Free Republic

Amen

Sorry, will be those who take the reality of Hell lightly. Christ suffered his Passion for a reason. He came to free us from the stain of original sin. Now, because of his love for us, we may now enter into the gates of Heaven. It is Christ and only him that merited for us Eternal Salvation. Yet, it is also up to us to accept his saving love and follow in his footsteps.

I bring this up because there are may who believe all they have to do is say they accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, then go about their sinful ways. We must accept Jesus as our Savior, and then hold fast to his commands. “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?”(James 3:14). So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”(James 3:17).

“Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say, “We have fellowship with him,” while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, “We have not sinned,” we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My children I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever say, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever claims to abide in him ought to live just as he lived.”(1 John 1:5-10 & 1 John 2:1-6).

I believe that this is an important truth to understand in relation to the pains of Hell that can come about through the lack of this truth in its entirety.

God Bless, TTWSYF

"What arrogance! — unless it's true."

What will be your disposition when you found out it's true? I understand it's a hard belief to grasp, but the one's who have followed in great faith the way of Christ's salvation have provided proof. I know it's hard to believe in any Saint like people, especially in our times. Christ and his Apostles our long in the forgotten past it would seem, but one just needs to look a little harder. I would highly recommend reading on a man by the name of Padre Pio, and Sr. Briege McKenna. Both people of our times.

God Bless, Truth

Amen, Brother.

All one needs to do, is seriously read into the history of the Church. I read my eyeballs off, even more than my college studies and the truth is all there. In fact the Catholic Church is the only Church that follows every word of Jesus to the T, and there is still so much more to learn. Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world"(Matt 5:14), and that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"(Matt 16:18). The Catholic Church is Christ's Church and it will prevail.

God Bless, Truth

"There is no doubt that the timeline shows things went south when the Mass was taken away"


Are you suggesting that the non-Latin Mass is not a real and valid Mass?

"have u seen after 1962,,til todAY!!! Has the vocation of the Church been flourishing!! What happen to all the Seminary and Convents around the world!!! The morality has been decline and keep on decline."

My friend, through out the history of the Church issues and tribulations have always come up. It's just apart of the sinful world which we live. Especially in todays time, where pornography and the killing/genocide of the young run ramped. To say that the whole of the Church is at fault is over stretching the truth. There are still many devout religious sisters, brothers, and priests. The others are the minority. It's no wonder that most of the failure in the priesthood is in the United States. Our great country is becoming more pagan by the day. The II Vatican Council only changed the language of the Mass, due to the changing of the times. The language of the learned was Latin in the old times, but now things have changed. Latin is now a dead language. It doesn't matter if the Mass is spoken in Japanese, it's still the same Mass from of old. It's the changing of the people today, which stains the greatness of the Church that has stood the test of time and will always, as Jesus has said. "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"(Matt. 16:18). God Bless

That was a great story. It almost brought about a tear.
Jesus worked greatness through sinners, because he came to save us. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God, but Jesus the Word Incarnate bridged that gap for all of us. It brings me the truth that no matter wear you stand in life, God will always love you and wants you to be his child. God Bless

Hello, it's good to see another Catholic here.

A very good website to go to is EWTN to find the most ancient Bible writen type context. The Jerusalem Bible is probably the one you want.

The word "catholic is a Greek word for "universal". For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out the mission given by Christ to "make disciples of all nations"(Matt 28:19). The Church Jesus establised was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church". This can be found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch as early as the year 107.

Christ did in fact establish a church. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona...Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."(Matt.16:17-19). The true Christian Church is not strictly a human body, but the Mystical Body of Christ. "And he is the head of the body, the church."(Col.1:18). "But now there are many members indeed, yet one body...Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member."(1 Cor.12:20-27). "Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."(Eph.5:30). "For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office: So we being many, are one body in Christ and every one members one of another."(Rom.12:4-5). "Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ?"(1 Cor.6:15). "There shall be one fold and one shepherd."(John.10:16). "Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."(Eph.4:3-6). "Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them."(Rom.16:17).

The Church is sanctified in truth. "These things Jesus spoke, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said...Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me; that they may be one, as we also are. ...Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. ...That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us. ...I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one."(John.17:1-23). "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."(Mark.3:25)

* "Seek and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you."(Matt.7:7).

Christ directed his Apostles. "All power is given to me in heaven an in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing then in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teacing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."(Matt.28:18-20). Christ protects the teaching authority of his church. "These things have I spoken to you, abiding with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in may name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you...when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning."(John.14:25-26;15:26-27). Paul wrote, "These things I write to thee...that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."(1 Tim.3:14-15).

St. Paul even warns about private interpretation; "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."(2 Peter.3:16). The gospel is to be taught by his Church. "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature."(Mark.16:15).

The Church doesn't make up it's own traditions. It is in complete standing with the Bible and the teaching of the Apostles. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word or by our epistle."(2 Thess.2:14). "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us."(2 Thess.3:6). Why is there room for tradition? "This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."(John.21:24-25).

Peter was the first Pope. The "rock" apon which Christ built his Church (Matt.16:17-19). The other Apostles understood that he had the authority from Christ to lead his Church. They gave him the presiding place every time they assembled(Acts.1:15, 5:1-10), and his name was always first when the Apostles' names were listed (Matt.10:2, Mark.3:16, Luke.6:13-14, Acts.1:13). It's known in history itself. The historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was "the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter." St. Cyprian stated that Cornelius (21st Pope) "mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood...the place of Peter." Even Protestant historians attest to Peter as the first Pope of the Catholic Church; like the Protestant historian Cave in Historia Literaria.

Christ's priests continue to do his work here on earth. "So much I owe to the grace which God has given me, in making me a priest of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles, with God's Gospel for my priestly charge, to make the Gentiles an offering worthy of acceptance, consecrated by the Holy Spirit."(Rom.15:16).

I strive to walk the way of love taught to me by the Lord(1 Cor.13). God Bless.

Well, my dear friend.

If you mean reading the writings of the people who put the Bible together;(despite the fact that for the first four hundred years of Christianity there was no published Christian Bible, despite the fact that for the next one thousand years, until the invention of the printing press, there were scant few Bibles, this despite the fact that only the literate had access to the Bible) as "garbage". These people lived and died for their faith; I would have to say the only "garbage" is some of what to say.

The simple truth is that the only reason you even own a Bible is because of those people. Even as a non-Catholic I was greatful for that.

I have noticed you have problems with people assuming; You may want to look in the mirror. This website is for assumers.

May Christ's peace be with you.

I know some very good Christian people who study in philosophy and they are far from.......well, what havoc said. LOL.....

P.S. Thanks for the Re: GSs

LOL......The only thing I can say to someone like you is to read a lot more.

Ummm, Many of your Christian Church fathers were philosophers.

Of course Catholic Christians had to fight and kill. Espesianlly, in the early years of Christianity when Christianity was the minority and paganism was the norm. If it wasn't for the Catholic's fight for truth, the teachings of Christ would have been lost.

One may want to read into stuff like, the Teutonic knights

Sorry, about the generalized statement.

I was referring to the fact that any heresy (a belief held by baptized Christians that denies, casts doubt upon, or seeks to alter a Divinely revealed truth that has been set forth by the established Teaching Authority of the Church) or schism (a formal separation from the Church because of some dispute, usually doctrinal in nature. Schismatics are baptized individuals who, while calling themselves Christians, cease their allegiance to the Church by refusing to acknowledge its lawfully constituted authority.) before the reformation would have been in contrast to the Catholic Church. Where as in today's world someone can refer to the heresy of the Lutheran Chruch and many of the other Protestant sects.

You are right about the many other heresies that took place. Some early ones are Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, Novatianism, Modalism, and Subordinationism. Some of these early heresies like Gnosticism attempted to combination various Eastern religions into the Church teachings. The biggest schism was that of the Eastern Church in 1054. Even though they don't really see the Holy Father in Rome as the Pope, they still keep to just about every other Church teaching.

P.S. Maybe I sould change my screen name. I can't even make a statment without someone thinking I am some kind of historian. LOL :-)

They took out the Old Testament books in opposition to the Church. Before the 1500's all Christians were Catholic.

History on the Protestant Bible.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02544a.htm

The books are, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Wisdom, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees. I highly recommend people to read the book of Tobit. Not to change to Catholic beliefs, but to at least read an ancient work of faith. It's about one's unwavering trust in God despite one's troubles in life. It is a very moving book.

A great book to read about the start of Protestantism is, (The Facts About Luther)by MSGR. O' Hare in 1916. It has just about every writing of Luther and is a great reference book also.

LOL, I like your narration on your position. As far as the media goes, the last thing they want is unity. It just would not make a good story in less there is some kind of antagonism going on; that is what sells more newspapers.

As for the belief in one God, I think people take it to far out of context. They believe in a one true God and thats it. They don't believe in the air, grass, and volcano gods.
They only have part of the truth and not the whole; they would need Jesus the Christ for that.

Why Does God Allow Evil? The hardest mystery to grasp. Or at least one of the hardest. Here is some old philosophy/theology to ponder over. I hope this may shed a little more light on things. Great Posts!!


Whether good can be the cause of evil?

Objection 1. It would seem that good cannot be the cause of evil. For it is said (Mt. 7:18): "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit."
Objection 2. Further, one contrary cannot be the cause of another. But evil is the contrary to good. Therefore good cannot be the cause of evil.
Objection 3. Further, a deficient effect can proceed only from a deficient cause. But evil is a deficient effect. Therefore its cause, if it has one, is deficient. But everything deficient is an evil. Therefore the cause of evil can only be evil.
Objection 4. Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that evil has no cause. Therefore good is not the cause of evil.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Julian. i, 9): "There is no possible source of evil except good."
I answer that, It must be said that every evil in some way has a cause. For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing. But that anything fail from its natural and due disposition can come only from some cause drawing it out of its proper disposition. For a heavy thing is not moved upwards except by some impelling force; nor does an agent fail in its action except from some impediment. But only good can be a cause; because nothing can be a cause except inasmuch as it is a being, and every being, as such, is good.
And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (48, 3). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.
In proof of this, we must know that evil is caused in the action otherwise than in the effect. In the action evil is caused by reason of the defect of some principle of action, either of the principal or the instrumental agent; thus the defect in the movement of an animal may happen by reason of the weakness of the motive power, as in the case of children, or by reason only of the ineptitude of the instrument, as in the lame. On the other hand, evil is caused in a thing, but not in the proper effect of the agent, sometimes by the power of the agent, sometimes by reason of a defect, either of the agent or of the matter. It is caused by reason of the power or perfection of the agent when there necessarily follows on the form intended by the agent the privation of another form; as, for instance, when on the form of fire there follows the privation of the form of air or of water. Therefore, as the more perfect the fire is in strength, so much the more perfectly does it impress its own form, so also the more perfectly does it corrupt the contrary. Hence that evil and corruption befall air and water comes from the perfection of the fire: but this is accidental; because fire does not aim at the privation of the form of water, but at the bringing in of its own form, though by doing this it also accidentally causes the other. But if there is a defect in the proper effect of the fire--as, for instance, that it fails to heat--this comes either by defect of the action, which implies the defect of some principle, as was said above, or by the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the action of the fire, the agent. But this very fact that it is a deficient being is accidental to good to which of itself it belongs to act. Hence it is true that evil in no way has any but an accidental cause; and thus is good the cause of evil.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Julian. i): "The Lord calls an evil will the evil tree, and a good will a good tree." Now, a good will does not produce a morally bad act, since it is from the good will itself that a moral act is judged to be good. Nevertheless the movement itself of an evil will is caused by the rational creature, which is good; and thus good is the cause of evil.
Reply to Objection 2. Good does not cause that evil which is contrary to itself, but some other evil: thus the goodness of the fire causes evil to the water, and man, good as to his nature, causes an act morally evil. And, as explained above (19, 9), this is by accident. Moreover, it does happen sometimes that one contrary causes another by accident: for instance, the exterior surrounding cold heats (the body) through the concentration of the inward heat.
Reply to Objection 3. Evil has a deficient cause in voluntary things otherwise than in natural things. For the natural agent produces the same kind of effect as it is itself, unless it is impeded by some exterior thing; and this amounts to some defect belonging to it. Hence evil never follows in the effect, unless some other evil pre-exists in the agent or in the matter, as was said above. But in voluntary things the defect of the action comes from the will actually deficient, inasmuch as it does not actually subject itself to its proper rule. This defect, however, is not a fault, but fault follows upon it from the fact that the will acts with this defect.
Reply to Objection 4. Evil has no direct cause, but only an accidental cause, as was said above.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight

Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?

Objection 1. It would seem that the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil. For it is said (Is. 45:5,7): "I am the Lord, and there is no other God, forming the light, and creating darkness, making peace, and creating evil." And Amos 3:6, "Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?"
Objection 2. Further, the effect of the secondary cause is reduced to the first cause. But good is the cause of evil, as was said above (1). Therefore, since God is the cause of every good, as was shown above (2, 3; 6, 1,4), it follows that also every evil is from God.
Objection 3. Further, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. ii, text 30), the cause of both safety and danger of the ship is the same. But God is the cause of the safety of all things. Therefore He is the cause of all perdition and of all evil.
On the contrary, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 21), that, "God is not the author of evil because He is not the cause of tending to not-being."
I answer that, As appears from what was said (1), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (4, 1). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.
But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wis. 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.
Reply to Objection 1. These passages refer to the evil of penalty, and not to the evil of fault.
Reply to Objection 2. The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.
Reply to Objection 3. The sinking of a ship is attributed to the sailor as the cause, from the fact that he does not fulfill what the safety of the ship requires; but God does not fail in doing what is necessary for the safety of all. Hence there is no parity.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

Whether there be one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil?

Objection 1. It would seem that there is one supreme evil which is the cause of every evil. For contrary effects have contrary causes. But contrariety is found in things, according to Ecclus. 33:15: "Good is set against evil, and life against death; so also is the sinner against a just man." Therefore there are many contrary principles, one of good, the other of evil.
Objection 2. Further, if one contrary is in nature, so is the other. But the supreme good is in nature, and is the cause of every good, as was shown above (2, 3; 6, 2,4). Therefore, also, there is a supreme evil opposed to it as the cause of every evil.
Objection 3. Further, as we find good and better things, so we find evil and worse. But good and better are so considered in relation to what is best. Therefore evil and worse are so considered in relation to some supreme evil.
Objection 4. Further, everything participated is reduced to what is essential. But things which are evil among us are evil not essentially, but by participation. Therefore we must seek for some supreme essential evil, which is the cause of every evil.
Objection 5. Further, whatever is accidental is reduced to that which is "per se." But good is the accidental cause of evil. Therefore, we must suppose some supreme evil which is the "per se" cause of evils. Nor can it be said that evil has no "per se" cause, but only an accidental cause; for it would then follow that evil would not exist in the many, but only in the few.
Objection 6. Further, the evil of the effect is reduced to the evil of the cause; because the deficient effect comes from the deficient cause, as was said above (1,2). But we cannot proceed to infinity in this matter. Therefore, we must suppose one first evil as the cause of every evil.
On the contrary, The supreme good is the cause of every being, as was shown above (2, 3; 6, 4). Therefore there cannot be any principle opposed to it as the cause of evils.
I answer that, It appears from what precedes that there is no one first principle of evil, as there is one first principle of good.
First, indeed, because the first principle of good is essentially good, as was shown above (6, 3,4). But nothing can be essentially bad. For it was shown above that every being, as such, is good (5, 3); and that evil can exist only in good as in its subject (48, 3).
Secondly, because the first principle of good is the highest and perfect good which pre-contains in itself all goodness, as shown above (6, 2). But there cannot be a supreme evil; because, as was shown above (48, 4), although evil always lessens good, yet it never wholly consumes it; and thus, while good ever remains, nothing can be wholly and perfectly bad. Therefore, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 5) that "if the wholly evil could be, it would destroy itself"; because all good being destroyed (which it need be for something to be wholly evil), evil itself would be taken away, since its subject is good.
Thirdly, because the very nature of evil is against the idea of a first principle; both because every evil is caused by good, as was shown above (1), and because evil can be only an accidental cause, and thus it cannot be the first cause, for the accidental cause is subsequent to the direct cause.
Those, however, who upheld two first principles, one good and the other evil, fell into this error from the same cause, whence also arose other strange notions of the ancients; namely, because they failed to consider the universal cause of all being, and considered only the particular causes of particular effects. For on that account, if they found a thing hurtful to something by the power of its own nature, they thought that the very nature of that thing was evil; as, for instance, if one should say that the nature of fire was evil because it burnt the house of a poor man. The judgment, however, of the goodness of anything does not depend upon its order to any particular thing, but rather upon what it is in itself, and on its order to the whole universe, wherein every part has its own perfectly ordered place, as was said above (47, 2, ad 1).
Likewise, because they found two contrary particular causes of two contrary particular effects, they did not know how to reduce these contrary particular causes to the universal common cause; and therefore they extended the contrariety of causes even to the first principles. But since all contraries agree in something common, it is necessary to search for one common cause for them above their own contrary proper causes; as above the contrary qualities of the elements exists the power of a heavenly body; and above all things that exist, no matter how, there exists one first principle of being, as was shown above (2, 3).
Reply to Objection 1. Contraries agree in one genus, and they also agree in the nature of being; and therefore, although they have contrary particular cause, nevertheless we must come at last to one first common cause.
Reply to Objection 2. Privation and habit belong naturally to the same subject. Now the subject of privation is a being in potentiality, as was said above (48, 3). Hence, since evil is privation of good, as appears from what was said above (48, 1, 2,3), it is opposed to that good which has some potentiality, but not to the supreme good, who is pure act.
Reply to Objection 3. Increase in intensity is in proportion to the nature of a thing. And as the form is a perfection, so privation removes a perfection. Hence every form, perfection, and good is intensified by approach to the perfect term; but privation and evil by receding from that term. Hence a thing is not said to be evil and worse, by reason of access to the supreme evil, in the same way as it is said to be good and better, by reason of access to the supreme good.
Reply to Objection 4. No being is called evil by participation, but by privation of participation. Hence it is not necessary to reduce it to any essential evil.
Reply to Objection 5. Evil can only have an accidental cause, as was shown above (1). Hence reduction to any 'per se' cause of evil is impossible. And to say that evil is in the greater number is simply false. For things which are generated and corrupted, in which alone can there be natural evil, are the smaller part of the whole universe. And again, in every species the defect of nature is in the smaller number. In man alone does evil appear as in the greater number; because the good of man as regards the senses is not the good of man as man--that is, in regard to reason; and more men seek good in regard to the senses than good according to reason.
Reply to Objection 6. In the causes of evil we do not proceed to infinity, but reduce all evils to some good cause, whence evil follows accidentally.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

I agree completely. Which, is why I referred to the (newadvent.org) website. The early church fathers speak much about the Old Testament and it's fulfillment in the New Testament. I really recommend this website, not to bring you to my beliefs but so you can read ancient writings of faith. They have just about all the old books to read for FREE!! It would cost a fortune to get a hold of all those ancient books, and they have them for everyone to read FREE!! I think it is great; and any philosophy major would love this site. It has all the writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and Augustine to name only a few.

Good points on the Ex.'s. However, the point I was trying to address is that many anti-catholics believe that the church is a mere business organization with out any grounds in faith. They point to all the large churchs around the world and say things like: "the priest's are rich and get to live in these large churchs" or "look at all the wealth they have". Forgetting that these priest's and religious have given their life completely to God, and really own nothing but their call to the Lord. When they die their family doesn't get the land or the church buildings. Especially, the Franciscan orders who take a vow of poverty to live the way of Christ and his Apostles. The church and its members live the Gospel. If the Church was around for mere profit it would not have lasted this long; with all the hardships it has undergone through out the ages. It was told by Jesus that his people would be hated for his name's sake.

The world we live in is full of antagonism and know one wants go agree with anything. There are over 33,000 different Christian faiths alone, and all disagreeing on some aspect or another. Except, for disliking the Catholic Christian it would seem. Even some of are own so called Catholic's, who believe in things like abortion and even have their own websites claming abortion is right. There are a lot of differences people have with the Catholic, but they only need to do a little invistigationt to see why we do things and believe what we believe. I known may of non-Catholics have been taught never to pick up anything that is of Catholic writing, but in order to understand you have to read into it. Not, from another who hates Catholics but from a Catholic perspective. I wasn't always a Catholic and have read much on many other religions, trust me it doesn't hurt.

Now, about the "graven images of Christ". I can't even conceive of such a thing as a graven image of my Lord Jesus Christ. Such things were never even an obstacal to me. Even the earlist Protestant's such as the Lutherans in the early 1500's had images of Our Lord, and even of Our Blessed Mother Mary. There are works of art stemming down from the the earliest days of Christianity, which depict Our Lord and Savior. I have in my room a beautiful Crucifix that reminds me everyday of what my Lord has done for me and every person on the face of this Earth. I love this beautiful Lamb of God who suffered for my sake. I look at this Crucifix and am reminded of the love of Christ. I know it isn't really Christ on my wall and I don't worship the piece of wood and bronze, but greatly honor what it represents to me. Which is the loving Passion of Christ. Much like the pictures of my family; I know they are not really in the picture frame but it reminds me of the family I love.