of Rome is twenty-five years away, but it felt to the city as if it had already happened. 

********************

Fast forward a millennium plus a couple hundred years and Enlightenment scholars are bombastically excoriating fifth century Christianity for allowing in the wave of converts, many who were not carefully taught the doctrines and accepting huge monetary donations. 

Many suggest that at the close of persecution, this sudden surge in political influence marked the beginning of the corruption of the church. The influx of money changed what they had assumed were tiny, autonomous, pure and penniless Christian communities into one monolithic organized, imperialistic Catholic Church. Against the history of the primitive disciples and the very will of God Himself, the church prostituted herself with paganism thus acquiring  world dominion. Satan’s conquering temptation for these Christians? The power of new members and new money.

Yet, did the church actually behave pre-Constantine much differently than it did post-Constantine? Scripture records the Apostles doing exactly what was condemned later. Was God no longer in charge in later centuries? Had He changed His mind about the church growing from a seed to a huge tree? Were church leaders so corrupted that they were allowing people into the church God would have kept out? Was is now that an organized church became wrong? Perhaps now was the time God required infallible leaders and perfect members. Perhaps it was now that the Apostolic succession carried on from the beginning should be abandon and anyone claiming a revelation and authorization from God allowed to be leader of the church?

Had not Christ anticipated such a time from the beginning and warned against the flood of people coming in and the church becoming large and organized? Or did He set His beloved Bride up for a fall when she was no longer a persecuted church?

You see, either God laid down a foundation of a real, organized church of fallible administrators or He didn’t. According to the passages in Acts, that is exactly what He did. He set up a visible, organized church whose fallible leaders accepted contributions and they made the assessment--right or wrong--what was to be done with these donations.

And yet, when the church was filling the earth three and four centuries later, all of a sudden, we think the rules should change and all those things set up as foundations for the Kingdom were now used to trip it up and cause God to abandon His Church. As the church grew some Protestants scholars claim, it was not supposed to be organized and the administrators were to be totally incorruptible. 

Did Jesus abandon His disciples because there was a Judas?  

Remember it was Judas who objected to the leaders use of gifts. When Mary poured the expensive perfume upon the feet of Jesus, Judas stood up and protested, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?” (Context: John 12: 1-9) These words echo today against the Catholic church....

Michael Voris in the new CIA Episode.

Anyone have any comments? As a newbie, I am just watching and wondering.....

http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/

or try

http://www.realcatholictv.com/cia/05rebellion/

The JOYS of the Canon of Scripture

Below are three videos that support my own personal research.

When I first heard the claim by Catholics that their Bible was the original, I had to see for myself. So, for years my husband and I went on a quest to actually see first hand as many older Bibles as we could find.

We went to several Bible mecca's in the US including Bob Jones University and Pensacola Christian College where there are King James Version shrines. We went to museums in our trips overseas. We looked online for scanned manuscripts. We read every possible book on the making of the Bible we could find. Then we hit gold.

During the time we lived close to DC, I had a rare opportunity. I petitioned the Library of Congress to see the Ancient Bible Archives. Under very close supervision I was allowed to actually look through ancient copies of scripture. At the time the curator was stationed nearby to keep an eye on me. For hours, wearing gloves and on a velvet lined podium, I leafed through the latin manuscripts--finding the books of Baruch and Judith and the Maccabees and Tobit.... They were all there, those seven books the Protestants had taken out. (Course most of the manuscripts were in Latin... but I had researched how to recognize their Latin names.)

Questioning both the LOC curator and also with extensive conversations and emails with curators in England, English Bible translators and scholars, I found out that indeed, the Catholics were right. Since the beginning, the Bible has had 73 books and only with the Reformation did the Protestant Bible become smaller--only 66. Those who did not like the "Catholicism" of certain books simply took them out.

Hope you will take the time to watch the videos. They were what I discovered years before becoming Catholic.

The Origin of the Bible Preview, part 2, by Dr. Brant Pitre

The Origin of the Bible Preview, part 1, by Dr. Brant Pitre

The Bible: A Brief History

Hierarchy of Worship

Most Protestants have never considered that there is a hierarchy of worship. This is not about false versus true worship, but degrees. 

Are there forms of worship than are superior to other forms? 

Since I can study subjects other than God’s word, is study a form of worship? Perhaps, but the highest form of worship? 

Since I can praise and thank people other than God, is praise and thanks a form of worship? Yes, but the highest form of worship?

Since I can pray/petition people other than God, is prayer/petition a form of worship? Yes, but the highest form of worship?

Is worship in the sincerity of the kneeling and bowing before my master? Actually, the Bible is filled with examples of God’s people bowing before other people, so bowing in and of itself is not worship.... Surely, it cannot be the highest form of worship, can it?

All these forms of worship can be given to others; so, are they the only forms of worship? Shouldn’t God have something we give to Him alone, a type of worship reserved ONLY for God? 

When we look at worship in the Old Testament, there does seem to be a crowning incarnation of worship found in the communal rites of the Temple. There alone, do we see the sacrificial offering of the innocent lamb to the Father in propitiation for sins. There we see the sinner, bound in the covenant relationship with God, partake in the communal meal ritual of consuming the flesh of the sacrifice. 

Worship in the Temple included praise and thanksgiving psalms being sung by a professional choir of levites. It included bowing, the reading of the Torah and prayers, but they were subordinate and assisted in the worship. They were not the zenith of the worship. It was the sacrifice. 

The supremely powerful consummation of worship was found in the communal sacrifice. The holiest sacrifice was on the Hebrew day of Atonement. 

In fulfillment of scripture and to bring in the New Covenant Kingdom, Israel’s temple  was destroyed in AD 70. Israel’s highest form of worship was gone and she was left only with the peripheral rites of Torah reading, songs of praise, prayer. These constitute real worship and a way of reaching God, but they no longer had the perfect and prime way of worship. The Temple sacrifice was then replaced by the ultimate, eternal sacrifice of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world--the Messiah Jesus. 

Those Hebrews who did not believe the Messianic Kingdom had arrived in Jesus, today still worship in hopes of the Temple being rebuilt. They long for the return of the epitome of worship in the communal sacrifice.

There is a parallel today in Christianity.

The Catholic church which is the seed of the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, was handed on the supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Each day, and especially on Sunday, we re-present the Lamb to the father. We still have the ultimate form of communal worship. 

The reformers and Protestants today, willingly gave up the quintessential, unsurpassed form of worship and like the unbelieving Rabbinical worship of those who rejected Christ as the Messiah, are left with only the supportive rites of worship. Today, in Protestant churches, you will see the focus of worship in the sermon, prayers, praise and thanksgiving songs. They have rejected the sacrifice of Jesus as worship believing it was done away with at the cross. 

Yet there is no historical, nor Biblical evidence that the highest form of worship was done away with. The New Covenant has a new priesthood, that of the order of Melchizedek. Our sacrifice is the Son. 

As Catholics, we still re-present the Lamb of God as the rapturous, exalted and primary focus of our worship. 

Catholic Converts

Shameless Popery: Protestantism's Catch-22: Schism or Heresy?

Shameless Popery: Protestantism's Catch-22: Schism or Heresy?: "The Protestant ProblemA Presbyterian and a Calvinist Baptist, after months of carefully studying Scripture, and maybe even extra-Scriptural ..."

The Pilgrimage of Grace

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

The Joys of Protestant Ladies

The other evening I was sitting with an interdenominational ladies group with some of the most amazing women I have ever met (not being invited, but by a fluke of a car mishap was with one of those who HAD been invited.) These women are very prominent in Christian circles-- a couple of them have been on Oprah, one is in the midst of choosing which movie production company is going to put her life story on the big screen and one is a Christian talk show host. Big names.

So, the eight ladies were sitting around a table at the Nashville Olive Garden when I arrived and meekly took a seat. (For anonymity sake I changed the place.)

For some strange reason, I was introduced as, “This is Teresa Beem, she is Catholic.” That felt a little awkward as everyone else at the table was Protestant and why that would be my most important identifying mark I don’t know, unless the woman who introduced me was actually wanting say “Here’s a Catholic, girls... Let’s get her saved!” 

After ordering, I was taking my first bite of the garlic bread sticks when I was confronted by the hostess, “Do you pray to Mary?” Gasps from the women made her calmly justify her question, “Well, I think it’s interesting that someone would choose to be Catholic.” (They all knew that I was raised Seventh-day Adventist.) I swallowed the bite whole and stuttered around with an answer. 

The lady sitting next to me, thinking she was doing me a great favor by getting me out of the hot seat, changed the subject. However, I really would have liked a little more conversation in order to explain the Catholic position better. The rest of the evening was discussing the upcoming Christian Women’s Conference. 

As I was leaving, the lady sitting to my right put her arm around me and with a look of pity in her eyes tried to encourage me with, “You just keep reading your Bible, sister. Keep reading your Bible.” 

Perhaps I am being paranoid, but I sensed she was unconsciously patronizing me and assuming I HADN’T read my Bible---after all in her estimation, I couldn’t have if I had become a Catholic.

Honestly, I wasn’t offended or hurt or angry. As I thought about her response over the next couple of days, I started to become frustrated. These ladies would have been utterly shocked to know I became Catholic BECAUSE I read my Bible. That doesn’t compute with Protestants. 

How do we, as Catholics, begin to disabuse our dear Protestant brethren of the idea that Catholics have rejected holy scripture? How do we let them know we love and respect the Bible and rather than discard its teachings, we hold to a different interpretation of them--the OLDEST and authoritative interpretation? 

What do I want to do, start a war, you ask?    No. 

It is time, though, that Catholics break through the misunderstanding that Protestants have about our faith--AND WE HAVE ALLOWED them to have. This is more our fault than theirs!

...And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" Romans 10:14,15

Catholics, I think, are completely unaware of the tremendous beauty of their own beliefs. They do not realize how Catholicism could lift EVEN Protestants--lovely, God-fearing, faithful Protestants--from the slavery of their misunderstandings of theology. Protestants have good news for sure! But we have the the fullest, the BEST news of all. Do we not know it? Do we not believe it? Do we not live it? Is that why we cannot share it? 

Time for that to change. 

The Pope's Visit to Britain

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20douthat.html?_r=

The Pope and the Crowds

By ROSS DOUTHAT

Published: September 19, 2010

All in all, the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Britain over the weekend must have been a disappointment to his legions of detractors. Their bold promises notwithstanding, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens didn’t manage to clap the pope in irons and haul him off to jail. The protests against Benedict’s presence proved a sideshow to the visit, rather than the main event. And the threat (happily empty, it turned out) of an assassination plot provided a reminder of what real religious extremism looks like — as opposed to the gentle scholar, swathed in white, urging secular Britons to look with fresh eyes at their island’s ancient faith.

And the crowds came out, as they always do for papal visits — 85,000 for a prayer vigil in London, 125,000 lining Edinburgh’s streets, 50,000 in Birmingham to see Benedict beatify John Henry Newman, the famous Victorian convert from Anglicanism. Even at a time of Catholic scandal, even amid a pontificate that’s stumbled from one public-relations debacle to another, Benedict still managed to draw a warm and enthusiastic audience.

No doubt most of Britain’s five million Catholics do not believe exactly what Benedict believes and teaches. No doubt most of them are appalled at the Catholic hierarchy’s record on priestly child abuse, and disappointed that many of the scandal’s enablers still hold high office in the church.

But in turning out for their beleaguered pope, Britain’s Catholics acknowledged something essential about their faith that many of the Vatican’s critics, secular and religious alike, persistently fail to understand. They weren’t there to voice agreement with Benedict, necessarily. They were there to show their respect — for the pontiff, for his office, and for the role it has played in sustaining Catholicism for 2,000 years.

Conventional wisdom holds that such respect is increasingly misplaced, and that the papacy is increasingly a millstone around Roman Catholicism’s neck. If it weren’t for the reactionaries in the Vatican, the argument runs, priests might have been permitted to marry, forestalling the sex abuse crisis. Birth control, gay relationships, divorce and remarriage might have been blessed, bringing lapsed Catholics back into the fold. Theological dissent would have been allowed to flourish, creating a more welcoming environment for religious seekers.

And yet none of these assumptions have any real evidence to back them up. Yes, sex abuse has been devastating to the church. But as Newsweek noted earlier this year, there’s no data suggesting that celibate priests commit abuse at higher rates than the population as a whole, or that married men are less prone to pedophilia. (The real problem was the hierarchy’s fear of scandal, which led to endless cover-ups and enabled serial predation.)

And yes, the church’s exclusive theological claims and stringent moral message don’t go over well in a multicultural, sexually liberated society. But the example of Catholicism’s rivals suggests that the church might well be much worse off if it had simply refashioned itself to fit the prevailing values of the age. That’s what the denominations of mainline Protestantism have done, across the last four decades — and instead of gaining members, they’ve dwindled into irrelevance.

The Vatican of Benedict and John Paul II, by contrast, has striven to maintain continuity with Christian tradition, even at the risk of seeming reactionary and out of touch. This has cost the church its once-privileged place in the Western establishment, and earned it the scorn of fashionable opinion. But continuity, not swift and perhaps foolhardy adaptation, has always been the papacy’s purpose, and the secret of its lasting strength.

Catholics do not — should not, must not — look to the Vatican to supply the church with all its saints and visionaries and prophets. (Indeed, many of Catholicism’s greatest figures have had fraught relationships with the Holy See — including John Henry Newman, the man beatified on Sunday.) They look to Rome instead to safeguard what those visionaries achieved, to guard Catholicism’s inheritance, and provide a symbol of unity for a far-flung, billion-member church. They look to Rome for the long view: for the wisdom that not all change is for the better, and that some revolutions are better outlasted than accepted.

On Saturday, Benedict addressed Britain’s politicians in the very hall where Sir Thomas More, the great Catholic martyr, was condemned to death for opposing the reformation of Henry VIII. It was an extraordinary moment, and a reminder of the resilience of Catholicism, across a gulf of years that’s consumed thrones, nations, entire civilizations.

This, above all, is why the crowds cheered for the pope, in Edinburgh and London and Birmingham — because almost five centuries after the Catholic faith was apparently strangled in Britain, their church is still alive
.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 20, 2010, on page A31 of the New York edition.

Catholicism and Western Culture

Catholics have acquiesced to a relativistic, radically-individualistic  culture creating confusion about authentic Catholicism.

Although Catholic missions dotted North and South America in the 16th century, the great influx of Catholics driven by persecution to our shores from Ireland and Germany did not occur until in the mid-19th century. An American prejudice against Catholicism was already firmly entrenched and over time Catholics, for societal harmony, attempted to assimilate into a uniquely individualistic and personal liberty-oriented culture.

This assimilation began to distort the traditional, two-millennia old philosophical orientation of the way Catholics saw authority and truth. While Marian devotion and the doctrine of Justification became the most obvious distinctions, these masked deeper foundational and irreconcilable differences between Catholicism and the western Protestant culture. The differences of premise in a Catholic world view needs to be clarified for a better understanding of authentic Catholicism. Though there are many more, only two of the premises are addressed here:

• Authentic Catholicism does not teach certain rights are derived from God

The Bill of Rights states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” America’s founding documents claim its values are based upon “nature’s God.” Yet, historical and Biblical Catholicism cannot agree that certain American rights are established by God. This is not arguing the merit of Constitutional rights, but arguing the premise that they are also Christian spiritual rights as advanced by the US documents.

Catholicism has acquiesced to the confusing intermingling of civic and spiritual liberties. Catholics have not argued against the westernized premise that freedom to choose what to believe, how to live and worship is from Christ. This is far, far from any historical or biblical Christianity which means it is far from authentic Catholicism. 

Separation of Church and State. Often this idea is touted as if it has virtuous moral underpinnings. A high-ground is assumed when juxtaposing America’s secular government with the close associations Europe’s Catholic monarchies had with the church. This is a faulty premise. While Catholics may concede that a separation of church and state might be necessary in current situations, the concept cannot be claimed on biblical basis to be God’s preferred form of government. 

Pursuit of Happiness. Historical Christianity certainly has never taught that the pursuit of happiness is a God-given right. God calls us not to pursue happiness, but holiness. The aim of a Christian life is obedience to God, the fruits of living the gospel is peace and joy.

Equality of Scriptural Interpretation. The western philosophical right of equality has confused Christian into presumption of equality of scriptural interpretation. An unspoken premise of Protestant thought is that a sincere relationship with Jesus assures us of a suitable interpretation of scripture. This type of equality is not found in scripture nor historical Christianity. The inerrant Word of God confirms that the Church is the foundation of God’s infallible and absolute truth, not a personal reading of scripture.

Conscience-Based Religion. The civil right to live and worship as our conscience dictates fuses with the mistaken notion that God died to give us the right to live and worship as our conscience dictates. This idea is at absolute opposition with Catholicism. Though Catholic doctrine declares it is a human right to act according to one’s conscience, they also recognize that, in our fallen human nature, truth does not originate nor spring up within ourselves. We are given grace to recognize and receive truth, God’s truth is a gift that must be taught. Our consciences must be educated and formed within the body of Christ’s church so we do not live according to our own definition of sin, but God’s. The freedom given to us by the merciful blood of Christ is to follow His choices! 

Moral Autonomy.  Western culture’s moral crimes are anything intolerant, prejudice or  judgmental against anyone’s personal lifestyle choices. These “sins” are the fruit of a culture that claims moral standards are personal and relative. The Catholic Church states unequivocally that Christ commanded his followers certain unshakable, absolute truths that our society today denies. Among the timeless sins are fornication, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, infidelity and divorce. We do not as Christians have a right to engage in any of these activities, Catholics reject the idea that God gave us the right to moral autonomy. 

Catholics become confused when they attempt to defended their beliefs upon the westernized premise of God-given rights to personal morality and personalized religion. First there needs to be a clear understanding of the Catholic worldview.

Orthodox Christianity lays down its rights, even its very life for others. Christianity isn’t about freedom or rights or choices. It is about sacrificial love and obedience. It is about dying to self and living for Christ. This is where western thought fights its eternal struggle within each one of us.

• Catholicism teaches that a God-appointed church authority requires our submission

The greatest of all abominations in our culture is authoritarianism. Power-hungry, abusive authority destroys our freedom, independence, equality, individuality and creativity. Our Constitution, our movies, our books, in fact everything about western culture indoctrinates us into the idea that ultimate heroism is found in the little guy, David overcoming big business, big government, big, powerful anything-in-charge Goliath.

The symbol of the Statue of Liberty evokes the huddle masses fleeing from religious or political tyranny. Western lifestyle is devoted to the cult of radical individualism and contempt for “the man.” It warns us to trust power to no one but ourselves. Teaching that one must sacrifice one’s rights for another or submitting to a superior is tantamount to slavery and a human rights atrocity (Galatians 5:13). 

Yet conversely, Catholics teach that God began a church and appointed authorities who we must obey. 

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. (Hebrews 13: 17)

Submit to a priest, bishop or pope? The thought bristles those seeped in post-enlightenment, secular humanism. What if they say or do something wrong? What about personal autonomy? We have so successfully demonized authority that we have usurped God’s word for the traditions of man. Nonetheless, a system of parents, teachers, preachers, deacons are clearly set up in scripture. This pernicious radical individualism has befouled our spirituality, making it an insult to our liberty when we humbly honor and obey our God-appointed leaders.  

What is lost when Catholics are not authentically Catholic?

The earth swarms with humanity enslaved in perpetual angst. A billion lifeless eyes escape into the aimless buzz of entertainment. Humanity is anesthetized because we lack truth. Within the DNA of our culture is expanding an infinite void of lies. Our politicians, parents, pastors, teachers, lovers, billboards, commercials--who can we really trust? Our gospel “propaganda” falls on calloused ears because it is based upon the sand of westernized values. Religion is numb, impotent to break through the over-stimulating white noise in our culture, because it does not claim self-sacrificing, absolute truth! 

The astonishing beauty--the stunning theology of God’s love and mercy shared within Catholic doctrine is the light illuminating the path out of the chaotic carnival of despair.

Catholic truth is offensive, Catholic truth is painful, Catholic truth is shocking. But while painful and offensive and shocking, it is irresistible for those wanting truth. Its loving, merciful call is recognized by the terrified depths of the human spirit. 

Why is the beauty of Divine love reaching down towards us and lifting us into His Presence and out of the retched filth of our sins being silenced, being ignored in today’s Catholicism? Tailored to be acceptable to the culture, Catholics have censored their truths to be cool.Catholicism’s worldview has slowly shifted from a foundation of humble selfless, sacrificial giving to one that demands equality, rights and the pursuit of happiness. Catholics must return to a world view that strips ourselves of the idea of rights and autonomy and radical individualism.

We certainly can be great Americans as Catholics, yet we must not live a spiritually dubious faith. We must not confuse God’s mercy with civic tolerance; pride in our country’s liberties with Christ’s beatitudes; western values with God’s values or our Constitutional rights with God’s commandments. Christians do not claim autonomy, but submit to God’s appointed leaders. Christians do not pursue personal rights, but personal sacrifice. 

If we teach Catholicism, the world will find answers that shatters all pride and contempt. Jesus Christ’s truth will burst the searcher’s heart, stripping him of self-consciousness, knocking him to his knees, arms upswept to the Father in trembling adoration and calling out “not my will, but thine.” 

Adventism Creeping into my Catholicism?

The Adventist Church is a bit of a drama queen.
I had friends in the little Adventist town of Keene, Texas who told tales of gas chambers being secretly built nearby, readying for the imminent one world order and Sunday laws! You see the Apostates--false Christians who worshipped on Sunday (lead by the Catholic church)--were about to vote for laws that ALL people MUST go to church on Sunday or they will be persecuted or even given the death sentence. These conspiracy theorists were ripe with warnings that Sabbatarians need to be prepared to march into these Americanized death camps rather than worship on any other than God's holy day--Saturday.

Even though I didn't buy into that one, as an Adventists I was taught to see a last-day correlations with every major news event, be it war, rumors of war, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. We were perpetually on red alert for the Christian terrorists who were lying in wait to release the powers of hell upon us, just because we had the testimony of Jesus and kept the commandments.

I was so relieved to study Revelation as a Catholic and discover that it is very possible the book is mainly historical. At the very least I didn't have to worry about becoming a martyr for the Sabbath anymore. Whew....

However, maybe I was a bit premature in assuming the world was now a lovely place for Christians. Or maybe it is some latent Seventh-day Adventist paranoia bubbling to the surface.

The news is full of stories about Christians being martyred in China and Turkey and other countries. (Hasn't that been happening forever, though? No worries about the land of the free and home of the brave, right?) Yet I am discovering that even in America if traditional Christian values are publicly spoken, the person or church is accused of being a bigot or hatemonger or intolerant or simply stupid. There is a rapidly growing pressure to keep one's views to oneself if you are a Christian.

If you speak about traditional Christian values that were held for two-thousand years, you are dismissed as a radical. You are laughed at, you are scorned, people flee from your side--even Christians!

Even among Catholics I am finding myself alone in believing what Catholicism teaches.

Can it be possible that those who live by and teach orthodox Christian morals will end up being thrown in prison? Wow... I sound so Adventisty. What a drama queen that still lives in me.....

Right?

Mary and My Prayers

I will write things here on this blog that I wouldn't dare write anywhere else, because I know basically no one pays attention to this site. So it is my little echo in the void of cyberspace, glad I can write it, but glad that no one will read it.

So, this morning I am praying having been through my litany of the precious blood of Christ and all my personal ramblings and petitions to the Most Holy God and Father of the Universe, through the name of his blessed Son, Jesus Christ. When I just break down about Mary. Ever since I have become a Catholic, I go through such struggles about her, swinging back and forth between Mark Shea's idea of Our Blessed Lady of the Willies (as a new, tyro Catholic) and a proper understanding of her as we mature in our faith. Some days saying the Hail Mary seems so natural and lovely, others it just makes me tremble that I am being idolatrous.

About to say "amen" this morning, I broke down and almost cried. My whole life I have felt so guilty for thinking the most beautiful music ever written, was not for Him, but for Mary--Bach/Gounod's Ave Maria, Shubert's, Biebl's, Caccini. The most amazing, the most breathtaking and sweet music ever conceived in the hearts of man was not for my precious Savior, but His mother. As I was confessing this and feeling so sorry, a wave of peace and comfort came over me.

"Who do you think inspired those composers?" Came a still and tender thought. It dawned upon me, that Christ wrote and sings those songs to His mother and whenever I sing them, I join Him in his honoring His mother. Every time I sing a song to the Father, I join Him in honoring His Father. No wonder the are so full of tender love, Jesus is singing to His Mother, Mary.

Thank you Jesus. Now I can really cry.....