You Tube Debate on Catholicism & why it is the true Christian Religion!

I found a video on youtube that is about the Catholic Church and the many truths that she has. A Person by the name of C2D has had a field day of bashing my faith and the true faith ordained by God.. that is the Catholic one. Catholic was derived from the Latin word Kathlicos which meant universal. The Universal church aka Catholic has been mentioned as early as 67AD by one of the apostles and from then on it was officially in the writings of the Church Fathers.

C2D claims that the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ and so on and so forth. Making such claims that he cannot prove is frivolous and won't really be going anywhere. I would like to discuss why the Catholic Church is the one and ONLY church ordained my Christ and why it should remain the ONLY church that can claim that it goes back to Christ. The Holy Spirit said that Hell would not prevail against his church untill the end of time.. he didn't say multiple churches... he meant his one and Only Kathlicos church.

The Protestant reformation is a Heresy, one of the longest living heresies in the history of Christianity. I believe the only other heresy that lasted close to this was back in the 200-500. Still further is new (faith) continues splitting up. Christ only meant to have one fold.. he didn't want to have 48K different non Catholic churches all proclaiming to be with his flock.. no Christ started one church, intended one to stay until the end of time.

What are your thoughts on this.. and if your non-catholic can you prove to me that the church that you attend can be traced back to christ through a hierarchy of leaders here on earth and that Christ if he were to come today would approve of your new religion against the old one that he started?

Pax Christi,

Michael

Is the Priesthood needed, and was it ordained by Christ?

Here is a question, is the Priesthood needed, and was it ordained by Christ. Most Protestant faiths do not have a Priesthood, they had leaders such as Pastors, but none that are actually ordained by an authority that is linked directly to Christ. The Jewish people have a Priesthood as do the Catholics... but why not the Protestants?

The Holy Eucharist

Jesus told us at the last supper taking the unleaven bread "Take this and eat of it, for this is my body which has been given up for you, Do this in remembrance of me".. then taking the wine he offered it up saying "Take this and drink of it, for this is my blood, which is going to be shed for you, do this in remembrance of me".

Participating in the ritual of the last supper is the pinnacle of Catholic belief and theology. It is the most important part of the mass, and it is a time when we gather about the table to share the body of Christ with our fellow Christians. Note Christ's words, "This IS my Body, This IS my Blood". Catholics believe that this is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, it isn't just a symbolic picture, and it isn't a representation.. it IS the real body and blood of Christ transfigured through the power of the Priest at which time Christ is present to change the wine into blood and the bread into his flesh.

What are your thoughts on this? Is it truly the body and blood of Christ, and are you familiar with the many Eucharistic miracles that have happened over the years and still happen today?

SDA the cult that is dying out

First off I just have to say that I posted last night on the WAHM boards in response to a question about the Heretic Ellen G. White who was supposedly a Prophetess of God for the Seventh Day Adventists. The SDA are a cult started in the 1800's by William a Preacher for the Baptists. William had a vision (supposedly) where God told him that in 1844 he was going to return.. when God didn't return william had to change his beliefs a bit, then again God did not return on the next day that he said he would. He tried to close out his new sect but instead it split into a bunch of smaller groups that all started espousing different beliefs. One of the them was led by Ellen, Ellen said she had a vision, her vision too did not work out and she had to revise her prophecy just as her predecessor. Not very surprising... Anyways today there are around 600K of these cultish members who do not serve Govts, pay taxes, drink beer or alcohol (in public, but are known to in the privacy of their homes), gamble, sin, cuss, ect... the list goes on. Basically they are awaiting the immediate return of Christ who will take them to heaven for a thousand years while the devil and non SDA are left here to rot and suffer. The jehovahs are a break off of this group as well.. My post listed biblical verses, and common logic to the question this particular person asked and less than an hour after I posted it, the whole thing was removed and I was accused of thinking I was right and condemning others. What i find sad is that when people are confronted with the truth they tend to call you a liar, hide the truth, and then flame you.. I got all three and more. That is fine, we'll see who is left laughing in the end.

The Catholic Identity

Is the Catholic church the one and only church of Christ? And what do you view of the recent document release by the Pope affirming the teaching that the Catholic Church is the one and only? Give me your thoughts on all this.

The Third Secret... has it been fully revealed?

Back in the 1930's 3 little children in Spain were to witness what is now called the greatest apparition in history. This occured in Fatima and is now a world renowned shrine. Jacinta, Franciso, and Lucia were to witness a multitude of visions of our Blessed Mother, hell, and other spiritual visions that would come to shape the world. There were 3 secrets tied to this vision and we were told the first two back in the 1930's, the 3rd secret was written and sent to the Pope who made a decision not to make it public... and so did the following 2 Popes after him. In the year 2000 Pope John Paul II made the 3rd secret public due to alot of pressure from several factions including the people that seemed to follow Fr. Gruner and his crusade of what he says is the Vatican hiding info from the people about the full 3rd secret. So I am asking you all now.. do you think the full entirety of the 3rd secret has been revealed and if not, why?

Spiritual Warfare...

Ok, So it took me way longer to come back than I expected! I will try to keep my blog up to date from now on. I want to bring this blog around to focusing more on faith, current issues in the world. I find myself in constant spiritual battles most of the time... there is always that person whispering something tempting in my ear, or trying to get me to break my vows.. ect... I seem to only find solace in Prayer and my best friend St. Michael the Archangel... who is also my patron saint.

I'm back!

This is just a note to all my loyal bloggers, I am back! Yes, St. Michael is coming back to blog once again! So keep a lookout, I will posting again very soon.

Loss of a Dear Family member

5 days ago on october 15th, I lost my grandmother to cancer. This week has been one of the toughest so far. I miss her so bad, I called her everyday for the past 8 years that she was sick to see how she was doing. Now I can't write her, or call her. She was a member of the Lefvbrite movement and I worried for her salvation, but luckily my family was able to get a Roman Priest to talk to her, hear her confession, and give her the last rites in the church a week before she died. I am deeply saddened by this loss, and am at a point where I don't know what to do with my life.

I did have a dream last night of her, don't know if it means anything, but in it I was traveling to Rome with my family to witness her canonization as a saint and her body was found to be incorrupt and was being transferred to a church nearby. I guess that was just my mind trying to put my nervous system to ease.

For all the Catholics that read this blog, please keep her in your prayers, her name is Anita we called her (Nini).

Awesome Eucharist video!

Here a a really beautiful Eucharistic procession!

Ordination Homilyof Catholic Priest Part 3 Be Eucharistic Priest

Ordination of Catholic priest part 2. Five promises

Great talk on the Priesthood and the promises of it.

Back to work!

Today was my first day back to work, it felt like I was walking into a new job. There were so many new faces and so much to learn after being out for nearly 2 months! But now that I am back, it feels good to work again.

On a more spiritual note, today is the feast day of the Angels. So thank your guardian angel and say a prayer to him.

Pax Christi,

Michael

Do not be afraid... Come follow me!

I am starting to really enjoy the use of inputing video into my blog. Here is a great film on the priesthood and the necessity of it.

Latin High Mass by Archbishop Fulton Sheen - soon to be a saint!

Jesus comes to New York in the flesh and blood!

This is a truly moving video! What an awesome procession, I wish I was there to see it.

The Rosary and how scriptural it is explained by a Priest from the SSP

This is a great explanation, for both Catholics and for Protestants that don't understand the Rosary.

Baptists and their anti-drinking clause

Recently I was visting one of my fellow bloggers church web site. Its a Baptist Church and on its constitutions, it states this "To strive to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, tobacco, and illegal drugs." Thats good and all for an individual who makes that decision, but to impose that on all present and future parishioners, is rediculous. Where in the bible does it say not to drink alcohol? Actually from what I have read and seen, all they drink back there is alcohol, in form of wine, ect.. I don't think they had desani water back then. In fact, here is something that is really crazy, Christ himself drank, his first miracle was changing water into wine at the wedding in Cana. And also at the last supper, and many more countless times I am sure. Why abstain from Alcohol, is God himself drinks it? I can understand not getting drunk, but the principle of the matter is wack.

Did Jesus have Brothers and sisters?

This is going to be a really long post. This is not my work, but it explains it way better than I ever could. If you study the texts from the bible, you will see that in fact Jesus did not have brothers or sisters as many Protestants claim.

A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation "his brethren" or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5). Four such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness.

Two questions in connexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren".

(1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon. James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.

Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord.

(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Genesis 13:8, 14:14-16; Leviticus 10:4; 1 Chronicles 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression.

The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four.

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.