Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Squanto - Catholic Hero of Thanksgiving

This short video by Dr. Taylor Marshall explains, in brief, how Squanto saved the Pilgrims - and Squanto was a Catholic too!  

Thanksgiving Day in the USA is not a Catholic holiday, but maybe it should be!  The Pilgrims were not Catholic, but Squanto was - and he saved the day in showing them how to plant and gather corn and other survival methods - without which the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock would most certainly have perished.

So, I wish you all a blessed and Happy Thanksgiving, and take a moment this Thursday to recognize the hero of the first Thanksgiving celebration.

This Sunday starts Advent!  Come Lord Jesus!

Feast of Christ the King

What About the Feast of Christ the King? 
In my last entry on the Last Sunday After Pentecost, I did not mention the Feast of Christ the King.  In the "Ordinary Rite" or "Novus Ordo" the Last Sunday of the year is the Feast of Christ the King.  I typically participate in the Extraordinary Rite.  This feast is relatively new in the liturgical year, first being promulgated by Pope Pius XI in 1925 and per his encyclical quas primus, it is to be on the last Sunday of October - as it still is where the "Extraordinary Rite" or the "Traditional Latin Mass."  It was started in an answer to perhaps an over emphasis on nationalism - the Church wishing to remind the faithful that Jesus Christ is our King.  The feast was moved in 1970, coinciding with several Protestant celebrations (Anglicans, Lutherans and others using the "Revised Common Lectionary"). 

Sunday, November 22, 2015

End of the Year

It's the end of the liturgical year, the Last Sunday After Pentecost, or the Last Sunday in Ordinal Time.  (I don't use the term "ordinary" because though it comes from the same root word, it has quite a different connotation in common usage).  For the end of the year we teach upon the end of the world - reminding us all that the Lord Jesus Christ will return in glory.  It also speaks to the coming tribulations which will precede His Second Coming.  As lightning comes out of the east and is seen even in the west, so also shall be the coming of the Son of Man.

The Last Sunday After Pentecost
(Readings from the Traditional or Extraordinary lectionary).

Jeremias 29: 11, 12, 14

The Lord saith: I think thoughts of peace, and not of affliction: you shall call upon Me, and I will hear you; and I will bring back your captivity from all places. -- (Ps. 84. 2). Lord, Thou hast blessd Thy land: Thou hast turned away the captivity of Jacob. V.: Glory be to the Father . . . -- The Lord saith: I think thoughts of peace . . .
COLLECT - Stir up, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the wills of Thy faithful people, that they more earnestly seeking the fruit of divine service, may receive more abundantly healing gifts from Thy tender mercy. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth . . .
Colossians 1: 9-14

Brethren, We cease not to pray for you, and to beg that you may be filled with the knowledge of the will of God, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you may walk worthy of God, in all things pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all might according to the power of His glory, in all patience and long suffering with joy; giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through the His Blood, the remission of sins.
Psalms. 43: 8- 9

Thou hast delivered us, O Lord, from them that afflict us: and hast put them to shame that hate us. V.: In God we will glory all the day: and in Thy Name we will give praise for ever. Alleluia, alleluia. V. (Psalm 129:1, 2). From the depths I have cried to Thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my prayer. Alleluia.

Matthew  24:15-35
At that time, Jesus said to His disciples: When you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place; (he that readeth, let him understand:) then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains; and he that is on the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house; and he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. And woe to them that are with child and that give suck, in those days. But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the Sabbath: for there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been found from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be: and unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved; but for the sake of the elect, those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say to you: Lo, here is Christ, or there; do not believe him; for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold His is in the desert, go ye not out; Behold He is in the closets, believe it not. For as lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even in the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together. And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be moved; and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. And He shall send His angels with a trumpet and a loud voice, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them. And from the fig tree learn a parable: when the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh. So you also, when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is nigh at the doors. Amen I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.

Psalms 129:1, 2

From the depths I have cried out to Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my prayer: from the depths I have cried out to Thee, O Lord.
SECRET - Be gracious, O Lord, to our humble entreaties; and receiving the offerings and prayers of Thy people, turn the hearts of all of us to Thee: that freed from greed of earthly things, we may pass on to heavenly desires. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost . . .
PREFACE (Preface of the Most Holy Trinity) - It it truly meet and just, right and for our salvation, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God; Who, together with Thine only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, art one God, one Lord: not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance. For what we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same do we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, distinction in persons, unity in essence, and equality in majesty may be adored. Which the Angels and Archangels, the Cherubim also and Seraphim do praise: who cease not daily to cry out, with one voice saying:
Mark 11: 24
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you ask when you pray, believe that you shall receive and it shall be done to you.
POST COMMUNION - Grant unto us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that through these Sacraments which we have received, whatsoever in our minds is corrupt, may be cured by the gift of their healing power. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost . . .

Monday, November 16, 2015

Questions for Catholics - Part 7 - The Mass and Call No Man Father

In Prasch's final entry he states:
Jacob Prasch
But I have one final question for my Roman Catholic friends. And I assure you I have many friends, I am not speaking antagonistically or with hostility to any Catholic people. I'm only asking you these questions which I’d like you to answer, I invite you to answer. Engage with me, there’s one more I’d like to ask you.
I hope he's sincere and is really asking for engagement.  If there are any questions he feels I have not answered, or answered fully, I hope he does not hesitate to engage the discussion.
I am told that the doctrine of the mass says Jesus must die and again and again and again sacramentally. The same sacrifice that took place on Calvary happens in the mass: He dies sacramentally. He has to die again, again, and again. Remembering that the Lord’s Supper – communion, the Eucharist as Catholics would define it – comes from the Jewish Passover which is a memorial, you remember something already happened, the Roman Church rather says, “No, it continues to happen sacramentally.”
I'm reading from the epistle to the Hebrews 7:27, Christ…
who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. Why is there daily mass when it says we don't need a daily Mass? The Old Testament sacrifices that took place daily with the priests in the temple were symbols of what the Messiah would do. Given the fact that He came and did it, we don't need it anymore according to the epistle to the Hebrews.
The epistle to the Hebrews 9:12
and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He……that is, Christ…
…entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.  If it’s “eternal” it means it’s forever and ever without end, without beginning as such – it’s eternal. He did it once and for all for all eternity. Why is there a mass?
Chapter 10 of Hebrews, verse 12…
but He……that is, Christ…
… having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, One sacrifice for sins for all time. Verse 14…
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.  If something is perfection, by definition it cannot be improved upon. How can you improve upon perfection?
Given the fact that Rome claims Peter was the first pope, can it be explained why, in his epistle in 1 Peter 3:18, St. Peter says Christ diedonce to bear the sins? Once – perfection – for all eternity! We don’t need a priest to do it again and again like in the Old Testament, the Priest has come. It’s a good question.
Well, it's a good question from one who is ignorant of Catholic teaching.  Prasch is actually pretty close to the answer, but seems to have "missed it by that much."  The Mass is not a new offering, over and over again, it is a re-presentation of the same Sacrifice of Christ.  God is timeless, as are acts of God.  When Jesus was crucified on the Cross, that One Sacrifice is for all time and the Mass "taps into" that eternal Sacrifice.  The Mass does not re-crucify Christ, that one act was done - but at the same time is an eternal act.  Jesus Himself commanded that we "do this" every time we partake in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:25 and Luke 22:19).  To not use the ceremony (the Mass) which He Himself instituted would be contrary to His command.  Again, this is not the imperfect sacrifices of the Old Testament priests, but the Perfect Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  When the New Testament priests offer this Sacrifice, it is not by their own authority, but in "alter christus," it is through Jesus Christ Himself, operating through the priest, that He, Jesus, offers the same Sacrifice for us in the Mass.  Again, it's not a new or repeated sacrifice, it is the same Sacrifice that we "tap into" through the Mystery of Faith.

It truly takes Faith to accept this Mystery too, as Jesus Christ hides Himself under the appearance of bread and wine, but the reality of Faith is that it is no longer bread and wine, though the accidents (those things we sense) still appear to be bread and wine, the substance (that which it really is) is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.  If you lack the faith to accept this, then pray to Jesus that He gives you sufficient faith to accept Him at His Word.  

Why do we need the Mass?  Because Jesus told us how we are to remember and celebrate His suffering and victory.  To not "do this" would be to disobey Him.  That's why we need the Mass.
A famous priest who was a Catholic theologian, the author of eight books, on a video admitted he didn't have the answer. Understand something: What astounded me coming from a Catholic background on my mother’s side was that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men. (Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7)
The last thing Jesus said in the Apocalypse is don’t add to the Bible. (Rev. 22:18-19) In his First epistle to the Corinthians 4:6 St. Paul said, “Learn not to exceed what is written”. Moses says don’t add to it, (Dt. 4:2) Jesus said if you do you’ll be condemned to hell. 
Before changing the subject, Prasch presented the above warnings not to add to or change the Scriptures.  I'd like to know who this "famous priest" is and see the context of that video, but the context from the Scriptures he refers to do not really say what he presents them as saying.  Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 speak to Isaiah's prophesy of the Pharisees and scribes because they rejected God's word for the sake of their korban tradition, specifically the precept to honor your father and mother was over-ruled by a korban which allowed for sons to circumvent the obligation to care for one's parents by consecrating to God that which would have been used to support them in their old age.  Revelation 22:18-19 speaks specifically to the Book of Revelation, not to "the Bible" which had not been put together as a book nor in the form of the "canon" we're familiar with now (that would not happen for nearly 400 years).  Deuteronomy 4:2 speaks to Mosaic Law, which I am quite certain Mr. Prasch does not fully adhere to, and if he does not then to use this passage is quite hypocritical.  Jesus, contrary to what Mr. Prasch said, quotes Old Testament Scripture several times and then says, "but I say..." so does Prasch accuse Jesus of the same thing he accuses Catholics?  

In short, the inconsistency and inaccuracy of Prasch's arguments are exposed.  
Find me indulgences, purgatory, or the mass in the New Testament. Penance? Whose sins you shall forgive? That was talking about leading people to Christ. Show me one place in the book of Acts where the early Christians went to confession to a priest. Or a better question, show me a priest.
It could be said that each of Prasch's challenges can be covered in Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - the Church was given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses.  As for indulgences, these are specifically under the authority just mentioned, but there are examples in Scripture:
In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42) (qtd on Catholic Answers).
Prasch's first objection will likely be that 2 Maccabees is from the Deuterocanonicals (he may call that the Apocrypha, which is not an accurate name as apocrypha means "hidden" and those books were never hidden).  The point is, however, that the books of the Maccabees reflect what the Jews thought, believed and practiced.  Scripture also refers to sins being forgiven in both this world and the next:
32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.  (Matt. 12:32).
Being relieved of sin "in the world to come" is an indulgence, it is scriptural.

As for Purgatory, there are several scriptural references, including the two just previously mentioned.  We also have Rev. 21:27 (nothing impure can enter Heaven),  1 Cor. 3:13 (our works will be tested, as by fire) and St. Peter makes the same analogy in 1 Peter 1:7 as well as Zechariah 13:9 and Proverbs 17:3-13.  References to indulgences and Purgatory are clearly there for those who are not blind to see them.

As for the Mass, please Mr. Prasch!  The central point of the Mass is the Eucharist and that is straight out of Scripture.  The rest of the Mass, if you study it even minimally, comes from Scripture too.  The structure actually has Jewish roots, as our religion really isn't a new religion, it is a completion of the Jewish faith.
There is no such thing as a priest in the New Testament because we are all called priests by Peter. (1 Peter 2:5,9) St. Peter said we are all priests with Christ as the High Priest. There is no “priest”, the word is “presbyter” where you get the word “Presbyterian”. It meant the elders of a congregation. There was no priesthood other than the priesthood of all Christians.  
Actually, the English word "priest" comes from the Greek word "presbyter," which Prasch admits is part of the New Testament, in fact is mentioned several times throughout.  One of the responsibilities of the "elder," if you wish, was to perform the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist with his congregation.  St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle, wrote of the distinctions between the authority of the bishops as separate from the authority of presbyters and deacons.

Yes, we are all called to a priesthood of believers, but what does that really mean, especially to the non-Catholic?  We are all called to offer up our own sacrifices too.  When we suffer, we can offer up those sufferings in union with the suffering of our Lord on the Cross.  Out of our abundance, we can offer up a portion to the needy.  If we don't have an abundance of money, we can always offer up prayers for those in need - especially for those who cann0t petition for themselves, the ones in most need of His mercy. 
Jesus said call no man your father as a religious title. In Matthew 23, St. Matthew quotes Jesus As saying, “Call no man your father”. (Mt. 23:9) Jesus forbade us to call the pope a “holy father” or to call the priest “our father”. He forbade it as a religious title. “Call no man your father”. There’s no priest, He said don’t even call somebody that, One is your Father who is in heaven.
Nathan, who also authors on this blog, wrote an article on "Call No Man Father" in response to this same challenge back in 2013.  John Salza in his Apologetics 101 series has the following (2 minute) video:
The bottom line here is Prasch, as well as other assumably well-meaning Protestants who also often take this passage out of context, misses the point.  The point is not to be like the Pharisees.  In the verse just previous, Matthew 23:8 tells us not to call anyone "rabbi" or "teacher," yet 
With sincerity I've asked these questions. Who do I believe, Mary or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Paul or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Peter or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Matthew or the Vatican? Who do I believe, Jesus Christ or the Vatican? I had to make a decision, so do you. Whom will you believe?
And with all sincerity, your questions have all been answered.  Do we believe Mary or the Vatican?  We believe both.  Mary points us to Christ, and so does the Vatican.  The same is true of the other questions.  To decide not to to believe Catholicism is to not believe in what Jesus Christ taught us.  After His Resurrection, He spent another 40 days with the Apostles, our first bishops, teaching them how His Church was to be run.  As He commands them to do as He did - as He was sent, He also sends them. (John 20:21).  This means that they too had to go out and select more bishops, and those bishops were to select others - and it is in that succession of bishops that we find His True Church.  Outside of that succession you do not have the fullness of His Truth.  His desire is that we be one, just He and the Father are one, (John 17:20-21).  Yes, you have made a decision - but your journey is not at its end.  As the Prodigal Son did, it's time for you to come home.

I do hope you will engage this discussion, as there is so much more that can be said on each topic.  It has also not gone un-noticed by me that you have been recovering from a severe illness while I've been writing these responses.  You have been in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope you fully recover.  When you are well enough, do look me up.

Scott Windsor<<<
Scott Windsor
Part 6 - Doctrine of Demons?
Back to Indices Page

Saturday, November 07, 2015

The End of the Year is Coming!

Last year I put together the following little video to commemorate the end of the liturgical year...

I am considering doing one for this year too... what would you change?

Tough Questions?

At the CathApol Blog we do not shy away from the "tough questions" as a quick perusal of our postings will show.  We don't believe any valid and respectfully asked question should go unanswered.  If you have a specific question or challenge for us, please feel free to use this posting to post a question or two.  We'll prepare a response in a separate, on-topic posting.

If you see something you like here - please use one of the "share" buttons below too!  If you have a Facebook or Twitter account, just click on the icon below to share...  and thank you!

Monday, November 02, 2015

Slavery Document 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office

If you've been around apologetics much at all you're probably familiar with the argument some dissidents and anti-Catholics like to throw out there - that is the "Instruction of the Holy Office" supposedly signed by Pope Pius IX in June of 1866.  I've searched long and hard for this actual document - and about the only thing I can find is quotes from dissidents and anti-Catholics - and not one single source with full context.   It truly seems like one of those "repeat a lie often enough people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself" types of things.  Why is it that this ONLY turns up on anti-Catholic and dissident sites?  Why can you not find the context, anywhere?  I'm quite open to discussing and even debating this topic - but let's have a valid source first, shall we?  I challenge anyone to present the primary source document, with context, so we can do just that - discuss and debate this matter.

Until we have some valid documentation, I would suggest we ignore sites merely pushing an anti-Catholic or dissident agenda.

Here's the quote you will often see, and even though an alleged primary source is cited (Instruction of the Holy Office of June, 1866) there is NO link pointing to the actual primary source.
Slavery itself, considered as such in it essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
Many of those sites which cite/quote this "source" also make a point to say "Signed by Pope Pius IX himself."   But did he sign any such thing?  Does any such document really exist?  Or, is this a lie which has been foisted upon us for so long and no one really questioned the veracity of the claim?

After publishing the above, I did come across a site which has more context - and the context puts a bit of a different light upon the topic on the Kings College site:       
1866 Instruction of the Holy Office in Response to questions form the Vicar Apostolic of the Galla tribe in Ethiopia
... slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.
            For the sort of ownership which a slave-owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one's own benefit - services which it is right for one human being to provide for another.
            From this it follows that it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated, provided that in this sale, purchase, exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved authors likewise describe and explain.
            Among these conditions the most important ones are that the purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue or Catholic faith of the slave who is to be transferred to another's possession. 
So, there's a bit more context, perhaps - but still not the whole document.  It is interesting to note that this document is not supporting the sort of slave trade that most Americans think about, for those "traded" in America were unjustly deprived of their freedom.  

Saturday, October 31, 2015

Questions for Catholics - Part 6 - Doctrine of Demons?

Let me begin by saying that this subject is not really a matter of Catholic apologetics.  It is NOT Catholic teaching to be part of and/or endorse the sex crimes which SOME priests were involved in.  There is no excuse for the behavior of the priests and even some of the bishops and hierarchy involved in this - so I will not defend them.  I will entertain Prasch's questions so that I am not accused of avoiding this topic - but the reality remains, those men were wrong and they violated Catholic teaching in what they did, for some what they failed to do.  Ultimately those involved violated the trust of the faithful while providing fodder for the ignorant to use this in apologetics and/or as an excuse in opposing Catholicism when Catholics oppose their actions (or lack thereof) as well.  
Now again, I’m only stating a fact. Why is there so much of this in the Roman church and so less in other churches? Why is there so much of it in the Latin rite but so little in your Eastern rite? I'm reading from the epistle of St. Paul to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 4:1…
But the Spirit…
…that is, the Holy Ghost…
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons…
…doctrines of devils.
by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage…
Why? In the New Testament, why if St. Paul, specifically instructed by the Holy Spirit, say requiring celibacy is a doctrine of devils, does your church practice it? When you outlaw what is natural, people will do things which are unnatural. When God created sex He said it was good in the book of Genesis. That is why even in your own church you find it only in the Latin rite, not in the Greek. That is why you don't find it among rabbis or Protestant ministers in anything like the same proportion. It’s a doctrine of devils.
Actually, the numbers are just as high, if not higher, in non-Catholic religions.  You just hear about such scandals more in the Catholic Church (see links) because the Catholic Church is held up to be the standard bearer, the moral leader, etc. and when she fails, her enemies are ready to pounce.  The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has made great strides toward curtailing such abuses under Pope Benedict XVI - and that goes mostly unheralded.

The point Prasch is really getting to is the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
St. Peter was married, his wife’s name was Deborah. Most of the apostles were married. To forbid it would be a doctrine of devils. 
That which Scripture condemns is forcing celibacy on all people, which some cults did and perhaps still do.  They don't last very long though because a cult which requires celibacy literally dies out after a generation!  St. Paul recommends celibacy (verse) and while recommending it for all who can endure it - for those who cannot, he says it is better to marry than to burn.  No one is forced to become a Catholic priest, so no one has to be celibate.  If one is called to the priesthood of the Latin Rite, then they know - right up front - that one of the expectations in answering that calling is a celibate lifestyle.
What can be more demonic, more Satanic, more evil, than having sex with little children and doing so in the name of Jesus Christ? How can something be so Satanic? Because it comes from a doctrine of demons. How can you as a Roman Catholic believe in a religion that practices what is plainly and clearly called a doctrine of devils, and you see the fruit of it in the newspapers every single day of the year? How can you defend it? How can you defend a doctrine of devils and the devastation it causes to little children?
Again, there is no defending the evils SOME men in the Church committed against children - and I won't defend them.  Those who are still alive should be turned over to the secular authorities and let justice take its course - and that is precisely what has been happening in recent years.  Unfortunately, it did go on for many years in the past without the legal ramifications - but again, THAT is changing for the better.  

The above being said, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe and assert that it is a "doctrine" of the Catholic Church for any adult, priest or otherwise, to molest children.  Come now, Mr. Prasch, you really don't believe that nonsense and/or propaganda, do you?  If you insist upon keeping this up on your website, then I must demand of you to present the official Catholic teaching which endorses what you allege.  In light of the fact that there is no such teaching, you should remove these false allegations from your website.
Jesus said, “Suffer the children unto Me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. (Mt. 19:14; Mk. 10:14) He said it would be better if a millstone were tied around your neck and cast into the sea than hurt one of these little ones. (Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2) He didn’t say rape them as your clergy does. Not all of your clergy, no, but your hierarchy protects and covers up for it, and other clergy have admitted on the witness stand they knew what was going on for years and kept their mouth shut to protect their colleagues who did it, instead of the children who suffered it, It is a doctrine of devils.
Again, there is no such "doctrine" of the Catholic Church which endorses the actions of these (relatively few in number) men who committed such atrocities.  Not all priests did this, in fact relatively few did.  Not all in the hierarchy protected the offenders - though it is admitted again that some did.  As has already been stated too, the Catholic Church has made great strides in ridding the Church from such criminal behavior, in fact over 400 priests have been defrocked for sexual misconduct and handed over to secular authorities. 
Why do you believe in something so wicked, something so antagonistic to the nostrils of Christ, something that’s unthinkable in the dimension of evil and occupies? Why do you believe in a church that teaches a doctrine of devils? That's my question: Do you really believe such people are the guardians of your soul?
We don't have these beliefs.  No Catholic in their right mind believes what you allege is one of our "doctrines."   Are you really so ignorant to believe that we actually have such "doctrines?"  

The sex scandal is largely over.  Have we caught ALL the guilty parties?  I'd say not likely, but we've caught most of them and we're still working on "cleaning house" over this one.  There are now many safeguards in place and through education more and more priests and laity are being made aware of how to detect such abuses and report them to the proper authorities.  It was a terrible chapter in the history of the Church, but again - it was never a "doctrine" or anything close to be officially endorsed by the Catholic Church.  As such it really isn't something which should be part of Catholic apologetics, but so many (ignorant) anti-Catholic apologists keep bringing up the topic that we, Catholic apologists, cannot just ignore them. 

Part 5 - Eucharist and John 6

Summary of Responses to Lester Alberque

The "Community" section of BeliefNet went "read only" as of today.  I was hoping it was at the end of the day so I could post my final responses there - but it has already happened, so I will post my final replies to that forum here.  Participants there are free to continue here or join the Catholic Debate Forum (CDF) if they would prefer a more interactive online/email forum.

For Lester Alberque, aka:  AristotlesChild, I will summarize some of our recent discussions in this posting.  If a deeper discussion is desired, separate postings can be started, or Les can do what is necessary to return to posting in CDF.  There were more discussions, but

Is Original Sin Still a Catholic Dogma?

Oct 13, 2015 -- 10:34AM, AristotlesChild wrote:
Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:15PM, Cathapol wrote:

CA:  How about reading CCC 404 (context seems to get you all the time!)

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
CA >>How about reading CCC 404 (context seems to get you all the time!)<<

AC: Ah yes! The old context ploy. Part of what the Council of Trent (Session 5) is still carried forward in Catholic teaching.

However, the second part about personal guilt (the "stain" that everybody had, except Mary) got dropped.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

So if none of Adam's descendents have the personal fault (or guilt, or stain) of Original Sin, we are all immaculate conceptiones, aren't we? There goes the dogma of (only Mary's) Immaculate Conception.
CA:  Wrong again!  Still within the context of the above:

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
CA:  So we clearly see that the "second part" from Trent is NOT dropped and is echoed by Pope Pius IX and in the modern CCC.

CA: I do thank you for conceding:

AC:  Ah yes! The old context ploy. Part of what the Council of Trent (Session 5) is still carried forward in Catholic teaching.

CA:  And I add, "context" is not a "ploy" - it is a means of coming to the TRUTH by showing MORE of what was ACTUALLY SAID and, as usual, context betrays you, Les.  To what you did present, Original Sin is NOT about the "personal guilt" of "actual sin" it is about the inherited or hereditary sin of Adam, which is part of our fallen nature.  The only "ploy" here is the one whereby you tend to label anything which contradicts your fallen arguments as a ploy.

BOTTOM LINE:   The Dogma on Original Sin is still a dogma of the Catholic Faith, as it MUST be for once dogmatically defined - it cannot be "un-dogma'd."  

CA:  Nothing in ANY of Les' arguments proves that the Catholic Church has "changed" its position on this matter of dogma.  Les rationalizes a change, but in reality does not demonstrate.

Did Jesus Build His Church?

Les posits that He did not...
AC:  Jesus thought himself to be an end-time prophet who would return during his generation. See the New Testament. Obviously he did not.
His followers did not found a new Church, but remained observant Temple worshipping Jews (a sect within Judaism - see Acts) until the parting of the ways about 85 AD.

CA:  Nowhere do we have Scripture telling us that Christianity was a sect within Judaism.  The fact is, Jesus selected The Twelve who are our first bishops.  Those bishops passed on the authority Jesus gave to them to guide/lead His Sheep - with St. Peter given primacy.  We have that same structure to this day, regardless if they still went into the synagogues to worship and preach to the Jews - OR - of Les' rationalizations.  Jesus did indeed build His Church.

THE Fundamental Issue:  AUTHORITY

AC quotes:  "We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  [Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, promulgated November 18, 1302,]

Is this infallible? If so, do all Catholics have to believe this?

And any non-Catholics not subject to the Pope can’t be saved?

CA:  Well, that's not exactly what it says!  Just because some do not admit to being subject to the pope does not mean they aren't.  I know a few people who insist that President Obama is not their president - that doesn't make it not so.  That being said, some argue that Unam Sanctum is infallible, others argue it is not.  

AC adds:  And how about this?

 “But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” [Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Sapientiae Christianae  1890]

Do all Catholics in good standing believe this too?

CA:  Yes, Catholics in good standing need to be in submission and obedience to the will of the Church and to the pope, as to God Himself.  Now that would have limits.  I left out the word "complete" on purpose.  1) This is not an infallible statement and 2) if "obedience" is intrinsically evil or immoral then we would be obliged NOT to obey. 

AristotlesChild aka: LittleLes Says Good-Bye

AC:  It's about time to say good-bye. It's been fun!

I assume you'll be returning to your former websites where, as moderator, you have the authority to control all dialogue.

I'll be continuing on a number of different websites.

On the other hand (there are four fingers and a thumb!Laughing), maybe I'll start my own site where I can be the moderator and find was for deleting posters who disagree with my views, and have the authority, to do so! Apparently, Yahoo Groups is looking for a few good men!


AC/ formerly LL

CA:  Well, if this is good-bye, sobeit Les.  I came to BeliefNet at your invitation, but I'm not going to chase you around - you know where I am.  As for your allegation that I have "the authority to control all the websites" I run, well - again, except for the (which has no forums "on" it) I don't "run" the other "websites."  I do moderate forums on Yahoogroups and this blog on Blogger.  Yes, I DO have the authority to "control all dialog," but I don't.   I allow the free-flow of dialog unless someone breaks the rules.  You are one who broke the rules on the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups (CDF), so you were put on moderation.  The rule you broke was not documenting yourself - OR - you COULD have left your statement as it was and state it was your opinion (since you could not provide valid documentation).  You refused to withdraw the statement you made as fact, or state it was your opinion.  Your obstinate refusal to submit to the moderator request brought the moderation upon you - AND it is STILL within YOUR CONTROL to have that moderation removed!  You have three options:   1) Provide the documentation (which you've already admitted does not exist) or 2) retract your statement or 3) stand firm in your statement, that it is your belief - and your opinion.  Any one of those three options - and moderation would be removed (you're STILL a member of CDF, so you could go back to unmoderated posting immediately).

CA:  As I said, I will not be following Les to other forums - I joined BeliefNet basically after Les challenged that I could not withstand discussion with him in a forum I did not control - and he was proven wrong there too.  He knows where to find me - he knows how to have unmoderated access to CDF and he's not moderated here on the CathApol Blog.  It appears he'd rather be a self-declared martyr than come back to engage in valid discussion where we first met.