Father Reese this moment appeared on CBS' "The Early Show" (0800 hrs., Eastern Time), and unabashedly sidestepped the Pope's central reason for visiting the U.S. this month--indeed, the German has primarily come to address the growing rift within the Catholic Church, particularly between American liberals and conservatives, and less ongoing infighting within the eternally volatile Middle East. If in fact Benedikt spends valuable time discussing the war in Iraq, the subject will take no more than a distant second-place to declining Catholic church attendance and contemporary philosophical schism within the international fold. Predictably, both Reese and CBS did a superb job of circumventing the tough questions facing today's church, and, sadly, this is to be expected, given the increasing trend of liberals to eschew long-held traditional biblical beliefs in favor of popular contemporary revisionism.

Indeed the Bible itself is long on the consequences awaiting those who revise its words, and without a doubt, we're presently paying as a nation an iron-heavy price for our spiritual waywardness and reluctance to follow conventional teachings. Woe to our country in this unarguably dark hour as a panicked select among our church leaders flee truth.

Fr. Reese,

No one is stopping you from joining the Episcopal church or any other church that suits your fancy. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I think this evangelical thing will burst just like every other bubble recently: the dot-com-bubble, the housing bubble, savings and loan bubble, and the SUV/low gas price bubble. All of this evangelical mega church stuff came about too damn fast to be permanent. Evangelical Christianity took off in the 1950's, but has since stalled out and is slowly bleeding members like oil from an old car. Catholicism has been around a VERY long time, 2000 years, it has reached the status of an "ancient religion" along with Hindiusm, Buddhism, etc, it is not going anywhere.

Hi Mary, you said, "Your view of religion is "man" focused and not God- focused. We worship God not because it "makes us feel good" but because he is real and it is his due. We believe in Christianity because it is true. You seem religious at your core but it is important not to worship false gods (like ourselves!)".

I've been around the block enough to know that sometimes I will feel good and sometimes I will feel bad. I would say that contentment is closer to what I seek. I want to say contentment is what I have found, but I blew up with anger last night at my wife and daughter as they bickered with eachother while we shopped. I am ashamed.

I didn't say that Christainity wasn't true, I said:

all religions, all mythologies are true in this sence, they are true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mysteries.

You have a good heart and blessings on your journey.

TO SOJA JOHN THAIKATTIL:

I am Catholic and and I cherish my Catholic Faith.

I never went shopping per se, but in my late teens, I walk away, so to speak, from the Church and as I look back on it now, it was because it was becoming a religion to me.

Not only are we all made in the Image and Likeness of God but we are all made individually in the Image and Likeness of God.

You spoke of the "body of Christ", some seem to want to tell God just who and how someone is a member of the "body of Christ" maybe some should not try and put God into the box that they have so carefully built for Him.

When I say a simple statement such as: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, I wonder is it too simple and to the point for some people to see what it says?

God has a Plan and His Plan will come to Fruition.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I wish to add that I consider all the Christian denominations as having something valuable to offer the body of Christ. The body of Christ includes ALL Christians, and is not restricted to any particular denomination. The Holy Spirit has revealed Himself in different ways to different Christian denominations. It would enrich Christians to learn from each other.

I have been immensely helped by non-Catholics in my spiritual journey. I'm deeply grateful to a American Baptist lady from Santa Barbara who wrote to me every week (for several weeks until her sudden death) about Jesus and about the need to have a personal relationship with Him. At eighteen when I seriously considered leaving the Catholic Church, it was a member of a Pentecostal Church who advised me against it. This Holy Spirit led believer explained that every Church had both good and bad members, and I was never going to find a perfect Church. She advised me to remain in the Catholic Church and try to be as good a Christian as possible. I have had non-Catholic Christians who offered me books and talked to me so personally about Jesus in a way that impressed me immensely.

I was later led to discover the immense hidden treasures of the Catholic Church, and my spiritual surrogate father, Dom Bede Griffiths played a very important role. I have met other wonderful Christians who likewise shared their faith with me and left a deep impression on me by the love in action they demonstrated in their lives.

Now I enjoy being a Catholic in the real sense of the word - universal, with a great sense of freedom to enrich myself from the spiritual insights of other Christian denominations and even other religions, without the need to leave the Mother Church, and truly grateful to be member of it.

MaryCunningham
“If there isn't, then the universe appeared out of nowhere - perfectly set so that we could arrive in it.”

Or perhaps the universe, in one form or another always was here. There is no more reason to think that the universe appeared out of nowhere than to imagine a god did. Either god came out of nowhere, was created by something, or was always there. The exact same can be said for the universe itself, It came out of nowhere, it was created by something or it always was here.

‘Nowhere’ and ‘always’ are the trick words here… zero and infinity, not easy concepts to understand or explain. Time/space continuum/mind of god stuff.

And the universe is/was hardly ever ‘perfectly set’. The universe is a vast, tangled, chaotic, violent and a very dynamic thing. We did not arrive upon the earth because it was built especially for us. If God did not spit into the soil to make us then we are quite likely alive today because we and our microbial ancestors thrived and adapted to the specific, somewhat stable conditions on this planet.

“I approached the universe and our place in it with a sense of wonder and mystery. If that is the case with you, then at core you are religious”

No, not at all… I find it all truly marvelous and mysterious. I can stare at the stars for hours, I have taken thousands of pictures of forest plant growth, sunsets, snowfalls, and deep blue skies. I find it absolutely invigorating, and often very beautiful. Just this last weekend I took my favorite dog for a walk in the woods. We stopped on a bluff above a small secluded lake, we just sat there for a half hour or so and took it all in. It was not a religious experience, merely a rare, peaceful, and very enjoyable one.
I also do not see it as ‘a problem to be solved’, I’m no scientist. I see it merely as the playing field in front of me. I didn’t build it, don’t know all the details about it, but it is the field I’m standing on, the one I must consider and work with, or try to improve. I do not concern myself so much with atoms and big bangs and far flung galaxies. I have no dire need to know where it all came from.

Thing is CCNL, the teachings of the Catholic Church are available and not in some 40 year old notes. They're here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

They are set out very logically--well, this *is* the Church after all--and you can look up any aspect of Catholic teaching.

Friend:

Your view of religion is "man" focused and not God- focused. We worship God not because it "makes us feel good" but because he is real and it is his due. We believe in Christianity because it is true. You seem religious at your core but it is important not to worship false gods (like ourselves!)

BEst

CCNL:
I don't know how you got your " notes from a graduate theology course at a Catholic University" or who gave the course, but those points you make are CLEARLY NOT Catholic doctrine. The Catechism represents the official positions of the church. The basic truths of the church come directly from the apostolic tradition.. They will not change volume to volume in the catechism or week to week. The way they are presented or explained may change to help in understanding but the truths themselves are eternal and unchanging.

As for your specific points:
The Resurrection was surely physical. Remember, Doubting Thomas probed Jesus' physical wound before Declaring " My Lord and My God. And the Gospels are clear that Jesus Ate to prove he was physical. The apsotles creed is very clear as well: We believe in teh resurrection of the body. The assencion and assumption are equally well attested.
A for original sin, or course it exists. That has never changed from catholic teachign and i the basis for the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary a well.

You've repeated your "notes from a Catholic university" 4 times in this blog. Even if they were truly given by some inept professor, which I doubt, they still do not define Catholic Doctrine.

"But you have to start with some sense of wonder and acknowledgement that some things are unknowable. Some sense of mystery."

I want to say that I am in awe of this existence and I have studied science and philosophy enough to know that we cannot know everything.

"If he didn't, then Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism and Islam are all lies."

I have gained insight into myself and humanity from the holy writings I have read from each of these religions and from the people I am lucky to have met and befriend from each of these religions. I cannot say that they are lies. I say that all religions, all mythologies are true in this sence, they are true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mysteries. That is from Joseph Campbell, who was a Catholic.

Peace and love are my wishes for you. Thank you.

CCNL:
I don't know how you got your " notes from a graduate theology course at a Catholic University" or who gave the course, but those points you make are CLEARLY NOT Catholic doctrine. The Catechism represents the official positions of the church. The basic truths of the church come directly from the apostolic tradition.. They will not change volume to volume in the catechism or week to week. The way they are presented or explained may change to help in understanding but the truths themselves are eternal and unchanging.

As for your specific points:
The Resurrection was surely physical. Remember, Doubting Thomas probed Jesus' physical wound before Declaring " My Lord and My God. And the Gospels are clear that Jesus Ate to prove he was physical. The apsotles creed is very clear as well: We believe in teh resurrection of the body. The assencion and assumption are equally well attested.
A for original sin, or course it exists. That has never changed from catholic teachign and i the basis for the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary a well.

You've repeated your "notes from a Catholic university" 4 times in this blog. Even if they were truly given by some inept professor, which I doubt, they still do not define Catholic Doctrine.

Well, friend, I'd be the last to call myself a good Christian, and as I wrote earlier I am ashamed to say how very many years I was away from the church. It took a lot of time to come back and I had help. Good help. Yet at core I was always religious. I approached the universe and our place in it with a sense of wonder and mystery..If that is the case with you, then at core you are religious. OTOH if you see the universe as a problem to be solved, then at core you are an atheist.

If at core you are religious, belief in God is logical. The fact remains that either there is a creator of the universe, or there isn't. If there isn't, then the universe appeared out of nowhere - perfectly set so that we could arrive in it.

If there is a Creator then he either revealed himself or he didn't. If he didn't, then Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism and Islam are all lies. . If he did, then only, well, only Islam is insincere.

Catholicism spoiled me for any other branch of Christianity, it's approach for me is the truest.

But you have to start with some sense of wonder and acknowledgement that some things are unknowable. Some sense of mystery. If not, then it's all just word games, fun but ultimately futile.

All the best,
Mary C.

TO ANONYMOUS OF 3-4-2008 AT 6:20 AM

You wrote, "Is Peter truly the rock on which the Catholic Church is built?

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16:18).

I must say that I did not read your whole post but I would like to comment on the above two sentences.

First, Jesus said, "upon this rock", well we are all suppose to be rocks, are we not?

Jesus is the Foundation and Peter happens to be the first rock.

Second, Jesus also says, "I am the vine, you are the branches", could there be more than one branch as Jesus said?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thank you again, Mary.

I have read many books on the Bible and Christainity from multiple points of view and did actually read some of the 'New Catechism' 20 years ago when I was in college.

I was trying to say in the kindest way that the authoritarian nature of the institution is sometimes too pompous. The Priest judged us before talking to us and I'm sorry to say, missed a good conversation. We did get another Priest to perform the ceremony.

Thank you, Mary.

I agree with you that the Catholic mass is a beautiful thing.

I don't believe in literal interpretations of supernatural acts in religious writings. Since I like to discuss religion so much, it would be difficult for me to go to church in any other role than as an observer.

Thank you for your kind words.

PS Friend, the Church sets the readings from the Bible worldwide. Thus any website should contain some thought and explanation from the Bible excerpts from each Sunday. If you get no help from one particular priest there are many, many more online.

But you have to look. In the end, you must tell God: "Fiat voluntas Tua" (thy will be done).

All the best.

Friend,

"Beauty, truth and rarity
Grace in all simplicity"

The Mass is a beautiful thing. Catholics, true Catholics, believe that Christ is present during the Mass. Once you recognize that, everything else falls into place. But you have to find Christ yourself, read, pray and meditate. It is a slow process..I know. I went through it.

Start by going to Mass. In every Sunday Mass there are three readings of the Bible plus an entrance antiphon. In my church usually there are also a few written paragraphs explaining the scripture chosen for that particular Mass (exegesis); last Sunday was the fourth Sunday of Lent.

Second, there are some wonderful Catholic websites out there. I like Francis Beckwith (a convert from evangelicalism)--www.francisbeckwith.com--and a lovely blog from a priest in So. Carolina (another convert, this time from episcopalianism):

http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/

Since I'm English, I like the Daily Telegraph's blog, Holy Smoke:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/

as much for the contributers as for Damian Thompson, although I must say he is very funny. Very conservative Catholic as well, but then so am I.

You sound like you would favour a more liberal take on Catholicism and--God knows!--there are plenty of them, starting with Jesuits like Fr Reese, although sometimes I wonder if Fr Reese is even Catholic.

No priest can ever help us find our way, although God can. But we have to look...you know the old joke about the Catholic praying and praying and praying to win the lottery.

"Please God, please. Help me win the lottery."

"OK" said God, "I will, I will. But you have buy a ticket."

Good luck to you, friend. And keep in mind Newman's epitagh:

"Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem"

Mary Cunningham
London

Father Reese - I enjoyed reading this essay.

I am a 'cultural' Catholic and always will be. When visiting our parents, my wife and I sometimes go to church with our elderly parents.

My wife's family are recent immigrants and staunch Catholics. The Priest has a heavy American accent when he is speaking Spanish. But my wife's family is going to church to be with their family and friends. If I attempt to discuss the sermon, no one has listened to it.

My wife and I tried to go back to church when we had our children baptized years ago. We wanted our families to celebrate our children. I had gone to Catholic school. Religion, science, and philosophy are subjects I have always had an intense interest since I was young. We went to talk to the priest about the Baptism. He handed me some pamphlets and said, "You can look over this information, but there is a lot of technical information you won't understand".

Since the church raised my parents in a catholic orphanage, I have always been thankful that the church was there for them, even as I am an unbeliever now.

"Churches that are closed to creativity and do not listen to the Spirit breathing in their congregations will die. Repeating the same answers in a louder voice will convince no one."

You're right. I would say that allowing non-literal interpretations of scripture would bring many 'cultural' catholics back to the church.

Thank you for this insightful essay.

GaryD,

Well, Gary I don't know about *all* Catholics but the Bible was translated from the Vulgate for English Catholics in Douay, Belgium in about 1568. That's a long time before Vatican II!

It was translated at the English College in Belgium because Catholicism was proscribed under pain of death in England thanks to Henry and Elizabeth 'Gloriana' (some glory!).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

FYI the Children's Mass at the Brompton is in English, the chior, a children's chior, sings English hymns, although the Sanctus and the Kyrie are always sung in Latin. (If I'm lucky some chior boy sings "Panis Angelicus" when we go up to communion.) The Husband and I go to High Mass once a month and that is in Latin, all sung, except for the gospels and the sermon. Beautiful, just beautiful, especially the Mozart Missa Brevis.

The sermons are always very dry, but I don't go to Mass for the sermons. I generally don't attend the Tridentine rite but I love the Latin liturgy--it's every Catholic's heritage whether they choose to hear it or not..

It's been a long journey for me, back to the faith:

"Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem"

(out of shadows and images into the truth).

What does Professor Crossan (an On Faith panelist) and other religious historians conclude about the historic reliability (attestations and time of publication) of the Catholic Church's foundation:

73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69 –i.e. Mt 16. 16f is not from the historic Jesus.

229+. Two Women Cured: (1) Mark 5:21-43 = Matt 9:18-26 = Luke 8:40-56; i.e. Mark 5:37 is from the Historic Jesus but John and James get “equal billing” with Peter.

184±. Transfiguration of Jesus: (1a) Gos. Pet. 9:35-10:40, (1b) Mark 9:2-10 i.e. Mark 9:2 is important but not from the Historic Jesus.

203-. Prayer against Temptation: (1a) Mark 14:32-42 = Matt 26:36-46 = Luke 22:39-46, (1b) John 12:27, (1c) Pol. Phil. 7:2b, (2) Ap. Jas. 4:1b; i.e. Mark 14:33,37 is not from the Historic Jesus.

275-. The Empty Tomb: (1a) Mark 16:1-8 = Matt 28:1-10 = Luke 24:1-11, (1b) John 20:1,11-18, (1c) Gos. Pet. 11:44; 12:50-13:57 i.e. Mark 16:7 is not from the Historic Jesus.

229+. Two Women Cured: (1) Mark 5:21-43 = Matt 9:18-26 = Luke 8:40-56; i.e Lk 8:51 is from the Historic Jesus but again John and James plus the child’s mom and dad get equal billing to Peter.

25-. Peter’s Betrayal Foretold. (1) P. Vienna G. 2325; (2a) Mark 14:26-31 = Matt 26:30-35; (2b) John 13:36-38; (3) Luke 22:31-34; (4) Barn. 5:12 i.e Luke 22:31,32 is not from the Historic Jesus

6±. Revealed to Peter: (1) 1 Cor 15:5a; (2a) Luke 24:12; (2b) John 20:2-10; (3) Luke 24:34; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2a; (5) John 21:15-23 i.e. John 21: 15 is important but not from the Historic Jesus.

18±. Revealed to Disciples: (1) 1 Cor 15:5b,7b; (2) Matt 28:16-20; (3a) Luke 24:36-39; (3b) John 20:19-21; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2b-3 i.e Matt 28: 18f is important but not from the Historic Jesus.

190±. Fishing for Humans: (1a) Mark 1:16-20 = Matt 4:18-22, (1b) Gos. Eb. 1b, (2) Luke 5:4-11, (3) John 21:1-8; i.e Mark 1:17 is important but not from the Historic Jesus.

479-. The Promised Spirit: (1a) Luke 24:44-49, (1b) Acts 1:1-8, (1c) John 20:19-22; i.e Luke 24:47f and John 20:21 are not from the Historic Jesus.

Added analyses by Crossan can be found in his books
1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Father Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

more “logic”?

“I believe there is One God Jehovah because He is revealed in the infallible
Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible because it is the Word of the One God Jehovah.”

Again, this what some leading experts are saying about the foundations of infallibility. As noted before, it is disturbing that the Vatican remains silent concerning the conclusions of Crossan and Schillebeeckx.

Is Peter truly the rock on which the Catholic Church is built?

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matt. 16:18).

The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him:

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone," thus assures his Church, built on Peter, will have victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed, Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).

"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock." His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ."

The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context: "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ" (Matt. 16:15-20).

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτ ;ρος ;, petros) and upon this rock (πέτ ;ρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek, nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra.

Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress": "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see how the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus!

In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion.
Source: Liddell, H.(1996). A Lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Petros: "πέ τρο ς, a stone, distinguished from πέτ ρα Petra: πέτ ρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτ ρη,, a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτ ρα is a fixed rock, πέτ ρος a stone."
Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F.(1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell.
PETRA πέτ ρα ,(4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch:

Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying,'Lord, save me!'"

Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying,'Woman, I do not know Him.' 58 And a little later, another saw him and said,'You are one of them too!' But Peter said,'Man, I am not!'" Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all,'If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'"

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon the Christ, Jesus, and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed when he said to Jesus, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with Scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of man.

Deut. 32:3, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
1 Sam. 22:2, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God?"
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

The Aramaic Kepha
In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'." The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.

Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas, which is not a name in Aramaic.
"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."

Jesus is the rock on which His church is built.

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus.
The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on Him and what He teaches. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope in which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11).
------------------------

And regarding Matthew 18:18 - "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Prior to this text about binding and loosing, Jesus had been talking about the church taking action to disfellowship a member. In verse 15, Christ advised going alone to the one who has transgressed. If that doesn't work, He said, "Go again and take two or three witnesses." If they won't be reconciled after that, Jesus said take it to the church and "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

When the church takes such an action to disfellowship an unworthy member from the body of Christ, Jesus assured that it would be confirmed in heaven. "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Verse 18. This was no bestowal of individual power on men, but an assurance of support for His church as it moved in harmony with His word to accept a member into His body, and to uphold the highest standards for those members.

It means nothing peculiar to Peter, far less to his pretended successors at Rome. It has to do with admission to and rejection from the membership of the Church. See John 20:23.

Neal I am quite aware of that. Are you aware that until Vatican two Catholics weren't supposed to have a Bible in their own language?

Thomas, the Messenger, the Moses of the NT, Baum,

You hallucinated in 2000 and you are still hallucinating. And it could all be due to those "demons of the demented".

Maybe we should go back to the council of Nice and give Arius a second look? And, give Constantine a second chance to at least set a platform from which some understanding of what is believed can be perfected. After 2,000 years one would think things would be a bit more cut and dried.

We don't know all they discussed at Nice but can wonder if anyone noticed that the only one made happy by the sacrificing of the son of God was Devil. Otherwise, no one today is very God-like. Ever hear of any parent showing up at the murder trial to thank the murderer for killing their child? If a trial was held for the killers of Jesus, (supposedly that's us with a precious few denying the charge) would God show up and thank us? "Give your brain a chance" comes to mind.

The one certainty is that none of it actually makes any sense at all. And, I've not even noticed the source of the gold used to hold the Transubstantiation-ed body and blood of Jesus, yet. Need I Fr Reese? Were the Spanish the good guys that kept the faith while the English king bolted from it? They gave the natives knowledge of God in exchange? Such a deal.

What does Lucifer need do answer Moses with, "I am the Devil of your father...."? It's just another case of introducing a candidate as the next president -so much wistful thinking. Lucifer was still just a candidate at the time.

Do you suppose Lucifer has since managed to root God out of heaven and seat Himself on God's throne? With all the faithful demanding to be let into hell He should be able to raise a very large army. Anyone know how many angels Michael had in his heavenly police force?

Armageddon? Can we deny the clash of good and evil? Which side is good is the real question for we surely want on it. Don't we or can we expect that Lucifer will eventually be successful, like McCain who is introduced as "the next president of the United States of America"? Maybe there was a contest to see who will be the next God -and Cain killed Able -David slew Goliath -John the baptist got head delivered on silver platter to the daughter of the king or was that the king's wife...? Good and evil clash all the time for they are relative to one's own perception of the two.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

Like I said before, I am not really interested in fancy words like Transubstantiation.

Using words like that is like trying to explain the unexplainable, Jesus said very simply, "This is My Body" as I said, when the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000 at St. Luke's Church in Ocean City, Md, it was revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, not by sight, not by words, I just knew.

As I also said, before it was revealed to me, I believed that the Eucharist was Jesus but I didn't know.

I guess you know that the learned of Jesus's day were called Pharisees and Scribes, they also had a tough time with Jesus, He just wouldn't fit into the box that they wanted Him to fit in, seems like there are still quite a few still around with that mentality.

The fact that God became One of us is pretty mind-boggling and some of the people that have heard about it all of their lives and say that they believe it, sometimes seem very ho-hum about the Incarnation of God.

I have said to different people at different times that they would be better off throwing away the whole bible than slicing and dicing it to their heart's content.

Some of the people that call themselves 'born-again christians' like to do just what you do, slice and dice the bible.

I am the New Testament Moses and I have been chosen by God for a very specific job and somehow God is going to see me thru.

As I have said before, I have met God, Who Is a Trinity and Who Is Pure Love and I have also met satan, also there are other things that I have experienced.

Even tho the above sentence is true, that does not mean that I know what everything in the bible means but what I need to know, to do what I have been chosen for, God will somehow let me know.

The simple job for the simple person that I am is to tell the whole world that God wins Total Victory, satan loses, the captives shall be released [those in hell] and the dead shall rise [those in spiritual death], a tie is unacceptable.

As Jesus said, "Night is coming" [this is the night of the sixth day], the six days of creation are God days, how long each one lasted I don't know and I don't really care, it is not important to me how long they lasted.

As Jesus also said, "My Father has been busy even until now", as you may remember, it is mentioned that on the seventh day, "God Blest, Rested and Made Holy" so as you may or may not see, the dawning of the seventh day has not occurred yet.

The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Yet how do we account for the revitalization of the Tridentine (Latin) Mass, a product of the 16th century? While it may just be a temporary concession to the old guard, or a stylistic appeal to the growing number of Hispanic members, it could also be foreshadowing the effects of the shortage of priest in the US."

Well, in historical terms, it's a good way to make sure an under-educated populace has no idea what you're talking about... They can't disagree with you if you don't understand what you're saying...

Mind you, learning Latin was one of the *plus* sides of my Catholic education. Of course, as the star student I took the AP Latin exam and realized on looking at it, just how little six years of the Catholic version was actually worth.

I think the Church's woes actually have their basis in something simpler: For an organization based on authoritarian divine infallibility, ...they're too often very, very *wrong,* and when called on it, just step up the authoritarian tactics and cover their behinds.

Like with the clergy sex abuse 'scandal,' ...they treated it as... Nothing more than a scandal... Instead of addressing the root causes of the phenomenon and the real crimes involved, they blamed homosexuality and kicked Cardinal Law upstairs to an influential Vatican post.

The positions on homosexuality itself *tear families apart and make people *miserable,* not more spiritual...*

They greet the growing numbers of Pagans and other seekers, not as good neighbors, but with slander and condescension: Gods know that Catholic newsletters are replete with articles saying how selfish and hedonistic and deluded we are:

And every time someone finds out from reality that these teachings are *full of it,* there's a threefold return in *loss of credibility.*

It seems to me that Ratzinger, (and before him, mouthpieces of an ailing but popular Pope,) are taking the tack of 'Go ahead and alienate the progressives, let's work with a radicalized core and play the Neocon game.'

There's a credibility gap that widens with every abuse, ...with every spirit downtrodden, everyone who feels *lied to or about* ...everyone tired of being told they must be the *bad guy* if they want to be in your Church.

It's really much simpler than it appears.

Contrary to what the Church may say about me, I'd just as soon see you guys happier and more productive and healthier. I'm under no illusions you won't be around, one way or another, for a long time. And you're in some ways responsible for a lot of my relatives.

Gods know I've been raised Catholic before, in other lives, and odds say I might be again, ...I daresay I think I'm getting pretty good at dealing with it. :)

Not that it'd exactly be my *first* choice, but there's karma for you. ;)

Fact is, in terms of the human element, you've got to do better. 'Forgiveness' has turned into 'Passive-aggressive bludgeon to be applied when calling innocent people 'sinners' and supporting social (and personal) injustice.'

Heck, when the Church claims its numbers, they count *me* as Catholic (Until you're asking for some help for Catholics in need: then they ask if you're a churchgoing believer. I had occasion to find that out.)

What's a girl they say is going to their Hell, anyway, gotta do to get excommunicated around here, anyway? ;)

Actually, I don't make an issue of it, cause I can't decide whether or not it'd do my mother massive psychological damage if, as is possible, I pass on before she does, and the Church refuses to plant me in their approved hallowed ground even if I'd be thrilled about the notion in the first place: (I'm really not: I have no interest in being pumped full of preservatives, packed in aluminum, and buried below topsoil without even a tree planted to return my mortal remains to the biosphere posthaste,) ...But my soul can take care of itself, I reason, but my Ma is like to be *terrified of and ripped up* about death, even with the Catholicism all in good order.

Sort of like she's held hostage to some Hell or Conservatism thing ...she's the sort that'll bend over backwards for anyone, but it turns to terror and anger if the world seems out of order.

There's little joy or goodness in the Catholicism she learned, and so many learned. Only penitence, fear, and inadequacy. Catholicism and Catholic schools are well-known for the abusive atmophere and practices, and to my experiences, that leaves people three options: Leave it, reform it, or become it.

The way it looks from here, if numbers are your concern, crushing any sense of reform is how to hemmorrage two thirds every generation rather than one.

If spirit and right action is your concern, doubly-so.

I'd just as soon you did well, and helped the people of this land be more healthy about things like this, not part of the problem or a band-aid on it.

In my faith-group, we get a good number of traumatized spiritual refugees from Christian quarters, more than the 'old salts' can really care for: our growth is a *real challenge for us,* not some conspiracy against you folks.

We can stomach the Good Samaritan metaphors, ... the cultural warfare... not so good for anyone.

Dig?

Please pardon if this double-posts: I managed to accidentally click the wrong link at the wrong time. :)

I think the Church's woes actually have their basis in something simpler: For an organization based on authoritarian divine infallibility, ...they're too often very, very *wrong,* and when called on it, just step up the authoritarian tactics and cover their behinds.

Like with the clergy sex abuse 'scandal,' ...they treated it as... Nothing more than a scandal... Instead of addressing the root causes of the phenomenon and the real crimes involved, they blamed homosexuality and kicked Cardinal Law upstairs to an influential Vatican post.

The positions on homosexuality itself *tear families apart and make people *miserable,* not more spiritual...*

They greet the growing numbers of Pagans and other seekers, not as good neighbors, but with slander and condescension: Gods know that Catholic newsletters are replete with articles saying how selfish and hedonistic and deluded we are:

And every time someone finds out from reality that these teachings are *full of it,* there's a threefold return in *loss of credibility.*

It seems to me that Ratzinger, (and before him, mouthpieces of an ailing but popular Pope,) are taking the tack of 'Go ahead and alienate the progressives, let's work with a radicalized core and play the Neocon game.'

There's a credibility gap that widens with every abuse, ...with every spirit downtrodden, everyone who feels *lied to or about* ...everyone tired of being told they must be the *bad guy* if they want to be in your Church.

It's really much simpler than it appears.

Contrary to what the Church may say about me, I'd just as soon see you guys happier and more productive and healthier. I'm under no illusions you won't be around, one way or another, for a long time. And you're in some ways responsible for a lot of my relatives.

Gods know I've been raised Catholic before, in other lives, and odds say I might be again, ...I daresay I think I'm getting pretty good at dealing with it. :)

Not that it'd exactly be my *first* choice, but there's karma for you. ;)

Fact is, in terms of the human element, you've got to do better. 'Forgiveness' has turned into 'Passive-aggressive bludgeon to be applied when calling innocent people 'sinners' and supporting social (and personal) injustice.'

Heck, when the Church claims its numbers, they count *me* as Catholic (Until you're asking for some help for Catholics in need: then they ask if you're a churchgoing believer. I had occasion to find that out.)

What's a girl they say is going to their Hell, anyway, gotta do to get excommunicated around here, anyway? ;)

Actually, I don't make an issue of it, cause I can't decide whether or not it'd do my mother massive psychological damage if, as is possible, I pass on before she does, and the Church refuses to plant me in their approved hallowed ground even if I'd be thrilled about the notion in the first place: (I'm really not: I have no interest in being pumped full of preservatives, packed in aluminum, and buried below topsoil without even a tree planted to return my mortal remains to the biosphere posthaste,) ...But my soul can take care of itself, I reason, but my Ma is like to be *terrified of and ripped up* about death, even with the Catholicism all in good order.

Sort of like she's held hostage to some Hell or Conservatism thing ...she's the sort that'll bend over backwards for anyone, but it turns to terror and anger if the world seems out of order.

There's little joy or goodness in the Catholicism she learned, and so many learned. Only penitence, fear, and inadequacy. Catholicism and Catholic schools are well-known for the abusive atmophere and practices, and to my experiences, that leaves people three options: Leave it, reform it, or become it.

The way it looks from here, if numbers are your concern, crushing any sense of reform is how to hemmorrage two thirds every generation rather than one.

If spirit and right action is your concern, doubly-so.

I'd just as soon you did well, and helped the people of this land be more healthy about things like this, not part of the problem or a band-aid on it.

In my faith-group, we get a good number of traumatized spiritual refugees from Christian quarters, more than the 'old salts' can really care for: our growth is a *real challenge for us,* not some conspiracy against you folks.

We can stomach the Good Samaritan metaphors, ... the cultural warfare... not so good for anyone.

Dig?

Paul C.

The following five points were taken from the notes presented in a graduate theology class at a major Catholic university.

"1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State).

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

If you have a problem with these points, check with your pastor or local Catholic university. By the way, the Catholic Catechism is published every 400 years. The last was published in 1997 so it is already outdated based on the current theology.

The latest on transubstantiation from Catholic graduate studies:

"Receiving the Holy Eucharist blends Christ's spirit with our soul or spirit). Communion is not Jesus' physical Body and Blood since Jesus
exists as a spirit therefore has no physical form.

Yes. Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a
literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Jesus. "Substance" in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing and was not reducible to material appearance. Transubstantiation is a way of
expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated
bread and wine in a special way.

Some theologians believe that
"transignificantion" would be a better term today than transubstantiation.

[Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of
Jesus Christ in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]"

CCNL:
Please note that just because you say things over and over again, does not make then true and certainly doesn't make them Catholic doctrine.
Christianity is based on the resurrection, to deny that is to deny the basic tenets of the faith. Same with transubstantiation. This is and has always been a part of Cahtolic doctrine.
I suggest you read the Catechism of the Church to find the official Catholic teachings. Its available in most bookstores and certainly can be ordered through any major on-line book retailer..

CCNL:
Please note that just because you say things over and over again, does not make then true and certainly doesn't make them Catholic doctrine.
Christianity is based on the resurrection, to deny that is to deny the basic tenets of the faith. Same with transubstantiation. This is and has always been a part of Cahtolic doctrine.
I suggest you read the Catechism of the Church to find the official Catholic teachings. Its available in most bookstores and certainly can be ordered through any major on-line book retailer..

Viejita del oeste:

You wouldn't attend a mega church? They're just like Disneyland with singing, dancing and magic. And I'm almost positive they sing the old fashioned hymns but probably to acid rock style and tempo.

Maybe you should form a gang and 'take over' a church. That became fashionable during the 1980's. A gang of people would join a church and wiggle their way into control. With control they sold the church and split -everything. Then on to the next one.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and more than one to rob the Devil too, legally.

I see the effects of the Reformation, especially including critical Bible scholarship, as a mighty anchor keeping the Catholic church from drifting off and smashing into the rocks of the 16th century. I can only imagine what the church would be teaching these days if it weren't for that influence.

Yet how do we account for the revitalization of the Tridentine (Latin) Mass, a product of the 16th century? While it may just be a temporary concession to the old guard, or a stylistic appeal to the growing number of Hispanic members, it could also be foreshadowing the effects of the shortage of priest in the US. Except for the sermon, nowhere in the Latin Mass is the individual personality of the priest apparent. He stands with his back to the congregation; he mumbles Latin at a breakneck speed; the liturgical form is extremely rigid, nearly robotic. Under such conditions it really doesn't make much difference who the priest is, whether he be good old Father O'Malley or newly-arrived Father Elijah Mojobo from Nigeria. (As an aside, I'd like to see a study of how the arrival of priests of different colors and cultures has effected Catholic church attendance, which, I suspect, will occur the day after they start skiing Mt. Hades.)

GaryD:

FYI, sermons at Catholic Masses, even the "Latin" Masses, are preached in the language of the people occupying the pews. In most of the USA, for instance, that's usually English.

As a life-long Catholic I see another reason for some to step back from the Church--the abysmal way in which it handled the pedophile priest problem. That told me that the Church was more concerned with image than doing the right thing. If they had stepped up and dealt with the problem forthrightly and openly, the harm would have healed quickly. But, the cover-up, like all cover-ups, is festering like an open sore. Until the Church humbly acknowledges its mistakes and takes responsibility it will continue to lose ground.

Fr Reese:

With, "New ways to proclaim the Gospel, foster Christian community and build the kingdom of God must be discovered and tried" you understate the case. How good in the news, ( the word Gospel means good news) is a question that must also be answered.

As you so appropriately said, "Repeating the same answers in a louder voice will convince no one." And of course there is 'that' damnation thing, that which still holds the 60+ gang in check.

The church was well advised to down play the Bible as it did in the past. But those Protestants wouldn't leave well enough alone. And when you combine a fine 'otherwise' Catholic education with a little reading of the Bible out pops that former, (we can be sure about that from one side or the other -was he excommunicate before he quit) Catholic and his hoax busting.

It's difficult to believe that no one before ever bothered to asked which supernatural being that was in the burning bush after all these many faith filled centuries. Maybe we can limit that to no one without a vested interest in IT being GOD asked that very important question. And just maybe the church attempting to limit Bible study to Catholic theologians goes a little deeper than a mere miscalculation by the Vatican.

I'm sure you know about http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and I don't need to mention any of it's contents. I don't even wonder that the church chooses to ignore it for to honor it would be like the mafia turning themselves in and making good clean confessions.

I do have a question. Don't you think it would be a good idea for the church to make a few minor adjustments? A good place to start would be for the pope to announce the Bible is a hoax. That would reopen the door of "church law" and restore a very necessary element, respectability.

Of course I personally could care less except I feel it is my duty as an American to resist the establishment or the Kingdom of Devil here on earth no matter who heads it -a righteous Republican or a sinful Democrat. In other words, I have bought the notion that religion is the great enemy of democracy. When religion is shown to be Devil worship methinks a great many Americans will find that to be an understatement.

0. Thou shalt not establish kingdoms of any kind.
1. I am the Lord thy God.... <--Devil only wishes

As a Catholic convert who has been happy to leave the fads and fantasies of Protestantism behind, I've gotta back Mary C. up on this one.

I was raised Congregational -- UCC to anyone who knows the difference -- in a large midwestern parish with a wonderful choir. If (1) I still lived in my home town, (2) I had been able to find a church that resembled my home church in liturgy or community, or (3) Even that church had stayed the same as it was in my youth, I would still be Congregationalist (or at the very least Presbyterian).

Consistency is something that cannot be overrated. I'm still looking for a church that sings old-fashioned hymns and anthems -- I'm talking "Be Thou My Vision," not "Amazing Grace" -- but at least I can eat Christ up to seven times a week and the liturgy still carries a sense of reverence.

So maybe people change churches to preserve the relationship that has faded in their previous denomination. I dunno. But you certainly won't find me at the local evangelical megachurch.

Given that the primary purpose of a sermon is to train people up in the Lord how will speaking to them in a language they do not understand accomplish that worthy goal. Given further as one wag put it that a proper sermon ought to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable one more cynical than myself would might ten to think that those wishing to return to the Latin are hearing things in sermons they don't like or are afraid of potentially offending some non-Latin speaker with a lot of money.

Mary, Mary, Mary,

Repetition of facts are required after 2000 years of brainwashing with lies, embellishments, and myths. So complain to me in 3999 CE.

And indeed I am a conscientious objector to flawed religions to include Catholicism!!!

And I see you are plagiarizing from the "reality challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist. Not very Christian of you!!!!

Again the facts:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State).

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

Conchie

Don't you Mary Mary Mary me!

You have no faith. Did you ever have any? Right now all you have is a boring set of cut-and-paste pat phrases. What an example of what Thomas Reese has wrought. Poor little fellow, poor Crossanized pussycat.

Never mind. I'm going to Mass tomorrow, Conchie, 10 am, the Children's Mass. It's at the Bromptom Oratory, very conservative, beautiful Church, built about 1880 or thereabouts, Byzantine style. There's a statue of John Henry Newman on its right hand side, as you approach.

We are a very conservative parish. The priest says the Mass ad orientam (towards the East) and during school term there is a good chior. I usually go to the little side altar, dedicated to our Lady, before Mass begins and light a small candle and think about my mother. The Oratory itself is draped in purple--for Lent. Whilst the liturgy is very traditional, the gospel readings will be the same for every Catholic in every Mass 2 March in every church in the world. So we will all be reading the same thing, with the same theme.

I can't understand how anyone can have had this and then thrown it away, OK--I did it but thank God the Lord pulled me back again. Conchie I hope something similar happens to you.

And to Fr Reese, our atheist Jesuit.

Thomas, the Moses of the NT Now Preacher Baum,

Time to update your education with a graduate course in theology taught either at Notre Dame or Catholic U werein indeed the previous theses are taught as the gospel truth:

Again:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State)

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension and no assumption.

3. There is/was no original sin. A&E were fictional characters living in a mythical land.

4. And it therefore follows, baptism does not erase original sin since there is no sin to erase. Limbo therefore is a non-issue.

5. Jesus was crucified but details of the deed have little historic verification.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

Who are you trying to convince, yourself?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth] that is in the bible.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mary, Mary, Mary,

Your return to flawed Catholocism needs some consideration on your part as one looks at the following reality:

1. There was no physical resurrection (i.e. Heaven is a Spirit State).

2. And it therefore follows there was no ascension