Monday, December 31, 2007

Tell Me When it Hurts. Now? Now? How about Now?

"He who is estranged seeks pretexts to break out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." (Prov 18:1-2)
No matter how hard I try, I can not fully appreciate the sacrifice converts to the Catholic Church make. Due to the well intended, but miss guided opinions some of our protestant brothers and sisters have of the Catholic Church.
It truly pains me to see family's ripped apart because someone is thinking about becoming Catholic. But the pain I feel I do not completely understand. I've never had to make a decision that cut right to the heart of a loved one. While at the same time trying to get closer to the one who is Love. I've never had family who bluntly refuse to even make an effort to understand. In other words, I've never had to decide between the Lords Will and family.
One would think it would bring the two together. But in our fallen state sometimes getting closer to God does the opposite with family.
I came across this verse this morning, and it sheds light on some of the reasons why families lash out at those who become Catholic. But the same is true in many cases in families where someone leaves the Church.
"He who is estranged seeks pretexts to break out against all sound judgment. A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." (Prov 18:1-2) Read and pray over this verse. The wisdom of our Lord is deeper then we can imagine.
Talk at ya Later

Monday, December 24, 2007

Merry Christmass to you all.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustusthat the whole world should be enrolled.This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.While they were there,the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son.She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and keeping the night watch over their flock.The angel of the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.The angel said to them,“Do not be afraid;for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.For today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Christ and Lord.And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.”And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel,praising God and saying:“Glory to God in the highestand on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
Talk at ya Later

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Christmass is in the Air With the Sounds of Music

Haaa, I can't stop laughing!!!

Friday, December 21, 2007

Bishop Morlino Opposes 'Emergency Contraception' in Catholic Hospitals

By John-Henry Westen12/21/2007
LifeSiteNews (
MADISON, WI (LifeSiteNews) - Madison Bishop Robert C. Morlino has distanced himself from the Wisconsin Conference of Catholic Bishops neutral position regarding a bill which would mandate even Catholic hospitals to administer the morning after pill (so-called emergency contraception) upon request to women who have been raped. In a letter to the Wisconsin legislature, dated December 17, the Bishop tells the legislators, "I urge you, by this letter, to oppose AB 377," (the legislation in question). A debate over such measures has been raging in the US with numerous states having enacted similar legislation and several bishops' conferences refusing to oppose the measures. At issue is the abortifacient nature of the morning after pill, which some scientists have called into question even though several studies have shown abortion is a possible outcome of administering the drugs.
Read the rest at:
Talk at ya Later

Cardinal: Sex-Ed Isn't Contraception Education

Cardinal: Sex-Ed Isn't Contraception Education
Hong Kong Bishop Defends Rights of Families to Teach Children
HONG KONG, DEC. 20, 2007 ( Sex education does not have to be contraception education, said the bishop of Hong Kong. And he called on society to promote families as children's first educators in the area of sexuality.
In a pastoral letter for Christmas, Cardinal Joseph Zen responded to a push toward giving more information about contraception to young people and proposing "timely abortions" as the solution to unexpected pregnancies.
"The holy Infant in the manger is crying," he wrote, "for too many young people are misled, too many families are shattered, too many little lives are abandoned."
"Sex education cannot be anything other than education with value orientation. The so-called value-free idea is already a value choice. When a person suggests that abortion, the termination of an innocent life, is a solution for a young girl facing an unexpected pregnancy, they have already presented a set of life values," Cardinal Zen said. "Today, the media talk of sex education with a value orientation toward marriage, family and life, as imposing burdens of ‘repression' and ‘continence' and not as an avenue of formation to guide young people to self-mastery and respect for the dignity of one another's bodies. This kind of talk is truly regrettable.
"Modern psychology clearly points out that self-mastery is a necessary element for a mature personality and for success in life. We educate students to self-discipline and train in order to achieve academic and physical advancement. Why do we exclude self-discipline in psychosexual development?"
Secret to happiness
Read the rest:
Adam The Catholic gives this two thumbs up!!!!
Talk at ya Later

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

War on Christmas Continues

War on Christmas Continues
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (

NEW YORK (Catholic League)-As the following examples indicate, the war on Christmas is not over:

After one person complained about a nativity scene in Shawnee State Park in Ohio, the state parks’ chief ordered a ban on crèches from all parks. It took the governor to overturn this decision.

In Wesley Chapel, Florida, Jesus was banned from a holiday display

The mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island censored all religious displays

Government officials in Tehama County, California tried to ban Santa in office displays but had to reverse their decision after a protest.

A nativity scene in Olean, New York was removed from the City Hall lawn after Wiccans placed the pentacle alongside it.

A crèche was banned from Triangle Park in Manistique, Michigan.

After a Catholic sued and won demanding a crèche alongside a menorah in Briarcliff Manor, New York, local officials banned both the Christian and Jewish symbols.

The Dickens Christmas Festival in Saginaw, Michigan was renamed the Dickens Holiday Festival so the city could advertise in local schools. The schools ban the words “Santa,” “Christmas” and “Nativity.”

Atheists Alliance International put up a tree on the lawn of Chester County Courthouse outside Philadelphia with copies of the covers of books saying, “Why I Am Not a Christian,” etc.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is trying to block the display of a crèche in Shelby County, Alabama.

Freedom from Religion Foundation is trying to stop the display of nativity scenes in three Wisconsin towns.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows: “The cultural fascists are still at it, but the good news is that more and more Americans are fighting back.”

Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Do You Have Tough Decision?

Do you ever have a tough decision and regardless what you choose, it still feels like this?

Monday, December 17, 2007

Is Christian Hope Individualistic?

This is from Pope Benedict XVI encyclical letter Spe Salvi.
"Is Christian hope individualistic?
13. In the course of their history, Christians have tried to express this “knowing without knowing” by means of figures that can be represented, and they have developed images of “Heaven” which remain far removed from what, after all, can only be known negatively, via unknowing. All these attempts at the representation of hope have given to many people, down the centuries, the incentive to live by faith and hence also to abandon their hyparchonta, the material substance for their lives. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews, in the eleventh chapter, outlined a kind of history of those who live in hope and of their journeying, a history which stretches from the time of Abel into the author's own day. This type of hope has been subjected to an increasingly harsh critique in modern times: it is dismissed as pure individualism, a way of abandoning the world to its misery and taking refuge in a private form of eternal salvation. Henri de Lubac, in the introduction to his seminal book Catholicisme. Aspects sociaux du dogme, assembled some characteristic articulations of this viewpoint, one of which is worth quoting: “Should I have found joy? No ... only my joy, and that is something wildly different ... The joy of Jesus can be personal. It can belong to a single man and he is saved. He is at peace ... now and always, but he is alone. The isolation of this joy does not trouble him. On the contrary: he is the chosen one! In his blessedness he passes through the battlefields with a rose in his hand”[10].
14. Against this, drawing upon the vast range of patristic theology, de Lubac was able to demonstrate that salvation has always been considered a “social” reality. Indeed, the Letter to the Hebrews speaks of a “city” (cf. 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:14) and therefore of communal salvation. Consistently with this view, sin is understood by the Fathers as the destruction of the unity of the human race, as fragmentation and division. Babel, the place where languages were confused, the place of separation, is seen to be an expression of what sin fundamentally is. Hence “redemption” appears as the reestablishment of unity, in which we come together once more in a union that begins to take shape in the world community of believers. We need not concern ourselves here with all the texts in which the social character of hope appears. Let us concentrate on the Letter to Proba in which Augustine tries to illustrate to some degree this “known unknown” that we seek. His point of departure is simply the expression “blessed life”. Then he quotes Psalm 144 [143]:15: “Blessed is the people whose God is the Lord.” And he continues: “In order to be numbered among this people and attain to ... everlasting life with God, ‘the end of the commandment is charity that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith' (1 Tim 1:5)”[11]. This real life, towards which we try to reach out again and again, is linked to a lived union with a “people”, and for each individual it can only be attained within this “we”. It presupposes that we escape from the prison of our “I”, because only in the openness of this universal subject does our gaze open out to the source of joy, to love itself—to God.
15. While this community-oriented vision of the “blessed life” is certainly directed beyond the present world, as such it also has to do with the building up of this world—in very different ways, according to the historical context and the possibilities offered or excluded thereby. At the time of Augustine, the incursions of new peoples were threatening the cohesion of the world, where hitherto there had been a certain guarantee of law and of living in a juridically ordered society; at that time, then, it was a matter of strengthening the basic foundations of this peaceful societal existence, in order to survive in a changed world. Let us now consider a more or less randomly chosen episode from the Middle Ages, that serves in many respects to illustrate what we have been saying. It was commonly thought that monasteries were places of flight from the world (contemptus mundi) and of withdrawal from responsibility for the world, in search of private salvation. Bernard of Clairvaux, who inspired a multitude of young people to enter the monasteries of his reformed Order, had quite a different perspective on this. In his view, monks perform a task for the whole Church and hence also for the world. He uses many images to illustrate the responsibility that monks have towards the entire body of the Church, and indeed towards humanity; he applies to them the words of pseudo-Rufinus: “The human race lives thanks to a few; were it not for them, the world would perish ...”[12]. Contemplatives—contemplantes—must become agricultural labourers—laborantes—he says. The nobility of work, which Christianity inherited from Judaism, had already been expressed in the monastic rules of Augustine and Benedict. Bernard takes up this idea again. The young noblemen who flocked to his monasteries had to engage in manual labour. In fact Bernard explicitly states that not even the monastery can restore Paradise, but he maintains that, as a place of practical and spiritual “tilling the soil”, it must prepare the new Paradise. A wild plot of forest land is rendered fertile—and in the process, the trees of pride are felled, whatever weeds may be growing inside souls are pulled up, and the ground is thereby prepared so that bread for body and soul can flourish[13]. Are we not perhaps seeing once again, in the light of current history, that no positive world order can prosper where souls are overgrown?"
Talk at ya Later

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Did Mary Have a Clue?

With Christmass knocking on the door, I've been wondering. Did Mary have a clue? Did she know she was going to bury her son? As a parent, the thought of burring my own child, has the making's of HELL. Real, life altering, the world is ending, Oh Lord the pain is so great please let me die now, Hell.

Did it cross Mary's mind when she said yes to serving God? Maybe, not so much that she would bury her son, but how Jesus was going to be betrayed and murdered. Just think of the temptation Mary had, to tell Jesus to stop all of this. But, she didn't! Mary watched the very life she gave birth to so many years before, slowly suffer and die.

Look at Job back in the Old Testament. His family was taken from him and he was a wreck! How horrible was it to not only see your child brutally murdered, but you're God! For me, Jesus is my Lord and my God. For Mary it is the same, but also the boy she nursed. The child she sang songs to. The toddler that came running into bed in the middle of the night crying because of lightning and thunder. Those sleepless nights rocking Jesus because he felt sick. Everything that embodies Motherhood. Those three days before Jesus rose from the dead had to be an eternity.

Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Mary suffered right alongside her son, Jesus the Christ. For when one part suffers, the whole body suffers.

Talk at ya Later

Saturday, December 15, 2007

What the Heck!!!!!

Canadian priest-politician opposes pro-life bill
Ottawa, Dec. 14, 2007 ( - The Unborn Victims of Crime bill, submitted to the Canadian parliament by Conservative Ken Epp, received its first hour of debate in the House of Commons on December 13.
The bill-- which would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the child's mother is the victim of a crime-- faced heated opposition, however. Among the leading opponents was Raymond Gravel, a Catholic priest who was given permission to enter politics by Bishop Gilles Lussier of Joliette.?
"I'm a Catholic priest," said Gravel as he began his remarks on the proposed legislation.?Gravel said he was "uncomfortable" with the bill "because the member putting it forward is part of a group called the pro-life group which in my view is a rather extreme fanatical group, when it comes to life." Gravel continued, "I'm pro-life but I'm not part of the pro-life movement in Canada."??
The priest-- who had promised his Bishop before entering politics that he would not take positions that went against the doctrines of the Church-- added, "I also think this bill will open the door to a re-criminalization of women who have abortions, and that's not to be desired."
Talk at ya Later

Thursday, December 13, 2007

God who? I Can't Stop Looking at Me!

This past Saturday was the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Where we celebrate Mary's conception. At mass a very well though out reflection was given. It was said "Sin is dangerous because it turns us away from God.... By changing the way we look at our selves." Yes this is true. We feel dirty to some degree. But this is not the point I'm going after.

Sin does change the way we look, But it changes where we look too! Instead of focusing on God, we are focused in on our selves. Putting our desires before the will of the Lord. But sin has a longer effect on us other than just the sin.

Once we have admitted we have sinned, we are still looking at ourselves. Because of the shame that sin brings along with it, we spend some time going about how bad we feel for sinning. All along still not completely turning our eyes toward God. Look at Adam, he was hiding because he had sinned. Adam was looking at himself seeing his nakedness, not looking at God.

With Christmass just around the corner, let's remember how the Blessed Virgin Mary kept her eyes on God. So let us too keep our eyes on God, and always be ready to say yes to the will of the Lord.

Talk at ya Later

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Theologian's book could mislead faithful

Theologian's book could mislead faithful, bishops' committee says
By Nancy Frazier O'BrienCatholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- A Vietnamese-American theologian's 2004 book on religious pluralism contains "pervading ambiguities and equivocations that could easily confuse or mislead the faithful," the U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine said in a Dec. 10 statement.Father Peter C. Phan's "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue," published by Orbis Books, also contains "statements that, unless properly clarified, are not in accord with Catholic teaching," the committee said.In its 15-page statement, the committee said it undertook an evaluation of "Being Religious Interreligiously" at the request of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and "invited Father Phan to respond" to questions."Since Father Phan did not provide the needed clarifications, and since the ambiguities in the book concern matters that are central to the faith, the Committee on Doctrine decided to issue a statement that would both identify problematic aspects of the book and provide a positive restatement of Catholic teaching on the relevant points," the statement said.

Read the rest at

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Primacy of Peter Part 5

Here Jesus is talking to the Apostles"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, (In Greek word for you is Plural) that he might sift you (In Greek word for you is Plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (In Greek word for you is Singular) that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your bretheren." Lk 22:31-32
We see here Satan has demanded to test all of the Apostles. But Jesus says he has prayed only for Peter. So that Peter can "strengthen your bretheren"
This all seems quite odd if Peter does not have an authority over the other Apostles. Why would Jesus only pray for Peter if they are all equal? Why would Peter strengthen the others if there all equal?
Talk at ya Later

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Friday, December 7, 2007

Why am I Catholic? (by KaterinaMarie)

Sola Scriptura?

The movie ‘Noëlle’ calls for caution

By Anita Crane 12/6/2007
Celebrate Life Magazine (
"David Wall made Noëlle to open the eyes and break the hearts of those who are numb in apathy. Wall said that he didn’t intend for this film to be about religion, but it is. If he learns about the sacraments, maybe he will make a masterpiece." Anita Crane
STAFFORD, VA (American Life League) - The film Noëlle arrives in American theaters on December 7. On the upside, its haunting music and beautiful cinematography set the mood for a Christmas mystery in New England. Noëlle also treats viewers to a few good laughs. Finally, David Wall – Noëlle’s writer, producer, director and lead actor – is a captivating performer. On the downside, I was disappointed by the lack of character development and the story. After all, Noëlle is painfully misleading about the Catholic faith. Yet when I spoke with David Wall, he disarmed me by saying, “Don’t take this in a negative way – if I had to join a church, it would probably be the Catholic Church.” Of course, I had to reply, “We want you!” Then Wall and I discussed his film. The Noëlle synopsis goes like this:

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The Primacy of Peter Part 4

We continue in understanding the Biblical basis behind Peter's primacy.

Why is Peter getting these keys? Well not these pictured here, but you get the idea.

We go to the Bible. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, ..." (Mt 16:19) What's going on here? To understand this we have to look back into the Old Testament. "I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Is 22:19-22)

Waaaay back then it was normal for there to be one way in and out of the city. In that "way" it was normal for there to be a door there. It makes sense if you're gonna have a door to put a lock on it. That lock most likely required a key.

Now the Kings back then had many servants that held an office of minister. But the kings would have one Office of prime minister. He was the top minister, hence the word "prime" before "minister". Now the prime minister held the authority of the king. It did not make him equal to the king. But when the king was not there, the prime minister spoke on behalf of the king. His decisions held the same authority. This office was passed on.
So lets see whats going on here. Isaiah is king at this time in the Bible. The Davidic king. Eliakim is made prime minister of the Davidic kingdom. Ok well lets see whats going on in Mt16:19. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,..." It seems Jesus is giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. If Jesus is the Davidic king, then heaven would be the Davidic kingdom.
Talk at ya Later

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Don't Take Christ out of Christmass

I can relate to how difficult it can be to get good Christmass cards. Cards that show the reason for the season. Check out these guys. I think what they are doing is a great thing!
Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The Primacy of Peter Part 3

We continue in understanding the Biblical basis behind Peter's primacy.

Peter which means Rock is what Jesus re-names Simon. "you are Rock". In the Old Testament ONLY God was called rock. But here, Jesus Christ gives Simon the new name of rock. If Peter did not have any primacy over the other disciples, why would Jesus give Simon this name? Old and New Testaments God is giving people new names. When God does this, do these names have any significance? Yes, they do!

Another problem with the protestant interpretation of this Scripture, is that from there point of view Jesus is building Peter up and putting him down. Lets look at the Scripture . "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son if the living God.' And Jesus answers him 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" (Mt 16:15-19)

"Jesus answers him 'Blessed are you" Jesus is praising Peter for what has been revealed to him. But also Peter accepts this revelation. God could of revealed this and Peter dismissed it.

Jesus continues "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,". Here is where it doesn't make sence with the protestant interpretation. They say the "rock" is Peter's confession that Jesus is the Son of God. So lets look at whats going on here. Jesus praises Simon and calls him blessed. Then gives him a new name. A name that up to this point has only been used to refer to God. Which has to be a great honor comming from God in the flesh. But then Jesus puts on the breaks and says "and on what you just said I will build my church. Not you, but what you said." Then Jesus flips around again and starts giving Peter more blessings. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". Why is Peter getting these keys? Whats so importand about this guy? "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What does this binding and loosing thin have to do with any thing? The "rock" is Peter's confession. Dosn't Jesus know that?!

Talk at ya Later

Monday, November 26, 2007

Probe of Protestant 'Televangelist' Salaries

By Mark Pattison11/24/2007
Catholic News Service (
The six televangelists, all of whom have been accused of maintaining extravagant lifestyles, preach the "prosperity gospel."This theology is based on an interpretation of biblical passages that suggests God will provide believers with financial wealth.

WASHINGTON (CNS) - In November, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, announced a probe involving six prominent Protestant televangelists: Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Paula White and Bishop Eddie Long. Grassley sent letters to each, asking detailed questions about purchases, gifts and "love offerings," demanding answers by Dec. 6 for an investigation into possible financial misconduct by these tax-exempt ministries. Grassley told the Des Moines Register, a daily newspaper in Iowa, that religion isn't the issue behind the probe. "Churches aren't any different from any other nonprofit organization, and they have to abide by the same tax laws," he said. The six televangelists, all of whom have been accused of maintaining extravagant lifestyles, preach the "prosperity gospel." This theology is based on an interpretation of biblical passages that suggests God will provide believers with financial wealth. One such passage is Chapter 8, Verse 18 of the Book of Deuteronomy, which says in part, "Remember then, it is the Lord, your God, who gives you the power to acquire wealth." Copeland, in his book "How to Prosper From the Inside Out," wrote: "As the seeds of prosperity are planted in your mind, in your will and in your emotions ... they eventually produce a great financial harvest." Grassley is questioning items such as a personal "gift" of $2 million to Copeland, the"love offerings" Bishop Long receives instead of a salary, and Meyer's purchase of a table, clock and vases for more than $60,000. Could such alleged improprieties happen in the Catholic Church? There have been instances but nothing on such an epic scale......

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Stem Cell breakthrough offers vindication for all

Stem Cell breakthrough offers vindication for all
Zenit News Agency (
"This tremendous advance puts respect for embryonic human life and potentially life-saving biomedical research on the same plane.". Father Berg, Westchester Institute

Cloning researcher Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, Scotland, and stem-cell researcher James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison are pictured at the university in late May. As a result of breakthrough research by a team led by Thomson showing that human skin cells can be reprogrammed to work as effectively as embryonic stem cells, Wilmut has said he will stop trying to clone human embryos. (CNS photo/James Gill, courtesy University of Wisconsin-Madison)
THORNWOOD, NEW YORK (Zenit) - One cannot exaggerate the moral and scientific importance of a breakthrough that allows for research on stem-cell related cures to go forward without destroying human embryos, says the director of a Catholic think tank. Father Thomas Berg, executive director of the Westchester Institute, and member of the ethics committee of New York's Empire State Stem Cell Board, said this about two newly-released scientific papers published today that report how scientists generated pluripotent stem cells from human skin cells. The method thus avoids the ethical concerns raised by embryo-destructive research. Both studies used "direct reprogramming" of adult human cells to generate stem cells known as induced pluripotent state cells (iPSCs). These iPSCs have the properties of human embryonic stem cells. Scientists hope cells like these will eventually be able to treat diseases like diabetes and Parkinson's. And the cells were "patient-matched," meaning they genetically match the donor. If these types of cells are to be eventually transplanted into the donors, there should be less chance of the body rejecting them. Father Berg explained: Superior advances Markus Grompe, professor of molecular and medical genetics at Oregon Health and Science University, said: "Not only are iPSCs as good as embryonic stem cells, they are actually superior in one critical aspect: They are patient-specific and hence will not be rejected by the immune system of the person from which they derived. "The ability to generate ESCs [embryonic stem cells] matched to a particular person was the main reason for efforts to clone human embryos." Maureen Condic, associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah, told ZENIT the breakthrough means the cells can be used for medical research into human genetic diseases, starting now. "Unlike human cloning, which has thus far not been accomplished and remains only a theoretical possibility, iPSCs have been generated by two independent laboratories, making patient-specific pluripotent stem cells a reality today. "Moreover, unlike cloning, no eggs are needed for the iPS [induced pluripotent state] procedure and no human embryos are produced or destroyed, thus resolving major ethical and practical difficulties associated with the cloning procedure. "Thus, on both ethical and practical grounds, direct programming is superior to cloning as a means of obtaining patient-specific pluripotent stem cells." Real potential Condic continued: "IPSCs can be used immediately for human drug testing in the laboratory and for important medical research into human genetic diseases by studying iPS lines derived from patients with such conditions. These kinds of applications will certainly be under way in the very near future, if they are not already in the works." "There are legitimate concerns regarding the safety of iPSCs for use in human patients," Condic continued, "due to the use of viral vectors that integrate into the DNA of the reprogrammed cell and the nature of the genes used to accomplish reprogramming. However, current techniques exist that should enable the production of iPSCs without the use of such vectors. It would not be unreasonable to expect this to be accomplished within one year." "Importantly, because direct reprogramming is so scientifically fascinating, so technically simple and so completely unrestricted for federal funding, many laboratories are likely to take up this approach immediately, greatly accelerating the refinement of this technique and enormously enhancing our understanding of the basic biology of stem cells," Condic added. Changed landscape Father Berg explained: "This reprogramming-advance changes the entire landscape of stem cell research from one of controversy and unfulfilled promises for treatment, to a morally uncompromised field that may very well accelerate the development of patient-matched therapies. "We should all be deeply grateful to these scientists who -- whether they happened to agree or not -- nonetheless took seriously the ethical objections many people have to embryo-destructive research." "They have now shown us a way forward that we can all live with," Father Berg concluded. "That's a huge win-win, especially for those who can now hopefully benefit from therapies garnered through a technology which is exceedingly more efficient than cloning."

Friday, November 16, 2007

Cardinal O’Malley rebukes Democrats on abortion

Voting for pro-abortion candidates 'borders on scandal'
On the heels of the US Bishops release of their latest document on Faithful Citizenship which emphasizes the formation of conscience, Bostons' popular Archbishop states that abortion is the most important moral decision facing lawmakers....

Thursday, November 15, 2007

The Primacy of Peter Part 2

Those silly and miss guided Catholics. They think Jesus Christ gave a special authority to Peter. On top of that they think his supposed authority is passed on to each of the successors of his office. The Bishop of Rome. This man made position is un-biblical and a heresy!!!!

I disagree. Lets see what the Word of God has to say about the primacy of Peter. "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son if the living God.' And Jesus answers him 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" (Mt 16:15-19)
Some protestants argue saying that the "rock" Jesus is referring to is Peter's profession of faith. One of the problems with this claim is that it goes against the rules of grammar. The phrase "this rock" is going to refer to the closest noun. The closest noun is "Peter"! (Well to be exact Peter is a proper noun) Peter's profession of faith is two verses back. For example, lets say I'm talking with some friends, and I say "I have a cup and a bucket, and it is red." What is red? The cup, or the bucket? The bucket is because "bucket" is the closest noun to the pronoun "it".

Another argument is that in the Greek the word "Petros" (Peter) means small stone. While the Greek word "Petra" (Rock) means massive rock. They claim that if Jesus were talking about Peter as being "the rock" why use the word that means small stone for his name.
The reason is "Petros" (Peter) is a masculine noun, and "Petra"(rock) is a feminine noun. You can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.
But what protestants don't take into account is that Jesus did not speak to his disciples in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic!!! At that time, Aramaic was the common language of Palestine.
The Aramaic word for rock is "kepha". "Kepha" is the only Aramaic word for rock. So Jesus said "you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church" or "you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church".
Talk at ya Later

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Is Christianity the Problem?

This is a little long of a video but Dinesh D'Souza is briliant! Oh yea, Christopher Hitchens is there too. Just skip past the woman talking, and watch.

Attempted 'ordinations' of Women

Once again, a dissident organization going by the name of Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP),attempted an "ordination" of two women to the priesthood. This was in spite of the clarity of Catholic teaching that there is no authority to do so and the repeated pleas from the local Bishop to not proceed. Catholic Online presents a text of Archbishop Raymond Burke's column on this ill fated effort.

The following is the text of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke's weekly St. Louis Review column for November 9, 2007.


I write with great sadness about the announced attempt to ordain two women of the Archdiocese of St. Louis to the Order of Priests, on this coming November 11th, at the synagogue of the Central Reform Congregation, located at 5020 Waterman Avenue in the city of St. Louis. The attempted ordination is a violation of what is most sacred to us in the Church, one of the sacraments.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The Primacy of Peter Part 1

I was thinking, did Peter drive a Ford truck or a Chevy truck? You have to be tough to be the pope. Lots of them got murdered just for being pope. So, I guess Peter was Ford tough. But! Peter is a rock, "You are Peter (Rock), and on this rock (Rock) I will build my Church." Hmmm. Chevy's are like a rock. Even though I drive a Ford, I'm going to have to say Peter drove a Chevy.
All jokeing aside, Peter was the first pope! Over the next couple of posts lets explore the basis for this claim.
Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Abortions. Warning!! Very Graphic!!!


My Lord and my God, what monsters we are. After seeing this, I've never been so ashamed to be associated with the human race. If this is what choice is......... MY HEART IS SO BROKEN RIGHT NOW!!!! I can't comment any more... Those poor Babies!!!!

What are Clouds?

I was catching up on Mark Shea's podcast (Catholic Exchange) the other day. In one episode Mark talked about how he asked his son what a cloud was. I started to wonder what my son thought a cloud was. Maybe marshmallows or popcorn, something like that.

Yesterday Nicholas and I were building a fire in the back yard when I asked him. "Nicholas. What is a cloud?" He stopped gathering twigs to think for a moment. "Ummm...Umm... Clouds are God." And without missing a beat went right back to gathering stuff to burn in our fire pit.

Never have I been so struck in awe of some one's ability of observation. I read like a mad man. Listen to a number of good insightful podcasts. Never in my wildest dreams would I have seen such truth. I would have answered "there water vapor" and not thought any thing about it. But the viewpoint of a 4 year old has such honesty and purity in it.

Yes!! Clouds are God!! There are God on so many levels. Part of God is in every thing he makes. On a bright clear day, they remind me of God, and his knack for creating things of beauty. Clouds remind me that we must play. Lay on the ground, look up and see what the clouds look like. A ship? maybe. Or that one could be a car. Who's to argue.

Talk at ya Later

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Why I am a Catholic

Why I Am A Catholic
By G. K. Chesterton
From Twelve Modern Apostles and Their Creeds (1926)
Reprinted in The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, Vol. 3 Ignatius Press 1990

The difficulty of explaining "why I am a Catholic" is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true. I could fill all my space with separate sentences each beginning with the words, "It is the only thing that . . ." As, for instance, (1) It is the only thing that really prevents a sin from being a secret. (2) It is the only thing in which the superior cannot be superior; in the sense of supercilious. (3) It is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age. (4) It is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message. (5) It is the only type of Christianity that really contains every type of man; even the respectable man. (6) It is the only large attempt to change the world from the inside; working through wills and not laws; and so on........

You Are a Priest Forever!

Saturday, November 3, 2007

You will never leave me

The pic's in this make me smile and bring a tear to my eye. How truly wonderful Jesus the Christ is to all of us. Sometimes we just need to step back and take notice.
Talk at ya Later

What's a Hymn For?

This is worth reading. Too many Catholic's don't understand what a hymn should be.

Friday, November 2, 2007

A Catholic kind of YouTube!! Woo Hoo!!

Catholic video 24/7. On demand! It's new, so check it out. I like it!! Spread the word about love to be Catholic.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence?

What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence?
By Jimmy Akin
This RockVolume 17, Number 8 September 2006

October 31, 1517, is sometimes celebrated as the birth date of the Protestant Reformation. It was on this day that Martin Luther reportedly nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, although there are no contemporary accounts of this event.The Ninety-Five Theses were not a manifesto for the Protestant Reformation but a set of propositions for a public debate. They did not deal with any of the doctrines that came to be hallmarks of Protestant theology. For example, they make no reference to justification by faith alone or to theology by Scripture alone (sola scriptura).Luther’s main concern was the Church’s penitential system, particularly the doctrine of indulgences. In fact, the official title of Luther’s posting is Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.An indulgence had been issued to raise funds for construction on St. Peter’s Basilica, and when it was preached in Luther’s area, some of the common folk came away with erroneous ideas. Luther issued his proposition in response.In a letter to the archbishop of Mainz (dated October 31, 1517), he explained:
I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions that the people have conceived from them; to wit, the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved, even, as they say—though the thing is impossible—if one had violated the Mother of God; again, that a man is free, through these indulgences, from all penalty and guilt.
Luther was right to be concerned about these opinions, for none of them are true or correspond to the Church’s teaching. Indulgences do not assure one’s salvation. Performing the external work of an indulgence (contributing money, in this case) does not automatically free souls from purgatory, nor do indulgences free one from the guilt or the penalties of sin.The practice of indulgences has changed over the centuries and, like any institution regulated by men, it has been subject to abuse. There were real abuses at the time of the Reformation. In addition to superstitious understandings of what indulgences would do, some preachers were unscrupulous in the raising of money. (Contrary to popular legend, indulgences were never "sold" but were granted as an incentive to support charitable causes.)It is unfortunate that Luther’s response spun out of control and led to progressively graver deviations from Catholic doctrine, in the end producing one of the gravest wounds to Christian unity. It is also unfortunate that the doctrine of indulgences has continued to be misrepresented and misunderstood by both Protestants and Catholics.
What Indulgences AreThe Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Indulgences are the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (q. 312). This shows the error of one of the misunderstandings that Luther reported: the idea that through indulgences "a man is free . . . from all penalty and guilt." Indulgences do not free one from guilt. They presuppose that the guilt of sin has already been forgiven.Indulgences deal only with the "temporal punishment due to sins," a concept that many people today are not familiar with. There are consequences of sin that come to us in this world, the world of time. These are called "temporal punishments" in contrast to the eternal punishment of hell.There is a tendency, particularly in Protestant circles, to think of sin as having only one consequence: guilt and the possibility of hell. If guilt is forgiven, one will go to heaven; if one’s guilt is not forgiven, one will go to hell. This is an incomplete view. Scripture tells us that that guilt is not the only result of sin. The book of Hebrews contains a meditation on the fact that God still rebukes and disciplines his children in order to produce holiness in them, stating that "he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" even though "for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant" (Heb. 12:10–11).
The Nature of PunishmentDivine punishments—both temporal and eternal—have often been viewed as calamities deliberately inflicted by God on account of sin. God condemns people to hell the way a judge condemns people to prison. In the case of temporal punishments, God inflicts these the same way parents punish children.Scripture uses similar images. The parable of the sheep and the goats depicts Jesus judging the nations and telling the goats to depart into eternal fire (Matt. 25:32–46), and Hebrews 12 compares the way that God disciplines us to the way our earthly fathers did. But parables contain symbolic elements, and these comparisons and metaphors have their limits. Recent reflection on the mercy of God has led some to question whether these images need to be understood differently.In what may be a point of doctrinal development, the Catechism of the Catholic Church warns us away from understanding eternal or temporal punishment on the model of externally inflicted vengeance:
Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth or after death in the state called purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without but as following from the very nature of sin. (CCC 1472)Eternal punishment results from being made "incapable of eternal life" by "the very nature" of grave sin. Temporal punishment is understood as a purification from the "unhealthy attachment to creatures" that even venial sin involves (e.g., too much attachment to food or drink or sex) and also flows from the nature of sin rather than the external imposition of a penalty.
The Role of GraceOne may well ask how, if divine punishments are not inflicted from without but are intrinsic to sin, they can be remitted. It is easy to see how a punishment can be remitted if it is being inflicted externally. If a judge sentences someone to prison, he can overturn the sentence. If parents ground their children, they can rescind the punishment. But if a penalty follows from the internal logic of the offense itself, how can it be remitted?By God changing the person so that the consequence no longer follows.In the case of eternal punishment, God gives sanctifying grace to the guilty person, making him again capable of eternal life. In the case of temporal punishments, God can cure the disordered attachment to created things that such punishments are meant to address, avoiding the need for a painful purification. Presumably, this is what indulgences do in the Catechism’s understanding.When remitting temporal punishments, the Church draws on the infinite merits of Jesus Christ. It also draws upon the prayers and good works of all the saints, for there is "a supernatural solidarity whereby the sin of one harms the others just as the holiness of one also benefits the others" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 4).
The Role of the ChurchGod’s intervention through indulgences involves the action of the Church. God has made the Church his instrument for dispensing grace and regulating the spiritual lives of the faithful. He bestowed the power of the keys on Peter (Matt. 16:19) and gave him and the apostles the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).He also told them, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). God gave us the Church to get us to heaven; the power to forgive and retain sins is principally concerned with the remission of the eternal penalty for sin. But that is not its only function.God also gave us the Church to help us cultivate holiness in this life. Over the course of time, the Church began to offer indulgences for pious actions, such as saying prayers, reading Scripture, making pilgrimages, and supporting causes such as the building of churches or the endowment of hospitals. These things are good in themselves, and by offering an indulgence as an incentive to do them, the Church gave individuals a reason to school themselves in holiness and grow in sanctification.Although the history of indulgences is controversial and many misconceptions still exist, they remain one way the Church encourages Christians to cultivate "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14).
Jimmy Akin is Catholic Answers’ director of apologetics, a frequent guest on Catholic Answers Live, and author of Mass Confusion: The Do’s and Don’ts of Catholic Worship (available at
Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Padre Pio - Celebrates the Eucharist

For all you Padre Pio fans. I found a short video of the Padre offering a sacrifice. May God bless St. Pio. Truly a man that loved Jesus with all his heart.

Talk at ya Later

Letters From Teens About Pornography

July 8-14, 2007 Issue Posted 7/3/07 at 1:35 PM
Recently I have been hearing a lot about pornography.
The mail I have received on this issue from Catholics and others around the country gives me hope, even as it confirms the gravity of the threat this scourge poses to us all.
Here is what one high school senior wrote in response to my recent pastoral letter, “Bought With a Price: Pornography and the Attack on the Living Temple of God”: “This degradation of society has been so gradual that I had become numb to the immorality that currently surrounds the teenage person. The letter allowed me to realize that I had already grown so accustomed to the material that I no longer viewed it as pornography.”
Dozens of letters like this — responding to the subtle yet aggressive rise in our culture’s permissiveness with regard to pornography — have arrived from around the country since I wrote “Bought With a Price.” Some letters have brought me to tears; others have filled me with anger at the pornography industry and sorrow at our own human condition, so prone to sin, with the result that we unfortunately even tolerate this evil....

Monday, October 29, 2007

What The Church Fathers Say About The Eucharist Part 3

I hope y'all had a good weekend. I had a busy one, but a good one at that. Well... Is there more from the Church fathers? You bet!
Justin Martyr "'And the offering of fine flour, sirs,' I said, 'which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity... Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve (prophets) as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifice at your hands; for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it'" Dialogue With Trypho, Chap 41

John Chrysostom "'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the Blood of Christ?' (1 Cor 10:16). Very persuasively spoke he, and with awe. For what he says is this: 'This which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and of that do we partake.' But he called it a cup of blessing, because holding it in our hands, we so exalt Him in our hymn, wondering, astonished at His unspeakable gift, blessing Him, among other things, for the pouring it out, but also for the imparting thereof to us all. 'Wherefore if you desire blood,' says He, 'redden not the altar of idols with the slaughter of brute beasts, but My altar with My blood.' Tell me, what can be more tremendous than this? What more tenderly kind?" Homilies on First Corinthians, 24:1
"When you see (the Body of Christ) set before you, say to yourself; 'Because of this Body I am no longer earth and ashes, no longer a prisoner, but free; because of this I hope for heaven, and to receive the good things therein, immortal life, the portion of angels, converse with Christ; this Body, nailed and scourged, was more than death could stand against... This is even that Body, the bloodstained, the pierced, and that out of which gushed the saving fountains, the one of blood, the other of water, for all the world'... This Body has He given to us both to hold and to eat; a thing appropriate to intense love." Homilies on First Corinthians, 24:4
Talk at ya Later

Thursday, October 25, 2007

What The Church Fathers Say About The Eucharist Part 2

More of what the Chuch fathers say about the Eucharist.

Cyril of Jerusalem "Having learnt these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the tastw will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, 'And bread strengthens man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil' (ps 103:15), strengthen your heart by partaking thereof as spiritual, and make the face of your soul to shine." Catecheses, 22:9
Ambrose "Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed" On the Mysteries, 9:50
Talk at ya Later

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


Pray for our young men. They have so much challenging them today. But we must do more than just pray. We must HELP lead them to God, so that their vocation what ever it may be, Priest, Married or the Single life. Will be a life serving our Lord and our God.

What is it they say? It takes a village to raise a child.... Some thing like that.

Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

What The Church Fathers Say About The Eucharist Part 1

What did the early Christin's say about the Eucharist? Did they teach that the consecrated bread and wine truly are the Body, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Did they try to correct a false belief in the Eucharist? Which one did they teach?
Leo the Great "For when the Lord says 'unless you have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, you will not have life in you', you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amen who dispute that which is taken" Sermons, No. 91:3

Clement of Alexandria "Now, the blood of the Lord is twofold: one is corporeal, redeeming us from corruption; the other is spiritual, and it is with that we are anointed. To drink the blood of Jesus is to participate in His incorruption. Yet, the Spirit is the strength of the World in the same way that the blood is of the body. Similarly, wine is mixed with water and the Spirit is joined to man; the first, the mixture, provides feasting that faith may be increased; the other, the Spirit, leads us to incorruption. The union of both, that is, of the potion and the Word, is called the Eucharist, a gift worthy of praise and surpassingly fair; those who partake of it are sanctified in body and soal, for it is the will of the Father that man, a composite made by God, be united to the Spirit and to the Word mystically." Christ The Educator Bk. 2 Chap. 2

Talk at ya Later

Monday, October 22, 2007

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 12

What about the prophecy of Jesus the Christ? How is Jesus connected to this sacrificial offering of bread and wine? In Genesis 14:18 "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High." Melchizedek was a priestly king , just as Jesus is. Psalms 110:3-4 "Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. The Lord has sworn and will never change his mind, 'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.'" This is reiterated in Hebrews 7:15-17 "This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, 'Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.'"
Christ made perfect the Sacrifice the Jews offered on Passover. How? By becoming the sacrifice offered up. Jesus is the Lamb of God!! Also, Jesus Christ, the Priestly King, of the order of Melchizedek. Jesus made perfect the offering of bread and wine. How? By becoming the bread and wine offered up. Jesus Christ is the bread of Life.
The Eucharist offered at Mass is the only explanation for the prophesy in Malachi. "For from the rising of the sun to it's setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:11)

This is the end of My apology of the Eucharist. But If this notion of the Eucharist is real, there would be mention of it in the early church. Refuting and condemning the belief of the Real Presence, or confirming and encouraging the belief in the Real Presence. Next we will see what the Church Fathers said on the issue of the Real Presence.
Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 11

The claims some people make saying the Eucharist is nothing more than a "cracker". Is not consistent with scripture.
St. Paul says "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1Cor 11:26-29)

I could put my two cents in here, but Karl Keating does a superb job in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism " 'Plain and simple reason', observed Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman more than a century ago in his lectures on the Real Presence, 'Seems to tell us that the presence of Christ's body is necessary for an offense committed against it. A man cannot be 'guilty of majesty' unless the majesty exists in the object against which his crime is committed. In like manner, an offender against the Blessed Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of Christ's Body and Blood, if these be not present in the Sacrament'.
God spoke and the world was created. Jesus spoke "This is my body" and the Eucharist was created.
Talk at ya Later

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 10

It has been said to me that we do not participate in Christ sacrifice by eating his body under the appearance of bread. That it is symbolic. We do it to remember him, nothing more than remembering him. Just like Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me". It is just bread. That I am looking too deeply into scripture to say we relive Christ's sacrifice by participating in the Eucharist. That if the Real Presence isn't real, Catholics are idol worshipers.
OK. I can see how someone can come to that conclusion. But the real question is what does St. Paul say. "Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body for we all partake of the one bread." (1Cor 10:14-17) Looks Plain and clear to me. "is it not a participation in the body of Christ?". To participate is more than JUST to remember. By participating in the Eucharist we do more than remember, we take part in the sacrifice.
St. Paul talks about the worship of idols. Why does he not address these worshipers of bread as idol worshipers? It' not as tho the theology of the Real Presence suddenly appeared around the reformation. In fact, if Catholics are wrong, where are the early writings by the Church Fathers condemning this practice? The fact of the matter is, they don't exist. The only writings by the early Church Fathers, on the topic of the Real Presence, backup and promote the Catholic Church's claim that Jesus Christ is really present body, soul and divinity in the Eucharist.
Talk at ya Later

Monday, October 15, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 9

In the Gospel's of Matthew, Mark and Luke depicts Christ instituting the Eucharist. "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'". (Mt 26:26-28) It is also in Mk 14:22 and Lk 22:17. . There are some who say that Jesus is speaking in a metaphor. The bread represents him, and eating the bread is symbolic of believing in him.
Well... That's nice.... But wrong!! Look at the language that Jesus uses. "This is my body" This is not the language of symbolism. If Jesus were being symbolic he would have said something like "I am this bread". This language here is like when Jesus talked about being a door, and a vine.
Now lets just pretend Jesus was understood by the disciples as being symbolic at the Last Supper. How would Jesus of spoke so that others would understand he was not being symbolic? "And Jesus said, 'This is my body' One of the disciples said, 'No that's bread.' Jesus took the bread and said, 'This really really really is my body. This is not a joke. I'm going to die soon. So get it through those thick skulls, This really really really really really really really really really really really is my body'". The disciples didn't understand how the bread was his body. But that does not mean they didn't accept and believe it was his body. Literally.
Look at the Holy Trinity. We believe in the Holy Trinity. Three Persons in one Nature. As Christians we don't fully understand the Holy Trinity, but our lack of understanding doesn't cause it not to be true. Our lack of understanding shows us that we have to have faith. Faith that God can do things that we find hard to understand. We need faith because some of Gods teachings are hard and we don't want to listen to them. "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'" (Jn 6:60)
Talk at ya Later

Sunday, October 14, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 8

We continue in John Chapter six. "After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, 'Will you also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.'" (Jn 6:66-69) Why are some of his disciples leaving him? They have seen him do many miracles. One just the day before. They are leaving because of this crazy talk of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. These are his disciples! Followers of Jesus the Christ!
Take note that the disciples are leaving because they know Jesus is talking about literally eating his flesh. Jesus does not correct their error in understanding. Jesus does not say "hay comeback! You misunderstand me!" They understood correctly, so Christ let them leave.
When Jesus asked "the twelve" how did Peter respond? It was not with a confident "We got it Jesus! We understand it." No!!!! Not at all!! Peter and the others did not understand! "Where else do we have to go...?" Was pretty much his answer. That is not an answer of understanding. That's an answer saying "I have no clue how we're going to eat you're flesh. But because I believe you are God, I have no where else to go!"
Have you ever prayed like that? "God. I don't know how you're going to fix my marriage (or what ever) but I believe some how you will."
When Peter is talking and says "words of eternal life" the term "word" is not logos. It is another Greek words that means "the message" or "words of instruction"
Talk at ya Later

Friday, October 12, 2007


Ok. It's been a long week, it's Friday so I'm going off topic from the Eucharist. Tattoos! Many people got em. Some people hate them. What about religious tattoos? How do ya feel about people marking up their bodies with religious images?
As for me, how do I feel about them? well.... The Vatican Seal is on my right shoulder! Enjoy the weekend!
Talk at ya Later

Thursday, October 11, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 7

We continue in John chapter six. "'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father'" (Jn 6:63-65) Here in verse 63 Christ is saying man's flesh is of no avail. He is NOT saying his flesh is of no avail. To interpret that Jesus is meaning his flesh is of no avail would contradict everything he just said a few verses back. Jesus is saying that man is not going to understand this, thinking in a carnal sense. You need to understand this in a spiritual sense.

Stephen K. Ray in his book St. John's Gospel "Jesus is simply saying that the 'fleshly' mind cannot understand the deep things of God. He is not saying that 'his flesh' profits nothing; rather, it is natural understanding, 'the flesh' devoid of God's Spirit, that profits and understands nothing. The Father must draw each person into belief. Without the assistance of the Spirit, Jesus' words are not believed (Jn 6:64-65). If these words of Jesus are not believed, the divine life is not participated in, the body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist are partaken of unworthily, and the person chances the forfeiture of the resurrection of eternal life. Jesus makes this clear."

I'm not trying to be smug in using definitions. The reason for these definitions is because some protestants when they read John 6:63 interpret "spirit" to mean something along the lines of "symbolic". Jesus does not say "the words that I have spoken to you are symbolic and life"

Wiktionary defines:
Spiritual (comparative more spiritual, superlative most spiritual)
Comparativemore spiritual
Superlativemost spiritual
Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul
Of or pertaining to the God or a Church; sacred
Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural
Notice that none of the definitions of Spiritual resemble any thing relating to mean symbolic, or figurative.

Metaphor (countable and uncountable; plural metaphors)
(uncountable) The use of a word or phrase to refer to something that it isn't, implying a similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described, and without the words "like" or "as".
(countable) The word or phrase used in this way. An implied comparison.

Pertaining to a symbol.
Referring to something with an implicit meaning.
Talk at ya Later

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 6

We continue in John chapter six. "Many of his disciples, when they heard it said 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it said to them, 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?'" (Jn 6:60-62) Remember murmuring is an example of unbelief. Jesus's disciples were murmuring. His disciples were the ones that believed in him. These were not just passers by listening in on what he was saying. They said this saying is hard. If the bread of life discourse is all a metaphor, which is what the disciples thought earlier. What is hard about that. Nothing! Thinking Jesus is speaking metaphoric would make more sense than taking Jesus literally. What is hard to understand is how they were to truly eat his flesh and drink his blood.

What is the point of Jesus asking if they took offense to this? Because Christ knew the Mosaic law prohibiting the drinking of blood and eating of human flesh. Along with the disciples having trouble understanding how they were to eat his flesh. Christ asks what if they saw him rise up to heaven. G.H. Trench in A Study of St. John's Gospel says "Let them not think of his Flesh as they see it now... Suppose they were to see this very flesh of his not merely risen from the dead but ascending to Heaven, they would find it easier to understand, for they would then realize that this Flesh of His exists not only as they see it now, in it's phenomenal or physical mode, but that it exists also in a spiritual mode. And it is in it's spiritual mode that he gives it as food: but under either mode it is one and the same flesh'"
Talk at ya Later

Monday, October 8, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 5

We continue in John Chapter six. "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Jn 6:48-51) Now remember in Jn 6:34-35 The Jews asked Jesus for this bread he had to offer and Jesus told them he was the bread of life. Pay close attention, Jesus defines what the "bread" is in V51 "IS MY FLESH" . Jesus is getting more explicit. Also remember up to this point the Jews understand Jesus metaphorically.
The very next verse "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'" (Jn 6:52) Karl Keating in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism says "Hugh Pope, in commenting on this chapter, remarked that at last 'they had understood him literally and were stupefied; but because they had understood him correctly, he repeats his words with extraordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does he introduce the statement about drinking his blood'". In the verses following does Jesus correct the Jews for thinking he is talking literally? No!! Did Jesus say any thing like "No stupid you don't get it. I don't mean my flesh, or my body literally. I am saying this bread is like my flesh." No!! Jesus repeats what he said before, and gets more intense so that the Jews know he is not speaking metaphorically.
"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed" (Jn 6:53-55) Indeed it is. Notice the double amen also translated depending on which version as truly. This is in no way the language used to be symbolic.
Talk at ya Later

Sunday, October 7, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 4

Continuing in John chapter six, vs 35-40 Jesus is explaining that he is from heaven to do the will of God the Father. That some will believe in him and some will not. "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said 'I am the bread which came down from heaven.' They said 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" (Jn 6:41-42) The Jews then murmured at him. Murmuring is an example of unbelief. Murmuring provoked the Mosaic gift of water (Ex 15:24) The Jews didn't understand Jesus's divinity. They only understood his humanity.
Too many people take for granted living two thousand years after the death and resurrection of Christ. What if you had heard his words back then? Seen him him around town knowing he was the carpenter's son. Would you of seen him for who he really was? The Word made flesh?
Some people say all of John six is about faith, and faith only. That is only half true, the first part of John six is about faith, the later half is about the Eucharist.
In Jn 43-48 Jesus is telling the group of Jews again that he has come down from heaven. Jesus says "I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:48) This is where the transition is of faith and the Eucharist. John is known for having double meaning in his writing. Jn 6:48 is a perfect example of it. Here, John is writing that Jesus is the bread of life in both a metaphoric and a literal way.
Talk at ya Later

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Marriage, family life are under attack, says Vatican official

Marriage, family life are under attack, says Vatican official
By Jim Myers10/4/2007
Catholic News Service (
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CNS) – A Vatican official urged a group of Catholic business leaders meeting in Colorado Springs to vigorously defend marriage and family life which he said are under attack by modern society.

"The dissolution of marriage and family is like the introduction of a cancerous virus," said Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.
"Collapse will only be a matter of time. Can we afford to stand by and look in helpless silence?" he asked participants during the Legatus international fall summit Sept. 21.
The cardinal named several forces that debase marriage and family, including sexual relations between unmarried people, pornography and prostitution. He also pointed out that scripture condemns homosexual acts and said divorce ruins children.
Additionally, Cardinal Arinze denounced sterilization and contraception as attacks on the origin of human life and called abortion and infanticide "unspeakable crimes."
"It's tragic that some people see babies as a problem rather than a blessing," he said. "When a culture views dogs and cats as nice but children as troublesome, we are in trouble."
The cardinal deconstructed moral relativism and the argument that what is right for one person doesn't apply to someone else. He especially took to task those who use the phrase "I'm personally not in favor of it" to justify allowing others to partake in evils such as abortion.
"I'm personally not in favor in killing the whole lot of you in Congress, but since there are some who, according to free choice, want to shoot all of you, I let them free," said Cardinal Arinze, providing an illustration of what he deemed a useless choice of words. "It's not a good argument."
He said God's role in the world has to be taken into account when deciding on morals and laws and pointed to the Ten Commandments as being universally accepted as moral truths.
"When objective moral truth is denied, we are on a slippery slope," he told the group of Catholic business executives.
The cardinal also attacked the mass media for what he described as an irresponsible use of influential tools. Instead of being used as a force for good, Cardinal Arinze said mass media outlets are often used to promulgate evil, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
"The people who control the means of social communication -- radio, television, press, the computer -- they have also to ask themselves whether their productions promote the good of marriage and family or whether they profane and banalize these sacred institutions."
Respect for marriage and family stems from a respect for life, the cardinal added.
He said Christians have to "be ready to stand against the tide in cultures that regard the elderly as an encumbrance. There is room for all in families: children, parents, grandparents; young, old, all."
"Everyone in the church ... has a role toward sustaining the divine gifts of marriage and family," he told the assembly.
He said the main contribution laypeople can make toward strengthening marriage and family life is through their personal example as children, spouses and parents.
"They are to give good witness to Christ by model lives," he said. - - -Copyright (c) 2007 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Thursday, October 4, 2007

The Eucharist. The Real Deal. Part 3

We continue in John chapter six "So they said to him 'Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you preform? Our fathers ate manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat''" (Jn 6:30-31) The Jews want Jesus to preform a sign. Even tho Christ, the day before multiplied loaves of bread, they want a sign. This has to do with the manna in Exodus 16:4-5

Stephen K. Ray wrights in his book St. John's Gospel "The Bible sees the manna not as a natural phenomenon; rather, it transforms natural occurrences into acts of God, willed by him in support of Israel. Manna is thus, in the biblical view, literally lechem shamayim, the bread of heaven, a gift of God..." Stephen K. Ray also quotes F.F. Bruce in his book The Gospel of John "Let him give further evidence of being the second Moses (v. 14). If Moses had given their forefathers manna in the wilderness, let the second Moses vindicate his authority in a similar way- not by a once-for-all feeding but on a more lasting basis.... In later times the Rabbis taught that the new age would be marked by the restoration of the gift of manna...The loaves and fishes were a timely provision indeed, but they were earthly food, not bread from heaven. One who could give them bread from heaven would beyond all doubt be the prophet like Moses"

The Bible continues " Jesus then said to them 'Truly Truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.' They said to him 'Lord give us this bread always.' Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst'" (Jn 6:32-35) Take note Jesus was getting more explicit, And the Jews begin to wine. The Jews understand Jesus to be talking metaphorically at this point.
The Jews were comparing Jesus to Moses. St. Augustine wrote in his Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John "But the Lord Jesus declared to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of Himself that He gave, 'not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth to eternal life' Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave. By Moses indeed was promised a kingdom, and a land flowing with milk and honey, temporal peace, abundance of children... and all other things, temporal goods indeed, yet in figure spiritual; because in the Old Testament they were promised to the old man. They considered therefore the things promised by Moses, and they considered the things promised by Christ. The former promised a full belly on the earth, but of the meat which perisheth; the latter promised, 'not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.'" So asking Jesus for a sign wasn't exactly a lack of faith. Moses was the greatest prophet to date. When they point out Moses to Jesus, he let them know Moses didn't do anything. It was God that gave them the bread not Moses. Jesus is almost saying "You knuckleheads, you want bread from heaven! I came from heaven! I am this bread you want!
Talk at ya Later