There is one living and true God eternally existing and subsistent in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you pray to anything other than this one true God (the Mother Mary, for example), then you have constructed an idol. Praying to the Mother Mary is not any different, for that matter, than if you pray to Allah or Buda, or some pagan God. If you pray to it, then it is an idol.

TO TIM:

You wrote, " Also, I do fear that some of this false doctrine, especially the focus on the Mother Mary, may actually hurt the cause of the Lord because it is idol worship which the Lord hates."

First off, I would like to state that I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith.

Even tho there are many that overdo Mary, there are also many that underdo Mary.

This Catholic does not worship Mary but I honor Mary for her YES and that, in my opinion, she lived out her YES better than anyone else ever has or ever will.

Mary is not only mentioned as the Mother of God-Incarnate when she gave her YES to Gabriel's announcement to her, but in Genesis, who do you think is the woman, as in "I will put enmity between you and The Woman"?

At the cross when Jesus says to Her and the Beloved, "Woman behold thy son, behold thy Mother", when God speaks maybe we should listen, The Beloved stood in for the entire human race.

Since God is a Trinity, Mary is the Mother of God-Incarnate, the daughter of God the Father and you could say the spouse of God the Holy Spirit or as I refer to Him as Our Knitting Buddy, Who, as mentioned in the Psalms, knit us together in our mother's wombs, does it not?

Mary, of her own free will, said, "Let it be done unto me according to Thy Word", didn't she?

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition and part of His Plan was for Mary to be the Mother of God-Incarnate and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

God knows what He is doing and we should not underestimate God or His Plan, something to think about: Divine Justice and Divine Mercy go hand in hand.

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

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

VIEJITA DEL OESTE:

I love the Catholic Church because you love Jesus, and like me, you do your best to follow Jesus. In Revelations Chapter 2 and 3 Christ criticized seven different prominent churches of that day and age and some of this criticism was directed at false doctrine. This is not unlike the church today in that we all have error, I am sure.. The only church that Christ seemed to totally reject was the Church in Laodicea. That rejecting was based on their apathy for the Lord, they were neither cold or hot, not on false doctrine. So the harshest criticism in Revelation seems to be for those who are not sincere not for those who are sincere but may be in error. Is this not recognition that we are human and will be in error yet the Lord judges a man’s heart and those who believe in Him are saved, Praise God!

I don’t see you or the Pope as apathetic for the Lord nor other Catholics I know. This is what I love about the Catholic Church, you are not apathetic for the Lord. I even love the Pope’s book and it a better testament to the Lord than I could write. So this criticism I have of the Catholic church is offered in love and understanding to fellow brothers in Christ. I just think that you could be more effective if you were to get rid of what seems to be obvious false doctrine and I believe that in many cases this false doctrine is why folks leave for other Christian Churches. Also, I do fear that some of this false doctrine, especially the focus on the Mother Mary, may actually hurt the cause of the Lord because it is idol worship which the Lord hates.

1 Co 13: 8-13

Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I was raised as a Catholic, left the Church to become an atheist for the past 30 years and
I am now in the process of returning to Catholic Church actively embracing its sacraments
and doctrine. Why did I return? In general, it was a realization that there is a Supreme
Being called God and that the Catholic Church, with all its flawed history, is the
institution established by Jesus Christ to guide me how to best worship and obey the will
of God his Father.

Basically the way I came to this realization was a gift of faith and a feeling of spiritual
emptiness in my life. There are specific events and people I read about that I believe
helped inspire and reinforce this faith. These include:

-- what happened at Fatima on Oct 13, 1917
-- the image on the Guadalupe tilma particularly the supernatural reflection of the right
eye
-- the miraculous spring at Lourdes
-- the lives of people venerated by the Catholic Church such as:
Padre Pio, Father Solanus of Detroit, the Little Flower Saint Therese, Mother Theresa, St Francis of Assisi, John Paul II and many others.

Yes, there have been many flawed popes and other clergy in the 2000+ year history of the
Catholic Church and I am not always in total agreement with all its teachings, but Catholic
Church has existed longer than any other institution in the history of mankind and will
continue to do so simply because it is the true Church of God.

When I once asked a Roman Catholic nun how a pope could speak infallibly about Mary being taken bodily into heaven when the Church has *no* eye-witness accounts of the event, doesn't know when she died, where she died, where she was buried and can't even agree if she even died and was buried at all, she responded, "Why do you think they called it "The Assumption"?

Thanks, Tom! Just checked out the Definition of the dogma of the Assumption...not exactly an easy read, is it?

So now I'm not sure why this "infallibility" issue is mentioned in so many of these columns.

I don't agree with the notion of infallibility at all, but it seems to have been blown way out of proportion (or simply misunderstood through ignorance) in some On Faith columns...talk about nitpicking!

Craig

In answer to Craig, I'll not only give you an example of a time the Pope spoke infallably, I'll list every single one (just to show off):
The Definition of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1870, & the Definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. That's it; that's the complete list.

...just found posts under Deepak Chopra's column that papal "infallibility" is extremely limited in scope.

Does anyone know when this "infallibility" applies? Maybe some past specific papal pronouncements that have been deemed infallible?

Thanks,
Craig

Steve wrote: "Encouraging personal daily prayer and meditation should really be at the heart of any reaching out. This is true for all Catholics, not only Priests. We're all in this together. When one listens to the voice of God from within every day, miracles can and will happen!"

Nicely said, Steve! I have a question, though, regarding the papal "infallibility" issue. If the Pope is infallible, then doesn't this make the Pope's word the voice of God? I mean, what if the Pope's edicts are not the same as the voice within? The Pope can't be wrong, so that means the voice within is wrong.

For me, that seems to be a major issue in Catholicism. How do faithful Catholics view this issue? Is the papal "infallibility" more of a symbolic reference to the Pope's relationship with God, or should this idea be taken at face value?

Thanks,
Craig

HI! I am a 28 year old and I consider myself young, I was born and raised in the catholic faith
and I have found many good things in my faith, I don't consider catholic church as a bored church or similar in fact we praised the lord we sing, clap and do a lot of things and I am not the only young people at my community, we have bible studies, we learn the meaning of our sacraments and many other things, and why we follow them,we learn so many things that I would not have that much space here to write all of them,and there is still lot of things I have to learn. I love my faith and I would not go to any other church.I think one of many problems that young people and adults have now days to stay in the catholic faith is because they dont understand their faith. If we dont take the time to go and find out why we believe in the things we have in the catholic faith it will be very easy to loose our faith and many may end it up going to some other places.Going to mass without knowing that it is the most beautiful thing there is because Jesus is present in the eucarist he heals because he is the lord. There is so much to learn and I have seen people gaining their faith instead of losing it.

Your analysis of the Catholic Church in America is spot on as all of us, even the most devout (ie. Mother Theresa), struggle with our faith and how to exercise it.

I can only say from personal experience that faith does require a personal commitment. Most young people simply are not at a point in their lives where commitment to anything is at the top of their list. However, at heart, people want to share what is most special about themselves and be a part of something much larger. Meeting people "where they are" is a good start to getting young people active in their church where they live.

Encouraging personal daily prayer and meditation should really be at the heart of any reaching out. This is true for all Catholics, not only Priests. We're all in this together. When one listens to the voice of God from within every day, miracles can and will happen!

Robert Leibold,

The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. Jesus did not write or proofread the NT. Ditto for the warmongering, womanizing Mohammed and the koran.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Also, there is only one place in the NT that suggests Jesus could read i.e. Luke 4:16. This passage is not attested to in any other NT passage or in any other related document making it a later addition or poor translation as per most NT scholars' analyses.

See also Professor Crossan and Professor Reed's book, Excavating Jesus, p. 30.

See also Professor Bruce Chilton's commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

"What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord's anointed".

It is very unfortunate that Jesus was illiterate for it resulted in many gospels and epistles being written years after his death by non-witnesses. This resulted in significant differences in said gospels and epistles and with many embellishments to raise Jesus to the level of a deity to compete with the Roman gods and emperors. See Father Raymond Brown's 878 page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Luke 4:16 note on p. 237) for an exhaustive review of the true writers of the gospels and epistles.

Jesus an "illiterate," CCNL?

Incredible that such an illiterate might continue to draw the rapt attention of billions two millenia after his birth, life, death and resurrection, and yet for all the education collectively accumulated by Professors' Thistlethwaite, Reese, and Berlinerblau, I had not heard of them until this week, or until I first visited this rather peculiar forum some four days ago. I wouldn't pin all my hopes and dreams on the so-called "findings" of the so-called 'educated' within our contemporary academia, were I you, my boy.

Let me get this straight:

Billions of human beings have followed an 'illiterate' Jewish carpenter for two-thousand years, and perhaps billions continue to rest their last hope of their eternal salvation in his triumphal return, and you're arguing that he's a 'mythical character'?

Only thing I can see that you've liberated yourself from, is likely reasonable thinking. Then again, there are those who might think a pig liberted from life's myriad pressures simply because he daily wallows in the muck and happily searches there for his provender.

Hard-put to prove that Jesus didn't exist and convinced that believers among us continue to live a fallacy, atheists and the 'liberated' have yet to tender an alternative to Christendom's offer of hope. When you can bring to the table a better or more believable promise than that of Jesus, CCNL, we can talk. Otherwise, you're merely living your own version of fantasy.

Tim, I am confused. What exactly is it that you love about the Catholic church? Do you see us merely a giant global charity, without recognizing that our organizational structure and adherence to tradition on an equal level with scripture is what makes all those good works possible?

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Still "obfusing", still trying to distract us from the major evil in the world I see. You know what this major evil is but still you remain silent out of fear of the terror that will fall upon you and your family.

Let me take up the banner for you once again announcing to world:

"Until the koran is deflawed, no one is safe!!!!!

Hello Father Reese,

Thank you for your essay.

It is not only Catholics, or young Catholics, who like the singer not the song as in the case of Pope John Paul II. But surely you are not denying the fact that many non-Catholics also like parts of the song or some of the songs that Pope John Paul II was singing? He also seem warmer, did not consider himself infallible, and have, for lack of better word, a humaness and humaneness that is apparent.

No one is blaming Pope Benedict 16 for his personality - he seem a bit cooler and more detached after one is used to the more extroverted Pope John Paul II. And surely it does made you think as to whether it is a good thing to characterise the current Pope as an intellectual all the time. Or as enforcer of Church doctrine and theology. Or that his primary concern is theology and doctrine. One do expect a religious leader to also be described as spiritual apart from intellectual.

Nothing wrong with describing the Pope as a spiritual person. After all, President Reagan is said to be a spiritual man even though he made a point never to go to church on Sundays unless he has to for some public functions as President. We even have some atheists in On Faith threads describing themselves as spiritual atheists.

Espousing and practising "reason in faith" and promoting intellectualism as a virtue does not mean one has to downplay or subsume the spiritual aspects of faith, which is the most compelling aspect for believers of any faith. Perhaps for some it is impossible to accept intellectualism and spiritualism in the same breath and in the same person. Faith is also more than dogmas, doctrines, theologies, dictating and enforcing specific ethics, morals and values for practicing Catholics, for practicing Muslims. For practicing believers of any beliefs in fact.

Thank you and regards

"J"

Dogmas don't make good Catholics and history is showing that preaching hell and brimstone alienate all of us who are simply human beings. We cannot be God and everyone should realize that Christ's simple message is not framed in rules and regulations nor presently in "catchup efforts" by current theologians or such as those in the Council of Trent.

"The church needs to develop new ways of preaching and explaining the gospel in a way that is understandable and inspiring to people in the 21st Century."

I love the Catholic church and all the good that it does. But I disagree with Mr. Reese about his concept of finding new ways of preaching and explaining the gospel. The gospel is relevant to the 21st century without any new ways of preaching.

The problem is that the way the Catholic church traditionally teaches the gospel is full of errors. You can make the gospel inspiring by actually teaching the gospel. That is the change you need to make. Because your flock is increasingly picking up their Bibles and finding out that you do not teach the truth they leave for other churches that actually preach what is in the gospel. For example, no where in the gospel is Mary worshiped like the Catholic church worships her. You actually have Mother Mary idol statues in most of your churches. Praying to the mother Mary is a sin and so is building an idol.

Another example, Jesus told us not to call anyone Father. Yet you call your leaders Father. That is the exact opposite of what Christ said to do. Then you say that Peter is the rock upon which the church was built. Yet Peter was married and you require your leaders should live life as single men. This no doubt leads to suppressing sexuality and thus you have this cause sexual abuse. Even Paul said to each his own way but as for him he prefered to be single. Where did your church come up with the crazy idea to require that all be single? This is not in the gospel.

Probably the biggest error in your teachings is the idea of the Pope and his Infallibility. You will find none of this in the gospel. The gospel teaches us that all men are sinners and all men are flawed. All the hoopla around the Pope is something that I guess will do some good but it may in fact alienate more of the folk who read and understand how counter all this is to the message in the gospel.

There are many more things that you teach and practice that are not in accord with the gospel. You don't need new ways of teaching your erroneous doctrine. What you need to do is a total overhaul that would require the church to actually teach and follow what is in the gospel.

Yes indeed, it is all about Jesus but what Jesus?? The embellished or the historic one??

The embellished one we been hearing about for the last 2000 years, the historic one, the last 200 years.

A synopsis of these last 200 years for those who have not been paying attention:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).