markomalley

Profound statement, Socks

Raf, you are missing the point I am getting at. I truly believe that baptism is an essential sacrament. That much hasn't changed. However, I also believe that God is truly merciful and that his mercy passes what I am capable of understanding. As a Catholic, we are often confronted with the question, what about somebody who lives a good life, intuitively understands that there is a creator, and endeavors to live his life in true reverence to that creator and in love to his fellow man. But this person has never heard the name of Jesus Christ. So is this person condemned to eternal damnation? The pat answer is that we believe that God is a God of mercy and that the judgement on this person will be less severe than that of a person who, knowing God, decides to reject Him. And, in fact, God's mercy may be such that this theoretical person who has never heard the name of Christ but who lived a "Christian"-like life may end up in heaven. Note the words: may and could. Not will and shall. There is a difference. That's why I worded my response as follows: ...Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything. That fact would, in fact, change everything. Then the person may be dealt with as one who is ignorant, like the person who hasn't ever heard the name of Christ but who lived a good and proper life. But what situation is that person in? A big maybe. If. Could. Hopefully. Is that the same as saying it's not necessary? Not hardly. The difference is that I am not willing to provide the condemnation to anybody. You won't find ME making a judgement that a person is going to hell. God is merciful. And its not my place to decline that mercy to anybody. But knowing and trusting in God's mercy is different than remaining in intentional ignorance in order to FORCE God's mercy. There is a difference.

The Catholic should be loyal to his God. The document will say nothing about non-Catholic politicians, but if they choose to label themselves as Catholic then they should act as such...otherwise, don't use the label. (I sure am glad you act like I predicted you would Garth)

Clay, We don't usually agree on theological matters, but I thought that this was very well said!

You know I can't do a one-word answer. But I'll keep it short: - Can God save somebody who is a good person? Absolutely - Will God save somebody who is a good person, understands fully the doctrine of baptism, and intentionally makes the decision to reject being baptized? God's mercy is great...I can't say that He wouldn't. - Can somebody truly make Jesus the Lord of His Life and reject being baptized? Other than if a person was improperly taught and has a faulty understanding, I don't see how it's possible. Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything. Oh, by the way, do I believe that the terms born again and salvation are synonymous? No. Sorry if this was too long, but it is as short as I can make it.

The one advice I'd give you is to incorporate the business, no matter what it is. In that way, the corporation will be liable for liability rather than you, personally. In addition, pay some money and get a lawyer to help explain how to structure your expenses for tax purposes. And do it up front before you start work.

If the mechanics was all there was then I would agree with you fully. However, as I've tried to explain, there is a tremendous amount of significance that is associated with the actions. And, as I've tried to show, the actions, and their underlying meaning, all have origins in the Bible or have been practiced, in one form or another, since apostolic times. But you are all too right in your criticism Wordwolf. Historically, the children have been only taught the actions to take, the words to say, and so on, without providing an understanding of their deeper spiritual significance. That was my criticism of the Baltimore Catechism...it correctly taught what was to be believed and what to be done, but it never really went into the "why" behind the "what." And, in all honesty, I'm not sure how much "why" could be effectively taught to a 2nd or 3rd grade child. However, prior to the time a child goes through confirmation, they should be taught the "why," at least to a degree, in addition to the "what." An understanding of the "why" is important so that a teenager or an adult can defend his or her faith against attacks by others. In the modern day, with the improved transportation and improved communications, that understanding is more and more important, because of all the additional seductions that are now attempting to influence our children and young adults. In addition to the attacks from without, there have been a number of bad influences emanating from within the church, as well. A general liberalization from within Catholic education has happened since WWII (so I'm told). Some teachers, who are supposed to support, understand, and affirm traditional Catholic beliefs have instead actively sought to teach their students where those beliefs were wrong...teaching in the seminary has, for decades, been less and less Catholic. Societal influences have attempted to impose themselves on core Church doctrine, resulting in a secularization of Catholicism rather than attempting to influence society to be more Catholic in nature. (And, by the way, this is one of the main reasons I am sending my daughter to an orthodox Catholic High School that is located 20 miles away rather than the one that is across the street from our parish church) This generation, the ones educated from the mid-late 50s through the late 70s, is the one that has produced the largest number of people who have renounced the faith, the number of people who, although they remain in the church, believe contrary to those beliefs taught by the church, and, interestingly, the vast majority of pedophile priests (if you doubt that, take a look at the analysis on the USCCB web site). However, there have been some corrective actions that, in time, should correct much of the errors that have occurred. The Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesia, mandates that Catholic Universities and their instructors, certify (through a written certification called a "mandatum") that they will teach in accordance with the Magesterium. [This may sound a little strange, but if a institution that calls itself a "Catholic" institution should teach that way] The publication of a new Catechism of the Catholic Church provides a baseline used to form all religious education. I remember a few years ago when my daughter's religion class texts were changed to some that taught using that framework. The publication of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, in 2004, provides an unambiguous statement of the application of Church beliefs in regards to social issues affecting the Church's people. There is currently an "Apostolic Visitation" of all seminaries in the United States, with the goal being correcting heterodox teachings through those seminaries (already one seminary director has resigned as a result of this visitation). Rumor has it that the Vatican is in the process of preparing a very unambiguous statement in regard to Catholic politicians that will essentially state that if a politician chooses to identify himself as a "Catholic" politican, he needs to act as a "Catholic" politician. Sounds tough, but it needs to be...they have let things get out of control, to the detriment of lives, public morals, and peoples' souls. And there will be pushback to this: I am sure the above couple of paragraphs upset many on this board who read them. And I am sure that there will be not a few very nasty posts in response to those paragraphs. Just as important, when confronted with this, I am certain that there will be many people who decide they prefer to stick with their social/ political positions than with being Catholic. And the implementation of them will take a while. Many of the current bishops are those who went through seminary during the times of heterodox teachings. They are often reticent to take a bold stand (see a report on the current pope's statement to the Austrian bishops here. You can see the original full document (in German) here. What does all this matter to you, somebody who has many years ago, decided to leave the Church? Well, the bottom line is this: - If you have friends or relatives who are still "in," hopefully the posts I've done earlier in the thread will provide you some comfort in knowing that their practices and beliefs do have some basis, even if you've decided not to subscribe to them. - If you left, not so much because of doctrine, but because of "deadness," hopefully you'll have some comfort in knowing that your people who are still "in" are, in many cases, seeing more signs of "life" and that actions are being taken even now to improve that. I well know how frustrating it must be to see people you care about participate in an institution that you've been taught for decades is the antichrist itself. Well, the last thing I'll say on it (for now) is this: Most of us who were in TWI through the 80s either have read or have seen Ralph Woodrow's book, Babylon Mystery Religion. Well, if you take a look at Ralph Woodrow's website, you will see that he has completely renounced that book and the teachings contained therein. Think about all the teachings you've heard and maybe have given that were based, at least indirectly, upon that book. If he has renounced that book (and think about how difficult that must be...to publically say you're wrong), then maybe the apocryphal considerations spurred on by that book should be re-examined, as well.

For the most part, they are celebrated in the local language now. Some of the prayers are still done in Latin and a few Masses are still all in Latin. My church has 7 Masses every weekend. One a month in Latin, 1 a week in Spanish, and the remainder in English. There are other churches that have Mass in Italian, Polish, Tagalog, Korean, French, Croatian, Greek, and German around the area...and a couple who do the Mass in Latin every week.

I have this friend who is a consultant to a company I used to work for. He loved his situation and, hopefully, as I get a little older and closer to retirement, I will be able to emulate what he does. Anyway, I'll explain a little bit about what he does. It may not be for you, but might give some folks some ideas: First of all, he formed a corporation. His wife is the company president. He is the company vice president. The corporate headquarters is in Annapolis, MD. His first son, who lives in Charleston, SC, is the Chief Financial Officer. His other son, who lives in Reston, VA, is the Chief Information Officer. It is a privately held venture...his wife and he are the principal stock holders, with some shares out to their children. The line of business that this corporation is in is consulting. They provide expertise to companies worldwide on military logistics, electronics, and information technology. The four directors (Pres, VP, CFO, CIO) do not draw a salary at all. Therefore, their personal tax liability is ZERO (having said this, my friend, the VP of this corporation, is also a retired Lt Col in the Army, and so he does draw a military pension and retirement from another company where he worked for a few years after military retirement, but that's a different issue completely) My friend owns his own house. But he leases a portion of his house to his corporation for its world headquarters. There are two offices and a conference room in this house, as well as a coffee galley, that are leased. Its amazing, but the conference table in his conference room looks just like a dining room table. But he tells me its a conference table for meetings, and I believe him! He tells me that the world headquarters has to have Internet access with a high speed connection. Since they are in the consulting business, they also have to have Cable TV so that they can keep up with the news of the world, to shape their marketing analysis. In addition, the directors need to be able to stay in contact with each other, so, of course, they have a good telephone system and they have a corporate account with Cingular for cell phones (for each of the directors). They frequently have business meetings at the corporate headquarters. As a business courtesy to their customers and potential customers, they need to keep the coffee galley fully stocked. Many of their business development meetings are dinner meetings or lunch meetings, so they need to keep the refrigerator stocked with fresh food, as well. I understand they have those business development meetings at least a couple of times a week and that they never know exactly when they are going to have one, so they are dilligent about staying ready at all times. Of course, when the president goes to the grocery store to stock the coffee galley and prepare for business meetings, the mileage from the corporate headquarters to the grocery store are deductible at 41 cents a mile and the cost of the groceries (ahem, I mean supplies) are deductible, as well. (Sort of funny, the couple of times I've been over to my friend's house for dinner, he's always asked me for a business card...I wonder if he is classifying that as a business development meeting...hmmmm) The consulting business is a very difficult business to make a profit in. It requires a huge amount of time with potential clients. Well, the corporation provides the president and vice president with their vehicles (through leases). Of course, this could be seen as imputed income for the president and vice president, but they document that at least 90% of the time, the vehicles are used for business purposes...to and from business meetings at the country club or performing work at a client site or getting business supplies from a local vendor, like Giant or Safeway. And, of course, the corporation needs to network with clients and potential teaming partners. So the corporation has taken out a membership in the Pentagon Handball Club for the vice president and a membership in the local country club for the President. In addition, they attend conferences and trade shows regularly. There are a lot of trade shows in Vegas and in Orlando. He's tried to generate business at shows in Honolulu, Paris, and Berlin as well. He almost got a lucrative contract over in Germany. He had a full week of negotiations with a client one time on this: they started off with meetings in Prague, Czech Republic, and then continued the negotiations on a boat trip down the Elbe river. Unfortunately, the deal fell apart at the last minute. He tells me that this client may want to try again. But this time, the client has specified that the negotiations will take place on a cruise ship on the Meditteranean. My friend has had some success with his work, though. The company I used to work for had a contract for consulting services with his company. They were to provide 24 hours of labor (3 days) per week and payed my friend's company $90/hour for that. My company thought it was a great deal, though: if they would have had to hire somebody, it would have cost them over $100/hour (with base pay, fringe, and overhead) -- and they'd have to pay the employee full time wages, rather than 3 days a week. My friend's company doesn't usually make money. Consulting is a tough line of work. He tells me that they have, on occasion, made a profit. But that the profit was immediately turned around as dividends to the shareholders (remember, the only shareholders are the Pres, VP, CFO, and CIO...it's privately held) (also remember that dividends are no longer taxable, either). Of course, since it is a corporation, they do have to have quarterly meetings of the board of directors...they fly each of the directors to the meeting site and, since it is a small meeting, they generally will hold those meetings for a few days in a hotel suite. Now I need to tell you that you must NOT be afraid of failure if you are in this line of work. This is my friend's third corporation that he's tried to start up. He tells me that the IRS generally leaves consulting firms alone for about three years...they need to do the paperwork, but the IRS recognizes that it takes a few years before they expect to see profits from a company (and to collect tax revenue). Anyway, its interesting that almost at the exact three-year point, these consulting corporations go out of business. Of course, he is persistent. A new company forms out of the ashes of the old company. New articles of incorporation, a new PO box, and so on. Since these companies never own their own property, they just terminate the lease with the landlord, terminate the car leases, and the new company buys the phone leases and the computer equipment from the old one. Curious, though, it seems that the new company always operates under the same business plan as the old one, though...hmmmmm. That is a potential for a business...at least it might give you some ideas that you could adopt for whatever line of work you'd be interested in.

You're welcome. A pleasure to do so.

Raf, Mark:

WONT41 KNHC 181400 DSAAT SPECIAL TROPICAL DISTURBANCE STATEMENT NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL 900 AM EST FRI NOV 18 2005 SATELLITE IMAGERY INDICATES THAT SHOWER ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMAINS OF TROPICAL DEPRESSION TWENTY-SEVEN HAS BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED NEAR THE NORTHERN COAST OF HONDURAS. IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUE...A TROPICAL DEPRESSION OR TROPICAL STORM COULD FORM LATER TODAY. IF ADVISORIES ARE RE-INITIATED...WATCHES AND WARNINGS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR PORTIONS OF THE NORTHWESTERN CARIBBEAN COAST AND THE ADJACENT ISLANDS...AND INTERESTS IN THIS AREA SHOULD MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS SYSTEM. EVEN IF NO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURS...HEAVY RAINS WILL BE POSSIBLE ACROSS PORTIONS OF HONDURAS...BELIZE...THE CAYMAN ISLANDS...WESTERN CUBA...AND THE YUCATAN PENINSULA OF MEXICO. THESE RAINS COULD CAUSE LIFE-THREATENING FLASH FLOODS AND MUDSLIDES. AN AIR FORCE RESERVE HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT IS SCHEDULED TO INVESTIGATE THE SYSTEM THIS AFTERNOON. FORECASTER BEVEN http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIADS...ml/181400.shtml? Ahem...

Teen stands at street corner as punishment November 17, 2005 EDMOND, Okla. -- Coretha Henderson was getting lousy grades, giving her teachers lots of sass and making tardiness an avocation, her mom, Tasha Henderson, said. So she decided to teach her 14-year-old daughter a lesson. Henderson made Coretha stand at a busy Oklahoma City intersection Nov. 4 with a cardboard sign that read:"I don't do my homework and I act up in school, so my parents are preparing me for my future. Will work for food." "This may not work. I'm not a professional," said Henderson, a 34-year-old mother of three. "But I felt I owed it to my child to at least try." Henderson has seen a turnaround in her daughter's behavior in the past week and a half. But the punishment prompted letters and calls to talk radio from people either praising the woman or blasting her. Coretha has been getting C's and D's as a freshman at Edmond Memorial High in Edmond, a well-to-do Oklahoma City suburb. Edmond Memorial is considered one of the top high schools in the state in academics. While Henderson stood next to her daughter at the intersection, a passing motorist called police with a report of psychological abuse, and a police officer took a report. Mother and daughter were asked to leave after about an hour, and no citation was issued. But the report was forwarded to the state Department of Human Services. Donald Wertlieb, a professor of child development at the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at Tufts University, warned that such punishment could do extreme emotional damage. He said rewarding positive behavior is more effective. "The trick is to catch them being good," he said. That's a new twist!

Socks, I am not attributing any anger to anything you've posted. I appreciate the attitude of most ex-catholics on this board...not their cup of tea, but if it works for somebody else, so be it. As I've said before, I think that the majority of ex-Catholics are ex-Catholic because of horrible teaching on the part of those who were supposed to teach them or they had the misfortune of being in parishes that didn't meet their needs (the two are often closely related). And, in many cases, they either drifted off or they got captured by somebody with a better offer. I'm sorry for that; if there are misunderstandings, I'd love to have the opportunity to correct those misunderstandings; but, in the final analysis, if we have a live-and-let-live attitude, then the conversation can at least stay civil. That's the way I've seen it with you...we may not agree on things, but, we can keep it civil. And that is a good thing. Cheers! And I wish Trent would have happened before Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles....speaking as a Catholic...

White Dove, Sorry for the delay in answering you last night; however, I was very busy all last night and simply did not have a chance to get to it. Hope this suffices. My apologies for the length of the post; however, I wanted to provide adequate answers to each of your points, not so much for your sake, but for the benefit of anybody else reading the thread. Indulgences: I have said/quoted the following recently in regards to indulgences: As with you, I don't have a problem with a group or a person "rocking the boat," either. Take, for example, Luther. What originally wound him up was the push for donations to construct St. Peter's Basillica in the Vatican. This got translated into the sale of indulgences. A horrible practice and a complete perversion of doctrine. He very rightly railed against it. Frankly, had he not done what he did, the reforms put into place by the Council of Trent would never have happened (one of the chief reforms being the supression of that evil practice). From a post made on Oct 25, 2005 In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly. The refutation of the practice of the sale of indulgences, from Session XXV of the Council of Trent. Posted on Oct 9, 2005 You asked the question, Can you show me any scripture where Jesus and company sold forgiveness for money? No I can't. But, on the other hand, I can think of no place where the Catholic Church has sold forgiveness for money. An indulgence is not the forgiveness of sins. I would have thought you'd remember that. An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned. This remission the faithful with the proper dispositions and under certain determined conditions acquire through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the Saints. So let's talk about what an indulgence IS rather than a faulty understanding of it. First, to get something out of the way: the Church acknowledged that abuses were committed in the sale of indulgences. The quote from the Council of Trent was the Church's corrective action for that abuse. Now: - Note that an indulgence is the remission before God of temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. This presupposes that the sins have been forgiven already, which, in turn, supposes that the sins have been confessed and absolution pronounced, which, in turn, presupposes that true contrition for those sins has been felt by the penitent. - Note that this remission specifies that the faithful have the proper dispositions. What is the proper disposition to receive an indulgence? Well, according to the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, it says to receive a plenary indulgence, "It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent." Of course, this presupposes the validity of the doctrine of purgatory. That is a related subject, but is out of scope of the conversation. Please consider something, if you would be so kind: if a person has no attachment to sin, even venial sin, and has had all past sins absolved, then that person is truly in no danger of purgatory, as the person's heart is already pure. If you were to take a look at the indulgenced acts, all those acts are such that, with the heart in the right place, the person's heart would be drawn closer to God through the performance of those acts. As to the scriptural authority, Matt 16:18-19 "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Of course, if you have a problem with Apostolic Succession, then this means nothing) OK, so now onto the scapular. What you posted, wherever it was from, is just fine and dandy with me. But, again, I urge whoever reads this to consider that there are a whole lot of activities that are associated with the wearing of the brown scapular. I summarized those activities in an earlier post on this thread and so won't bother repeating them here. The brown scapular, and more specifically the actions associated with it, do tend to draw a person closer to Christ. A scapular is a variety of sacramental. A sacramental prepares one to receive grace...they don't impart grace in of themselves, but their (proper) use helps dispose a person to receive that grace. As I said previously, the brown scapular has its origins in the Carmelite Order. More specifically,it is a part of a religious' uniform (or habit). It is the piece of cloth that hangs over the shoulders and goes to the feet. What we all recognized as a scapular is a smaller (much smaller) version of that cloth, worn by the laity in imitation of the orders with which they associated themselves (e.g., confraternal relationships). Can I provide a Biblical origin for the wearing of habits? No, I'm afraid I can't. But on the other hand, I would have a hard time finding a Biblical problem with the wearing of them, either. Of course, I see that you went back to your post three hours after originally posting it and highlighting the references to the Blessed Virgin. As you know from your Church history that you took during your 12 years of Catholic education, you fully recgonize the unique position of Mary in the economy of salvation and know that she was venerated even while she was still alive and that this veneration has continued through the Millenia (the first recorded note of this is correspondence between St. Ignatius of Antioch and Mary as well as his epistle to the Ephesians. Again, keep in mind that these were written when Mary was around!) However, I realize that fundamentalists cultivate a disgust for anything that is outside of their theological framework, so I realize that this will mean nothing to you. As to the conduct of some popes, I believe you and I have had this conversation before, so I really don't see the benefit in having it again. I will fully acknowledge that there are some Popes who have been completely miserable. And, I will further acknowledge that part of this was the intermixing of political and religious power that occurred during medievel times. Is that a reason to condemn the Church? Obviously in your mind, it is. The Rosary I will be the first to state that the Rosary of St. Dominic has, in its present form, its origins in the middle ages. It has an interesting origin, though. I'm sure you already know it, but since there are others reading this thread, I hope you'll indulge me by letting me give a brief accounting of it. In brief, monks have been required since the earliest advent of monastic life, to say the a third part of the psalter (150 psalms) daily. Even to this day, in the form of the Liturgy of the Hours, they still do so (although it takes four weeks now to go throught the psalter. As more and more illiterate people were allowed into religious orders as lay brothers, some form of prayer was needed, as they were not able to read the psalms. A simple repetitive set of prayers was provided for this purpose. For example, in the Knights Templar, repetition of the Our Father was mandated. All of this prayer was for the repose of the souls of the brothers and for their benefactors. I believe that the modern Rosary grew out of this. That leads to your criticism of the Rosary. I believe that it likely comes from Matthew 6:7-8 In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them. Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. If I'm right, then, I would surmise that this specific criticism is related to the structure of the prayer, more so than the specific contents of the prayer (although you undoubtedly would criticize the contents, as well). So that is where I'll focus. The Rosary is a variety of prayer called a chaplet. A chaplet is simply a set of prayers that are counted. The Rosary is undoubtedly the most common form of chaplet, but there are others. The technique of any chaplet is to repeat a set of prayers in a defined pattern, while meditating on (a) certain pious subject(s) prescribed for that chaplet. There are many, mnay kinds of chaplets in use, including the Blessed Sacrament Chaplet, St. Patrick's Chaplet, and, of recent origin, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. Without a doubt, they all pale in popularity to the Rosary of St. Dominic. Closely related in structure to chaplets are Litanies. (Yes, this is going somewhere) -- a litany is a repeated, structured prayer...although, as used in these days, it is almost always said in a group setting. Without a doubt, the most famous litany is known as the Litany of the Saints. Its a very long prayer, so I won't repeat the whole thing here, but a small extract is important to see: Through the mystery of Thy holy Incarnation, deliver us Through Thy Coming, deliver us Through Thy Birth, deliver us Through Thy Baptism and holy Fasting, deliver us Through Thy Cross and Passion, deliver us Through Thy Death and Burial, deliver us Through Thy holy Resurrection, deliver us Through Thine admirable Ascension, deliver us Through the coming of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete. deliver us In the day of judgment, deliver us Why bother even sharing a small portion of it...so that the reader can observe the structure of a Litany...they all share this type of structure! It seems to me that if the Protestant application of Matthew 6:7-8 is a valid verse to cite as their authority to condemn the Rosary, that the same criticism would apply to litanies, as well (such as the one shown above). Let me show you a small extract of another Litany, just to see what you think: Angels of the Lord, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever. You heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever. All you waters above the heavens, bless the Lord, praise and exalt him above all forever. All you hosts of the Lord, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Sun and moon, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Stars of heaven, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Every shower and dew, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. All you winds, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Fire and heat, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Cold and chill, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Dew and rain, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. Frost and chill, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever. It seems that the above should fall under the same crticism. OK, let's try one more: Praise the Lord of lords; God's love endures forever Who alone has done great wonders, God's love endures forever Who skillfully made the heavens, God's love endures forever Who spread the earth upon the waters, God's love endures forever Who made the great lights, God's love endures forever The sun to rule the day, God's love endures forever The moon and stars to rule the night, God's love endures forever Who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, God's love endures forever It seems to me that if the Protestant criticism of the Rosary, based upon the "vain repetitions" phrase in the KJV verion of Mt 6:7-8 was valid ("vain repetitions" being their "translation" of battologeo, which, in fact, should be translated "babblings," as it is done in modern translations), it would apply to these prayers, as well. But there is a little problem, though. With the last two litanies I extracted, the first was Dan 3:59-69 and the second was Psalm 136:3-10. Again, my apologies for the excessive length of this post. However, I needed to provide a decent refutation of your statements.

Well, I hate to dump cold water on anybody's head, but, frankly, I was disappointed. This is the first Harry Potter movie I've seen where I was looking at my watch during the movie. (and I've seen all four on the big screen) The special effects were very good. However, this director portrayed Dumbledore as being far more emotional that the old director. And, btw, the appearance of Dumbledore was indistinguishable (to me) from the old one, but the voice was perceptably different. Personally, I thought the movie (approx 2-1/2 hrs) was far too much magic and not nearly enough plot. Had I not read the book, I believe that I would have actually had a hard time following what was going on. It seems that the biggest emphasis was on the Triwizard Tournament. And when I say that, I mean that the emphasis was on the actual events (I'd say over 50% of the movie), rather than the dialogue and the buildup, etc. Now, it's been quite a while since I read the book, but if my memory serves, in the book, the Triwizard Tourney was sort of the backdrop that wove itself through that year at Hogwarts, but the focus was on the kids. Again, please let me stress that I'm relying on a rather feeble memory here and its been quite a while. I would go see it still, but I wouldn't wait in a long line to do so. Overall rating -- one weak thumbs up...

Going tonight (11/17) -- they are having a preview at a theater in Columbia, MD (courtesy of APC -- so I have to put up with a sales pitch to get free tickets -- who cares? LOL) Yes, daughter is psyched! Will have a review when I get back home later on...

White Dove, You'll note that I took the liberty to highlight a portion of the statement I made earlier with you specifically in mind. I'm sorry for your rage. If it makes you feel better, feel free to vent any time. But I am glad your 12 years of Catholic education gave you a time portal so that you can so confidently state exactly how the apostles dressed and how they acted. Hopefully my daughter will be able to show me this time portal when she finishes her 12 years of Catholic education. The early Christian artifacts I've seen when living in the middle east and the documents I've read from the early church were obviously forgeries. Its good that somebody is able to point that out to me now. My faith is shaken down to its core. I'm also so sorry that your three aunts were so horribly decieved. I hope they were all able to escape and repent of their apostasy to true Christianity before they died. In all seriousness though, I simply don't have the time to deal with every point you made right now. I hope to do so presently, but of course that refutation would not be for your benefit. With your background, its obvious that anything I said would not impact your beliefs whatsoever. The easier route is to simply "agree to disagree." But, of course, with your level of hostility that offer wouldn't be accepted. But one way or the other...

Mark, In response to this comment, I have petitioned the management to add my last name to my handle so as not to contribute to any confusion. Regards, Mark :D

Socks, Call me an elitist, but I don't expect you to buy the view I'm portraying of the Catholic Church. And if you choose not to buy into Catholicism and choose to reject it for whatever reasons, fine. Your business. I am NOT trying to act as some kind of evangelist here, believe me. As to the quality of Catholic Education throughout the western united states, I can't speak to that at all. What I can speak to is my own observations. Although what I was referring to, specifically was the training provided kids who didn't have the benefit of going through 12 years of Catholic education...those who only went through a few years of catechism class on hour a week until their confirmation. That was, in fact, the majority of people. As to your comment, <i>The Code of Canon Law has been under development for a long time. Subjection to the pope as the Vicar of Christ, Peter or whomever as a critical requirement to salvation is just one item of many.</i> I'm not sure what, exactly, the code of canon law has to do with any discussion here, but I will agree that it has been under development for centuries. The latest edition to it was put out in 1983. I think you're connecting baptism (since that is the sacrament of salvation) with canon law and with subjecting yourself to the Pontiff. Well, honestly, I've seen a lot of baptisms (including my daughter's) and I don't recall swearing an oath of allegiance to the Holy Father as one of the baptismal vows. Those that I recall (and I don't have a copy of the rite of baptism in front of me here) is a rejection of Satan and affirmation of belief of the statements contained in the Apostle's Creed. As to the Pope's authority as the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, etc., I refer to my comment in my first paragraph. Your business. However, let me point out that unless you are an 'independent,' and not affiliated with any group, denomination, ministry, or whatever, you are subjecting yourself to that group's rules. Even if you don't buy, as I perceive, the concept of apostolic succession, you have to acknowledge this as the truth. If you question this, just walk into any church out there and try to forcibly advance a completely controversial position, such as TWI's position on the Trinity. <i>Plus, one of the recent popes made a great statement I read not long ago. He was on a plane and a writer was along, and he asked the pope what he thought about the statements being made about the tragedy of 9/11 and that it was an action of judgment by god. The writer said the pope stopped and paused and said "it is not an easy thing to know the intentions of god". I thought that was an interesting statement, certainly an honest one coming from him in both how he sees himself and how he knows others see him.</i> I seem to remember reading something like that being attributed to JPII. I also seem to recall a firestorm of controversy around that statement when it was first published. Looking back on it, I think that it was just about the only thing he could say. Consider this: he is the pastor for Christians literally all over the world, including many areas where they are the minority in a hostile environment. So had he pulled a Pat Robertson and said "it is the judgement of God," he'd be branded, on one hand, a fool, and on the other hand, would have endorsed terrorism. Alternatively, had he rejected it out of hand as being a judgement of God, he would have been giving the US a blanket endorsement to do whatever it willed as being an especially blessed country (an remember, he was not an American and didn't particularly care for Americans to begin with). So what else could he have said in his position? The bottom line is that I am not so naive as to assume that my words will change anybody's mind here. But I am thankful for the opportunity to speak, nevertheless.

Oldies, We undoubtedly believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church. But this statement must be understood in the proper context -- and, unfortunately, that context is often times not taught (particularly for veterans of the Baltimore Catechism). You must always remember when reading this that, from the Catholic Church's perspective, the Church is Christianity itself. When these statements were developed, there was only one Church. Over a period of time, there have been groups who have chosen to leave the Church for one reason or another. But many of the doctrines of the Church they still hold true. Many of these groups still profess belief in the historical creeds, for example. Many of them practice a form of the sacraments, most specifically baptism. Most accept major portions of sacred scripture as being the inspired Word of God. In other words, much of the light of the teachings of the apostles still shines on them... So a more accurate way of saying this (given today's realities) would be: There is no salvation outside the light of Christ and the fullness of this light is available through the Church. (I say the above not as an offense to anybody, by the way. If you are offended, my apologies) You mention having to pray the "Hail Mary" over and over. I assume you are talking about saying a Rosary. As a child, I have a feeling that you were likely taught the rote actions of the Rosary without being taught what the Rosary actually was. It goes a lot deeper than merely repeating "hail mary's" interspaced with a couple of "Our Fathers" and "Glory Be's." You likely were not taught how to meditate on the mysteries while you were saying the prayers...you may not have even been provided full instruction on what those mysteries were and where they were located in the Bible. (Mystery in this case refers to a particular event in the life of Christ, such as the birth of Christ, the carrying of the Cross, the Resurrection, etc.). Its a pity, too, because devotion to a regime of meditative prayer on the scriptures, such as the Rosary, is an incredible way for one to be drawn to a much richer relationship with Christ. You mention a piece of cloth. I assume you are talking about a scapular (a brown scapular, in particular, if I'd have to guess). Again, the fact that you weren't taught about the meaning of that scapular and what is behind it is a true shame. I would bet that your parents, although I'm sure quite religious, were not properly taught, as well. The scapular is merely an external sign that a lay person has made a commitment to Carmelite spirituality. It is NOT a magical charm. The commitment one makes when invested into the Brown Scapular is to follow Jesus, like his mother Mary did. By that it means to be open to the will of God; to listen (and study) the Word of God, to believe it and put it in practice in your life, to pray always and to put yourself in the presence of God in all things, and to be involved with other people (remember the corporal and spiritual works of mercy I mentioned in an earlier post?). The scapular simply is a reminder to yourself that you have made that commitment and a sign to others (particularly if you wear it on the outside of your clothes). The promise of the brown scapular is: '"whoever dies wearing this (Scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire."' Well, obviously, with an understanding of the background of what is involved with the scapular, it sounds much less superstitious than if one is just handed a piece of cloth and told to wear it as a talisman. You mention not knowing if you'd go to heaven or hell. The following is an assumption on my part (so no offense if I'm wrong on this part), but, again, I would wager that you were likely brought up in an very scrupulous home setting...I would wager that you were not clearly taught the difference between mortal and venial sin (mortal sin being characterized by three factors: the objective gravity of the act, the knowledge of the person committing the act [ignorance can be an excuse in some cases], and that the person committing the act must have done so as the result of a deliberate decision to do so). As an example, if a woman goes out with a 'gentleman,' he got her drunk or drugged (e.g., fed her triple rum and cokes instead of single ones), and then, when she is intoxicated, takes her to a hotel room and takes advantage of her, she would not be accountable for that act. Why? Even though fornication is objectively wrong and (presumably) she knew that this fornication was wrong, she was, because her date got her drunk through deception, not in a position to make a deliberate decision. See, oldies, my heart truly goes out to a lot of ex-Catholics. The vast majority of those whom I've met become ex-Catholic not because of the teachings of the Church, but because they were inadequately taught by those who were supposed to teach them the Faith. There are exceptions to this generalization (OK, excathedra), but those are in the minority. For too many years, catechesis of the laity has been limited for the most part to learning the Baltimore Catechism and that was that...in fact, in some, if not most, circles, the tendancy was to suppress questioning rather than to encourage it for those who needed to get a deeper understanding than what the old catechism taught. Is that a fault of the theology and the doctrine of the Church? No. But it is clearly a fault of those who were responsible for passing on the faith. That approach may have been appropriate for the catechesis of the children of serfs or of the working class, who likely would never learn to read and who, in all likelihood, would not have the time or energy to consider deeper spiritual concepts, but in todays pluralistic society with its abundance of free time, it clearly does not adequately arm a person to deal with the spiritual challenges of modern life. They've made great strides to correct that...the publication of the new catechism in 1993, putting the writings of the popes, councils, and curial agencies online so that they can be studied, and many other changes, along with the offering of university-level adult faith enrichment classes...all of these efforts are helping, but those efforts do little to help the generations who weren't given a good grounding to begin with. Those folks are subject to flaky cults (I am speaking about some strange cults that are made up of Catholics), pointy-head heterodox liberals, or complete disenchantment (such as what has happened to the vast majority of former Catholic GSers). By the way, I'm not suggesting that the few words of explanation that I provide are going to make a particle of difference to you, I'm not hardly that naive! (there are a few decades of despising everything the Church stands for that would interfere with this) But I do, never the less, appreciate any opportunity provided to clarify things.

Or maybe buy you a hurricane and we can discuss something we agree on, beer. One way or the other Belle, as Raf said, we are not in agreement at all here. But you point out the important point is that we can be civil about it!

Raf, absolutely. Let me buy you a beer and we can discuss something we agree on. Perhaps something about Hurricanes? Cheers!

Raf, I am shocked!!!! I would have NEVER thought that you, of all people, would have been guilty of taking a verse out of context. (Seriously, I am very, very, very disappointed. I thought better of you) The Context: 1 Cr 1:10-18 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Kephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside." Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? Clearly the verse, taken in its context has nothing to do with the efficacy of baptism. Rather Paul is thanking God that he didn't baptise any of them! But thanks for helping prove my point for me!

Num 8:5-7 "The LORD said to Moses: "Take the Levites from among the Israelites and purify them. This is what you shall do to them to purify them. Sprinkle them with the water of remission; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves." Lev 16:24-25 "After bathing his body with water in a sacred place, he shall put on his vestments, and then come out and offer his own and the people's holocaust, in atonement for himself and for the people, and also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar." Ps 51:9-10 "Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; wash me, make me whiter than snow." (Yes I know this is speaking metaphorically, but the point is the symbology is still there) Zech 13:1 "On that day there shall be open to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness." The point is that washing -- and water -- has always been the matter of cleansing from impurity. And therefore, a forecast of baptism. Baptism is NOT a innovation from the New Testament created simply from the ether. I would have thought you guys would have remembered the use of water throughout the OT. This list of scripture is still not a conclusive list, but it should illustrate the point. As to the necessity of a physical matter as the token of a spiritual reality (i.e., the sacramental view of the transmission of grace) versus a ordinance-based view of accomplishing an action, I'm not going to even go there...that would be a completely different thread.