Why do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

Questions from Teens

     This question comes from several teens at the Holy Cross retreat in Kaukauna and it is a question that everyone must think about at some point in time; especially when we learn of horrible tragedies: children dying in a house fire; a father killed driving his pregnant wife, who is in labor, to the hospital; millions starving or dying of diseases that have simple cures or because of corrupt governments.  Everyone will have to confront this question and find some sort of answer...

     However, no answer - from any point of view - is 100% satisfying.  No answer would make a grieving mother stop grieving.  No answer heals the hurt of a loved one who's suffering or who's been lost...

     But some of the answers are better than others.  Some answers at least show us a reason and maybe a future hope.  Others just leave us in the muck and do nothing for us.  An example of the latter, is "Well that just the way it is."  What does that do for anyone?  It's almost akin to "shut up and take it." 
     Another is the atheistic response to suffering: suffering has no meaning and we should avoid it at all costs.  The first part of that sentence seems to make sense, especially when we're the ones suffering and the second half seems attractive; but if we're honest, we know it's impossible to avoid all suffering and we want our suffering to be for some purpose.  Isn't that what we yell at God, "Why, God, Why?"  We want our suffering to mean something.
    Let's look at another view of suffering:  The Christian and, specifically, Catholic view.  We must understand a few principles first before we dive into the Catholic view on suffering.  First we must understand the radical unity of the Body of Christ.  Once we are baptized, we are part of a Body, like a cell is part of a body, but much more important.  We have a roll, a purpose and we effect each other.  We see it when we directly effect each other: I punch someone.  My actions have hurt another person. 
     But this action has a greater effect: as a Christian, having sinned, I have brought the Body of Christ lower. Another Christian, who knows nothing of my actions, may suffer because the person I punched now believes Christians punch others.
    This principle is applied to the world in general: a sin is NOT a personal thing.  Every sin, even those done in private, effects the world.  Think of it like ripples in a pond.  Even the smallest stone thrown into the pond produces ripples that go to the edge of the pond - we may not be able to see the ripples, but the effect is there.  And so it is with our sins, both the big ones and the small ones.
    Another principle we must understand is Original Sin.  Many people ask: if God is all Good and All Powerful, why didn't He create a world without sin?  The answer is: that's EXACTLY what He did.  On top of that, he put Adam and Eve in charge: "You shall have dominion over..."  But why would God do this?  The same reason He created us to begin with: Love.
   Which brings us to another principle we must understand:  Love.  Love is NOT a feeling (and when I stop feeling it, I stop loving.)  Love is a choice; an action.  Love is to will the good of another, especially if it costs you something.  Some theologians have said we can substitute "sacrifice" for "love" and get the same idea.
   So God creates us out of Love for the sole purpose of Loving Him.  But since love is a choice, we had to be free to either chose God or chose "not God".  Another way to say that is we could chose God or sin.  If there wasn't a free choice, it could not be love.
     At some point Adam and Eve chose "not God" or sin.  This caused a chain reaction.  Think of a magnet high up somewhere.  Connected to that magnet are three rings, the first touching the magnet, the second touching the first and the third touching the second.  The magnetism represents God's life - or Grace.  The first ring is the soul.  The second ring is the body.  The third ring is nature.  When Adam and Eve sinned, their souls were cut off from Grace, from the magnetism.  This caused the first ring to fall.  But since the body and nature were connected to God through man's soul.  This brought suffering such as disease and natural disasters into the world, in addition to sin.
    Here's where all our principles come together.  Because we are all God's creation, we come into the world, now, with a lack of Grace i.e. with "Original Sin."  Even after we're baptized and our soul is "re-magnetized" we suffer with the "effects of Original Sin:" we are more prone to sin, our bodies still suffer, are subject to disease and decay; and we suffer against nature.
    As we continue to sin, we continue to effect ourselves, each other and nature by choosing "not God" and "not God's way."  This causes others to suffer even when they didn't do anything to directly deserve the suffering they receive.  Natural disasters, accidents and disease cause even more suffering.
    I know that's not very satisfying.  God knows that.  God knows we wouldn't be fully satisfied, nor would we fully understand why.  So... instead of what the imaginary gods of paganism do, which is stay away from human affairs in their perfect abodes... God became a man.  The Perfect human.  He never sinned but He chose to suffer for ALL OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE, in the Garden and on the Cross.  He participated in our suffering.  Moreover, He suffered when He didn't have to; He took more suffering than anyone had ever suffered, and He was the most innocent Person ever.
      Talk about unfair suffering...
But there's still more to the story.
    Remember what I said about our actions effecting each other and the world?  Jesus shows us this.  He did the greatest Jujitsu move of all time: He took all that evil and Redeemed the world through it!  He forgave, Redeemed and Saved.  You can think of it this way: He took the biggest pocket of "not God" and made it "yes God" through the suffering He endured... the "needless", "senseless", "unfair" suffering He endured.
     Those of us who are In Christ - if you're baptized you're In Christ - we can use suffering in the same way: for Good.  We can add our suffering to prayers or pious practices to increase the effectiveness of those prayers and practices.  We can also mimic that ultimate Jujitsu move: we can forgive the wrongs done to us.  We can also bring relief to those who suffer.  All these are like absorbing waves in that pond and leaving calm water behind you.
     This is only a brief explanation: there is much more that could be said.  But with the Catholic view our suffering does not have to be meaningless and each and every suffering can be used to bring a greater good, even if we don't see it.
     Let me bring up one more principle: heaven.  Heaven could be described as "infinite good."  Or at least, we're together with Infinite Goodness (God) forever.  This is our true home, not this world.  Any suffering we receive in this world can be repaid with infinite goodness.  Since this means that all suffering can be finite - or will have an end - what does it mean to be repaid with infinite goodness?  Well if we think of money: if you pay $1,000,000.00 only to be repaid with infinite money, how much in debt are you?  What if you were in a trillion dollars debt but were repaid with infinite money?  Get the idea?  Heaven is our ultimate goal, not this world.
     Let me apply this to something concrete: the fire in Sheboygan.  For those who may not know, while the parents were gone at a Bible study, a fire started in their home.  Two of the four children initially escaped.  The 11 year old returned to the house to try to rescue her siblings.  She ended up dying as well.
     While this will not end the suffering of the parents; it is my belief that the actions of the parents - attending Bible studies and choosing God and God's way - instilled in the 11 year old with Christian character, virtue and especially the sense of courage.  The Bible says there is no greater love than to lay down your life for someone else.  The 11 year old wanted to save her siblings.  Who is to say that her sacrifice did not Save herself and her siblings to where they are now repaid with Infinite Goodness?

I wrote another piece with another take on this question here:

http://fideidefensorgb.blogspot.com/2015/04/will-god-help-me-through-my-tough-times.html

I hope this helps bring you along the road towards an answer.

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

The Ever-Virgin Mary...

Where Does Scripture Say Mary Was Ever-Virgin?

     The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during and ever after the birth of Christ (CCC 496 - 507). Most non-Catholic Christians (I will use "Protestant" from this point on in the colloquial sense) believe and teach that Mary was a virgin at the time of conception to the time of birth - although, by rejecting a unifying, interpreting, authority that can declare the truth of a matter (the magisterium), some Protestant pastors are no longer teaching that either.  Virtually all Protestants reject that Mary was a virgin throughout her life, although that was not always the case.  I don't believe many Protestants (or Catholics for that matter) have ever considered whether or not she was a virgin in partu. 

     There are several reasons why the Catholic Church teaches Mary's Perpetual Virginity; some are logical; some based on Scripture and some based in God's Tradition (1 Thes 2:15).  As with all the Marian teachings, they "re-echo" the most important aspects of Christ and to miss it on Mary - and keep a consistent Christology - is to miss it, eventually on Christ.

 

It's Scriptural

     In the Old Testament if a woman becomes the wife of a second man, due to divorce, but then the second husband dies or divorces her, the first man can still never have relations with her again.  (Dt 24:1-4) We see this played out with King David.  When David's son, Absalom, tries to take over the kingdom one of the things he does is sleep with 10 of David's concubines (2 Sam 16:22).  After Absalom is killed and David returns to Jerusalem, David takes back the concubines, but puts them in a separate house where he provides for them, but never again has relations with them (2 Sam 20:3).

     The New Testament describes Joseph as a "righteous man" (Mt 1:19).  Among other things this means he knew and followed all the precepts of the Old Testament.  When Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant he decided to divorce her.  (Unlike what some modern translations say, Mary and Joseph were in a ratified marriage, but not yet consummated.  This is equal to the time after the wedding ceremony but before the wedding night.  In Jewish custom this ratified marriage state could last several months but this is not mere 'engagement'.)  Notice this was "before they came together."  This phrase means before they engaged in marital relations.

     Joseph is then approached by the angel who tells him "...do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife..."  The "take" here is a different word than the one above.  In this case the Greek word is "paralambano."  Unlike the previous phrase "synelthein", paralambano (to take with) has no connotation of marital intimacy.  It can be properly translated "to walk along with."  Other uses in Scripture of paralambano show this: Acts 12:25, Gal 2:1 as just 2 examples.

     Joseph would have recognized his situation as akin to what King David had.  Joseph would have protected and provided for Mary, but since she was essentially the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph would never have marital relations with her.

The Vow

     When Mary is visited by Gabriel and told what God wants of her, Mary replies, "How shall this be seeing I know not man?"  As the Christian writers of the first few centuries commented, this question reveals a vow of virginity.  It is significantly different than Zechariah's question in the previous chapter because unlike Zechariah, Mary's question accepts that it will happen, she is merely asking how this will happen. 

     Anti-Catholic author James White says the notion of a vow is not in the text.  Mr. White believes that Mary knew the angel meant this will happen RIGHT NOW and since there were no men around, Mary was inquiring how this was going to happen, RIGHT NOW.

     The problem with this is the text never says WHEN this is supposed to happen.  The angel merely makes a vague reference to the future with "will."  Mr. White is reading his bias against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary into the text. 
     Let's make a reasonable parallel.  If a new bride, at the reception, is told she will have a child in what way will she believe this will happen?  I think it's reasonable she will think in the normal course of her marriage, she will get pregnant and have child.  Why, then, would Mary ask the question unless she had taken a vow of virginity.

     Why would a vowed virgin marry then?  We need to place this in the ancient context: women could not work and if they did not have a man taking care of them they would starve to death.  This is one of the reasons it is so important in all of Scripture to take care of widows and orphans (e.g. Jas 1:27).  Mary and Joseph's marriage would have been one of provision and protection of Mary, as she still would need support.

Common Objections

     There are several objections to the Catholic teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity.  I will only take a look at a few.

Brothers of the Lord

     The most common objection to Mary's Perpetual Virginity comes from the references to "the brothers of the Lord" (Mt 13:55-56; Mk 3:31; Gal 1:19).  "The Bible clearly show that Jesus had brothers.  How much clearer does Scripture have to be you Catholics?"  I've heard the objection phrased very similar to this at times.

     The problem with this objection is several fold: 1) The word "brother" in an ancient Jewish context did not always mean "uterine brothers;" 2) Scripture shows these men cannot be uterine brothers; 3) if Jesus would have had uterine brothers Jesus would have broken Mosaic Law.

     In the ancient Middle East, many of the languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) did not have words for "uncle," "cousin," "nephew" etc.  They would use circumlocutions to describe the relationship: "the son of my brother," "my father's brother," "the son of my mother's sister" etc.  But these can become cumbersome in casual conversation.  The solution was to call all relatives "brother."  Not only is this well documented in history, it is also found in Scripture.  In Genesis, Lot is Abraham's nephew yet they call each other "brother" (Gen 14:14).

     Even in English, we don't use the term "brother" as exclusively referring to uterine brothers.  "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime" was a very popular song, sung by Bing Crosby, during the Depression.  No one believed Bing was referring to only his uterine brother.  In religious circles we call monks, "Brother" as well as fellow believers "Brothers and Sisters" yet no one thinks we're mistaking them for our blood siblings. 

     So going back to texts in question, we see there are multiple definitions for 'brother.'  All are still on the table: Scripture could be referring to other son's of Mary OR to some other relationship.  However, when we add in other Scriptural references we see one of these definitions is impossible, while the other is most likely.  Scripture tells us that the brothers of the Lord are "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas."  However, when we reference Mt. 27:56 and Jn 19:25 we see something very interesting: James and Joseph's mother is, "the other Mary," Mary wife of Clopas, not Mary, Mother of Jesus.

     Looking at Gal 1:19, we see the Apostle James is also called "the Lord's Brother."  Yet in the lists of the Apostles, there are only two James', both of whose fathers we know and neither father is Joseph (James son of Zebedee; James son of Alphaeus).  So, at least for James, Joseph and the Apostle James, "brother" is used to mean some other relation other than "other sons of Mary Mother of Jesus". 

Jesus Sinning?

     When Jesus was on the Cross he said seven things, commonly called, "The Seven Last Words of Christ."  To say something while nailed on a cross is truly an unbelievably painful experience.  One would have to push up on the nail through your feet and pull up on the nails in your wrists, and in Jesus' case, scrape your flayed back up the rough wood, just to get a breath enough "speak.  Christ used one whole time of this to say to his mother, "Woman, behold your son.  [John,] Behold your mother."

     Jesus took the time, took on the excruciating pain and effort to give his mother to John.  Why?  If Jesus had uterine brothers the Law of Moses dictated that the next oldest would be the one to take care of Mary.  The only explanation is that Jesus was an only child and there was no one else charged with taking care of Mary.

     Mr. White says it's because none of Jesus' brothers believed in him.  But there's a major problem with this: Jesus was God.  One of Jesus' brothers, according to Gal 1:19, was James the Apostle.  Wouldn't Jesus know - as he knew about his crucifixion, the destruction of the Temple and many other things - that his brothers, or at least James, would come back to the faith enough to die for it?  The idea that Jesus gave Mary to John just because Jesus' brothers were non-believers - or a kissing cousin objection says just because no one else was around - shows a very low view of Jesus as God.  But on top of that, again, it would be breaking Mosaic Law.  The next eldest brother was to take care of their mother, regardless if he was around at the time of the eldest brother's death; regardless if he was a non-believer or  not.

 

Until next time...

     Often Protestants (and even Catholics who want to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) will point to a verse like Mt. 1:25 "...but he [Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son..."  "See," the objector continues, "it says 'until.'  That means Mary and Joseph had marital relations afterward."

     To be completely fair, let's start by acknowledging that the word "knew" does in fact mean marital relations.  But what about the "until?"  That does sound pretty convincing on the surface.

     We must realize that even in English the word "until" does not mean a 100% change after the stipulations related to the word are fulfilled.  For example, if someone says, "Until we meet again, may God bless you."  Do we also mean by saying this, "Next time we meet, God curse you!"?  No. 

       But the case is even stronger in Greek.  The word in Greek is "heos".  Heos means the time up to the stated event and does NOT necessarily mean there was a change afterward.  We see this in numerous other places in Scripture where heos is used:  Mt. 28:20 says, in part, "Behold, I am with you till the end of the age."  "Till" there is heos.  Is Jesus also saying by this, "After the end of the age I am no longer with you."?

     "For he [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Cor 15:25).  Is Paul saying that once all Jesus' enemies are put under his feet, Jesus no longer reigns, i.e., he is no longer King?  No, absolutely not.

     I had an interlocker try to say that, yes, every time heos is used it necessarily means a 100% change after the event is fulfilled.  Of course his main reason for saying this was to deny Mary's Perpetual Virginity.   But as we saw with denying Mary as Mother of God, it is very easy to deny something, but to make a coherent theology that logically follows from that denial is not very easy.  After pointing out these, and numerous other verses, this particular confused Protestant had Jesus only temporarily as King, him abandoning the Church after a time and many, many other strange things.



The Reformers Believed it

     One of the more interesting aspects of studying the history of the belief of Mary Ever Virgin, is the fact that almost all of Protestantism believed and taught Mary was perpetually a Virgin until the 18th Century!  Here are just a few quotes to make the point:

Martin Luther

 

     “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

     “A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .”{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

John Calvin

      “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. “{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

      Helvidius was someone who denied Mary as Perpetual Virgin in the 4th / 5th Century.

     “Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. “ {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Ulrich Zwingli

 "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."  Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424

Re-echoing Christ

    Ultimately everything about Mary, especially the dogmas, flow from, re-echo and protect a proper understanding of who Jesus Christ is.  The Perpetual Virginity of Mary helps teach us that once we give ourselves to Christ, we cannot be used for any other purpose again.  To do so would be to profane that which God has made holy.  If you want to know how serious it is to profane something God has made holy, just ask Uzzah (2 Sam 6).  And Uzzah was only dealing with the Old Testament Ark.  How much more should the New Testament Ark, Mary, should be untouched by sinful man?  And we are the Body of Christ, the Church.  How much more importance is it that the Body of Christ, the Church be used only for the purpose for which God set us aside?

Do not be afraid to share your faith with everyone!
God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

November Newsletter: Why is knowing Papal Authority Important to Salvation?

Hey Folks,

Just a reminder that this Saturday is another Fidei Defensor Meeting. 8-9:30a  at the Gehl Center (right behind the Cathedral in Green Bay)  The group that was there in Oct. decided that we should still hold a meeting in Nov. but take Dec. off.

Last month we had a guest host: my wife, Tricia.  She is a convert to Catholicism from the Reformed tradition (very similar to Presbyterian).  She walked us through a memorization visualization on how to remember why we believe Peter was made the first Pope by Christ.

A very good and important question was brought up: why is this important to salvation?  Shouldn't we just focus on helping people believe in Jesus?

Again this is a very good and important question.  Let me try to answer in part by analogy.  Let's say we wanted to travel to Madison.  First, we need to know which Madison we wanted to get to (WI? GA? MN? AL?) because it makes a difference. (I once booked a hotel at the wrong "Maryville".  I wanted IL, but I booked it in MO, 300 miles away...)  We'd have to consult something to find out which Madison it is we're trying to get to. 

Next, we need to know how to get there.  Even if we have a rough idea of which way to go (Southwestern WI)we'd have to consult something in order to find the correct way to get there.  In addition to all that, we have to rely on the assumption that we have traffic laws and everyone else is going to obey them as well - if people were driving on both sides of a highway, or across fields, lawns etc; were not obey traffic signals and speed limits we'd have a lot tougher time getting to Madison wouldn't we?

It's the same in the Spiritual life.  We want to know Jesus.  But which "Jesus"?  I could say, "I've met Jesus and he's changed my life!  I want you to meet him too.  He's a Hispanic guy living down the street and prefers if you pronounce it "Hey-Zeus." 

Mormons say he's an "exaulted man" but not the same as "God the Father".  Jehovah Witnesses say he's St. Michael the Arc Angel.  Many people today say he's "just a good moral teacher".  Is he God?  Is he Man?  Is he both? 

Some Christian denominations say he wasn't "God" until his baptism.  Some say it was only "the Human Jesus" that died on the Cross, not "the Divine Jesus."

Some Christian denominations over emphasize his help of the poor and say "He's only about Social Justice."  Some say we shouldn't mention "sin" ever because Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery.  Some Christians over emphasize Jesus' overturning of the tables in the temple and say "We need to be asking 'Who would Jesus Whip?'" - I read a whole book about this when I was Protestant.  Some take his condemnations of the Sadducees too far and start a conversation by telling everyone they're going to hell! (Anyone remember the "One Sorry B_stard" signs?)

Which Jesus are we to follow?

It has been the Authority of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, through the Apostles and Bishops - with Peter and the Popes at their head - who have told us "which Jesus" we need to follow.

So now we know where we're going.

But HOW do we follow him?

Some say we start with Baptism which is necessary for salvation and open to infants.  Some say if you baptize an infant it "didn't count" and you could be going to hell for it.  Some say we must receive the "Lord's Supper" to get to heaven; some say we do not.  Some say we must believe only and everything else is all set - we could murder 100 times a day and still get to heaven.  Some say we can lose our salvation by sinning.  Some say we must do good works.  Others say if you do good works, you're going to hell - yes you read that right.

Some say, none of this matters.  Just have a "good heart" - whatever that means - and Jesus will understand.

In a sense, we have people going in every direction saying they're headed to Madison (and all claiming to read the same map)!

It has been the Authority of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit, through the Apostles and Bishops - with Peter and the Popes at their head - that interpret the Scriptures correctly and tell us the correct way to follow Jesus.

This can be said also of the Traffic Laws.

We can only "Triangulate" our proper position and destination using the Scriptures, the Tradition and the Authority of the Catholic Church.

I hope this helps answer the question.
God Bless, hope to see you at the meeting!

In this edition:
1) Sept meeting wrap up
2) Oct meeting agenda
3) ***New from Fidei Defensor: Pamphlets!*

Sept Meeting Wrap up

The Sept meeting was out first meeting using The Essential Catholic Survival Guide.  There were many positive comments about the reading.  We never quite got to formulating the information into a memorable conversation - that will be part of next months meeting.  We ended up having a great conversation about talking to people with little or no faith at all.  Here's a blog I did a while back that covers much of what we talked about: http://fideidefensorgb.blogspot.com/2015/09/street-evangelization-are-you.html

Oct meeting: **Next Meeting is Oct 24th.  8:00, Gehl Center**  Mark your calendars!

Agenda:  1) How to easily remember and talk about Peter's authority
Reading about it is one thing, but actually explaining it to another person is quite another.  We'll explain how to do it and even practice a bit.

2) Grace: How we are saved.  ***Reading Assignment Chapters 28, 29, 30 and if we get time 31.
Getting a proper understanding of what Grace is and what it does helps us have conversations with people about things like: Salvation, Justification, Sanctification, Baptism, the Eucharist, being "Born Again" etc.  In the spirit of putting first things first, we're going to be learning about Grace - God's life living in us.

 **New** we now offer pamphlets. 

We have quite a number on various topics from St. Paul Street Evangelization but we're just rolled two pamphlets of our own: "Abortion: Some Questions to Consider" and " 'Rome vs the Bible' vs Reality"

"Abortion: Some Questions to Consider" takes the emotion out of the equation.  It deals with the intellectual arguments, agreeing with the valid concerns of Pro-choice advocates, where possible, but showing how those concerns actually point to a Pro-Life view.  Great to hand out at Pro-Life rallies.

" 'Rome vs the Bible' vs Reality" is a response to the popular anti-Catholic pamphlet "Rome vs the Bible".  It takes each argument and shows where the writers of the pamphlet failed to either present actual Catholic teaching, or failed to take into account the Whole Bible... or both.  Great to have at Catholic events, like Walk to Mary, where anti-Catholics will be handing out the error filled pamphlet.

Coming soon:  "Sola Scriptura vs the Bible and History"; "Sola Fide vs the Bible and History" and "Protestantism vs the Bible and History"

For information on how to get one of these, or any of the St. Paul Street Evangelization pamphlets on a huge variety of topics, just contact us at this email address.

"Be ever ready with a response for the hope that is in you" can mean having a pamphlet to hand to someone!

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor

"Rome vs the Bible" vs Reality

A Critical Review of a Popular Anti-Catholic Pamphlet

        

       What would you do if you discovered the majority of the bad things you were taught about Catholicism were incorrect and meant to deceive you?

 

 

      The pamphlet “Rome vs the Bible” has many factual errors both blatant and more subtle.  In discovering these errors, will you continue to spread them, or correct them?

 

Authority

 

 

"Rome vs the Bible" (RvB) claims that "the Bible teaches Scripture has authority over the church" and cites 2Tim3:16.  RvB then claims "Catholicism teaches the Church has authority over Scriptures" and cites the Catholic Catechism (CCC) paragraphs 100 and 119.

 

 Reality shows Catholicism teaches that the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture (85, 100, 119) by the power of the Holy Spirit (109-114) but clearly teaches “the Church is the servant of Scripture. "(86)  RvB doesn’t report accurate Catholic teaching.   Why?

 

Also 2 Tim 3:16 says nothing about the church.  It merely shows the high authority, inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture , something that Catholicism teaches (101-141).  But is that the only thing that has authority according to Scripture? 

 

Ask yourself: what do I believe has the authority to decide between arguing Christians?

 

What do I believe is the pillar and foundation of truth for the Christian?

 

What did God plan to use, from the beginning of time, to make known His entire wisdom?

 

RvB would like you to believe it is The Bible.

 

Reality shows, according to that Bible, it is:

 

The Church (Mt 18:15-18; 1Tim3:15; Eph 3:10)

 

 Also ask: How do I know what books belong in Scripture?   Scripture cannot tell you.

 

Salvation / Justification

 

RvB implicitly denies that one can lose salvation.  RvB then derides Catholicism for believing in Mortal sin and the ability to lose salvation.

Reality shows that the Bible explicity teaches there is Mortal sin, or the “sins that lead to death” ('death' = 'mortal' in Latin)(1Jn5:17) meaning a spiritual death.  The Bible teaches that a Christian can, indeed, lose salvation through sinning. Take heed you who think you stand secure, lest you fall.  (1Cor 10:6-8; 11-12) (Rom 11:22; Gal 5:6; 2 Pet  2:20-22) RvB doesn’t address these verses.  Why not?

 

RvB states “man is Justified once by faith”.  RvB then condemns Catholicism for teaching that Salvation and Justification are a process, with a one-time event to begin them, but then cooperation needed to continue progressing in them.

Reality shows the Bible says both Salvation and Justification are processes with a past completed event (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5-8 etc), present application (1Cor1:8; 2Cor2:15; Phil 2:12), and future cooperation needed to get to heaven (Rom 5:9-10; 1Cor 3:12-15).RvB doesn’t address the rest of these Biblical passages.  Why not?

 

RvB implies that faith alone is what saves someone and works will come afterward, but does not have anything to do with salvation.  RvB then claims Catholicism teaches that one can earn “their own salvation” through good works.

 

 Reality is Catholicism teaches that no one can earn their own salvation(2010) .  Catholicism teaches that we are justified entirely by Grace (1996).  Catholicism teaches Grace / Justification is the work of Christ's atoning death on the Cross and by His Blood (1992).  Catholicism teaches that we must have faith in Christ to be saved (161).  Catholicism recognizes that once we have Grace, we must cooperate with God to continue walking in the Light, so that the blood of Christ continues to cleanse us (2006-2029, cf 1Jn 1:7)

 

RvB again does not report accurate Catholic teaching.  Why not?

  

Reality shows the Bible teaches we are saved by Grace which no one can earn (Eph 2:8-9).  But once we are “in Christ” we are commanded to do good works (Eph 2:10).  If we disobey this command, we cannot be saved (Jn 3:36); If we rely only on faith, without good works, that faith cannot save us.  Good works complete our faith, as it did with Abraham, and therefore it was credited to him as righteousness.  Just as a body cannot be alive first and the soul comes later, faith without good works is dead. The only place in Scripture the phrase “Faith Alone” appears it says:  We are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE (Ja 2:14-24). 

 

 We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in us (Grace) both to will (faith) and to work (good works) (Ph 2:15-16).  We must keep the Commandments to go to heaven (Mk 10:17-22)

 

 Reality is everywhere in Scripture where people are judged to heaven or hell, they are judged by their works (Rom 2:5-11; Mt 25-31-46; Rev 20:12 among many others). 

 

RvB neglects to mention any of these Bible passages.  Why not?

Baptism

 

RvB states that only the Holy Spirit regenerates people.  RvB then implies that Catholicism is opposed to this by teaching Baptism regenerates people.

 

Reality is that Catholicism teaches Christ empowered Baptism to bring the Holy Spirit, which is why it regenerates people (1225; 1987; 2017).

Reality shows that Christ said exactly that.  (Jn3:5) Reality also shows that the Bible teaches Baptism is necessary for salvation and forgives sins (1Pet 3:21-22; Act 2:38-39

 

RvB again fails to give accurate representation of Catholicism and ignores Scripture.  Why?

 

Eucharist / The Lord's Supper

 

RvB states, “the Lord’s Supper is a memorial” implying an intellectual recollection only and cites 1Cor11:24-25.  RvB then implies that the Catholic Mass is re-sacrificing Christ.

Reality shows that the word for “remembrance” (anamnesis) means making a past event present today.  Also the word for “do” implies sacrifice.  Christ also said, “This IS my Body” and “This IS my Blood” not "this represents" (Lk 22:19-20; paralleled in Mk, Mt; 1Cor11:24-25).  Christ also commands us to “Eat My Flesh” and “Drink My Blood” numerous times using language that can only be interpreted literally without doing violence to the text. (Jn 6:51-56).  Paul also tells us this is a literal participation in Christ's Body and Blood (1 Cor 10:16) and to receive without discerning Christ's Body, is to be guilty of His literal Body and Blood i.e. of murder (1 Cor 10:27-30).

Reality is Catholicism teaches Christ’s sacrifice was Once-For-All, and the Eucharist is making that One Sacrifice present today (re-presenting) (1362-1363).

Reality also is all Christians writings from the first EIGHT CENTURIES taught the literal interpretation of Christ’s words.  One cannot find a single Christian writer who states what RvB believes about the Lord’s Supper for 800 years after Christ’s Ascension.

Reality also shows RvB's idea of "the Lord's Supper" was made up by men in the 16th Century.   A warning from Scripture is appropriate here: Gal 1:8.

 RvB only cites one of the dozens of paragraphs of the CCC dealing with this; only one of the Bible verses above and doesn't tell you what those words actually mean.  Why?

Anathemas

  

Anathema merely means to not belong to the community.  RvB would like you to believe it means "condemned to hell." 

 

RvB's own teachings (Faith Alone, Scripture Alone, Symbolic Only Lord's Supper, Once Saved Always Saved, the Rapture etc) were made up by men in the 16th Century or later. Protestant Historians like JMD Kelly acknowledge this.

 

RvB's own warning (Gal 1:6-9) applies to them, not to the Catholic Church whose biblical teachings have stayed consistnent for 2000 years.  One only need to read the writings of the students of the Apostles to see this is true.

 

By believing - and pushing -  these brand new, non-biblical teachings RvB proves they 'do not belong' to the Church Christ founded.

 Saints / Priests

RvB claims that Catholicism doesn’t teach that all Christians are priests and saints.

 

Reality: The Catholic Church explicitly teaches the priesthood of all believers and that all Christians are saints (priesthood: 1141; 1268; 1546 / saints: 946-962).  RvB did not bother to take 10 seconds on a internet search to find this out. Why Not?

 

Reality: Recognizing what Scripture tells us, Catholicism teaches  Christ also set up a ministerial priesthood by giving it much of His Authority (Lk 10:16; Jn 20:21-23 cf. 2Cor 5:18; Mt:18:18 and many others) and that the “Holy Ones” in heaven (1 Thes 3:13) (the Latin word ‘holy’ is where ‘saint’ comes from) / the souls of Just men made perfect can now, because of Christ, be address and approached (Heb 12:22-24).  Since: the Church is the Body of Christ(Col 1:18); Christ only has one Body, not multiple (1Cor 12:12); Death cannot separate us from Christ (Rom 8:37-38); and we, in Christ, are commanded to pray for one another (1Tim2:1-4), therefore those members of the Church in Heaven are praying for us, and presenting our prayers before the Throne of God (Rev 5:8).

RvB does not present the full Biblical picture and presents a completely FALSE representation of Catholic teaching.  WHY?

 

 Final Thoughts

RvB does NOT want to present accurate Catholic teaching, nor the full Biblical teaching on these topics.  WHY?

They have believed the Traditions of Men: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Smyth, John Wesley, and the tens of thousands after them.  They have not held fast to the Traditions of God, which includes Sacred Scripture, (2Thes2:15; 3:6; 1Thes3:13; 2Tim2:2; 1Cor11:2) passed on faithfully for 2000 years by the Catholic Church!

 

We encourage you to read your denomination's teaching charters / documents / confessionals and compare them to   1) History: the writings of the 1st Christians after the Apostles 2) The WHOLE Bible 3) The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

We welcome your charitable comments or questions.

Fidei Defensor


Bulk pamphlets available upon request.Pamphlets coming soon:  Sola Scriptura vs the Bible, History and Logic; Sola Fide vs the Bible; Protestantism vs. the Bible and History.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statues and Icons and Art... OH MY!

Talking about the Catholic Practice of Statues

"What don't you Catholics understand about Exodus 20:4-5?  'You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.   You shall not bow down to them or worship them...'  You guys have statues and you bow to them!"  Catholicism has also been charged with changing the commandments to hide this from the people.

          This is a great topic and is often a starting point in conversations with non-Catholic Christians (Protestants).  This article is broken up into three parts: a 'bumper sticker' answer; a mid-length explanation; and an in-depth yet still remember able answer.

The "Bumper Sticker" Answer

          As a practicing Catholic, I have never worshiped a statue; I have never seen anyone worship a statute; I have never been taught or counseled to worship a statue.

          A full study of  Scripture shows that God was not forbidding the making of art, but was forbidding Idolatry  [the worship of that stone, wood, metal or paint in and of itself as a god] .  Catholicism uses religious art as many use family pictures -  to remember family and events better than they would without them - or as an instrument to teach the stories of the Bible to the illiterate.

The Mid-Length Answer

          Catholicism has always taught that the first Commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."  Ex. 20:3-5.  However a close look at Scripture will show that shortly thereafter (5 chapters) God commanded the making of 2 gold cherubs (Ex 25:18).  There is also the story of the Brass Serpent in which God, again, commands the making of a Brass or Bronze Serpent where anyone who looks upon it will be saved.  Jesus uses this as an example of himself.

          We can also see from Scripture that bowing is not reserved for worship alone.  Jacob bowed low to Esau seven times (Gen 33:3) and Solomon - a prefigurement of Christ - bowed to his mother, the queen (1 Kgs 2:19).

          Some may ask: 'Show me one place in Scripture where someone bows to a statue?'  Joshua 7:6 shows Joshua and the Elders prostrating themselves (a form of  bowing) in front of the Arc of the Covenant.  What is on the Arc?  Those two gold cherubim mentioned before.

          In Exodus 20:3-5, God was not forbidding the making of art, or forbidding honoring anyone the art depicted.  He was forbidding Idolatry.  Catholicism uses religious art as many use family pictures -  to remember family and events better than they would without them - or as an instrument to teach the stories of the Bible to the illiterate.

The In-depth Answer

          Look around yourself right now.  Are there any images " of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"?  Any pictures of family?  Any paintings?  Carvings?   Look carefully: children's toys, food labels, movies, T.V.... Are these all forbidden by this commandment? 

          But some may object, God was speaking of religious objects in a religious context.  Unfortunately Scripture does not make this distinction.  But even if it did, look around many Protestant church buildings:  there are images and statues of Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, doves, grapes, angels, lambs, etc.  Even the most Fundamentalist of denominations will have at least a cross.  How about Cress Scenes?  Children's Picture Bibles?  The movie, "The Passion of the Christ?"  Are not all of these, including the cross, an image of anything that is in heaven, in the earth or in the water?

          But the objection continues, Catholics kneel before, bow to and even kiss these images.  Again, in everyday life we recognize that kneeling, bowing and kissing do not equate to worship:  Do soldiers worship the American Flag (another image) when they salute it?  Or when the same soldier, deployed, talks to and kisses a picture of his family he is separated from?  Do the Japanese and Chinese people worship each other when they bow in greeting?  Did Reformers commit idolatry when they kneeled before the princes and kings supporting their efforts?  I've talked to Protestants who love the Bible so much, they kneel before it as they read it.  Are any of these committing Idolatry? 

          Through Scripture we can see that God was not forbidding art and other images in general, nor was He forbidding using gestures to give honor to people or situations even those depicted in art.  He was forbidding the worship of those images in-and-of-themselves; in a word: Idolatry. 

          The Catholic Church has always recognized and taught this distinction.  In Part 3, Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church teaches that the First Commandment is " I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  You shall not bow down to them or worship them..."

          However, that is not the last word, or only word, Scripture has on images.  In Exodus 25:18, a mere five chapters later, God commands the making of statues:  "And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat [of the Arc of the Covenant]."

          In Exodus 26:1God commands that cherubim be woven into the tabernacle curtains.

          In Numbers 21:8-9 God again commands the making of a bronze image:  "And the LORD said to Moses; 'Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.'  So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live."  Christ later uses this as a prefigurment of himself (Jn 3:14).

          Some objections then say we are only to make religious art / statues when God commands us to.  This also does not take into account all of Scripture:  1 Kings chapters 6 and 7 describe the temple with many images in it:  cherubim, palm trees, flowers, gourds, oxen, lions, and wreaths (6:23,29,32, 35, 7:24, 25, 29, 36).  None are explicitly commanded but God blessed the temple by His presence. Even in Ezekiel's vision of the heavenly temple, Ezekiel also sees many statues and carvings: palm trees, cherubs, a man's face, a lion's face, leaves etc.  Can God be contradictory?  Catholicism recognizes that especially since Jesus became the "icon" of the Father, He blessed all art, even religious art in churches (Col 1:15).

          But, some continue, it's the bowing, kneeling and kissing of these images that make the problem.  I would ask: is bowing, kissing or kneeling always "worship" in Scripture?  Did not Jacob bow himself to the ground seven times to Esau (Gen 33:3)?  Did not Solomon, a prefigurement of Christ, and the King of all Israel, bow down to his mother (1 Kgs 2:19)?  Was Judas' kiss worshiping Christ or betraying Him?

          But can you show me, says the objector, even ONE place in Scripture where someone bows to a statue?  Joshua 7:6 shows Joshua and the Elders going prostrate - an extreme bow - before the Arc.  But don't forget what's on the Arc: two 5' tall gold statues.  To the Protestant onlooker this would be Joshua bowing to a statue.

          What's the difference?  The difference is in the heart.  The Catholic Church is clear that if someone bows before a statue thinking it, in-and-of-itself is the source of power, that is Idolatry and in the Catholic Church that person could lose their salvation for doing so.  But one can also, properly disposed, bow before a statue to honor, not worship, the person or situation that statue or artwork depicts.

          If an objector is still insistent that a Catholic is committing the sin of Idolatry after this explanation, the objector is claiming to read hearts, something only God can do, and is therefore setting themselves up equal to God, which is Idolatry of self.

          Why do Catholics have artwork, statues and other images?  Catholicism uses religious art as many use family pictures -  to remember family and events better than they would without them - or as an instrument to teach the stories of the Bible to the illiterate.  The Catholic Church recognizes that throughout the history of the world, and even world-wide today, the majority of people cannot read.  The Catholic Church is committed to getting Scripture to the people anyway possible.  So, in addition to reading it to them every day [at a rate of virtually the whole Bible per year] the Catholic Church puts art and statues that depict the various people, places and events from the Bible in the churches so the illiterate can still learn the stories and teach them to their children.  We can thereby honor and worship God more fully through the honor of the people and events depicted, than we could without these pieces of art.

          I hope this helps you understand the Catholic Church's possession on religious statues and artwork.  For further information please go to www.catholic.com keyword search 'statues'.



Street Evangelization: Are you fullfilling Christ's last command?

Street Evangelization!

     This past Summer, Fidei Defensor took our faith to the streets!  Unlike what most people think of, the style of Evangelization we use is the St. Paul Street Evangelization style: No bullhorns, No yelling, No telling people their going to hell, No cornering people and asking them if they've accepted Jesus' Church as their personal Church or whatever...

     This is a Non-Confrontational, Non-Approach, No Pressure street evangelization and it's taking the Catholic Faithful - and the people we talk to - by storm.  St. Paul Street Evangelization started 2 or so years ago with two guys in Lancing MI.  Today they have chapters in almost all 50 states and over a dozen countries.

How do you do it?

1) We set up a table somewhere where people are going to be: a farmer's market, a fair, a sporting event etc.  On the table are the free flyers and C.D.s provided by St. Paul Street Evangelization.  All the pamphlets and C.D.'s are reviewed and approved for faithful content - meaning to the best of the reviewer's ability, they are accurate Catholic teaching.

2) We place a sign in front of the table that has Jesus Christ lifting the Host at the Last Supper on one side and Our Lady of Guadalupe on the other.  Both sides say: "Catholic Truth: Need Prayer?  Have Questions?  Free Materials.  Find True Joy!"

3) We pray and wait for people to come up to us.  That's it.  We're the fishing lure in the water waiting for the fish to come by.  Some groups wiggle the lure a bit by offering free Rosaries or Miraculous Metals. 

What about all the questions?  I don't know that much!

     For the most part, what people really want is to know:  1) What was your life like before you had an encounter with Christ  2) What was that encounter like?  (Slow, fast, all at once, or a series of small experiences etc)  3) How has your life changed since then?

     People also want to know the Good News.  What is the Good News?  We can sum it up in a few steps: 1) God Loves You: God Created You, personally, out of Love, for the purpose of Loving Him.  2) Because of our Sin, we have walked away from God  3) God still Loves us even in our sins and made a way back to Him  4) He Came down (He sent His Son) to show us how to live, to die for our sins and rise to give us new life and new hope  5) We must respond:  Repent, Believe and Be Baptized  6) Then we must continue to grow in Holiness, and doing Good Works 7) We receive our ability to become holier, continue in Good Works, and the ability to endure to the end through the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist and Confession) given through the Church He established.

     THAT'S IT!  The founders of St. Paul Street Evangelization both have Master's Degrees in Theology and had studied apologetics for a long time before starting street evangelization.  They thought they needed all of that.  However, both of them say, now, they're completely rusty on their apologetics and deep theology because all people want is to know their story and to hear the Good News.

What do I do when people come up to the table?

     Typically, if not engaged in conversation, a person will be at your table for less than 30 seconds.  The Holy Spirit put them there.  Now it's up to us to meet them where their at and invite them further on.

     When a person comes to the table the first thing we do is genuinely greet them.  Next, we ask them a few questions.  "Do you have any questions?"  Usually people say, 'No' but it's a conversation starter:  Do you have any children?  What do you do for a living?  Etc.

     Eventually turn the conversation towards religion.  We ask something like: "Do you go to church anywhere?"  If the answer is 'yes', we usually ask where.  Where ever they're going (a Protestant church, an LDS temple, a Synagogue or Masque) respond in a positive manner, because we can agree with all of those religions on many truths.  We're responding positively to those truths they already have.  

   Continue to ask questions to find out where they are in their faith:  do you go regularly?  Etc.

   If they haven't started to ask you about your faith, we can ask:  "Have you ever considered becoming Catholic?"  For most the answer will be 'no' but then we can say, "We'd like to invite you to explore and consider becoming Catholic."

     Most people will start asking you about the Catholic Faith by then.

What if they do have questions I don't know?

     First, "I don't know, but I'll find out for you." is a great answer (have a note book so you can get some contact info from them).  Second, that's partially what all the pamphlets are about: you can read them yourself (even while you're waiting) and you can give them one on the topic they asked about.  Then, research the topic a bit so you can give some sort of cursory answer next time.

What if they're already Catholic?

     We've had numerous ex, lapsed, lax and faithful Catholics talk to us.  With Catholics, after finding out their Catholic, we ask if they're receiving the Sacraments frequently.  Whatever their response we encourage them to return and / or receive the Eucharist and go to Confession more - or if their doing this already, affirm their practices.  If you do have a faithful Catholic, encourage them to join the St. Paul Street Evangelization group in their home area, because that is one thing we are commanded to do, by Christ, that almost no Catholic is doing.

What we don't do....

1) We don't get into arguments.  We can present reasons why the Catholic teaching on something is true, but always with kindness and respect.  If you find yourself getting angry, it is better to end the conversation or turn it over to your partner than start showing anger to the person you're evangelizing.

2) That brings up another point:  We don't go out alone, unless we're really well formed.  Even Christ set out the Apostles 2x2.  If you're interested but scared, rest assured that for your first few times we'll have you partnered with one or two experienced evangelists.

3) We don't get into ANY  Catholic vs Catholic discussions:  We don't argue vernacular mass vs latin mass; which bishop messed up where; what priest is bringing in more "change" or which is more "orthodox" than another.  CHANGE THE TOPIC!

4) We don't get into religion bashing: Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant or Catholic, we don't bash their religion.  We can point out errors in theology, if the conversation goes that way, but always in a loving, respectful manner.

5) We don't EVER accept donations while evangelizing.  If someone wants to give us a donation while we're evangelizing, direct them to the St. Paul Street Evangelization site.

That's Fine, but why do it at all?

     It's about saving souls and obeying Christ's last command to us: Go make disciples; teach them everything I have commanded; preach the Gospel to all living things (Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:15).  This is the Fulfillment of what it means to be Christian!  Sharing the Good News so that others may go to heaven as well!
     We must grow in holiness.  Many Christians don't try this at all.  The ones who do often times increase their prayer time - AWESOME!  Others perform acts of social justice - PHENOMINAL!  But after all that, some begin to feel that their faith is plateaued.  That this is it, I just do more and more of the above.  Yes, in some respects this is true, but there is at least one more thing we MUST do - Verbally Evangelize! 
     When we share our faith, it comes back to us increased!  This is the parable of the talents!  Share what God has given you.  Share it freely, often and with joy.  DON"T BURY IT IN THE GROUND! 
     Christ makes it clear: this is not an option.

Final Though...

     Steve Ray, Catholic Convert, world renown speaker and apologist, tells this story; I'll paraphrase it:  At the end of your life, you go to your personal judgment.  Maybe you wait in line for a while, hearing other names called.  Finally, you hear your name called.  You step up to the gate.  Off to one side is a glorious set of stairs going up; off to the other a very dark, scary set of stairs going down.  Your life is reviewed and it is announced that you get to go to heaven!  Angels come down and begin to guide you to the stairs up.  Just then, another name is announced.  You recognize it as your friend, or neighbor, or coworker, or family member.  You say to the angels, "Please wait one second, I want to hear this."  Your friend shuffles forward.  His / her life is reviewed and it is announced, "Away from me!"  Devils come up and begin to guide your friend to the other stairs.  Suddenly your friend sees you.  He / She, turns towards you and yells, "You were a Christian?  You were my friend / coworker / neighbor for all that time and you never told me about this?  You could have told me and you didn't!  Why didn't you tell me?"  Your friend continues to yell "Why didn't you tell me?" as he is dragged to the other stairs...
   This is about offering the possibility of SALVATION FOR ALL ETERNITY to those who may otherwise not have it.  This is what all our prayers, practices, and everything is leading to: getting as many people to heaven as possible.
     What are you doing with your "Talent"?

God Bless,
Fidei Defensor