To: Whomever it may Concern
From: Myself
Re: Evangelism

It seems a strange thing indeed, that people would expend so much energy and time co-ordinating plans to, in effect, spam the OT forum with topics that they certainly know will incite heated arguments in which many hateful things will be said.

This thing seems stranger still when one considers that several of the principal co-ordinators have stated, repeatedly, that they have "nothing to say" in the Christian Union, despite the fact that some of them have been repeatedly invited back into membership thereof. They evidently have all manner of things to say to the atheists and non-Christians in the OT forum, thus provoking a debate that will be, for many, an occasion of sin (because of the utterance of hateful things). But for their fellow Christians, they have not a word at all to spare, which is curious.

This letter, then, stands as an open invitation from myself to the various members of the CWU who have a passion for evangelism. Obviously, they feel that the CU is peopled with lost, misguided Christians...which would make for a great opportunity for evangelism, would it not? Does not Christ desire the lost lambs to be returned to the fold?

Or is it more important, and more entertaining, to muse about how quickly a thread that has denegerated into a shouting match was locked? Is it more fun to plot occasions of spamming? To test the patience of moderators? To drive an even bigger wedge between people who are likely hurting, in many terrible and intrinsic ways, and the love of Christ?

Update, with particular attention given to this: This wasn't actually intended as a personal attack on the CWU, but rather an observation as to what I see as the questionable evangelistic efforts of the members of that union. How is Christ served by staging debates in which the most probable response of people is bitterness? How is Christ glorified by turning people even further away from Him?

This is also representative only of my opinion, not of that of the CU. Though I would desire to see the lost members of the CU fold return to it, ultimately I'm talking off my own cuff here; the CU is only involved tangentially, and I am not speaking (at present) in my capacity as one of her officers.

I'd like to respond to a couple of points made against what I said here.

He obviously doesn't like our obedience to the Lord's command, known as the great commission.

Mark 16:15, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

This is an odd chastisement to read from someone who vowed, openly (although the moderators have since deleted the discussion in which the vow was made), that he had nothing to say to the members of the CU. Perhaps the CU has been stricken from the list of "every creature"?

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church harshly persecuted the saints, such as Tyndale and numerous others that brought the Bible to the common man. (And Protestants/Evangelicals have persecuted more than their share of Catholics over the centuries as well. There is blood on everyone's hands here. Also, Tyndale did not "bring the Bible to the common man" -- by the time he wrote his error-ridden translation of Scripture, several common-language Bibles were already widely available.) They stopped at nothing to prevent the common man from having direct access to the Word of God. (In fact, they were so opposed to the idea, that in England they even passed a law mandating that every household had to have a Bible, and bade every man go out and purchase one from a local bookseller.) The possession or private reading of the Bible was dealt with swiftly and harshly.(See previous.) They had to prevent the common man from knowing that God has said that salvation is through God's grace alone (which the Church already teaches), through faith alone, (flawed human faith is salvific, apparently) in Christ alone (because the Church never taught anybody about that Jesus guy before Luther came along) and not through obedience to the traditions and dictates of the Roman Catholic Church. (Because we all know that Christ gave the apostles and their successors absolutely no authority as leaders of the community of faith.)

And here's the kicker:

My response to this officer of the CU is no thanks to his suggestions. We will trust in the Lord and be obedient to the Him rather than the whims and feelings of any man.

So all that quoting of Matthew 28 and Mark 16 was just window dressing, I guess. I posed a simple enough question, which has not yet been answered, and so will ask it again. Here is a group which seems to expend an inordinate amount of energy attempting to witness for Christ in the OT forum, yet will not expend so much as one keystroke's worth of energy on a group of Christians they consider to be lost and misguided. Does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is "the New Ark". In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary's revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ's plan of salvation for all people.

Brant Pitre, over at Singing in the Reign, has an excellent article up concerning some of the symbolism within the Bible, drawn from both the Old Testament and the New Testament that demonstrates that Scripture itself justifies this belief: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

When the New Testament is read in light of the Old, a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don't have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke's account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and "overshadow" (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High "overshadows" (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David "arose and went" to the hill country of Judah to bring up "the ark of God" (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary "arose and went" into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David "leaped" before the Ark as it was brought in "with shouting" (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John "leapt" in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice and Elizabeth cried "with a loud shout": "Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!" (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for "three months" (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth's house, "three months" (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and "tabernacles" among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary's body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God's Temple "in heaven." Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the "child" (Jesus) and the "dragon" (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new "Ark" of the Covenant.

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Indeed, I have always rather enjoyed Mark Shea's take on the matter: "As an Evangelical, my own tradition found it remarkably easy to detect bar codes, Soviet helicopters, the European Common Market, and the Beatles encoded into the narrative of Revelation. But when Catholics suggested that the woman of Revelation might have something to do with the Blessed Virgin occupying a place of cosmic importance in the grand scheme of things, this was dismissed as incredible. Everyone knew that the woman of Revelation was really the symbolic Virgin Daughter of Zion giving birth to the Church. A Jewish girl who stood at the pinnacle of the Old Covenant, summed up the entirety of Israel's mission and gave flesh to the Head of the Church saying, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word" — what could she possibly have to do with those images? Why, that would suggest that she was the Virgin Daughter of Zion and the Flower of her People, the Model Disciple, the Icon of the Church, the Mother of Jesus and of all those who are united with Him by faith and…"

Oh, wait.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary's pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, here we have to take a foray into the Book of Leviticus, specifically to the fifteenth chapter. Verse 18 reads thusly: "If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening."

Now, given that elsewhere in the Levitical Law, adultery is condemned in the harshest possible terms, the passage above can safely be assumed to refer to legitimate sexual intimacy between a husband and his wife. Bearing that in mind, let's state plainly what the above law means: normal sexual relations between a husband and his wife, under the Law of Moses, render husband and wife temporarily unclean ("until the evening"). Within the Jewish law, there is an implied defilement in the sexual act.

Good Reader, given that Joseph was a faithful Jew, he was likely mindful of this law of Moses, as surely as he was mindful of all such laws. Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself?

Now, I also mentioned the Assumption of Mary, which was the feast celebrated last Friday, August 15th. Brant Pitre goes on to explain the connection between Mary's being the New Ark and the belief that she was assumed, bodily, into Heaven.

…the evidence suggests to me — others may differ — that one reason ancient Christians may have believed in the bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven is that they recognized her as the New Ark of the Covenant.

The Church continues to teach that "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 966). The resurrection, our hope, is at the heart of this dogma. If ancient Christians identified Mary as the Ark and knew about the Jewish tradition that the Ark would be the first to be "resurrected," then it may have provided theological support for their belief in Mary's bodily Assumption into the heavenly Temple. In fact, they would not even have had to know the Jewish tradition, since the Psalms themselves describe the "ascent" of the Ark into the Temple alongside a prophecy that was interpreted by ancient Christians as referring to the resurrection of Jesus:

Arise, O Lord, and go to your resting place,
You and the Ark of your might…
For your servant David's sake,
Do not turn away the face of your messiah. (Psalm 132:8-9)

With these words, our reflection comes full circle: Where else could the Ark belong, but in the Heavenly Temple?

I sometimes get impatient with those who attack the Catholic faith as pagan and/or un-Biblical, and when I do I sometimes challenge them to come up with one paragraph from the Catechism — one doctrine or teaching of the Church — which cannot be defended biblically. It's kind of a trick question, but there is ultimately only one direct answer which is possible, and paragraph 966 of the Catechism is it. Of all Catholic doctrine, only the belief in the bodily Assumption of Mary cannot be directly constructed from Scripture.

That's not to say that the Church just invented the belief, of course. Though the Assumption was "dogmatically proclaimed" (that is: formally confirmed to be a part of Catholic doctrine) only last century, the actual origins of the belief can be traced back to the very earliest days of the Church, even to before the formal canonization of Scripture in 390 A.D.

And even though there is no place in the Bible which states a confirmation of Mary's assumption, the doctrine itself is not indefensible from Scripture, as Pitre has shown. Scripture doesn't tell us directly what fate ultimately befell Mary, but it presents us with a number of distinct clues and hints as to her role in God's ultimate plan, and as to her significance. She was the New Ark, and all nations should rightly call her blessed.

Catholics are often accused of focusing too much attention on Mary, but I wonder if perhaps the reciprocal question shouldn't be asked: is it possible that non-Catholics focus too little attention on her, given how obviously significant she is not only as the mother of Jesus, but as a unique outward sign of God's New Covenant with humanity, as the new and first tabernacle, and as the New Ark…the resurrected Ark?

On second thought: I've deleted the little updates, because they detract from the topic at hand.

You know, Satan's methodology is almost sadly predictable. Satan hates truth, hates beauty, and hates when man comes to a deeper understanding of the mysteries of the Bible. And when someone comes to that deeper understanding, as I had done in the wake of noting the above verses, Satan acts -- quickly -- to try and interrupt that learning.

Often, Satan makes use of other Christians, who in their zeal to condemn one denomination and raise up their own doctrines often miss the point entirely. In this case, the point missed was the beautiful parallelism that the Gospel of Luke, especially, establishes between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant, signaling that she -- the Mother of the Son -- is the new Ark, and the resurrected Ark spoken of in prophecy. She is the woman of Revelation, the Queen of Heaven, clothed in the Sun.

Some people open themselves to becoming agents of Satan by seeing only what they, in their bigotry, want to see: a Catholic talking about Mary. "Idolatry!" they cry, completely missing the fact that the article is just looking at Scripture and noting that Scripture supports certain beliefs that Catholics hold.

This is how Satan works, you see: he at once blinds people to the real truth, and then convinces them that a different thing is the truth, and leaves them to wreak what havoc they may. And I fell for Satan's trap and made this beautiful reflection into a shouting match.

For that, to the Reader, I apologize. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now, let's return to the topic at hand, Satan put firmly behind us.

One of the most mis-understood aspects of Catholic theology is that of purgatory. Next to the Eucharist, this is probably the doctrine that most anti-Catholic bigots will condemn as un-Biblical.

Which, I suppose, goes to show the folly of sola scriptura; it's easy to condemn something as un-Biblical when you, personally, are the sole authority by which Scripture is interpreted to you. God forbid you should ever interpret Scripture properly, in light of the teachings and traditions of the Church which has gone before you -- you might just discover that you aren't nearly so correct in your haste to condemn others!

From New Advent (online encyclopedia of all things Catholic):

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succouring departed souls. Those who have opposed the doctrine of purgatory have confessed that prayers for the dead would be an unanswerable argument if the modern doctrine of a "particular judgment" had been received in the early ages. But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation; and one has only to consult the evidence found in the catacombs to feel equally sure that the Christian faith there expressed embraced clearly a belief in judgment immediately after death. Wilpert ("Roma Sotteranea," I, 441) thus concludes chapter 21, "Che tale esaudimento", etc.:

Intercession has been made for the soul of the dear one departed and God has heard the prayer, and the soul has passed into a place of light and refreshment." "Surely," Wilpert adds, "such intercession would have no place were there question not of the particular, but of the final judgment.

Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainty of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that those who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alledged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. cit., cap. Viii.

Old Testament

The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel,

making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)

At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.

There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins will be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.

A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

"For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:

• St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
• St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
• St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
• St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
• Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).

See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275. Tradition

This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition. Tertullian "De corona militis" mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in "De Monogamia" (cap. x, P. L., II, col. 912) he advises a widow "to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection"; he commands her also "to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise," and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. This settled custom of the Church is clear from St. Cyprian, who (P. L. IV, col. 399) forbade the customary prayers for one who had violated the ecclesiastical law. "Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose." Long before Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria had puzzled over the question of the state or condition of the man who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfilment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: "the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for thefaults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God's righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, "yet" etc. (P. G. IX, col. 332).

In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. "For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works." (P. G., XIII, col. 445, 448).

The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Mystog., V, 9, P.G., XXXIII, col. 1116) describing the liturgy, writes: "Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar." St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man's weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil." About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. "Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God" (P. G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries--(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (In I Ad Cor., Hom. xli, n. 4, G., LXI, col. 361, 362).

The teaching of the Fathers, and the formularies used in the Liturgy of the Church, found expression in the early Christian monuments, particularly those contained in the catacombs. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before. At the bottom this is nothing else than the faith expressed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio"), and to this faith the inscriptions in the catacombs are surely witnesses.

In the fourth century in the West, Ambrose insists in his commentary on St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3) on the existence of purgatory, and in his masterly funeral oration (De obitu Theodosii), thus prays for the soul of the departed emperor: "Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him" (P. L., XVI, col. 1397). St. Augustine is clearer even than his master. He describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc., and in the resurrection he says there will be some who "have gone through these pains, to which the spirits of the dead are liable" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, 24). Thus at the close of the fourth century:

• not only were prayers for the dead found in all the Liturgies, but the Fathers asserted that such practice was from the Apostles themselves;
• those who were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the celebration of the Holy Mysteries were in a place of purgation;
• from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord".

So clear is this patristic Tradition that those who do not believe in purgatory have been unable to bring any serious difficulties from the writings of the Fathers. The passages cited to the contrary either do not touch the question at all, or are so lacking in clearness that they cannot offset the perfectly open expression of the doctrine as found in the very Fathers who are quoted as holding contrary opinions (Bellarmine "De Purg.", lib. I, cap. xiii).

The last two posts in this forum thread refer to me, personally, and then in very unflattering terms. And actually, the original version of the thread got deleted a while back, possibly due to a moderation request that I filed against it (although it would've been nice to think that the members of the False Witness Union deleted it of their own accord).

Anyhow, the CWU has evidently seen fit to resurrect the topic, though to what end I cannot guess. I've filed another moderation request, at any rate, and will leave the matter in the hands of the good moderators of Gamespot.

First, this.

The Catholic Church is fairly clear on the matter of supporters of abortion receiving Eucharist (Communion): "no." Indeed, any person who in any way assists or enables another person to obtain an abortion, even in a legislative capacity, is actually no longer Catholic, according to the doctrines of the Church: such an act carries with it the penalty of automatic excommunication.

If Nancy Pelosi's bishop hasn't drawn a hard line and forbade her from receiving Communion, that is a regional issue: the bishop of the San Francisco region is clearly not following the teachings of the Church on this matter, while other bishops elsewhere are.

Moving on, there was this.

Two comments on Trent. First, the punishment of anathema no longer exists. Excommunication is now the most severe penalty the Church can impose, and it should be noted that excommunication is intended as a temporary measure only.

Second, anti-Catholics who quote from Trent often accuse the Church of promulgating a "faith + works" doctrine, yet the Council of Trent also declared to be anathema those who proclaim that salvation arises out of works, or any combination of belief and works. Put more plainly, the Church rejected, in the Council of Trent, "faith + works"-based, and works-based, salvation as unbiblical and un-Christian.

And while the penalty of anathema no longer applies, the rejection of works-derived salvation still applies.

It is true that Trent rejected sola fide, but Catholics are hardly the only Christian denomination to reject Luther's doctrines.

And the question should be asked: what's left? We reject sola fide (salvation by "faith alone") because human faith is subject to the same flaws and weaknesses that humans themselves are. We reject salvation by works, or "faith + works", as unbiblical and un-Christian. All that remains is the grace of God, and -- funnily -- that is what Catholics believe is salvific.

But don't expect the anti-Catholic bigots to tell you that. ;)

As to the matter of Scriptural interpretation, I recently received this in my mailbox:

"1 ¶ Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men."

This is from Matthew 15, and the person who sent it to me followed it up with this observation:

...what your failing to realize that it is jesus talking against tradition in general...In catholic tradition they say they believe in jesus, but inside they really dont believe because of their traditions make the commandment of god of non effect...I aint got no traditions, so you completely fail in this.

I'm going to go out on a limb and hazard a guess that this is the sort of thing one might expect to be said by a person who harbours a deep-seated animosity toward Catholics (some of the text I've cut out is far less charitable than what remains), but it is also what one might expect to be argued by a person who believes that only Scripture can interpret Scripture (a common trope). It's also something one might expect to be told by a person who greatly fears that giving any authority to Church tradition will only result in the message and content of Scripture becoming tainted and perverted. The explicit rejection of tradition is...well...striking.

I ain't got no traditions. Ignoring the double-negative, this apparently Biblical Christian makes one critical error: he assumes that giving authority to tradition is against the Bible. While I might be tempted to speculate that this is a result of a sola scriptura way of thinking, I will note that the rejection of tradition is itself actually an anti-Biblical concept.

For example, consider 2 Thes. 2:

[13]But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
[14] To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
[16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
[17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

We can see here that St. Paul actually places great importance on the Church holding fast to the traditions which the apostles taught to them. The traditions themselves go unspecified here, but the point is nevertheless that tradition forms an integral, necessary part of the practice of the Christian faith, and is itself a mode of teaching which the Church should strive to consider and convey.

Right here, we see the rejection of all tradition as a mode of Christian practice to be unbiblical. Moreover, we also begin to see the seeds of something else emerging -- Scripture is not the only teaching authority which Paul himself recognizes or suggests the use of. Turning, briefly, to Ephesians 3, we can also observe that Paul taught thusly:

[7] Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace which was given me by the working of his power.
[8] To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
[9] and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;
[10] that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
[11] This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
[12] in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

Here we see that Paul further expands the notion of where teaching authority, which would include interpretive authority over Scripture, is found: the Church itself is, in Paul's desire, the means by which the wisdom of God should be made known to the world. This is confirmed in the first letter to Timothy, chapter 3:

[14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that,
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The Church -- not Scripture -- is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." That is a Biblical teaching. So let's tie this all back. We have the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth, the means by which the wisdom of God (expressed in the Word of God) is to be made known to all nations and peoples. That means that the Church must be possessed of authority to interpret Scripture (the Word of God), and that it should do so while holding fast (and thus considering) the traditions which have been taught to it.

This does not mean that Christians lack the right of private judgement, of course -- each person must work out his or her own salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul noted. But it does begin to suggest that each Christian should establish a relationship to the Church as that of a student to a teacher. Right of private judgement, again, exists, as does the right of each person to interpret out of Scripture for him or herself. But that interpretation must ultimately be in harmony with the teaching and interpretation of that which is the pillar and bulwark of God's truth, as expressed through God's Word: the Church.

And where private interpretation leads to a conclusion different than that of the Church that is disharmonious with the teaching of the Church, the Christian should, in humility, submit to the learned judgement of the Church and its interpretation of Scripture, rather than forging out in his or her own new direction. That is, again, beacause it is the Church -- and not the individual -- who is the bulwark of truth, and the means by which the wisdom of God is to be brought to the world.

And as to what my correspondent has said, it must be noted that no Christian can be both Christian and free of any tradition. The Bible itself is a tradition, in the sense that it was canonized in 390 AD. The very canon of Scripture is the tradition in this case; while there are differences concerning whether or not the Deuterocanonical books should be included in the canon or not, the point is that each Christian acknowledges a canon of Scripture that has been handed down by tradition, rather than elected by the individual, private judgement of each successive believer.

Moreover, things like sola fide and sola scriptura are traditions, and so anyone who adheres to such beliefs is following in a tradition handed down from Luther. Indeed, such a person gives a great deal of authority to those traditions, as they form a part of the core of that person's understanding of salvation in Christ, a key aspect of Christian faith.

I weep for Christians who are so deluded as to think that to be Christian means to be free of any form of tradition, for it is by tradition that we -- the faithful alive today -- are connected in spirit with those who have gone before us in Christ. If we eschew tradition and its authority, we cut ourselves off from those who went before us as believers in Christ. And in so doing, we are rather like the ship which burns the port it leaves, and then casts off its maps and compass as well.

We become, in essence, blinded by our own hand when we reject the traditions of the faith. And we likewise set ourselves against the Bible itself.

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Father Stan Lasko, who passed away last week at the age of 46.

Father Stan presided over my marriage to Grace, and was a faithful, earnest priest who brought God's word to his parish in Vermilion, Alberta with a reverent love for Christ. He was also a gentle person, a giant teddy bear of a man. His funeral will be on August 15th in Edmonton, at St. Joseph's Basilica, and his ashes will be sent back to Poland following that for interment there.

Sometimes, it's kind of shocking.

He is a fanatical catholic, he really works for the devil, it doesnt matter what you say to him, he will deny scripture up, and down, and will twist the words of god for his personal intrepertation, like the last supper. He didnt mean literally every sunday do this ritual in rememberance of me. To be honest it looks like it, but he later affirms that he didnt mean it literally.

This is a Christian who is speaking, mind. Which, I think, makes it even sadder.

What are we seeing here? First, we are seeing hatred (c.f. 1 John 5), a deep and black hatred which has been allowed to infest a heart. Secondly, we are seeing false witness, a most wicked lie -- Jesus simply does not deny the reality of the Eucharist, and St. Paul later affirms its reality (1 Cor 12).

I've written on this topic before. Twice.

This is the brutal reality of sin: it twists the mind and the heart in such ways as to fool Christians into thinking they are serving God when in fact they are contravening, in obvious and terrible ways, His most holy Scriptures.