Married Christians Less Likely To Divorce If They Practice Catholicism

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Most statistics indicate that the overall divorce rate in the United States, among all people, religious or non-religious, is about 40% to 60%. The range is based on an average between first marriages, second marriages and third marriages. A first marriage has about a 50% chance at survival in the United States. Chances of survival go down with each consecutive marriage.

Now based on this information, and the statistical graph above, we can instantly see that the practice of any Christian religion does significantly help the survival chances for a marriage. Case in point; if the married Christian couple practices Catholic or Lutheran Christianity, the divorce rate is about 21%, which indicates the marriage has about a 79% chance at survival. If the married Christian couple practices Baptist Christianity, the divorce rate is about 29%, which indicates the marriage has about a 71% chance at survival. If the married Christian couple practices one of the new trendy "nondenominational" forms of Christianity, the divorce rate is about 34%, which indicates the marriage has about a 66% chance at survival.

What I find interesting about these statistics is that the more "ancient" and "traditional" the form of Christianity, the more likely a marriage is to survive. Granted, these are statistics, and based on an overall picture. We cannot apply them to each and every individual couple, and of course, there are always exceptions to every statistical rule. However, when we're looking at odds alone, we find that the best chance a marriage has at survival, in our incredibly decadent culture, is for the couple to practice some form of Christianity. However, of all the different forms of Christianity, Catholicism is one of two that is MOST LIKELY to increase the chances of a marriage survival. The only Protestant form of Christianity that compares is Lutheranism.

Sola Scriptura Leads To Moral Relativism

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Okay it's time for "The Catholic Knight" to stir the pot again, so here it goes. I'm going to make the assertion that Martin Luther's heretical doctrine of Sola Scriptura is largely responsible for the moral relativism we see in the secular world today.

Here is the problem. Go to any Protestant church, particularly one of the newer Evangelical nondenominational types. There you will be taught that there is no religious authority outside of the Bible. Now aside from the fact that this assertion is not only unscriptural, but also illogical, it is nevertheless the foundation of most Protestant organizations in the world today. Now the premise that there is no religious authority outside of the Bible inevitably leads people to believe that the Holy Spirit of God is directly responsible for their own interpretation of the Bible. Talk to a good number of Evangelicals and that is exactly what they'll tell you. They'll say they don't need the Catholic Church, or any church organization, to tell them what the Scriptures mean, because they can read the Scriptures for themselves, and the Holy Spirit will automatically lead them to the right interpretation. If we go through Protestant history, we will see that this kind of attitude has been present since the very beginning - even with Martin Luther himself.

Now as we span the panorama of Protestant history, we quickly see where this attitude has led. It's led to division after division after division. What happens is this. Two Protestant pastors come up with mutually contradiction interpretations of some Scripture passage(s). Both believe they are inspired by the Holy Spirit to the correct interpretation and the other is wrong. They can't both be right, and because they both believe there is no religious authority outside the Bible, there is no one to judge between them. So they end up going their separate ways, each taking part of their congregation with them. This is how denominations and affiliations are created. In the 16th century, there were only a few Protestant denominations which could be counted on one hand. Today there are literally thousands. Some say tens of thousands.

Now once we have accepted the notion that the Holy Spirit leads people to contradicting theology because there is no religious authority outside the Bible, it's only a small step to say that the Holy Spirit leads people to contradicting morality for the same reason. Indeed, this is EXACTLY what has happened. In the early 20th century, all Christian denominations agreed that artificial contraception (birth control) was morally wrong and sinful. That changed in 1930 when the Protestant Anglican Communion challenged this Christian moral standard. That was the first major crack in the dam. It wasn't long before others developed. By the end of the 20th century, less than 500 years after Luther's Sola Scriptura revolution, nearly all Christian denominations accepted artificial contraception as morally licit. That's not all though. Many of them accepted divorce too. It gets worse. Some even accepted homosexuality as "part of God's plan" even going to the point of celebrating homosexuality, blessing gay-marriages and ordaining homosexuals to the clergy. Though it seems inconceivable, some of these Protestant denominations even went so far as to say that abortion (a type of infanticide) was morally acceptable under certain circumstances.

Western Christianity had long been divided on theological issues, but now for the first time in modern history, it was divided on moral issues as well. This opened the door of Pandora's Box. With Western Christianity divided on moral issues, it became increasingly easy for morally destructive groups (militant feminists and homosexuals) to begin taking over society, each one insisting that morality is relative, and some of them using Sola Scriptura is their religious excuse.

Catholics need to understand this. One thing really does lead to another, even if it takes centuries. Luther's heresy has played a huge role in bringing Western civilization to its present point of moral decay. Protestants are stuck in a quandary. Those who are honest with themselves will have to reexamine Sola Scriptura in light of what's happened over these last 500 years, and in context with the ancient Christian tradition of episcopal authority. Sadly, most will not. Most will ignore the last 500 years of history, and the moral disaster that has resulted from it. Most will continue to repeat the mantra that there is no religious authority outside the Bible. They will treat Sola Scriptura as the highest authority. There is of course a small problem with that. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually say the Bible is the only religious authority. Therefore Sola Scriptura is itself an extra-Biblical tradition! Which means that when Protestants fall back on it, they are falling back on a man-made tradition that is not found in the Bible. So when they say there is no authority outside the Bible, that very notion itself is an authority outside of the Bible. It's a contradiction and an oxymoron. Sadly, few of them will ever see that.

As we approach the 500th anniversary of Sola Scriptura (2020), let us reflect on the doctrinal chaos and moral relativism it has made a significant contribution toward. Granted, I will concede that a large portion of our moral decay has been the product of Godless atheism and Marxism. Some of it has been the result of Humanism, both secular and religious. Nevertheless, Sola Scriptura has taken it's toll and made it's contribution - a significant contribution I might add.

Unbiblical Roman Catholic Pagan Cult and Mystery Whore of Babylon

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The title of this thread may raise a few eyebrows. Sorry for the shocker. As some of my readers already know, before converting to Catholicism, I was a "born-again" Evangelical/Pentecostal teacher who was originally raised in a Baptist Church. My journey of faith led me through the rigors of Fundamental Protestantism, and the depths of outright anti-Catholicism. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I had heard a pastor preach to his congregation that the Catholic Church is an "unbiblical cult" and the prophetic "Whore of Babylon" written of in the Book of Revelation.

I eventually decided to research the origins of this wretched organization called the Roman Catholic Church. In doing so I quickly discovered that all the authoritative literature on the topic were keen on quoting each other, but very little cited information more than a couple hundred years old. In fact, most cited a single book written in the middle 1800s called "Two Babylons," by Alexander Hyslop. This particular author constructs an entire volume of accusations against the Catholic Church, based on his own superficial connections between this or that ancient ritual, but does virtually nothing at all to back his claims with original source documentation. In fact, finding any original source documentation to support these claims, that dates prior the Reformation Era, is virtually impossible. It seems as if accusations against Catholicism developed as a product of the Reformation itself, and not vice versa.

As a result of this, I began reading the history of the early Church and quickly found a plethora of original source documentation dating back to the first few centuries of the Christian age. What I learned was shocking! and turned my whole world upside down. The early Christians were all Catholic! That's right, the earliest Christians, meaning those who were persecuted by the Caesars and fed to the lions, believed in the transubstantiation of the eucharist, prayed to the Virgin Mary and the saints, recognized the primacy of the pope, and made offerings for their loved ones in purgatory. Oh sure, they didn't use all the fancy terminology I just cited, but the core of their belief system was virtually identical. Knowledge of history spelled the end for my Protestantism.

If you're a "born-again" Christian who believes Catholicism is unbiblical, then you've got a lot of homework to do. The Bible commands us not to spread false witness against our neighbors (Exodus 20:16). If you say Catholicism is unbiblical, and it isn't, then you're spreading false witness, and thus breaking the commandment of the Lord. So you owe it to yourself to find out if Catholicism is truly unbiblical.  If you think Catholicism is unbiblical, then it's time to do your homework to see if you're right. Every argument has two sides. You can't formulate an honest opinion if you've only heard one side. You have to hear both sides of an argument before you can decide between them. Most "born-again" Christians are very familiar with the Protestant side of the argument against Catholicism, but they don't know anything about the Catholic side. Most "born-again" Christians, who take the time to learn the Catholic side, are shocked to discover that Catholics actually can make a Biblical argument in favor of Catholic teaching, and this argument can be well reasoned at that. So if you're a "born-again" Christian who believes Catholicism is unbiblical, then take the challenge, and see how much you really know about the Bible. Examine the links below.

Here we have one of the most exhaustive Catholic apologetic resources on the Internet. Special thanks to John Salza for making this resource possible...

THE CHURCH
The Biblical Church
Primacy of Peter
Apostolic Succession

THE BIBLE
Scripture Alone
Oral Tradition
Deuterocanon
Septuagint

THE SACRAMENTS
Baptism
Confession
The Eucharist
Confirmation

Holy Orders
Anointing of the Sick

HOLY MATRIMONY
Divorce & Remarriage
Contraception
Homosexuality
Husband's Headship
THE VIRGIN MARY
THE SAINTS
JUSTIFICATION
SALVATION

ESCHATOLOGY
Second Coming / Rapture
Purgatory
Hell
Zionism

THE TRINITY
Jesus Christ's Divinity
The Holy Spirit
Messianic Prophecies

OTHER
Angels
Tongue Speaking
Usury
Sacramentals
Sunday Worship
Suffering
Fasting
Drinking
Vain & Repetitious Prayer
Modesty in Dress
Just War

SCIENCE
Evolution
Geocentrism

CATHOLIC Q& A
The Church
Scripture Alone
Baptism
Confession
The Eucharist
The Blessed Virgin Mary
Justification
Purgatory
Sexuality
Miscellaneous
Freemasonry
TOP TEN QUESTIONS
DIFFERENT CHURCHES?

Gay Marriage And The Fall Of America!

(SFGate) - Prop. 8 would overturn the court's 4-3 ruling May 15 that declared same-sex couples had the right to marry under the California Constitution on the grounds of privacy and equal protection. Backers of the measure made the court a focus of their campaign, accusing "activist judges" of thwarting the will of voters who had approved a similar measure as an initiative statute in 2000.

Three lawsuits were filed directly with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking orders immediately blocking enforcement of Prop. 8 and ultimately striking it down as a violation of fundamental rights in the California Constitution.

The plaintiffs are six unmarried same-sex couples and the advocacy group Equality California; another couple who married shortly after the May 15 ruling took effect; and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, joined by Santa Clara County.

Although their lawyers would not discuss their strategy publicly, each suit seeks to overturn Prop. 8 on the basis of state law and avoids federal constitutional claims that could send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gay-rights advocates have tried to keep such disputes away from the nation's high court, out of fear that the justices would issue a nationwide ruling rejecting any right of same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The people of California have spoken, homosexual marriage is officially abolished. However, as is typical in the People's Republic of California, the courts threaten to overturn the will of the people even in a state constitutional amendment. To be sure, so long as it stays within the California courts, this is California's problem. The California government hasn't represented the people of California in decades, and why the people haven't abolished the state government with a constitutional convention is beyond me. Alas, that is California's problem for Californians to deal with. However, I don't believe the lawyers advocating gay-marriage will keep it in California's courts at all. Just as soon as they fail to get the ruling they want from the California courts, they'll appeal it to the federal courts, and once that happens California's problem becomes America's problem.

Before the federal courts will be the question of whether or not the federal government can annul a state constitutional decision by the people of a state on the issue of gay-marriage. Should the federal courts rule against the people, every state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage within the nation will be at stake. The issue will be put before the United States Supreme Court in what will amount to a U.S. Constitutional crisis. At the feet of nine Supreme Court justices will lie the fate and future of the United States of America.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to uphold a federal court's decision to strike down a state constitutional marriage ban, then gay-marriage will effectively be forced on every state in the Union by judicial fiat. What will that mean? It will mean that the United States government, via the federal court system, will be effectively waging an ALL OUT WAR on Christian civilization and the traditional family. It will place the United States federal government as the sworn enemy of every Catholic family and Catholic parish in the nation. The same would go for any Evangelical Christian family and congregation in this nation as well. The United States government would effectively be waging war against traditional Christianity itself.

At that point, there will be no more reason to preserve the U.S. Constitution, the federal government, or Union of the United States of America. For any government that wages war against it's own people, and the civilization they have created, is effectively a false government and has lost it's right to govern. The people of the United States would have only two options available to them at that time.

1. They can convince Congress to pass the 'Federal Marriage Amendment' (F.M.A.), so the states could immediately ratify it, and uphold their state bans on gay-marriage. Unfortunately, the people have recently elected officials to the U.S. government who have made it clear they have no intention of ever passing such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Both the new President-Elect, Barack Obama, and the Congressional Democrats, have made it clear that they support "gay-rights" and have no intention of doing anything that would stop gay-marriage from becoming the law of the land. If it never gets out of Congress, the states can never ratify it. So option number one is now next to impossible.
2. The people of states that ardently opposes gay-marriage can begin organizing and drafting measures for the secession of those states from the federal government and the United States of America. This of course would have to be done through the peaceful, democratic and lawful means outlined for us in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Only by becoming free and independent countries can those states then uphold their own constitutions and the will of the people. After two or more of those states successfully secede using only peaceful, democratic and lawful means, then they can reorganize under whatever form of community, confederation or collective they see fit. Economically, such measures would be viable by restructuring tax laws in those newly born nation-states to attract business investment. The "Fair Tax" proposed by the 'Americans for Fair Taxation' (read more here) would be one possible way this could happen, and should prove more than enough to bolster the economic viability of newly born nation-states. Other measures of deregulation and free market reforms would also serve to make secession a financially attractive and profitable alternative. As for national defense of these nation-state, treaties could be signed with the United States government, allowing it to keep U.S. military bases within these nation-states free of rent or lease, provided the U.S. government pledge to defend these nation-states from all foreign aggressors. This would set the foundation for peaceful coexistence and fair-trade with states still choosing to stay within the United States of America.
   

Three IF's would cause these events to come about, and I might add that these three IF's are all real possibilities in the very near future, thanks to the aggressive tactics of lawyers pushing gay-marriage through the courts against the will of the American people.

1. IF the federal courts rule against a state constitutional measure banning gay-marriage, and...
2. IF the U.S. Supreme Court upholds that ruling, and...
3. IF the U.S. Congress will not pass the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'...
4. THEN the only way the people can defend their families and Christian civilization is to secede from the federal Union.

Otherwise, the only alternative is to accept the fall of Christianity within North America to a regime that favors and promotes homosexuality. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress would effectively make it the Christian duty of every God fearing believer in America to break all political ties with the United States government. Failure to do so would be failure to defend one's Christian faith against the external attack by a hostile and oppressive government. For the first time in American history, Christians would be forced to choose between their government and their faith. So you say you don't think it can happen. We can only hope.  But I have a bad feeling it will.  Just sit back and watch.

Barack Obama's Religion

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Much has been said about the religion of Barack Hussein Obama, and most of it is very controversial. It is no secret that 'The Catholic Knight' is no fan of Obama, and I have been quite critical of him. However, on this issue I want to try to be as fair as possible. Rumors abound about Obama's religion. Some say he's a secret Muslim. Obama describes himself as a Christian, except in a gaffe in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, where he said "my Muslim faith." Stephanopoulos corrected him - "Christian faith?" Obama quickly corrected himself - "yeah.. my Christian faith." See the video here...


It was a huge gaffe, on the worst possible issue. Or was it a Freudian slip? The American people MUST know the answer to this question. Unfortunately, 'The Catholic Knight' cannot give you the mind of Obama. I cannot tell you what the man is thinking, or what he really believes. Only Obama himself can do that, and then we must ask ourselves if we believe him.

The problem is with Obama's childhood history and his family heritage. As a youth, all signs point to Obama as a Muslim. If this was the case, Obama could have easily defused it's political controversy by admitting it. "Yes, I was raised as a Muslim," Obama could have told America, "but I converted to Christianity." The American people would have loved it! Even pundits on the political Right would have difficulty using it against him. But that didn't happen. Instead it appears that Obama tried to hide the issue, and it would seem his campaign released blatantly false statements regarding the matter. A story on Newsmax shed some light on what we know about Obama's early childhood religion...

(Newsmax.com) - In the wake of the controversy over Obama's Muslim upbringing, The Los Angeles Times sent a reporter to Jakarta to ferret out the truth.

The Times report, published on March 16, 2008, revealed:

• A close boyhood friend of Obama, Zulfin Adi, said Obama "was a Muslim. He went to the mosque."
  
• Obama's first-grade teacher at a Catholic school, Israella Dharmawan, said: "Barry (Barack's nickname) was Muslim. He was registered as a Muslim because his father was Muslim."
  
• In the third grade, Obama transferred to a public school, where he was also registered as a Muslim. At the school, Muslim students attended weekly religion lessons about Islam. 
  

source

So we are now faced with a choice. Who do we believe? Obama or his boyhood acquaintances? The Obama camp reiterates that he was never a Muslim. So if we are to believe the Obama campaign, then we must assume that Obama was never a Muslim, even though his father was a Muslim, his step-father (who helped raised him) was a Muslim, he was enrolled and registered as a "Muslim" in both a Catholic school and a public school in Indonesia, his childhood acquaintances say he was a Muslim, and he regularly attended a mosque, and took religion courses on Islam. Okay, even though all the evidence contradicts Obama and his campaign statements on the matter, I suppose we could concede that even though Obama was clearly identified as a Muslim in his childhood, perhaps we could say he was never a "practicing Muslim." But then, we must ask why, oh why, does Obama continue to deny that? Why not just say, "I was raised to be a Muslim, but I chose Christianity instead." Again, this would defuse any political fallout, because the American people would see it as an act of independence on his part. That didn't happen though. Instead we have this constant denial that he was never a Muslim; even though he was registered as a "Muslim," regularly prayed at a mosque, and studied Islam in school religion classes.

Okay, let's give Barack the benefit of the doubt. If he says he's not a Muslim, and never has been, then fine. He's not a Muslim and never has been.  Here we have Barack Obama the Christian. So let's take a look at exactly what kind of Christianity Barack Obama decided to be a part of as an adult....


Obama attended this Church for 20 years. According to Obama, Rev. Wright was his personal spiritual advisor for almost as long. He married Barack and Michelle Obama, and baptized their children. Witnesses at 'Trinity United Church of Christ' have testified that Barack Obama attended many of these controversial "sermons" by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and never showed any visible sign of disgust or apprehension. Nor did he ever get up and walk out. Why? The whole thing goes a lot deeper than just the wild anti-American rants of an unhinged pastor. Listen closely to the following FoxNews interview with Rev. Wright...


Did you catch that? Obama's pastor said it. Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's home church for 20 years, subscribes to and promotes the doctrine of "Liberation Theology." Exactly what is Liberation Theology? Let's find out....

Question: "What is Liberation Theology?"

Answer: Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model, the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.

source

Liberation Theology originated in the Catholic Church - particularly in Latin America. (Speaking as a Catholic, I'm sorry to report that Liberation Theology is our baby.) Gradually it found it's way into certain Protestant sects, and apparently, 'Trinity United Church of Christ' in Chicago is one of them. Liberation Theology is Marxist Socialism given a Christian facelift - plain and simple. It has been officially condemned by the Vatican. Pope John Paul II, (and now Pope Benedict XVI), has come down very hard on it, issuing excommunications and bold public rebukes. It may have been invented WITHIN the Catholic Church, but it's been officially condemned BY the Catholic Church.

The brand of Liberation Theology promoted by Trinity United Church of Christ is a blend of typical Marxist Liberation Theology combined with a highly charged racial component. This is called "Black Liberation Theology." As you can see by the rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it is very potent stuff. As for the effects of it on his congregation, we need look no further than Barack Obama's own wife Michelle...


"For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm proud of my country..." That's a pretty extreme statement, and she made it not once but twice. It's really not too hard to understand however. When you consider that Michelle has been attending Trinity United Church of Christ for her entire adult life, with the kind of teaching that goes on there, we can easily understand why she wouldn't be proud of her country.

But the bigger question in all this is Barack Obama's Christianity. People usually don't regularly attend churches they don't agree with. Obama initially defended his relationship with Rev. Wright, but then later had to distance himself from him after much media pressure. Yet he's never distanced himself from the Marxist Liberation Theology upon which Trinity United Church of Christ is built.

Let's face it, anyone who subscribes to the basic idea of Liberation Theology is a Marxist - at least in principle. There can be no doubt about it, since the doctrine is the epitome of Marxist theory. The real question here is this. Does Barack Obama subscribe to the Marxist Black Liberation Theology upon which 'Trinity United Church of Christ' is built? If he doesn't support the Church's foundational doctrine, then what the hell has be been doing there for the last 20 years!?!

Feminist Bullies In The Catholic Church

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: A dear Catholic sister recently commented on this blog, stating her intention to wear the chapel veil after her daughter is born this summer. She said it was after reading this blog, talking with her husband, and much prayer, that she was able to overcome the peer pressure against the chapel veil in her parish. I responded in support of her decision as follows...

As you can see by the poll at the top of every page on this blog, the chapel veil is supported by the overwhelming majority of Catholics - both men and women (approx. 56%). While about 5% are unsure on the matter, a small minority of just 34% are dead set against it. (I assume these are mostly feminists, and are probably older women.)

However, because of this mere 34%, the overwhelming majority of Catholic women (nearly all), in the English-speaking world, no longer practice veiling. Why? Because they're afraid. They're afraid of what others will think. Yet I've proved on this blog that those who disapprove are a small (albeit loud) minority. They are vastly outnumbered by those who do approve.

This is what we call "the tyranny of the minority." It's when a small group of people are able to control an entire population simply through peer pressure. That's what's going on here. A small minority of "feminist" Catholic women are coercing nearly all Catholic women, by means of peer pressure. They do it by being loud and obnoxious. Put on a veil, and they jump all over you.

That's just WRONG, plain and simple. It's a form of bullying, and it violates what the Bible says on the matter. This small minority of women, are not only behaving as bullies, but their borderline heretics, because in pressuring women to remove the veil, they violate the plain teachings of Scripture on the matter.

I put the chapel veil poll at the top of every page on this blog so women who want to veil will see that they have nothing to fear. Those who support them are in the MAJORITY - a large majority. Only a very tiny minority oppose them, and they do so in violation of Scripture.

Women who wish to veil must take courage. They must understand that they're doing the right thing. And most importantly, they must understand that the few women who oppose this are not only a tiny minority, but they're acting as bullies and heretics when they do so.

It's time for Catholic women to be strong. It's time for them to stand up to tyranny. How dare any woman pressure another to ignore the plain teachings of Scripture on this matter! If that tiny minority wants to refuse the veil, then so be it. Nobody is making them wear one, and nobody is ever going to. But how dare they try to pressure another woman to refuse the veil. Who do they think they are!?!

Let it be known from this time forth that 'The Catholic Knight' will boldly defend the right of any Christian woman (Catholic or otherwise) to veil for prayer and worship. Furthermore, I call upon all Christian men (Catholic or otherwise) to boldly and passionately defend their wives and daughters who make a similar decision. Our women are being bullied by a tiny feminist minority that is hell-bent on peer pressuring them to ignore the plain teachings of Scripture on this matter. A call goes forth from here to all Christian men - "Be a man, and defend your women against the tyranny of the minority."

Related Stories...

• Are You Shy About Wearing The Chapel Veil?
  
• Christian Dignity of Women
• The Chapel Veil Campaign
• Overwhelming Support for the Chapel Veil!
• Feminist Bullies In The Catholic Church
  
• The Chapel Veil - Veiling or Head Covering - Fully Explained
• Wearing The Chapel Veil
• Wear Your Mantilla with Pride!
• Younger Nuns Are Getting Back Into The Habit
  
• Prayer Shawls - A Sign of Class, Beauty and Courage
• Does Veiling Bring Respect?
  
• Chapel Veil Retailers

The Legacy of Schism

Muslims Now Outnumber Catholics

(CWNews.com) - The world's Catholics are now outnumbered by Muslims, according to the editor of the Vatican's statistical yearbook.

Msgr. Vittorio Formenti, who supervises the compilation of demographic figures for the Annuaro Pontificio, told L'Osservatore Romano that the latest data-- from 2006-- show a worldwide population of 1.115 billion Catholics, but 1.322 billion Muslims.

"For the first time in history, we are not at the top," Msgr. Formenti told the Vatican newspaper. He noted that the Catholic proportion of the world's population has held steady in recent years, while the Muslim representation has grown because of the larger family sizes in the Islamic world. Catholic families are having fewer children, he observed....

read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Nearly 1,000 years ago (1054 AD) Christianity suffered the first of two major schisms that would last throughout the ages. A dispute based primarily on the politics of power, the Church was divided between east and west. Five-hundred years later (16th century), the Church would again suffer another schism between north and south. Catholic Christians in northern Europe broke away to form their own national churches (later to be called Protestant denominations), while Catholics in southern Europe remained faithful to the universal Church and the apostolic see. These schisms remain in place today. The Eastern Orthodox have preserved their identity entirely, minus their communion with Rome. The Protestants of northern Europe have splintered into literally thousands of denominations, sects and affiliations, many unrecognizable from their origin, and their schism with Rome remains in full effect.

Some non-Catholic Christians may wonder how this news has anything to do with them. Non-Catholics must realize that Catholicism is the world's largest Christian body, and now that Muslims outnumber Catholics, they have already outnumbered all other Christian groups many times over...

Number of Christians...

• Catholic 1,115,000,000 (just over 1.1 billion)
• Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000
• Conservative Protestant* 200,000,000
• Liberal Protestant 150,000,000
• African indigenous sects 110,000,000
• Pentecostal 105,000,000
• Anglican 73,000,000

* By "Conservative Protestant" I mean all Evangelical, Baptist, Born-Again and Bible Christians.

In comparison the number of Muslims worldwide is 1,322,000,000 (1.3 billion).

The Devil's strategy is the same with the New Israel (The Church) as it was with Ancient Israel - divide and conquer. Since the schism of Christianity, the religion of Islam has grown, to surpass in size what is left of the original Church (Catholicism), threatening to surpass all of Christianity within the next 100 years.

In the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church acknowledged that men on both sides were to blame for these schisms, and in AD 2000 Pope John Paul II formerly apologized for the the Catholic Church's part.

In 2008 the Vatican officially acknowledged that Muslims outnumbered Catholic Christians, and Pope Benedict XVI baptized a former Muslim on the Easter Vigil, while simultaneously calling for legal reciprocity for Christians in the Islamic world. The message of this pope about Islam echoes that of his predecessor about Communism -- Do Not Be Afraid!

To counter the Islamic threat, Christians must begin to work together, to evangelize the Muslim world whether it's legal to do so or not. For years Christians have been working underground in places like Saudi Arabia to bring Muslims to Christ, and it's working. History has proved that the blood of the martyrs are the seeds of the Church. If Muslims continue to persecute Christians in the Islamic world, then in the long run the Church will only become more powerful there than they can possibly imagine. In short, Islam's only chance for long-term survival is reciprocity. Islamic nations must give Christians the same rights and freedoms given to Muslims in Western nations, or else Islam will go down in history as the world's most intolerant religion offering nothing new other than excessive violence in the name of religion.

While this is going on, Christians must work toward putting an end to the schisms that divide us. Jesus asked in his prayer to the Father: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." - John 17:21. In making this request he warned us of what would happen if Christians did not remain together as one. The witness of the gospel would be scandalized by division, and the world would not believe. Isn't that exactly what has happened since the schisms of 1054 and the 16th century? Christians are divided, so the world no longer believes, and instead more and more people are embracing Islam. This is just as Jesus warned in his prayer to the Father.

The Catholic Church has admitted the fault of it's role in these schisms in the Second Vatican Council, and through Pope John Paul II she has apologized for them. More than that, the Catholic Church made major changes and reforms in the Second Vatican Council to address the major issues of these schisms. The time is long since past due for a little reciprocation from the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants. In recent years we've seen small steps made by the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and these are to be applauded, but we have yet to see any movement among the Protestants. How many Protestant denominations have apologized for their role in the schism of the 16th century? As of yet - none that I am aware of. It is hard to even get some Protestants to admit that they had any role in this schism at all. Indeed, much of it is blamed solely on Catholics. If the premise of Jesus prayer is ever to be met by these groups, then Protestants must begin to question what fault lies at the feet of the Reformation fathers in this schism. Protestants who are unable to do this are being irrational and obstinate in a sin of pride.

Is Calvary Chapel Anti-Catholic?

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: In a word, "yes." Calvary Chapel (www.CalvaryChapel.com) is anti-Catholic. Now the good folks there would deny it. They would tell you they love Catholics, but hate the "Roman Catholic religious system." That's all well and good, but being anti-Catholic isn't about hating, or even disliking, Catholic people. Being anti-Catholic, by its very definition, means being against the religion of Roman Catholicism. Try as they may to dodge the issue, Calvary Chapel is an anti-Catholic organization.

In the broad sense, we could argue that all Protestant churches are anti-Catholic to some small degree, simply by virtue of the fact that they are Protestant. Historically, this would be true. However, while most Protestant and Evangelical groups try not to stress this anymore, some organizations have surfaced in recent years that are far more anti-Catholic than others. I believe Calvary Chapel would definitely fall into this category. Though I am not aware of any official documentation of Calvary Chapel's anti-Catholic positions, one can easily find most Sunday sermons latent with them. A good example of this comes from Pastor Chuck Smith, founder of the Calvary Chapel affiliation. The nice thing about Calvary Chapel is that most sermons are taped and archived, so if one has the time to do the fishing, the evidence of blatant anti-Catholicism is not too difficult to find. Now remember, these are sermons of a pastor to his congregation. One would think a pastor would be concerned with preaching the gospel, and applying the teachings of New Testament to the day to day lives of his congregation. Instead, this is the sort of thing one can easily find in Calvary Chapel sermons....

On tape 5176, Pastor Chuck Smith said:

The dogma that was developed in the Catholic church of the perpetual virginity of Mary, is sheer poppycock. It is the invention of men who have thought to elevate Mary to the status of deity. The obvious fact is here, "And knew her not 'till'" It is clear that afterward, they did have normal husband-wife relationships with each other, or else the other sons and daughters that were born of Mary were also virgin-born, and that throws the whole story in disarray. The gospel of Mark names the brothers of Jesus as James, Joses and Simon, and mentions his sisters, so to declare perpetual virginity of Mary is not a scriptural truth. It is a Catholic dogma, without scriptural foundation, as are most dogmas. Paul said, "Beware of dogs"(Phil. 3:2,) I say, "Be wary of dogmas!"

On tape 5189, Smith said:

For one is your father, which is in heaven." So the title of father was prohibited by Jesus. In my associations I have become acquainted and friends of many ministers within the Episcopalian Church, and also within the Catholic Church. And I have extreme difficulty in knowing how to address that. Because for the life of me I can not call them father so and so. Because Jesus said not to. And so, to me it creates a difficult thing, as to how to address them, because they are usually introduced,' this is father so and so,' and I just have a hang-up with this, but I just can't address a man, father, in a spiritual sense. I don't know, do what you want, but I just have problems.

On tape 5209, Smith said:

The Protestant reformation came as a protest against the evil practices that had arisen within the Catholic Church. Especially the selling of indulgences. For the Pope was desirous to built a great Cathedral in Rome, St. Peters. And the money wasn't coming in, fast enough to build this glorious monument, that he was desiring to put up, as a symbol for Christianity. And so someone in the counsel came up with a bright idea. Everybody likes to sin, why don't we sell them forgiveness for sin's. And they can buy an indulgence, before they ever indulged. So as they indulging, the thing is covered, because they've already buyed (sic) their forgiveness. So you want a little escapade on the side. You want to go out and get drunk? fine, go down and buy your drunk indulgence. You want to have an affair? go down and get an adultery indulgence. And they started selling the indulgences to the people. And this so incensed Martin Luther, that he took his 95 thesis, his objections, to the practices that had developed within the church, and he taged them on the door, and he protested. And thus the name Protestant. Beginning of the Protestant reformation.

On the same tape, Smith also said:

It is a sad error of the Catholic church to declare that Peter is the foundation upon which the church was built.

On tape 5202, Smith said:

There is sometimes within the Protestant circles perhaps a backlash to that position that the Catholics have sought to place Mary in as the intercessor, and even some today, the coredemptress, and there is that backlash among Protestants often times to sort of put Mary down.

On tape 5315, Smith said:

And we see it in the Catholic church where the priest says, "You come and confess your sins to me and I will remiss your sins and I will go to the Father and I will take care of things for you. It is putting a man between you and God. We will see the system develop when we get to the church of Thyatira but at least the church of Ephesus says 'I hate it and the Lord says I hate it too.

Later on the same tape, Smith said:

And these are the dominant issues of the Roman Catholic church; their love and their service and their faith and their patience and their work. And this they have a lot of - a lot of good works and there are some marvelous people in the Catholic Church, highly admired. Mother Theresa, such an unusual person. Marvelous. It's not saying things against those individuals because God has his overcomers. It is just talking about the system.

Later, Smith said:

And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold I will cast her into a bed, and those that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds" Here is now first of all, the indication that the Catholic Church would exist right up to the coming of Jesus Christ and the rapture of the church, because he talks about them being allowed to go into the great tribulation.

These are typical examples of Calvary Chapel sermons, which can easily be found anywhere, by multiple Calvary Chapel pastors throughout the country. In the later quotes above, Smith is comparing the Catholic Church to the worst form of churches written of in the Book of Revelation. While of course, Calvary pastors typically equate their own brand of Christianity to some of the better churches written of in the Book of Revelation. In my own experience, at a Calvary Chapel ran by one of Smith's direct pupils, it seemed that there was at least one small dig at Catholicism every week.

One can also find special books and audio series, made by Calvary Chapel pastors, specifically designed for the purpose of attacking Roman Catholicism. In part, I believe this is due to an unusual number of Calvary Chapel pastors who are themselves former Catholics. The affiliation began in Southern California, a heavily Catholic region of the United States, and as a result the pews are regularly filled with former Catholics who've converted to the "Gospel According to Calvary Chapel." A small percentage of these disaffected converts went on to become pastors for the affiliation.

You may be wondering why I am bothering with this particular Evangelical-Protestant group. There are, after all, hundreds of different anti-Catholic organizations in America. So what's so special about this one? Well, I'll tell you. I used to be a "member" of Calvary Chapel. In fact, I even became a teacher there. All of this was before my conversion to Catholicism of course. I can personally testify that I regularly heard, with my own ears, large volumes of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Yes, as a Calvary Chapel teacher, I even preached it. I've personally witnessed a very popular Calvary Chapel pastor in Southern California actually call the Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon" and the pope the "Antichrist" on more than one occasion. These happened before a large audience, many of whom were former Catholics. I can personally testify that Catholic doctrines are taken out of context, represented falsely, and then maligned on a regular basis in Calvary Chapels throughout America. Sometimes it seems that it's rare to even get through a single sermon, on any given week, without hearing at least one small jab at Catholicism.

As a former Calvary Chapel teacher, I have mixed feelings about this organization. On the one hand, I must give credit where credit is due. Having been raised in a non-practicing Protestant home, Calvary Chapel helped me a great deal when I was struggling with my faith as a young person. Calvary Chapel helped me better understand basic doctrines of the Christian faith. Calvary Chapel also helped me sort out the sinful habits in my life, and set me on a path of greater obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition to that, it was through my pastoral studies at Calvary Chapel that I came to knowledge of Church history, a knowledge that would eventually lead to my Catholic conversion. So on the one hand, I am grateful to Calvary Chapel, because without it, I would probably have never found Christ and later converted to HIS One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. On the other hand, I am frustrated with this organization, because it misleads people about Christ's Catholic Church. Those who do not take the time to do the study, and there are many, are forced to simply trust what Calvary Chapel pastors tell them about the Catholic Church. A good number of those things are wrong, and most of it doesn't even originate within Calvary Chapel. In fact, the majority of anti-Catholic material, used by Calvary Chapel pastors, comes not from the organization itself, but from outside sources that specialize in anti-Catholicism.

If you're a Catholic who attends a Calvary Chapel, or has been approached by somebody from Calvary Chapel, as a former Calvary Chapel teacher, I have some good advice for you. Stop and do your homework! There are lots of things Calvary Chapel pastors say about Catholicism that just aren't true. Many of these pastors are former Catholics themselves, and one would think they should know better. Yet you would be surprised to discover just how little these supposedly "educated" men actually know about Catholic beliefs and the Catholic Church. I would suggest you do a little reading on this topic list HERE, where will find one of the most exhaustive Catholic apologetic resources available on the Internet. If on the other hand, you're a non-Catholic who attends Calvary Chapel, I would encourage you to do the same, so that you might have a better understanding of Catholicism "straight from the horse's mouth," rather than relying on the second-hand information spouted by some disgruntled Catholics, who later became Calvary Chapel pastors. Many of whom got their information from sources not even affiliated with Calvary Chapel. I would also encourage you to take the The Ultimate Protestant Challenge. I think that's good advice, and you owe it to yourself to hear both sides of the story, weigh the evidence, and learn the truth.

********** Update 12/1/2010 **********

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: So it's been over three years since I wrote this original blog entry on Calvary Chapel's anti-Catholicism, and nothing has changed. (Not that I really expected it to.) In between jumps to my snowbird hideaway down South, I returned home briefly to keep the Knight's armory running well. On the way home from one of my errands in town today I decided to tune into a local Calvary Chapel radio station broadcasted via satellite syndication. (I'm not sure what possessed me to do it.) Anyway, the station manager had just gotten Chuck Smith on the air for some questions from callers. One caller mentioned that his girlfriend is Catholic, and he occasionally attends mass with her. He had a question about the apparition of "Our Lady of Guadalupe." It wasn't five minutes into the show, but Chuck Smith had plenty to say.

First, he proclaimed that "Our Lady of Guadalupe" is nothing more than a demonic spirit, and the apparition itself is a deception of the devil. He advised the caller to avoid anything to do with it. Second, he then went on, as if that weren't enough, to accuse the Catholic Church of idolatry and apostasy. He did this in his usual soft-spoken gentle manner, (you could almost hear the smile on his face), which I used to think was charity. Twelve years after having left Calvary Chapel, it's now starting to sound a little creepy. Anyway, he used the classic strawman fallacy. He blatantly misrepresented Catholic teaching, claiming the Church places Mary above Christ. Then he proceeded to tear down the strawman by saying that anytime someone (i.e. The Catholic Church) puts someone or something above Christ, we know that can't be from God. Of course the caller was gushing with gratitude for Pastor Smith's pontification, and the station manager then proceeded to advise him, and anyone else listening, to stay away from the Catholic mass and go to Calvary Chapel instead.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, especially when it comes to the anti-Catholicism coming out of Calvary Chapel. I'm pleased that this particular rant against the Church came from the top Calvary Chapel pastor himself - Chuck Smith - the man who started the whole chain. It demonstrates what I've been saying all along in this blog entry. The founder of Calvary Chapel is a raving anti-Catholic, and the apples never fall far from the tree. The way the founder goes, so do the followers. This type of anti-Catholicism can be found among Calvary Chapel pastors from coast to coast. Some are more virulent than others, but virtually all of them look to Pastor Chuck Smith as their example and teacher. He is, after all, the closest thing to a "pope" there will ever be in the Calvary Chapel network.

Pastor Chuck Smith's dishonest dealing with Catholic doctrine is inexcusable. He is an educated man who has been in ministry for decades. He's the virtual "head" of an international nondenominational-affiliation. He has missionary outreaches in Latin America and Rome. You cannot tell me this man is ignorant of authentic Catholic Church doctrine. He knows full well the Catholic Church DOES NOT place Mary above Christ in any way. He knows the Church teaches that Mary is subordinate to Christ, and that everything she is comes directly from Christ. His opinions about Marian apparitions are his business, but to tell people they are demonic is to be disingenuous to say the least. No demonic spirit leads people to Christ, and if "Our Lady of Guadalupe" was supposed to be some Satanic deception, than it was a miserable failure on the devil's part, because it resulted in over a million people (Native Americans) accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. It has since inspired the Christian faith of tens of millions. If it was supposed to be a lie of the devil, than it sure backfired on him. Of course we know the truth. Mary appeared to Saint Juan Diego to bring his people to her Son - Jesus Christ - and that she did in the most startling and miraculous way.

So why the strawman fallacy? Why would an educated man, who surely knows what the Church teaches in regards to Mary, deliberately twist and distort Church doctrine in such a way so he could easily tear down the strawman he created? Well, I can't get inside Chuck Smith's head, so I really don't know with absolute certainty why he did it. But I do have an opinion, and I think it's a fairly educated one with some inside information. You see, Calvary Chapel started in Southern California which is a heavily Catholic portion of the United States. Most of the people who attend Calvary Chapel are former Catholics. I don't have an exact percentage, but I would say that at least half would be a fair guess. Most of them left the Catholic Church during the turbulent times of the 1970s through 1990s. It was during this time that Chuck Smith, and his ministry disciples began their anti-Catholic propaganda, and WOW did it take off! They brought scores of formerly Catholic "members" into their affiliations with this nonsense, combined with their apocalyptic teachings on current events and typical altar calls for instantaneous salvation. It was (and still is) a formula that works. Every Sunday in Southern California, Calvary Chapels are packed to standing room only. Smith and his ministry disciples have now taken their "Gospel according to Calvary Chapel" into Latin America, and they've even been so bold as to bring it to Rome as well, under the very shadow of the Vatican. The formula works. It draws away Catholics, and turns them against Rome in the most virulent way. It also fills the pews at Calvary Chapels, as well as the collection plates. You see, in my opinion, the reason why Chuck Smith doesn't change is because he can't change. If he ever admits that he was wrong about something the Catholic Church teaches, it would threaten his whole organization. In Southern California alone, at least half of his ministry is to former Catholics. An admission of error, especially after having preached this stuff for so long, would cause the Calvary Chapel faithful to begin questioning the whole Calvary Chapel system, and that is something that neither Chuck Smith nor his ministry disciples can risk.

Vatican Says Protestant Organizations Are Not Really 'Churches'

(CWNews.com): The Vatican has issued a new doctrinal statement confirming the essential role of the Catholic Church in God's plan for salvation.

The short document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), presented in question-and-answer format, addresses questions about the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the Church founded by Jesus Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

The CDF affirms that while other Christian bodies can play a role in bringing people to salvation, it is in the Catholic Church that "the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth." The Vatican document makes a further distinction between Orthodox churches that have preserved valid sacraments, and should be recognized as "sister churches," and Protestant groups that have not preserved the Eucharistic presence....

read full story here

Read Full Text of CDF Document Here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Here's the gist of it. The Catholic Church is the one and only "Church" founded by Jesus Christ. The Eastern Orthodox churches have maintained the sacraments, and therefore they are like "sister churches" in a very real sense, even though unity with Rome is the only thing lacking to complete them. Protestant churches on the other hand, are not really "churches" at all, because they have not preserved the sacraments. They are in essence man-made artificial organizations. These man-made organizations tie together like-minded Christians, who are separated from communion with Rome, into cohesive communities that mimic the appearance of a church, but they are not a 'church' according to the theological and historical definition. Because of this, it is more appropriate to refer to Protestant churches as "communities" or "organizations." Roman Catholics would do well to think of these "communities" this way, and order our speech accordingly for the sake of clarity.

It is absolutely imperative that Catholics understand the gravity of the Church's teaching on this. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that it is the one true Church of Christ, and outside of it there is no salvation. This statement from the Vatican CDF reaffirms that fully, and again stipulates that the Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature -- changing not a single Church doctrine. Many Catholics have been misled by the modern "I'm okay, you're okay" philosophy of religious relativism. The papacy has NEVER embraced this idea. The Second Vatican Council NEVER condoned it. Many of us may have been taught that by our priests or religious instructors, but it doesn't change the fact that it's heresy. The Vatican has NEVER embraced Protestant organizations as "churches" on equal footing with the Catholic Church, and much to the chagrin of liberals, it never will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has something to say about all of this, but it's important for us to understand how it's nuanced a certain way, so as to reaffirm the same teaching always taught by the Church.

Outside the Church there is no salvation

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

[emphasis added]

The key to this post-conciliar nuance is knowledge on the part of the Christian who refuses to enter the Catholic Church. What the Catechism is telling us is that if you're a Christian, and you KNOW Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and you REFUSE to enter it anyway, then you damn yourself to hell, because there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The situation for Protestants is a complicated one. They know of Jesus Christ. They accept his Lordship. They receive the forgiveness he offers on the cross. Most of them are baptized in the Trinitarian formula -- a sacrament Rome considers totally valid regardless of the Protestant community it was performed in. They pray to and worship Christ as God. They study the Scriptures and give of their treasure and talents to the work of God's Kingdom here on earth. The Catholic Church fully recognizes them as Christian "brethren," though separated from full and perfect communion. In these ways Protestants are "catholic" in the sense that they've already embraced so much of the Catholic Christian faith, that virtually the only thing lacking is a little education and the sacraments. One could say if the trip to Rome were 100 miles, most Protestants have already traveled 80 to 90 of them.

Yet here is the sticking point. Very few Protestants have ever willfully chosen to leave the Catholic Church. Yes, there are a few, but for the most part, the vast majority of Protestants were born into Protestant families and consequently that's all they've ever known. Even among those few who chose to leave the Catholic Church today, in favor of some Protestant denomination, one could easily argue that the reason why they left in the first place was because they were so poorly educated in Catholicism that they didn't truly understand what they were leaving behind. Because of this, the Church places no blame on those Christians separated from the Catholic Church, so long as their separation was through no fault of their own...

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

The Church still has the obligation and sacred right to evangelize. Why? Because it's pretty hard to be totally and completely without fault of your own. How many people do you know who are totally and completely without fault? Oh, I would venture to say that some of you may knew a few. Perhaps some of you may have small infants at home. Or maybe you know some adults who are mentally retarded and unable to communicate. These people certainly qualify as folks having no fault of their own. (When I say "fault" I don't mean sin, but rather blame.) Still, how many of you actually know some adults, who have all their faculties, that are totally and completely without fault? They may have sin in their lives, we all do, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm asking is who among them is ignorant of the gospel and the Church without fault of their own? Now we're starting to enter a grey area. Your Buddhist neighbor may be ignorant of the Gospel, and it may be through no fault of his own, but how can you be sure of that? You can't. You never could be. Technically speaking, you're not even qualified to say he is, even if you think you know. Only God is qualified to make that call. So what is your responsibility as a Catholic Christian then? Simple. EVANGELIZE! You don't know if your Buddhist neighbor is without fault in his ignorance of the gospel, and there is no way you could ever know. So the only thing you're qualified to do is tell him about it. Evangelize him! If he doesn't convert, that's fine because it's his choice, but you're still not qualified to tell if he's without fault. All you're qualified to do is tell them of your love for Christ and his Church, without stopping, and without judging them.

Now back to the Protestant question. What does Mother Church have to say to us specifically about them...

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Here we see the Church takes the case of the original Protestant "reformers" very seriously. These were educated men, who fully understood the potential consequences of their actions should they be in error. We would like to believe that they did not know they were in error. We would like to believe they did not fully understand what they were doing. Indeed, only God can judge. But all the evidence available to us seems to indicate a very damning case against them. The Council of Trent (AD 1545) pronounced anathema upon them and their doctrines. Even the softer and nuanced bishops of Vatican II could not disagree. The social, political and theological movements that spawned the original Protestant "Reformation" were damnable things, and those educated men who espoused them risked damnation of their souls, even by the standards of Vatican II.

Yet the Protestant movement did not end there. The damnable teachings of the "Reformation" fathers poisoned the minds of their followers against the Catholic Church - brainwashing Protestant children against her. Sometimes this was done maliciously with pure anti-catholic propaganda. Sometimes it was done more subtly, with the teaching of theological doctrines so inconsistent with Catholic teaching, that conversion back to Catholicism seemed impossible. Through the centuries Protestantism drifted so far away from it's Catholic roots, that Protestants themselves began to think of the Catholic Church as something totally foreign to them. Catholic worship itself became "strange" to them. Catholics became known as a "peculiar" people with "peculiar" customs that were totally foreign to the Protestant frame of mind. For example; while visiting Catholic churches, some Protestants (of the Evangelical persuasion) have been known to get up and walk out once they see incense burning in the procession. Why? Because it literally frightens them. They've never seen it before, and they don't know what to think of it. (This actually happened to a Baptist friend of mine. She saw the incense burning and made a straight line for the back door. I've since heard reports of this happening with other visiting Protestants.) It's odd that this would be the case, especially since the burning of incense is a totally Biblical practice, and Protestants pride themselves on following the Bible. Yet this is the reality of the situation we live in today. Can these Protestants be excused because their refusal to enter the Catholic Church is by no fault of their own? Perhaps, but it's not up to us to do the excusing. We're not qualified. Only God is. Our job is to evangelize and educate our "separated brethren" about the necessity of the Catholic Church in their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

In regards to the community organizations which were formed by Protestants, often called "churches," we must educate ourselves as to what they are, and where they came from. The original Protestants who separated themselves from the Catholic Church were completely unable to reunify themselves under a single banner. (That's because there is no Christian Unity outside the Catholic Church either.) So the regional governments of northern Europe stepped in to prevent confusion from spiraling downward into chaos. The original Protestant "churches" were state run. They were entities of the government, and they were organized upon nationality. These National "churches" were the forerunners to the original Protestant denominations we know today. For example, when the English came to North America, the state-run "Church of England" organized itself in the colonies as a Protestant 'denomination.' This was one way the English state asserted its influence (via religion) over the American colonists. Likewise, the state-run "Evangelical Church of Germany" did the same with the German immigrants to America via what became known as the "Lutheran" denomination. Throughout the centuries, Christians within the artificially state-run "churches" came to realize the problems associated with this. Some of them broke off to form new denominations, which were independent of state-run authority. As a result, they created new artificial governing bodies, to handle affairs within these new so-called "churches." Schism followed schism as century followed century, until we finally reached the current state of things in the Protestant world. At latest count, there are now some 20,000 individual Protestant denominations, affiliations and sects. Most Protestants today remain a part of the organizations they are familiar with, simply because they're afraid to try anything else. Who can blame them? Why would anyone want to do all the work it takes to determine which one (if any) of these 20,000 denominations is the right one? Most Protestants simply throw their hands up in the air on this one. As a result, a new doctrine has emerged in Protestant circles, which teaches that the true 'Church of Christ' is totally invisible, with no distinct head or body. As a result, nobody can truly know who is part of the invisible Church of Christ. It's all a mystery. Needless to say this is heresy, but it illustrates just how 'impossible' a task it is when Protestants try to rationalize the reason for so many communities, and so little unity.

As for these artificial organizations that like-minded Protestant communities create to govern themselves, Rome has never recognized them as anything more than that, and it never will. Catholics should do likewise. But in regards to these like-minded Protestant communities, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does have some important acknowledgments...

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

When the Catechism uses the word "Churches" it is referring to the Eastern Orthodox. But when it says "ecclesial communities" it is in reference to like-minded Protestant denominations, affiliations and sects. In them, the Catholic Church recognizes that God uses them as tools to bring people to the knowledge of Christ and to salvation. You will notice that while it acknowledges these communities as a "means of salvation," it does so only so far as its teachings agree with the Catholic Church. Thus the "power" these organizations have to bring people to salvation, is in actuality an extension of the Catholic Church's power, because the vital teachings Protestant communities rely on (Bible, Trinity, Incarnation, Justification, Sanctification, Baptism, etc.) originally come from the Catholic Church, and are in full agreement with the Catholic Church. They are in essence, arms of Catholic influence, outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. So in a very real way, if a Protestant comes to salvation, he does so because of how well he was influenced by Catholic teachings, some of which may have come through his Protestant denomination. So it can truly be said that outside the Catholic Church (or her sphere of influence) there is no salvation.

Statement of Protestant Leaders against Anti-Catholic Bigotry

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Isn't it encouraging how a little bit of persecution forces Christians of various denominations to start doing what we should have been doing all along. In the wake of widespread anti-Catholic bigotry, incited by so-called "liberals" on the political Left, some Evangelicals are calling upon all Protestants to stand with their Catholic brethren and condemn this kind of vile prejudice. The Statement reads as follows...

May 6, 2007

As Protestant Christians and as Americans, we condemn the grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry that is now on display as a result of the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion.

We denounce as particularly odious a cartoon published by the Philadelphia Inquirer depicting the five justices who formed the majority in the case wearing Catholic bishops' mitres. Scarcely less offensive were the comments of law professor, and former University of Chicago Law School Dean, Geoff Stone identifying the Catholic religious affiliation of the justices forming the majority and accusing these distinguished and honorable jurists of imposing their religion rather than faithfully interpreting the Constitution.

We believe it is our particular duty to condemn the bigotry we are now witnessing in view of the history of anti-Catholicism in our nation. It is a stain on the Protestant Christian conscience that at one time many of our people accepted the vile teachings of Paul Blanshard in his book American Freedom and Catholic Power, and supported the anti-Catholic agenda of the group founded by Blanshard and others that now styles itself "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" (formerly known as Protestants and other Americans united for Separation of Church and State).

Just as Pope John Paul II acknowledged past injustices committed by Catholics, or committed in the name of Catholicism, against Protestants, Jews, and others and pledged to work against any revival of these injustices, we acknowledge past Protestant prejudices against Catholics and pledge to fight against the anti-Catholic bigotry we are now witnessing. Our Catholic brothers and sisters will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them.

Because evil begets evil, we are not surprised that bigotry would emerge among those who have placed themselves in the service of the moral abomination known as partial-birth abortion. For our part, we praise any judge, statesman, or citizen-irrespective of religious affiliation-who steps forward to tell the truth about the injustice of this horrific practice, or to expose the lie that baby-killing is somehow protected by our Constitution.

We call on our fellow Protestant Christians of every denomination-including those denominations that do not share our view that the life of the child in the womb must be honored and protected by law-to join with us in condemning the new anti-Catholicism that has, in the aftermath of the partial-birth abortion decision, reared its ugly head. We hope that no Protestant Christian will bring shame on himself or herself and on the great tradition of Reformed Christianity by participating in this appalling bigotry or remaining mute in the face of it.

We also call on groups that present themselves as enemies of prejudice, including "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," to join with us in condemning the Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon and other manifestations of anti-Catholic bigotry. This is a time of testing for them. Are they selective opponents of prejudice? Do they regard anti-Catholicism as an acceptable form of bigotry? Are they content to see Catholics treated in ways that they would be the first to condemn if the victims were members of other religious traditions or minorities? By responding or failing to respond to our plea to them to join us in condemning the injustice being suffered by our Catholic fellow citizens, we will soon know whether their claim to oppose prejudice and bigotry is an honest one or mere hypocrisy.

SOURCE

The Philadelphia Inquirer published this cartoon by Tony Auth

More Protestants Admit Catholics Are Right About Birth-Control

SAN ANTONIO, TX, November 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-life trend among conservative Protestants is picking up steam in the US, Newsweek reports. In 1995, David and Suzanne Bortel of San Antonio, Texas developed a website called Quiverfull.com to lend support and encouragement to couples who are totally open to as many children as God gives them. Under the name of Quiverfull, the group encourages its members to reject all forms of birth control and welcome children as "a gift and blessing from our gracious heavenly father."

The name of the group is taken from Psalm 127 of the Bible which says:

"Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one's youth.
Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them."

Members of Quiverfull reject not only birth control but also Natural Family Planning, a natural method and one condoned by the Catholic Church as a moral way, under serious circumstances, to avoid conception by abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile periods of a woman's monthly cycle.

Quiverfull's beliefs also do not condone any form of artificial conception, such as in-vitro fertilization. Mary Pride, a Quiverfull believer and author of the book, 'The Way Home', says, "You shouldn't be unnatural in going to a fertility clinic or in trying to avoid having children by regulating when to have sex with your husband."

The Quiverfull website is careful to emphasize that family size is not what makes one a Quiverfull believer. It says, "Whether your quiver is large or small, you are welcome." Regarding all children as blessings and leaving fertility in the hands of God is the Quiverfull mission.

Rejection of birth control is a growing trend among many denominations of Protestants. Many Protestants who previously espoused birth control methods, are becoming more and more alarmed by the contraceptive mentality that has overtaken the country. In today's society, sex and procreation of children are commonly viewed as two separate components of marriage. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is very convicted and outspoken on the subject. He says, "If a couple sees children as an imposition, as something to be vaccinated against, like an illness, that betrays a deeply erroneous understanding of marriage and children."

read full story here