As Catholics we are often saying to fellow Christians that only the Church has the authority to interpret Sacred Scripture. We believe that Jesus gave that authority to the Church when he gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. One of the things that we constantly say to people is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in her interpretation of Scripture, and that the amount of non-Catholic Christian denominations would verify that individual interpretation cannot be relied upon. I have a few questions to ask about this, and would very much appreciate people’s comments on them.

1. If only the official Church interpretation is to be taken when reading/studying Sacred Scripture, then is it the same with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Since there are many millions of Catholics throughout the world, surely all of us cannot interpret this. Perhaps this is to be left to the Bishops and clergy? I say this because often on the forum I see different parts of the Catechism quoted for the purposes of debate, and it appears that we can all quote whatever parts of the Catechism suits our argument. (And if all else fails we can always use the ‘for pastoral reasons’ or ‘God is our only Judge’ or yet again the ‘informed conscience’ statement!)

2. Does taking the Catechism of the Catholic Church too literally, without consideration of individual given circumstances, not make us the same as ‘Sola Scriptura’? Perhaps some people are unfair when they accuse priests of being too liberal - could this be them exercising pastoral care and showing the love and compassion that Jesus taught?

3. When we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation we are taught that we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He comes to us as our Guide and our Helper, and accompanies us throughout our lives on our Christian journey. If we believe the Church , and believe in the sacrament, how do we reconcile these teachings with not being able to personally interpret scripture?

4. The Church isn’t a disembodied organisation, it is people. The Church is the Body of Christ. We are all part of the Body of Christ, whether we are the Pope, a Cardinal, Bishop, Clergy, Religious, a ‘theologian’ or a lay person who has a devout faith, but not much religious academic knowledge. How can we be absolutely sure that the Holy Spirit would give any more knowledge and understanding to one person than another? (Those who are like little children are the greatest in God’s Kingdom, after all!)

Well I think I should stop there. I’ve got so many questions going through my mind, I could probably write an exam paper on it! Getting the ‘right’ answers is my problem :-) I look forward in anticipation to hearing your many informed comments!

God bless

Sara

p.s. Happy St Patrick's day to all, for tomorrow...please pray for the peaceful repose of my father's soul, as St Patrick's day was his birthday! (Oh and yes his name was Patrick :-)

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003

Answers

bump!

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.

Amen!!

I struggle like you in finding the right answers. Unforturnately, the Christian love that we all strive for is sometimes dampened by academics. Sometimes, I think the pursuit of academic exellence in the Church is a deception used to keep people from enjoying and passing on the love intended by the gospel. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), March 16, 2003.

1. The objective of honest interpretation is to discover the meaning intended by the original writer. Whether we are reading the Scriptures or the Catechism, that should be our purpose. However, in reading the scriptures, we are dealing with writings many centuries old. The original writers are not available. The various texts are often separated by time, and written in the context of various ancient cultures,by men with with diverse backgrounds, education, literary styles, and intent. There are a great many ambiguous, symbolic, and sometimes apparently contradictory passages. There are questions of correct translation from the original ancient languages. And none of the writings included in the collection was originally produced with the idea that they would be bound together with other writings as a single work. Because of these factors, and others, accurate scriptural exegesis, contrary to what Luther claimed, is an extremely complex matter. It would not be possible at all except by special guidance of the Holy Spirit - the kind of guidance Jesus referred to when He told the leaders of His Church, and them alone,"when the Holy Spirit comes, He will guide you to all truth".

In contrast, the Catechism was written in modern times, and is consistent in literary style, having been produced by the same authors, working together, for the specific intent of presenting the work as a cohesive whole, for a clearly defined purpose. Every effort was made to produce a text that is clear and unambiguous, straightforward and factual, not symbolic. When we want to know what a scripture passage means, the Church can tell us what the correct teaching is, evolved through centuries of exegesis by great theological minds and scripture scholars, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But when we ask what a Catechism passage means, we are speaking to the authors directly, and they can tell us directly what they meant when they wrote what they wrote, without going through a process of exegesis (though the content of what they wrote is of course the result of centuries of exegesis). But if, instead of asking, we simply guess what the passage might mean, or try to twist it to say what we wish it would say, then such an approach is equally invalid and essentially dishonest whether we are reading the Scriptures or the Catechism. There is no written work that would be consistently interpreted the same way by any three people, let alone by a billion people. That is why we have the tremendous gift of the Magisterium, the only genuine guarantee of reliable doctrinal truth.

2. "Sola scriptura" is the erroneous idea that scripture is the sole source of Christian truth, and the sole guide for living the Christian life. No-one views the Catechism that way, so there is no comparison to sola scriptura. What you are actually referring to here is not sola scriptura, but rather a literalist approach to personal interpretation, which a number of Protestant sects claim to follow, though none of them actually do (ask them if they take the words of Christ "This Is My Body" literally). While sola scriptura is an unworkable tradition for either the Scriptures or the Catechism, a literalist reading is much more reasonable for the Catechism since it was intentionally written as a straightforward, literal presentation of doctrine. The Srciptures were not. In the Catechism we don't have to deal with ambiguity, apparent contradictions, questionable translations from ancient tongues, context of ancient cultures, contrasting literary styles, or any of the other difficulties which muddy the waters of scriptural exegesis. The Catechism contains direct statements of fact concerning Catholic doctrine, and that is how it is to be read. Where it makes allowances for individual circumstances, as it often does, then such allowances are valid. And where it says "binding on all the faithful", then that is exactly what it means. Priests who stray from the truth in ministering to the faithful may well be motivated by compassion. But it is a misguided compassion. Jesus said "the truth will set you free". He said "I am the way and the Truth". Ministry which violates the teaching of the Christian Church is not Christian ministry.

3. The scriptures make it clear that the Holy Spirit works directly in all Christians. It also makes it clear that the Holy Spirit does not work in all individuals in the same manner. In those who are called to be prophets, the Holy Spirit inspires prophecy. Should we therefore expect that He will inspire prophesy in every person? The Holy Spirit works through some individuals in the gift of healing - but not in all individuals. And He works in some individuals to exercise the teaching authority of the Church through the Magisterium, defining and discerning doctrine binding on the universal Church. But not all individuals. It is the calling of a prophet to prophecy, a healer to minister healing, and the Magisterium to interpret the teachings of Christ for the universal Church. When individual members of the Church who have not been called to exercise a particular charism of the Holy Spirit decide that they will do so anyway, they are operating on their own initiative, without the calling of God or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the results are typically catastrophic. The Holy Spirit does speak to each of us in individual and unique ways, to guide us in the unique circumstances of our individual lives - but always within the context of the universal truth He has revealed through the Magisterium. He does not reveal universal doctrine directly to each individual person. And any individual person who thinks He does so is the first member of a new denomination.

4. We can be sure because Jesus said so. To Peter alone Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom, the universal symbol of authority. Therefore we should expect that Jesus would use Peter and his direct successors in a unique way in the Church, and He does. Jesus told him "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". Surely that would cause us to expect that God would give Peter "more knowledge and understanding" than the average Catholic on the street! Jesus gave that same promise to the gathered bishops of the Church, the apostles. So we should expect that the bishops of the Church would likewise exercise special authority in teaching. And they do. God has called them to that ministry, and the Holy Spirit equips them to carry out the ministry to which they are called. To the apostles alone Jesus said "he who hears you hears Me". There we have another guarantee that knowledge and truth come to us largely through designated individuals who are called to teach in the name of God. Those who are like little children in humility and purity are indeed in the best position to serve God's people. But those who are like little children in knowledge and understanding are not equipped to make decisions affecting the salvation of the universal Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 16, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Sara.

I am not an "authority," much less a "big" one. You have already heard from the most trustworthy, informed, and articulate contributor to the forum, Paul (a permanent deacon). I do not have anywhere near the learning, experience, or writing ability that Paul has.
It is true that hes is human -- therefore capable of error, and I do speak up on the very rare occasions when he is wrong -- but he has provided you an excellent and totally truthful reply.

The only thing I can add to what Paul told you is this ...

Sara, you wrote these words: "3. When we receive the Sacrament of Confirmation we are taught that we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. He comes to us as our Guide and our Helper, and accompanies us throughout our lives on our Christian journey. If we believe the Church , and believe in the sacrament, how do we reconcile these teachings with not being able to personally interpret scripture?"

It is not a teaching of the Catholic Church that each of us is forbidden to "interpret scripture."

We are free, even required, to "interpret scripture" privately/personally. One can know this from two facts: (1) We are encouraged to read the Bible daily on our own (and the Church even grants partial indulgences for doing this). Since we should read the Bible, we cannot help but perform "private interpretation," because that is what the human mind does when it reads books.
(2) The Catholic Church has never published an official commentary, in which each verse of the Bible is given a specific interpretation that all of us must hold. The Church has specifically interpreted for us only a very limited number of verses -- actions taken to prevent the spread of heresies by people who came up with very dangerous, faulty interpretations. All other verses are open to private interpretation.

What then is forbidden in this area?

It is forbidden for us to hold on to private interpretations that conflict with the teachings of the Church. That is why I always say that, when someone has made a decision to be a serious Catholic (to learn what God wants Christians to believe and how God wants Christians to act), that person should begin by reading the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church. Then, with the Church's teachings freshly and firmly in mind, that person should read the Bible. In reading the Bible, the person will be able to perform legitimate private interpretation that is always in keeping with the doctrines just learned from the Catechism.

If, in reading the Bible, this informed Catholic comes up with a private interpretation of a verse or passage that conflicts with the Catechism, he/she can know that the interpretation is a faulty one. An example? Let's say the person reads Isaiah 2:4, part of which states: "... they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Now let's say that the person initially interprets that verse to be requiring all of mankind to refuse to approve of all past and future wars. Upon further reflection, the Catholic (having been informed by the Catechism) will reject that faulty interpretation, because he/she knows that the Church has doctrines of legitimate self-defense and "just war."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

Paul and John

Thank you both for your very interesting and helpful answers.

John,you said:

We are free, even required, to "interpret scripture" privately/personally. One can know this from two facts: (1) We are encouraged to read the Bible daily on our own (and the Church even grants partial indulgences for doing this). Since we should read the Bible, we cannot help but perform "private interpretation," because that is what the human mind does when it reads books. (2) The Catholic Church has never published an official commentary, in which each verse of the Bible is given a specific interpretation that all of us must hold. The Church has specifically interpreted for us only a very limited number of verses -- actions taken to prevent the spread of heresies by people who came up with very dangerous, faulty interpretations. All other verses are open to private interpretation.

I totally and fully agree with you on this, and I'm so glad you've clarified this. I think that perhaps in our endeavours to portray the Wisdom of the Church we can inadvertantly give the impression to non-Catholic Christians that we do not think for ourselves, and that we don't actually read scripture on our own initiative. Personally, I find that when I read scripture and 'interpret it' on my own,if I'm not totally convinced that I've understood the meaning of a particular passage, I go to the Study Section of my Catholic Bible, and find that's a good measure for my accuracy!

I should also say that I agree with you that the WHOLE of the catechism should be read, and would also suggest that cross- references should be sought when referring to a particular topic, it's all too easy to read something out of context if it suits our own ends.

Oh and whilst I'm here there's one more thing I should say...

You used the analogy of Just War in your reply, well I should say that I've been amazed on this forum to see people argue vehemently against masturbation, and yet seem to find no problem with sending in bombers to annihilate innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

(I know that's a bit off-topic, but it's been rather annoying me, and I thought I would mention it.)

May the peace of Christ be withyou

Sara

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.

Jmj
Thank you, Sara, for your message. I am pleased that we seem not to be very far apart in our beliefs, at least on some topics!

I do want to reply to your final point, though. You wrote:
"You used the analogy of Just War in your reply, well I should say that I've been amazed on this forum to see people argue vehemently against masturbation, and yet seem to find no problem with sending in bombers to annihilate innocent Iraqi men, women and children."

My perception of messages posted here is different from yours, in two ways.

(1) I don't recall "people argu[ing] vehemently against masturbation." That is quite strong. I do recall various Catholics zealously explaining and defending the Church's teaching on that subject, quoting from the CCC, etc..
Now, let's consider one thing you have emphasized: "the WHOLE of the catechism should be read, and ... cross-references should be sought when referring to a particular topic, it's all too easy to read something out of context if it suits our own ends."
I need to say that the teaching on masturbation is in just one place in the CCC, and one cannot find that sinful act excused in another part of the CCC.

2. I have to admit that I have not fully read all the threads about the (probably) coming conflict in Iraq. But, in what I have read, I have never seen a single post of the kind you mention -- i.e., in which "people ... seem to find no problem with sending in bombers to annihilate innocent Iraqi men, women and children." I truly find it impossible to believe that any Catholic "regular" of this forum would advocate such a barbaric thing. I am totally against the intentional killing of innocent non-combatants, and know of no Catholic here who disagrees with me. I say that Catholics are required to believe all teachings in the Catechism -- including the one condemning deliberate masturbation and the one condemning the deliberate killing of the innocent.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2003.

We have been “progressing” in this forum, Sara!

When I first came here, in 98 or 99, there was much debate about “free interpretation of the Bible”, because at that time, most critics of the Church to come here were Protestants.

Then in recent times, we have been debating the “free interpretation of the Magisterium” theory, following an invasion of radical Traditionalists and neo-Feenyites re-proposing an old literal EENS theory and claiming that they are better interpreters of the Magisterium than the pope.

Now we have come to debate a brand-new doctrine: the “free interpretation of the CCC” theory, in which some catholics claim to morally interpret the CCC differently from the pope (the very one who published the CCC) and in contradiction with the Magisterium. As you mentioned the Iraq war, you could peep into the threads about the war to see that whole-new theory in action!

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Of course you are correct Sara about some people trying to isolate a single CCC point (2309 comes to my mind) and interpreting it out of the larger context, in much of a “Sola Scriptura” literal and biased interpretation fashion, sometimes to “suit one’s argument” as you put it.

Catholic doctrine is complex body where nothing can be interpreted disconnected from the whole. So, Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium must be interpreted as a complex, articulated, coherent whole. Of course this is true about the CCC, which is part of the Magisterium, which cannot contradict itself (nor the other “tools” of Revelation – Scripture and Tradition).

So, when an apparent contradiction arises, only the pope (and the bishops in communion with him) has the Authority (and the Holy Ghost assistance) to point to the correct interpretation. Not priests and even less laypeople.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

How to interpret what Atila said... how to interpret what Atila said.

lol! j/k Atila. I have to admit I got a kick out of the this invasion of radical Traditionalists and neo-Feenyites re- proposing...

I couldn't help but think of a couple phrases I've become privy to while on this forum: positive reformulation and interpretation, and their supposed "evil twin" O beauty, ever ancient, ever new of St. Augustine.

I was talking with a friend a couple days ago, about how some "nuveau's" claim to be "traditional" in so far as their novelties issue forth in a very traditional matter. It kind of reminded me about that theory that light waves create their own medium as they move along.

The enemy seems to have used the weapon of modernism like a tree uses seeds; the tree casts out an incredible number of seeds in the hopes that only one or two of them will germinate. In the same way, we have have been bombarded with modernist errors this last century, too many to count, and while we have spent our time running around trying to root them out, one or two have germinated. That's the desired effect, I believe, that was intended.

That's why we are at each other's throats. I have Faith in God that our unity will be fully and gloriously restored, but it will be a marvelous act of His, and nothing of the ways of men and nothing within the genus of things we can construct by our own devices. I do believe the restoration demands our personal and collective crucifixion.

In the original prayer of Pope Leo XIII, which clearly indicates that our present situation was foreseen, there is this revealing line:

"This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his mailice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impiety, and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raisd the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered."

He and his successor knew full well what we in this day and age were in for, and the Queen arrived with messages at roughly the same time, at the advent of a century of death.

This foe is truly beyond any of us, and imho when one realizes the the power of the forces arrayed against them, they turn inward and begin to recognize their own inadequacies and have no choice but to fall back on the remedy, which is a thirst for holiness. In this way it seems clearer how it is that the meek will inherit the earth. A cleansing suffering and death to self is the only way to defeat the monster that divides us; some demons can only be rooted out by prayer and sacrifice.

My wife had this thought the other day, about how Mary as the mother of the Church has this womb which is The Ark; the saints are formed in darkness, in secret as found in I believe Isaiah or one of the Psalms. The saints of our present age will be formed and nourished in darkness, in secret and in helplessness in the Church, the womb of its mother.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

Of course I had no intention of offending you :-)

You are a dear friend and a fellow LOTR-lover :-) I am very fond of you.

To be honest, I wondered how you would react to that, and I previewed your attitude correctly: with good humor!

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Prostestants.” (Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, main author of the New Mass, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965)

This from the man who sold Paul 6th on the new mass. One may rightfully ask, "Why".

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.

With all due respect to our "separated brethren", it is deviation from truth which allows truth to become a stumbling block. Adherence to truth keeps one's feet firmly on the path and prevents us from stumbling.

"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! (Matthew 18:7)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

No worries, Atila!

Feel free to say whatever you think. When I first got on the forum, I was a little weak in the getting offended category, but hey... it takes time to get used to new mediums. My real nature has a combative edge that can get a little out of hand sometimes, but it can't be all bad all the time.

Give me a hard time; I could probably use it. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

Just out of curiousity, Paul, I wonder how the following relates to the general idea of stumbling blocks:

"The Church, even in preaching Jesus Christ crucified, "stumbling block and foolishness to the world," has become the foremost leader and protector of civilization. She brought it wherever her apostles preached."

Pope St. Pius X, IL FERMO PROPOSITO

I've never looked into this stumbling block imagery before; sounds interesting.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 20, 2003.

“All the gods of the nations are devils.” (Psalm 95:5)

The Catholic Church teaches Ex Cathedra: “The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [ Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)

John Paul II says: “Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.” (General Audience, Sept. 9th 1998)

Which is right? You cannot follow both. They are different religions. One is Roman Catholicism. The other is modern, pluralist, Freemasonic syncretism. Either you keep to the traditional Catholic Faith and practice or you follow the false religion of John Paul II. You cannot do both. Outside the Church there is no salvation, and if you follow the false religion of JPII, you depart from salvation.

-- OttoG (otto@believethis.com), March 20, 2003.

Sorry to learn that you are a heretic, Otto G.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 20, 2003.

Can't we good Catholics just go murder some more hugenauts or protestants the way we did during the middle ages? It made us feel very self important and I don't know why it is that Pope JP had to go and apologize for all that "ordained" activity. Why, if you are going to murder 50,000,000 heretiks and you claim it makes God happy, how come you apologize for it a thousand years later? Doesn't that make us good Gatholics really question just what the hell is up with our church? Even a little? Is this a sign of being brain dead?

-- heretick (heretick@heretik.com), March 20, 2003.

Hi Otto,

Rather than derail Sara's thread I thought it best if we start a new thread entitled "Outside the Church there is no Salvation". I suggest you and all who are interested in the point you raised, check it out.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 21, 2003.

Heretick, I like your numbers Where did you get them? Fifty million heretics? The whole spanish inquisition for over 300 years did not murder nearly as many as the dear daughter of King Henry (Elizabeth) did in just a few years. The pope has no right to apologize for something he did not see. I would more rather he apologize to us for praying with all those heretics.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

50 million eh? There were barely 50 million people on the planet at the time pinhead. Stop reading Chick tracks and get the facts. The inquisition was horribly tragic and inexcusable, but it never was even close to the exaggerated proportions claimed by a few lying Protestants (and I'm a Protestant, of a sort).

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Another fact in the history of the beast is given. It shall make war upon the saints and for a season shall overcome them. After what has been said, it is needless that I should long dwell upon the pitiless, bloodthirsty, and persecuting character of Rome. From the reign of Justinian, when, according to Gibbon, the "Catholic soldiers burned the conventicles with their congregations," down through the awful crusades against the Protestants of the Cevennes and Alps, the massacre of Bartholomew, the autos da fe of the Inquisition, to the murders of Barletta in the States of the Church, in our own memory, her history has been stained with blood. Some historians have roughly estimated that the persecuting hands of Rome have been reddened by the blood of [259] 50,000,000 saints, but I rather believe that no man can estimate the number.

-- Heretik (h@h.com), March 21, 2003.

oops, forgot the link for those numbers.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bjohnson/vota/VOTA12.HTM

You good people also ignore that Peter was a married man! how do you square that with popehood?

-- Heretick (h@h.com), March 21, 2003.

There is no evidence that Peter was married while an apostle. If he was, it is unlikely Jesus would have called him to desert his wife to follow Jesus. All we know is that he had been married at some point in his life, since he had a mother-in-law. He may very well have been a widower. A widower may still have a mother-in-law. In any case, this has nothing to do with Popes or priesthood since it occurred before the Church required celibacy for Latin Rite priests. This is a matter of Church discipline, not doctrine, so the Church is free to change its rules for its own priesthood, as needs change.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

There's an interesting story about how that ridiculous figure of 50 million came to be. It seems that a certain Monsignor who was a professor of Medieval history at Catholic University attended an ecumenical bible conference. Also present was a fundamentalist preacher who was a personal friend of the notorious Anti-Catholic bigot Jack Chick. The preacher cornered the Monsignor and started spouting off the standard list of absurd accusations against Christ's holy Church. "And what about the Inquisition" he challenged, as expected. Instead of simply providing the historical facts, on which he was an acknowledged expert, and thereby exposing the preacher as an ignorant bigot, the Monsignor decided to play along. Looking embarrassed, he stammered, "oh ... yes ... especially in light of the new evidence". Well the preachers ears perked up at that and he pressed the Monsignor for details. The Monsignor "confided" that new research at the Vatican had revealed that as many as 48 million people may have fallen victim to the Inquisition. Where did the good Monsignor get this figure? Simple. As a history scholar he knew that the total population of Europe at that time was about 12 million people. So he just multiplied that figure by four. He knew this "information" would get back to Jack Chick, and he knew Chick's reputation for printing anything anti-Catholic that came his way, with complete disregard for historical fact. He wanted to see if Chick would actually publish the statement that a court operating in one Church in four countries for a limited number of years had executed four times the entire population of Europe. Sure enough, a couple of months later a tract entitled "The Inquisition - Astounding New Evidence" was published by Chick Publications. The tract claimed that new evidence, "from high level sources at the Vatican" had recently revealed new figures concerning the death toll of the unholy Inquisition. Then the same absurd figure that the Monsignor had fed to the unwitting preacher was repeated - 48,000,000! So typical of the ignorance of Chick Publications. That happened over 30 years ago, and the most ridiculous thing is that Chick's company continues to produce that same tract, containing that same idiotic number, even today! Publications from this one sick source have probably poisoned the minds of more Christians over the past fifty years than all other sources of anti-Catholic vitriol combined.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 21, 2003.

"story" eh paul? can you substantiate that or is it just oral tradition?

Christ never advocated persecution did he? So what makes you think your organization has anything in common with Christ? Even if the Roman system only killed 1 million instead of 50 million, that is still a million too many and very unChrist-like, would you not agree? Are you familiar with the interpretation for Daniel 7:25 ?? It points directly at the Catholic church...

-- heretic (h@h.net), March 25, 2003.

A "system" does not sin. A Church does not sin. Only persons can sin. Catholics are persons, and never claimed otherwise. Yes, sin is unChrist-like. Do you know of a church whose members don't sin? If so, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Yes, I am aware of the fundamentalist Protestant interpretation of Daniel 7. Is there some reason why I should care? Such human interpretations have no authority behind them. They fly in the face of truth, and therefore in the face of Jesus, who is the Truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 25, 2003.