Welcome and thanks for stopping by! I’m a 15-year-old girl with a passion and love for my Catholic faith. I set up this blog so that I could express what I believe as a Catholic and why I believe it. Please feel free to leave a comment, and if you have any further questions send me an email! http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/ en-us Homeschool Blogger Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:26:00 -0500 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:26:00 -0500 In the 8th Century, in the city of Frentanese, the pastor of St. Legontian was having doubts about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. His doubts were entirely dispelled when the Host literally transformed into live flesh and the wine literally became blood. The Host has been miraculously preserved to this day, and has undergone in-depth scientific analysis which have been proven and documented. Both the flesh and the blood were found to be real and from the human species. The flesh consists of muscular tissue from the heart, containing the mycocardium, the vagus nerve and the left ventricle. The elements chloride, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium were found in the blood. Both the flesh and the blood have the blood type AB (which is consistent with all other substantiated Eucharistic miracles).   In the mid-1200s, a woman in the city of Santarem tried to take a Host from Mass to a sorceress in order to make some sort of "potion." She hid it in her head-scarf, and while walking down the street, it began to bleed. Frightened, the woman took it home and placed it in a chest. During the night, she and her husband were awakened by a bright light coming from the chest, and they saw a vision of angels adoring the bleeding Host. They reported it to the priest, and he returned the Host back to the church, where it still remains today.   This miracle dates back to the 1300s. A priest who was going to visit the sick and administer the sacrament irreverently placed the Host between the pages of his breviary. When he opened it again, he found that it had turned to blood, and where the Host had been, there were dark red circles on the pages. Those pages can still be seen in Cascia, Italy now. One of the most amazing Eucharistic miracles that I've ever heard about was the Bleeding Host of Betania (Venezuala) only ten years ago. Pilgrims were in the adoration chapel when the Host gave the appearance of having a heart beating in the center. The thing that makes it the most incredible, though, is the fact that there is actually video footage of the miracle. Read about it here and watch it the youtube video here. Check out this link, where you can read many more stories of incredible miracles relating to the Real Presence. Don't forget to take some time to meditate on Christ's sacrifice for us today on Good Friday. I hope you all have a blessed Easter season! Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/502560/ Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:26:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/502560/ We were recently visiting with some extended family in New England.  During the time we were there, we visited the Baptist church where my mom attended growing up.  It had been a couple of months since I had sat through a sermon in an Evangelical church.  For some reason, this sermon seemed particularly directed against the Catholic Church.  It was full of not-so-subtle references to how Catholics are so supposedly deceived.  At the end of the sermon, they distributed their monthly communion.  The pastor was very clear in saying that the "crackers and juice" were "only symbols".  He took great effort in explaining to the congregation that communion was "not a sacrament in any way", but "simply an ordinance."  He mentioned that the Catholic Church actually believed that the "crackers and juice" became the real body and blood of Jesus Christ.  The deacons and other people in the church grimaced and shook their heads in disgust.  "That's just ridiculous,"  the pastor declared. His last statement really got me thinking.  At first, when I heard it, I felt insulted and offended.  He was belittling my beliefs right in front of me.  However, I came to realize the truth in his statement.  Let me explain... Pastor R. certainly wasn't the first person to call the Eucharist "ridiculous".  In fact, we see people doing it right in the Gospel of St. John.  When you read this passage from John 6:55-66, try reading it as if you've never read it before.  Come at it with a fresh mind and see what you can get out of it.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things he said in the synogogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not.  For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Jesus lost "many disciples" over the issue of the Eucharist.  They thought that the teaching was so ridiculous that they simply left him.  They didn't say, "Oh, we're supposed to eat a mere symbol of his body; I can handle that!"  They deserted Him.  Many other people have deserted Jesus because they found His teachings to be "ridiculous".  We as Christians really do believe in some pretty crazy things.  We believe that God is One, and yet He is three distinct Persons.  We believe that He made the world out of nothing.  We believe that He loved us so much that He sent His only Son into the world as a human baby.  We believe that He is 100% God and 100% man.  We believe that He died a cruel criminal's death for our salvation from sin.  We believe that He rose again from the grave, and that He ascended back into heaven.  These are all mysteries to us.  We can't claim to fully understand them.  We don't know why or how God does these things.  Many people would call them ridiculous.  I don't remember which saint said this, but he made this point, which I thought was very good: Jesus says, "This is my body."  You say, "This is not His body." Who should I believe? If Jesus says something, we shouldn't be too quick to condemn it because it's "ridiculous".  I would rather err on the side of being too literal than miss out on something so huge. If I'm going to be so extreme as to believe that God became man, that He was tortured for my sake, and that He rose from the dead, I might as well go all the way and believe that He enters the form of bread in communion so that I can bodily receive Him.  I'm not going to accept one as being reasonable and the other as crazy.  They're both crazy.  But, I can't think of anything more beautiful. If I believe in it, what do I lose if it's wrong?  What do I gain if it's right? Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/410463/ Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:31:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/410463/ ---EDIT--- Okay, I have messed around with Feedblitz, and I think I have it back in article format.  Let me know if it's still not working for you! ~TCA ---END EDIT--- It seems like there's something weird going on with the email subscriptions.  FeedBlitz changed their format and now the updates have gone screwy.  I have tried to get it back to the original, but for some reason it's not working.  It won't actually send the articles.  Sooooooo...I am trying to come up with some sort of alternative.  If you (the subscribers) could let me know how you'd prefer to have the updates emailed to you, that'd be really helpful.  I could easily send them from my own personal account.  I could also try the HSB subscription setup, however, the few times that I've tried it hasn't been successful.  I will have to work the bugs out. Thanks for your feedback!!  Sorry about the confusion.  Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/402236/ Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:05:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/402236/ Mary was created only for God, and it is unthinkable that she should reserve even one soul for herself.  On the contrary she leads every soul to God and to union with him.  Mary is the wonderful echo of God.  The more a person joins himself to her, the more effectively she unites him to God.  When we say "Mary", she re-echoes "God".  ~ St. Louis de Montfort, The Secret of Mary We should always be striving to become closer to God in our everyday lives.  So, how do we become closer to God through Mary?  Why should we seek to know Him more by going through her?  First of all, I want to go straight to Mary's words in the New Testament: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. ~ Luke 1:38 The first thing that she teaches us is humble submission to God's will.  My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.  For he that is mighty hath done great things; and holy is his name.  And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. ~ Luke 1:46-52 In her "Magnificat" she shows us total glorification of God.  That's entirely why she exists - for God's glory.  In fact, that's the reason why we all exist.  Mary gives us the picture of what God's glorious purpose is for us. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. ~ John 2:5 These are Mary's constant words to us.  She stands and points right to Christ, leading us to Him through obedience to His Word.  She's anything but an obstacle to Christ.  Mary's whole purpose is to lead us to Him.  Mary is one of the most beautiful creations of God.  Everything that she has comes from Him.  Think of her as a painter's masterpiece.  Is a painter upset when people gather around his artwork and admire it?  What about nature?  Mountains, oceans, forests, deserts?  Does God take offense when we stand in awe of His earthly creation?  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. ~ Psalm 19:1 If nature declares God's glory, how much more can Mary - Christ's own mother, declare His glory?  If nature can lead us closer to Him, how much more can she, the closest person to Him, bring us to a more intimate relationship with Him?  Think about it.  If you want to get to know someone better, do you think it'd be helpful to start up a good relationship with his or her mother?  Of course!  Why is that?  Because a mother is the person who is knows her child the best.  She has a very intimate bond with her child - one that no one else can claim to have.  It's the same with Mary, except that not only is she Jesus' mother - she's also ours (I'll be writing an entry about that in the future).  God gave Himself completely to us.  How?  By coming in human form - through Mary (literally).  Why should we not give ourselves completely to Him through Mary as well?  There are so many things to write about Mary.  I've already posted an entry about how she is the Ark of the New Covenant.  In the future, I'd like to write about her role as the Queen Mother of the Kingdom of God, mother of all Christians, and how she's affected the world through different apparitions.  Here are a couple of good online resources: Catholic Answers: Mary and the Saints, Defenders of the Catholic Faith (Steve Ray) - scroll down for the list of articles about Mary, and the Phatmass Catholic Defense Directory.  Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/393574/ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:06:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/393574/ And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. ~ Matthew 23:9 The above verse is cause of some controversy between Catholics and separated Christian brethren.  Some say that the command to "call no man father" directly applies to the titles given to priests in the Catholic Church.  We call all priests "father" because we are their spiritual children.  However, these people fail to recognize that the directly literal interpretation of this verse condemns far more than just the title of priests. Take for example, our biological fathers.  If we were to interpret Matthew 23:9 literally, that would mean that none of us could call any man upon the earth "father".  To really obey the Scriptures at face value, we would refrain from calling our actual fathers "father".  Of course, that would be simply absurd.  Even in the NT we see clear examples of people calling their fathers by name.  Not only that, but it was apparently acceptable to refer to ancestors by the name of "father" as well. To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham. ~ Luke 1:72-73 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. ~ John 8:56 [Jesus speaking to the Jews] In Romans 9:10, Paul also speaks of "our father Isaac".  It's obvious that Jesus didn't really command us to literally refrain from calling anyone on earth "father".  He had a deeper meaning that went beyond the simple face value. First of all, let's look at the context of the verse in Matthew 23, starting with verse 1: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.  4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synogogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your father which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye that are entering them to go in. As you can see, these thirteen verses (and the entire chapter) were directed toward the scribes and Pharisees.  The overall purpose was to point out their pride in being in a superior position.  So, how does "call no man father" fit in with that context?  Notice the verses before and after verse 9.  Verse 8 says, "be ye not called Rabbi" and verse 10 "neither be ye called masters".  Does this forbid anyone from having those titles?  Jesus in John 3:10 questions Nicodemus saying, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"  Again, there must be a deeper meaning than the face value.  Jesus was condemning the Pharisee's vainglory.  They were flashing around their good works and taking selfish advantage of their authority.  That was why Jesus said, "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."  He was trying to show them the foolishness of their pride.  What kind of Rabbis were they compared to God, who is Master of all?  Why were they so proud of being called "father" when they were so inferior to the heavenly Father?  They were trying to set themselves up as ultimate authorities rather than recognizing that God was the source of all authority.  Again, I am going to come back to the literal interpretation of Matthew 23:9.  If Jesus really meant it literally, that would mean that we could not have spiritual "fathers".  But, frequently throughout the NT, we see references to spiritual fatherhood. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds. ~ Philemon 1:10 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. ~ Titus 1:4 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. ~ 1 Corinthians 4:17 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. ~ 2 Timothy 2:1 Paul was a spiritual father to many.  Although we may not recognize it, we all have many spriritual fathers in our own lives.  They are those who have led us to Christ.  The priests are our especial fathers because they lead us to Christ in the most intimate and phenomenal way: they give us Christ in the Eucharist.  That is why we call the priests "father".  Not because they take the place of our Heavenly Father, but because they lead us to Him.  Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/374718/ Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:54:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/374718/ This post is a continuation of The Deuterocanonical Books, part 1.  It may be helpful to read that before continuing.  The early Christians used the LXX and used it right along with the rest of the Scriptures. "You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sirach 1:28].  Do not be someone who stretches out his hands but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sirach 4:31]. ~ Didache [4:5, 70 AD] "Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown.  For the prophet speaks against evil, 'Woe to their soul because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves' [Isaiah 3:9], saying, 'Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us.' [Wisdom 2:12]" ~ Letter of Barnabas 6:7 [74 AD] "Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the LORD, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Peter 2:17]...When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms deliver from death' [Tobit 4:10, 12:9].  Be all of you subject to one another [1 Peter 5:5], having your conduct blamless among the Gentiles [1 Peter 2:12], and the LORD may not be blasphemed through you.  But woe to him by whom the name of the LORD is blasphemed! [Isaiah 52:5] ~ Polycarp [Letter to the Philadelphians 10, 135 AD] There is a good collection of quotes from the Early Church Fathers using the deuterocanonicals at Catholic Answers: The Old Testament Canon and The Fathers and the Deuterocanonicals The Scriptures were canonized in 382 at the Council of Rome.  They included the deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament.  This decision was ratified at the councils of Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397 and 419, II Nicea in 787, Florence in 1442, and Trent in 1546.  Christians used this canon all the way up to the Protestant Reformation.  The deuterocanonicals were included in all of the early editions and translations of the Bible (including Wycliffe and Luther).  The Guttenberg Bible, the first book ever printed, also had the deuterocanonicals.  So, what changed?  Why did Protestants suddenly decide that they were faulty Scriptures after 1000 years of using them?  What authority did they have to decide what was divinely inspired and what was not? Jon left a really great comment that summed it up very well.  He said: "This topic is especially of interest to me, since many Protestant family and friends ask me why Catholics 'added' extra books to the Bible.  I always ask them in return how a church in the Protestant model (fragmented, no central magisterium) could possibly come to agree on which books were inspired by God.  Only if there is an infallible magisterium with a promise from our Lord that she will teach no error can we be sure that our canon is correct." He hit the nail right on the head.  Protestants don't even claim to have infallible authority.  How could they claim to have the correct canon?  And why would God wait 1000 years to give the world the revelation that they had the wrong Scriptures?  Sophia asked: "How can the Catholic Church prove that God actually meant these documents to be a part of the Bible?" My answer to Sophia is: I believe that these documents are divinely inspired for the same reason that I believe that Hebrews, Esther, & Revelation are inspired.  The Catholic Church canonized them and declared them to be infallible.  Why do you believe in Hebrews and not Tobit?  On what authority do you depend upon to know what is really Scripture and what is not?  Christians used the same Bible for nearly 1500 years.  Christians still use that Bible today.  I would challenge Protestants, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, that the Bible alone is your total authority, you had better be very sure that you have the correct Bible.  If it is really that important to you, you had better be sure that you aren't missing something. Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/361982/ Sat, 4 Aug 2007 13:44:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/361982/ I have been participating in the 90 Day Bible Reading Challenge that is going on here on HSB.  So far it has been a really awesome experience for me!  However, ForeverConfused and I, the two Catholic participants, have it harder than everyone else, because we have to read 73 books rather than 66. ;)  I thought that I'd write up a post about why that is, and get into the historical context a little bit. The 7 "extra" books in the Scriptural canon are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch (there are also a couple more chapters in Esther and Daniel).  They are all in the Old Testament, and are often called by Protestants, "the Apocrypha", which literally means, "hidden".  Because we as Catholics believe that they are in fact included in the Bible, we call them "deutercanonicals", meaning that they are a part of the canon. There is a collection of apocryphal books, but these seven are not included in them.  So how did Protestants and Catholics end up with two differing Bibles?  Protestants will claim that the Catholic Church added extra books, but in reality, it was the Protestants who removed the books from the original canon.  Let's go all the way back to first century AD.  There was some dispute then between the Jews on the Old Testament canon.  There was no common canon shared between all of the Jews.  Some rejected the writings of the prophets while others accepted them as binding.  There was one widely used Greek version called the Septuagint (LXX) which included the deuterocanonical books.  This is the Old Testament that is used by Catholics today, and also by many Jews (particuarly the Ethiopian Jews).  The only distinction between the deuterocanonical books and the books accepted by both Catholics and Protestants is that the deuterocanonicals were included in the LXX.  Around 80 AD, a group of Jewish Rabbis in Jabneh met together to discuss the canon.  They were getting very annoyed that this new little "Jewish cult" that was gaining so many new converts: Christianity.  These Christians were using the LXX to convert their followers, and it was being very effective.  The Greek translation seemed to support their views too clearly.  For example, in Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 would be rendered as, "a young woman shall conceive and bear a son," whereas in the Greek, it would be, "a virgin shall conceive."  The Rabbis at Jabneh consequently condemned the Septuagint, however, that didn't stop the disputes over the canon, which continue to go on to this day.  I'll hopefully be posting the second part of this entry this week, so stay tuned :) Pax Christi, Sylvia http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/357907/ Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:12:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/357907/ Many of you have probably seen those gospel tracts with a picture of a large chasm.  God is on one side, and man is on the other.  The open space between them represents sin.  There's no way that man can possibly cross over to the other side to commune with God.  The situation seems hopeless!  That is, until Jesus comes into the picture.  The cross bridges the space between God and man.  Jesus makes it possible for man to be with God. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ; ~ 1 Timothy 2:5 Many people will use this verse to say that Catholics are wrong in praying to the saints.  Why go to St. Francis or St. Cecilia rather than going straight to God?  Jesus is the only mediator!!   Well, there is a big difference between the kind of mediator talked about in 1 Tim 2:5 and the role of the saints in the Church.  None of the saints can fill the chasm between God and men.  They would all fall short just as we would!!  Jesus is the only one who can bridge the gap.  He is the only mediator.   The saints don't act as mediators, but as intercessors.  They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.  If I asked you to pray for me, would you quote 1 Tim 2:5 and say that you couldn't because you'd be going between me and God?  Would you tell me to go straight to God rather than asking you?  Of course not.  You would make intercession for me, just as the saints do when I ask them to pray for me.  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. ~ 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/346605/ Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:50:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/346605/ Sophia requested: "Now this is asking a lot, and if you don't have time for it that is ok, but I would appreciate it if you made a post on why the Church should be ruled by one mortal who has supreme authority. (the pope.) That could get dangerous when you have a corrupt person in power, and in the past it has proved fatal. At least from the history of the Church it seems to have." Thank you, Sophia, for coming to my blog and commenting.  As for your request, I'll try to answer it as best I can. :-) I like to think that God has given us little mini-versions of the Church in our own families.  The family itself is called "the domestic church."  The head of that domestic church is the father, just like we believe the head of the Church on earth is the pope.  Now of course, the real and ultimate head of every family should be Christ!  Christ is also the head of the Church on earth (Eph. 5:23).  So, what roles do the pope and the father of a family really have?  Are they actually the authority in their family?  If Christ is supposed to be the head, where do they fit in? This is where we get into the idea of earthly authority.  The reason that I'm comparing the pope to a father is because you could ask the very same questions about them both.  Sophia's question also applies: why should there be one man as the head, or "supreme authority?"  As Christians, we all represent Christ to the world through our life and actions.  We are witnesses of His righteousness.  But, because of the roles that fathers play, they are especial representatives of Him.  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of the water by the word, ~ Ephesians 5:25-26 God gave us fathers as earthly authorities to represent Him.  They are our shepherds, and they mirror Christ our Good Shepherd. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?  He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?  He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?  And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.  Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. ~ John 21:15-17 Jesus is obviously giving Peter authority in this passage - a shepherding authority.  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. ~ Acts 20:28-29 He established authorities over us for a reason.  Why has he given us fathers?  Pastors?  Because we need that earthly headship.  The pastor of a church is like a small pope.  He leads and guides his own flock.  But, in Protestantism, there are thousands upon thousands of little independent popes.  (*NOTE: The word pope actually means father).  They're like children without an earthly father - a dysfunctional family.  But, in the Catholic Church, there is a father: the pope.  Peter was given the shepherding authority by Christ; and that authority hasn't died away, but has been passed down century after century.  God has given us a pope for the same reason that He has given us fathers and pastors.  As for your comment, Sophia, about a corrupt person being in power - that doesn't pose a threat when you take into account Papal Infallibility, which I have written about already. I hope that this has answered sufficiently your request and isn't too scattered to make out.  I also apologize for the long delay in posting this.  I look forward to having more time to update this summer. :-) Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/340980/ Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:18:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/340980/ One word: school. This is finals week.  Once it's over (if I'm still alive), I will finally be able to lead a normal life again.  I've got some entries planned that I just need time to sit down and write.  At Sophia's request: the papacy (why there should be one man with supreme authority in the Church) "One Mediator" and 1 Timothy 2:5 "No graven images" and the idea of statues of saints Thank you all for being patient!!  I would appreciate your prayers for me as I take my final exams.  This has been a hard and rigorous school year and I am (very) ready for it to end.  Pax Christi, ~the Catholic apologist http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/337702/ Mon, 4 Jun 2007 07:20:00 -0500 http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/thecatholicapologist/337702/