Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

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

July 13, 2007

Comments

Tom Seaver

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

Alois

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

Foxfier

*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?)

bill912

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.

Kevin

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

Jim

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

Craig Kelso

... 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

bill912

Flip-side of the same coin.

bill912

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

Jeb Protestant

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?

Foxfier

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?

Scott W

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?

BillyHW

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

Jeb Protestant

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

Foxfier

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

Jeb Protestant

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

Foxfier

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?

Paul Hargadon

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

Margaret

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.

Fr Bill P

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.

LarryD

"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.

Michael

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.

NIcki

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?

Aaron

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.

tiber jumper

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.

The Sheepcat

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).

Esquire

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.


Jordan Potter

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.

The Sheepcat

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."

Arkie Catholic

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.

Lasalle

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.

Jarnor23

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. :)

Joey

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?

Brian Walden

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?

Tim J.

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.

Brian Walden

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?

Tim J.

"Yes".

Rusty

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 :)

Joey

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?

Rusty

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.

LJ

"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.

Brian Walden

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.

Zachary Foreman

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.

Brian Walden

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...

ukok

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!

ukok

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!

mt

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

John

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

ross

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

FR RP

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.

Ed Peters

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.

Mary

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.

Matthew Kelley

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

Pete

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

AnnonyMouse

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.

BillyHW

Make it stop.

Jeff Tan

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..

paul zummo

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.

Jeff Tan

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.

John

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?

Foxfier

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. ;^)

Jordan Potter

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.

DocP

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.

matt

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

Jim

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!

Mike Petrik

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.

Tim

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.

Skygor
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.
bill912

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

David

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

Ron Pereira

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

Speedmaster

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

Mike Petrik

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.

Jason T

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.

Wes

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?

Mary

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)

Mary

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?

Tim

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.

Wes

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!!

Steve

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

http://patriotpost.us/

Mark

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?

Steve

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...

Tim

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.

Bookworm

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.

Mike Petrik

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.

Bookworm

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)

Joe Prioli

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.

Michelle

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.


michigancatholic

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???

Wes

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?

bill912

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.

Mary

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.

Mary

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;"

Mary

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.

Margaret

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

Anyone can claim anything.

Mary

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:)

Stephen Korsman

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

Mike Petrik

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

Michelle

"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.

Michelle

"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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31