Freemasonry Exposed

                                                                    +AMDG+

THE MASKED ANGEL:

Before you dismiss this post or think this is created by some conspiracy hack, I have looked into the information presented in the following video and have found every statement to be accurate.

This subject hits close to home for me for one main reason: when I was in college, I actually did a presentation about this in my senior year. Granted, some up-to-date info is in this but overall, the message is the same:







For more information from John Salza, visit the following link:
http://www.johnsalza.com/p/masonry.html

For a printout of the prayer for Freemasons:
http://scripturecatholic.com/prayer_for_freemasons.html

Take the Oath (Even if You Don't Have to)

                                      +AMDG+


THE MASKED ANGEL:

As I write this in the middle of both the year-long prayers of St Bridget and renewing my consecration to the Virgin Mary as created by Louis de Montfort, I came across this idea and the more I've looked into it, the more it seems to be enforced. What idea would that be?
Before I reveal the idea, this needs to be stated first: it is often said that there are no new heretical teachings, but only old teachings taking on new forms, and none have caused the Church more troubles and cost more souls than the heresy known as modernism, which brings me to the idea that I have come across:
militant atheists today, far from being original, have nothing new or interesting to say.

How did I know this and for that matter, how can others know this? How often have we heard atheists say this or the equivalent of this:

The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

For that matter, how much evidence refutes this yet the notion persists?

Not enough evidence? Ok, how often have atheists claimed this?:
"No teaching in Christianity should be believed unless it can be proven by scientific tests."

This one is even worse because it fails on two counts: Christians have NEVER said science can be used to prove the notions true and there is no way they would ever say that because the notions are outside science's realm. Atheists might as well demand mathematical concepts be proven by social studies.

How many atheists have claimed truth is relative---or to put it another way, "truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him?" And yet they expect people to not notice their obvious logical hypocrisy?

Some more academic atheists have figured out a way to be more sneaky in trying to pass their ideas off as original. In one particular example, several authors have tried to prove Christianity was founded not by Jesus but Paul of Tarsus, arguing everything from dogmas being from Paul before the Church accepted them, to the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline in historical origin.

Speaking of history. atheists further say Christ did not exist in the historical sense and if Jesus did exist, He was nothing like the Gospels say, and especially not John's Gospel, which is nothing more than a mystical composition. 

Too bad Catholic schools in general have dropped the ball because if they as a whole were half-way descent, more people would notice the pattern in all the mentioned notions I've just looked at:

Each and every one of these is a condemned notion found in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, an encyclical written by St Pius X condemning modernism.....written in 1907!!!!

Does anyone reading this understand? Atheists nowadays are just regurgitating concepts no one took seriously over a century ago yet here we have people buying into them hook, line and sinker without question. 

St Pius deserves a whole lot more credit than most Catholic educators are willing to give him; he foresaw the problems modernism would have for the world and for the Church; he even went so far as to require anyone in Catholic education or who had any connection to teaching the faith to take an oath against modernism.

For reasons that still remain unknown to me, despite my best efforts, I can find no justification for why the oath was dropped in 1967. Can anyone say the Church is in better shape today than while the oath was still required?

It doesn't matter to me if the oath is not required anymore: if you are serious about learning your faith and teaching it to others, I suggest taking the oath...after learning what it asks of you, of course. I am sick of atheists trying to pass sick ideas and fresh ones but then again what else can we expect of people who are absolute morons? 

Mega Church or Catholic Church?

                                                    +AMDG+

Megachurch. Two young ladies. Both had left the Catholic Church. Both were now attending “megachurches.” We had a good chat together. I wanted to understand their reasons for why they left the Catholic Church for a megachurch.

I was at the bank and somehow I got into a spiritual conversation with two Hispanic executives that worked there. Why the Megachurch? When I asked why they exchanged the Catholic Church for the megachurch, they gave me a number of reasons: “My new church has an iPhone app. I can go on my iPhone and get Bible studies, sermons (video and audio). When I travel I can still watch the sermon, either live or later. I feel apart of the community.” “The preaching is dynamic and speaks to my life. I find practical encouragement.” “I felt judged at the Catholic Church.” “People were not friendly or welcoming at the Catholic Church. The first time I went to my new church, I was welcomed by so many people.” “My new church has classes and courses that are interesting and helpful.” “The music is better.” “In the Catholic Church, they use a lot of words that I did not understand.” “People pray for each other and know each other (in the megachurch).” Although these two ladies didn’t articulate it explicitly to me, I could tell that they were very proud of their new churches. I could also discern in them a surprise that I am so “spiritual” and yet I am very excited about being Catholic. They assumed the “with it” people were leaving Catholicism for the bigger and better and deal. I asked them what they miss about being Catholic. They replied with two answers: “There are not any crosses in my new church. I know it makes some people feel uncomfortable, but I wish we had crosses.” “What will I do when I die?” They were both unclear about whether they could get anything like Last Rites at the megachurch. What About the Eucharist? I asked both about the Eucharist: “Don’t you miss the Eucharist?” This question didn’t phase them one bit. “Oh we still have communion. They pass out little crackers and cups of juice. I like this better because I thought drinking from one big cup is icky. Spreads germs.” “But in the Catholic Church,” I replied, “we believe that the Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus?” I may as well have said, “Don’t you know that there are Martians in my back pocket.” She was unaware that the Catholic Church taught this. No idea. The Problem This, my brothers and sisters, is the crux of the problem. These girls were raised as Catholics, but did not know about the Eucharist. They did not know that the Eucharist is God. They did not understand the Holy Eucharist is the center of the Catholic tradition. So when they compare our ho-hum Catholic music and pedestrian sermons to snazzy well produced musical productions and highly polished bulleted sermons from handsome professional speakers…where are they going to go? If they had believed that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Lord Jesus Christ, then they would have stayed. This is the task of the New Evangelization if there is going to be one. Can we communicate the mystery of Eucharist. If we fail in that, everyone is leaving the building. Godspeed, Taylor PS: I don’t mean to suggest that having the Holy Eucharist is an excuse for bad music, bad vestments, bad architecture, and bad sermons. The Eucharist is like a precious diamond. It deserves a platinum setting…not a plastic setting. We can’t say, “Well, we have the Eucharist – so you’re forced to stay and have a miserable experience every Sunday.” We can’t keep the sacraments hostage to mediocracy. PPS: With 1 billion strong, the Catholic Church is the real megachurch! (For the original article, click here.) THE MASKED ANGEL: While I agree with Dr Marshall in his final conclusion (because what other church can you name that also doubles as an independent souvereign state?) I don't think he did a good enough job in showing how dangerous the megachurch concept is in light of how ignorant some fallen away Catholics are in their faith. You think some Catholics don't know their own faith? Consider these shocking truths about megachurch pastors: 1. Most or at least a good number of these pastors either never graduated from seminary or never went to seminary to begin with. How do you expect to learn a faith when the person (yes, in some cases, the megachurch pastor is a woman but more on that later) expected to teach you the faith knows little or nothing themselves? 2. A good chuck of them have turned out to be false prophets...in the predicting future sense. One claimed thousands of dead people came back from the grave by hearing the TV broadcast he was on.  3. Almost none of those "prosperity gospel" type pastors are willing to disclose how much money they make a year, nor are they willing to disclose their financial holdings.  4. In one particular case, a famous megachurch pastor could not answer a basic question concerning how to get to God through Jesus.  And the most damaging of all: 5. Every last one of these pastors makes Christianity about man rather than about God.  How are we supposed to convince atheists that there is more to man if Christianity is reduced to being about man?  Why are atheists given an inch in this regard when atheists are idiots?

RE:Bodily Assumption of Mary

                         +AMDG+

THE MASKED ANGEL:

    This refutation is going to operate a little differently than the previous ones and there are a few reasons for that:

-Unlike the other articles I talk about, CARM did get a few facts right. Don’t misunderstand: their overall conclusion is still wrong but this is a case of getting things wrong because of little errors instead of big errors.

-Unlike the other articles, CARM asks questions in the middle of the article in question, which I will gladly answer.

Anyway, here is the article in question: http://carm.org/bodily-assumption-mary 

The Bodily Assumption of Mary is the Roman Catholic teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was bodily assumed into heaven.

(True, but this is also believed by Eastern Orthodox and even some branches of Anglicans and Lutherans.)

Some Roman Catholics maintain that Mary physically died and was then assumed bodily into heaven, while others teach that she did not experience death at all.

(I don’t know who these other Catholics are, but when the teaching was declared a dogma, the statement flat out said she did die a physical death.) 

The consensus seems to be that Mary died, but that her body did not see corruption and was instead assumed into heaven. 

(I don’t see what CARM intends with this one. Are we supposed to be surprised God did this for somebody in the NT? It’s not like it hasn’t happened before: Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5, 2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58)

For such a supremely important dogma of the Church that must be believed to be a faithful Christian, one would think that it would be found in God's Inspired Word, the Bible.  But, it is not.  There isn't a single mention in God's word…So, if it isn't in the Bible, where did the Roman Catholic church get this teaching?

(Let’s get a few things straight: the Bible doesn’t have to flat out say something in order for it to be true. For example, we don’t see the Bible use the terms Holy Trinity or Incarnation but that doesn’t stop Christians from believing them, does it?”)

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O'Carroll explains that Epiphanius (4th Century), a Church Father, gives the earliest mention of anything concerning the end of Mary's Life when he says regarding Epiphanius' mention of Mary in A.D. 377,

"In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed - as a martyr. 'Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.'" 

In light of this evidence, it is obvious that the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary has no early attestation. 

(Where does CARM get off saying that? That’s not what Epiphanius said at all. Here’s what he really said:

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."

So…how about it CARM? Why is there no shrine dedicated to where she’s buried?”)

 In fact, the first reasonable mention, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is found in St. John Damascene who lived in the 700's. 

(Nope. Wrong. First mention is in Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, believed to be written between 575 and 593)

This is a blatantly obvious historical (not to mention biblical) vacuum concerning Mary's Assumption.  Obviously, such a dogma, such an all important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries.  But, it wasn't.  Why?  Because it wasn't taught and it is not a true doctrine of Christianity.

(So the basis for whether it is a true teaching is if it’s mentioned by any Church Father? By that logic, we shouldn’t believe in what books should be in the Bible so no Church Father mentions a list.)

Questions

•  If The Bodily Assumption of Mary is a dogma, why is it not found in any of the early church Father's writings until St. John of Damascene in the 8th Century?

(But it was found in at least seven Church Father works even earlier than John. One could even argue it was mentioned in Revelation 12:1)

•  If The Bodily Assumption of Mary is a dogma, why does the early church father Epiphanius say that regarding the end of her earthly life, that no one knows what happened to Mary?

(That’s not what he said at all.)

Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, and 1 Cor. 15:56 says that "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."  If Mary was sinless, why did she die?

(to conform in all things to her Son, an example for us all to follow. Why does CARM find this so hard to understand?)