Catholiphobe Alarm: KHBA of Spokane, and its 7th Day Advent Sponsors

Catholiphobe Alarm: KHBA TV of Spokane, WA “He’s Alive Television”

A late night show played on KHBA which is a 7th Day Advent channel, broadcast in UHF locally in Spokane, WA. The program purported to be one of prophecy, and its interesting topic of the antichrist proved to be eye catching.

The man giving a sermon, apparently taped in a Michigan church, was organizing ten “biblical truths” which shed light on what the anti-Christ is, or was. (I apologize, the program did not give his name to my recollection). I had been following the points in my head, thinking he was going to reveal that it was either the Holy Roman Empire or Hitler's Nazi Germany. To my surprise, it was “Roman Church-State”

Seventh Day Adventism is not just another sect of Protestantism, it is in fact, devoutly anti-catholic. This kind of bigotry is not your normal, if not innocent, person saying “why do you worship Mary,” they would ask you “Why do you serve the Whore of Babylon?”

The following were some of the reasons why the Church is in fact the Anti-Christ, and my first-look responses depicting either 1/ why the reason is absurd 2/ why it is absurd to consider the Catholic Church

1: 1024 Reign: The Anti-Christ is supposed to reign for somewhere around 1024 years. He picked a random year, when Emperor Justinian invoked the Throne of Peter and another random year when Napoleon temporarily dethroned a Pope in the 18th century to prove the 1024 prediction. He was careful never to actually mention the word, Catholic, but he failed to realize that our church started when Peter took on the responsibility of the church, …. And has not ended.

2: Diverse Kingdom: He claims that a kingdom will rise and won’t be like other kingdoms. This is so vague, that literally anything could fit into this description.

3: Rule of Three: This kingdom will devour three others. (This is why I thought of the HRE or Hitler). He claims that the Catholic Church is responsible for the slaughter of three nations of people. The folklore of the “crimes” committed by the Church is getting laughable. Even if it were true, again this is so vague that it could fit anywhere… England, Untied States, Mexico, Spain, China, Russia…

4/5/6: Blasphemy: He takes three contexts in the Bible where the word blasphemy is founds and uses them as definitions. The context to these is very poor, but by the end, he equates the Church to be blasphemous because he claims the Church attempts to usurp Jesus on earth. He put up a statement, likely taken very much out of context from Pope Pius equating the churches authority to Gods. The Catholic Church does not exist to usurp Gods glory, in fact it exists as an extension of it, the human part of his universal Church. The Pope does not replace Jesus to Catholics, he acts as a representative, a servant. And finally, the Church does not steal authority from heaven to forgive people, it has a priesthood that utilizes a God given ability to do so, just as this supposed prophet doesn’t steal his prophetic power from heaven.

7: 10 Horns: The kingdom is supposed to rise from 10 horns, or 10 other kingdoms, which is a metaphor for the fall of the Roman Empire. His point is that it has to be European. This is a stretch on both counts, whether that actually means Europe, whether that matters, and whether that is the Papacy.

8: Jew Decision: He says the people of today, apparently Catholics, have the same choice that Jews did before crucifixion. We can either choose Jesus or Rome, and we choose poorly. Come on, it really wouldn’t be a crazy rant without one jew-bash would it?

9: Run by a man: The kingdom will be run by a man. What institution hasn’t been run by a man in the last 2,000 years. Women being the face of institutions is something recent to the last 50 years. Literally, this could be anything and everything. In fact, there is circumstantial evidence that the Church was run by a female Pope for a short time.

10: Use Christianity to harm Christians: He blames the dark ages on the Church because the protection of holy scriptures in that era. First of all, people were not killed by the Church for having a Bible. The main reason why one found Bibles only the Church was because the priest was one of the few who could read in a community, particularly latin, and because bibles were expensive. If they were chained to the church, it was for reasons of theft because the pages were likely works of art and bindings had gold. This sentiment he is spewing is just filth.

Honestly, this man is an example of why Catholic church functions so much better than other systems of organization. It has 2000 years of history and understanding to draw upon in order to create doctrine and church infrastructure. This unfortunate person, if he even obtained a theological degree, got one from a church that is younger than the soda you drink, and because of that, there were no rules, infrastructure or avenues of understanding, besides his own interpretation of the Bible. That has not only gotten him a bigoted and skewed understanding of the holy scriptures.

Ultimately I feel sorry for this man. Something happened in his life that has culminated to this behavior. As for the network KHAB, shame on you. I hold you in a higher contempt for promulgating such hatred while flying the flag of Christianity. I understand that a evangelical or protestant station is not always going to air ideas that flow with Catholic doctrine. This however was not respectful disagreement, but an ill-planned, hate-filled attack on Catholicism, that any lay person could identify.

Lastly a note on what is known as “the end times.” When you focus your faith on the notion of the end of the world, this is the kind of thought that will breed. If you speak of apples all day, spend time reading about apples, spend time with others who do the same, eventually you will want and will eat an apple. The like is true with end times devotion. If you endlessly talk about the end of the word, if you read myriad books on the antichrist, and spend time with others devoted to antichrist study, you will eventually need to find an antichrist, and it won’t likely be valid. I have already heard the following as proposed antichrists: Hitler, Putin or other Russian Leader, Obama, Bush, Netanyahu, the state of Isreal, money, microchips in one’s skin… but my new personal favorite is the throne of St. Peter.

Feast Days in July

What is a feast day?

Feast Days, or Holy Days, are commemorative times of celebration of the sacred mysteries and events recorded in the history of our redemption, in memory of the Virgin Mother of Christ, or of His apostles, martyrs and saints, by special services and rest from work. A feast not only commemorates an event or saint, but also serves to excite the spiritual life by reminding us of the event it commemorates.

The succession of these seasons form the ecclesiastical year, in which the feasts of Our Lord form the framework, the feasts of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints an ornamental tracery.

Let us take a look at July's Holy Days, as listed below.

3 / St. Thomas
11 / St. Benedict
15 / St. Bonaventure
20 / St. Margaret of Antioch
22 / St. Mary Magdalene
23 / St. Bridget of Sweden
25 / St. Christopher
St. James the Great
26 / St. Anne
St. Joachim
29 / St. Olaf
31 / St. Ignatius of Loyola


Catholic Encyclopedia
Angels and Saints, Lleewllyn

The Seven Archangels

Within the contemporary Catholic Church, the seven archangels correspond with the days of the week, and each archangel has been canonized as a saint. As the list goes, Saint Michael represents Sunday, Saint Gabriel represents Monday, Saint Raphael represents Tuesday, Saint Uriel represents Wednesday, Saint Selaphiel represents Thursday, Saint Jegudiel represents Friday, and Saint Barachiel represents Saturday.

There are three archangels named in the bible, of which we know a great deal more than the other four: Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. It should be noted that archangel is one of Aquinas’ classifications that is not very high in the hierarchy, so when I say archangel in this post, I am referring to the title or nobility, not the classification.

Michael -------------------------------

He is believed to be the guardian of the Isrealites, God’s chosen people, and one of the most, if not the, most powerful of the angels. The name means “who is like God.”

Michael is the angel that fought Lucifer and banished him from heaven. He is known as the warrior angel and is oft pictured in armor, and is the patron of Brussels, police officers and the sick.

Gabriel --------------------------------

Mentioned several times in the Bible, he is most known for being the angel who appear to St. Mary to inform her of the Immaculate Conception, called the Annunciation. Gabriel also encounters Daniel to clear up prophecies about Jesus and tells Zechariah about his son, John the Baptist.

Gabriel’s name means “the hero of God” and he is the patron saint of broadcasters, messengers, postal workers, telecommunication workers and writers.

Raphael ---------------------------------

Raphael signifies “God heals,” which is indicative of his involvement in the story of Tobit and his son, Tobias. Tobit had gone blind and asked God for healing. Raphael appeared to Tobias in human form as an unknown distant relative and convinced him to remove the insides of a fish and rub them on his father’s eyes, which functioned as a cure. Raphael then revealed his angelic form and said, “I am Raphael, one of seven holy angels who… enter in the presence of the glory of the Holy One.”

Raphael is the patron saint of the blind, doctors, nurses and travelers.

Uriel -----------------------------------

Uriel means the “light or the fire of God.” This archangel enlightens the minds and the hearts of the faithful with the light of divine truths and the fire of divine love.

Selaphiel --------------------------------

Salaphiel is the patron of prayer and is so depicted on icons, with eyes gazing downward, with hands crossed on his chest, with an air of humility and deep inner concentration. He is a primary teacher of prayer.

Jegudiel ---------------------------------

Jegudiel is the patron, defender and helper of all those who toil, and is depicted on icons with a crown of victory in his hands. Such crowns will be earned by those who will endure to the very end, who will worthily bear the light yoke of Christ.

Barachiel --------------------------------

Barachiel is the angel of God’s blessings.

The Council of Rome of 745 is the reason why the Church gives more emphasis to the main three Archangels (and why the other four generally do not have feast days). Pope St. Zachary, intending to clarify the Church's teaching on the subject of angels and curb a tendency by some toward angel worship, condemned obsession with angelic intervention and angelolatry, but reaffirmed the approval of the practice of the reverence of angels. This synod struck many angels’ names from the list of those eligible for veneration in the Church of Rome.

Saints and Angels, Llewellyn

http://forums.catholic.com/

Angels: More Queries Answered

Are angels created or did they pre-exist?

They were/are created. Although the Bible doesn’t specifically say it, it neither says that He created dogs either. Psalm 148:2,5 – “Praise God, all his angels, all the armies of heaven… Let everything he has made give praise to him. For he gave the command, and they came into being.”

Do angles have names?

Angels have names and personal identities. We are told of Gabriel and Michael only in the Bible. In Judges 13:18 it is written, “Don’t even ask my name,” the Angel replied, “For it is a secret.” There are many things we do not know about angels that we must suppose because they are the servants of God, and not meant to replace him in awe or worship.

Angles have intellect and free will, but do they have emotions that may govern the later?

There are Bible passages that tell of angels rejoicing when someone believes in Jesus, and others that say angles sing songs of gladness. Although we do not know exactly why Satan fell from grace, it was speculated by early church members that he grew prideful when Christ humanly incarnated, because he would have to worship a human, which he considered to be a lower life form.

Do angles have a sex?

Angels are not physical beings normally, so big parts of what we would consider masculine or feminine like physical features are not possible. When assuming human form, they have usually taken a male form. Matthew 22:30 says, “For in the resurrection there is no marriage. Everyone is like the angels in Heaven.” – ie the sacrament is not necessary because there is no male/female.

Do angels have halos?

In a sense, they do. However, in the clichéd, contemporary ‘golden ring around your head’ sense, they do not. Angels are beings of light that shine like the sun or fire, so if one was to see an angel whether it was in human or normal form, it likely would shine in a halo-like functionality.

Can angels die?

Die is probably the wrong word because it implies an eventuality. Angels are everlasting beings, immortal in our sense of being. However, that does not mean that God cannot make them cease to exist just as quickly as they came to exist. So while you can’t shoot an angel with a gun, it could yet fall into a state of non-existence. This is an interesting point when watching the new wave of angel movies that you see in your redbox, where angels fight other angels and die.

Are there guardian angels?

If you asked a protestant, he or she would say that since the Bible does not specifically say so, that we do not have individual angels. The problem with such a stance is that, the Bible doesn’t specifically say a lot of thing, but that doesn’t become a verdict on their existence (often a shortfall in protestant thinking). For example, the word “rapture” never appears, but that remains in teachings. The Catechism says “Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life. Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God" (CCC 336).

The First Choir of Angels: Seraphim

Seraphim ----------------------------------

Seraphim means "burning ones". They are so bright that no one look upon them, including other angels. An alternate translation, "fiery serpent" likely comes from burning sensation of venom.

They have 6 wings, two covering the face, two covering the body, and two for flying, according to Isaiah 6.

Purposefully, they worship God and call attention to His majesty. They continuously shout, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. All the earth is filled with His Glory," which is called the Trisagion in the Greek Orthodox Church.

There are four seraphim princes that stand by the throne of God.

One seraph named Seraphiel, is said to have the head of an eagle. Lucifer may also have been a seraph before his fall.

Angels, An Introduction

What is an angel? They are written of poetically, seen in modern movies and referred to in ordinary dialogue. How much do we really know about them? Let us start by answering some common questions.

Do Angels exist, and are they recognized by the Church?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads "The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls ‘angels’ is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition" (CCC 328) and "From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life. Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God" (CCC 336).
The Bible has many stories that involve angels, including the following:
Angels announce the birth of Jesus to the shepherds (Luke 2:14)
minister to Christ after his temptation in the desert (Matthew 4:11)
comforted Jesus in his agony in the garden (Luke 22:43)
appear to announce his resurrection from the dead (John 20:12)
will come with Christ on the Day of Judgement (Matthew 24:31)
will separate the wicked from the just on the Last Day (Matthew 13:49)

Why are they called Angels?
"Angelos" is Greek for messenger, their primary function.

Are there different kinds of angels?
St. Thomas Aquinas classifies the angels into three groups and three subgroups per group, making nine classifications as follows:

Seraphim

Cherubim

Thrones.

Orders of Dominations

Order of Virtues

Order of Powers

Principalities

Archangels

Angels

How many angels are there?
Daniel 7:10 reads, "Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.." At the least, according to my math, there is 1 billion, 1 million.

Do angels look like humans?

Angels do not have shape or a body, but may take such on to fulfill duty. In fact, it is written, "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares" (Heb 13:2).

Do angels have free will?

Absolutely. Angels have intellect and will, as seen by those who have fallen. From my understanding of Aquinas, they have supernatural knowledge of all things, but not a supernatural understanding of everything. We build a human understanding from knowledge of our senses out of nothing. Think of a map analogy. We start at a point, use current understanding to find new understanding, and eventually, we will attain a full map of the area. Angels, with a supernatural understanding, know every place, every tree, and need no rational links of comprehension. In the end, both groups lack wisdom. One could know everything in the world, whether man or angel, and yet not be able to answer simple why? Questions, only how?

Summa Theologica, Aquinas

Angels, Billy Graham

http://www.maryourmother.net/Angels.html

http://www.jesus-passion.com/angels.htm

Apologetics 101: If God Exists, Why Isn't There More Proof?

The scientific mind can neither prove nor disprove God. No experiment based on observation will serve as proof in either direction. I contend that the absence of evidence, once one contemplates the question why, serves as circumstantial evidence in itself, and provides ample room for a justifiable faith.

If God did make himself know in the world in a comprehensive and evidential way (for instance, God came to earth, stopped a hurricane on live television) the relationship between God and humanity would turn to one more related to master and slave, than creator and worshiper. In attaining that evidence, human freedom and liberty would be lost. People would feel compelled, required, or bound to serve God, and to a degree, these actions would become forced. In such a relationship, no authentic love can occur, because love is not mandatory.

Power is always, first and foremost, the principle character of a relationship. Hence if God showed his power in a clear and evidential way, that power would define our relationship, and ultimately, it would choke the choice/freedom that a relationship needs. Think of it in a less divine and more human example. Perhaps you are friends with your boss at work. There are certain advantages to this, but the power dynamic in that relationship still reigns over the rest. If you did not show up for work for a week, you would be fired, no matter how much you chit chat on an average day. There is no way out of that dynamic, unless the person who is your boss is no longer your boss. God averts this ratio by not providing the evidence of power, so the dynamic doesn't exist.

The next time your read an atheist essay on the existence of God, which contends that the absence of evidence is evidence of God's non-existence, remember that it may be in fact circumstantial evidence for existence.

Apologetics 101: Children of gay parents in Catholic schools

Two requests made by lesbian parents in Denver and Boston to send their kids to Catholic Schools have turned heads in the past month. Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley admitted the petitioning student, citing that the purpose of Catholic teaching has always been the children.

On the other side of the coin, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput requested that two girls not not renew their attendance in the next year because of their parents' lesbian relationship. Advocacy circles on all sides of the debate, from LGTB rights groups to Protestant pastors have commented in the press.

Analysis------------------------------------------

Chaput's decision seems heavy handed in this situation, but he took reasonable pastoral actions to facilitate the school. How genuine can the lesbian parents' actions be, when they attempt to give the children for which they care a Catholic Education, while living and unapologetically non-catholic lifestyle? In Catholic teaching, via Cannon Law (Can. 796 ß2), procreating and teaching children is primarily the parents' responsibility, and secondarily the school's. Chaput, as the head the of school, understandably must not react well to someone who, in a Catholic view, is not taking their primary responsibility seriously.

One might contend with Chaput's decision by saying that all the parents in that school and everywhere are imperfect, so why single out homosexuals? What about those who are cohabitating, of which there must be many. I believe Chaput would react similarly to those who actively intend to go against the teachings of the Church, thus implying or outright saying those teachings are wrong, and pursuantly disrupting the Parent - School - Child relationship. For instance, if a parent wrote an article in the paper claiming that marriage is no longer needed, Chaput would and should have the right to, at the least, confront that parent and question whether they truly desire a Catholic education for their child.

Many times in life, one can be wrong, even for all the right reasons. Chaput may be this type of wrong. The institution of the Catholic Church exists, among other reasons, but, principally for the communion of humanity with our Lord Jesus Christ, and the proselytization of that eucharist. Are we to deny these children a chance at such a relationship because of their parent's folly?

The homosexual parents on the other hand are right, even with some wrong reasoning. They are disrespecting the Church and its teachings, as well as the school-child-parent relationship. But in the end, they are giving their kids a chance at a connection with God and his Church.

2000 Years of Rich History from Jesus to JP2: The First Crusade, Part II

---------------
1096-1099 AD The First Crusade
---------------
Part II

After the first 'people's army' aimlessly pillaged and made more enemies than converts, they were easily destroyed by the Turks. Later troops found safe harbor with Alexius and the Greek Right, which had been separate from the Latin right for fifty years. Alexius eventually saw the crusades as advantageous, because of common enemies, and because most of the crusading princes swore to return captured land to the Byzantine Empire.

The first city captured was Nicea, which had mostly Christians living there, but was controlled benevolently by Muslims. It fell even though it had 240 towers and four miles of wall. The region was return to Byzantine control.

Not all conquests were that successful or loyal. After Baldwin of Boulogne captured the city of Edessa from the Turks, he did not return it to Alexius; instead claiming himself to be the Count of Edessa and entering into treaties with local Muslims and Christians to assure his staying power.

The next acquisition was Antioch, which was a symbolic capture, as St. Peter had established the it to be a bishopric. They laid siege to the city for months and eventually bribed a Turkish soldier to give enterance during the night. All of the Turks were massacred and their homes were razed, including some Christians'. The crusading leader, Peter Bartholomew, claimed to see "visions" of Saints who told him to keep Antioch in Latin possession. After the Papal envoy died, who favored returning the city to Alexius, another crusader declared himself Prince of Antioch, because Bartholomew had died at his own hand.

Geographically, the subsequent and largest prize was Jerusalem. They city was controlled by the Egyptians, who had expelled all Christians from the city and hired scores of mercenaries from Africa in pretense to its defense. Around 1400 knights and 12,000 infantry laid siege the city, which meant that they prevented food, water, communication from entering it, and killed anyone attempting to leave it. They also may have used siege weapons like a catapult to take down towers that would slaughter any attackers. The army prayed and fasted for six weeks, asking for divine help in the siege. After that period, they constructed two large siege engines - which would help the men over the walls - and occupied the city. The crusaders massacred not only Muslims, but Jews still in the city in a fit of antisemitism.

Most crusaders returned home after Jerusalem to place the palm fronds from the region on their parish altar, as evidence that their vow was fulfilled. Almost none returned home rich, and some turned to priesthood or worked in the church upon reaching home.

Many cities were captured, from Edessa to Tripoli, but all them were isolated from each other and were open to retribution. As such, the crusaders who remained to bolster latin-christian life, eventually drafted Muslim alliances in order to procure protection from other Muslims or new crusading armies.

The Crusades are a part of Catholic history. Some parts of that rich history are not events in which one can be completely proud. It is important to remember them, however, because they define who we are as Catholics, as they depict from where we started, and point to where we are going. Our history needs to be memorialized; positive parts as blueprints for replication and negative ones as lessons already learned. According to historian Keith Lewis, "One can neither dismiss these 'armed pilgrimages' as pure secular ventures nor praise them as wholly religious. Similarly, it would be simplistic to condemn crusaders categorically because of the excesses of materials of some of the more powerful and influential among them." T.S. Elliot similarly remarks that there were, "a few good men, many who were evil, and most who were neither, like all men in all places."

A Sincere Thank Your to Keith Lewis for writing "The Catholic Church in History"

Saint of the Dei - St. Joan of Arc, Jeanne d'Arc

Born: 1412

Lived: Domremy, Champagne (France)

Work: Sewer, Army Captain

Mission: Joan, at the age of 13, heard the voices of and saw St. Michael, St. Margaret, St. Catherine, as well as God. These voices told her to see that the Dauphin was crowned at Rheims and to deliver France from her enemies. After finally convincing the Dauphin, she was given a white suit of armor and a small axe. She proved to be an able commander, leading France to victory at Orleans and many others until the Dauphin was crowned as Charles the V. Joan was later caught by the Burgundians and burned as a witch in 1431, in a trial not constituted by the Pope.

Feast Day: 30 May

Patroness: Soldiers, France

Miracles: Jumped from a high tower in castle of the Luxembourgs and was unharmed, she knew the exact position where an ancient sword was buried, won military battles over an empire with no training or education at all. She was canonized in the 20th century, but the church could not validate the three miracles needed, because of time and legend. The three miracles that were accepted for her were ones of intercession.

The One True Church: Lessons from the Federalist Papers

Part One: Lessons from the Federalist Papers

When the US was a fledgling power, struggling to congeal a proper governance, John Jay wrote the first four articles of what is now known as the Federalist papers. His arguments for a unified and central government when speaking of the thirteen separate states are useful in the debate for the formation of one unified church. The reasons he lists why the states needed to unite - internal order, efficiency, defense – are powerful arguments for the unification of the many states of Christianity that exist today.

------------------------------------

In his third article Jay writes, “The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.”

Jay implies that unity will demand less causes of conflict by its very nature. If one examines that lesson through a religious lens, the result is no different. Disagreements in the past have already broke the church apart. Those schisms have lead to many more disagreements, that wouldn’t have otherwise existed. By division’s very nature, the notion of having separate churches that don’t struggle is impossible because of the “weights and causes” that arise from separation. Struggle doesn’t mean raising armies and battle on the field as it once may have. Today’s struggle is fought in the media, is fought in the minds of non-believers, and is fought on the battlefield of good deeds, where there should be no losers.

-------------------------------------------

Jay further writes in the third article, “The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.”

Jay asserts that it is difficult for a state to be immoderate or extremist when balanced by a larger population and the checks of such governments. He is proven right, of course, when the nation eventually fights the Civil War. In a religious scope, one sees that some denominations, either separated from the Catholic Church or congealed separately, will go rogue from conventional Christian beliefs and even find new extremes in comparison to Protestant belief. This point brings to mind Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, who chooses to display signs at the funerals of veterans which read, "God hates fags.” Where is the oversight, power structure, wisdom and tradition in his church to prevent such action? A less obvious but just as applicable example is Lutheran denominations who ordain openly homosexual priests.

-------------------------------------------

In the fourth article he writes, “One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system.”

Jay is speaking of the marginal efficiencies that come from reducing the power structures from thirteen to one. “Uniform principles and policies” are important to a religion, because just as a state, these will “harmonize, assimilate and protect” the whole body of believers, and prevent further destructive dismantling. (I will speak about this principle more in an upcoming post) Religious “treaties” ecumenically translate into relationships with the secular world. Having one true church will ensure that it will “regard the interest of the whole,” and not be preoccupied with trying to insist that it is the one true form of Christianity instead of the myriad other contenders.

-------------------------------------------

Jay further explains in his fourth penning, “The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.”

The founding father reveals that unification not only discourages war internally, but externally as well. In religious sense, having separated church structures will bear the same fruit. Why not attack the fifteen largest Church in the media? For that matter, why not attack the largest Church, the Catholic one? In the eyes of an onlooker, it is only 1 of 216 Christian options, similar to the cereal isle. If secular culture attacks one denomination, how and when do the other divisions of Christianity reply? Sadly, they often do not, and in most cases likely approve of the attack for their own vindication.

-------------------------------------------

This essay is the first in a series slotted to explain the benefits of the reunification of all denominations of Christianity into one church, and why that church should be the Roman Catholic order.

The Throne of St. Peter: English Biships in Defection Talks with Papacy

In the beginning of May, two to three Bishops from the Church of England flew to Vatican City to open talks of conversion. According to the AP, two of bishops said they were speaking about the Holy Father's invitation to disgruntled Anglicans to join Catholicism, and his clearing the path to do so easier. Such a decision is part of a larger effort by the Holy See to bring back denominations that previously left the faith.

For decades the two groups have held talks. This turn is brightened by the fact that the Anglican Church as admitted gay and female priests, which has almost led to a split in that denomination. The Anglicans making the trip were Rev. Andrew Burnham, the bishop of Ebbsfleet, Rev. John Broadhurst, the bishop of Fulham, and Rev. Keith Newton, the bishop of Richborough. They met members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the bulwark of the Vatican's departments, which enforces doctrine.

Newton said the trip consisted of ''nothing more than exploratory talks." Neither church will make public comments, likely an effort not to inflame the anger of those who would not want a reunification.

If those breaking from the Anglicans were to join the Catholic faith, there would be little change for them, aside from recognizing the Pope as God's representative on Earth. In fact, the Vatican has compromised by allowing a married priest in defecting Aglican bodies to remain married (Bishops could not). What is known as the Anglican Church has been in communion with Rome longer (from 597 to 1535) than it has not, making the absence of 450 years a bit shorter than expected.

Apologetics 101: Can Someone Wear a Rosary as Jewelry?

First of all, let us look at written law on the subject. The Bible does not mention any rules on rosaries. The Code of Canon Law, however, states:

"Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons" (CIC 1171).

The important term being "reverence," which is defined as "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration." The definition of jewelry is an "any ornaments for personal adornment or attractiveness." By these definitions, I do not believe that one can wear something for both personal adornment and reverence. For example, the picture above shows a lady wearing a rosary. It is clear by her attire that she is not treating the Rosary with reverence. This is similar to the images released of Madonna (singer) wearing a Rosary.

I believe there is room to wear a Rosary around your neck without violating the spirit of 1171. Nuns and monks often wear Rosaries around their belts, so there is precedent to have a Rosary adorned to one's person. If a person wears it to aid in their prayer regiment, as a tool for proselytization, or for any other spiritual reason which aids in their faith, and that person does nothing to deter from that reason (like wearing racy clothes), then I believe that reverence can exist, without any entanglements of adornment.

2000 Years of Rich History from Jesus to JP2: The First Crusade

-----------------------------
1096 Ad The First Crusade
-----------------------------
Part 1

Pilgrimage, Holy War, An Expedition of the Cross, the Business of Jesus Christ were euphemisms for what are commonly known as the crusades. The first crusade has been described as a violent and brutal episode that cut a swathe of suffering though Europe and Asia. At first, the crusade was a profoundly religious event. Urban II called on nobility to go to the east and help other Christians defend the attacks from Muslim Turks and to liberate the holy city of Jerusalem. At that point the Turks had taken northern Africa, part of Spain, Palestine, Syria and Jerusalem, and had even once sacked Rome.

How could a Pope enact a war? St. Augustine's guidelines on justified violence determined that it was a greater evil to always resist violence. A Christian could engage in war if it had a just cause, waged under due authority, and the combatant had the right intentions. Pope Alexander created for himself two decades earlier what we would call the secret service or musketeers, called the Faithful of St. Peter. Pope Urban II applied these concepts formally and broadly.

The promise of salvation made staffing the effort an easier task. Many nobles had fought in wars against Christians and welcomed an act of self-sanctification. Those who left were to be relieved of all penance for their sins when making a genuine and full confession.

Nobility were not the only crusaders. Even though the Pope discouraged and in some cases forbade it, often monks, women without husbands, wives of crusaders, elderly, and those in legal trouble pledged for the foreseen benefits. In total, there were around 25,000 people in the organized, church sanctioned effort.

A crusader would vow before a priest or bishop, get permission from his wife, and sew a red cross into his clothing, identifying him as one of the cruce signati. He would face excommunication and outlaw status if he removed the cross before he fulfilled his vow of praying at the Holy Sepulcher and returning home. In fact, if a man died, his son would inherit the vow.

Although the stereotype exists that crusaders were colonizers who went to gain land and wealth, and in some cases that did happen, most if not all knights had to raise four times their income and in that process sold off their lands in order to go.

Thanks to Keith Lewis for writing "The Catholic Church in History"

Saint of the Dei - Francis Xavier

Born: 16th Century
Lived: Basque Region, Spain
Work: Professor of Logic and Metaphysics, University of Paris
One of the first Missionaries to the India, Japan, China
One of the First Jesuits
Feast Day: 3 December
Patron: Saint of Roman Catholic Missionaries
Miracles: Ability to Levitate

Catholiphobe Alarm: Sarah Silverman Taunts the Pope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc
(this video may be offensive)

Silverman put out this video on youtube prior to an appearance on HBO's Real World with Bill Maher and ABC's The View, when she was able to present her opinions as actual intellect. In the video, she asserts that the Pope sell Vatican City to feed the world's poor people.




----------------------------------------------------------------
1: One could make that assertion about any institution. Why not sell Washington DC? Why not sell Bill Gate's assets? Why not sell the country of Guatemala? All of these scenarios present the same fallacies. Foremost, the solution would be short term at best. Poor people would be fed for a small period of time, money would run out eventually, and people would again be hungry. Secondly, there is not a market for these things. Who is going to buy St. Peter's Basilica?

2: The very idiotic part of her rant is that of all the institutions she could have chose in the world, she chose the very one that feeds the most hungry, by far, The Catholic Church. In the time it would take to sell off parts of the Vatican (worth $900 million in land holdings), and arrange to feed the poor, following to the time that such monies would run out, the Catholic Church will have fed the amount of people she aims to feed - because of the inefficiencies in such a plan - and the church would still be around to do it again.

3: In trying to synthesize the church's hypocrisy, she illuminates her own. What has she sold for the poor? How many profits from movies and television has she given to the hungry?

4: She infers that the Pope does not live humbly because he lives in his own city, and the Vatican is apparently rich. In actuality, the church has run deficits in the last two years of about 1 million dollars.

5: The Church was not involved in the holocaust.... except for the fact that it helped to hide Jews from death while European governments looked the other way.

Catholiphobe Alarm: Dr. Dean Edell critizes pro-life pharmacies

In his syndicated radio show on April 25th, Dr. Edell took a few minutes to criticize pro life pharmacies. He explains them as pharmacies whose owners do not offer birth control, alcohol, tobacco or pornography.

Edell inferred that the owners' faith obliged them not to sell birth control, and that local patrons were losing out on health care providence because of it. The Doctor also took the discussion to a broader theme by saying that conscience clauses could not co-exist with the Hippocratic oath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal:

1: Catholics are not obliged to refrain from selling birth control in order to be Catholic or morally just. They do, however, have the freedom to do so in order to find morality.

2: One pharmacy not selling prophylactics does not stop their proliferation to the public. Within a three mile radius of my home, in a town of 18,000, there is a grocery store, 2 pharmacies, 3 gas stations, a college campus, and two hospitals, all in which one could find condoms, some in which will give away condoms for free. If one pharmacy stopped selling condoms, not much would change, because it is a lucrative practice.

3: Conscience clauses only contradict a Hippocratic Oath if you only allow for one definition of well-being. A doctor would not go forward with treatment or prescribe a substance if she thought that the patient would be worse off. Some doctors see a different type of well-being, other than that of Dr. Edell, and simply cannot go forward. Most then send the patient somewhere else at that point. Too often this argument is framed in terms of personal choice, as if the treatment would be good for the patient, but the doctor just chooses not to administer it. Doctors who enact conscious clauses do so for the patient, out of the doctor's definition of well-being. As long as that definition is reasonable, then there is no contradiction.

We live in an over-sexed society. One cannot turn on the television or radio, pick up a magazine, or drive down a street without seeing sex used in adds to sell, or used in shows to create viewership. The pleasure aspect of sex is being camouflaged as its primary purpose for these ends, when in fact, procreation is its primary purpose. Having a baby doesn't sell furniture or beer, however. Some people are taking a stand on this trend, by not selling prophylactics or porn, because they believe, and rightfully so, that grossly misusing sex will only birth other problems, both moral or physical. ie Children being born into an incomplete family, born to parents who don't want them, or even worse, being deemed unwanted before birth and killed. Dr. Edell, you need not chastise these owners'. They may not be the complete solution to ails of our society, but they are the only candles in a dark, dark room.