Happy 500th Anniversary of Christianity in the Philippines!

Happy 500 Year Anniversary of the first Catholic Mass in the Philippines.

Apparently there is some debate as to where precisely the Mass took place. The government seems firmly convinced that the location was Limasawa, and this seems to be the majority opinion. Others believe the site to be Masao in Butuan as the location.

Either way, everyone agrees it was celebrated for the first time on March 31, 1521 and today is the 500th anniversary. It was actually Easter Sunday on which it was celebrated.

Magellan and the sovereign ruler of the island Rajah Kolambu made a blood pact. I was surprised to discover this involved each person cutting their wrists and pour the blood into a drink such as wine to both drink. Wow. They did this and exchanged gifts.

The first Mass was celebrated by Father Pedro Valderrama. After Mass, they planted a large cross known as Magellan's Cross. This cross still exists to this day, but some claim the original has been lost. Others say the original is encased in a larger cross as people were chipping away pieces of it. Why would someone chip away a piece of such a cross? Do they not realize the damage they are doing?

In any event, the Philippines has become a very Christian country, and is one of the great successes of Christianity in Asia!

Here is a video published today, March 31, 2021 marking the event:

What is the difference between Christians and Catholics?

As a Catholic, I really dislike this question. Unfortunately it's a very common one. I am assuming that 99% of people who ask this question are not doing so maliciously or with any ill-will whatsoever. It actually makes sense. When someone says they are "Christian" generally it means a non-Catholic / non-Orthodox Christian, especially if said by someone in the United States or Canada.

I remember one time when I and my now wife were in Europe doing a tour and someone asked me this very question. I have heard it in other instances in various different ways. But this isn't just a blog about why I dislike this question, I will also attempt to the best of my ability to actually answer it!

But first, why do I dislike it? As you can probably tell, I primarily dislike this question because of the question implied within it. If you ask the "difference" between two things, it automatically implies they are, in fact, different. If I said what is the difference between an apple and an orange, it would imply those are two separate entities. If, however, one entity subsumed the other within its definition, the question would seem odd at best.

Imagine for example asking "What is the difference between a Canadian and a person?" or "What is the difference between a cell phone and technology?"

Those would seem like strange, almost unanswerable questions. It reminds me of the court room question of "Do you still beat your wife?" If answered with either "yes" or "no", it would imply the person being questioned was at some point guilty. So, the question's baseline premise must be rejected. That's exactly what I am saying with the above question. I reject the initial premise upon which it is based.

A properly phrased question in this case would be "What is the difference between non-Catholic Christians and Catholic Christians?" I know that's a bit bulky, but it maintains an important point: that Catholics are Christians. This is something which must be emphasized. Catholics are 100% Christians. In fact, we would say we are the truest and most complete form of Christianity. It would make more sense to ask "What is the difference between a Christian and a Protestant?" Even though it would make more sense, I'm not saying it does make sense. Most Protestants, in my estimation, would meet the criteria for being called Christian.

So, having said that enormous pre-amble, let's get into what actually sets Catholics apart from others who call themselves Christians?

I cannot really offer a complete and exhaustive list of differences between the two, but I can offer some observations and some of my own personal knowledge on the subject. To list every single difference would take volumes. These are just some that I thought of. If there are others you think are important, please feel free to list them in the comments. Again, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Also, I may not explain everything perfectly in precise theological language.

One thing I find great about the Catholic Church is that it is very open and transparent on its teachings. If you want to know what the Church believes, you just have to look it up. One of the best sources it the Catechism. There are different versions, and not everything has the same level of authority in its teaching, but it gives you a great idea. Many people accuse Catholics of believing certain things even when they don't. There doesn't need to be any confusion. What we teach is available and knowable by anyone.

Not everything I mention here will differentiate the Catholic Church from all other Christian communities in every way. With thousands of denominations, it would be hard to find a particular doctrine not shared by one or more of them.

Sacraments
The Catholic Church has seven sacraments.

The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). In other words, a sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

These seven sacraments are the following:

Sacraments of initiation

• Baptism
• Confirmation
• Eucharist

Sacraments of healing

• Penance
• Anointing of the Sick

Sacraments of service

• Holy Orders
• Matrimony 

In Catholic theology, these sacraments impart grace, which is a free gift from God. The efficacy of the sacraments do not depend on the disposition of the person receiving them. Some of the sacraments are necessary for salvation, such as baptism, and in the case of committing a mortal sin, penance. All of the sacraments bring us closer to God. These are not merely symbolic gesture or symbols, but truly bring God's grace to us.

In some Christian denominations, there are only 2 sacraments instead of 7, and they are not considered necessary for salvation. In some cases, they are seen as merely symbolic.

Priesthood
In order to have the sacraments, the Catholic Church must have a priesthood. Although all Christians, in a certain sense, are priests, prophets, and kings, there is also a special clergy designated by God to perform various sacraments, primarily the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are seen as the spiritual helpers of bishops who are spiritual successors of the Apostles. In theory, each bishop can trace his lineage all the way back to one of the original 12 apostles.

Priests take a vow of celibacy which is a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. On top of this, they make a vow of obedience and in some cases (particularly with religious priests) a vow of poverty. By "religious" priest, I mean a priest belonging to a particular religious order, as opposed to a diocesan priest.

Other Christians do not have the priesthood, especially not a ministerial one. This is a huge difference. Although, for example, both Catholics and Protestants celebrate a form of service or liturgy, Protestants view what is happening in a completely different way. The primary purpose of the Mass is to consecrate the Eucharist, which is an unbloody re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It makes present his perfect atonement and allows us to do as he commanded when he said "do this in memory of me".

Most Protestant Christians do not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) and therefore they may infrequently or never have a communion service which they see as symbolic. The primary purpose of a Protestant service is to pray and hear a sermon.

This is an important distinction. As mentioned, even though many families, both Protestant and Catholic, go to their respective churches on Sunday for a service, the intention and idea behind both is dramatically different. There are, however, commonalities, such as Bible readings and a sermon, although Protestant sermons, being the central aspect of a Sunday service, can be much longer than a Catholic homily which generally lasts between 5 to 15 minutes.

Scripture and Tradition
Another big differentiator between non-Catholic and Catholic Christians is their views on Scripture and Tradition. Within Catholicism, both are seen as equal sources of belief and doctrine. However, there is some misunderstanding which must be clarified.

When the Church speaks of "Tradition", it does not simply mean things that are traditional.

The catechism really says it best, so I will quote it here:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

Of note, Tradition is not something that is just simply "made up", it comes from the apostles and is transmitted through time. As the catechism explains, the apostles didn't yet have the Bible as we know it today. That didn't come about until the mid-300s or so. There was much debate about which books were in the Bible and so on. Therefore, one could say the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around.

Of course, this is not the view of non-Catholic Christians. Most of them would describe themselves as Bible-alone Christians or Sola Scriptura. This belief, in my opinion, seems to stem from the idea that the Church is not a visible structure with a hierarchy, but rather more a collection of believers. Because of this, it would be impossible to identify the true "Tradition" or the handing down of doctrine and belief from a particular source. It is also a Protestant belief that each individual Christian has the ability to interpret Scripture on his or her own, there is no Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church in Catholicism. The "Tradition" of Catholic teaching simply could not exist in Protestantism. 

Saints
Of course, all Christians believe in saints. Saints are quite simply those who are in heaven. The difference in belief comes from our approach to them. Catholics believe we can ask Saints in heaven to intercede for us, which means we ask them to pray for us. It's important to note, we always ask them to pray to God on our behalf. We are not praying to them as a substitution for God, as if we are deciding: Should I pray to God or to a saint today?

That's important to know. Many people ask why Catholics don't just "go straight to God"? Why have all these middlemen? First, I would say we often DO go straight to God and this is not discouraged in any way. Secondly, asking others to pray for us is something everyone does. We may ask a relative or friend to keep us in their prayers. This goes for Catholics and non-Catholics. The difference is Catholics will ask not only relatives and friends but also saints in heaven.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, we believe in the communion of saints, meaning we are all kind of in this together. Saints are close to God and are virtuous, holy and filled with grace. They are currently experiencing the beatific vision. Their intercessory prayer is powerful. As Catholics, we believe that saints can hear our prayers and bring them to God.

Purgatory and Indulgences

Purgatory in Catholic theology is a place of purification which those who are saved must spend time in order to purge or cleanse vice or attachment to sin before entering Heaven. We are told that nothing impure can enter heaven. Purgatory are for those who die in a state of grace, meaning in friendship with God, but must first be purified before entering into the beatific vision.

To me, purgatory is congruent with God's mercy. Instead of saying a person must have absolutely no attachment to sin or any disordered desires, God says a person must be in friendship with him at the time of death and that he will cleanse them of any leftover vices before they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Protestants do not explicitly believe in any form of purgatory for the most part. I did, however, discover that many Protestants believe in a sort of cleansing prior to entering Heaven, the difference is that it takes place instantaneously unlike in Catholic theology.

Because of our beliefs surrounding purgatory, we have other beliefs which correspond as well, such as indulgences. An indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. This is best explained with an example. If you steal $1000 from someone and then God forgives you for doing so, you must still, to the best of your ability, repay the amount to that person. You must make restitution. It would not be sufficient to say "well God has forgiven me, no further action necessary." This type of "repayment" cannot always take place. How could one repay gluttony, lust, sloth, etc. It's not always clear the exact "value" of these things. That's where indulgences come in. Indulgences can be granted for various actions such as prayers and fasting. Special indulgences are granted by the Church for various specific tasks such as praying at a cemetery during All Souls Day or participating in a Novena. These actions purify us and detach us from sin.

Indulgences get a little more complicated. There are some which are partial and others which are complete or plenary, meaning they either remit some or all of the temporal punishment due to sin (temporal indicating the effects of sin other than eternal consequences). One of the conditions to receive a plenary indulgence is detachment from sin, meaning we are not drawn to a particular sin. That's a big ask. If these cannot be achieved, and a person dies in God's favor, he may have to spend time in Purgatory.

🙏

There are dozens of other differences between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christianity. We could go on and on, but the above at least gives an idea. I did not provide proof, either Biblical or other, for the above, but they are certainly there. I just wanted to provide the differences, not necessarily prove them.

Hope this helps answer the question many people have asked over the years. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to put them in the comments section.

Have a great day and God Bless You.

Virtue-Signaller-in-Chief Pope Francis Appoints Non-Ordained Woman as Undersecretary of Synod of Bishops

Pope Francis once again attempts to outdo himself on his "wokeness" by appointing a female to be undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops along with voting rights. This is the first time a woman or even an non-ordained person will have voting rights in this institution. Her name is Nathalie Becquart and she is a French Sister.

It seems to me this pope asks two questions when considering making a decision:

1) Is it technically possible?

2) Will it cause controversy for true Catholics and win brownie points from the secular media and those who hate the Church?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, he will do it. The pope is really doing little if anything to protect and defend orthodox Catholicism. Instead, he is trying to appear hip and relevant - probably the last things we need from a pope in this time of confusion.

Isn't the pope supposed to be someone we can rally around rather than being the primary source of confusion and division for the Church, even when including those outside the Church? It's really sad.

So why am I so upset about all of this? Well, many will assume I am anti-woman, that's the standard go-to for those who don't understand Catholic teaching.

That simply is not the case. The truth is there is a basic Catholic understanding called Apostolic Succession, which was instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior. He chose 12 apostles who were men to lead the Church. He could have chosen women as well, but he did not. Then for all the centuries of the Church since then, there has been male-only apostolic succession. All bishops are men because of this.

What Pope Francis is doing is weakening and causing confusion regarding apostolic succession and the male-only priesthood. Is he in direct violation and attempting to ordain women? No, he's not. But he's confusing the teachings of the Church. He is causing scandal. All for what? To score brownie points with his buddies in the secular media? Those people will never be happy. They understand nothing of the structure and history of the Church. They are just "woke" SJWs. Even if there were a female pope, they wouldn't be satisfied. They would want a female "person of color" pope, then someone with a disordered sexuality, and so on. They would never be satisfied.

The pope has said that women need a bigger role in the Church. I don't necessarily disagree with this. They can be researchers and professors and even Doctors of the Church. But I think it becomes a problem when they start taking over roles that were dedicated to bishops. The synods make major decisions regarding the Church and implementation and specification of Church teaching. This is a role proper to bishops.

The pope is either unaware of this or purposely looking to subvert this. He can go on and on writing lovely-sounding speaking points that sound like they were written by Hallmark, but that's not what we need right now. He's all about show. He's all about being in the headlines. He is terrified of being unpopular. These are not the qualities we need from a pope, especially not now in this time of confusion!

Why can't the pope just sit home and take a far more low-key approach. Why is he so thirsty for attention all the time? These are not the characteristics of someone who is qualified to be Supreme Pontiff. My advice to the Holy Father is to stop playing politics, stop trying to be popular, and start bringing together faithful Catholics and teaching the true beauty of the Faith given to us by Jesus Christ.

Happy Feast Day of one of my Favorite Saints - Thomas Aquinas!

St. Thomas Aquinas is definitely one of my favorite saints, if not my favorite. I don't like being too committal on something like that! Aquinas isn't just another saint (as if there is such a thing). He is a pre-eminent saint. He is a doctor of the Church but in my opinion, easily one of the top. His Summa Theologiae is definitely the most used extra-biblical source within Catholicism when it comes to issues of morality, theology, and various other Catholic topics.

I went to Mass today and the priest mentioned something about Aquinas which I think we sometimes forget. We know he had a towering intellect (I'll get into that more later), but he was also an extremely holy and devout mystic. Yes, a mystic. We rarely think of him in those terms. In fact, all too often we implicitly seem to categorize saints as either mystical or intellectual. Both of these characteristics are wonderful and important, but we shouldn't always make such black and white distinctions.

It's actually quite an amazing thing when one thinks about it. There isn't a dichotomy between faith and reason in any way. In fact, as we can see from the example of Thomas Aquinas, one only strengthens the other. A false dichotomy often put forth by secular society is between "spiritual" and "religious", implying that to be spiritual means to not be preoccupied by all the "rules". I explained in a previous blog why this is a false dichotomy. An example of this is the common expression among traditional Catholics of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, which essentially translates to the way we pray is the way we believe.

Perhaps it doesn't fit perfectly but I think that expression does tell us something. To know God is to love God. I think that's the point from which St. Thomas comes. He helps us to better understand God and his will so that we can love him ever more fully.

To me, this comes up when understanding various concepts within the faith. If we do not have a good grasp of these concepts, we can be easily led astray. For example, knowing what true humility or true patience entail will lead us to be holier and better people. If we operate under a false idea of what these terms mean, then we can be led into bad areas without even knowing it.

The same goes for the nature of God Himself. If we have an insufficient, incorrect, or outright heretical viewpoint of God and His Nature, we can easily fall into sin and error. Ultimately we cannot be happy in this state.

St. Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274, around 800 years ago, yet his teachings have stood the test of time ever since then. This further bolsters the fact that his ideas are perennial, and not shifting as with the current moral relativism. Truth is truth and it doesn't change. Over all the centuries and through all the various peoples of the Earth, these truths speak to us. St. Thomas has stood the test of time and we can fully trust in what he is saying.

I mention this because I feel that we as fallible human beings can easily fall into error. Often this is not deliberate, it is just a sort of dulling of the sword. We inadvertently fall into sin through many small, poor decisions. Because of faulty philosophy and theology, people can be led astray. This is why we need teachers (or "doctors" in Latin) to guide us. We know that by listening to such men and women, we are listening to God through them and not to our own fallen desires.

On an intellectual level, I find St. Thomas to be an unparalleled resource. He speaks on so many different subjects, and yet there is consistency. This is impressive given the fact that his Magnus Opus, The Summa Theologiae (sometimes written as Summa Theologica) is 3x bigger than the entire Holy Bible! It would be difficult to write even a few pages without having some inconsistencies, but St. Thomas was able to achieve this in such a large tome - obviously with God's help.

I am not suggesting that St. Thomas was infallible in everything he said. He is probably the most complete theologian in the Church's history, but he did make some small errors. Only the Church is guaranteed the charism of infallibility by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Despite the fact that Thomas had one of the greatest intellects of all time, he was one of the most humble men as well. There are many stories of his humility. I will attempt to recount one of them. As a child in school, he spoke so infrequently that people assumed he was dumb, both literally (unable to speak) and in the modern-day meaning of being stupid. His nickname, in fact, was the "Dumb Ox". The idea that he wasn't the best student was so widely believed, that his teacher St. Albert hired a tutor to help out this poor, dumb, child Thomas. Yet, soon after beginning to teach the young Thomas, the tutor, astounded by the boy's brilliance, did something spectacular: he asked, in his own humility, if St. Thomas would switch roles with him and become his tutor.

Later in life, St. Thomas (who is said to have never committed a mortal sin) was praying when he had a profound mystical experience which caused him to declare that all his magnificent writings were but straw. This is not to be misinterpreted to mean that his writings were false or unimportant. Rather, compared to a direct experience of union with God, his writings were infinitely less significant. This shows his holiness and humility.

I could go on and on in writing about this great saint. In this day and age of confusion and relativity, we need St. Thomas Aquinas all the more!

Problems with the Week for Christian Unity

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humber from Rome to Constantinople to bring the two halves of the Church together. Unfortunately the opposite happened when the cardinal excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch returned the favor to the cardinal. That's when things got bad and haven't been fully resolved since.

Why did the schism occur? Well, to our modern-day sensibilities, the reasons seem very minor. There were differences in opinion when it came to the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. There were some differences in belief regarding the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread during the Eucharist. Throw in the mix the controversy surrounding the filioque clause, which is a controversy over whether we should say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, or just the Father, in the Nicene Creed.

These theological differences created a rift which ultimately created what is known as the Great Schism of 1054. Historians will say tensions were accumulating in the preceding centuries and that this schism was really a massive overreaction. Modern-day popes have all attempted, along with Eastern Patriarchs, to mend the schism and reunite these who parts of the Church. Partial reunions have resulted in what are known as Eastern Catholic Churches.

Now to the modern day, where there isn't a single schism in the Catholic Church resulting in two slightly different but very similar churches agreeing on 99% of issues. Now we have tens of thousands of Christian churches all over the world with wildly different beliefs. Instead of arguing over the use of leavened vs. unleavened bread, most Protestant churches do not even believe in the Real Presence. Instead of debating Petrine Primacy, or the status of Pope as First Among Equal Patriarchs, most Christian communities outright reject any form of papacy whatsoever.

Yet, despite these facts, for centuries, the Catholic Church has strove to convert the Eastern Orthodox Church back to the Catholic Church established by Our Lord. There was a desire for unity in belief and purpose. There has always been respect between the East and the West, but yet always an underlying desire for reunification.

Fast-forward to now. We hardly ever hear about conversion. We don't hear about missionaries entering into non-Catholic areas to will souls to Christ. We now speak mainly of dialogue and "deep respect" for other "religious traditions". This isn't just for Protestant denominations but other non-Christian religions.

I think this new approach is very problematic. Christ gave us a mission to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. He did not say dialogue with other groups and just come to some kind of mutual respect. He told us to go out there and win converts. Of course, we are not the ones who do the converting, it's God himself.

To me, the new approach goes against the wishes of Jesus Christ who prayed that we be united as one, together. Furthermore, Our Lord tells us repeatedly that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Who are we to take all that Christ is saying and ignore it and tell him we know better.

I think all too often we see conversion as something negative, when it's only something positive. Our approach can certainly be negative, there is no doubt about that. We should meek, humble, and loving. Jesus himself said his followers should be recognized by their love. For this we must strive. However, at the same time, we cannot fall into a sense of indifferentism. It is a moral failing on our part to refuse to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God's love for us is a gift, and God himself became incarnate to teach us the way to eternal life. Who are we to withhold this most incredible gift from others out of a misplaced sense of respect? In a secular sense it would be like finding out our friend had a winning lottery ticket worth millions of dollars but refused to tell him about it because we didn't want to disrupt him.

If we truly believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth to die for our sins so that we may be united more closely with him in this life and the next, it would be incredibly wrong for us to prevent others from knowing about this.

I think about this sometimes when thinking about the idea of conversion. Sometimes as devout Catholics, the question comes up of whether we should tell others of Christianity because by doing so they are held to a higher standard whereas before they would perhaps be living with invincible ignorance and thus lack moral culpability.

However, this is the wrong question. Again, back to the analogy of the million-dollar lottery ticket. Would we refuse to tell someone about the millions they won because maybe they'd have to make decisions as to how to spend it? To prevent them from being burdened, we simply do not let them know.

Of course this is not a great analogy as many people do actually suffer from winning the lottery. However, no one has ever been worse off for coming closer to Jesus Christ.

That's why I have issues with some of the language used in the modern world when it comes to other religions. I agree that we must have the utmost respect towards other people, and we should never address the traditions of others in a derogatory way. We must be kind and humble. But being kind, humble, and respectful does not mean fully consenting or agreeing with others. We have a mission, we have an incredible gift. Christ tells us about a peace that only he can give. Who are we to stop others from receiving the peace of Christ?

Let your light shine and do not hide it from the world. Bring the message of Christ to the whole world. They deserve to know Our Lord like you do.

Who is the REAL Pentecostal Church?

Who is the real Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Anglican, Episcopalian, Baptist, Church of God?

I believe the answer to this qusetion is the Catholic Church. Let me explain. I believe all of the names above take a part of the Christian faith and call themselves by it, but truly there is only one church. When Christ created the Church, he did not envision 30,000 denominations, all teaching slightly or extremely different theology and philosophy. He envisioned one church, and the only one he established is the Catholic Church. Let me explain how Holy Mother Church fits all the names above.

Pentecostal – 50 Days after Christ's Resurrection, the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and gave them authority over Christians. They received the power to forgive or retain sins, and they went forth in the name of Christ. That's why we call Pentecost the birthday of the Church. Pentecost refers to 50 days, and is a reference to the 50 days after Christ's Resurrection in which the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles in the form of tongues of fire. The church that was born on Pentecost is the Catholic Church, therefore we are the Pentecostal Church.

Prebyterian – The Greek name for priest comes from presbyteros meaning elder. Our church receives the sacraments through the priest, and thus they offer us a share in Christ's life. Therefore our church is founded upon priests, or presbyters, therefore the Catholic Church is the only true Presbyterian Church.

Church of Christ – As I mentioned previously, Christ only established one church and he prayed that it would be united like he and the Father are united. Since Christ founded but one Church and that is the Catholic Church, we are rightfully called the Church of Christ.

Anglican – Anglican simply means originating from England. Anglican means the English Church. Since only one Church, the Catholic Church is truly universal, it is the true church of all countries. No country can claim a completely unique church apart fom all the others. Therefore, the only true Anglican Church is the Catholic Church, just as the only Irish Church is the Catholic Church or the only Scottish Church is the Catholic Church.

Episcopalian – Of course, this is a term often used by a certain variety of Anglicans, but it is not legitimate for their use. Episcopalian refers to the episcopacy. This terms means over seer. Epi means over and scope means to view. This is the name given to bishops. The term bishop is derived from episcopal. Episcopal refers to the fact that our church has a lineage of bishops all the way back to the apostles. Especially important is the Pope who carries the lineage of Peter, the pre-eminent apostle. Because only the Catholic Church maintains a valid and licit apostolic succession, only we can be referred to as Episcopal or Episcopalian.

What makes one a member of Christ's Church? Baptism. When babies are baptized, they become members of Christ's true church, the Catholic Church. This is also true for adults who are baptized after going through an RCIA program. Therefore, we are the only true baptist church. Other baptisms are licit, but they are not valid. There is only one baptism - however, one must become a full member of the Catholic Church in order to be a member of Christ's true church.

Finally, since Christ IS God, the Catholic Church is God's church, therefore the Catholic Church is the Church of God.

As you can see, groups try to gain legitimacy by adopting names which would falsely lead one to believe they may be a true church. Make no mistake. Their roots are short, the Catholic roots are deep and span the centuries. Be safe on the bark of the boat of Peter!

If only St. Thomas Aquinas had lived a little longer

Thomas Aquinas is one of my favorite saints. I believe he should be the patron saint of apologists. He gave rational reasons for the faith, in great detail, and his most complete work was the Summa Theologica. Aquinas understood that good philosophy can come from various sources and he was able to use many ideas from Greek and Roman philosophers. The Catholic Church recognizes that religions can be praised for what is true in their faiths, and Aquinas understood this as well. Of course, to fully understand God, we must look to the Catholic Church. The question I am asking is, what if St. Thomas lived a little longer?

The reason I ask is because he died on his way to the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons, on March 7, 1274. He was summoned there by Pope Gregory X himself. This was a very important council (as they all are indeed) as it was to attempt a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western churches, which were split during the Great Schism, a very sad time for Christendom. St. Thomas was revered from all the Christian world for his grasp of theology and philosophy. He was eminently brilliant and much of our current beliefs are best expressed through his words. Just take a look at the Catechism and you will know his great impact.

Because of his understanding, Aquinas was to be a very important member of this church council. Perhaps his words could have brought the Eastern Churches back into the fold. St. Thomas was able to expound on any topic and create an air-tight argument in favour of the Catholic Church. If St. Thomas had not been hit on the head a couple of times on his way to the council, he could very well have survived to brilliantly bring together these separated brothers. Of course, St. Thomas would acknowledge his debt to the Holy Spirit for giving him such great wisdom and knowledge. Another great saint and doctor of the church, St. Bonaventure, was able to make it to much of the proceedings, but he too died before the council was over. St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas Aquinas have much in common. Let us say a special prayer tonight for the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, that he may intercede to God on our behalf to make our minds clear and bring us to a better understanding of God, through the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Patron saint of the Internet? Feast Day is April 4th

The internet was founded a few decades ago in efforts which began in the 50s and culminated in the creation of the world wide web. But did you know there is a Catholic saint who is the patron of the Internet.

He is Isidore of Seville. Although you may never have heard of him, he has actually been very important in the Catholic Church. Isidore died in the 7th century and was the bishop of Seville, in Spain. He was canonized in 1598, and was the twelfth person raised to status of Doctor of the Church, which for him was in 1722. He is not the official patron saint of the Internet, but many consider him as such, and perhaps in the future, he will receive this title officially. He is also the patron of computers.

Isidore is famous for writing Etymologiae. In this encyclopedia, he touches on dozens of topics. There are 21 books which range from law, war, agriculture, grammar, animals, and of course, religion. It was compiled near the end of Isidore's life (he died in 636). In his treatise, Isidore takes information from Christian and pagan writers. One interesting note is that in Etymologiae, Isidore asserts that the Earth is in fact round. Apparently it isn't true that people always thought the Earth was flat.

I know this article is a bit late because Isidore's feast is April 4th, and today is April 5th. Today, say a prayer for this saint and Doctor of the Church.

Constantine invented Catholicism in 325, right?

Constantine invented the Catholic religion in 325 and decided to make it the official religion of Rome, which allowed it to grow from a tiny religion consisting of a few hundred people to the enormous religion that it is today, with the Pope at the head. Constantine's decision was a very good one for the Pope and his successors who have enjoyed unparalleled wealth throughout the centuries.

Sounds about right, doesn't it? Well, it does for a lot of people, unfortunately. This myth has been circulating for a relatively recent period of time and has been perpetuated by mostly anti-Christians and a few anti-Catholics. The problem is that it is based not on fact, but on lies. Let's analyze the truth of what happened.

The Catholic faith is the original Christianity and continues today as the authentic and true church established by Jesus Christ at Pentecost some 2,000 years ago. The term "catholic" means universal. Part of the Church's character is that it is for all peoples of all times, and is therefore universal. Catholic describes the Church. Using this terminology to describe the church goes back very very far. Our first existing written record goes back to no later than 107 AD and possible before the year 100 and was written by Ignatius of Antioch. He said:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
- from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

Therefore, Catholic was described by an ancient Christian theologian probably in the first century.

Concerning Constantine, he did become Christian, but there were millions of Christians in Rome and around the world. Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which legalized Christianity, but he did not sign anything to make Christianity the official religion of the state. This was done by an emperor after Constantine.

The major doctrines of the Church concerning Christ's divinity and the sacraments were firmly established long before Constantine was born. There is much proof of this. You just need to look!

Finally, as for the Popes enjoying enormous wealth, we need look no further than our latest examples. Nearly all popes have lived celibate lives, have not accumulated wealth and spent most of their time writing, teaching and leading. Take John Paul II, for example. He lived a very simple life. He had few possessions when he died. Probably no more than a shoe-box full. He spent many hours each day in pray, went to confession daily, spent time writing and teaching, and going from country to country proclaiming the good news. It is said that the pope remembered the people he spoke to, but rarely recalled his previous meal. This is not the description of a man seeking great wealth and material possession.

As you can see, many myths and lies have been spread about the Catholic Church, but light always prevails over darkness. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, so we have nothing to fear. Be thankful to God for the most perfect gift.

Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house in the United States, 3rd in line for the presidency, if the president and vice-president died, misrepresented the Catholic Church a few days ago on the news. She claimed she is an ardent Catholic and that the Catholic Church has debated when life began over the centuries and haven't made a decision. She said only in the past 50 years or so has there been any real decision on these issues. However, this statement is completely wrong. The Church has never, in its 2000 year history been pro-choice. It has always been pro-life, and has defended the right to life to all persons from the moment of conception.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who believed life began several weeks after conception, still believed that abortion at any time, even right after conception was totally wrong and immoral. Now that we know more about science and when life began, we are even more emphatic. No Church Father has ever held a pro-choice stance, and no official document has ever supported it.

To back up my claim, I will quote several Church Fathers on the subject:

The Didache


"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas


"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).



The Apocalypse of Peter


"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).



Athenagoras


"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).



Tertullian


"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).



Minucius Felix


"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).



Hippolytus


"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).



Council of Ancyra


"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).



Basil the Great


"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).



John Chrysostom


"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).



Jerome


"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).



The Apostolic Constitutions


"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

Angry Encounter with Believed Friend

I would like to write about an incident, involving me and another person, which shows how misinformation can lead to anti-catholicism. In order to protect the identity of those involved, I will leave out names and identifying details.

I was speaking with a girl I know and whom I considered a friend. We weren't very close, but close enough that we could talk about many issues and had a good laugh every now and then. For the most part, she was a very fine individual who I felt was caring and sensitive. I continue to believe she is caring and sensitive, however there is a side of her, which I had until that point not noticed.

We were speaking about various topics as we usually did through email. We would send a sentence or two of discussion on light topics. It was never a big deal, and just casual chat. Knowing that she's been with her significant other for quite some time, the topic of marriage and children came up. Then I asked her if she would marry in a church. She said she would like to because it is the traditional way of getting married, however she felt she may be somewhat hypocritical in doing so, since neither she nor her family attend church.

Then she said she honestly didn't believe a lot of things about the Catholic faith. This was fine, and I emailed her back and said I honestly do. This is when she completely lost it. She went on a tirade about the bad things the Catholic Church has done. The following is a quote from what she said:

"Most of the priests are a bunch of homosexual child molesters. I believe some of the rules should be changed and altered as the times progress. They are very backwards in their thinking."

Remember, we were used to having light topics on things like the weather, friends, music, etc. We had never engaged in heated discussion, yet she felt the need at that point to go berserk and verbally ransack the Catholic Church. I was literally shocked from what she wrote. Even the most fervent anti-Catholics do not believe that "most priest are a bunch of child molesters". I was sad to hear she had such a poor opinion of the Catholic Church.

She went on to lambaste what she felt were "backward" practices of the Catholic church, such as not allowing homosexuals to marry each other, etc. She continuously called the practices of the church backward and old-fashioned, and said the Church should focus on more important issues than homosexual marriage, such as war, poverty, AIDS, etc. She even attacked beliefs held by all Christians, such as the Virgin Birth. However, her beef against the Catholic church had really nothing to do with how much the Church did in these areas. I know this because I sent her a response email outlining the things the Church has done. For example, I said the Catholic Church helps more people in Africa living with AIDS than all other relief organizations (including the Red Cross, the UN, etc) combined. I told her how Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church helped more Jews during the holocaust than anyone else, and that this is attested to by the then Prime Minister of Israel, the Chief Rabbi of Rome (who converted to Catholicism), and Albert Einstein. But she was not interested in this information.

I also responded to her comments about "Most of the priests are a bunch of homosexual child molesters". Obviously this comment is not only offensive, but also false. As I've wrote about in previous articles, the idea that "most" or even "a lot" of priests are child molesters is outright false. A study done by non-Catholic Philip Jenkins from Penn State University shows that celibate priests are no more likely to commit sexual abuse than any other religious person, or non-religious person. Other studies have shown that teacher sexual abuse is 4 times higher than priestly abuse. One of the reasons why it seems there is a lot of priestly abuse is because the information that the media has presented recently has been accumulated from a 40 or 50 year period. Think about it. Whenever you hear on the news a story about a priest who sexually assaulted children, etc. it's always happened in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. In fact, studies show that there is a large decline in sexual abuse by priests recently. It's also important to realize that what the media is reporting is not completely accurate. For example, most of the 1-2% of priests involved were charged with one incident, not serial incidences. This includes the vast majority (about 80%). Also, 80% of cases did not involve pedophilia (sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children), but in fact involved post-pubescent people, aged from 13 to 18. Although sexual abuse is sexual abuse regardless of age, it is worse to abuse a pre- rather than a post-pubescent child. The media of course, does not report on this difference. The media is well-known for going with the most taboo stories they can find. There are never studies done on, for example, the incidence of sexual abuse among truck drivers, or cooks, for example. Sexual abuse among priests is a popular story for the media because priests are seen as holy and pure, and to discredit them enters into a rather taboo area. Rarely does 1 to 2% of a group come to represent the entire group, like this has for many people.

In dealing with anti-Catholic sentiment, it is important to realize that while many people will viciously attack the Church for having sexual abuse, or for various other historical events, which they misrepresent, their true purpose is something else. Most of the time, people have certain opinions which are contrary to Natural Law and the Catholic Church, and in order to lash out against them, instead of talking about the issue, they seek to discredit the Church. In doing so, they seek to make everything the Church teaches seem absurd. Basically, they try to say, "How can you believe what this organization says if it does this, this, and this." This is the same case with this friend of mine. She lashed out at the Catholic Church in order to make it easy for her points to be accepted, even though they had nothing to do with her points. It's akin to saying, I don't believe what that person is saying about art because he failed a math test in grade 9. It's using the information about this person failing his grade 9 test to show how stupid, immature, and unreliable this person is. Once you have discredited this person, you feel it is easier to make the point that he knows nothing about art. If this person is an art critic and he is critiquing your art, you then proceed to say, My art is perfect, and I don't need to believe you, because you are stupid, immature, and unreliable. This approach is very popular among anti-Catholics. The best approach for dealing with this is to make sure they stay on topic, and one topic at a time. Catholic doctrine is easily defended because it reflects logic, reason, and natural law, because it is from God.

I will pray for this person and for all anti-catholics in general that they may see the Truth of the Catholic faith and realize that by living a life prescribed by Holy Mother Church, they may come to have joy and happiness.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

I found the following article very interesting. It was taken from www.catholic.net.

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

by Ellen Rice

"The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," a 1994 BBC/A&E production, will re-air on the History Channel this December 3 at 10 p.m. It is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.

In its brief sixty-minute presentation, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

The Inquisition began in 1480. Spain was beginning a historic reunification of Aragon and Castile. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile created a unified Hispania not seen since Roman times. Afraid that laws commanding the exile or conversion of Jews were thwarted by conversos, i.e. synagogue-going "Catholics," Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned an investigation or Inquisition. They began the Inquisition hoping that religious unity would foster political unity, and other heads of state heralded Spain's labors for the advent of a unified Christendom. The documentary clearly and boldly narrates the historical context, which intimates that the Spanish were not acting odd by their contemporary standards.

The Inquisition Myth, which Spaniards call "The Black Legend," did not arise in 1480. It began almost 100 years later, and exactly one year after the Protestant defeat at the Battle of Mühlberg at the hands of Ferdinand's grandson, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence. The inquisitors enjoyed a powerful position in the towns, but it was one constantly jostled by other power brokers. In the outlying areas, they were understaffed - in those days it was nearly impossible for 1 or 2 inquisitors to cover the thousand-mile territory allotted to each team. In the outlying areas no one cared and no one spoke to them. As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom. But perhaps this is proper. Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.

One facet of the Black Legend that evaporates under scrutiny in this film is the rumor that Philip II, son of Charles V, killed his son Don Carlos on the advisement of the aging blind Grand Inquisitor. But without a shred of evidence, the legend of Don Carlos has been enshrined in a glorious opera by Verdi.

The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."

And the future of the Black Legend? For many it may continue to hold more weight than reality. There is the emotional appeal against the Church. The dissenters of today may easily imagine Torquemada's beady eyes as a metaphor of the Church's "dictatorial, controlling, damning" pronouncements. The myth is also the easiest endorsement of the secular state: "de-faith" the state and de-criminalize heresy. Who will be the revisionists in this case? Will the many follow Montanas' lead in rewriting history?

Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.

Ellen Rice is assistant to the editor of Catholic Dossier.

Cathedrals, Basilicas and Churches Stolen from the Catholic Church

Throughout its history, the Catholic Church has built the most spectacular and awe-inspiring places of the worship the world has ever seen. For centuries, churches were the tallest structures of every town in Europe, and around the world. In many countries, this remains the case. They remain the most breath-taking monuments in society. Often built by members of society as a work of love, these buildings touch the sky, and upon entering, people are transported to a new world. You can feel the presence of God all around you. The Catholic Church realizes the importance of these great structures, and that is why for over 1,000 years, the Church has built some of the most amazing examples of human achievement.

Unfortunately, however, the Church suffered great loss in her history. Many of these amazing places of worship were conquered by heretics and schismatics. Often, the treasures of these churches, preserved for generations for the benefit of all were ransacked and stolen. Often Churches were badly damaged, often left in disrepair. Even if these churches were not damaged, they were still stolen. This is very sad, and unfortunate. Almost every magnificent place for Christian worship that has achieved great fame in a country, be it a church, basilica, or cathedral, was once a Catholic or remains one to this day. I will look at some of the most famous Cathedrals in the World, which were stolen from the Catholic Church.

Ulm Münster

Located in Germany, it is the tallest church in the world, and was the tallest building in the world from 1890-1908. It was built in 1377 by Catholics, and later taken from them by Lutherans. The Cologne Cathedral of Germany is the second tallest church in the world, but it has 2 spires instead of one.



Wells Cathedral

The building of this amazing Cathedral began in 1191 by Bishop Reginald de Bohun. It was worked on during the 12th and early 13th centuries, and was mostly completed by 1239. In the years and decades to come, more expansions were made to accommodate a growing congregation. Eventually the Cathedral was taken over by Anglicans.

Westminster Abbey

Perhaps the best-known Cathedral in the United Kingdom, Westminster Abbey is the Cathedral where the Kings and Queens of England are crowned. This is quite a spectacular building, which resembles the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France. It was completed before King Henry VIII, but Henry violently took over this Cathedral, like many others, when he broke away from the Catholic Church.

These are just 3 examples of Churches which were apprehended illegally by non-Catholic groups. Fortunately, most of the most beautiful cathedrals in the world remain the property of the Catholic Church. The next time you see a magnificent church, remember that it was probably once a Catholic Cathedral.

Warlord Attila the Hun's meeting with Pope Leo the Great

Pope Leo I (b. 430) lived from the years 440 to 461. An unrelenting foe to heresies, he was the first pope to have "the Great" attached to his name, and only the second of all time (the other is Pope Gregory I). Leo, whose name means Lion in Latin, did much for the Universal Church, and as such is considered one of 33 Doctors of the Church. This is a title which started in 1298, and Leo was promoted to this title in 1754.

Pope Leo, who was 30 years old when St. Augustine died in 430, did much for the Catholic Church. In fact, Pope Leo met Augustine while Leo was an acolyte, or someone training to be a priest. Pope Leo confronted and destroyed many heresies at the time, many of which were related to Christ's human and divine nature. At a council, he proclaimed his view that Christ was both man and God, and all those attending gave their accordance, saying that Leo was following Peter, the first Pope.

One of the most spectacular events to happen during Leo's papacy was his encounter with the ruthless Attila the Hun, known as the Scourge of God, whose goal was world domination. He warred against many nations around the world and conquered them wherever he went. His armies killed men, women, and children. In fact, Attila was famous for literally ripping apart his opponents.


Then he arrived in Italy. Italy was a very important country, because it was the seat of the Roman Empire. In fact, the Huns were the only real threat facing the Roman Empire, and was a gateway to the entire European continent. Taking Italy would be a disaster for the entire Western World. An interesting fact is that the history of Venice is intertwined with that of Attila the Hun. To escape the brutality of Attila, many Italians fled to the islands of Venice for protection. Eventually they built a great city there. Attila planned to destroy Italy, and conquered it, as he had done with many other places.

When he arrived in Rome, he met with the Pope. While there, Attila saw Sts. Peter and Paul appearing with swords standing near the Pope. Those around Attila were surprised that he decided not to attack Rome, so he explained to them what he had witnessed. Because of the Pope's eloquence in fending off Attila, he is known as the Shield of God.

Pope Leo I deserved his prototypical title of Great, as well as his namesake of Lion, for he defended the doctrines of the Church against heresy and attack, like a lion protects its young. With the help of God, Pope Leo the Great is known as one of the most faithful servants of Christ.

Amazing Origins of the Stations of the Cross

The Stations of the Cross, or Via Dolorosa (Way of Agony), is a special remembrance of the suffering and death which Jesus Christ endured for our salvation. In this brief essay, I will look at this event and what brought it about.

Many believe that Mary was the first person to trace the steps that Jesus took through his final hours. It makes sense as she is his mother and this is something she would do. However, most people place the start of this practice with St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis and his followers formed a great devotion to the suffering of Jesus, including his suffering and death on the Cross. During his life in the 13th century, the Muslims had unfortunately taken control of the Holy Lands, which prevented Christian pilgrims from retracing the steps of Christ in his final hours. In order that they could continue this practice, St. Francis initiated the stations of the cross within Churches across Europe. Eventually almost every church had the stations of the cross going around their church. People would contemplate on these things, especially during Good Friday. The practice became very widespread, and today is pretty much ubiquitous in Catholic Churches. St. Francis in fact was so devoted to contemplating the suffering of Christ, that he was the first person to receive the Stigmata, or the visible wounds which Jesus bore (some people also receive the pain without the visible wounds).

This is an amazing practice, which is especially popular on Good Friday. The following is the list of the 14 stations of the Cross:

1. Jesus is condemned to death
2. Jesus receives the cross
3. The first fall
4. Jesus meets His Mother
5. Simon of Cyrene carries the cross
6. Veronica wipes Jesus' face with her veil
7. The second fall
8. Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem
9. The third fall
10. Jesus is stripped of His garments
11. Crucifixion: Jesus is nailed to the cross
12. Jesus dies on the cross
13. Jesus' body removed from the cross (Pieta)
14. Jesus is laid in the tomb

Next time you pray on the stations of the Cross, remember the history of it, and remember how Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

Pope Pius XII and the Jews: the Real Truth

Pope Pius XII was a holy and reverent pope who did his utmost to help humanity. His papacy was during the time of one of humanity's greatest tragedies, the Holocaust. Perpetrated by Hitler, the Holocaust eventually left millions of people dead, and those remaining, scarred. It was a total failure of peace and justice. Yet during this dark time, a bright light continued to shine. This bright light is the Catholic Church, and the actions of Pope Pius XII. Far from being the fictitious pope who did nothing to stop the Holocaust, Pope Pius XII did everything he could to save countless lives. However, you do not have to take my word for this. The best way to discover how someone has treated a group of people is to find out from that group of people. In other words, the best way to find out what Pope Pius XII did to help the Jews, is to ask the Jews. In the following essay, I will not give a history lesson, so much as I will show the reaction of the Jews to the actions of the Catholic Church during the time of the Holocaust.

Before Pope Pius XII became pope, he was Cardinal Pacelli.

Former Israeli diplomat and now Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Pinchas Lapide states that Pius XI "had good reason to make Pacelli the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. . . . Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’ "

As can be seen, much before becoming pope, Pope Pius XII was very strongly against Nazism and Hitler's regime.

It is estimated that the Catholic Church saved about 860,000 lives during the Holocaust, more than all other organizations combined, including the Red Cross. In fact, to honor the lives saved by Pius XII and the Catholic Church, 800,000 trees were planted in Isreal.

Instead of taking my word for how the Pope acted during the Holocaust, let's look at what people said during the time of Pope Pius XII. If you were to select a list of people to speak on behalf of Holocaust victims, those who most represented the Jews at the time, including politician, scientists, etc., it would probably resemble the following list. Take a look at what these prominent people had to say (Special Thanks to Catholic Answers for this information):

"We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims" (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).

"With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history” (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

"More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror" (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion).

Finally, let us conclude with a quotation from Lapide’s record that was not given at the death of Pius XII, but was given after the War by the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."