JIMMY AKIN.ORG

« Samson the Big Black Dog (And Friends) | Main | An Itch For Information (A Cure For The Curious) »

July 13, 2007

Ex-Catholic Anti-Catholic Bigot at CNN

(Jimmy Akin)

UNBELIEVABLE. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE.

Can't even get the facts straight.

How do I contact someone at CNN to see about writing a response editorial?

Posted by Jimmy Akin in Benedict XVI | Permalink

Comments

Here is his blog. I am sure you could leave an appropriate correction of this wayward son. Sad that someone allows their poor formation to foment even greater ignorance.

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php

Posted by: Tom Seaver | Jul 13, 2007 5:12:47 PM

Considering this is the MSM, your headline should read : Believable. Absolutely Believable.

Posted by: Alois | Jul 13, 2007 5:22:28 PM

*shrug* Standard ignorant snark. Not shocking-- nothing so biased as a former Catholic. (If they're all so happy, why do they keep kicking at the Church?)

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 13, 2007 5:25:25 PM

I recall that it was a CNN indoctrinator--uh, reporter--who called Pope John Paul II "the first non-Catholic pope in 450 years".

You're right, Foxfier; he sure was putting his ignorance on parade.

Posted by: bill912 | Jul 13, 2007 5:35:29 PM

Wow, what an idiot. But what else can one expect from the likes of CNN?

I eagerly await a similar column now from an angry ex-Muslim who bashes Islam, and a reformed homosexual who blasts the homosexual lifestyle. /sarcasm off

Posted by: Kevin | Jul 13, 2007 5:36:18 PM

Everything you ever needed to know about CNN's ability to get the facts straight.

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/cnn_shuttle.jpg

Posted by: Jim | Jul 13, 2007 5:38:12 PM

... hilarious, and hilariously sad. Rather than get upset with him, personally, I'd say we turn his candid and angry reflections as a mirror upon our Post Conciliar Church. His experience, his views, are FAR from extreme and FAR from controversial. For all you 'modern' and 'progressive' Catholics, here's your man, your son, your fruit. There are MILLIONS more like him sitting next to you on Sunday. Pax tecum, +Craig Kelso

Posted by: Craig Kelso | Jul 13, 2007 5:39:32 PM

Flip-side of the same coin.

Posted by: bill912 | Jul 13, 2007 5:46:58 PM

Disregard my above. I mis-read Craig's post. My bad. (Think before posting, dummy!)

Posted by: bill912 | Jul 13, 2007 5:48:22 PM

Jimmy,

Would you explain to why you consider this guy a "bigot"? Maybe he is in error on some things, but he seems sinceere in what he believes.

If I read a Catholic apologist who denounces Martin Luther or John Calvin as evil, do you consider this person a "bigot"?

I was taught by my Catholic priest that anyone who disbelieves in evolution is an ignorant rube. Was my priest an anti-fundamentalist bigot?

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jul 13, 2007 5:49:43 PM

Quick scan of why he's a bigot:
Pope is an "old man trying to get attention"
For 25 years the author didn't know the Bible because he was Catholic.
Despite studying the catechism and going to Church often, he never studied scriptures. (was he sleeping through Mass, or were his altar boy service much more intense than mine?)

Frankly, by the time you get down to the logic of "I feel I wasted my time, therefore whatever the Pope says is meaningless" .... Well, this isn't an unbiased person, eh?

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 13, 2007 6:28:32 PM

big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So as long as a Klu Klux Klansman is sincere in his belief that a white person having relations with a black person, he is not a bigot?

Posted by: Scott W | Jul 13, 2007 6:32:24 PM

Well, at least he isn't one of those "former seminarian seriously considering the priesthood" types.

Posted by: BillyHW | Jul 13, 2007 6:33:22 PM

Many of us who were raised Catholic can testify that we were never encouraged to study the Bible.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jul 13, 2007 6:43:44 PM

Jeb-- I ask again, were you sleeping through Mass?

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 13, 2007 6:46:00 PM

There is a difference between having some Bible readings at mass and encouraging people to study the Bible.

Posted by: Jeb Protestant | Jul 13, 2007 6:47:44 PM

There's a difference between studying the Bible and encouraging folks to read it and come up with their own ideas.

One takes a college-type approach to study-- here is the information, here's what we know about it; the other is trying to teach yourself from a single source book, by your own knowledge.

Which is going to be more effective?

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 13, 2007 6:51:18 PM

The contact information for CNN can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/
Good luck.

Posted by: Paul Hargadon | Jul 13, 2007 7:01:49 PM

Go Jimmy Go! I cannot wait to read your response....if they have the guts to publish it. In the event they don't, please post it here for us anyway.

Posted by: Margaret | Jul 13, 2007 7:07:02 PM

Well, Jeb, I was raised Baptist and was taught to use the Bible as a way of bashing Catholics and such. We were dissuaded from studying 'troublesome passages' like John 6, I Corithians 11, all of the Letter of James...and well pretty much everything that wasn't written by St. Paul or was in the Apocolypse.

Maybe you can answer me this as well, for a guy who things that the Bible can just picked up by anybody and read: How is it that there are 25,000+ strains of protestantism, all of whom claim to be reading the Scriptures correctly? Do we have such a low opinion of the Sacred Scriptures that we think anyone can pick it up and understand as if it were written by Dr. Suess? THe Bible is not a piece of literature to through personal biases and prooftexted to death. It wasn't written in English. Why say that?

Some time ago, a person came here spouting off about how Catholics are wrong about the papacy and proceded to dress us down for not understanding our Greek (the original language of the NT) and cited the word Cephas as an example. Except Cephas is Aramiac, not Greek, and the arguemnt for 'you are rock (Cephas/Petros) and on this rock (Cephas/petra) I build my church. An english speaker doesn't understand the concpet of words having gender (believe me, I have taught spanish!) You wouldn't nickname a male (Petros)by using a feminine word (Petra)even if the words had a slightly different ending. IN aramaic, both are the same which only solidifies what Catholics believe. And, does your average reader know the significance of the Gospel placing the story in Ceseraea Philipi...where there is a large hill that essntially in a solid rock? Or does your average reader know the connection between this scripture passage and the one in Isaiah, and the historical significance of the keeper of the keys? NO, probably not. But it is OK for an average reader to look at this Scripture and get out of it whatever they think? The Scriptures need to be taken far more seriously and reverently than that! Maybe, just maybe, that is why the Catholic Church has not encouraged people to just pick a Bible and start reading without some serious study. The Sacred Scriptures are not some amorphous words that don't have any centralized meaning...they are the self-communication of God with His people.

Is this commentator a bigot? You're damned straight he is! Catholic bashing is still the one true acceptable bias left. Considering that many protestant groups don't even consider Catholics to be Christians, at least Catholic teaching will recognize that protestants are Christians.

Posted by: Fr Bill P | Jul 13, 2007 7:17:05 PM

"Maybe he is in error on some things, but he seems sinceere in what he believes."

He may be sincere in his beliefs, but he's also sincerely incorrect.

Posted by: LarryD | Jul 13, 2007 7:29:46 PM

How telling that he expressed admiration for Fr. Pfleger of Chicago, a self-aggrandizing liberal activist who cozies up to Jesse Jackson and has been reported in the media to have made death threats against a legitimate gunshop owner.

6/25/2007

Personal Views: Reverend Jackson, Father Pfleger and the Famous “Chokehold”…And What is the Only Way to Get Jackson to Call off the Demonstration?

Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Father Michael Pfleger, the Gold Dust twins of Chicago radicalism, were arrested and detained for about an hour after another media event in front of Chuck’s Gun Shop in south suburban Riverdale.

This followed a minor scuff-up and confrontation on charges of criminal trespass involving the Big Two of the city’s ace self-publicists at a store which has, no one doubts, been obeying the law on gun sales. After being released, Reverend Jackson aka “The Pout” charged before the whirring cameras of the electronic media that the gun shop owner has a “chokehold” on the Riverdale police. As for the blond pinwheel of excitability, Fr. Pfleger, he vowed to go to the gun shop with Jackson every Saturday.

If anyone has a chokehold on events, it’s Jackson & Pfleger…both profiting brilliantly with the compliant media (the “Tribune” has yet to even report that the priest, an apparent student of another Catholic cleric, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, threatened to murder the shop owner and those legislators who dare oppose his variant of gun control). Jackson has long held a chokehold on the media and Pfleger has long held a chokehold on the Catholic archdiocese because of his pivotal position as gleaner of Democratic votes which may spell the difference to the layman chancellor, Jimmy Lago, who was one of the best precinct captains the Cook county Democratic party ever had.

http://www.tomroeser.com/sectionlist.asp?s=&month=6&year=2007

One suspects that this author, a bitter ex-Catholic, could not serve two gods - his liberal faith and the faith of the apostles - and so chose the former.

Posted by: Michael | Jul 13, 2007 8:18:54 PM

The Catechism pronounces that, as the one true church, those who are baptized into the Catholic church are assured of heaven:

"The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." Pg. 320, #1257

In the United States, that means 25 percent of the population, or over 60 million people, are headed for heaven.

In many other countries, ninety percent or more of the population is Catholic, meaning nine out of every ten people will pass through the pearly gates. Worldwide, Catholicism claims nearly one billion members.

You may not believe that nearly a billion people could be wrong, but look what Jesus said:

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14

According to Jesus, the masses willingly accept false religious systems that lead to destruction, while few find true salvation that leads to heaven. Could 60 million Americans be considered "few?" Would anyone say that one billion people world-wide is a "few?"

When Jesus walked the earth, a small minority followed Him. Most rejected his teachings and remained in the well established, socially accepted religions. In other words, they rejected the truth so they could keep their religious traditions. Jesus spoke the following words to those who did this:

"...Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9

While Jesus was preaching, one listener who began to comprehend this truth asked Jesus:

"Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." Luke 13:23-24

When Jesus taught his disciples to go out and preach the gospel, he said:

"The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;" Matthew 9:37

In other words, most people are lost and need a Savior, but few have the truth to go and tell them.

Conclusion

Throughout this book, every Catholic doctrine has violated God's Word. Yet millions of Catholics ignore God's instructions and continue following the traditions of men, claiming to be right because they are in a religious majority. Jesus warns:

"...whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man... And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man..." Matthew 7:24, 26

Does God consider you a wise or foolish person? If you believe you can ignore God's commands because you are in a religious majority, you need to read Matthew 7:24-26 again.

Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God's Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23

How is it that so many Catholics can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46

You can ignore this question now, but what will you say when Jesus asks you the same question in person when you die and stand before Him for judgment?

Posted by: NIcki | Jul 13, 2007 8:30:23 PM

Jeb:

Q: What is the Bible? Why do you read the particular Bible that you speak of?

A: Because the Catholic Church decided that your Bible is THE Bible.

There are dozens of Gospels. The Gospels that you read were identified by the One True Church as the word of God.

Holy Scripture and the Church are inseparable.

Posted by: Aaron | Jul 13, 2007 8:31:00 PM

Nicki said:
"Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God's Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23

How is it that so many Christians (of any stripe) can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46

Nicki:
You unwittingly proved Catholic doctrine in your anti-Catholic rant using Scripture. Many will say "I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and personal savior" but will not have done the things He commanded and will thus be cast into eternal punishment. Faith without works is dead. Please try to see the irony in what you posted.
God grant you the ability to see it.

Posted by: tiber jumper | Jul 13, 2007 8:42:40 PM

I submitted a complaint to CNN. Among other things, Mr Martin's rant is just incoherent: if it "doesn't matter" what any religious leader has to say, why does he address himself three paragraphs later to "Protestant leaders"? The man isn't thinking straight.

Jeb,
It's unfortunate that Catholic catechesis hasn't been better; I grew up Protestant, so I won't attempt to diagnose the problem, but none of that takes away from the necessity of the Church to show us the proper interpretation of scripture. "How," asks the Ethiopian eunuch, "can I [understand what I am reading], unless someone guides me" (Acts 8:31). And the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Posted by: The Sheepcat | Jul 13, 2007 8:51:24 PM

Conclusion

Throughout this book, every Catholic doctrine has violated God's Word.

Alternate Conclusion

Throughout this post, Nicki has engaged in intellectual dishonesty, knowingly misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches.

Nicki -- Is that really how you think God wants to spread His Word -- The Truth -- through dishonesty and deliberate falsehoods? Do you really think His Word is not sufficient, that it must really be His Word + your falsehoods?

What is that you are afraid of Nicki? The Truth?

It is hard to draw a different conclusion, because you claim to have read the Catechism, yet willfully (if your claim is true) misrepresent what it teaches.

May the Truth one day set you free.

Posted by: Esquire | Jul 13, 2007 8:58:01 PM

Another sign that Roland Martin is an anti-Catholic bigot is that he obviously did not read the new CDF document that he is mocking and derisively dismissing. Either that, or he read it and has chosen to deliberately lie about what it says. Take your pick -- but either way, he's a bigot, and lacking in intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Jordan Potter | Jul 13, 2007 9:03:18 PM

Nicki,
You write, "Throughout this book, every Catholic doctrine has violated God's Word."

Would that include paragraphs 103 and 104?

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."

Posted by: The Sheepcat | Jul 13, 2007 9:06:54 PM

I'm always amazed by ex-Catholics' comments that they were never "encouraged" to read the Bible. When you're hungry, do you have to be "encouraged" to eat? I want to ask these people, who was assigned to them in the Catholic Church to make sure they DIDN'T read the Bible?

Yes, in my former non-denom community, I was "encouraged" to read the Bible, where I found that Jesus really wanted me to be rich and that if I was sick, it was because I didn't have enough faith. I had a cousin who fell for this garbage too. He had an infection in the sac around his heart that eventually reduced his heart function to 20%. He was "encouraged" to "claim his healing" and tell his doctors that he was "healed by the stripes of Jesus" and that he didn't need their advice. Unfortunately, by the time he wised up, he went into kidney failure and spent the last few years of his life on dialysis. After he died, I didn't go to church anywhere for many years, unwilling to begin the dreaded Protestant "church search." I found the Catholic Church and sanity, thanks be to God.

I predict now that if Protestants respond, they will say, "That's not my church's belief! We condemn that teaching! I say, yes, that may not be your particular church's teaching, but that's the fruit of "studying" the scriptures without a guide to look to--a Church that's been around a couple of millenia and fought off a heresy or two--dangerous ones, like the one my cousin and I experienced.

That's my ex-Protestant story.

Posted by: Arkie Catholic | Jul 13, 2007 9:17:09 PM

It doesn't matter what the speaker says, what matters is how it is received. An example - one must ensure that instructions passed are understood by the receiver. It doesn't make a difference the person passing the instructions thinks he did a fantastic job if the people receiving it doesn't get his message.

In this case - It doesn't matter what B16 says, he is spot on, of course; but the message is lost if he is perceived/interpreted incorrectly. And that seems to have happened now. (Even if it was due to negligence on the part of the reader)

If the reporter thinks B16 is totally off and irrelevant - that's probably how the message is generally received. Is the problem with the reporter and his ilk only? Was the way the proclamation was worded contribute to the confusion?

I think it's a bit of both.

Reality - the CNN reporter won't be the only one to interpret the proclamation this way.

Posted by: Lasalle | Jul 13, 2007 9:33:16 PM

People interpret things the way they WANT to far too often. One of my Lutheran pastors apparently found nothing in the Bible to keep him from leaving his wife and job to pursue happiness in his true calling as a gay man. I think that's about verbatim what the announcement was. I can't imagine the damage this did to his wife, yet supposedly nobody can say this is wrong.

After that, even though I didn't WANT to believe a faith could claim to have authority given by Jesus over me, or that abortion was wrong, or about a half dozen other things, I knew I had to look and see that the truth was. Holiest layperson I ever knew was a good friend that was Catholic. Stayed up to 3-4 AM some nights having theological arguments. He won, thank God.

Ex-Protestant story #2 here. Maybe we can make this a trend. :)

Posted by: Jarnor23 | Jul 13, 2007 9:47:00 PM

JPII had both a political agenda and a pastoral agenda. His pastoral agenda and now BXVI's agenda is the re-christianization of Europe and the re-evangelization of Roman Cathlic countries (i.e., France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, etc.). He's puting emphasis on what you and I were taught since childhood - "There is no salvation outside of the Church of Jesus Christ that subsides in the Roman Catholic Church." We alone have the fullness of truth, the deposit of faith, and we transmit that faith from one generation to the next through the teaching of the Magisterium whose head is the Roman Pontiff. Mr. Martin's mistake is not knowing enough history to understand the pastoral agenda of JPII and BXVI. But by reaffirming our beliefs will that be enough to keep our poorly catechized Roman Catholics from leaving the Church for baptist and evagelical groups?

Posted by: Joey | Jul 13, 2007 10:22:56 PM

Is the problem with the reporter and his ilk only? Was the way the proclamation was worded contribute to the confusion?

I think it's a bit of both.

Lasalle, just out of curiosity, what parts of the document do you think could be worded better?

Also, it seemed to me that the document was primarily written for Catholics as well as non-Catholics involved with ecumenical discussion with the Church. How do you think the document could be changed to make it easier for the media to understand? Could this be done without making the document less effective for the primary audience?

Posted by: Brian Walden | Jul 13, 2007 10:25:42 PM

Jeb, I was encouraged to read the Bible as a young Protestant. Unfortunately, I had no tools to help me understand what I was reading. From what I could see, no one else did, either.

I WAS given a lot of opinions, often conflicting. Each teacher had his/her own logic and approach and reasons for their beliefs. These were explained in great detail, all supported with copious scripture references.

By the time I hit my twenties, I had heard so many wildly differing versions of "Bible Only" Christianity that I had very little confidence in my own - or anyone's - ability to understand and interpret scripture with any authority.

Invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit didn't provide any assurance, either, because ALL these folks did the same. The last thing I could accept was that the Holy Spirit was actually orchestrating this mess.

The final straw was when the preacher at our church began to trot out his favorite bits of liberal theology... the miracles of the Bible were only symbolic, they were just "faith stories", blah, blah... I snapped inside.

Long and short of it... I basically said "You just can't TEACH that and call it Christianity. You're off the reservation...", to which he more or less replied "who says so?".

Who, indeed. That is THE question.

Does anyone have the authority - not just the right, but the authority - to say "This is Christian, and this is not"? If no one has such authority, I'm afraid we are in a desperate way. If you say that EVERYONE has this authority, then we are completely undone, because the fruit of this "authority" has been chaos and confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.

I have believed now, for some years, that this authority is vested in the Church and especially in the Pope. If I call some teaching "out of bounds", well, that doesn't mean much... if the Pope says the same, it really MEANS something. In this way, He is the servant and protector of the word of God in a way you and I can never be.

Well, unless one of us ends up being Pope.

Posted by: Tim J. | Jul 13, 2007 10:31:26 PM

Here's a question for everyone to tackle.

Does the main stream media just reflect the same level of ignorance that's present in the general public when it comes to the Catholic Church? Or does the media purposely fuel the flames of anti-Catholicism?

Posted by: Brian Walden | Jul 13, 2007 10:34:02 PM

"Yes".

Posted by: Tim J. | Jul 13, 2007 10:37:01 PM

Has anyone else attempted to post on his blog? My comment is up now, but I'm the only one? I hardly think that's possible. Maybe he's deleting comments, or maybe no one else has decided to confront him on his on turf. If the latter is true, then there are surely more knowledgeable people than I who may read this - so go :)

Posted by: Rusty | Jul 13, 2007 10:49:33 PM

Mr. Walden, I tend to agree with Lasalle in that JPII stated that "we rejoice with the truth where ever it is found" in that some ecclesial communities proclaim Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church accepts their baptism that makes us sons and daughters of God in Jesus Christ. What we share with other churches who suffer from a "deffect" is salvation through baptism. To call out other Christian churches by saying they'r deffective (that maybe calls into question their salvation) is as we say in Texas to say: them's fightin' words. I can understand the strong response can you?

Posted by: Joey | Jul 13, 2007 10:58:36 PM

Uhm, nevermind. I just noticed, the "awaiting moderation" notice. After looking through his approved comments, it's plain that the guy only let's favorable stuff through. Oh well. I tried.

Posted by: Rusty | Jul 13, 2007 11:07:12 PM

"The Catechism pronounces that, as the one true church, those who are baptized into the Catholic church are assured of heaven:

"The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." Pg. 320, #1257"

Interesting false conclusion here on the part of Nicki or his/her Pope/Minister/Indoctrinator. The only Christians that I know of that teach "assurance of salvation or OSAS" are not Catholic.
But further down we see a rant against works righteousness. Which is it that you think the Catholic Church teaches, Nicki? Or is this just the shot-gun approach; blast away hoping something hits a target?

Here's the entire 1257,
"1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

To say that you cannot get into China without your passport does not guarantee that you will get in to China with it. That determination is out of your hands.

And in the case of baptism we see that Jesus requires it, but that is our requirement. Note that 1257 also says God is not bound by his sacraments, meaning that He can do as He wishes because He is God and if He chooses to save someone without Baptism, that is His choice. Ours is to do as Christ tells us.

You will note as well that the #60 in the quote is a footnote to John 3:5, #61 to Matthew 28:19-20, #62 to Mark 16:16.
Check those out.

Interesting as well, 1257 also refers to the Great Commission given to the Apostles (the first Catholics).

Nicki says, "When Jesus walked the earth, a small minority followed Him. Most rejected his teachings and remained in the well established, socially accepted religions." That is interesting because it sounds like a description of the circumstances of John 6 when many of his disciples left (the first Protestants?) because they couldn't accept his teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We know that Peter (the first Pope) stayed with Jesus as well as the rest of the twelve.

Posted by: LJ | Jul 13, 2007 11:10:42 PM

Joey, did you read the document or just newspaper articles about it? The document stresses all that we share with our separated brothers and sisters. Their only defects are not having apostolic succession and not being in communion with Rome. Which I think most will admit to (although they obviously don't consider them defects).

I can certainly understand, and even expect, a strong response. A strong, intelligent, well-thought-out one. I don't expect non-Catholics to agree with what we believe. But I expect them recognize our right to publicly express our faith. I also hope they expect the same from us. That makes a solid foundation for ecumenism. The Catholic Church issued a short, easy-to-read document clearly explaining responses to questions She had been routinely receiving regarding Her doctrine on the Church. If everyone who's upset with it would write the same type of document about what their church believes instead of whining about how Catholics aren't nice, we might actually start to understand each other a little better. But someone can't get to know who you really are if don't have the guts to be honest with them.

And just to clear up a possible misinterpretation of my original post, I wasn't trying to judge Lasalle's comment either way. I am sincerely curious and would like to know what Lasalle is thinking.

Posted by: Brian Walden | Jul 13, 2007 11:25:12 PM

Jesus never encouraged us to read the bible, mainly because it hadn't yet been written but also because most of the people were illiterate. His apostles didn't tell people to read the bible either. Instead, they told them about the gospel and they sent letters to churches and one another. These letters would have been read aloud at the churches during their gatherings, just as the psalms and other Old Testament passages would have been read aloud. The Early Church didn't encourage Christians to read the bible. They read the bible to them!
Now, which church does that sound like today? Which church spends the majority of its time together on a Sunday reading from scripture or praying using words directly from scripture? Catholics don't come to hear a mere person sermonize, or even homilize. We come to hear the Word of God and consume the Word of God. We don't need to hear someone talk about scripture for an hour when we have heard the Good News proclaimed and have Christ in us!
I also love how he says that we shouldn't listen to religious leaders (like the Pope) but that we should listen to him, a religious leader.

Posted by: Zachary Foreman | Jul 14, 2007 12:39:33 AM

Q: Does the main stream media just reflect the same level of ignorance that's present in the general public when it comes to the Catholic Church? Or does the media purposely fuel the flames of anti-Catholicism?

A: "Yes".

So, it's like a never ending cycle. That's no fun (unless you like to be anti-Catholic).

So why can't major newspapers get one person who knows how to cover religion. I don't expect anyone to be an expert in every religion, but I would think they could find someone who knows how to cover religion in general.

And why doesn't the Vatican get John Allen to write a commentary for English-speaking journalists to be released with all major documents. (Apparently short, succinct documents are too challenging for the press.) Even then, I suppose the old saying will still apply: you can lead a horse to water...

Posted by: Brian Walden | Jul 14, 2007 12:51:44 AM

Poor catechesis combined with an obvious lack of understanding of the teachings of the Church/of the Sacraments he (Mr. Martin) received/and a glaring immaturity of faith-development can do that to a person...especially when you throw willful ignorance into the equation.

As a Brit living across the pond from you all I don't know what impact his vile speil will have on anyone, but I sincerely hope that someone (maybe Jimmy) will publically set the record straight and correct the many errors in Mr. Martin's 'commentary'.

God Bless!

Posted by: ukok | Jul 14, 2007 1:41:49 AM

Oh Gosh this is hilarious! I just copied 'n' pasted the link to Mr. Martin's blog and on the left side of the page is an advertisement for his book entitled,

"Listening to the Spirit Within"

Now THAT is funny!

Posted by: ukok | Jul 14, 2007 1:45:05 AM

Since this nutcase (Martin) is moderating his blog, people should complain directly to CNN.

Posted by: mt | Jul 14, 2007 2:33:06 AM

He may be a bigot for bashing the Pope, but is he not correct that the sermons today are nothing more than a love fest, no talk of hell and scripture warning us not to sin and a catechism that has been changed leading to speculation that it has been changed to suit modern times and offered by laypersons instead of clergy?

Once you start showing chinks in your armor, as the church stood unwavering in her teachings for centuries but then started introducing vague and confusing documents to be more modern, you leave yourself open to question

Posted by: John | Jul 14, 2007 5:23:00 AM

Jimmy, you can contact Roland here: roland@rolandsmartin.com

Posted by: ross | Jul 14, 2007 5:38:18 AM

Thank you , Nicki, for so nicely proving my point. It is a beautiful lesson in anti-catholic prooftexting. Take apassage from here and there, string them together, ignore their context, and make it reach a pre-selected conclusion. OK, Ms. Fewer- is- more- a -sign- of- true- Christianity; praytell...what do you with the entire Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John? What do you do with statements such as "may they be one, Father, as you and I are one"? What do you do with al of St. Paul's eachings on the Body of Christ? While your at it, can you cite where it says that only Scripture can be used for matters of teaching authority? Careful though, anything in the NT only knew of what we consider the OT. Perhaps you can also tell me where is the table of contents in the NT hat tell what books are to be in the NT. Perhaps you can tell me what beliefs that the Church holds are not in Scripture.

Posted by: FR RP | Jul 14, 2007 6:17:33 AM

There are a lot of ignorant and hate-filled ex-Catholics out there, in every walk of life. We just hear mostly about the media ones because they are in the MEDIA.

Posted by: Ed Peters | Jul 14, 2007 6:25:41 AM

Note the contrast between:

Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God's Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:

and

How is it that so many Catholics can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46

Catholics are wrong for both regarding what they do as important and for not regarding it. Simultaneously, one presumes.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 6:34:37 AM

I left some feedback, and also gave links on many facebook forums encouraging feedback. this is absolutely ridiculous

Posted by: Matthew Kelley | Jul 14, 2007 6:47:42 AM

I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and we were issued Bibles from 6th grade on, and studied them in Religion Classes

Posted by: Pete | Jul 14, 2007 7:16:37 AM

You know, that sums up my education about the Church and it wasn't until recently (homeschooling and catholic radio) that I discovered differently. I hope all responses are in charity.

Posted by: AnnonyMouse | Jul 14, 2007 7:50:02 AM

Make it stop.

Posted by: BillyHW | Jul 14, 2007 7:50:33 AM

Just responding to the comment about Catholics and the lack of training/urging to Bible-reading. I think the diverse experiences just show that trouble can start right at home or in school. We can have priests and nuns pouring their hearts out in training us up from the Bible (we had one Jesuit who gave excellent and truly inspiring homilies). But if we had indifferent parents, or schools whose religious education was not at all serious, then we have a problem.

I am blessed (thanks be to God) to have had support in both fronts. My mom read the Bible and we had two Bibles at home. She also had a number of rosaries, and we had crucifixes, icons and statuettes. The nuns who taught us did so from Bible stories, as well as the catechism and other texts, and they also encouraged us in the Rosary.

Gotta keep both fronts faithful and true..

Posted by: Jeff Tan | Jul 14, 2007 7:52:48 AM

Went to the Catholic school from kindergarten-through-senior year of high school. We were instructed from the Bible from the very beginning. But I guess these ex-Catholics went to the schools headed by mysterious albino, Opus Dei monks, seeking to suppress the truth.

Posted by: paul zummo | Jul 14, 2007 7:58:17 AM

John: not all sermons are as soft as you have (sadly) witnessed or heard about. I've had priests from different orders, including Jesuits, Redemptorists, Opus Dei (not a religious order but..) -- and they were not soft on temptation, sin, mortification and the daily cross. That wasn't the only topic they covered, of course, but when the Gospel reading required it, they would faithfully deliver the challenge during the homily. We just have to continue praying for those who never do.

Posted by: Jeff Tan | Jul 14, 2007 8:00:38 AM

I have enjoyed this comments section. I read Martin's article, and although I don't know a whole lot about the Catholic church, I sensed his reaction was emotional and silly. I admit that I don't understand the Vatican's purpose in releasing this new document, but I know so little about the context that I wouldn't want to look foolish criticizing it.

One thing that has interested and surprised me has been the preoccupation with anti-Catholicism. I think the reason I find it fascinating is that I have only recently begun to notice how many groups believe that they hold the title of Last-Group-Socially-Acceptable-To-Criticize. Many Americans say the same thing about anti-Americanism. Protestants say the same sorts of things about Christianity in general (or perhaps in rare cases about their specific denomination, but not about Protestantism since Protestants don't really have a strong cohesive identity as Protestants, except when labeled that way by other groups). Many homosexuals (gasp!) feel the same way. And, speaking again from an American perspective, many non-Black racial minorities here (Hispanics, Native Americans, Arabs) also believe they are the last group people don't have to respect. Undoubtedly, Jews and Muslims feel this way in many parts of the world.

I was once friends with a devout Catholic who had an incredible fear of Shriners, claiming they held bizarre Satanic ceremonies in the name of the destruction of the Church. I always found this very peculiar, as I had never even heard of Shriners before meeting her and she took them as evidence of some vast evil conspiracy against Catholics. But I had to chuckle the other day when I read something about Shriners getting fed up with all the unfounded fear and prejudice against them. Anit-Shrinerism, I suppose. Doesn't this all seem quite silly?

This is anecdotal, and certainly not proof of anything, but perhaps it is why I have such a difficult time seeing rampant anti-Catholicism: I grew up in large, mainstream, not-very-evangelical Presbyterian and United Methodist churches. I experienced not a shred of anti-Catholicism in those churches (my Mom came from a Catholic family, and I guarantee she wouldn't have put up with it had it existed). Am I missing something?

Posted by: John | Jul 14, 2007 8:27:51 AM

John-- I think folks are just reacting a little over-strongly to the way that CNN would NOT have done this sort of a hit piece about Islam, homosexuality, etc.

For your mother, she may have simply not hit the point where it really shows up-- my mom didn't realize how ignorant our local "Christian book store" was until she went in to get me a little travel Bible for graduation. She couldn't find a Catholic version, and asked at the counter. The poor fool had the bad judgment to sniff and inform my mother that they didn't carry Catholic items because they were a *Christian* bookstore.
My mother, the former teacher, gave her a quick history of Christianity and the Bible. ;^)

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 14, 2007 8:42:15 AM

If the reporter thinks B16 is totally off and irrelevant - that's probably how the message is generally received. Is the problem with the reporter and his ilk only?

Yes. When such bias and prejudice shape perception of a message, it is the fault of the biased reporters and biased audience that they didn't hear the message correctly.

Was the way the proclamation was worded contribute to the confusion?

Probably, in that it said something the reporter and the audience didn't believe and didn't want to hear.

Posted by: Jordan Potter | Jul 14, 2007 9:02:50 AM

Yes, the reverend's post fails the tests of logic and coherence, but I think his primary assertion is worth thinking about: if one does not accept papal authority, one shouldn't worry about his statement. Of course, while Protestantism was historically an important and a valuable movement--and one that in many of its incarnations made no claims to authority of its own--its evolving ideas about authority are as illogical and incoherent as the reverend represents them to be.

Now, I'm not a catholic, and I do not accept the claims of apostolic authority made by the papacy--too many holes, too much corruption. That said, I appreciate Benedict's candor, and I think it's important that a catholic believe what he has claimed, else what's the point? Christ invested his disciples (first the 11, then through them a 12th) with priesthood authority, and commissioned them to lead and teach. The conferral of that authority is tied in the NT to the authority to baptize, to introduce believing persons into the fold of Christ. One may be baptized otherwise, but only as a sign of willingness to follow Christ, not as a legitimate entry into his kingdom.

If this authority is central, then the only two churches with any sort of reasonable claim to legitimacy are the catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which argues the loss of authority through an apostasy which had taken hold by the 3rd c, and which was restored by the ministration of, subsequently, John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John.

I favour the second, obviously, but regardless of my persuasion, I like Benedict. And I like to see him drawing definite lines. Too long have we wandered as relativists and populists.

Posted by: DocP | Jul 14, 2007 9:15:01 AM

Does it strike anyone as odd that nobody outside the orthodox Catholics recognizes that this is about the only reasonable position for the leader of any religion to hold? That their way is the true way? Doesn't anybody realize that at least some portion of every religion's belief is incompatible with every other religion and their for one of them must be in error on those points? Do we live in a world were believing someone to be in error is disrespectful???

God Bless,

Matt

Posted by: matt | Jul 14, 2007 9:27:39 AM

Wow! After 2000 years and we had it all wrong! LMAO! That is truly sad. Just because someone is Catholic and leaves the Church, doesn't mean they understand what she is. They leave due to ignorance or not liking the rules God has laid down. I do hope we see a response and soon. Truly amazing!

Posted by: Jim | Jul 14, 2007 9:36:43 AM

In general, the state of Catholic catechesis in this country has been terrible for at least 40 years. In this connection it is not surprising that this ex-Catholic reporter is largely ignorant of genuine Catholic teaching; and it would not be surprising that his Catholic experience with Scripture study and emphasis was inadequate. But the inferences and conclusions he draws from his experiences are neither warranted nor rational. Normally one reads and investigates before opining, but not in this case. It is not unfair to assume that some type of anti-Catholic animus explains his impulsively enthusiastic criticism.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Jul 14, 2007 9:51:57 AM

It's simple to prove that that God intended the church to be an assistant, but not The Path to salvation, as the Catholic Church seems to believe. God is perfect and flawless, man is sinful and flawed. You only have to look at the history of the Catholic church (and the popes) to see endless amounts of sin -- as is true of every church.

God gave us the Bible to show us the way to salvation. When the church elevates itself to the same level as God (e.g., papal infallibility), it has embraced sin and arrogance.

The relationship with God is a personal one. The church can assist us with understanding the bible, but one should always keep in mind that any church is run by fallible and sinful humans. God and the Bible are the only perfect entities.

Posted by: Tim | Jul 14, 2007 10:11:14 AM

Tim: When the church elevates itself to the same level as God (e.g., papal infallibility), it has embraced sin and arrogance.

This is very true. So how does that pertain to the Church? And for the +1,000,000th time with feeling:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it (bold mine)

Last time I check God granted the authority, and not only that promised to make sure that it wouldn't be lost.

Posted by: Skygor | Jul 14, 2007 10:21:14 AM

And who was is that decided which books make up the Bible and which don't?

Posted by: bill912 | Jul 14, 2007 10:28:07 AM

Heh heh, he labeled himself. He was talking about the pope just being a little old man trying to drum up attention, thats all that this chap is trying to do. Unfortunately, his thoughts about the church are echoed by many others.

Just keep praying,
Dave

Posted by: David | Jul 14, 2007 10:29:25 AM

Hi Jimmy,

I hope I didn't overstep my boundaries here but I shot Mr. Martin a challenge on his blog (awaiting moderatin so who knows if it will make it to the page). My challenge was stated as follows:

---

Mr. Martin,

I wonder if you would be open to discussing this topic publicly via a podcast or webcast with someone like Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, or Karl Keating? They work for a Catholic apostolate called Catholic Answers.

I am sure they would be happy to discuss this topic with you in a civil manner. Please email me if you are interested. If you are interested I will reach out to the guys at Catholic Answers to see if they are also interested. I can almost guarantee they would be.

If I don’t hear from you I will assume you are not interested in publicly defending your position.

Finally, in case anyone is interested in reading the actual Vatican document Mr. Martin is referencing you can find it here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

---

Again, hope I didn't overstep my boundaries. I would be happy to host the dialogue on my blog or just as happy to sit back and watch/listen.

Personally, I think this would make for an excellent hour of Catholic Answers Live. Somehow I doubt Mr. Martin is brave enough to take the challenge though.

Pax Christi,
Ron Pereira
Catholic Reply dot Com

Posted by: Ron Pereira | Jul 14, 2007 10:42:29 AM

When will some learn that the Church created the Bible, not the other way around?

Posted by: Speedmaster | Jul 14, 2007 10:55:16 AM

Ron, I have no idea whether you overstepped, but not to worry. He'll never respond. He doesn't want a dialog with the purpose of discovering truth; he wants a soapbox for the purpose of airing his opinions.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Jul 14, 2007 11:02:48 AM

I've heard it said numerous times that "Jesus did not come to write a book"....he came to bring us through His love, the salvation that mankind does not deserve. To show us the the path of life, the Way.

Posted by: Jason T | Jul 14, 2007 11:22:40 AM

I'd be interested to know from you all, that given what the pope has said, or written that is, who believes that Protestants will not be saved? Did this new information change your minds in any direction?

Posted by: Wes | Jul 14, 2007 11:23:06 AM

God gave us the Bible to show us the way to salvation.

The Bible itself warns us that no part of it is subject to private interpretation.

(Some translations render that verse that no "prophecy" is so subject, but since prophecy is inspired speech, and all Scripture is inspired -- QED)

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 11:23:53 AM

I'd be interested to know from you all, that given what the pope has said, or written that is, who believes that Protestants will not be saved?

Did he say anything that means an objective state of schism is damnable, regardless of any circumstances or conditions? If not, what's to change?

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 11:25:10 AM

To answer a few comments, yes, the Bible was assembled by the early church, but was given to us by men inspired by God. This has nothing to do with the church, and everything to do with God.

Everyone, including those of high station, learns on the path to God. No one can claim infallible knowledge -- that's why trust *must* be put in God, and not in the church. The Catholic church (and all churches) have proven over and over and over again to be very fallible and very sinful. That is the nature of man, pope -or- pauper.

Anyone who puts their trust in the church over God commits sin. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me." Truth belongs to God, and only God. Putting ultimate trust in man or any institution created by man elevates man above God.

Posted by: Tim | Jul 14, 2007 11:40:27 AM

Mary, Some Catholics are so swayed by the word of the Pope, it been my experience that they like the media can misinterpret his words. Also if the Bible is not open to private interpretation, who is the "group" to interpret the scriptures. A church, the Catholic church, the Pope. It just all seems so silly. The Protestants all have their beliefs, just as the Catholics do. And each have their own explanations as to why their belief is correct. Obviously no one will be swayed on this blog, just as no one on a Protestant blog will be swayed either. Doesn't it really all come down to our Holy Spirit, and God at work in us. First, if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the if we are doing what the Holy Spirit is telling us is right, and God, or Jesus does not convict us that what we are doing is wrong, who's to tell me that my faith is not the true faith. I am not a bible scholar or theologist by any stretch. But this bantering about what scriptural interpretation is correct is meaningless. If the issues we're discussing will determine our salvation, don't you think God would have made it more clear in the Bible. God is merciful!! Amen!!

Posted by: Wes | Jul 14, 2007 11:41:44 AM

An otherwise pretty good conservative journal, the Patriot Post (by Mark Alexander), has also weighed in with his anti-catholicism...

http://patriotpost.us/

Posted by: Steve | Jul 14, 2007 12:20:25 PM

Tim says, "No one can claim infallible knowledge".

Weren't the human authors of Sacred Scriptures infallible? Did the Church act infallibly when it defined the canon of Scripture (which books to include and which to exclude). Was the Church infallible when it defined the doctrine of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ? What about the Apostles creed or the Nicene creed?

Didn't Christ promise not to leave us "orphaned" and to "be with you always" and to "lead you into all truth"? Fallibly or infallibly?

Posted by: Mark | Jul 14, 2007 12:24:13 PM

Tim,

I realize that to point this out is likely futile, but since I have nothing better to do at the moment...

You contradict yourself. In the first paragraph of your comment (at 11:40 am) you accept that the church was indeed infallibly inspired by God when she compiled the biblical cannon - then in subsequent paragraphs you say that the church is not infallible.

Please pick one side or the other...

Posted by: Steve | Jul 14, 2007 12:32:43 PM

Mark -- the bible was created by men inspired by God. In this special case, man's hand was guided by God to give us the scripture. That is very different than claiming the church is infallible. Look at the history of the king James bible, and all the problems they had with sinful men attempting to change the text. That's the church at work, not God.

Christ did indeed make us many promises, but they were personal promises to each man and woman to lead us to salvation. He did *not* make promises that we can put perfect trust in church leaders, only in God.

Do you sincerely believe the Catholic church (or any church) is free from sin? Do you believe in papal infallibility? Do you believe all popes since the beginning of the Catholic church have been free of sin and have been infallible? The idea is historically absurd. Yet, the Catholic church claims their leadership is equivalent to God. That is clear sin.

No, Jesus did not die on the cross for the church, he did it for each and every one of us, as individuals. All men are sinners in the eyes of God, including the pope.

Posted by: Tim | Jul 14, 2007 12:37:58 PM

I would like to add that infallibility is only with faith and morals, we are not saying the pope doesn't sin or everything he says is true, so it does not "prove the Church fallible" because in the past the Church was corrupt. I ask, did any of those corrupt men actually TEACH what they were doing, the answer is no, to paraphrase Peter Kreeft (or at least I think it went something like this) they may not have raised their action to their teaching, but neither did they lower their teaching to their acion.

Also, yes, the writers were inspired, but the stuff was being taught before it was written, and it was the Church that decided what was true or not, and what went into the Bible, so it has everything to do with the Church and it has everything to do with God. Of course, since we are all siful, perhaps the Bible is also false.

Finally, the Church was instituited by Jesus, not man, he is the invisible head of the Church, so we are putting our trust in him, and the Church he created and leads.

Posted by: Bookworm | Jul 14, 2007 12:41:21 PM

Steve,
You are right, of course. But Tim's response will be that God worked a miracle through the Church when She compiled the Biblical canon, but not afterward, at least not in any consistent way. This strange exceptionalism makes sense to Tim because he sees everything through the lens of sola scriptura. Since we had to have the Bible, God used the Church to work a miracle to give it to us. That's all. The fact that the Bible does not endorse sola scriptura is just a mystery he's willing to live with.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Jul 14, 2007 12:42:59 PM

O and it is exactly the same thing as infallibilty that the Bible was inspired, the writers wrote the truth free of error, and when the Church compiled it they were free from error in doing so, this is infallibility.

(O and note that part about the bible being sinful is sarcasm)

Posted by: Bookworm | Jul 14, 2007 12:45:03 PM

This is a transcript of what I entered into their "Feedback" dialog box:

Re: Roland S. Martin's commentary on Pope Benedict XVI (07-13-07):

I am at a loss to understand how you could permit this to be published under your banner. "...an old man trying to get a little attention." ??? That "old man" gets all the attention that anyone could handle; he has no need to simper.

He also shows, for one who was supposedly a "die-hard Catholic" who was a "dedicated student of Catechism," a remarkable inability or unwillingness to *understand* this instruction.

First, Benedict did not issue it. A department of his Curia did.

Second, it taught nothing new. Really, absolutely nothing new. Everything that the instruction contained was to be found in Church documents dating back to Vatican II, and even earlier, including the distinction between "Churches" on the one hand, and "ecclesial communities" on the other.

Do you have editors? Do your editors exercise due discretion? Do they have experts they can consult with? Or does CNN stand behind this, disclaimer and all?

I only had a thousand characters to work with. I would have liked to have written more.

Posted by: Joe Prioli | Jul 14, 2007 12:52:26 PM

Oh, those pesky Catholics!

If only they'd go away and never come back. Or better yet, if only they'd never come around at all!

Yeah, that's the ticket. No Catholics! Then us Protestants wouldn't have .... wouldn't have ...

Oh. I guess we wouldn't have Christianity. Damn. I hate it when the Catholics are right.

Posted by: Michelle | Jul 14, 2007 1:29:04 PM

People who aren't in the church care inordinately what we think, which is mighty peculiar, it's true.

Also, I am a convert to the Catholic Church, but I am well aware that it is possible for people to fall out of the Church, and have opinions like this. We don't educate our members worth a darn, and many Catholics are functionally illiterate about religion. So when they leave, what should we expect them to say???

Posted by: michigancatholic | Jul 14, 2007 1:51:44 PM

Why doesn't the catholic church encourage home bible studies? Or do they, and I just miss it? I understand they would not want it mis interpretted but Christ said to meditate on it day and night?

Posted by: Wes | Jul 14, 2007 2:09:33 PM

It gets a little old refuting the same misconceptions over and over again, especially when they have already been refuted in the same thread. The Catholic Church encourages the reading and study of the Bible. I wish that non-Catholics would find out what the Church really teaches, rather than relying on what non-Catholics say the Church teaches.

Posted by: bill912 | Jul 14, 2007 2:21:47 PM

To answer a few comments, yes, the Bible was assembled by the early church, but was given to us by men inspired by God. This has nothing to do with the church, and everything to do with God.

Everyone, including those of high station, learns on the path to God. No one can claim infallible knowledge -- that's why trust *must* be put in God, and not in the church

Nonsense. If people inspired by God can write the Bible and know what the canon is, they can claim infallible knowledge.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 2:44:53 PM

Also if the Bible is not open to private interpretation, who is the "group" to interpret the scriptures. A church, the Catholic church, the Pope. It just all seems so silly.

Tim, it is clear that you do not believe that "God gave us the Bible to show us the way to salvation." You have just declared that the explicit teaching of the Bible "silly".

Doesn't it really all come down to our Holy Spirit, and God at work in us. First, if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the if we are doing what the Holy Spirit is telling us is right, and God, or Jesus does not convict us that what we are doing is wrong, who's to tell me that my faith is not the true faith.

Except that here you are assuming that it is the Holy Spirit working in you. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God;"

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 2:50:02 PM

Look at the history of the king James bible, and all the problems they had with sinful men attempting to change the text. That's the church at work, not God

That's schismatics at work. They had separated themselves, deliberately and willfully, from the Church which Jesus founded on Peter, and to say their sins rebound against the Church they revolted against is -- silly, at best.

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 2:52:25 PM

If people inspired by God can write the Bible and know what the canon is, they can claim infallible knowledge.

Anyone can claim anything.

Posted by: Margaret | Jul 14, 2007 2:54:46 PM

It gets a little old refuting the same misconceptions over and over again, especially when they have already been refuted in the same thread.

Love is patient, bill.

Also, "the one who perseveres to the end will be saved."

0:)

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 2:55:19 PM

Unbelievable.

I just wrote a parody, taking the perspective of an early Christian objecting to the arrogance of the Apostles to claim that theirs was the true faith.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/391/Those-arrogant-Apostles

Posted by: Stephen Korsman | Jul 14, 2007 3:14:09 PM

Stephen's parady is a well-crafted hoot. Take a look.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Jul 14, 2007 3:24:18 PM

"To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn't compromise on this issue either."

Well done, Stephen. Well done.

You very eloquently stated what I have tried to communicate to non-catholics in the past. The apostles were human just like us. Open to temptation and ego. They could have easily splintered and started their own versions of a Christian church. Instead, they martyred themselves rather than allow their faith to be compromised.

Posted by: Michelle | Jul 14, 2007 3:42:24 PM

"To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn't compromise on this issue either."

Well done, Stephen. Well done.

You very eloquently stated what I have tried to communicate to non-catholics. The apostles were mere men, subject to temptation and ego like any modern day man. They could have easily splintered and headed up their own version of the church, yet instead, they were each martyred as they stood fast and strong, uncompromised and TOGETHER for the one, true faith.

Posted by: Michelle | Jul 14, 2007 3:53:13 PM

What's unbelievable is that CNN allows this type of bigoted commentary. Anti-Catholicism is rampant in the media but they get a free pass. My homily was on the CDF document this weekend and how much outcry it caused. The media does cartwheels to explain away the motives and actions of radical Islamists and trys to re-interpret what the word jihad means. Nice of CNN and the secular media to try to help us understand those who hate us while taking a bigoted narrow unexamined view of a faith that is primarily responsible for building this Western Civilization. God speed, Jimmy. Hope they publish your rebuttal.

Posted by: Msgr. Eric Barr | Jul 14, 2007 4:15:14 PM

"The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view."

Posted by: Rana | Jul 14, 2007 5:08:21 PM

Catholic "Bible Study" is not just on Sundays--in many parishes it is 365 days a year (including daily Mass and a sermon on the readings.) Is there a Protestant parish anywhere that can match that??? And we Catholics have been doing this in the vernacular since long before Vatican II. The trouble is we Catholics --and Protestants-- have been brainwashed to the academic mold--that only classroom style lectures are "Bible Study." I am 64 years old and as long as I can remember I have heard that we should get to "Bible Study" in church whenever possible, preferably every day at Daily Mass.

Posted by: deacon john m. bresnahan | Jul 14, 2007 5:13:20 PM

Hi,

During a recent Sunday evening service while watching Focus on the Family's "Truth Project" video, an atheist said that, if there were a God, he'd rather go to hell than be in heaven with preachers.

The reaction of the evangelical Protestants was predictable. They dismissed the comment with a click of their tongues. I, on the other hand, was heart-broken. What was it about preachers (and we evangelicals in general) that has turned this man against God to the point he'd prefer hell? If it were the offense of the cross, that'd be one thing. My suspicion is that many are turned off from God because of the offense of Christians.

I would encourage Roman Catholics to look beyond the anti-Catholic (and anti-loving) comments in the CNN editorial. See if there might be some (however small) truth to be concerned about. What can the church do to help people have the experience the editorialist felt was lacking?

I know it's tough to focus on all that is wrong with our critics. If we approach their comments humbly, we might learn something.

Love your blog, Jimmy.

God bless you all.

-Rod

Posted by: Rod Sissel | Jul 14, 2007 5:14:40 PM

Is there a forum where Catholics can discuss text and issues in the Bible. How about fellowship. Or is it just told to them at Mass everyday of the week.

Posted by: Wes | Jul 14, 2007 5:52:47 PM

In the writer's experience, "we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily."

I don't think that's an isolated experience.

Posted by: Melissa | Jul 14, 2007 5:59:56 PM

Wes, by your own account, you have been to one Catholic "service" (BTW, we don't have a service, we have the Mass). If you were a regular at many Catholic parishes, you would find many Bible studies and a family-based study of the faith. IOW, yes, we do have Bible studies, (I really don't know what "fellowship" is--sorry) But, I do know that my Catholic parish supports a health care clinic for those who falls through the cracks(no government money--just donations), has a prison ministry, and a Lord's diner to feed the hungry. Is that fellowship?

Posted by: marymargaret | Jul 14, 2007 6:12:35 PM

Mary Margaret- most Masses I've been to on Sunday morning are followed by coffee and companionship; I've been told that's one of the forms of "fellowship."

Wes, at my small home church-- a "satellite parish," which means we share a priest with several other small towns-- we had CCD, a youth group that met regularly with Father for Bible study (and every year meets with other youth groups and the Bishop), a Bible Study, womens' Bible study and Prayer group (which did most of the organizing for CCD), and I know there was a Knights of Columbus within decent driving distance. (At the main Parish that our Fathers are based out of, actually.)
All this in a very small church.

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 14, 2007 6:29:15 PM

Foxfier, I actually grew up in a "mission" parish. Sounds very similar--we also had a priest who rode the circuit, so to speak. They still do, BTW. Oh, yes, at my current parish, we do the coffee (really bad coffee!) and doughnut thing after Mass. We also have a parish picnic, many youth groups, etc. Small parishes sometimes do these things better, I think. Maybe just because we all really know one another. My current parish is a pretty big one (for Kansas), and a pretty wealthy one (ditto), but I have never met with less than true kindness and love from my fellow parishoners or my (overworked) priest. God is so very good!

Posted by: marymargaret | Jul 14, 2007 7:34:38 PM

*giggles* I confused the heck out of my Husband To Be when I referred to a day being so long that I needed "Church coffee"-- which, for me, means that I pour enough creamer and sugar into the black sludge to make it drinkable, and it's far better than an energy drink.

I like "mission" parish a lot more! Mind if I borrow it?

Posted by: Foxfier | Jul 14, 2007 7:38:57 PM

In the writer's experience, "we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily."

I don't think that's an isolated experience.

Very likely, but it's not avoidable. We are warned that we will "grow together until the harvest."

Posted by: Mary | Jul 14, 2007 7:57:27 PM

Foxfier, Congratulations on your upcoming marriage! Ad multos annos! I really don't know the definition of a mission parish, but that is what a priest told me that my old hometown parish was. This could be a good question for Jimmy. But, by all means, borrow it if you like, at least until we know what it is.

BTW, Jimmy, sorry to have gotten off topic here. I was so angry when I read Mr. Martin's diatribe, that I had to think about the good in order to avoid the near occasion of sin. I do hope that you are allowed to rebut, and that CNN gives you the same forum--but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: marymargaret | Jul 14, 2007 8:30:00 PM

I can't help but e-mailing Mr. Roland Martin. This poor man is the casualty of poor faith formation, weak faith. Here is a copy of my e-mail to him. He and his family need our prayers.

From: T.V.
Sent:Sat 7/14/07 10:01 PM
To: roland@rolandsmartin.com

Dear Mr. Martin:

Shame on you! You are what we called fallen-away Catholic. The kind of ex-catholics that betray us, the faith-filled Catholics in a worse way. You have no one to blame but your poor education of Catholic
Faith.

Tell me that you really read the Catholic Catechism from page to page, that you learned the real meaning of a Catholic Mass, that you participate whole-heartedly in each Sunday Mass and heard with your heart the readings from old testament, new testament, book of psalms. You were SLEEPING all those 15 years when you were a Catholic because you did not participate at all and you did not respond to the call of Holy Spirit yourself when you committed schism, became a heretic. I do not have a journalistic degree and may not be good at playing with words like you. But Lord Jesus does not care because I believe in the TRUTH. I do not twist the TRUTH the way you did!

To point you the way, please do the following: 1) look up the CD, DVD, books of Dr. Scott Hahn (well known protestant theologian turned Catholic) 2) watch Journey Home Program Monday 7 PM CT at EWTN TV among other means of going HOME. Google has Marcus Grodi's Journey Home website (He was a Protestant Minister before finding the Truth in Catholic Church) 3) Look up other well-known stories of Protestant
converts to Catholicsm - Dr. Alex Jones (Black Minister), and more recently the protestant theologian Francis Beckwith. Since your wife is a Protestant Minister you should have easy access to these and many other reliable witness stories.

For the sake of your salvation please make an effort to get rid of your ignorance. Seek the Truth. Ask the
grace of Holy Spirit to remove the plunk in your eyes. Do not blame the Catholic Religion for your ignorance of scripture. After all it was St. Jerome (a Catholic Saint in case you do not know him) who said "Ignorant of scripture is ignorant of Christ".

I believe that I am doing a spiritual act of charity. Pope Benedict XVI says God is Love. I pray you respond to the Triune God like Dr. Alex Jones and the others. Let me know if you would like me to provide you with CD, DVD, books in your quest of the TRUTH.

I will be including you, your wife and your family in my daily prayer. May God bless you abundantly and may the Holy Spirit leads you home to the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. You will always be welcome home. The One True Church can make good use of the gifts and talents you and your wife have to bring many people home to Jesus Christ, our Lord. On that beautiful day, please remember me and let me share your joy.

Sincerely your,

Terry Vaidya
(gitavaidya@hotmail.com)

Posted by: Terry Vaidya | Jul 14, 2007 10:20:12 PM

YES!

When we are exposed to this sort of vitriol in the mainstream public media, it can only mean we are unto something.

Now let's say a decade for Roland S. Martin.

His grandparents, who were co-founders the Catholic parish he so long ago attended, would do no less.

Posted by: A Simple Sinner | Jul 14, 2007 11:12:56 PM

Many in the world do not understand what it means to be Catholic. The word Catholic means to be Universal. To be Catholic means you are under The One Universal Almighty God. As is what is written from the Book of Genesis and through out the Books of Ages, or what we call The Holy Bible. God reveals words and symbols to his children. Not in The Holy book alone but in our very human hearts. The Holy Bible is only one of many references we can relate to Our Father and in whole the Holy Trinity. Why do we forget the most important of everything we write down? We all as a world even twist Our Lords own words to benefit our arguments. Yet we should never forget that even Our Lord, The Son, Jesus Christ warned us about what we may say. For even in our words, in our hearts will not only shed Good but may also create Evil and that will tear us away from Our Father. Read and contemplate this passage and truly listen to your own heart, for only their will you hear and hope to listen to Our Father teaching you how to live.
Mathew Chapter 12
12:10. And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

12:11. But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?

12:12. How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the Sabbath days.

12:13. Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand; and he stretched it forth, and it was restored to health even as the other.

12:14. And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him, how they might destroy him.

(Even here the priests and all of those who thought they were doing God’s work tested Jesus and tried to have Our Lord disgraced and humiliated. Continuing on...)

12:15. But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all.

12:16. And he charged them that they should not make him known.

12:17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:

12:18. Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

12:19. He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

12:20. The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory.

12:21. And in his name the Gentiles shall hope.
(As Roman Catholics and as Good Christians we shall continue to do what is right and allow the Word of God to be heard, whether we are The Pope, priests, teachers, rich, or poor, we must follow because we are one body with Christ. Such has Christ Our Lord has done in the past; we must be God’s people.)

12:22. Then was offered to him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw.

12:23. And all the multitudes were amazed, and said: Is not this the son of David?
12:24. But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

(Here Jesus Our Lord is acknowledged for doing God’s work, and so too the Pope and many people in the world are acknowledged for doing God’s work. Why should you condemn someone for doing God’s work? And Our Lord still tries to teach the Pharisee’s in his time and to those who read and bash the Bible on everyone else is doing wrong.)
12:25. And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.

12:26. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?

12:27. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

12:28. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.

12:29. Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house.

12:30. He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

(Here Jesus, Our Lord, makes a statement. God tells you what he thinks about what you are doing. Do you not listen?)
12:31. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

(read this)
(The blasphemy of the Spirit... The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such willful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church. )
12:32. 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.

(Nor in the world to come... From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog. 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place. )
12:33. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.

(Here God in the form of Jesus Christ is making judgment already about what we may say or do, and warns us to make sure they are Good. For we will all be judged by our hearts.)
12:34. O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

(Again Jesus warns us all but mainly to those who will use the Bible to twist every word to tear the Church apart, and to those say they Christian and yet don’t live it. Many people fall into this category and they are people who were raised Catholic, protestant, etc. It is the Catholic Church that is bringing these errors to light and the only Body of Christ that wants to save God’s people.)
12:35. A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

12:36. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the Day of Judgment.

(Every idle word... This shows there must be a place of temporal punishment hereafter where these slighter faults shall be punished. )
12:37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

12:38. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee.

(A sign... That is, a miracle from heaven. [Luke 11:16] Could this sign be also something that an evil doer wants proof that they are better than everyone else? And the only true people of God, could these be the ones who believe in the rapture? Jesus the Son of God tells us all what happens when we expect a sign saying...)
12:39. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

12:40. For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

(Three days, etc... Not complete days and nights; but part of three days, and three nights taken according to the way that the Hebrews counted their days and nights, viz., from evening to evening. )
12:41. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here.

12:42. The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here.

12:43. And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none.

12:44. Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

12:45. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation.

12:46. As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.

12:47. And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.

12:48. But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?

(Who is my mother?... This was not spoken by way of slighting his mother, but to show that we are never to suffer ourselves to be taken from the service of God, by any inordinate affection to our earthly parents: and that which our Lord chiefly regarded in his mother, was her doing the will of his Father in heaven. It may also further allude to the reprobation of the Jews, his carnal kindred, and the election of the Gentiles. Could this also be a reason why priests must not be married? Why would Jesus Son of God want us to not be caught up in worldly affairs when we are doing God’s work? Could it be that God’s work is more important that your own immediate family?)
12:49. And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.

12:50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(Here God, The Son of Man, Jesus Christ tells us that it is those who follow his words and continue to never persuade from it the people of God. Did you know that the Catholic Church’s Teachings have not been changed in the slightest for 2,000 years since Jesus? Did you know that maybe the reason the pope and the Catholic Church wont change certain things like women priests or priests being married because that is how Jesus Christ the Son of God wanted it? If Jesus Christ taught to his disciples to teach everyone what the Catholic Church is teaching us today then why do you want to persecute it? Why do you hate it so? As Christians we must follow Jesus Christ’s teachings and live them. As Roman Catholics we must never silence our voice for we are following what Our Lord, Jesus Christ wants us to do. To do God’s work. Amen.)

Posted by: Chris | Jul 15, 2007 12:16:08 AM

Wow.. I have read many things over the years from "Ex-Catholics." But this guy takes the cake.

I honestly doubt you would see someone from CNN attacking another religious group at all. Because the backlash from said groups would overwhelm them.

Perhaps we need to be more vocal about our sadness over the clearly misdirected Mr. Martin.

I also read Stephen Korsman's parody that he did. Good stuff.

-The One Called Zorron

Posted by: The One Called Zorron | Jul 15, 2007 12:30:19 AM

Ok this is a response to Jim way way towards the begging of this blog posting. WARP 18! Wow, better tell Star Fleet. CNN is the most pathetic anti catholic news organization I ever seen. There former president and founder insulted several staffers a few years ago when he asked them why the heck they had a smudge on their forehead, of course it was about 40 days till Easter Sunday but hey he's a moron who thinks the shuttle can go wrap 18!

Posted by: BrianC | Jul 15, 2007 3:29:50 AM

Mr. Esau,
Where are you ? didn't reply for this article ,why?

Posted by: Alex Benziger.G | Jul 15, 2007 9:39:49 AM

Would the above be a Rule 22 violation?

Posted by: bill912 | Jul 15, 2007 10:03:49 AM

CONTACT CNN.COM
Type of error: (Wrong information, editorial slant, information left out, etc.)

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form6.html?1

Posted by: Write-it-up-Jimmy | Jul 15, 2007 10:17:28 AM

The Decline of Controversy - By Most Rev. Fulton Sheen

I believe people need to ask more questions with an open heart then attempt to attack something they know nothing about. What happens to an army that attacks a target they think they know about, but find out they were wrong. They all die.

Posted by: Jim | Jul 15, 2007 11:44:29 AM

Many comments ago, someone asked if orthodox Catholics were the only ones to get what the document said correct.

Actually, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, understands it pretty well. He, however, still thinks that it says that loyalty to the Pope makes a body of believers, a Church, rather than Apostolic Sucession (and therefore a valid Eucharist.)

Posted by: Anna | Jul 15, 2007 12:04:37 PM

DocP,

"...the only two churches with any sort of reasonable claim to legitimacy are the catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which argues the loss of authority through an apostasy which had taken hold by the 3rd c...."

The loss of authority through such an apostasy is not possible because Jesus promised to be with the Church founded on Peter (the first Pope, though that title would appear later) forever and that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. Such an apostasy would clearly be a victory for hell. Also, if this loss of validity happened in the third century then that would mean that God basically just ditched the Church and all Christians for 1500 years since Mormonism wasn't known until the 1800s. Like many here I am a convert to the Catholic Church and this same sort of issue was an important one in my own conversion - I realized that if the Catholic Church were illegitimate then there must not have been any true Christians from Biblical times until the Protestant Deformation, a notion that I cannot accept. Thank you for speaking charitably of our Papa by the way. Would that more non-Catholics would try to understand what's being asserted, like you have, instead of just reacting in knee-jerk fashion. Careful though, I know from experience that once one begins to try to understand Catholic teaching, from Catholic sources, his objections may be thoroughly answered. You may or may not be interested to know that Catholic Answers (catholic.com) has several articles concerning Mormonism.

May God bless you.

Posted by: Elijah | Jul 15, 2007 1:10:35 PM

By the way, here are some examples of what happens when one doesn't bother to find out what Church teachings are, but prefers jumping to conclusions:

Tim wrote:

"Do you believe all popes since the beginning of the Catholic church have been free of sin and have been infallible? The idea is historically absurd."

Even though no Catholic has ever made such a claim (that of sinlessness of popes). Pope John Paul II went to confession either weekly or daily (I can't remember which), so likely the Pope himself would be the first to admit his sinfullness.

And Wes wrote:

"Did this new information [in the document] change your minds in any direction?"

Even though no new information is contained in the document, a fact that has been stated in this very thread.

And,

"...who believes that Protestants will not be saved?"

Even though the document says nothing of the sort.

I'm not trying to be harsh, because I was guilty of the same sort of assumptions when I was a Protestant. I'm just pointing these examples out because I think they show the importance of finding out what Catholic teaching actually is, from Catholics, realizing that there is a need to understand what Catholics actually mean when they say certain things rather than getting upset and leaping to false conclusions over what one assumes them to mean.

Posted by: Elijah | Jul 15, 2007 1:28:55 PM

And Wes wrote: "Did this new information [in the document] change your minds in any direction?" Even though no new information is contained in the document, a fact that has been stated in this very thread.

Wes himself didn't write the words "[in the document]". The "new information" Wes spoke of may be the newly published document itself. In that light, I find Wes's questions to be relevant and interesting.

Posted by: Edith | Jul 15, 2007 3:47:13 PM

Watch Protestant Bible "Study on" Tv-- in the end it is just the same as much Bible "Study" in Protestant Churches. The minister opens the Bible, says to turn to a passage, then he pontificates to the assembled-- who say nothing and accept what he says as avidly as if he were pope. In Protestant parishes I have visited it is the same in "Bible Study Classes." Although there may be more discussion or questions than at Daily Mass, in the end it is the minister-scholars' expertise and information (and his doctrines) which carry the day.

Posted by: <