"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog"

Using pebbles or beads as tangible prayer minders was nothing new by the 9th century, when Monks had begun making a daily or weekly recitation of all 150 Psalms.  It made perfect sense, then, when the lay faithful, who wanted a way to participate in this pious practice, yet had difficulty learning the Psalms due to various reasons (e.g., widespread illiteracy), instead recited 150 prayers daily or weekly and kept track of them by means of pebbles or beads.  Eventually this practice evolved into beads being strung together on a cord.  The daily prayers would typically be the "Pater Noster" (the Lord's Prayer, found in Lk 11:2-4 or Mt 6:9-13) or the "Ave [Gratia Plena]" (the "Hail, Full of Grace" found in Lk 1:28, 41-42).  Gradually, the second half of what we know today as the "Hail Mary" was added, reflecting Lk 1:43 and passages regarding praying for one another (e.g., James 5:16).  This recitation of prayers on beads would eventually evolve...

The caption read, “This is why we don't listen to the Gaithers” and the link led to a long article by David Cloud on why the Gaithers are not model Christians ("disobedient to the Word of God"). Cloud dives into several topics, but most of it can be boiled down to addressing false ecumenism (compromising truth for the sake of a false sense of unity) and a trend in this “judge not” mindset, where people are confusing the right judgment of actions with the wrong judgment of a person's soul. Whether the Gaithers are actually guilty of these, I didn't really see. It would be nice to hear both sides before making a judgment, and I'm simply not familiar with the Gaithers. However, on those two important topics, I do agree with David Cloud's overall position. This notion that we can all come together in different faiths with different views about what Truth is, and have “unity”, is false. We cannot compromise Truth for the sake of unity, because in doing...

Many of us have been approached with the " are you saved " ice-breaker. And by now, if you've either read your Bibles or studied any amount of apologetics, you know the answer: " Yes! I was saved in Christ at my Baptism (1Pet 3:20-21). I HAVE been saved (Rom 8:24; Eph 2:5,8; 2Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5); I am BEING saved (Phil 2:12; 1Pet1:9); and I WILL be saved IF I persevere to the end (Mt 7:21; Mt 10:22; Mt 19:16-17; Mt 24:13; 1Cor 9:27; 1Cor 10:11-12, etc…). But sometimes we just want a quick Scripture reference to show how we are saved. EVERYONE knows we are saved by believing in Christ, which involves obedience to His Will (Jn 3:36). But what about the other ways we are saved? Straight from the Bible, here you go! We are saved... By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31) By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9) By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:20-21; Titus 3:5) By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6) By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6) ...

On his CARM website, Matt Slick argues that the Catholic Church did not give us God’s Word.   And so, the Church would agree, because we believe the source of God’s Word is God.   He also is the source of authority in His Church.   However, Mr. Slick seems willing to misrepresent the Church’s claims and teachings, and so is willing to engage in deception in order to make his point.   This deception will be evident throughout his article, and will show itself no more than two sentences into his argument.   The Catholic Church, what many people today call the “Roman Catholic Church”, did indeed decide which books and letters were to be included in the Canon of Scripture.   Martin Luther, one of the so-called "Pillars of the Reformation” made this point clear.   To claim otherwise, there are some things that Mr. Slick is going to have to explain.   Among them are:   1) how did the Church come to know, without doubt, which books belong ...

In several reports regarding “ The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable ” (GCGI), released by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, media outlets wrongly summarized and reported that Christians “ should not evangelize Jews ”. Blogs and media outlets from every corner burst out with half-informed op-eds, and all the reactionary comments that go with them, reporting and commenting on a wrong conclusion by an  author who chose to write an article on a topic he/she had not taken the time to fact check. Are we surprised? Of course, I won’t pin all the blame on the media. Most Catholics have come to expect statements from our current Pope to be less than crystal clear and easily misrepresented. Most media outlets don’t recognize the difference between the various Vatican documents, either. I doubt that more than a handful would have recognized GCGI “… is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, but is a reflection ...

This is a slightly paraphrased transcript of a friendly conversation that took place between Frank Turek and an atheist (see 6-minute video linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynJwvv7wlFc ). This is very similar to what any Christian or atheist could expect in an actual discussion (and very closely mirrors actual discussions I have had...minus the conclusion) about morality and whether morality implies or “needs” a God. Why would a person be an atheist if they ‘might possibly know’ that God exists? - The fact that there are so many terrible things in the Bible, like when God condones/approves the torturing of slaves, even with no reason given for the ill treatment of them. Why would anyone want to follow such a God if He ‘might possibly exist’? Why would you follow such a God? Okay, let’s not even look at the context of the passage you are referring to. Let’s assume what you just said is 100% true. As an atheist, why is that wrong? - Morally, one would...

Some groups of Christians believe that every saved person speaks in tongues, and anyone who does not, isn’t really saved. Here’s an example of what I have been told by such a person: “ When we receive the Holy Spirit or we are filled with the Holy Spirit after being born again, the initial evidence is speaking or praying in tongues . Anyone who cannot pray in tongues does not have the Holy Spirit within them. Acts 2:4, 10:45-46 and 1 Cor 12:28 list the ministry gifts. The last one is diversities of tongues. Praying in tongues is your own personal prayer time for your edification. Every Christian can do it at will (1Cor 14:4,14.). The other 3 gifts are done as the Holy Spirit wills. ” But does the Bible really say that ALL Christians will speak in tongues, or even be able to? Is there any indication that this will be THE sign that a person is saved or has received the Holy Spirit? Let’s look at the passages cited and see what they say. This person (a Pentecostal) cites Acts ...

I once had a discussion with a friend of mine who believed that the world would be better off without any religion.   “ I think I figured it out ” , he said.   “[The one thing humans can] do away with that would make the world a much safer, brighter, happier, more progressive and innovative, and loving world [is religion]” .     Going with my own understanding of “religion” , I asked, “ How could the world be safer, brighter, happier, more progressive/innovative/loving by doing away with a relationship with our Creator? Seems like that would be a step in the opposite direction. ”   We ended up talking about several different topics at once ( whether we really know our Creator; whether He created evil/sin; the nature of free will; the state of humanity; etc. ) but the main focus was religion, and whether the world would be better off without it.     I said, “ Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing:   ‘Religion’:   f...