That Olde Time Religion

[Webers_Home]

.
Hello;

I was christened an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944, and
eventually attended catechism to complete First Holy Communion and
Confirmation.

My siblings are Catholic, my mother was Catholic, my eldest brother entered
the priesthood and made it to Friar before succumbing to cancer a few years
ago. My wife is a former Catholic, her dad was Catholic, his wife was
Catholic, my aunt and uncle were Catholics, and my wife's cousins are
Catholic; one of them was recently ordained a Deacon.

I was loyal to Rome for the first 24 years of my life till one day in Feb 1968 I
was approached at work by a Protestant minister who asked me if I was
prepared for Christ's return.

Well; I must've been either asleep or absent the day that the nuns in
catechism talked about Jesus coming back because that man's question was
the very first time in my whole life that I can remember somebody telling
me. I was 24 and hadn't a clue what he was talking about.

My initial reaction was alarm because I instinctively knew that were I called
on the carpet for a face-to-face with Christ, it would not go well for me
because I had a lot to answer for. Well; I don't like being made to feel afraid
so I became indignant and demanded to know why Jesus wanted to come
back. That's when I found out for the very first time that it was in the plan
for Christ to take over the world.

Then the man asked me if I was going to Heaven. Well; of course I had no
clue because Catholics honestly don't know what to expect when they pass
away. I was crossing my fingers while in the back of my mind dreading the
worst.

Then the man said; "Don't you know that Jesus died for your sins?"

Well; I had been taught in catechism that Jesus died for the sins of the
world; that much I knew; but honestly believed all along that he had been a
victim of unfortunate circumstances. It was a shock to discover that Jesus'
trip to the cross was deliberate, and that his Father was thinking of me when
His son passed away, viz: my sins were among the sins of the world that
Jesus took to the cross with him.

At that very instant-- scarcely a nanosecond --something took over in my
mind as I fully realized, to my great relief, that Heaven was no longer out of
reach, rather, well within my grasp!

That was an amazing experience. In just the two or three minutes of
conversation with that man, I obtained an understanding of Jesus' crucifixion
that many tedious years of Catholic masses and catechism classes had
somehow failed to get across. Consequently, my confidence in the Roman
Catholic Church was shattered like a bar of peanut brittle candy dropped to
the sidewalk from the tippy top of the Chrysler building.

Long story short; I eventually went with that man to his church and, along
with him and a couple of elders, knelt at the rail down front and prayed a
really simple, naive prayer that went something like this:

"God, I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death"

My prayer wasn't much to brag about; but was no doubt the smartest
sixteen words I'd ever spoken up to that time because seeing as how Jesus
gave his life for the whole world, then God couldn't very well refuse my
request; now could He.

• Rom 5:6-8 . . Christ died for the impious. Very rarely will anyone die for a
righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still
sinners, Christ died for us.

( A really eerie moment happened while I was saying my stupid little prayer.
I got a vivid mental impression of someone there with us. I couldn't see
anything or hear anything, or make out a face or a form. Whatever that
impression was hung around for every last syllable of my prayer, and then it
was gone. I'm not a big fan of paranormal activity but I'm telling you,
something was there; and I hadn't been drinking, wasn't taking any
medications, nor have I ever used drugs of any kind even once. )

As of today's date, Oct 11, 2022 I'm 78 years old; and an on-going student
of the Bible since 1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school
classes, radio Bible programs, and various authors of a number of Bible
commentaries and special topics. Fifty-four years of Bible under my belt
hasn't made me a seminary-quality expert but at least competent enough to
be useful to inquiring souls now and then.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
• Rom 8:9 . . If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not
belong to Christ.

The Spirit of Christ is the spirit of a son.

• Gal 4:6 . . Because you are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son
into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father.

Abba means father, but not as a label. It's an Aramaic vocative; which can
be roughly defined as calling out to someone to get their attention.

For example "Dad" is merely an identifier when my son and his mom are
talking about me in the kitchen while I'm out in the garage, But when my
son yells out "Dad, where are you?" that's when dad becomes a vocative.

Now the important issue here is that the spirit of His son compels Christ's
siblings to call out to his Father, never to his mother. So if people are
comfortable praying to Jesus' mom , then I'd have to say they don't have
the spirit of His son in their hearts because Christ never did that, and never
would do that.

That's not all.

Christ is God's next of kin-- His direct descendant --which of course entitles
him to the lion's share of God's estate. But Jesus' followers are God's kin
too-- not directly like Christ, but indirectly; by adoption.

• Gal 4:4-5 . . But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth
his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Well; adopted kids have some rights that exceed the rights of foster kids.
Adopted kids have the right to a place in their dad's genealogy, and a right
to be known by his name, and a right to their dad's providence, and a right
to his love, and a right to an inheritance just the same as kids born in the
home.

(A note of caution to guys out there who perchance are thinking of adopting
their wives' children by another man. Should you and your wife break up,
you will be the one liable for child support; not the other guy. Your wife's
first husband remains the kids' biological father, but you will be their legal
father.)

My association with the world above underwent a radical revision when I
bought into the gospel. Whereas at one time I was alienated from God and
worried about my prospects in the afterlife; now I'm in God's genealogy, i.e.
He and I are kinfolk-- an astounding improvement to my circumstances
made possible by Christ's crucifixion and resurrection.

• Gal 4:7 . .Wherefore you are no more a servant, but a son; and if a son,
then an heir of God through Christ.
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
• Rom 8:15-16 . . For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear,
but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out: Abba, Father.
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

That passage tells of a supernatural close encounter of a third kind, so to
speak.

Not every Christian undergoes the experience. For example: adherents of
Catholicism honestly don't know for sure where they stand with God-- we're
talking about something like 1.3 billion people. That number represents a
minimum 49% of the world's Christians unsure of what to expect when they
cross over to the other side. It's difficult to tag the number of Protestants
because they are so diverse in their beliefs and practices.

NOTE: Rom 8:15-16 never happened for Mother Teresa. She complained in
private correspondence with spiritual counselors that she felt not the
slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence virtually the entire five decades of
missionary work in India; leading her to wonder if there really is a God out
there; and she sometimes spoke of Jesus as "the absent one".

The Spirit of adoption is supposed to make God's people feel at home; not
feel left out. I don't know what went wrong with Teresa but for sure her
spiritual condition was not good.
_

 

[Illuminator]

.
Hello;

I was christened an infant into the Roman Catholic Church in 1944, and
eventually attended catechism to complete First Holy Communion and
Confirmation.

My siblings are Catholic, my mother was Catholic, my eldest brother entered
the priesthood and made it to Friar before succumbing to cancer a few years
ago. My wife is a former Catholic, her dad was Catholic, his wife was
Catholic, my aunt and uncle were Catholics, and my wife's cousins are
Catholic; one of them was recently ordained a Deacon.

I was loyal to Rome for the first 24 years of my life till one day in Feb 1968 I
was approached at work by a Protestant minister who asked me if I was
prepared for Christ's return.

Well; I must've been either asleep or absent the day that the nuns in
catechism talked about Jesus coming back because that man's question was
the very first time in my whole life that I can remember somebody telling
me. I was 24 and hadn't a clue what he was talking about.

My initial reaction was alarm because I instinctively knew that were I called
on the carpet for a face-to-face with Christ, it would not go well for me
because I had a lot to answer for. Well; I don't like being made to feel afraid
so I became indignant and demanded to know why Jesus wanted to come
back. That's when I found out for the very first time that it was in the plan
for Christ to take over the world.

Then the man asked me if I was going to Heaven. Well; of course I had no
clue because Catholics honestly don't know what to expect when they pass
away. I was crossing my fingers while in the back of my mind dreading the
worst.

Then the man said; "Don't you know that Jesus died for your sins?"

Well; I had been taught in catechism that Jesus died for the sins of the
world; that much I knew; but honestly believed all along that he had been a
victim of unfortunate circumstances. It was a shock to discover that Jesus'
trip to the cross was deliberate, and that his Father was thinking of me when
His son passed away, viz: my sins were among the sins of the world that
Jesus took to the cross with him.

A shock to discover what is plainly and constantly taught???

At that very instant-- scarcely a nanosecond --something took over in my
mind as I fully realized, to my great relief, that Heaven was no longer out of
reach, rather, well within my grasp!

This is an assumption that Catholics think that heaven is out of reach. Catholics are assured of their salvation (moral certitude), we just think no one can be infallibly 100% certain of their salvation UNTIL AFTER WE ARE DEAD, NOT BEFORE. That's pure biblical teaching.

​

That was an amazing experience. In just the two or three minutes of
conversation with that man, I obtained an understanding of Jesus' crucifixion
that many tedious years of Catholic masses and catechism classes had
somehow failed to get across. Consequently, my confidence in the Roman
Catholic Church was shattered like a bar of peanut brittle candy dropped to
the sidewalk from the tippy top of the Chrysler building.

Did it ever occur to you that your private personal experience had been nurtured by your instructions in the first place?

Long story short; I eventually went with that man to his church and, along
with him and a couple of elders, knelt at the rail down front and prayed a
really simple, naive prayer that went something like this:

"God, I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death"

My prayer wasn't much to brag about; but was no doubt the smartest
sixteen words I'd ever spoken up to that time because seeing as how Jesus
gave his life for the whole world, then God couldn't very well refuse my
request; now could He.

• Rom 5:6-8 . . Christ died for the impious. Very rarely will anyone die for a
righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still
sinners, Christ died for us.

( A really eerie moment happened while I was saying my stupid little prayer.
I got a vivid mental impression of someone there with us. I couldn't see
anything or hear anything, or make out a face or a form. Whatever that
impression was hung around for every last syllable of my prayer, and then it
was gone. I'm not a big fan of paranormal activity but I'm telling you,
something was there; and I hadn't been drinking, wasn't taking any
medications, nor have I ever used drugs of any kind even once. )

As of today's date, Oct 11, 2022 I'm 78 years old; and an on-going student
of the Bible since 1968 via sermons, seminars, lectures, Sunday school
classes, radio Bible programs, and various authors of a number of Bible
commentaries and special topics. Fifty-four years of Bible under my belt
hasn't made me a seminary-quality expert but at least competent enough to
be useful to inquiring souls now and then.
_

The Catholic Church rejoices that you found Jesus, even if outside of her confines. You assume that because you found Jesus outside the Church, He was never there in the first place. (typical dichotomous thinking) Since 1968, you have been at war with the CC, she is not at war with you.

 

[Illuminator]

NOTE: Rom 8:15-16 never happened for Mother Teresa. She complained in
private correspondence with spiritual counselors that she felt not the
slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence virtually the entire five decades of
missionary work in India; leading her to wonder if there really is a God out
there; and she sometimes spoke of Jesus as "the absent one".

The Spirit of adoption is supposed to make God's people feel at home; not
feel left out. I don't know what went wrong with Teresa but for sure her
spiritual condition was not good.
_

debate with Christopher Hitchens:

You, know, Christopher, both you and Mother Teresa professed deep concern for the plight of the poor and the destitute and the homeless. The only difference is that Mother Teresa actually did something for all of them. How many people have you literally carried out of the filth and vermin of the gutter, washed the maggots off them, put clean clothes on them, fed them, and gave them a secure place to rest, away from the terrors of the street? You criticize her and her nuns for not building a modern hospital for the desperately ill. That was never her stated intention—she was in the vocation of providing for the last days of the destitute and the dying. If you had taken the time to read the sign in front of her hospices, you would have seen it state,” Home for the Dying and Destitute”—and not THE MAYO CLINIC.

In your so-called book on her you criticize her for providing a hospice in the Bronx that is without an elevator. You don’t mention how she and the other nuns actually carried the destitute up the stairs—those who were unable to physically make it on their own. Your dishonesty is deplorable.

A number of your criticisms are deliberately misleading by leaving out relevant facts. Your book is a study in bigoted and dishonest selectivity. For example, you accuse her of taking stolen money from Charles Keating; you don’t point out that Keating gave the money to Mother Teresa in 1982, but it was not until the 1990s that the details of his swindling came to light—long after the missionaries had already spent it. How conveniently you alter the truth.

Then, you denounce her for taking money from the wealthy and dishonest Duvalier family in Haiti. Tell us, where else in Haiti could she have obtained money to build the orphanages there? From the penniless poor? This is just another phony criticism of yours. As a matter of fact, your entire book on Mother Teresa reeks of phony scholarship: no index, no footnotes or endnotes, no checkable sources, no evidence. If I were your college teacher, I’d have to give it an “F.”

It’s part and parcel of the research you produce for your two favorite sources of publication. The Nation, a pretentious pseudo-intellectual rag, and Vanity Fair, known widely as an anti-Catholic tabloid.

The majority of your writings are on the level of People magazine: superficial and without any in-depth research. What you compose most often lacks any careful study or any thorough scholarship. You write for effect—not for discovering the real truth. You’re the one who’s a fraud, Christopher—not Mother Teresa. She has backed up her world-wide reputation with countless good works for the downtrodden. Her life is her genuine testimony. Your opinion of her is based on distortion and prejudice.

You blame the lack of population control on Catholic doctrine, yet on the very previous page of your book you actually state that the secular-leftist government predominates there in Calcutta—the type of politics that you personally espouse. Thus, your position lacks consistency and logic. Your hatred of her is also partly because you disagree with her position on sexual behavior; she disapproves, like the Catholic Church, of sodomy and promiscuity. If everyone were to follow what the Catholic Church teaches about sex and marriage, there would hardly be any venereal disease and death due to AIDS. And yet you’re happy hurling cheap jokes and insults at the missionary nuns, their work, and their celibate vocation.
read the full debate here

 

[Webers_Home]

.
FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?

REPLY: Catholicism isn't easy.

Once someone is fully committed by completing First Holy Communion and
Confirmation and undergone Christian baptism --God will be holding them
accountable to comply with everything Rome teaches and stands for, e.g.
the Commandments, the Canon Law, the dogma, the rituals, the Traditions,
the Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals, the rites, the holy days of obligation,
and the entire Catechism; plus everything that Jesus and the apostles taught
in the New Testament, i.e. all four gospels and all twenty-one epistles, plus
Acts and Revelation.

That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.

And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with
just one mortal sin on the books awaiting absolution, just one, they go
straight to Hell. It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if a
Catholic managed to be a top performer in faith and practice for fifty years,
none of that will be taken into consideration. They will leave this life as if
they'd been a pagan the whole time. Mortal sins are that lethal.

The paragraph below from CCC 1782 of the catechism of the Catholic
Church; acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting
a religion of their own personal choice.

"Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to
make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his
conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters."

However, be aware that once someone joins the Catholic Church, they will
have to relinquish those rights and be no longer permitted to either
interpret, or apply, the Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight per
CCC 85 which says:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether
in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the
living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

Bottom line is: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Big
Brother's thought control in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; only saying that it's a level of
governance that some folks find a mite too strict.
_

 

[Illuminator]

.
FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?

REPLY: Catholicism isn't easy.

Once someone is fully committed by completing First Holy Communion and
Confirmation and undergone Christian baptism --God will be holding them
accountable to comply with everything Rome teaches and stands for, e.g.
the Commandments, the Canon Law, the dogma, the rituals, the Traditions,
the Councils, the Bulls, the Encyclicals, the rites, the holy days of obligation,
and the entire Catechism; plus everything that Jesus and the apostles taught
in the New Testament, i.e. all four gospels and all twenty-one epistles, plus
Acts and Revelation.

That's a lot to remember, let alone put into practice.

Not only that, it's impossible. 3 lifetimes of study would not cover everything The CC teaches and has taught. The catechism is but a summary of a summary. That's why footnotes are important. They show where the teachings come from. The CC does not expect the laity to follow every detail in your list, and that goes for practicing Catholics. A saint is a sinner who keeps trying. You are implying Catholics are Pelagians or semi-Pelagians, earning salvation by doing all the right things. No wonder you were so appalled. You have been railing against a heresy of your own making, and blaming the CC for 50+ years.

And then there's the matter of mortal sin. When Catholics leave this life with
just one mortal sin on the books awaiting absolution, just one, they go
straight to Hell. It's a direct flight; no stopover in a Purgatory. Even if a
Catholic managed to be a top performer in faith and practice for fifty years,
none of that will be taken into consideration. They will leave this life as if
they'd been a pagan the whole time. Mortal sins are that lethal.

But you have re-defined "mortal sin", then oppose it. That's what a straw man fallacy is. Anyone can key in a word or topic in the search bar at Catholic Answers . Search the world's largest database of answers about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith. Learn more about Catholicism through articles, books, videos and more. That's what a serious inquirer will do. Sadly, the anti-Catholic is too lazy or too self righteous to bother, relativistic liberalism is more fun.

The paragraph below from CCC 1782 of the catechism of the Catholic
Church; acknowledges everyone's rights and freedoms in regard to selecting
a religion of their own personal choice.

"Man has the right to act in conscience, and in freedom, so as personally to
make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his
conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his
conscience, especially in religious matters."

Too bad that doesn't stop the made-in-America Bible clubs who constantly assert a dominating dictator image of the episcopate, in line with Lenin and Marx. They imposed the same "thought control" lunacy as do anti-Catholics, especially the SDA.

However, be aware that once someone joins the Catholic Church, they will
have to relinquish those rights and be no longer permitted to either
interpret, or apply, the Holy Bible's teachings sans hierarchy oversight per
CCC 85 which says:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether
in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the
living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is
exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

First you tell a lie, then try and back it up with a snippet. The dishonesty is glaring. Next paragraph:
:
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

"proposes for belief" does not mean "imposes for belief," contrary to the mindset of radical anti-Catholics. If you are going to quote the catechism, please provide a link to the whole page, and stop using snippets as weapons.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 2

Bottom line is: Catholicism isn't a democratic structure-- it's more like Big
Brother's thought control in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four".
I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing; only saying that it's a level of
governance that some folks find a mite too strict.
_

Another straw man fallacy re: "level of governance".

...So that takes care of use of different translations. Nor do Catholics have to interpret every verse of the Bible according to some dogmatic proclamation of the Church. This is another ridiculous (and highly annoying) myth that we hear all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic must interpret doctrines he derives from Scripture in accordance with the Church and tradition, but so what?​

​

Every Protestant does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No five-point Calvinist can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one that teaches God’s desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can’t deny total depravity in any text, or irresistible grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries that we abide by. The Catholic exegete is bound by very little, and has virtually as much freedom of inquiry as the Protestant exegete.​

​

Many people think the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only a handful of passages have been definitively interpreted. The Church does interpret many passages in Scripture to guide her teaching. Other passages are used as the starting point and support of doctrine or moral teaching, but only these few have been “defined” in the strict sense of the word. Even in these few cases the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals.​

​

A list of 7 definitive interpretations of certain verses (yes, only 7)​

The Freedom Of The Catholic Biblical Exegete / Interpreter

Catholics have freedom to exegete and interpret the Bible. We submit to the guidelines of orthodoxy, but so do Protestants in large part as well.

www.patheos.com

I'll wait right here for your next gross misrepresentation because you refuse to grow up and put away your worn out toys.

 

[Illuminator]

FAQ: I'm considering joining the Catholic Church. Would it be a mistake?

REPLY: Catholicism isn't easy. You must avoid it at all costs!!!

How to Avoid Converting to Catholicism, in 8 Easy Steps -

Helpful advice from a recent Protestant-to-Catholic convert.

www.churchpop.com

 

[Illuminator]

.