The Papists

Why, at the beginning of course. I’m just kidding, I know what you mean.  The word “catholic” can be used in two ways.  The first is lowercase, and the second is uppercase.

1.  catholic means universal, comprehensive, or all-encompassing.  It comes from the Greek word, katholikos, which comes from the phrase kath’ holou, meaning “about” (kata) “the whole” (holos).

2.  Catholic refers to the Catholic Church and its members.  It comes from the idea that the Catholic Church is the universal Church.  When used in this case, it is capitalized.

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

- Niko

Not having read St. Louis de Montfort I can’t know for sure what he meant.  As Catholics however, we have a slightly different idea of predestination than the average Calvinist.  The Catholic believes that God “predestines” everyone to heaven and so gives every man and woman “sufficient” grace that they may choose to follow His will and thus earn eternal life.  (Note, this does not mean that He gives everyone an equal amount of grace, some may get more than others, but everyone gets enough to be able to choose to follow His will.)  This does not mean everyone goes to heaven though, for even with God’s gift of grace, some choose to reject God, and so they do not enter into paradise. 

So, the Catholic believes that despite man’s predestination to heaven, his life choices may condemn him to hell, which is very different from certain Calvinists who may believe that some are assuredly bound for heaven and others for hell, and their life choices are a reflection of where they are going. 

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

-Niko

Because, the Church believes in truth.  Because gay marriage is impossible, just like a square circle is impossible, the government’s claim that it is, is a lie.  It is the Church’s duty to oppose governments which lie to their people, and to preserve the truth.

Also, it’s not true that civil acceptance of gay marriage will not force it on the Church.  Already, the Church has been forced to close orphanages and other organizations because they refused to allow gay couples to adopt.  So, in some ways, it is forced on the Church.

Spiritual darkness, AKA spiritual dryness, is described by Victor Parachin at ministrymagazine.com  as

a subjective feeling that God is distant, aloof, even absent. During a time of spiritual dryness, prayers feel empty, hymns are sung without energy, sermons are lifeless, and Scripture appears to have no power over daily life. Often called the “dark night of the soul,” [It was St. John of the Cross who first called it that] it is a time when our sense of God’s absence is painfully felt.

There are several possible causes.

Sometimes sin can lead to periods of spiritual dryness.  When we are prideful, for example, we turn inwards, and in doing so, often cut ourselves off, at least partially, from God and the Church.  By cutting ourselves off from the source of goodness, we become weak, just like a plant that is cut off from water or the Sun.

The Catechism says,

2731 Another difficulty, especially for those who sincerely want to pray, is dryness. Dryness belongs to contemplative prayer when the heart is separated from God, with no taste for thoughts, memories, and feelings, even spiritual ones. This is the moment of sheer faith clinging faithfully to Jesus in his agony and in his tomb. “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if dies, it bears much fruit.”¹⁸ If dryness is due to the lack of roots, because the word has fallen on rocky soil, the battle requires conversion.

But, as a priest once told me, sometimes spiritual dryness can be given to us by God as a means of purification of the soul.  Think about this, if it becomes more difficult to pray, or we feel that we are not benefiting from it, and yet we do it anyway, why are we doing it?  Obedience to God, which is the essence of humility and love.  Therefore, by struggling with spiritual dryness can lead us to greater love for God. 

Does that make sense?  God bless!

-Niko

There have been countless allegations against her, and against many like her.  None of them have been proven.  

If any of these allegations are true, one could imagine they might lead to a spiritual dryness that would affect the soul.  

Many people make allegations against holy people because these people don’t understand the humility of holiness, and don’t understand why people would give so much without receiving in return.  It is no surprise that many of these critics, like Christopher Hitchens, are and were atheists who could not imagine the spiritual rewards service to the poor brings.  

By accusing holy people of being self-serving, these people bring others down to their level, instead of aspiring to become holy themselves.  

This is not to say all critics of Mother Teresa are necessarily bad people or that they are wrong, I’m sure many of them are in earnest searching for the truth of the matter, wherever it takes them, but we must always realize the motivations others may have when making such claims. 

Do not fear for Mother Teresa’s reputation, trust in God, and do your best to live a life of prayer and charity to the poor.  If we all do that, then we will all be the Mother Teresas the world needs.

That’s a very good question, I don’t think there is a catch-all term that refers to an icon with candles in front of it.  Often times you see these icons in side chapels, but they don’t have to be.

As for “shrines,” Wikipedia has a good section on its use in Catholic terminology.

In the Roman Catholic Code of Canon law, canons 1230 and 1231 read: “The term shrine means a church or other sacred place which, with the approval of the local Ordinary, is by reason of special devotion frequented by the faithful as pilgrims. For a shrine to be described as national, the approval of the Episcopal Conference is necessary. For it to be described as international, the approval of the Holy See is required.”^[11]

Another use of the term “shrine” in colloquial Catholic terminology is a niche or alcove in most – especially larger – churches used by parishioners when praying privately in the church. They were also called Devotional Altars, since they could look like small Side Altars or bye-altars. Shrines were always centered on some image of Christ or a saint – for instance, a statue, painting, mural or mosaic, and may have had a reredos behind them (without a Tabernacle built in).

However, Mass would not be celebrated at them; they were simply used to aid or give a visual focus for prayers. Side altars, where Mass could actually be celebrated, were used in a similar way to shrines by parishioners. Side altars were specifically dedicated to The Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph as well as other saints.

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

-Nikosnature

Do you mean simply for decoration or for the purpose it is intended for?  If it is simply for decoration, so long as no other purpose exists for wanting to put it there, it would seem to be fine.

It seems to me that so long as one does not accept heterodox beliefs or try to syncretize with native american spirituality, I see no harm in using a dreamcatcher so long that one does not believe it is a charm or something of the like, or if one does believe it has spiritual value, it recognizes any and all spiritual value it has, is through the grace of God, and not from something inside the dreamcatcher itself.  The dreamcatcher’s value is only found in how it can lead us to think about and speak to God.  If it does so positively, it is good, if it does so negatively it is bad.

But, while it does not seem harmful in and of itself, one should analyze the desire to use a dreamcatcher or a similar non-Christian item.  Does that desire stem perhaps from pride or misplaced trust in pagan trinkets?  I’m not saying it does, but it is something to watch out for.

As for which pagan “things” are acceptable, I would say that unless a pagan “thing” is sinful in itself, (ex. a statue of a pagan God,) if one can graft a Christian significance onto a pagan item or ritual and one wishes to do so in order to make evangelization to a particular group easier, it seems like a perfectly fine thing to do.  That is why christmas trees became a Christian tradition, because it eased pagans away from their paganism and towards Christianity while keeping some innocent cultural traditions. 

Does that answer your question? God bless!

-Niko

Well, doubt is normal.  In fact, it is kind of necessary for true faith, because faith is a virtue, and like all virtues, it must be practiced beyond its logical end.  So just as hope is true hope only when we hope in hopeless situations, and love is true love only when we love the unlovable, so faith is true faith when we believe in the unbelievable.  When we believe despite our doubts. 

If your problem is “conceptualizing the existence of God” perhaps daily reading of the bible will help you.  A good way learning more about people is reading books they wrote, especially if they are about them.  The bible essentially is a history of man’s relationship with God.  And you don’t have to read a lot every day, 15 minutes is plenty.  In fact, if you read too much at once, you may burn yourself out.  This link will take you to daily scripture passages for the eucharistic liturgy.  I recommend using those. 

http://www.nccbuscc.org/bible/readings/011713.cfm

Here’s a site which explains how to read scripture in a slow contemplative manner called “lectio divina”

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2000/08/How-To-Practice-Lectio-Divina.aspx

Does this answer your question?  God bless!

-Niko

Go ahead and look at some of the contradictions they list.  Here’s one:

(Referring to Christ during the Passion.)

“They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him,” - Matthew 27:28

“They put a purple robe on him,” - Mark 15:17

Despite the fact that here the bible very clearly and obviously contradicts itself, the Catholic Church claims the bible is without error.  Why?  Because we as Catholics recognize how we must read the bible keeping in mind the intention and the style of the sacred author.  That meant that certain details may be embellishments or literary devices to enhance the plot and lead us to a greater truth. 

The colour of Jesus’s cloak doesn’t and didn’t matter to the Ancient Jews.  The fact that Jesus metaphorically wore the red robe of martyrdom and the purple robe of Kingship does and did matter greatly. 

All apparent contradictions in the bible can be understood in this manner, so don’t feel threatened by them.  Does this help?

- Niko

Great question!

Well, Matthew 5:30 certainly seems to suggest that we will have a body in Hell, for Jesus says that it is better that we lose our right hand than our whole body being thrown to Gehenna.  But I also think about it this way, what’s the alternative?  A permanent separation of our body and soul?  But the human person is made up of body and soul, how can they be permanently separated?  If they can, I would imagine that such a separation would cause a spiritual pain much greater than any physical pain the fires of hell can cause.  It would be the human person literally wrenched in two.  I don’t think it’s possible for a permanent separation between body and soul to exist, but if it is possible, I certainly hope it does not happen. 

For more info on resurrected bodies check out:

http://blog.adw.org/2010/11/what-will-our-resurrected-bodies-be-like/

Does this answer your question?

- Niko