Posted on 03/27/2008 10:33:22 AM PDT by Gamecock
I joined the Roman Catholic Church because I was looking for God. I entered the convent because I wanted to be close to God and to serve Him with radical devotion. But it wasn't until after I left Catholicism that I found the kind of relationship with God that I had been looking for all along. You can read about it in my poems.
My pastor and my father have both advised me not to give out personal information. This biography is an attempt to share my heart and my life within the framework of their advice.
I started out as a "liberal" intellectual who was prejudiced against Christianity. I had been taught to believe that Christians were gullible people who were either stupid or uneducated. I was basically an agnostic who didn't know or care whether God existed. For me, the idea of God was irrelevant. I looked to science, psychology, and politics to save mankind from its problems.
During my senior year in high school, I fell in love with a young man who was a devout Catholic. That was my first encounter with someone who strongly believed in God. I may have met Christians before that, but they didn't make their Christian beliefs known to me.
This young man prayed. He loved God. He was a man of principle and integrity. His life was guided by his religious beliefs. He had hope. He had a kind of compassion and respect for people that I had not seen before. There was something different about him. I didn't know what it was, but whatever it was, I wanted it. I figured that it had something to do with his religion, so I started taking instruction in Catholicism. The young man moved away and I didn't see him again, but I continued studying Catholicism.
During my first year of college I majored in biology. I also studied French and Latin. I went to a local priest every week for instruction. Under his direction, I studied many books including the "Baltimore Catechism" and biographies of well known modern Catholics. This was in the days of the Latin Mass, before there was a formal catechumen program. When I returned home for the summer, I found another priest to continue my instruction.
I was unable to return to college the following year. I found another priest to instruct me. For several years I continued to study with that priest, while working to earn money for college. The priest gave me more books to study including a series of booklets on Scripture. (There was a booklet for each book of the Bible. On each page, the top half of the page contained Scripture and the bottom half contained a Catholic commentary about those portions of Scripture.)
My job was close to a Catholic Church, and I went to Mass during lunch hour. I prayed for God to give me faith. I was praying even though I wasn't sure that God existed. My very first prayer was, "God, if You're out there, show me." I didn't take communion because I wasn't a Catholic. I only said as much of the Apostles Creed as I actually believed. It was a long time before I could even say the opening phrase, "I believe in God".
After several years I was baptized a Roman Catholic. Soon afterwards, my brother also became a Catholic. His instruction was through group classes. I attended those classes with him. I was hungry to learn anything that I could about God.
I went to a Catholic college and majored in Religious Education. My classes on Scripture taught a lot of modern "higher criticism," and some of my Religious Education teachers taught things that seemed to be contrary to the official teachings of the Catholic Church. I found a conservative priest and I checked teachings out with him to see if they were the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Because I no longer trusted the teachings of the Religious Education department, I changed majors.
When I entered the convent, I was careful to choose a conservative one which followed the official teachings of the Catholic Church. My training for religious life included studying the documents of the Second Vatican Counsel, other books relating to Catholic doctrine, and biographies of well known saints.
I spent over two years as a postulant and a novice. This was a time of testing for the leaders of the convent, and for me, to decide whether or not I should make vows. My mother superior had some questions about my calling, and she and the leadership decided that I should not remain in the convent. I left the convent on good terms and have occasionally been in contact with the sisters since then.
Our mother superior was very careful about which priests she allowed to say Mass at our convent. We had priests who were loyal to God and to the Catholic Church. They believed the Bible. They were faithful men.
When I left the convent and went to live with my parents, I couldn't find priests like that. The local priests seemed to have little faith and little loyalty, either to God or to the Catholic Church. I remember one Mass where the homily (a short sermon) was so distressing that I left in tears. I stayed outside, weeping. But then I went back in, in order to take communion. I tried every Catholic church in town, but I couldn't find a good priest.
I vividly remember a priest who spoke about Luke 7:38-50. This was the time when Jesus ate in the home of a Pharisee and a woman came and wept and washed Jesus' feet with her tears, and dried them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment. The Pharisee was critical. Jesus told him that he had not washed Jesus' feet, but the woman did. He had not greeted Jesus with a kiss, but the woman kissed his feet. The Catholic priest said that this event must not have really happened, because it would be rude for a guest to say something like that to his host, and Jesus would never have been rude. This illustrates an attitude towards Scripture which I encountered with a number of priests. It was very distressing.
Meanwhile, my parents had become Christians. They had joined a little Methodist church where the pastor believed the Bible and loved the people. Because the local Catholic churches were distressing, I started doing the splits. I went to early morning Mass (out of duty) and then I attended the Methodist church. When my parents joined another Scripturally based Protestant church, I followed them there, while still attending early morning Mass on Sundays. I did the splits for years.
I made myself go to Mass out of duty. But I went to my parents' church eagerly. I learned exciting things about the Bible there. I sang songs that stirred my soul. I took classes that made me more and more hungry for Scripture. I got to know people who were enthusiastic about God. I learned that Biblical principles really work, and that they make a significant practical difference in real life situations.
As I learned more about the Bible, I began to realize that some Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture. This was disturbing, but I kind of pushed those contradictions to the back of my mind and didn't deal with them. They made me uneasy, but I wasn't emotionally able to handle the idea that there might be something wrong with the Catholic Church.
My brother was a devout Catholic. He assisted the priests at Mass for many years. He lived several hours' drive away from us. We had a tradition that on Easter and Christmas, he would come visit and we would go to Midnight Mass together.
One Christmas, at Midnight Mass, the priest taught that the Christmas story as presented in the Bible is basically a pious fairy tale to make people feel good, but it has nothing to do with reality. My brother got so angry that he wanted to jump up and shout, "Are we here to celebrate it or to debate it?"
The next day, we went to church with our parents. The pastor there told us that Daniel had been in charge of the "wise men" of Babylon (magi). Therefore, they knew about Baalam's prophecy that the King of the Jews would be heralded by a star. Their religion included watching the stars for signs. So when they saw the special star, they realized that it signaled the coming of this special King of the Jews. Also, one of their functions was to decide who the valid king was if there was a controversy about it. So when they came to confirm that Jesus was truly the King of the Jews, they were fulfilling their official function.
Needless to say, the contrast was striking. And troubling. I did a lot of praying after that. By the following Easter, I had left the Catholic Church and joined my parents' church.
I didn't know what to tell my brother and his wife, because they were coming to visit at Easter, and I did not want to go to Midnight Mass with them. We had a long, awkward telephone conversation. Then I finally told them. They started laughing. They had also left the Catholic Church, and were in the process of visiting different churches, trying to find a church home.
There was a prayer that had a major impact on my life, but I don't remember the exact words. When I prayed it, I was crying and I didn't know why. And afterwards, things were different, but it's hard to put into words. The prayer was something like this:
"Jesus, I want to know You. Please reveal Yourself to me and make the Bible come alive for me. I want to be clean and start over again. Please forgive my sins. Wash them away and set me free. I want to live right. Please change my heart. Help me love what You love, and turn away from things that displease You. You know what's best for me. I want to do things Your way. Please be the Lord of my life. Teach me to love the way You love. Help me be faithful to You. Thank You for loving me and for hearing this prayer. Thank You for being my Lord and my Savior."
Since then I have been struggling with issues related to Catholicism. The papers that I have written have emerged from that struggle.
In addition to being a former nun, I am also a widow. My husband and I were very close, and his death introduced me to a level of emotional pain that I didn't know was possible. The articles which I have written about finding God's comfort during times of adversity were born out of my own experience.
My testimony is not unusual. A number of former Catholics have written me sharing how they found a living, personal relationship with God when they became born-again, Bible-believing, Protestants.
Some ex-Catholics read my testimony and wrote to me, wanting to be sure that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Savior. (He is.) An ex-nun befriended me. Two former priests gave me wise counsel. Other ex-Catholic friends have shared their hearts, their wisdom, and valuable information. I am deeply grateful for these people. May the Lord bless them for their kindness.
POEM
Your Word brings life to save my soul. Your Truth brings light to make me whole.
Your perfect love casts out my fears, Comforts me, and dries my tears.
I'm in the shadow of Your wings Where you teach my heart to sing.
Safe and secure from all alarm, Your faithful love keeps me from harm.
I will bless You all my days. You fill my heart with songs of praise.
NUNS AND NOVICES
I was in religious life for a little over two years. I was a novice but I never made vows. A novice is someone who has entered a religious order and has been given a habit. He or she undergoes training and "religious formation" in preparation for taking vows. (There are novice monks as well as novice nuns.)
Some people have asked me why I call myself a former nun when I never made vows. According to "The Catholic Encyclopedia," if a monk or a nun has been accepted by a religious order (which I was) and has been given a religious habit (which I wore), then he or she is a monk or a nun in the broad sense of the term. [Note 1] So I refer to myself as a former nun.
WHAT I BELIEVE
Some people have asked me what I believe. In describing my beliefs, I am going to avoid technical terms. I am also going to avoid the issues about which different Protestant churches disagree, such as church government, form of worship, details about the Second Coming of Christ, and the relationship between predestination and free will.
I believe many things which are not in this summary. If I tried to go into them all, this would become too long and cumbersome. I am only going to mention some key areas. If I fail to mention something which you consider to be a foundational Christian doctrine, that does not necessarily mean that I don't believe it. It just means that I didn't mention it.
I believe in the three "solas" of the Protestant Reformation. We are saved by faith alone (not faith plus works). We are saved by faith in Jesus alone (not Jesus plus something else). Our rule of faith is the Bible alone (not the Bible plus tradition or other writings).
Saving faith is demonstrated by loving and obeying God, and by doing good works. These are the results of salvation, not the cause of it.
Christianity works for all Christians under all circumstances. There are some countries where Christians are severely persecuted. In these countries, Bibles are scarce, and Christians are not able to meet publicly. Some Christians have been put in prison for their faith, without Bibles, and often without being able to see fellow Christians. If Christians do not have Bibles to guide them and encourage them, then God has other ways of guiding them and strengthening them. God is not limited by our circumstances.
It is valuable to have Bibles and pastors and teachers and church meetings. If they are available, then we should benefit from them as much as possible. But if those things are not available, then God is powerful enough to enable us to live godly lives without them. Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth (John 16:13) and teach us "all things" (John 14:26). God is able to keep us from falling. (Jude 1:24)
I believe in the authority and the accuracy of the Bible. I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. Jesus said that the Father showed Him what to say. (John 12:49) Surely our God is capable of doing the same thing for the men who wrote the books of the Bible.
Through the Bible, God shows us His nature and His character. He shows us what we should believe and how we should live. We need to test everything against Scripture. We also need to ask God to help us understand Scripture, to reveal Himself to us through the Bible, and to help us live according to His Word.
Ordinary people can understand the Bible. We don't have to rely on experts or church officials. The basic principles are simple enough for a child to understand. But the Bible is so rich that a brilliant scholar can spend a lifetime studying it and still not understand everything in it.
I believe that every Christian can have a personal relationship with God. We all have direct access to Him. We don't have to rely on professionals, church officials, and other special people.
I believe in the Atonement. Jesus died to save us from our sins. I believe in the Resurrection. Jesus literally rose from the dead and He now has a glorified body. He is in Heaven with the Father, and He is interceding for us. I believe in the Second Coming. Jesus will come back again.
I believe that at the end of all things, we will all stand before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 5:22; Romans 14:10) Talking about judgment is not popular these days, but it's in the Bible. When Judgment Day comes, we will want to be numbered with the Redeemed, the Saved, those whose sins have been forgiven. Even then, our works will be tested by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)
I believe in the Trinity. There is only one God. But there is the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. I believe in the Incarnation. Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man. Jesus was miraculously conceived by God. Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born.
I don't understand how this works. But even the Apostle Paul had things that he didn't understand. Paul often spoke about mysteries that are beyond our understanding.
Even in the physical world, there are many things which we can't understand. According to the laws of aerodynamics, hummingbirds and bumble bees should not be able to fly. But they do. Scientists are studying them in hopes of gaining new understanding about aerodynamics, and developing new forms of aircraft. There is an animal called a platypus which is warm blooded, lays eggs, and nurses its babies. It looks and acts like a cross between a mammal and a lizard. Everything is made of atoms. Atoms have a nucleus of protons and neutrons, and there are electrons that go around the nucleus. The protons are positive. Neutrons are magnetically neutral. And electrons are negative. Have you ever tried to take two magnets and hold the positive sides of them together? They push each other away. Yet here we have these protons all together in the nucleus of the atom. What holds them together? Scientists don't know.
Life is full of mysteries. The Trinity and the Incarnation are two of them.
The Atonement is another mystery. I believe that Jesus did it. The Bible gives me some understanding of why we desperately needed to have Him do it for us. But I cannot understand how He could love us enough to do it. How could Jesus love us so much that He was willing to be tortured to death for us? Especially when He knew that most people would not respond to Him and would not appropriate the salvation that He paid such a high price for. How could God the Father love us so much that he endured the agony of watching his beloved Son be crucified? God's love is beyond my comprehension.
I believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way that we can be saved. In the Garden of Gesthemane, Jesus prayed to the Father, begging His Father to spare Him from having to drink the cup of suffering. (Matthew 26:39; 26:42) If there was some other way to save us, don't you think that the Father would have told Jesus? Don't you think that Jesus and the Father both intensely wanted to find some other way to save us? But there was no other way. Jesus had to go through the indescribable agony of mocking, shame, abandonment, physical torture, and death in order to save us. And He was willing to do it for us.
If there was some other way, then why did Jesus suffer for us? If good works, or being nice, or sacraments, or devotion to Mary, or good intentions, or wearing the brown scapular, or non-Christian religions, or anything else would do the job, then Jesus didn't need to suffer for us. Nobody in their right mind would go through that kind of suffering if it wasn't absolutely necessary. And no loving father would allow their son to go through it if it could be avoided. There is no other way. That's why Jesus died for us.
I have a Biblical world view. I believe in a literal heaven and hell. I believe that the devil is real. I believe that angels and demons are real. And I believe that God intervenes in the lives of individuals and of nations in response to prayer. I believe that the healings and miracles and supernatural events of the Bible are real. They really happened. God did it then, and if He wants to, He can do it now. (If you want to see an example, read "God's Smuggler" by Brother Andrew. God supernaturally protected Brother Andrew when he was smuggling Bibles into Communist countries. I have also read and heard accounts of God supernaturally protecting modern Christians who were being persecuted.)
I live in America. Many people here no longer believe in a Biblical world view. It is interesting that two things are happening at the same time. Many modern Christians are abandoning their belief in the supernatural things which are described in the Bible. At the same time, belief in occult supernatural things is growing rapidly and is becoming more and more mainstream. Books, movies, and TV shows are full of it. Some colleges have courses in goddess worship, witchcraft, spell casting, and other occult things. The American military has Wiccan "chaplains".
But God can use all things, even the occult. I know a man who saw the movie "The Exorcist". He also read the book. It persuaded him that the devil is real. He decided that if the devil is real, then God must also be real. So he started reading the Bible to find out about God. This man eventually became a strong Christian.
Do you realize that I do not care what you think or argue or claim?
Nuns properly so-called have solemn vows with a strict enclosure, regulated by pontifical law which prevents the religious from going out (except in very rare cases, approved by the regular superior and the bishop), and also the entrance of strangers, even females, under pain of excommunication. Even admission to the grated parlor is not free, and interviews with regulars are subject to stringent rules. Though some mitigations have been introduced partly by local usage, partly (in the case of certain convents in America) by express concession of the Holy See. The building should be so arranged that the inner courts and gardens cannot be overlooked from outside, and the windows should not open on the public road. By the fact of their enclosure, these monasteries are independent of one another. At the head of the community is a superior often called the abbess, appointed for life by the chapter, at least outside Italy, for in Italy, and especially in the two Sicilies, the constitution "Exposcit debitum" (1 January, 1583) of Gregory XIII requires that hey should be re-elected every three years (see "Periodica de Religiosis", n. 420, vol. 4, 158). The election must be confirmed by the prelate to whom the monastery is subject, the pope, the bishop,or the regular prelate. The bishop presides over the ballot, except in the case of nuns subject to regulars, and he has always the right to be present at the election. The president collects the votes at the grating. Without having jurisdiction, the abbess exercises authority over all in the house, and commands in virtue of their vows. Monasteries not exempt are subject to the jurisdiction of the bishop; exempt monasteries are placed, some under the immediate authority of the Holy See, others under that of a regular First Order. In the absence of any other formal direction, the Holy See is understood to delegate to the bishop the annual visitation of monasteries immediately subject to the pope, to the exclusion of other superiors. This visitation is made by the regular prelate in the case of monasteries dependent on a First Order; but the bishop has in all cases authority to insist on the maintenance of the enclosure, and to control the temporal administration; he also approves the confessors.
The erection of a monastery requires the consent of the bishop, and (at least in practice nowadays) of the Holy See. The bishop, by himself, or in consultation with the regular superior, determines the number of nuns who can be received according to the amount of their ordinary revenues. The recent Council of Bishop of Latin America, at Rome in 1899, required that the number should not be less than twelve. It is sometimes permitted to receive a certain number of supernumeraries who pay a double dowry, never less than four hundred crowns, and remain supernumeraries all their lives. According to the decree of 23 May, 1659, candidates must be at least fifteen years old. The decree "Sanctissimus" of 4 January, 1910, annuls the admission to the novitiate or to any vows, if granted without the consent of the Holy See, of pupils expelled for any grave reason from a secular school, or for any reason whatever from any institution preparatory to the religious life, or of former novices or professed sisters expelled from their convents. Professed sisters dispensed from their vows cannot, without the consent of the Holy See, enter any congregation, but the one they have quitted (see NOVICE; POSTULANT; "Periodica de Religiosis", n. 368, vol. 5, 98). The admission is made by the chapter, but, before the clothing, and also before the solemn profession, it is the duty of the bishop, by himself or (if he is prevented) by his vicar-general or some person delegated by either of them, to inquire into the question of the candidate's religious vocation, and especially as to her freedom of choice. The candidate must provide a dowry of at least two hundred crowns unless the founder consents to accept a smaller sum. With certain exceptions, the dowry of choir sisters cannot be dispensed with; it must be paid before the clothing, and invested in some safe and profitable manner. On solemn profession, it becomes the property of the convent, which has, however, no right of alienation; it is returned as a matter of equity to a religious who enters another order, or to one who returns to the world and is in want.
After the novitiate the religious cannot at first, according to the decree "Perpensis" of 3 May, 1902, take any but simple vows whether perpetual or for a year only, if it is customary to take annual vows. The admission to vows is made by the chapter, with the consent of the regular superior or the bishop. Some writers hold that the bishop is bound, before this profession, to make a fresh inquiry into the vocation of the novice, and this inquiry does not dispense from that which the Council of Trent prescribes before solemn profession (see the answer of 19 January, 1909; "Periodica de Religiosis", n. 317, vol. 4, 341.) This period of simple vows ordinarily lasts for three years, but the bishop or the regular prelate may prolong it in the case of nuns who are under twenty-five years. During this period, the religious keeps her property, but makes over the administration of it to any one she may choose. She is bound to the rules and the choir, but not to the private recitation of the Divine Office; she can take part in chapters, except in those in which others are admitted to vows; she cannot be elected superior, mother-vicaress, mistress of novices, assistant, counsellor, or treasurer. She participates in all the indulgences and spiritual privileges of those who have taken their solemn vows; and although the solemnly professed take precedence, once the solemn profession is made, the seniority is regulated by the date of simple profession, without regard to any delay in proceeding to solemn profession. The dispensation of vows and dismissal of nuns are reserved to the Holy See. The outward solemnity of profession takes place at the first simple profession, the other takes place without any solemnity. Only the prelate or the ordinary can admit to the latter, but a consultative chapter is held, whose decision is announced by the superior. Solemn profession carries with it the inability to possess property (except in case of a papal indult such as that enjoyed by Belgium and perhaps Holland), annuls a marriage previously contracted but not consummated, and creates a diriment impediment to any subsequent marriage. Nuns are generally obliged to recite the Divine office, like religious orders of men; but the Visitandines and some monasteries of Ursulines recite only the ..
Much more here:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11164a.htm
(3) As regards their juridical condition, we distinguish (a) nuns properly so-called, having solemn vows with papal enclosure, whose homes are monasteries; (b) nuns belonging to the old approved orders with solemn vows, but taking only simple vows by special dispensation of the Holy See; (c) sisters with simple vows dependent on the Holy See; (d) sisters under diocesan government. The house of sisters under simple vows, and the congregations themselves are canonically called conservatoria. These do not always fulfil all the essential conditions of the religious state. Those which do are more correctly called religious congregations than the others, which are called piae congregationes, piae societates (pious congregations or pious societies.) Nuns of the Latin Church only are considered here.
From the Catholic Encylopedia. Thus, legally in the Church she was not a nun. Regardless of what she might claim.
She’s a liar.
Formal proof is nice, but in any event she is a liar (if she exists at all).
Well done, frank! :)
Folks ignorant about Catholicism will no doubt be very poor liars about Catholicism.
And you are quite right!
It isn’t often I’m asked to prove the failure of a fictional character, and I typically refuse.
For instance, presented with the premise “Dr. Eckleburg was a failure,” I have no response.
At the very least this woman is stretching the truth, which she as much as admits. I believe her story speaks for itself, if one has the eyes and understanding to see.
Petronski - you are absolutely right - she is a liar, and I too doubt she exists. But, even with bold-faced lies, I like to correct them. Keeps me in fightin' weight, so to speak. ;-)
Welcome!
“She’s a liar.”
She certainly is. There would be no reason at all not to name her Order.
Look, there are only so many Orders and so many Mother Houses. It would be very simple to name the Order. Even if she left under less than happy circumstances, I should think to provide some veracity to the story, she would.
She doesn’t.
This got debunked faster than a Dan Rather memo.
Another fake but accurate hit piece from the usual suspects.
“”There was a prayer that had a major impact on my life, but I don't remember the exact words””
This shows that whoever wrote this article must be very confused ,thus influenced of a demonic spirit.
Is this the best you can come up with?!!! BTW - this old story was already posted to the forum ... probably back in 2003.
Good try though.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
As a Catholic I rejoice that she is now able to love and serve the Lord with all her heart, mind and soul. May her zeal for the faith enrich the lives of all those she encounters. May her life be a testament to the saving power of Our Lord.
In light of your above response, and taking a peek at your home page, I see that you don't quite measure up to the claims you make there. You may need to edit, or revamp it somewhat, in the interests of being honest.
Let me know if you need any help with specific portions that could stand some updating.
God Bless her. It has to be so hard to break from a church that teaches it has exclusivity to God and interpretation of the Scriptures.
It looks like she hasn't quite finished her journey.
“As I learned more about the Bible, I began to realize that some Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture.”
“With NO elaboration?”
She elaborates quite a bit on that statement in the article titled “Hunting Heretics”, which opens thusly:
Augustine lived from 354 to 430 A.D. He had a vision of an ideal society, with the Roman Catholic Church at its center, governing all aspects of human life. His ideal society required conformity in belief and practice. Augustine taught that it was right and necessary for the Catholic Church to make this happen, even if it meant coercing people to comply. This laid the theological foundation for persecuting “heretics” and for the Inquisition. [Note 1]
For over a thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church hunted down “heretics” and killed them. Some of these “heretics” were people with strange beliefs. But, as we shall see later, many of them were Bible-believing Christians.
Jesus predicted that true Christians would be persecuted and killed. He told His disciples,
“Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John 16:2)
For the Roman Catholic Church, “heresy” means to “obstinately” doubt or deny any official Catholic doctrine. [Note 2] Doctrines which have often been disputed include the authority of the Pope, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of Mary and the saints, and transubstantiation (the doctrine that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ are fully present in every fragment of consecrated bread).
Some Catholic doctrines seem to conflict with the plain meaning of Scripture. As a result, people who read the Bible for themselves are likely to doubt or dispute those doctrines. One way of solving that problem is to prevent laymen from reading the Bible. The Catholic Church took that approach for hundreds of years.
Starting about 1080, there were many incidents where scholars wanted to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, but it was forbidden by the Pope, Church councils, or individual bishops. [Note 3] William Tyndale was burned as a “heretic” because he translated the Bible into English. [Note 4] People were burned as “heretics” for owning or reading his translation. [Note 5]
For centuries, Christians were forbidden to possess the Scriptures in any language, including Latin. Reading the Bible was considered to be proof that someone was a heretic. Men and women were burned at the stake for reading the Bible in Latin. [Note 6]
With the Protestant Reformation, the Bible was translated into English, German, and other languages. With the invention of the printing press, Bibles became so plentiful that they could no longer be suppressed. That is why people like us, who are not Latin scholars, are able to read the Bible today.
LOL.
Thanks for providing the website. Looks like lots of solid information.
Thanks thanks.
I know there are tons leaving the . . . nutty cultishness of the RC edifice every week . . . particularly in South America . . . but one wouldn’t know it from the postings on FR. Nice to see something on the other side for a change! LOL.
Agreed.
That said, and it's 11pm and I don't have time to get into the depth of the article (and I think it only proper if you wish to discuss it among the members of FR that you might post it as its own thread, rather than a subset of this existing one), I just want to point out one thing that really jumped out at me.
Doctrines which have often been disputed include the authority of the Pope, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of Mary and the saints, and transubstantiation (the doctrine that the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ are fully present in every fragment of consecrated bread).
So were the doctrines of the Antinomianism (belief that faith in Christ excepted people from moral law), Gnosticism, Arianism, and the filoque clause - one that seperates the Church from the Orthodox today. Just because something is disputed doesn't mean the Church is wrong - I think all Protestants would agree Antinomianism is a heretical doctrine (I may be wrong), but for awhile many thought otherwise.
Now, I've got a lot going on tomorrow, so I won't elaborate further (no time or energy) - but, if you decide to post the article as its own thread, please ping me to it and I'll do my best to discuss. G'nite!
Websites which include links to Jack Chick material are also not allowed, much like we do not allow websites that link to KKK, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, VDare, etc.
it certainly does appear that she could not be *properly* called a nun, yet you left out other references, the very ones she alluded to, which are parts that include exceptions to this seemingly all inclusive regulation.
Mary Ann Collins writes;
"I spent over two years as a postulant and a novice."
Then adds at the bottom of the page;
Under Novice;II. JURIDICAL CONDITION we find;
In case we don't know what a plenary indulgence is, ( i didn't) then there can be reference found here;
Searching for what a regular might be, we find at;
This excerpt, if I may;
Now this portion does talk about vows, and how the lack of by the novices seemingly had been a topic of discussion in previous times. Yet the ending sentence is the one Mary Jo refers to, along with the one which mentions plenary indulgence granted upn the day of entry.
So her stated claim, to be a nun "only in the wider sense" can be seen to apply in the brevity of her circumstance ( two years), which does appear to have been an direct consideration of the writers, judging from the general leadings of the texts here referenced and highlighted.
Please note;
She claims in the above article, and in the note attached at the bottom, to be a nun only in the wider meaning of the word.
Since it is established that novices can be considered regulars albiet only in the widest sense, [as she herself took pains to note] and a regular be a nun, again in only the widest sense, acknowledged again, along with the mention of plenary indulence, upon the FIRST DAY of admittance, then it indeed can be honestly argued she was a nun!
...other claims and definitions of Nuns in general, not withstanding.
[all highlighting of font and text my own, the bold & red
to point out the chain of reasoning, the purple, to highlight the grace given, even under your own laws, from the beginning. Which grace leads (it could be argued for her) in an unbroken chain, to now. Isn't that wonderful?]
This thread's title is
begun under grace, continuing on, under the same. It is the only Way.
To maryz; I included you as a courtesy here, since this which I've found looks to apply to the novice, in regards to vows. Please forgive the colored, and blinking font.
Hope that clarifies it.
RM
Don't look now, but I just debunked the debunking you and others have been high-fiving over. see #81
To: thefrankbaum:
You claim;
Don't you know that RCC law is full of exceptions and qualifyers? It has to be that way, since it is humans we're dealing with. I showed the exceptions in post #81.
To Petronski; If you'd like, you may send your apologies to her, through me. I saw an email address, and I'd be willing to try, then forward any reply recieved back to you. What do you say? Sound like a deal?
Well, I’d look over the posts to see what I said and how accurate it was, but they were gone. Post 77 is still there so I wonder how much is a personal attack and how much is an accurate observation.
But I’ll stop. I think the source has been debunked enough.
The condensending part was merely mirroring what I percieved as your own...just a little funnier. I was hoping to get you to think, pause, and consider. That's all. Hugo calling Bush the devil, you doing pretty much the same for this Mary Jo person, whoever she is, if she really does exist, hehheh...
How refreshing. Let us pray it becomes a habit.
It's always fascinating to post something like and then watch as the opposition is unable to muster any coherent debate other than to call the woman a "liar."
I guess that's what comes from swallowing doctrines of men to the exclusion of God's word.
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6
This does sound more than a bit fishy.
New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official organ and it’s accuracy has been questioned often on this forum. For certain, one could not say, “If New Advent says shes a nun, she is.”
Beyond that, the author of the article shows she’s a bit questionable as to former status herself, so why make an provocative leap? And one based on an unofficial internet source too boot.
Lastly, the anonymity. Why? I don’t believe her reason. There are a great many who have publicly crossed the Tiber in both directions. If his or her purpose is to convince others why hide his or her identity?
I can’t think of any good reason to hide her identity other than s/he would be exposed as untruthful.
There’s lots of apologetics by former Catholics; I’m betting this one is a fraud.
This is a bogus post. Great fiction...”My mother superior...” Give me a break.
INDEED! INDEED! INDEED!
Oh, and, of course, they trot out compulsively the old worn claim that the nun, priest, whomever were not properly taught their nutty RC cult edifice Rubber histories and rubber Bibles ‘properly.’
Seems to me that the mindless lock-step gestapo thinking of the globalists is tailor made for swallowing by such nutty cults and their followers.
I can just ‘hear’ the millions of thoughts now . . . ‘oh, well . . . I guess it must be true . . . the magicsterical/ Vatican pontificators/ holographic image of a young womanish looking figure on a cloud (which MUST be Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary) . . . all say so . . . all say it’s true . . . this is the new way to go . . . so implant my chip here . . . where do I bow to worship the image of the world ruler?’
I thought that
by definition . . .
the Nutty RC edifice cult rubber dictionary
defined
a fraud
as anything that disagreed whatesoever with the current traditions of man being pontificated by the magicsterical???
Is that a real statement?
If you like to make an honest reply with some courtesy, I’d be happy to discuss your position.
Oh, Dear me!
Am I to understand that the magicsterical has decreed that . . . it’s not sufficient courtesy to avoid stoning idolators?
[tacky joke]
Would you like to make another try at an honest reply with some courtesy for discussion, or is this pretty much what you wish to offer?
I don’t know.
The day is not over yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.