|
L e t t e r s
I wanna hold your hand!
|
This Rock
Volume 6, Number 2
 February 1995 
|
|
|
IN your October 1994 issue you published a most thought provoking letter. It says that holding hands during the Lord's Prayer at Mass is a Wicca invention of the evil feminist movement. Bunk. If you really want to know who started the custom of holding hands during the Lord's Prayer, I'll tell you. It was me.
In the mid 1970s, when we had a pile of kids and sat in the first row so they could see, my wife and I went on a Marriage Encounter weekend. At the Lord's Prayer in the concluding Mass the celebrant asked us to hold hands with our spouse and really pray as one. I liked that.
The next Sunday, we told the kids we would hold hands during the Lord's Prayer, and why. We are praying "Our Father . . . give us this day ... forgive us our sins." No singular, first-person pronouns. This is a community prayer.
We continued and others joined us. (We also found it a great antidote to the small people wiggles.) Before long many, if not most, of the parishioners in Our Lady Star of the Sea Church in Bremerton, Washington held each others' hands during the Lord's Prayer. As to the feminists and the Wicca, forget it. Not here. One special Saturday morning speaker for a Women's Program came and sang one song about "mother earth." There was a firestorm of protest, and that hasn't happened again.
Then we moved. We found ourselves at Christmas in 1978 in St. Sebastian's Parish in Frankfurt, Germany. The kids still needed to see, and they still wiggled. So we sat in front, on the Gospel side. (Remember the Gospel side and the epistle side?) For the Lord's Prayer we held hands. After Mass a number of our new parishioners asked us about it. They were members of Marriage Encounter, Charismatic Renewal, or Cursillo. They liked to hold hands in prayer.
Eventually we found a permanent home in a three-cow village in the country. Wiesbaden Air Base was closer to us, so we joined that parish. Same song, second verse. A lot of them started holding hands.
Finally, when weather got bad we went to the Catholic churches in the two local villages. There we joined hands, as usual. Again we were questioned. We said simply that the Lord's Prayer is our prayer, together we approach the Father. We noticed that the usual congregation consisted of mature women who brought their children (under confirmation age), old women and older men--even some of them began to hold hands.
As we traveled in an old VW bus around Europe on vacation for the next five years, we observed the hand holding at the Lord's Prayer in such diverse places as Jerusalem, Rome, a country church in France, Lourdes, all the way north to Norway. In November 1993 we were in the Franciscan church in Budapest. Everybody was holding hands at the Our Father. And these people never heard of Wicca!
I started by saying I started it. I was kidding. I maybe helped a little. But when something that brings God's people closer to him springs up, literally all over the world, like the rosary did, and the brown scapular did, and the hand-holding did--things that help us on our way to God--there is only one conclusion. God did it.
To those who don't like holding hands with family or strangers while they talk to God, I say, for goodness' sake, don't do it. It is only a matter of style. It is not dogma.
If I may, I'd like to take issue with one other statement good old Name Withheld By Request made. He or she wrote, "[W]hen we join hands, and some are in the state of grace and some are not, then are we presenting the Mystical Body of Christ to the Father? God cannot be present where sin is."
As to whether we are presenting the Mystical Body of Christ to the Father, I really don't know. Maybe. Would that be so terrible? What I see when I look around our church at the Lord's Prayer are innocent little kids, lost teenagers, a couple of bums who sleep on the church pews (it is open around the clock), harried moms and dads, old grandmothers praying for their apostate chil
dren, old guys who have been praying that prayer for 80 years, couples who are married out of the Church and still keep coming to Mass every Sunday, college kids who know right from wrong and are fighting to stay straight in a world full of moral piranhas, and a young, good, tireless priest.
I see Caucasians, some blacks, Guatemalans, Mexicans, Vene-zualians, Peruvian Indians, Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Native Americans, Japanese, Taiwanese, Hong Kongites, Chinese, lots of Navy people, a few from Army and Marines. Many of them hold hands. Some don't.
What I really see is a family reunion of God's kids, coming together to hear, not so much about how good we are, or how much we love him, but rather how precious we are in his eyes and how much he loves us.
Can God be present where there is sin? Of course he can. He was present to the Evil One. He was present to Augustine when he prayed, "Lord give me chastity, but not yet." More important, God is present to me when I am in sin and try to hide from him.
William D. Zimsen
Bremerton, Washington
Hank and Ron on RC's
THANKS for your article "Bible Answer Man and Hell" [January 1995]. When I listen to this program, occasionally a well informed Catholic caller will successfully challenge the Hank-and-Ron anti-Catholic tag team, but not often. Too often a caller will identify himself as "I was raised a Catholic, but I really didn't come to know Jesus until last week when I heard your program on the radio." Then the conversation proceeds to compliment the caller for leaving the Catholic Church.
I talked to my parish priest about this anti-Catholic attitude because in our area many of our small valley's churches are dialoguing in an ecumenical way, not in a divisive way. The focus is to celebrate the areas that are similar rather than to focus on the differences. The Bible Answer Man (BAM) program really damages the efforts that many people are putting into the reconciliation process. Many Protestants are coming to Mass, some daily, and really enjoying the celebration. Many are also converting.
The priest told me that the attitudes expressed by this program aren't mainline Protestant positions. That may be true in our area, where our parish alone has more people in it than all the other denominations put together. It may also be true that the local Protestant pastors are more ecumenically minded. But when the BAM program is aired over thousands of radio stations across the U.S. and Canada, and I hear the callers' questions and the resulting answers, I don't feel any charity or ecumenism coming from it, only division.
Maybe this divisive nature is the root of Protestantism being 25,000-plus divisions, constantly dividing and starting over again. One Catholic caller tried to defend papal infallibility and was immediately reminded of Pope Honorius. The caller tried to explain, but Hank laughed, saying the caller's nose was growing like Pinocchio. So much for their policy of treating all fellow human beings with charity.
Hank Hanegraaff, president of the Christian Research Institute and the BAM, is no pushover. He debates fiercely. He is infinitely patient with a Protestant caller--not so with Catholics, particularly skin-deep Catholics. His venom toward the Church is of Niagara proportions at times. What is really interesting, he quotes Aquinas and Augustine copiously as great Church leaders. How Hank and Ron Rhodes can quote these two Catholic Church Fathers and hold to their own anti-Catholic positions is beyond me. What is the chance of Catholic Answers debating these people?
Steve Barry
Santa Rosa, California
Editor's reply:
About zero, since in the past the Christian Research Institute declined offers to debate.
The cultic Church of Christ
IN the past six years This Rock magazine has truly been a life saver to me. It is heartening to see such a profoundly needed ministry working within and without the Catholic Church. My first experience with your magazine occurred as a result of returning to Christ, not within the Catholic Church, but through a strong "Bible church" mainly operating on local college campuses.
This Rock, in fact, published an article about the group--known as the "[Boston] Church of Christ." Indeed, as I later discovered, they turned out to be quite a dangerous cult. As I ran into problems with some of their teachings and methods, I began to feel a pressure and manipulation my heart felt could not be of Christ.
The more I presented questions and arguments, the more they pressured and accused me of falling away and being blinded by Satan. This occurred only after I was in too far. If any of their efforts were met with questioning or debate, their pretense of brotherly love would quickly vanish. Any vulnerability in an individual (typical of many college-age persons) would be attacked with unrelenting "guilt trips."
My father, a man devoted to the Catholic faith, was becoming more and more alarmed as he began to see my life become torn apart by the manipulation that I was going through. Our discussions were helpful, but he wasn't able to convince me that the Church of Christ was wrong in many areas of Christian doctrine. Then one miraculous day it happened, as I was relating to my father what were many of their teachings, both in ecclesiastical history and in Christian doctrine, he was able to point out some blatant errors. In addition, a friend of his had given him a copy of This Rock that explained Matthew 16:15-20. This would be the beginning that would catapult my father and me into a study of the true Christian history that would inevitably arm me with the strength and knowledge to pull away from the Church of Christ.
It makes perfect sense where Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. . . . And I say to you that you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church." The Lord must have intended for there to be one Church and one teaching authority. Or else there would be exactly what we have today--thousands of different "Christian" sects saying thousands of different things about the true teachings of Christ. Logically, this is totally impossible. There cannot be one truth, one Holy Spirit, saying thousands of different things about salvation. That is why Jesus knew exactly what he was doing when he "built the Church upon the foundation of the apostles" (Eph. 2:20)--namely Peter (to whom Jesus specifically gave the "keys to the kingdom").
The Church would always have had to hand down through the generations a leadership to protect the integrity of gospel. The mechanism would be known as "apostolic Tradition." The fact that the Catholic Church has lasted two thousand years (despite corruptions) is a testament to the truth that it is, indeed, the Church that Christ built and gave sole authority not only to interpret Scripture, but to put the whole Bible together in the first place.
In the years that followed my experience within the Fundamentalist cult, I have heard all the arguments against this truth. Not one of them can stand up when you study the history of Christ's true Church, the Catholic Church. Whether it be about papal authority or Marian theology, both can be supported by Scripture. Our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters must realize that scriptural basis for doctrine is not the sole authority for doctrine. Historically, we must remember that the Church existed almost 400 years without the Bible as we know it today. It took centuries for our Church Fathers to canonize the Holy Scriptures into what we know as the Bible (which is authoritative).
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Bible is the sole container of the entire C
hristian faith. (The premise of sola scriptura is actually unscriptural.) It does state that "scripture is profitable for teaching and for doctrine." Indeed it is! That's precisely why our Church Fathers canonized (declared to be the holy, inspired Word of God) the Scriptures into the Holy Bible. It serves as a protection, a basis of our beliefs. But not the sole authority (which is the Church that made the Bible).
Matt MacKay
Hayward, California
Relativism irrelevant
READING the letters from Thomas M. Walton in September's issue and Doug Menietti in November's, I feel a need to comment. Mr. Walton uses the biblical command of love of God and neighbor to back up his assertion that an act's effects and morality are the same. Mr. Menietti insists that this view is moral relativism. Neither brings up the reason why God makes moral prohibitions of actions in the first place.
God only prohibits actions to protect us. Mr. Walton and Mr. Menietti both miss on an important point, namely that since God prohibits actions only to protect his people, it is impossible to find a case where an action's general acceptance benefits society and is yet morally wrong. The search for an action God prohibits but which benefits society, and the search for an action which God permits but which harms society, are as vain as the search for a time when Christ broke the Father's command.
Thomas L. Weber
St. Cloud, Minnesota
Been there, done that
A FEW words on your December issue, that is the rock being Peter specifically. Protestants say that the rock is Peter's testimony, and Catholics say the rock is Peter. If Scripture interprets itself, then I have a third alternative.
This alternative backs the Church's authority, but most importantly it is Scripture interpreting itself. When Jesus said rock, he meant himself. In Greek, Peter would be a small rock taken from a larger rock, so what Jesus is saying is that Peter's authority is begotten of Jesus himself, the foundation.
But even more clear is the Arabic which Jesus spoke. In Arabic, Peter would be a smaller feminine rock, while, Jesus, as the rock, would be the larger masculine rock. Eve was taken from Adam. The authority of the Church is taken from Jesus through Peter in the same way. After all, Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church his Bride, the Bride, through Peter, has Jesus' own authority.
I'm forced to challenge anyone to come up with a more scriptural interpretation of Matthew 16:18. If Protestants are honest, they have to consider this.
George Scanlon
West Roxbury, Massachusetts
Editor's reply:
Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Arabic, and he gave Simon the Aramaic name "Kepha," which, like the Greek "petra," means a large, massive rock, one that is suitable for a foundation. Your "third alternative" has been around ever since the Reformation. Although Jesus is the ultimate foundation of the Church, the structure of Matthew 16:18 and the Aramaic used by our Lord preclude, in this passage, the word "rock" from referring to Jesus himself. For more information on this, see my book
Women lead men
I WAS surprised to see all the
negative feedback in the December 1994 edition over the
priesthood issue (which is not really an issue, as you have
pointed out). The women and men who are fighting against the
Church's teaching of a male-only priesthood have closed
their eyes and hearts to the beautiful role that God has
reserved for women.
We have only to look at the Bible to find our (women's) call
in the Catholic Church. Mary Magdalene, who was the first to
see and touch Jesus, was the first to believe the Good News
of Jesus' Resurrection. The first to proclaim that Good
News--"I have seen the Lord!" (John 20:18).
Ah, but listen to Jesus' words to her, "Do not cling to me,
for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Rather, go to my
brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and
your Father, to my God and your God!'<<|" (John 20:17). Just
nine verses after that listen to Jesus' words to the men of
his Church, "Take your fingers and examine my hands. Put
your hands into my side. Do not persist in your unbelief,
but believe!"
So to the woman, bravely searching and believing, he says,
"Don't touch," but go proclaim. To the men, scared, hiding,
and unbelieving (yet ordained), "Do not just touch, but take
your hand and examine my very being."
What a wonderfully important calling we women have! In
today's world, which fills our children's minds with things
material, when our brothers, husbands, and even our priests
are bombarded with this world's concerns--financial,
political, and temporal--we women, though facing many of the
same concerns, are called not only to lift up our eyes to
heaven's most glorious King, but also to lift up the eyes of
our struggling male counterparts.
The world does not need women priests. It needs women who
can teach the children and remind the men of humility,
charity, compassion, patience, belief, faith, hope and love
by their words and actions.
Mrs. John Orban
Rapid City, South Dakota
Who's saved?
IT'S strange and ironic that a
magazine of Catholic apologetics would proclaim salvation
outside the Church. I'm referring to Mr. Michael Mazza's
opinion in the December issue that people who do not know
the Catholic Church can be saved. Effectively, he says that
faith is not necessary for salvation.
While most heresy is persuasive to a degree, this one leaves
my imagination cold. Let me illustrate my quandary with a
fill-in-the-blank question: There are those of good will
who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of holy
religion. Though earnestly seeking God and truth, they are
left in ignorance by God, who has no _______ to reveal the
faith to them. Possible answers: (a) means, (b) desire,
(c) compelling reason.
Since God is almighty and desires all to be saved and come
to the knowledge of truth, the answer must be (c). But (c)
just doesn't fit a God who suffered and died for men. Can
you or Mr. Mazza fill in the blank?
The answer is, of course, that God does reveal the faith to
men of good will (per St. Thomas Aquinas). This is an
essential corollary to the infallibly-defined dogma that the
Catholic faith is necessary for salvation. St. Alphonsus,
who clearly lacked Mr. Mazza's enlightenment, said it best:
"What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia,
Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and
schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. . . . We would
have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and
blocks of stone and wood; and thus we all would have
perished!" (Preparation for Death, p. 339).
Besides your obligation to print the whole truth, you must
be extra diligent on those things necessary for salvation.
If you provide some hope for salvation outside the Church,
you will have to answer for the soul who imbibes this and
fails to convert himself or his neighbor.
Gerald Benitz
Amy Benitz
North Chelmsford, Massachusetts
Editor's reply:
Mr. Mazza did not
"proclaim salvation outside the Church." He proclaimed the
Church's interpretation of the dogma extra Ecclesiam
nulla salus ("outside the Church no salvation"). This
interpretation has been stated clearly by popes such as Pius
IX, Pius XII, and John Paul II, and it is found in the
teaching of Vatican II and the Catechism of the
Catholic Church: Someone who is not a formal member of
the Church, who remains outside of the visible Church
through invincible ignorance yet who remains "related" to it
through grace, and who follows the lights God gives him
may be saved. The Church has never said it is
likely that he will be saved--it has not even said that it
is likely that Catholics will be saved, nor has the Church
said that someone outside its visible boundaries has
as good a chance as a Catholic to be saved. (All else being
equal, the Catholic has the better chance).
The issue is, What constitutes sufficient
"membership" in the Church? That is not for you to decide,
nor for me. It is for the magisterium, which has concluded
that the rigorist interpretation of "no salvation outside
the Church" is not the interpretation to be held by
Catholics.
What I saw on the lists.
THE story in November's issue about a
National Catholic Reporter article that recommended a
number of Internet lists on religion really caught my
attention. For almost a year I've been on two of the lists:
WMSPRT-L and AmerCath. Although AmerCath does contain
some legitimate scholarly discussions of American Catholic
history, it seems that there is more communication
concerning current events.
The Pope's recent letter on the question of women's
ordination, for example, elicited a heavy response--mostly
negative to one degree or another. Apologetical discussions
seem to be frowned upon (it's a list for the discussion of
history, not apologetics, is the reminder). Once, when a
college student asked for help in presenting the Catholic
Church's teaching on purgatory to a Fundamentalist teacher
in an ongoing discussion they were having, I did post
several suggested readings (books and Scripture) as well as
the address and phone number of Catholic Answers. I never
heard back from the student on how he did or what he did,
but someone else responded that we should never use proof
texts, for it only leads to exchanging verses of Scripture
back and forth and there's no winner.
As for WMSPRT-L (Women's Spirituality and
Feminist-Oriented Religion), most discussion centers on
goddess-worship, Wicca, paganism, the environment
(nature-worship), attacks on Christianity in generall and,
of course, the "patriarchal, mysogynistic" Catholic Church
in particular. Matthew Fox is a big hero though, as are
several female Catholic saints, Joan of Arc and Hildegard of
Bingen. There are some women who claim to be Christians and
are trying to reform the Church from within (reform meaning
the tearing down of the patriarchy and the lifting up of the
goddess/female side of God), but the majority are Wiccans or
pagans, some of whom are ex-Christians/ex-Catholics.
So far, I have remained a "lurker." I'm not quite sure how
to introduce an apologetical discussion on the list. They
really jump on anyone who expresses anything which is taken
as anti-feminist or pro-orthodox Christian. A woman once
sent a message supporting the Catholic Church's teachings on
abortion.
There were only a few responses, but they were very
pro-abortion and very critical of the woman and the Church.
(One announced that the Catholic Church has taught that
abortion is a sin only since 1873.) Also, there's the threat
of being "unsubscribed" from the list by the listowner for
deviating from the purpose of the list--a Catholic apologist
might not last long.
Marcus Schlichter
Wayne, Nebraska
Ouch!
This priest [shown in an enclosed
photograph] just had a violent confrontation with a rabid
fundamentalist. He displayed his bruises in a photograph in
his parish bulletin recently. Unquestionably, a Tract
Sampler could help him sharpen his argumentative and
apologetics skills. The rest I leave to the local karate
instructor.
Name withheld by request
Bremerton, Washington
Off with their heads?
IT'S a curious thing, when the
obvious is disagreed upon. I have in mind the Latin Mass,
which all civilized persons rightly think of as the glory of
Western Civilization, the calm, transcendent focus point of
Christendom. Can one really imagine the great minds and
achievements, both religious or secular, ever arising
without its existence and unquestioned acceptance? Yet in a
sea-change out of all order or precedent, this priceless
jewel of the Church was abruptly shelved by
politically-ascendant modern clerics, who, presumably in
company with the majority of modern men, had had enough of
the Great Past.
Is doctrine still pure? Where, I ask, is the baby Jesus
safer: in Mary's arms, or in Herod's arms? (A rhetorical
excess I could not resist.) I think it is safer to assert
that doctrine, especially that of the Real Presence, is far
better preserved in the venerable Latin Mass than the Ritus
Experimentum which unsuccessfully labors to fulfill the
modest wishes of the fathers of the Vatican II. Does anyone
really believe that those able men would have actually
approved what has transpired? Not a few eminent men of the
Church--for example, Msgr. Klaus Gamber--think not.
I apologize for the clumsiness of much of the foregoing,
written in haste and passion, but perhaps it conveys my
general drift and leads logically to this point where I wish
to express my displeasure with what I perceive to be a flaw
in your work, with which I am otherwise in agreement: your
unwarranted persistent connection of "Traditionalists" with
one unsavory heresy or another, particularly by our old
friend "guilt by association" or the off-with-their-heads
"Alice in Wonderland" non-sequitur. I do hope you inspect
your own copy with the same care you comb the tracts of the
Protestants you so graciously address ad nauseum.
William Jansen
Forest Grove, Oregon
Editor's reply:
What is an
"off-with-their-heads 'Alice in Wonderland' non-sequitur"?
Whatever it is, we haven't used it. (I don't recollect poor
Alice ever making an appearance in these pages.) When you
conclude that we lump all Traditionalists together, you read
too much into the few articles we have published about
fringe Traditionalists.
The fact is that Catholic Traditionalism has
received, unjustifiably, a bad name, even among orthodox
Catholics, because some Traditionalists (a minority, surely)
have adopted the Protestant principle of private
interpretation and have moved so far from what they consider
abuses that they have left the Church entirely.
A good example are the folks at Mount St.
Michael in Spokane. This one-time Jesuit seminary is now
operated by a group of former Catholics who style themselves
the only real Catholics. They think the last several
occupants of the See of Peter haven't been real popes at
all, and they entirely reject Vatican II.
If authentic Traditionalists don't disavow
people such as these, the entire Traditionalist movement
will fall into disrepute. It's precisely the liberal
opponents of what you want to preserve who lump together
real Traditionalists and, well, "kooks."
We consider ourselves "traditional"
Catholics, and we applaud the good work that many
Traditionalists have undertaken. But nothing good can come
from associating with (or refusing to dissociate from)
people who have set up their own petit eglise or
who have arrogated to themselves the authority to interpret
Catholic doctrines. Schism and opposition to the magisterium
always fail in the long run, no matter how satisfying it may
be to some to participate in them in the short run. We do no
one in the Church a favor by pretending that there aren't
troublemakers in the Traditionalist movement.
Bad language, guys!
FROM Robert Spencer's article on Pope
Honorius (September 1994): "papal black sheep or, perhaps,
the papal wolves. Most of these were dissolute scoundrels
who were too busy drinking and whoring to occupy themselves
with doctrine."
[This] language would be considered crude and immature in
any serious magazine, especially so in a Catholic one,
especially referring to the papacy. It is sad that a
Catholic periodical--and called This Rock--should be so
carelessly insensitive towards human misery to allow such
scurrilous language when speaking of the papacy. I was a
Navy chaplain for many years. Sailors use such expressions,
but it would be sad indeed if they applied them to their
parents, regardless of any past mistakes.
Let's face it, the opposition of American Catholics against
the pope, Rome, and the Vatican revolves almost exclusively
around sexual/gender issues: celibacy, male priesthood,
birth control, abortion, homosexuality, divorce and
remarriage, inclusive language, etc. The incidental remark
in the article is precisely what the opposition to the
magisterium of the Church wants to hear to justify their
dissent. Undocumented generalities do not consider the
specific human context, are usually judgmental, and, in this
case, irreverent toward the humanity that Christ loved even
unto death, that his image be restored in each one of us.
I feel the matter serious enough to take this time to
comment because human sexuality is a very serious matter and
because our generation is going through a crisis that
concerns the very institution of marriage and the meaning of
love. The authority of Peter is very important in solving
this crisis.
Rev. Anthony Navarria
Ajo, Arizona
Editor's reply:
Thank you for your
constructive criticism, Father. The words were pointed, and
perhaps the blue pencil could have been applied to them, but
they would have been replaced with words which, while easier
on the eyes, still would have noted that at certain times in
the Church's history the highest positions of authority have
been occupied by men whose personal conduct caused such
grave scandal that some found in their actions sufficient
reasons (or so they thought) to jettison the Church
entirely.
Even as we reject that thinking, we need to
keep in mind that the worst pope in history, whoever that
may have been, was protected in official teaching by the
Holy Spirit and never taught as true doctrine what in fact
was false. There is no evidence that any pope whose morals
were questionable ever taught falsely.
Worshiping the goddess
WE are always delighted to receive
This Rock. In the September 1994 issue there was a news
item about Olivia Robertson and the Fellowship of Isis at
Huntington Castle in Ireland. The Fellowship was founded by
Olivia and her brother, Lawrence Durdin Robertson, formerly
ordained in the Episcopalian Church--I can't remember which
branch, most likely the Church of Ireland, but I am not
certain it wasn't the Church of England. I believe they are
cousins of Robert Graves, author of The White Goddess.
Durdin Robertson died a few months ago, and his obituary
told the story that, when he was first drawn to worship the
goddess, he went to his bishop to resign his orders. The
bishop is said to have told Durdin he saw no contradiction
between being an Anglican clergyman and worshipping Isis. It
was Durdin himself who decided the two were irreconcilable
and withdrew from the church.
The Robertsons are quite well-known over here. Durdin held
an Irish peerage, and the Castle was on the tourist circuit.
I have seen a feature on it in the glossy Homes and
Gardens. I think they were well-liked, both because the
Irish love an eccentric and because they are/were very nice
people. From what I remember of their newsletters, which I
saw when I was a member of a similar group in the late 1970s
and early 1980s, much of their following was in West Africa.
I doubt they found many disciples in Ireland.
Helen Gilmour
Bradford, England
Well-armed youths
I KNOW from experience what a
wonderful tool Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth is. We
were each handed a booklet from our diocese as we boarded
buses on our way down to Denver for World Youth Day.
We encountered the Fundamentalists at our first stop in
Boise, Idaho. Well, that really motivated the youth on our
bus to start looking for some answers--and they had them in
their hands!
Two young men went up to the front of the bus and, using the
loud speaker, began to go over the answers in the booklet.
Bibles were opened, and we read through the supporting
Scriptures together. It was wonderful watching the Spirit
work--so many of the kids did not know the biblical basis to
support their faith. It was reassuring for them to know what
we believe and why we believe it. We prayed the rosary
together, after which many private discussions took place.
By the time we hit Denver, they were prepared and
confident.
Melanie Lischka
Quincy, Washington
Surprised by Surprised
I JUST finished Surprised by
Truth and it was a fantastic book! I especially enjoyed
the guy who went to the Jimmy Swaggert Bible School as a
last-ditch effort to avoid poping.
Bob Slomiany
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Sister's Valentine
YOUR generous gift of two works,
Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth and Surprised by
Truth just reached me. What a beautiful Valentine! What a
lovely surprise! And all this for my tiny donation towards
the cause of evangelization. At present I am reading Pope
John Paul's book Crossing the Threshold of Hope. What a
profound source I have for drinking the living waters of
truth. How did your recent crusade for truth develop and
spread? I trust Christ and you, his apostles of the Catholic
press, were pleased and continue to see our beautiful Mother
Church spread.
Sr. Mercedes Winters
Fallen, Montana
|
[TOP]
