phat catholic apologetics

Why Do Catholics Believe in Sacred Tradition?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:12:00 +0000

Well, basically, Catholics commit themselves to the Sacred Tradition of the Church because it is out of this Tradition that Scripture came, because Scripture itself recommends and confirms this Tradition, and because nothing in Scripture says that this Tradition should cease to be authoritative in the lives of Christians once content from that Tradition was written down and canonized.

By "Sacred Tradition" I mean the various ways in which the teaching of the Apostles, the "deposit of faith," is passed on and preserved by the Church. This deposit was preserved and passed on through the writing of Sacred Scripture, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it also was (and continues to be) preserved in the ordinary teaching of the successors of the Apostles (the bishops), in the writings of the early Church Fathers, in the authoritative documents of the Church (encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, dogmatic constitutions, conciliar canons, etc.), and in the liturgical worship of the faithful. Since the teaching and preaching of the Apostles has a divine origin, as does the consigning of that preaching to writing, both the preaching and the writing comprise the "Word of God" and thus "must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (Dei Verbum, no. 9).

Paul is particularly adamant about respecting this Tradition. He presents Scripture and Tradition as standing alongside each other (cf. 2 Thes 2:15; 2 Tim 3:10,14-15). He affirms the Tradition that his audience has received (cf. Rom 10:8,17; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 1:13-14; Col 1:5-7; Titus 1:3), commands them to follow it (cf. Phil 4:9; 1 Thes 4:1-2; 2 Thes 3:6-7; 2 Tim 1:13), and praises them when they do (cf. 1 Cor 11:2; 15:1,3,11; 1 Thes 2:13). There is simply no indication from his writing that he wished for them to do away with Tradition. Instead, he seems to be affirming it around every corner. There is also no indication that this Tradition would somehow cease to exist or to be authoritative. Instead, Paul indicates that it will continue forever (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:2) [Peter does too, cf. 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:12,15].

Note that, whenever "tradition" is condemned in Scripture, for example, by Jesus (cf. Mt 15:3-9; Mk 7: 8-13) or by Paul (cf. Col 2:8), what is being condemned are the traditions of men, or traditions that are contrary to the Word of God. The authentic, Sacred Tradition of the Church, however, has its very source in Jesus Christ and is preserved by the Holy Spirit working in the Church. Surely you can see why I would not think that those verses apply, and really, in order to prove that they do, you would have to prove that some element of the Sacred Tradition of the Church was contrary to the written articulation of it in Scripture.

I hope that answers your question. There are many different ways to articulate what Sacred Tradition is, and what the relationship is between it, Scripture, and the Magisterium (or teaching office) of the Church. I highly, highly suggest reading the Catechism, nos. 74-95, and Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, from the Second Vatican Council) in full.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

What Is Transubstantiation?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:04:00 +0000

Transubstantiation is what takes place in the Mass when the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. It is basically a way of explaining how the change from "bread" to "Jesus" takes place. In transubstantiation, the accidents of the bread and wine remain the same while the substance of the bread and wine are changed.

Of course, in order to understand this, you have to know what "accidents" and "substance" are. Whatever the senses perceive of a thing are the accidents of that thing. They are not the thing itself but merely the perceptible qualities or characteristics of the thing. The substance, however, is the thing itself, or rather, the essence of the thing.

So, take for example the bread used in Mass. The accidents of it are: roundness, whiteness, crispiness, bread-like smell, bread-like taste. The substance of it is: "bread." Our senses perceive the accidents; only the mind knows the substance.

In every case in the universe but one, when the substance changes, the accidents of it change too since the accidents are attached to (or, exist in) the substance. For example, when a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, it also changes in outward appearance b/c, well, butterflies have different outward characteristics than caterpillars do.

Only in the transubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements does the accidents remain even though the substance changes. Maybe an illustration will be helpful. I saw a magic trick once where a man in a black costume stood in the middle of the stage. Some assistants pulled up a curtain around him. There was smoke and flashes of light. When they dropped the curtain to the floor there stood a woman in the same black costume. Transubstantiation is kinda like that. The "costume" of bread is suspended ("in mid air" so to speak) while the underlying substance (or thing that wears the costume) is changed.

I hope that helps you to make sense of this mystery. It is universally accepted that all created things have accidents and substance. The only quarrel is over whether or not God desires to suspend the laws of the universe in this one instance in order to be substantially present in the Eucharist.

There are two articles that I highly suggest if you would like to learn more about transubstantiation:

F.J. Sheed, Theology for Beginners, Chapter 18: "Transubstantiation"
Theology for the Laity: "Transubstantiation" by Fr. Paul A. Duffner, O.P.

Thank you for your question.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

A Catholic Assurance of Salvation

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:34:00 +0000

A member of the Holy Culture forum recently asked me the following questions:

Is it true that the Roman Catholic Church believes that a person isn't saved until after their life on earth is finished? The reason I ask that is because I think it means much in our conversation here. If a person cannot receive salvation until after death, then the grace-aided works you speak of are a condition of salvation. Am I wrong in assuming this?

In the Protestant faith, we believe that we are saved, while also in the process of being saved. We are saved from the bondage of sin now, our sins having been forgiven, and are being saved from the wrath that is yet to come (Romans 5:9)

I think I also remember reading that no one can say they have assurance of salvation in the tradition of the RCC. Is this correct as well?

Catholics believe that, by God's grace, we can enter into friendship with the Lord and receive the forgiveness of our sin. We have absolute certitude that, if we were to die in this state of righteousness, then heaven would be ours. But, we also believe that, because of free will and the concupiscence that comes with our fallen nature, this same person can choose to sin against God so grievously that he destroys the divine life within him. Because of this radical possibility, there can really be no absolute certitude of final perseverence, or of remaining in that state of friendship with God for one's entire life.

Note that this doesn't mean that Catholics live in fear. Such mortal sins are generally rare, and they are usually the end result of a long and steady decline deeper and deeper into sin, as man continues to indulge certain unhealthy desires. People don't just wake up one day and commit mortal sins. Instead, they slip and stumble with everyday vices as they strive each day to grow closer to the Lord, to be obedient to Him and to discern His will. When the Catholic falls, he simply returns with a contrite heart to the Lord, who forgives him and restores him to his former state of righteousness. When, by God's grace, he succeeds in doing God's will, the divine life within him increases and his attachment to sin decreases, to the point where certain sins no longer have the same luring appeal that they once did.

As you said, this is a process, and as long as the Catholic continues this process of striving for the Lord and always seeking God's grace, then he can have a "moral certitude" that he will persevere. In other words, he has good reason to believe that he will stand before the Lord one day with his grace and faith in tact. This certitude increases as he gains mastery over himself and his fleshly desires and he gains freedom from his attachment to the various sins that used to tempt him and cause him to fall. His hope is that, by God's grace, he will not only be cleansed of all sin, but even all attachment to sin, and he will grow closer and closer to God to the point of achieving eternal bliss with Him in heaven.

Note, the prevailing Catholic virtue is not fear, or guilt. It is hope: hope in the Cross, hope in the resurrection, hope in God's grace to bring us into eternal beatitude with His Son.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

When We Go to Heaven, Will We See God Face to Face?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Indeed we will. Theologians call this the "Beatific Vision." Scripture says that the angels already behold the face of God:

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 18:10)

Paul says that we will see the Lord face to face on the day when everything imperfect will pass away:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. (1 Cor 13:12)

John echoes this same sentiment:

Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 Jn 3:2)

A few more pertinent passages:

"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God" (Mt 5:8).
"As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with beholding thy form" (Psa 17:15).

I think the beatific vision should be the passionate desire of every Christian, just as it was of Job:

"For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see on my side, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My heart faints within me!" (Job 19:25-27)

I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Is All Sin Equal in God's Eyes?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:41:00 +0000

Most Protestants reject the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin, asserting instead that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. To me, that amounts to saying that the sin of a child who doesn't take the garbage out like he is told is the same as the sin of someone who rapes or murders a person. Scripture confirms what I think we all intuitively know about the the difference in the gravity of sins. John's first letter provides the best example:

1 Jn 5:16-17 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

St. Paul tells us that there are some sins that can exclude a person from the kingdom of heaven (cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10; Eph 5:5; Rev 22:15), whereas other sins cause us to suffer loss but do not jeopardize our salvation (cf. 1 Cor 3:11-15). This is similar to Jesus' parable of the disobedient servant, in which the one who knew his master's will but did not make ready or act according to his will received a severe beating, whereas he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, received a light beating (cf. Lk 12:46-48). If all sin was equal in God's eyes, then wouldn't the punishment be the same?

Jesus even said in response to Pilate, "he who delivered me to you has the greater sin" (Jn 19:11), which can only mean that Pilate's act of condemning Jesus to death was a lesser sin than Judas' act of betraying the Christ. That one sin would be greater to him than another one means that they are not all equal in his eyes.

I think plain common sense provides the best argument against this notion that all sin is the same to God, but, as I hope you now see, Scripture provides some valid arguments as well.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Catholic and Protestant Teaching on Matrimony

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:31:00 +0000

What does the Catholic Church teach regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage? How does the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage differ from some protestant denominations teaching on this subject?

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is for a lifetime. "What God has joined together let no man tear asunder." Now, in extreme cases (such as, when one of the spouses becomes abusive) the couple could go to court and file for a "divorce," but that would just change the status of the relationship in the eyes of the state. In the eyes of the Church, the couple is still married, which means that neither one of them would be allowed to remarry. They could separate and live under different roofs, but technically they would still be married.

I know this seems harsh, but the Church believes that matrimony is a sacrament, one where two people stand before God and make a solemn oath to give of themselves to each other totally and faithfully, forever. God responds by blessing the union and granting the couple a sacramental grace that they can draw from when times are difficult. These two people brought God into their arrangement. The Church takes that very seriously. As with any oath, if you are going to invoke the name of the Lord, you better make sure you mean it.

As for annulments, some people think they are basically the equivalent of "Catholic divorce," but they are not. An annulment basically acknowledges that certain circumstances were in place that invalidated the sacrament that was celebrated. In other words, it has been determined that a valid sacrament was never celebrated, in which case the man and woman are free to marry someone else.

St. Paul says that the union of man and woman is a great mystery that pertains to Christ and His Church. What he means is that the union of man and woman in a way points to the union between Christ and His Church, the Bridegroom and His Bride. Just as Christ is utterly faithful to his bride, even "jealous" over her, so must the husband be faithful to his wife. Just as God demanded complete faithfulness from Israel, and described her idolatry as a type of adultery, in which she "played the harlot" instead of being singularly His, so to is the wife called to be singularly devoted to her husband. The married couple has the opportunity to work with the Creator of all things in bringing new life into the world, and they are called, in their marital embrace, to be an image of the Trinity.

Yes, that's right, an image of the Trinity. Within the Trinity is a community of persons, one in which the Father completely loves the Son, the Son completely loves the Father, and their love is itself a third Person, the Holy Spirit. Similarly, in the marital sex act, the husband gives of himself completely to his wife, the wife gives of herself completely to her husband, and their love creates a third person, the child that they bring into the world.

That's what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage. My impression of Protestantism on the other hand is one in which marriage is viewed as a simple contract or promise between two people. It is certainly not a sacrament (a source of grace) or an oath made before God. Rarely do I see Protestant theology draw it's understanding of marriage from the relationship between Christ and the Church, or from the community of persons that exists within the Trinity, or from the nature of Adam and Eve's relationship before the fall. This I think explains why so many Protestant churches condone divorce and remarriage. They simply do not have the same exalted view of marriage that the Catholic Church has. Of course, I am really in no place to speak for Protestantism regarding matrimony. I also realize that many denominations do in fact hold matrimony in high regard.

Would you be willing to read what the Catechism has to say about the Sacrament of Matrimony? It really is an eloquent and beautiful meditation upon this topic. See nos. 1601-1666.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

On Biblical Saints and Canonized Saints

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:21:00 +0000

How does one become a saint within the Catholic Church? How do you biblically separate saints from regular Christians, particularly since to many Protestants it would seem that sainthood is bestowed by the pope who is a man. Finally, is sainthood only bestowed posthumously?

I think it would be helpful to begin by defining what the word means. Our English word "saint" comes from the Latin sanctus, which means "holy, sacred, consecrated." It is used in the Bible to translate the Greek word hagios, which means "most holy thing, a saint" (although Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology says that it is derived from the Greek word hagiazo, which means "to set apart, sanctify, or make holy"). Generally, it is used in the Bible to refer to Christians, to the people of the New Covenant.

Catholics have no theological obstacle to using the term in that way. After all, we speak often of the "communion of saints," which includes not only those souls in heaven but also those members of the pilgrim Church on earth. The reason that the Church officially declares that an individual is a saint is because Catholics believe in showing honor and respect (or "devotion") to the saints by emulating their lives and asking for their prayers. Once the Church says that a particular person has lived a life of eminent holiness and heroic virtue, then we know that it is safe to honor him or her in that way. The purpose of the declaration is ultimately to safeguard the piety of the faithful, to give them role models in sanctity, and to give them hope that any person, no matter the circumstance, can live a life of grace and fellowship with God.

Note that sainthood is bestowed by God, not the pope. It is because of the grace of God that the particular person we call a saint was able to live an eminently holy life and to be with God in heaven. Each of these persons was a saint, a "holy one," "set apart," long before they were declared such by the Church. In canonizing a person, the Church simply declares as fact something that has already taken place.

To answer your last question, many many people (i.e., John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Francis of Assisi, Padre Pio, John Bosco, etc.) were all generally referred to as "saints" during their lifetime. But, the official declaration by the Church always comes after the person has deceased.

For more information on how a person is canonized, see "The Canonization Process". For more information on Catholic theology regarding the "communion of saints," see the CCC, nos. 946-962.

I think that answers all of your questions.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way if Mary is the Coredemptrix?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:00 +0000

The word "coredemptrix" means "woman with the redeemer." She stood beside her Son as He gave up his life for mankind. She did not fight for his life to be spared or resist in any way what had to be done. Instead, as one who committed no sin and who knew since the day of the presentation of Jesus in the temple that a sword would pierce her heart because of what He must do (Lk 2:34-35), Mary aligned her will perfectly with the will of her Son. She was able to make an unparalleled gift of her own suffering and pain for the sake of mankind.

Catholics believe that when you "offer it up," when you patiently endure suffering for the sake of the Gospel, or for the sake of what is right, or in order to gain mastery over your flesh and its desires, then merit comes from that which God then turns around and pours out upon the Body, for it's own strengthening and edification. This is not to say that the merit from Christ's work on the Cross was not enough. This is not to say that Jesus needed anyone's help in order to save mankind. This simply means that God chooses to involve human beings in his work, and that Mary, being a sinless human being and the one who gave the Son the very flesh that he nailed to the Cross for our salvation, was able to stand alongside the Redeemer and cooperate with his saving plan in a way that no other human being was able to do.

For that reason, a particular title is reserved for her, and that title is Coredemptrix. None of what I have said here should be misconstrued as meaning that Jesus is not the only Savior, or that Jesus needed Mary's help, or that the merits of the Cross aren't enough, or anything of that sort. Salvation comes from Christ and Him alone. Mary would be just a typical girl without Him.

For more information on Mary as the Coredemptrix, I suggest the following articles:

Mary Coredemptrix: A Response to Seven Common Objections
Unscriptural Marian Doctrine?
Mary's Cooperation in Redemption: Parts One and Two
Mary's Role in Our Salvation
A Biblical and Theological Primer on Mary as Mediatrix (and Coredemptrix)

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

How to Go to Heaven

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:25:00 +0000

I recently answered the following two questions in my Q&A thread at the Holy Culture forum:

If somebody walked up to you on the street and asked you for everything they need to do to go to heaven, what do you tell them?

I'd tell him that he needed a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.

[After my response, he posted a follow-up question]

How would you explain a saving relationship?

A saving relationship is one in which the sanctifying grace of God within us has not been destroyed. A person receives salvation both in this life, by living a life of grace, and faith, and obedience to God's Will, and in the future, by persevering to the end (cf. Rom 11:22; Gal 5:1; Phil 2:12; Col 1:22-23; Heb 3:14) and standing before God on Judgment Day with grace and faith intact.

[After that exchange, a different poster objected to my response. Here is his objection and my response to him]

Wait...no sacraments involved in order to get to heaven? Cmon bro lets not be so ambiguous.

I wasn't being ambiguous. With this answer, I was trying to get down to the heart of the matter. We can debate about how one receives a saving relationship and what constitutes a saving relationship -- and the sacraments would enter into that debate -- but at the end of the day it's still all about having a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. That relationship is very much a part of my faith, and I feel like I was true to my faith in answering that question the way I did.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Some remarks after looking back at this exchange]

I felt pretty good about my response to that question until I found a response by Jimmy Akin to the same question:

Q: What would you tell someone who asks, 'How can I be saved'?

A: "Repent, believe, and be baptized."

That's all you need for the basic question. You can go into more detail on what each of the terms means (just as you can with the different Protestant models of what one needs to do to be saved), but the concept itself is simplicity itself. Even the most rustic can learn it.

And unlike the different Protestant models, it takes into account all the elements Jesus, Peter, and Paul lay out on the three occasions when someone asks this question (Matthew 19:16-19, Acts 2:37-39, 16:30-31). Repentance covers Jesus' stress on not breaking the commandments and is explicitly named in Peter's response, which also names baptism, which together with repentance is assumed in Paul's stress on faith, for he assumes anyone who genuinely puts his faith in God will repent (Romans 2:4-10) and be baptized (Acts 16:33-34).

I think Akin's response is a lot better than mine, which I guess is to be expected considering that he is an apologetics master and I'm just a Jimmy-Akin-wanna-be. It's not that my answer is wrong, it's just that his seems to have more clarity and simplicity. His also seems more Scriptural, since he actually synthesizes the answers to these questions when they are asked in Scripture.

If someone asked you how to go to heaven, what would you say? Leave a comment and let me know.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Hail Mary and Holy Mediums

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:11:00 +0000

Before I explain the interesting title for this post, I need to give some background info.

Any veterans of my blog will recall that back in '06 and '07, a large amount of my blog content came from Q&A's and debates that I engaged in at a Protestant forum called "Holy Culture Radio." It was always my favorite of all the Protestant forums I have ever joined. Reasoned argumentation is valued there and ad hominem bashing is always frowned upon. These people have actually thought a lot about what they believe and they love a good theological discussion. While they definitely don't always agree with me, the members of the forum have always treated me with respect (for the most part), and have always appreciated the fact that I am knowledgeable in my faith and well-versed in Scripture.

Some time last year the "powers that be" decided to shut down the "General Theology" board of the forum and I instantly lost all of the work that I had done there. Thankfully, most of it had been preserved in my blog, but there was still a lot of good stuff that I never had the opportunity to incorporate into a blog post. I was pretty bummed out about that, not only b/c of the material I lost but also because I felt like I lost a lot of my Protestant friends over there (since we had basically lost the very thing that brought us together).

Well, about 2-3 weeks ago I found out that Holy Culture Radio has new "powers that be" and those powers brought back the "General Theology" board! Yayyy!! I was pretty psyched when I heard the news, and ever since then I have been immersing myself in apologetical, theological, and ecumenical discussions again. This finally brings us to the purpose for this blog post.

So, I started a thread called "Ask the Crazy Catholic a Question," where people can, well, ask me questions, and I'll answer them. The first post came from someone who actually had two questions: one about Mary and one about the Sacrament of Confession. His questions with my answers are below. Also, even though this forum is public domain and anyone can read it at any time, I have decided not to provide the name of the poster, just in case people still have a problem with me posting this content on my blog.

First question:

What are your views on Mary?

My views on Mary are exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about her:

Mother of God: Mary is the mother of Jesus; Jesus is God; therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without sin and never committed a sin
Perpetual Virgin: Mary remained a virgin her whole life and did not have other children
Assumption: at the end of her earthly life, Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven
Coredemptrix: Mary had a unique role to play in the salvation of mankind (a role that was, nonetheless, quite secondary to the role of Christ)

(For the Church in her own words, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church ("CCC"), nos. 484-507; 721-726; 963-972.)

Now, I realize that all of this sounds absolutely insane at first glance, but I assure you there is a very Scriptural and reasoned defense for it all.

Second question:

Do u believe that you can approach the throne of Grace, and confess your sins to God yourself, or do u need a medium?

I want to address the notion of mediation first, before I answer this question.

People often have a knee-jerk reaction against mediation. But, if you think about it, God's presence and His power is always mediated to us somehow. We never actually encounter God directly. Instead, it is always through something, whether that something be prayer, or Scripture, or the sacraments, or your pastor, or your church service, or the love of a friend, or whatever. The only time we will experience God in all of his unmediated glory is when we see him face to face in heaven. I don't think this diminishes the access that we have to the "throne of Grace." It is still a grace that has been made available to us in an unprecedented way.

That said, I believe that God makes his grace abundantly available to all who approach His throne for it, and He does this through various instruments or mediums (many of which I have already listed). Prayer is the medium through which God desires to forgive our venial sins. The Sacrament of Reconciliation (or "Confession", or "Penance") is the medium through which God desires to forgive all the sins we commit, both venial and mortal.

For the Church in her own words, see CCC, nos. 1422-1484.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Questions and Answers about Catholicism

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:03:00 +0000

Here is another Q&A Potpourri for you. Again, all of these questions came from submissions to the "Catholicism" category at WikiAnswers. I in turn provided the following answers:

How long does it take for a person to become Catholic?
It depends on the individual. The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) process can take anywhere from 8 months (the typical length) to 2 years (the recommended length), but some people go through years of personal study into the Catholic faith before they finally make the decision to enter the process.

What is a catechumen?
A catechumen is a non-Christian who is receiving religious instruction in preparation for the sacraments of initiation and membership in the Catholic Church. A non-Catholic Christian receiving the same instruction is called a "candidate"

How many times is the word “water” present in the Bible?
It depends on the translation you are using. The word "water" is found 407 times in the Revised Standard Version, 363 times in the King James Version, and 345 times in the Douay-Rheims version.

What happened to Jesus’ body after He died?
First it was laid in a tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea. For three days it remained there, lifeless, while Jesus' soul preached to the righteous in Hades. On the third day, His soul reunited with his body, causing it to come alive again, and for forty days He appeared to his disciples and apostles. At the end of forty days, He ascended, body and soul, into heaven.

What is the name of the Catholic Church’s response to the Protestant Reformation?
The response in question is commonly referred to as the "Catholic Reformation" or the "Counter Reformation." Historian William V. Hudon has also suggested the term "Tridentine Reformation." Christopher M. Belllitto, in his book Renewing Christianity: A History of Church Reform from Day One to Vatican II, chooses the term "Catholic reformations" (note the lower-case "r" and the plural) so as to refer not to one specific response but to all of the attempts to reform the Church that took place just before, during, and after Martin Luther came on the scene.

How often must a priest say Mass?
According to the Code of Canon Law, priests are "earnestly invited to offer the eucharistic Sacrifice daily" (Can. 276 § 2).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Q&A Potpourri

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:27:00 +0000

Every now and then I like to answer a few quick questions about Catholicism over at WikiAnswers. I welcome any opportunity to share the Truth of the Church with others. Plus, it provides good content for my blog! Here is the most recent batch:

What is baptismal grace?
Baptismal grace is the grace that a person receives when he or she is baptized. This grace has the effect of cleansing a person of all sin.

Can you baptize your child a second time as a Catholic so as to change the godparents?
No. According to the Catholic Church, a person can only be baptized once.

Who is the patron saint of wound healing?
The patron saints against wounds are Sts. Aldegundis, Marciana, and Rita of Cascia.

What are the evangelical counsels?
The three evangelical counsels are poverty, chastity, and obedience.

Who is the most famous priest in the world?
There is really no objective answer to this question, although I would imagine that the most famous priest in the world is whoever happens to be the pope.

From what act do all the effects of the sacraments flow?
All effects of the sacraments flow from the saving work of Christ on the Cross.

Who was freed instead of Jesus?
According to the Gospels, Barab'bas was released instead of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:15-26; Mk 15:6-15; Lk 23:18-25; Jn 18:38-40).

Who was the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in 1958?
If by "leader" you mean "the pope," then the leader of the Catholic Church in 1958 was either Pope Pius XII, who's reign ended in that year, or Pope John XXIII, who succeeded Pope Pius XII in that same year.

What is the adoration chapel?
It is a place reserved for the adoration of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. In such a chapel, the Eucharist is placed in a Monstrance so that it can be seen and worshipped.

Who is Gregorian chant named after?
"Gregorian chant" takes its name from Pope St. Gregory the Great, who reigned as Pope of the Catholic Church from 590 to 604 A.D.

For the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:11:00 +0000

In honor of today's Solemnity, I have decided to repost the portion from the "Sacraments" Topical Index Page on the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Jesus, Living Bread which came down from heaven .... have mercy on us.

Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

Faith and the Eucharist
The Makeup of the Eucharist in Other Catholic Rites
Symbolism in Jn 6
What's This "Holy Communion" that You Speak Of?
"Unless You Become Like Children...."
"Bread" and "Wine" or Something More?
Profaning Communion for the Sake of "Communion": Parts One -- Two
The Experience of the Lord's Supper in Protestant Churches
Real Presence vs. "Do This in Memory of Me"
On Proper Behavior in an Adoration Chapel
What Are the Effects of the Eucharist?
On Transubstantiation and the Real Presence: Parts One -- Two
Eight Key Points, Part 2: Interactive Liturgy
Debate with "Briguy" on the Real Presence: Parts One -- Two -- Three
The "Once for All" Sacrifice of Christ
The Mass and the Forgiveness of Sins
Bowing During the Creed

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

What do we mean when we say in the Creed that Jesus "descended into hell"?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:31:00 +0000

While we use the word “hell” today to refer to the place of the damned, where there is fire, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, the Apostles’ Creed is actually referring to a difference place.

The Greek word that we translate as “hell” in the Creed is hades, which in Biblical times was the name for the abode of the dead, the place deep in the earth where all souls went when they died (sheol is the Hebrew word that refers to the same place). We see from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31) that, even though all souls went to Hades, their lot was not the same. “Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz'arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.” For the righteous, Hades was a place of comfort, but for the unrighteous Hades was a place of torment (cf. vs. 22-24).

Note that, while there was some comfort there for the righteous, it still wasn’t heaven, it wasn’t seeing God face to face, with all the knowledge and joy that comes from that vision. After all, the gates of heaven were closed to mankind once Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 3:22-24). So, Hades was also a place of anxious waiting and longing for the day when the righteous souls could be freed from Hades and enter heaven. All of the patriarchs, and prophets, and holy men and women of the Old Testament were essentially stuck in Hades until someone could come and free them. That someone was Jesus.

When Jesus died and His body was buried, His spirit spent three days in Hades, where “the gospel was preached even to the dead” (cf. 1 Pet 4:6), to “the spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3:19), so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Phil 2:10). When Jesus descended into Hades, He was not abandoned there (cf. Act 2:27-31). There was no need to worry about who would raise Him from the abyss (cf. Rom 10:6-8). Jesus conquered Hades, and when He rose from the dead, He led with Him a host of captives (cf. Eph 4:8). He holds the keys to death and Hades (cf. Rev 1:17-18), and He has given us the courage to say, "O death, where is thy victory? O Hades, where is thy sting?" (1 Cor 15:55).

That is what we mean when we say that Jesus descended into hell.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

In Honor of Trinity Sunday

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:15:00 +0000

Since today is Trinity Sunday, I thought I would repost my Topical Index page on our Triune God. I pray this will prove a worthy offering. Have a blessed Sunday!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

- - - - -

Our Triune God

How Many Times Does God Forgive?
Can God Be Hateful?
The Truth about Religion: Parts One -- Two
God and Science: Parts One -- Two
Creation and Evil
Worshipping the Holy Spirit
On Various Kinds of Tongues
On the Inner Life of the Trinity
God's Will and Our Rejection of Him
What Is Trinitarian Procession?
Sinning Against the Holy Spirit: Parts One -- Two

Jesus Christ

The Body and Soul of Christ: Parts One -- Two
Jesus in Hell: Parts One -- Two -- Three -- 4a -- 4b
"My Hour Has Not Yet Come": Did Jesus Rebuke Mary?
The True Nature of Jesus and His Church
Is Jesus the Symbol of God?
"Haight"-ing God's Son: Parts One -- Two -- Three -- Four
Christological Heresy and the Council of Chalcedon
Jesus' Descent Into Hell: Debate (Parts One and Two) and Q&A
Jesus: The Anointed Priest, Prophet, and King
The Way of the Cross
The "Once for All" Sacrifice of Christ
Did Jesus Have Brothers?
Did Christ Die for the Unforgiveable Sin?
Is There Something Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ? A Look at Col 1:24-25: Parts One -- Two -- Three -- Four -- Five
Jesus Christ and the Salvation of Non-Christians
The Highs and the Lows of Christology
Did the Catholic Church Kill Jesus?
The Brothers of Jesus Don't Scare Me: Parts One -- Two

How Does the Church Believe a Person Receives Salvation?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:16:00 +0000

One would think that such a simple question would have an equally simple answer. But, it doesn’t. That’s because the object in question – salvation – is itself a mysterious reality. Before we can answer this question, we must attempt to define what we mean by the word salvation. We must grasp hold of both its present and future significance.

The “Glossary” in the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines salvation as “The forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone.” This definition draws out the present significance of salvation, as something that can take place here and now. After all, any time we receive the sanctifying grace of the sacraments (which happens daily all over the world), we receive “the forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God.”

However, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, in his Catholic Dictionary, defines salvation as “The result of being released from death through the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, which brings us to the newness of life in heaven.” Did you catch that last part? According to this definition, salvation is something that has future significance. It is something that takes place later, when you die and consequently gain victory over death and receive eternal life in heaven.

So, which one is it? Does salvation take place now or later? I think it’s both. By God’s grace, we are every day being saved until we come to that day when God declares us fit to live with Him forever in heaven. That is why, in the Bible, salvation is referred to in the past tense (as something that has already taken place), in the present tense (as something that is taking place), and in the future tense (as something that will take place). Here are a few examples of each:

Past Tense: “in this hope we were saved” (Rom 8:24); “by grace you have been saved” (Eph 2:8).
Present Tense: “to us who are being saved” (1 Cor 1:18); “those who are being saved” (2 Cor 2:15).
Future Tense: “we shall be saved” (Acts 15:11); “he himself will be saved” (1 Cor 3:15).

Now that we know what salvation is, we can answer the question at hand. The Church believes that a person receives salvation both in this life, by living a life of faith and reception of the sacraments, and in the future, by persevering to the end (cf. Rom 11:22; Gal 5:1; Phil 2:12; Col 1:22-23; Heb 3:14) and standing before God with grace and faith intact. May we all “run with perseverance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

The Significance of Pentecost

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:39:00 +0000

Most people only know Pentecost as a Christian holiday, one that commemorates the day when the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles and disciples of Christ as they gathered in the Upper Room after the Ascension. While the apostles and disciples remained in Jerusalem out of obedience to Christ (cf. Acts 1:4-5), Scripture tells us that Jews from many different nations were also present in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 2:5, 9-11). They were present for a different reason: The Jewish Feast of Pentecost.

Pentecost is originally a Jewish holiday. Along with Passover and Tabernacles, it is one of the three Great Feasts of the Jewish calendar. The word “Pentecost” comes from the Greek word which means “fiftieth.” The feast takes this name because it occurs fifty days after the second day of the Passover.

To the Jewish people, Pentecost has historical and agricultural significance. Historically, Pentecost commemorates the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Since God accommodated his Law to an agricultural people, it enjoins upon the Jews various grain offerings. So, agriculturally, Pentecost also commemorates the time when the first fruits of the wheat harvest were harvested and brought to the temple in the form of two cakes of leavened bread (cf. Lev 23:17).

As Christians, we may ask ourselves what significance there is to the fact that Jesus decided to pour out His Holy Spirit upon the Church on this Jewish Feast. I think there are many instances in which the Christian celebration of Pentecost proves to be a sort of fulfillment of the Jewish Feast.

The Jewish Feast celebrates the beginning of the wheat harvest by offering the first of the harvested wheat to the Lord. In the Christian Feast, we celebrate the beginning of the Christian Church, when Jesus harvested 3000 souls who were cut to the heart by Peter’s teaching and were baptized. Jesus Christ Himself is the first fruit (“of those who have fallen asleep,” cf. 1 Cor 15:20), and we too are a kind of first fruits by the grace He has given us (cf. Jas 1:18). Finally, the Spirit that the Church received on that day guides us into all truth and knowledge of God’s Will in a way that far surpasses what was given in the Torah.

So, in many ways, the Jewish feast of Pentecost was the perfect day to set in motion the Church that God had in mind from the very beginning.

For more information about the Jewish Feast of Pentecost, see the following resources:

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Does the Bible Say Anyting about Having Priests in the Church?

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sat, 23 May 2009 14:29:00 +0000

Yes it does. God told his people through the mouth of Jeremiah, “I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jer 3:15). It was through His holy priesthood that God guided his people and provided for their worship and holiness both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, there was the high priest (Aaron, cf. Exo 28:3), the ministerial priests (Aaron’s sons, cf. Exo 28:40-41), and the universal priests (Israel, cf. Exo 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: High Priest (Jesus Christ, cf. Heb 2:17; 3:1), ministerial priests (the ordained bishops and priests, cf. Rom 15:16; 1 Tim 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7), and the universal priests (all the faithful, cf. 1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6). The whole of salvation history evidences this hierarchy within the People of God.

Note that there is a high priest and a ministerial priesthood, but there is also a universal priesthood. In other words, Catholics affirm a universal, or a “spiritual” priesthood just like Protestants do. The Church teaches that we are all incorporated into the priestly office of Christ upon our baptism. We are all priests, called “to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 2:5).

But, the Church also believes that, from among these people, Jesus Christ calls certain individuals to make His authority, His priesthood, His very Person present in the Church in a more profound way. These individuals make up the ministerial priesthood, those special men who God has called to make the sacraments available to us and to “feed” and “tend” the flock of the Lord (Jn 21:15-17).

In Scripture, we are commanded to obey these “elders” (Gk. presbuteros, or "priests") of the church (cf. 1 Thes 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; 13:7,17; 1 Pet 5:5), and those who reject their authority are looked down upon and judged harshly (cf. 2 Pet 2:10-12; 1 Jn 4:6; 3 Jn 1:9-11; Jude 1:8-11). After all, God says of his priest, “men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Mal 2:7).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen on "What's My Line?"

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:46:00 +0000

This video is such a joy to watch! Fulton Sheen is in his element here, showing his great sense of humor and ability to laugh.

I am particularly blown away by the profound respect that everyone has for him. The crowd gives him a hearty applause when he is revealed as the mystery guest. The host of the show calls him, "Your Excellency" and tells the great bishop how thankful he is that Sheen is on ABC. He breaks the rules and gives Sheen's cause the maximum amount of money, promising to "add some more to it" as well. The panel is eager to shake his hand and the last lady even kisses his hand.

Such a scene is certainly far removed from our current cultural situation, which makes this video a welcome reprieve.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Scripture on the Anointing of the Sick

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:24:00 +0000

Does the Bible say anything about the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick?

Yes it does. The most explicit reference comes from the Letter of St. James:

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.” (Jas 5:14-15)

There is also the work of the apostles, when Jesus sent them out “two by two”:

“And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. … So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.” (Mk 6:7, 12-13)

In both cases, the apostles and elders of the Church heal by anointing the sick with oil, which is what takes place in our sacrament. Paul healed a man of fever and dysentery by laying his hands on the sick man (cf. Acts 28:8), which is an important part of the sacrament as well. The fact is, “many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles” (Acts 5:12), and one of these was the power to heal the sick (cf. Acts 5:15-16; 8:7; 19:11-12).

Note however that the benefit is not always physical. Since God does not always desire that we be cured of our infirmities, He also gave the apostles the power to strengthen the sick spiritually. So, we often see that, along with physical healings was also the casting out of demons (cf. Mk 6:13; Acts 5:16; 8:7) and the forgiveness of sins (Jas 5:14-15). Similarly, in the sacrament, the sick person may not be physically healed by the action of the priest, but he is always given the grace to persevere with courage, to unite his pain with that of our crucified Lord, and to resist the devil, who tempts us in our deepest suffering to renounce our faith in God.

The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is an amazing gift to anyone, young or old, who begins to be in danger of death.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Poll-Release Monday #66

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:04:00 +0000

After a long, exorbitant hiatus, here is your new poll-question:

True or False? The Eucharist is also called Holy Mass because it concludes with the sending forth of the faithful to fulfill God's will in their lives.

What do you think? Vote in the poll in the sidebar.

As for the previous poll, here are the results:

True or False?: In the Eucharist we raise ourselves above concern with the material order of creation in order to maintain a spiritual union with the Father.
- True: 25 (57%)
- False: 19 (43%)

The correct answer is:

False, cf. CCC no. 1359: The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.

The paragraph from the Catechism that is cited here doesn't really seem to answer the question, in my opinion. I too would have said, "False" ... but for a different reason.

Instead of "rising above concern for the material order," the Eucharist is actually what strengthens us and spurs us on to go out and feed the poor, clothe the naked ... in other words, to do those charitable works that provide for the material needs of others. The Eucharist is a call to address the "material order," to bring about justice within it, not to "rise above it" or neglect it.

Does that make sense? Let me know.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Life: Imagine the Potential

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Sat, 09 May 2009 19:35:00 +0000

Fr. Corapi on the Notre Dame Scandal

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:47:00 +0000

The Brothers of Jesus: Part 2

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:31:00 +0000

Someone left an anonymous comment on my post about the brothers of Jesus, saying that my "reasoning seems rather closed minded and prejudiced." I would like to respond to his reasons for saying such a thing.

Your reasoning seems rather closed minded and prejudiced. If you read additional scripture you will see that it says that Joseph did not know Mary until after Jesus was born. This infers that he did know her in the biblical way after Jesus was born. So Mary would not be a virgin her whole life as the Catholic church teaches.

Not so fast. In Scripture, the Greek word heos (as well as heos hou), which we translate as "until," does not always infer that the status of something up to a certain point will change after that point. In other words, when Scripture says (cf. Mt 1:24-25) that Joseph did not know Mary until she had born a son, this does not necessarily mean that he "knew her" after Jesus was born. This is made evident by other uses of the word "until" in Scripture in which it is more obvious that the situation in question is not going to change after a certain point [the OT passages are from the Greek Septuagint]:

Gen 8:7 and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.

Gen 26:13 and the man became rich, and gained more and more until he became very wealthy.

Deut 2:15 For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from the camp, until they had perished.

Deut 34:6 and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-pe'or; but no man knows the place of his burial to (or "until", heos) this day.

2 Sam 6:23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (or "until", heos) the day of her death.

1 Chron 6:32 They ministered with song before the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, until Solomon had built the house of the LORD in Jerusalem; and they performed their service in due order.

2 Chron 26:15 In Jerusalem he made engines, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows and great stones. And his fame spread far, for he was marvelously helped, till he was strong.

Psa 57:1 To the choirmaster: according to Do Not Destroy. A Miktam of David, when he fled from Saul, in the cave. Be merdiful to me, O God, be merciful to me, for in thee my soul takes refuge; in the shadow of thy wings I will take refuge, till the storms of destruction pass by.

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool."

Psa 123:2 Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he have mercy upon us.

Mt 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to (or "until", heos) the close of the age."

Mk 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.

1 Cor 1:8 who will sustain you to (or "until", heos) the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Cor 3:15 Yes, to (or "until", heos) this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;

As you can see, there are plenty of examples in Scripture of the word "until" not necessarily inferring a change in status of the clause that precedes it. Thus, there is no requirement based on the word "until" to believe that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born.

According to the society and culture in those times, they would have had many more children.

Well, this family is obviously not your typical family.

The Bible does not mention a lot of things directly, so not saying that Mary and Joseph looked for Jesus with his brothers means nothing. They most likely would have looked there first as most of us would have done.

First of all, my conclusion does not rest solely on that argument, but instead on the cumulative effect of that argument along with the other arguments I made in defense of Mary's perpetual virginity. Also, you have to admit that no mention of the "brothers" of Jesus at the one time when you expect to read of them the most is surely an odd omission if these brothers really did exist.

There is also a word that is usually used in Greek to mean cousins or distant relatives. The word that you propose means cousins or distant relatives does not make sense in the context is is used.

Yes it does, just as it does in the context we use it today. In English too, we have words for "cousin" and other distant relations, but we use "brother" instead. I use this word quite often in fact to refer to guys that I am close to who are not my actual siblings. The New Testament audience was used to this way of speaking, so the writers utilized it, even though technically they had a word they could have used for "cousin."

I am not a Bible scholar by any means, but it seems that you are trying to add your meaning to the Bible to fit your beliefs instead of making your beliefs fit the Bible which is the Word of God.

The same could be said of you ;) All I've done so far is analyze the Biblical evidence. You should do the same.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

The Divine Mercy of Jesus

phatcatholicapologetics@gmail.com (phatcatholic) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:00:00 +0000

I don't have time to post very much today (or all week really) but I did want to at least make a short post in honor of last Sunday, "Divine Mercy Sunday."

The Divine Mercy chaplet has had a great impact on my life, and I credit the slow, gradual progress I have made in my spiritual life to the faithful praying of this chaplet. The fact that I have been able to make positive steps at all is a testament to the power of God's mercy and of the trust in His mercy that is cultivated by this devotion.

Please, learn more about the appearances and private revelations of Jesus Christ to Sister Faustina and consider faithfully praying the Divine Mercy chaplet. Hopefully, the entry in the Directory on Jesus' Divine Mercy can and will be your guide. Also see my earlier blog post: What's the Divine Mercy Chaplet All About?

Jesus, I Trust in You!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic