VBS or *Don’t* Skip Verse 6…

So I’m teaching the 5th grade class at VBS this summer.  We’re using a Protestant product called Rainforest Adventure. Our seminarian had told me that they were planning modifications to add more depth among other things.  Someone else had given me this little booklet of five pages that covered each of the days, one leaflet per day.  I took one look at that and said whoa, this can NOT be it.  There is NO WAY I can make this last 30 minutes, there’s nothing here! So I spoke again to the Seminarian and asked if the VBS planning meeting had been held and if there were more materials. (Please oh please oh please…) He said there had not yet been a meeting but that he could give me the packet of materials they had prepared. *Que the Hallelujah Chorus*

As he briefed me on the packet he showed me a page which detailed the rearrangement of the topics on subsequent days and the added materials recommended for our use.  He pointed at the first day which covered love using John 15: 1-17.  Beside this was an admonition in all caps, bolded, and underlined, which stated “DO NOT SKIP VERSE 6!”  He took care to point that out to me.  I said to him that I was not in the habit of skipping verses when I read scripture.  He said yes, but don’t skip verse 6.  I said WHY would I skip verse 6?? He said well, the original materials tell you to skip verse 6, but we do not want the teachers to skip verse 6.  I said ooooooooooooh ok then, thinking to self ‘not a problem because I DON’T SKIP VERSES WHEN READING SCRIPTURE.’

Today I sat down to work on VBS lesson plans and, remembering the ‘skip this verse’ exchange, dug out my little booklet to see if that verse was skipped on what I had.  Sure enough, it was.

With the lovely new packet of materials the Priest and Seminarian had put together, I started my prep at the top, opening my Bible to the scriptures in John.  As I began to read, I looked forward to that verse with great interest, wondering what on earth needed to be ‘cut’ from the scripture being studied by the children.  Then I began to laugh and thought, ‘Of. Course!’ What can I say, it was either laugh or cry.

Remember now, this is a verse in the gospel of John.  In fact, if your Holy Bible has the words of Christ in red, THIS verse would be in red.  In fact, there are red verses before it and red verses after it so THIS verse being in red wouldn’t be a printing error.  So WHY would we be advised EVER to ‘skip and not read’ the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Well, let’s take a wee peek at what those words are and see, shall we? (I’ll even give you a little context.)

5

5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.

6 Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.

7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.

That verse might be kind of hard to reconcile with the Once Saved Always Saved theology to which so many Protestant denominations adhere. Still, wow.  It’s one thing to know that people have stripped out scripture that they don’t agree with (ie the Deuterocanonical books and those pesky bits in Daniel and Esther).  It’s one thing to know that people still strip away and deny the truth of the scripture they’ve kept by twisting and misrepresenting the teachings therein. After all, it’s somehow detached from us, historical or theoretical.  It’s something else entirely to see it done so blatantly, in practice, and in order to deceive children. 

What was that Christ said about letting children come to Him?  I think He said something about causing children to sin and a millstone as well (Luke 17:1-2) or are we skipping that scripture too? Skipping scripture is a dangerous thing… sort of like giving a mouse a cookie… skip one and you have to skip another… and another… like this one in Matthew (4:4)…

4

He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’

(Emphasis mine.) Interesting how all those scriptures you’d have to skip to be comfortable skipping the first one are ALSO straight from the mouth of our Lord (and in a Holy Bible those are all in red). Wonder if that is why so many Protestants I talk to quote Paul more than they quote Christ.

Dunno about you, but I don’t skip verses when I read scripture… It isn’t life unless it is lived by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God… and He came that I might have life, and that more abundantly (John 10:10)!

Oh, and about not having enough material? Not a problem anymore… Now I don’t have enough time!

 

Who Hates Whom?

Still revisiting the recent exchanges and pulling out bits as they jump out at me… I found this interesting considering both James and I replied charitably, never giving Fisher reason to make any such assertation…

Weekend Fisher:

I look at this (post and comments) and I just want to talk to you two as people, not as “Roman Catholics who hate my stinkin’ Lutheran guts”, y’know.

James H:

In the end all we can do is keep doing what we are doing. Pope John II Apologizes to the Church in the East for Events that happen 1000 years ago and the response is nothing but stony silence from the East. Ditto for the Reformation and everything else.

Catholics dialogue with Lutherans and what is the response. Well, one of the major Lutheran Synods in the United States still says the Pope is the Anti Christ:
____________
“43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308″

Uh, as to the first bolded segment, nooooooooooo this isn’t the case.  The Pope recognizes, as do all Catholics who are in agreement with the Magisterium etc, that our separated brothers and sisters in Christ are just that, brothers and sisters in Christ. 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

They are even considered Catholic, though in imperfect union with the Church.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”³²⁰

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”³²² Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”³²⁴

The second bolded segment is also complete error.  The doctrines of the Church are in keeping with the teaching of Christ and the apostles. It was the fathers of the reformation who rebelled against the authority placed over them and removed themselves from fellowship with the Church. Who embraced antiChristian doctrines, rejecting the teachings passed down to us from Christ and the apostles down through the Early Church Fathers throughout the ages.  

As to yet another charge… the Pope does not claim to be God, but the servant of God and the Servant of His people, the Vicar of Christ, the steward left to care for the Kingdom until Christ returns. 

 As to forgiveness, Christ never said through grace alone or faith alone… Here’s what Christ DID say…

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

and…

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following, in absolute accord with sacred scripture:

 977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”⁵²¹ Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that “we too might walk in newness of life.”⁵²²

The rest is just as specious as the bits addressed, yet we are the ones accused of hate?

 

The Fisher is Back…

The Weekend Fisher is back.  I’m not going to get into polemics either (as she said she didn’t want to in her first comment) but I did want to address a few points. 

Well, ok, and I’m going to stick with “Weekend Fisher” to avoid confusion though my name is likewise “Anne” in the real world. (Small world. Are you a redhead too or is it just me? Happy St. Patrick’s, btw; I’m Irish.)

 Welcome back, and happy coincidence that we are both ‘Anne’s,’ though you are the only redhead. Lucky girl. I am brunette.  Happy St. Patrick’s Day indeed.  I do love all things Irish, though I am a mongrel myself.  Descent from inhabitants of America since before it WAS America will do that to ya. I enjoy being Sicilian by marriage though, dh is third generation American while managing to still be a full blood Sicilian. Cool to have heritage like that.

I look at this (post and comments) and I just want to talk to you two as people, not as “Roman Catholics who hate my stinkin’ Lutheran guts”, y’know.

 Please, in NO way do I hate you. On the contrary, I love you as my sister in Christ and have enjoyed the conversation. 

I’ve gone to Lutheran churches for quite a few years now. I’ve never been taught Luther was all that; in fact we’re taught that he has his faults, when he’s mentioned at all; mostly we just stick with the Scriptures and the Sacraments.

 Cool. That is fortunate, however it wasn’t the case for all of us.  We are working from our own experiences and insofar that we were less well educated, or taught a more glossed over version, that is what we must deal with.  Thus must we rectify our education with the truth about the fathers of the reformation as well as the results of it.

I’ve never been taught that the RC church is a cult, just that (don’t throw anything, you’ve heard this before) they’re wrong about earning your way to heaven.

 Well, did we believe that we earn our way to heaven I’d agree with you.  However, we do not believe that we earn our way to heaven. We believe that we are saved by grace. Catholics do not believe that salvation just ‘covers’ us, rather we believe that we are also transformed by it from the inside out. (Both/and again.) We believe that we were saved by Christ’s work on the cross (Rom 8: 24, Eph 2:5,8, 2 Tim 1:9, Tit 3:5), that we are being saved daily by our response and obedience to God through Christ (Phil 2:12, 1Pet 1:9), and that we will be saved as we continue to do so (Matt 10:22, Matt 24:13, Mark 8:35, Acts 15:11, Rom 5:9-10, Rom 13:11, 1 Cor 3: 15, 1 Cor 5:5, Heb 9:28).  Works are just part of our response to God, proof of our faith, for we know that faith without works is dead (James 2:24-26).  However, in NO way do we believe we earn our way to heaven. 

 I’ve talked to other Lutherans who’ve been to Dave Armstrong’s place, and they tell me it’s a mix of 1) stuff we’ve always known – nobody ever claimed Luther was a saint!, and 2) a fair bit of slander, some demonstrably false. I’ve had Armstrong’s site mentioned to me by another Lutheran as “prime example of how low RC’s will stoop in misrepresenting the facts to smear protestants” and “really blatant, hate-blinded animosity towards Luther”.

 Perhaps the better option would be to go and assess the site for yourself.  Certainly, all the writings I’ve read by the Church about herself have not painted the most glowing picture.  If the RCC were going to stoop to misrepresenting facts, surely she would’ve painted herself in a better light?  I don’t hate Luther. I have no desire to smear protestants or Luther himself.  Luther did a fabulous job of doing the same thing we ALL do, what protestants and even Catholics do today.  Attempt to reform truth  into what we would prefer it was, to what is more comfortable, takes less effort, and is less convicting than the truth.  Judge others instead of dealing with our own sins. Of these I am also guilty.  While there was some anger at Luther for a time during my conversion, what I am left with is pity and mercy. Pity and mercy for a man who was sinful like me. Pity and mercy because of how I would feel if I were he, looking at what the consequences of my sin wrought.  Perhaps even hopeful that pity and mercy will be given me when my sins have reached the fullness of their destructive power in the community around me.  When that happens, I pray that those affected by my sin will call it what it is, and work hard not to follow in my footsteps.  (Don’t believe me? Ask my husband. He has STRICT instructions about my eulogy. It had best NOT be one of these PC schmoozes that doesn’t remotely resemble me.  I don’t anticipate that being a problem however, since Red Neck Woman has agreed to deliver said eulogy and is taking bets over her ability to empty the church in under ten minutes.)

And when you talk about American history books being annoyingly British/Protestant, I have to smile. I’m in Texas.

 My home state! Texan born and raised. I’ve only lived here for two years.  Go Aggies!

We had a “first Thanksgiving” here nearly 100 years before the New England states had one. But here’s why I don’t protest the “northeastern origins” view of US history too much: if we start with explorers and conquistadors, US history would be close to 100% land-grab.

 Uh, yeah? That about covers it!

The only mitigating factors in US History come from the idealism, however blind and exclusive, of people who actually wanted freedom, equality, and brotherhood, rather than cheap land and plundered goods at the expense of the natives.

Even many of those didn’t mind getting what they wanted on the backs of those who were willing to plunder and exploit the natives, and do remember that I am referring to my own ancestors here as well.

But can we talk about slanted history books? It was only when I started reading the histories of other nations and other eras that I realized the “Christian history” as I’d learned it was just as slanted as the US History.

There are going to be slanted histories. The victor writes. That doesn’t mean that we have to automatically swallow that line. Whether Christian or secular history, we can go back and read original documents, we can look at history as presented by both sides and get a much clearer picture than one slanted view ever provides.

. I.e., a lot of Rome’s history has been whitewashed too.

Not very well in my opinion. Certainly, were I rewriting my own history I’d do a much better job.

 But that’s the first stumbling block: Rome says she’s infallible and therefore there’s nothing to discuss (except how long we plan to remain heretics for not believing she’s infallible). But Peter wasn’t infallible by himself … he needed correcting by Paul at least once on the record. Peter, alone, is not infallible …

Infallibility is not quite what you have depicted here. Not every action by every priest and every person in the Catholic Church is infallible.  That is not the claim of the Church. The Church teaches that the Pope (and Peter) are infallible when speaking ex cathedra and in communion with the bishops and magisterium on matters of faith and doctrine.  This is referring specifically to the authority given to the priesthood and its chief shepherd by Christ. Hardly an across the board claim to infallibility. Popes are men, and sinful just like us. Priests confess just like the rest of us do, even the Pope has a confessor.  Peter’s need to be corrected by his brother in Christ does not negate Peter’s (and the apostles) authority on matters of faith and doctrine to which Paul himself submitted. (Acts 9:26-30) John 16:13 bears the promise that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Acts 15:28 tells us that the apostles speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit. Luke 10:16 says they speak with Christ’s own voice, that to accept them is to accept Christ and to reject them is to reject Christ. Matt 28:19-20 tells us that He is with them even to the end.

Rome, alone, is not the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”.

Certainly, she is the only one who visibly fulfills all four marks of the Church.  She is the only one which is truly, visibly one, united in one body, under one authority. She is holy, catholic and apostolic. There are those who have removed themselves from the Body of Christ, refusing to maintain the unity Christ prayed for on His way to the cross…

John 17:20-23

20 “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will
believe in me through their word,
21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me
and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may
believe that you sent me.
22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that
they may be one, as we are one,
23 I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to
perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me,
and that you loved them even as you loved me.

…and the constant prayer of the Church is that the descendents, our separated brethren through no fault of their own, would come home.  Certainly, of this I am guilty, and I do repent of it. I have nothing to protest. 

Again, please understand that this teaching in no way makes protestants the enemy of the Catholic church. On the contrary, the Church already considers them Catholic because of their faith, just in imperfect communion with the Church.  The Church longs for all of us to come home and be reunited in perfect obedience to the faith. It is unfortunate indeed that so many misconceptions abound, both about the Church’s teachings and her view of protestants.  Certainly, my greatest hope and intent is to disabuse those erroneous notions, and to any extent that I fail in that regard, giving offense or inadequately representing the faith I hold so dear, I am most heartily sorry.  My most sincere desire is that others who are like I was would come to find the fullness and richness of the Faith left for us in the care of the Church, that none who earnestly seeks God and His will in their life would have to journey on the scraps left to us in protestantism instead of with the feast and graces left to us in the Sacraments.

Sincerely, and it is my earnest prayer, that God would richly bless you and grant you peace.

 

Response to Weekend Fisher…

This is in response to a comment left on the New Paganism entry. 

Weekend Fisher:

I’m curious — do believe that all evils in the church were the Reformation’s fault, or that Rome is exempt from error and uncharity towards other believers?

Welcome Weekend Fisher!

No, I do not believe all the evils in the church were the Reformation’s fault or that Rome is exempt from error and uncharity towards other believers. (Aren’t you relieved? *wink*) However, I am a convert to Catholicism. I was WELL aware of the faults of the Roman Catholic Church prior to my conversion and while the truth of that was not so extreme as I had been taught, I continue to agree there were definitely problems then and frankly, continue to be now. What body of men does not have them? Indeed, there is none because where there are men, there is sinfulness and error and lack of charity.

That said, I was NOT taught about the problems, the error and uncharity committed by we protestants. Neither has the Catholic Church been teaching me these things. The Church teaches that our protestant brothers and sisters are exactly that, our separated brethren and have not discussed with me AT ALL the Reformation or the consequences thereof. Rather, it has been in my own reading and study that God has been teaching me that both sides have sinned, and all sin has its consequences. What you witness here is the rectifying of a lopsided education.

I have been blogging of my learning of the other side of that equation. What I am learning causes me grief and mourning. It is not that the protestant side has the market cornered on sin and lack of charity. Far from it, rather, the problem is that we should be one Body. That the sin of division and a house divided has led to more sin, like the dropping of a stone into a pond causes ripples. That such division not only hurts our witness and ability to speak to the world as God intended, but grieves the heart of God.

Weekend Fisher:

A Roman Catholic asked me, not too long ago, what exactly was the “cringe factor” when it came to Roman Catholicism. I blogged a full-length reply, but if I had to boil it down to one phrase it would be this: how Rome treats other Christians.

I’m not sure that I agree with you on ‘how Rome treats other Christians’. At least, my experience has led me to a different conclusion and perspective. As a protestant for most of my life, I would have been the first to tell you that Catholics were not Christians (except for the odd man and why DID they stay in that cult anyway), that they were a cult (I did mention that didn’t I?), and that they were idolatrous among other things. I was rude, arrogant, and unkind to my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. It was I, and everyone of my aquaintance, who were treating other Christians badly. (I do not assume that this is your position, only speaking to my own as a protestant.) In my experience, and the experience of many whom I have come to know in the past two years, it was the Catholics of our aquaintance who were kind, patient, long suffering. Who did not return unkind words or thoughts or looks with like, but extended grace instead.

That said, Christians of all flavors treat other Christians of all flavors badly… and unChristians too. Catholics, protestants, we are all guity of it.

In the end, I am condemning primarily myself. It is in becoming aware of just how sinful I was as a protestant, just how far from where God intended me to be, that I am able to repent of it and work as best I can to avoid it in the future. At the same time, I LOVE my protestant brothers and sisters… and in NO way intend for anything I say here to suggest otherwise.

Weekend Fisher:

Wishing for genuine dialog rather than polemics.

How’s this for genuine dialog? Like you, I am not interested in polemics. My belief that there is Truth, and that it is God’s to determine, and that it is WE who must correct our faulty understanding and align ourselves with Him is a belief that I have had both as a protestant and as a Catholic. I will be the first to tell you that I am guilty of these sins and am having to do so. I have grieved our Lord. I have failed to do what is right in His eyes. I have leaned unto my own understanding. I have refused to submit to those He placed in authority over me. I have been working hard to be obedient in rectifying many of those things and as much good work as He has done in me, I am far from finished. If you are perceiving finger pointing here, know that it is at myself I point first. If you perceive judgement, know that it is myself who I judge. If you perceive exhortation to change, it is of myself that I demand it above all.

I don’t know if you’ve read my conversion story included in the entries of this blog, but I did not CHOOSE to become Catholic. It is not my understanding that has led me here, or a desire for smells and bells, or a great hurt done by those in my protestant circles. It was required of me by the Lord our God. I do not presume for ONE MOMENT that He is calling you or anyone else to that journey. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. What you read here is MY journey, what I am learning, what I am struggling with, what I grieve over, what I rejoice over.

I pray that in reading this, whether or not you agree with my agreement with the Teachings of the Catholic Church, what I have learned, or any of the rest, that you will hear my heart. That is what I pour out here, in this comment, and in the blog in general. It is not an easy thing to learn that what one has believed for over 30 years, while partly true, held so much error. It is not an easy thing as an older person to change. It is not easy to admit to having been so horribly wrong. In order to do so, it is important to be willing to face my sin head on, acknowledge it, see the consequences of it as He does. As hard as this is, it would be even worse to not do so and cease to walk with God.

I do not apologize for calling sin what it is. I do not apologize for defending the faith, for if the faith or teachings of the Church and sacred scriptures give offense, it is not for me to apologize. For any mistreatment of Christians by Catholics, I extend my most sincere apologies. For anything I have said that has made you think that I do not love and esteem my separated brethren, I sincerely apologize. Not for one moment do I intend to convey a lack of love or a lack of charity just because I see that I am not the only one guilty of such sins and mourn the consequences of what we have wrought.

May God bless you above all you could ask or imagine and hide you in the secret of His Face,
Anne

 

Why Chuck Them?

I’m posting this with a heavy heart… I wrote it several days ago and left it saved to see if it was something that I really needed to say as it is very strongly worded and not perhaps as coherent as I’d like despite repeated work.  It has not only been constantly a burden of sorts, but the issue has come up yet again, with yet another comment by a Christian who said that the reason homosexuality gets such a bad rap in scripture is not because it was sinful, but because the Romans were hedonistic, which, she claimed, is very different from a loving homosexual family.  This simply can not stand. This in direct opposition to what God teaches us in sacred scripture, both about what constitutes a family and what is sinful in the way of sexual relations.  It is because of this… because everything in me cries out against this false belief and I can not get rest over it, that I publish this post.  This horribly distorted faith I have just described IS one of the fruits of the reformation.

This is probably common knowledge to everyone here but is there a particular reason that the protestants removed books from the Christian bible? And how did they choose which ones to remove or keep?

 This quote was taken from the homeschooling forums I frequent (one of them anyway).  In an attempt to answer quickly I posted the following from Dave Armstrong…

Protestantism, following Martin Luther, removed the deuterocanonical books from their Bibles due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently repudiated by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). We know this from plain statements of Luther and other Reformers.

Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) “did not exist,” and wanted to “toss it into the Elbe” river.
The New Testament fared scarcely better under Luther’s gaze. He rejected from the New Testament Canon (“chief books”) Hebrews, James (“epistle of straw”), Jude and Revelation, and placed them at the end of his translation, as a New Testament “Apocrypha.” He regarded them as non-apostolic. Of the book of Revelation he said, “Christ is not taught or known in it.” These opinions are found in Luther’s Prefaces to biblical books, in his German translation of 1522.

… and then this from myself…

Generally speaking, the easiest way to answer is just that they removed the bits that taught things they didn’t like. In our current era, they don’t remove them, rather just redefine what it means to suit their own beliefs. Over time, more and more is ‘defined’ away until some who claim Christianity resemble it not at all.

Feathers got ruffled to say the least.  I apologized as I didn’t INTEND to ruffle feathers or cause offense.  That said,  I did not mean that I was sorry for the basic content of the post.  Luther DID remove the ‘bits’ that taught things he didn’t like, that he didn’t agree with.  In fact, he WANTED to remove far more than he DID!  Some people excuse that as oh, he was a sinful man and wasn’t right about everything. HUH? How does one say that it wasn’t ok for him to do that, but it WAS ok for him to break his vows to God and his superiors and refuse to submit to the authority over him?  It comes down to ‘it was ok for him to leave the RCC because we don’t like her and don’t want to obey either.’  Double-minded men, sinful men, just as Luther was sinful… who do what is RIGHT in their own eyes. God forgive us…

Also, the fact that in our current era we don’t remove but instead redefine is an undeniable fact. All one has to do is look at the number of protestant denominations. Over and over in discussions people say “I don’t believe it says that.”  What they MEAN is “I don’t want it to say that” and they set about explaining how it can’t possibly say that which they find offensive or that which might require that they take action.  I was guilty of this as well, at least to some extent… while I was protestant.

At the end I said that so much of this had gone on that there are those who claim Christianity but do not resemble it and I stand by that as well.  Just on this set of forums in the past few months I have read of several such belief systems.  One focuses on the deity of Christ to the exclusion of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. The other claimed that homosexuality was not a sin, that God didn’t mean that it was a sin when He called it an abomination.  Yet another called circumcision sexual mutilation, and by default, God a sexual mutilator as He had ordered circumcision for His people (thinking specifically of the Jewish here, not going into the whole NT disposition).  

I do not see how these beliefs are REMOTELY compatible with Christianity.  One might agree or disagree on any number of things which don’t contradict sacred scripture outright and claim the faith… but to blatantly claim beliefs that are in direct opposition to teachings which have left NO room for misunderstanding or confusion is just beyond my ability to comprehend. NEVER, in my WORST moments as a protestant did I read anything God made absolutly crystal clear like ‘for a man to lie with another man is an abomination’ and pretend otherwise. NEVER did I call what God said was right for His people to do was an abomination.  These are just beyond even what I have ever seen a devout protestant dare! 

Don’t misunderstand… not for ONE MOMENT do I think that as a protestant I was sinning any less for my own particular brand of heresy than they are in theirs. Certainly, I am just as guilty… and despite the absolution for my sins… it grieves me still.  That is perhaps why I get so frustrated by all this… I didn’t know any better… they don’t know any better… we are ALL (protestants, whether current or former) paying the price for the sins of our forefathers.  The truth of the faith, the fullness of the faith was stolen from us… and as a result we sin greatly, and grieve God who extends mercy in spite of it all.

That said, I do NOT want to be guilty of continuing that and not about to lie and say that people AREN’T calling interpretations the way they want them to be!  Perhaps this is more uniquely true in the American church… I don’t know… but there was a time when almost everyone I knew, even as a protestant, held themselves accountable to what God said was right and wrong.  That is no longer true… many still do, true… but many are remaking the faith to fit their own desires, their own sense of right and wrong, their own comfort, their own idea of what makes a good faith/religion.  Some in outright contradiction of God’s word… how does one NOT take a stand on this?  How can it NOT grieve anyone truly seeking God?

Conversion to the Catholic Church has been a great blessing in my life… God truly knew better than I did what was right and best.  Part of my conversion has been giving UP what seemed right and good and true in my own eyes and being obedient instead to what God said.  Many of these things have come to make sense and I can see the joy and blessing obedience brings. Other things are difficult, I understand even as I demand obedience from myself despite the costs and suffering, despite whether or not I think it is just or fair.  Is this not what we must do? Is it not always we who must move to align ourselves more fully with God?

Over and over protestants say ‘that is what you choose to believe’ and inside I’m yelling ‘NO! It WASN’T!’ but they don’t understand… and no wording will change that.  How do you explain a burning bush… holy ground… following because you must… because there lies the only path to Life?  Only those who have walked this ground seem to understand and it is so hard to look at those who remain where I was, to have a heart for them, to want them to share the beauty and joy and riches God has shown me here… and find myself unable to reach them when trying to answer their questions.  It is as though I speak a different language… and yet I feel more love for my brethren than ever before.

In some ways I am more completely a part of the Body of Christ than I have ever been… and in some ways I feel more alone, rejected, vilified, and misunderstood.  It is not without much struggle, this narrow way… It was much easier when I had ‘my own’ interpretation… no protestants were offended by it, there was no struggle… certainly nothing like this and yet…

 Even so Lord, lead on…

 

Imperfections…

One of my dear friends is a pastors wife.  They are a protestant homeschooling family.  This friend recently posted a letter written by her husband which was to be published in their local paper and asked for thoughts on it.  

The letter is as follows…

I’m A Christian…Please Forgive Me
Some of you may be offended or confused by what we’re saying. Others may react by thinking, “It’s about time somebody said that.” Some of you may think it’s just a gag. I assure you, I am serious. This is a sincere apology for all the harm that has been done to Jesus and His movement of revolution and life-change by those of us who call ourselves Christians.

*I’m sorry for neglecting the poor and not loving people the way Jesus did.
*I’m sorry for being slow to notice the 25 million dead in Africa from AIDS and the
40 million infected including millions of women and children who had no say in the
matter.
*I’m sorry for all the people protesting outside the funerals of our soldiers “in the name
of Jesus”.
*I’m sorry for televangelists & churches that give the impression that Jesus is more
interested in getting your money than He is in having your heart.
*I’m sorry for those who’ve given the impression that God’s love is dependant upon
what you do or don’t do instead of sharing that God loves you just the way you are.
*I’m sorry for those who’ve made you think that to be a Christian you have to act like
they do, dress like they do and use the “spiritual lingo’ they do.
*I’m sorry for the times when people in the church have been the first to judge and
condemn instead of offering Jesus’ embrace of grace and restoration.
*I’m sorry for the way many in the church have given people the idea that God hates
homosexuals.
*I’m sorry that for too long the church has treated women like second-class
citizens and acted as if their gifts are unwanted and unusable.
*I’m sorry to those who’ve given up on the church because of the infighting, back-biting
and rivalry that’s gone on by people who are supposed to be Jesus’ representatives
here on earth.

I want to ask for your forgiveness and tell you that Jesus loves you more than you’ll ever know. Please don’t allow our mistakes to drive you away from Jesus. We’re not perfect and won’t ever be as long as we draw breath. But it’s time we acknowledge the damage that’s been done, the pain that’s been inflicted and then do everything possible to change the adjectives people use to describe a Christian. Hopefully by at least acknowledging our past we can begin to change the future.

 Mixed in with many positive reactions was the following reponse by another protestant…

I think the major thing that threw me off in original post was the list of things and the implication that all Christians are guilty of those things. That’s just not the truth; and frankly, I find it insulting when it’s implied that we are – especially from a fellow Christian who knows it’s not true.

I’m ashamed to say that I once felt this way.  I was prideful and arrogant, oh-so-sure that  I wasn’t guilty of much sin I saw in others… and I sure as HECK didn’t want to align myself with them… bearing my own sin and shame was bad enough thank you very much.  Yeeeeeeeeeah. Real proud of THAT. **sigh**

That didn’t last long.  God began dealing with sin in my life that I had NO idea I was guilty of… and it wasn’t just ONE thing… and even when I thought I had some sin ‘beat’, it would rear its ugly head a year or two later like some evil specter that needed further exorcism.  I began to learn that I was guilty of all KINDS of (and a great deal more) sin that I wasn’t aware of… and that ignorance did NOT mean I was any ‘cleaner’ than Tom, Dick, or Harry… rather, just like all those on whom I sat in judgement, I was not only guilty of sin, I was even more offensive in my ignorance and false self-righteous pride than I ever was in the sin itself.  During that time, I ran across a quote in my reading that said basically…

‘when someone tells me something they find wrong with me, I am not surprised and it doesn’t hurt nearly so much as it once did… God has shown me how sinful I am in His eyes and that is MUCH worse than anything anyone else can point out… so I’ve learned to accept and appreciate the reprimand so that it can be dealt with.’

That’s a rough rendition of a much more concise quote which I unfortunately do not have the attributions for.  However, I’ve never forgotten it’s essence and that attitude is one that I have embraced more and more over time.

Not only that, but God has been teaching me about communal life during and since my reconciliation to the Church and I have come to understand how so much of the time He deals with us corporately. When He allowed His people to be taken into bondage for four hundred years, He considered the promise to bring them out again fulfilled, even if it wasn’t the exact same people who went in four hundred years before.  Look at David, Daniel, and the prophets… how often they cried out and interceded to God on behalf of their people… and how did they do it? ‘God, forgive your wretched people… THEY are horrid sinners?’ No, it was always Lord, forgive US.  They took upon themselves and attributed to themselves and all members of the body, the sins of the people. If such godly men were willing to do this, how can we do less?

Lastly, what a selfish thing to say ‘no, I am INSULTED by the idea of having to bear someone else’s sin’ and ‘no, I am INSULTED that someone else would claim to bear mine’.  HELLO?  What else did Jesus DO but that?Are we not to be LIKE Him? Does sacred scripture not say that we are to bear one anothers’ burdens? Then how can we for one moment be insulted to be thought worse than we are for the sake of healing another, reaching another, loving another. Simply, we cannot.

I, too, am guilty. God forgive me for my selfishness, my unwillingness to fully embrace the cross, my refusal to join Christ in His suffering for the sake of the world. I repent that my own pride in being *spit* clean *spit* kept me from being willing to get dirty in service to others. May I never again be too *good* to be like Christ.

Instead, I have been learning what Saint Therese of Lisieux describes here…  learning to rejoice in my imperfections, in my weakness, in being small… because in them is God revealed. In them is He most glorified.

“Ah! lord, I know you don’t command the impossible. You know better than I do my weakness and imperfection… Now I am astonished at nothing. I am not disturbed at seeing myself weakness itself. On the contrary, it is in my weakness that I glory, and I expect each day to discover new imperfections in myself.”                                

       ~Saint Therese of Lisieux

There is a dramatic paradigm shift in this view of oneself as opposed to the earlier one… and it is a great gift indeed.

 

The New Paganism by Hilaire Belloc

I’ve been reading Essays of a Catholic by Hilaire Belloc.  Belloc is like Chesterton in that I have yet to read anything written by either man that did not strike me as brilliant and profound.  The first essay in the book is “The New Paganism”* from which I’ve taken the following quotes…

… a Christian man or society is one that has some part of Catholicism left in him. But when every shred of Catholicism is lost we call that state of things “Unchristian.”

I have found this to be so true… we might not use the word unchristian, but certainly we use words that are interchangeable with it. Even in the protestant faiths, we see slivers of Catholic (universal) Truth that remain to some degree, though I have seen of late some who’ve shredded it entirely and yet claim the title Christian.

…with the attack on faith and the Church at the Reformation, the successful rebellion of so many and their secession from united Christendom, there began a process which could only end in the complete loss of all Catholic doctrine and morals by the deserters.  

Rebellion indeed, for that is what the Reformation was.  Belloc claims that we are today reaching this consummation and that was in 1931 or there abouts. Indeed, so we are even more today… and yet the Church remains, true to the faith she was given.  She is yet a shining beacon, parenting her children through the rocky shoals of this journey, a light to guide those who still seek and treasure truth.  It has been many years since the fathers of the rebellion began their denomination of their faith… how many will be lost because of it? How many will live out their lives in service to God in the desert created for them by their forefathers, so far and yet so close to the bounty God left to sustain His people here in these shadow lands. They do so much despite serving on such scant rations!

…there are, spreading over what used to be the Christian world, larger and larger areas over which the Christian spirit has wholly failed; is absent… …both larger moral and larger physical areas, but especially larger moral areas. There are now whole groups of books, whole bodies of men, which are definitely pagan, and these are beginning to join up into larger groups. It is like the freezing over of a pond, which begins in patches of ice; the patches unite to form wide sheets, till at last the whole is one solid surface. … they are coalescing—to form a corpus of anti-Christian influence. It is not so much that they deny the Incarnation and the Resurrection, not even that they ignore doctrine. It is rather that they contradict and oppose the old inherited Christian system of morals to which people used to adhere long after they had given up definite doctrine.

Is this not what we bemoan regularly in our own society as well as others? In my own life I see quite close at hand a life that embodies this description.  Truly, this life is pagan, yet not pagan with a hope of something better… a new pagan such as Belloc describes in this essay… a pagan who has turned their back on hope, disdained it and chosen paganism, humanism, as their god. 

So often pundits insist that we ‘can’t legislate morality’.  On the contrary, morality is the root of all legislation… what is legislation but the common morality chosen for a group of people to which they are held by penalty? Personally, having seen the various ‘types’ of legislated morality available in the world today, I far prefer the ones that are based upon Christian doctrine.  This is not due primarily to my own faith, so much as it is the preference for the results of that doctrine’s morality taken to it’s conclusion in those given cultures.

What does doctrine have to do with morals? Belloc is succinct.

…morals are the fruit of doctrine.

Belloc goes on to identify the source of this trend… 

The true origin of this attitude of mind in modern times is the powerful genius of Calvin, though those who most suffer his influence would most strenuously deny their subjection to it, partly because they have never read him, much more because they do not see it in their daily papers…

Calvin, then, is at the fountainhead of this new sense of doom. But behind Calvin the fatalist attitude is an attitude as old, of course, as the hills. It is a temptation to which the human intellect has yielded on important occasions from as far back as we can trace its recorded experience and definitions. To the mind in that mood all things are part of an unchangeable process following from cause to effect immutably. 

… that one very powerful agent in producing this mood is the desire to be rid of responsibility.

Denial of man’s free will indulges that desire to be rid of responsibility.  If we deny freedom of will to choose, we deny our own responsibility and can reject every objectionable thing with ‘it’s not my fault…’ This is pervasive in our society even more so today.

…the New Paganism has already begun to produce and cannot but produce more and more a mass of restrictive legislation.  

More restrictive legislation while being more permissive of inhumanity.

It is a paradox, of course, that such restrictive legislation should be bred from a mood which proceeded originally from rebellion against restriction, but the fact is undoubted—it is before all our eyes. With the denial of the will there necessarily appears the questioning of any content to the word “freedom.” In a Christian society you were free to do a number of acts, for some of which you could be punished under Christian laws, for others of which no state or other authority could punish you, but which were opposed to the social atmosphere in which you lived. But the New Paganism will tend, not to punish, but to restrain with fetters; to prevent action, to impose coercive bonds. It will be at issue more and more with human dignity. It has already, in certain provinces (the Calvinist canton of Vaud in Switzerland is an example), enacted what is called “the sterilization of the unfit” as a positive law. It has not yet enacted, though it has already proposed and will certainly in time enact, legislation for the restriction of births. Not only in these, but in many other departments of life, one after another, will this mechanical network spread and bind those subject to it under a compulsion which cannot be escaped.

and…

The battle for right doctrine in theology is always also a battle for the preservation of definite social things (institutions, habits) following from right doctrine; nor is there anything more contemptible intellectually than the attitude of those who imagine that because doctrine must be stated in abstract terms it therefore has no practical application nor any real fruit in the real world of real men. Contrariwise, difference in doctrine is at the root of all political and social differences; therefore is the struggle for or against true doctrine the most vital of struggles. . . .

and… 

The Old Paganism was of a sort that would be open, when due time came, to the authority of the Catholic Church. It had ears which at least would hear and eyes which at least would see; but the New Paganism not only has closed its senses, but is atrophying them, so that it aims at a state in which there shall be no ears to hear and no eyes to see.

The one was growing keener in its sight and its hearing; the other is declining towards a condition where the society it informs will be blind and deaf, even to the main natural pleasures of life and to temporal truths. It will be incapable of understanding what they are all about.

The Old Paganism had a strong sense of the supernatural. This sense was often turned to the wrong objects and always to insufficient objects, but it was keen and unfailing; all the poetry of the Old Paganism, even where it despairs, has this sense. And you may read in those of its writers who actively opposed religion, such as Lucretius, a fine religious sense of dignity and order. The New Paganism delights in superficiality, and conceives that it is rid of the evil as well as the good in what it believes to have been superstitions and illusions.

There it is quite wrong, and upon that note I will end. Men do not live long without gods; but when the gods of the New Paganism come they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil. 

A blog entry can in no way do this essay justice. It is powerful and prescient. Belloc was truly a great historian and a brave man to continue to speak truth when it was unpopular to do so.

Rod Bennet of tremendous trifles  has blogged on Belloc’s writings on the New Paganism as well and his entry is well worth reading.

*an incomplete rendering of the essay (but at least it is partly available online )where perhaps can be read more fully the context of the quotes I’ve taken.

 

Basic Sin…

Yet again from Thomas Merton: Spiritual Master by Lawrence S. Cunningham 

The basic sin, for Christianity, is rejecting others in order to choose oneself, deciding against others and deciding for oneself.  Why is this sin so basic? Because the idea that you can choose yourself, approve yourself, and then offer yourself (fully “chosen” and “approved”) to God, applies the assertion of yourself over against God.  From this root of error comes all the sour leafage and fruitage of a life of self-examination, interminable problems and unending decisions, always making right choices, walking on the razor edge of an impossibly subtle ethic (with an equally subtle psychology to take care of the unconscious). All this implies the frenzied conviction that one can be his own light and his own justification, and that God is there for a purpose: to issue the stamp of confirmation upon my own rightness. In such a religion the Cross becomes meaningless except as the (blasphemous) certification that because you suffer, because you are misunderstood, you are justified twice over – you are a martyr. Martyr means witness. You are then a witness? To what? To your own infallible light and your own justice, which you have chosen.

This is the exact opposite of everything Jesus ever did or taught.

 

Hear and Understand God’s Tradition…

Audite et intelligite traditiones quas Deus dedi vobis.

“Hear and understand the traditions which I, God, have given you.”

I’m currently reading Thomas Merton: Spiritual Master by Lawrence S. Cunningham and it is from this that I am quoting…

There are traditions which God has given us. They are so to speak a memory we are born with and into which we are born: a store of meanings, of symbols, of signs. What is born in us is the connatural ability to understand these great buried signs as soon as they are manifested to us.  What is given us in society is a more or less authentic manifestation of the signs. If society loses its “memory,” if it forgets its language of traditional symbol, then the individuals who make it up become neurotic, because their own memories are corrupted by uninterpreted, unused meanings. Then traditions themselves become mere dead conventions – worse than that, obsessions – collective neuroses.  To replace one set of conventions with another, however new, does nothing to revive a truly living sense of meaning and of life. This is our present condition.

This resonates strongly within me.  In my own experience, growing up as a Baptist (Southern of some flavor), I often felt drawn to certain things… liturgical tradition drew me, though I knew not what to call it. The austere nature of our faith and its tradition (or rather traditional lack of the same) left me feeling as though something were missing.  As a young child, striving to fill that unspoken void, I would contrive my own ‘traditions’ or forms of reverence. Having a lace trimmed hanky to lay my Bible is one good example, and yet this felt contrived even to my infant sensibilities and I soon gave it up in shame for having taken up such ‘pretensions’. 

Later, when I saw my first crucifix, I remember being struck by it – feeling a hushed awe and reverence within that was inexplicable… Later still in a similar setting, kneelers were intuitive in response as I felt immediately the desire to drop to my knees and pray. I worked hard (funny that since we were repeatedly taught that works were of little import) to be a workman approved before the Lord and stifled those childhood fancies, all the while feeling as though something important were missing… that such a holy God, such a magnificent Lord and Master deserved more than what was given… and that burning desire to give such to the Lord whom I loved was banked.

Even when I began to attend Church with my Catholic husband, the fear and misunderstanding taught me in my youth kept me from really seeing that what I witnessed there was the very fulfillment of what my young soul had yearned for.  When I finally was reconciled to the Church by God’s mercy and command, the protective walls bricked up over time to protect myself from that which I was forbidden to give as a protestant began to come down.  As I have lived a full year now as a Catholic with the blessings of the Sacraments, the joys of Eucharistic Adoration, the Liturgy and the Liturgical Calendar with all it entails, I have found at last that which my soul within naturally knew and longed to give as right to the Lord.  Truly, God has written His law upon our hearts… we ignore and deny this innate understanding to our peril.

We as a protestant society have lost our memory.  Our forefathers denied it; their descendents fought it, suppressing it more and more until it is so very lost that we of the common era in this protestant culture no longer recognize it within ourselves and rail against it embraced by others with vile blasphemies. We have reduced those beloved traditions given us by God to dead conventions so long that they have become  collective neuroses.  We have replaced God’s traditions, God’s ways with our own. New conventions, new traditions that reject all but that which seems comfortable, godly, and right in our own eyes.  In the process not only do we deify ourselves, but we forfeit life and all its meaning. We no longer show respect to any, much less the equal respect to all that we claim. We proclaim proudly that we bow our knee to NO man, and in the process, refuse to bow our knee to God. We have lost all sense of honor, of respect, and have no true understanding or experience of humility.  What else is dying to self but considering others better than we do ourselves?

Esteeming others, being willing to be humbled, being willing to abase ourselves, to be SERVANT to ALL men… this is the calling of the followers of Christ. If we are so unaware of the traditions of God that we no longer recognize true Worship, then we call things worship in error in order to have it at all. Such ignorance leads to not only great pride, but great sin. Let us not be so ignorant due to hard hearts and pride that we call speech, lectures, song-a-longs, and any humbling position of body worship. Let us not be so prideful in our ignorance that we can no longer bend our knee in respect to another lest it be construed as worship where none exists.  Let us again learn what we once knew and rejoiced to do, obey the traditions of our God and walk humbly before Him always.

Audite et intelligite traditiones quas Deus dedi vobis.

“Hear and understand the traditions which I, God, have given you.”

Let us hear, understand, and obey the traditions which He, our God, has given to us.  Blessed be God forever!

 

Speak It, Live it… or Not…

Had a little chat with the Pastoral Associate in our parish today.  We ended up talking about recent events on the homeschool forums I frequent, specifically the anti-Roman Catholic vitriol and blasphemy that included calling Mary, the Mother of our Lord, a demon goddess and all Catholics (with specific attention to the Irish Catholic populace) as idolatrous.  (Blasphemy not for what they said about Mary, but because they called evil that which the Holy Spirit (through Elizabeth) testified to.)*  

I mentioned to her that I was stunned to find (after two years of repeated and intense discussions and debates with protestants of all flavors) that the one thing that unifies ALL protestants (and atheists etc et al) is a hatred of the Roman Catholic Church.  She said something then that struck me and I’ve been thinking on it all day… while speaking about how the Catholic Church sees protestants as our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, and yet they do not view us similarly, she brought up baptism. The Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of most protestant churches… given than they are done in the triune formula and with water as sacred scripture specifies.  They believe and LIVE ONE baptism so truly that even letters from witnesses will be taken as evidence if the church itself did not keep records. 

Yet, I remember that my father, godly man though he is, did not acknowledge my husband’s baptism and considered him an unbeliever despite evidence in his life to the contrary until he was ‘rebaptized’ in a Baptist Church. Not believing in infant baptism at the time, I am guilty of trying to persuade my husband to do this, God forgive me, and just as guilty of persuading him as if my words had done so.  As I have been exposed to more protestants and the wide variety of belief that entails, it has been proven true over and over again.  Despite claiming to affirm ONE baptism, they do not. They require  things that God did not and do not recognize baptisms done according to scripture if they are not done in the way that particular protestant organization prescribes.

I love the church of my youth. I love the people who helped teach me to love the Lord… and yet as God continues to renew my mind and teach me, bringing me more in line with the fullness of Truth… I become more and more aware just how flawed the doctrines, teachings, etc are that I’ve been called out of.  The more I become aware of this, unpleasant though it is, the more I am shown just how dangerous these faith traditions are when carried to their logical conclusion. It is truly a frightening and humbling experience because there but for the grace of God… I would still be.  I did not become Catholic because it made sense to me, or because it was logical (though it does and is now).  I became Catholic because God made me. Oh sure, I had a choice… follow Him into the Catholic Church or turn my back on Him.  What kind of a choice is that….  but I am forever grateful that He loved me enough to chastise me…

ETA: Evidently, null and void baptisms are part of a long tradition of setting aside that which God has done.

An excerpt from Irish Penal Law…

19 Geo II c.13 (1745):
An Act for annulling all Marriages to be celebrated by any Popish Priest between Protestant and Protestant, or between Protestant and Papist, …

Sec. 1. Every marriage celebrated after the 1st day of May, 1746, between a papist and any person who has been a protestant within twelve months before such celebration of marriage, or between two protestants if celebrated by a popish priest, shall be absolutely null and void.

*My characterization of the content of opinion expressed about Catholicism on this Protestant homeschooling forum, represents a conglomeration of commentary by a few particularly vocal posters who also look with disfavor upon the honor Catholics give Mary.  The commentary on Mary, the Mother of our Lord (and hence, Queen of Heaven as seen in Rev 12) to which I refer was thanks to one of those posters in particular.  Evidently, this poster was perusing the blog and disagreed with my characterization of the slander of Mary, the Mother of God, as blasphemy (among other things).  In all fairness, so that readers may assess at least one of the primary posts on this topic for themselves, I include here the exact wording of the post which caused me to come to such a conclusion.

Yes, (name of another forum user, not me), I do believe that behind the worship of Mary is a

---

is a powerful demonic goddess called the Queen of Heaven. She has had many incarnations over time and manifests in many different religions, cultures and countries, often as an appealing virgin or the mother figure.

I have done an in-depth study on the subject put together by a group of intercessors/spiritual historians who have been working on this topic for many years. It is fascinating. The mother-figure worship is not new – the Queen of Heaven demon goddess has been luring people into this since shortly after Satan did his work in the Garden of Eden: there is evidence to suggest that in some ancient religions/supertitions Eve was first worshipped as the Mother.

The Queen of Heaven is one of Satan’s most powerful demons. She is behind any religion, belief or superstition that involves moon worship. She works hand-in-hand with her male counterpart, Baal, who is responsible for any worship or belief involving the sun. Jeremiah vociferously warned God’s people against having anything to do with the Queen of Heaven.

As I said, it has been an enormously fascinating field of study for me especially understanding what is behind the Mother Mary worship that I witness here – she is even very often called the Queen of Heaven! Also, when I go to Catholic masses, or family weddings, funerals etc. it has been interesting to identify a lot of symbols, icons that I have learned about – images and symbols that originate in very ancient Queen of Heaven worship.

It is a powerful demonic deception, but praise God, Jesus can set anyone free. I have had Catholic people tell me how they used to worship and pray to Mary, now they are free to love and worship Jesus alone.

Jesus had an earthly, physical mother. God used her to bring the Redeemer into the world, she was obedient and she was blessed, but there is no mother or queen in heaven. God is complete. He has many names and encompasses all the qualities of a mother and a father (El-Shaddai means literally ‘full-breasted One’).

The Bible tells us to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and finisher or our faith. So if He started writing my life story and is going to finish writing my life story, why focus on anyone else?

Bless you.