The Holy Father's 
I created this blog for two purposes: 1) to promote devotion to Our Lady (especially Our Lady of La Salette), and 2) to defend devotion to Our Lady.
There are few people more opposed to devotion to Mary than the infamous Jack Chick. If you are unfamiliar with him, he is a reclusive man who writes the “comic book tracts” you’ve probably come across. They are most popular among fundamentalist Christians. In addition to writing tracts with a general “believe in Jesus to be saved” message (a message which is certainly true), he has written many polemics against evolution, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam, Freemasonry, Mormonism, homosexuality, abortion, Halloween, use of any Bible but the King James Version, and Catholicism. Fans of Chick will sometimes drop anti-Halloween tracts in trick-or-treat bags, or hide anti-catholic tracts in votive candles that are popular at some supermarkets, especially those in neighborhoods with a high Hispanic Catholic population.
Chick’s tracts used to be sold at Protestant bookstores. Many book stores began pulling his tracts, and the Christian Booksellers Association threatened to expel him, but he left the CBA willingly. He claimed that this was all a plot against him and that these bookstores had been infiltrated by Jesuits, the largest order of Catholic priests.
Most of Chick’s claims come from a man named Alberto Rivera, who claims to have been a Jesuit priest sent to infiltrate Protestant churches. Christianity Today debunked Rivera’s claim that he was ever a priest. If someone knowledgeable of the Catholic faith reads the “Alberto” series of comic books, one would be forced to believe that Rivera is either lying about some or all of his story, or he was the most poorly catechized priest ever.
As I say in the About Me section of this blog, I was inspired to create this blog in part by a Jack Chick comic called “Why is Mary Crying?” hence the name of this blog. As such, one of my goals is to respond to the claims about Mary made by Chick and like-minded people. It would be an enormous task to respond to all of Chick’s claims about the Church, so I will focus on Mary, and comment on other issues when appropriate.
Most of Chick’s claims against Catholicism are fodder for conspiracy theorists. For example, he claims:
- The Catholic Church is a replication of ancient Babylonian religion.
- Devotion to Mary, or “Mary Worship” as he insists on calling it, is taken from the Babylonians.
- The Catholic Church created Islam.
- The Catholic Church created Communism to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church.
- The Catholic Church has a computer with the name of every Protestant in it.
- The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is our savior.
- etc.
For more information on Jack Chick, view Catholic Answers’ special report and Jimmy Akin’s blog.
Starting tomorrow (Monday May 12) I will begin a 4-part series on Jack Chick’s tract, “Why is Mary Crying?”
Filed under: Apologetics, Christianity, Religion | Tagged: anti-Catholics, Jack Chick
Right. Alberto IS a phony. Just look at this web page: http://www.spirituallysmart.com/alberto.html
As you can see Alberto went to GREAT LENGTHS to make it LOOK like he was a Jesuit priest. Like his Spanish ID given to him under the fascist regime of Roman Catholic Francisco Franco. Now THAT is hard to do. Also, you’ll see he had pictures taken as a young man in clerical garb. As if he knew ten years later he would come forward and act like he was an ex-priest!
Amazing!
-Thomas Richards
Actually, it’s not that hard to forge documents, alter photographs, or take pictures of one event and say its of something else. People do it all the time.
Alberto claimed that reading the Bible was banned, yet Catholics receive an indulgence for doing so.
Alberto claimed that transubstantiation was defined in the Council of Trent. It was the 4th Lateran Council.
Alberto claimed that he was taught that Mary was our Savior, not Christ. The Church does not teach that.
And I’m supposed to believe this man was genuine?
I challenge you to do 100’s of interviews and lectures without making any errors. He could have mis-spoke or remembered the detail incorrectly.
As far as the catholic teaching that Mary is the savior, well, what i have often seen Catholic professors who teach on this subject say that “one can not approach Christ except through Mary.” So I, an ex-catholoic testify that what Alberto said about that is absolutely correct.
And if you deny that the Roman catholic church has not in the past (at least) banned the Bible and persecuted bible believers then i’m afraid you are very much in ignorance in the matter and should delete this blog and go study some history.
Thomas, it is excusable to make an error in a lecture or interview. It is not excusable when this is in a comic book distributed to thousands of people.
I’m afraid you’re the one who needs to learn history. The Catholic Church has always encouraged reading of the Scriptures, but certain translations have been banned. (Furthermore, some supposed sources that are cited as “proof” that the Church banned the reading of Scripture are actually condemnations of the idea that reading Scripture is necessary for Salvation. The Church rejects that as a work which does not save us. I think that even Chick would agree with that!)
Would it be honest of me to say that Jack Chick bans the Bible if he tells people not to read the NIV version, or the Jehovah’s Witness’s translation, or some other non-KJV Bible? No, that would be dishonest of me. The Church did not ban the Bible outright, but bad translations of it. Good shepherds do this. Protestants do this. Jack Chick does this.
If you read through the work of theologians, Saints, popes, and philosophers of the Church from the 1st century through the present, you will see extensive quoting from Scripture. Scripture forms the basis of Catholic worship and thought.
To say that we reach Jesus through Mary does not make Mary our savior any more than Jack Chick is the savior of someone who reads his tracts and is saved. But with Mary, Jesus came into the world through the womb of Mary, thus Mary gives us Jesus, and she continues to give Jesus to us. Thus, just as someone might reach Jesus through Chick, just as someone might praise Chick for “saving” him, just as someone might ask Chick to pray for him, even after he was saved, so is it with Mary. The difference is that she is in Heaven, and he is on Earth.
You sound as loony as this Chick fellow. Two extremists battling each other forever and deriving some perverted sense of prospering good by doing so. Fact is most people dismiss people like Chick as just too extreme to be helpful. And your positions seem to be just as extreme. Both of you are blindly guided by your hatred of something “other” than your views. You are not motivated by Love of something positive. That is why people like you and Chick have little to no impact on the real dialog of good vs. evil. You both are a distraction.
One more thought regarding Thomas Richard’s comment about the RC banning the bible– Thomas, get real. I am no fan of the Catholic Church although I have had spent my time studying the theology, philosopy and history of the RCC. While the Church has unquestionably done very evil things in the past, and it has been dead wrong morally quite a bit, one thing they have never done is ban the bible. There is simply no historical or theological support for this. The church is nasty, but not stupid.
Examples of my “extremism”, please? On this blog, I promote what millions of Catholics around the world believe, and what millions of Catholics throughout history have believed.
Let me address the issue of your extremism with the caveat that I don’t expect you to suddenly think, “Oh, that’s right. I am extreme after all.” First, what is extreme? The root of the word is extremus, from the latin meaning most on the outside, or furthest from the center. I take this concept of “far from the center” not in a statistical sense (deviation from the “norm” of belief, or the most commonly believed) but in the philosophical sense, meaning purged of any character or color of any opposite or different view. IN this sense, extreme views are generally characterized by being very black and white. They admit to none of the “fuzzy” edges that characterize reality.
Catholicism, as characterized by the Magisterium, is a very black and white view. There are no alternatives. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. And yes, I am aware of the rationalizations of the Magisterium regarding this embarrassing decree. However, in the end the Magisterium can not deny that all who know of the church, but refuse to submit to it– yes the word is submit– are damned. Period. Story over. Your belief that Mary is co-redemtrix with Christ is an extreme view that is relatively new to christianity. Mary was given no special place by the Apostles nor by other Christians in the early Church. It was not until 400 years later, during the Council of Ephesus, that Mary was declared an object of veneration. And it took over 1800 years for Pius IX to get around to creating the Immaculate Conception just before he also decided he was infallible, lest anyone disagree. Also extreme. Finally, the condemnation of all modern scientific truths by Pius X is also an example of extremism to which you adhere.
Since you seem to feel that numbers prove a lack of extremism to your views let me remind you that history is littered with popular ideas that are now discredited– Communism, the Nazi’s, the concept of Natural Law, Arianism, the earth-centered universe– to present just a few. Some of these are genuinely extreme– such as Nazism and Communism, others are just wrong like Natural Law and the earth-centered universe.
Popularity of a view, does not assure it is not false, nor extreme.
It was not until over 300 years later at the Council of Nicea that the divinity of Christ was settled (and there remained much controversy in the decades following). It was not until almost 400 years later that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was settled. That does not invalidate the Trinity, however. Even proponents of the Trinity like Gregory of Nazianzus admitted that there was no clear statement in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is God, or that the Holy Spirit was worshiped. Rather, he appealed to the Tradition of the Church in the principle of lex orandi lex credendi that the Holy Spirit is God.
Maybe you don’t accept the divinity of Christ or the Holy Spirit. I’m assuming you are a Trinitarian however (and that might be a false assumption, as was my assumption before that you weren’t Christian).
The point being: just as doctrines about God can develop in understanding, so can doctrines about Mary. It is fitting that these doctrines developed and were declared definitively after all the controversies surrounding Christ and the Holy Spirit were settled. After all, she is much less important.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not “created” by Pope Pius IX. It had been debated for centuries, and I’m sure you’re aware of the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas famously denied it.
As for the many controversial statements that Pope Pius X uttered, I’m sure you are also aware that the Second Vatican Council blatantly contradicted much of what he said, and that the most recent popes have expressed contrary thoughts as well. Keep in mind that most statements by popes are not infallible. Generally speaking, the statements of an ecumenical council trumps those of a papal encyclical or bull. There is debate among Catholics about the authority of Vatican II. It is my understanding that Vatican II does not have the same force as other councils since it is pastoral rather than dogmatic. That being so, a Catholic could legitimately hold to either Pius X’s doctrines or the Conciliar doctrines. Pius X may be acceptable, but it is seen as being less tenable today.
Catholic theologians have certainly made errors in the past when it comes to scientific matters. Embryology is a perfect example. Nancy Pelosi was correct that many eminent theologians believed that a human soul was instituted after conception and therefore an early abortion was a lesser sin, but she is wrong to think that has any bearing on Church teaching now. Since it is clear that science teaches that life begins at conception, the Church’s teaching is that abortion from the earliest stages is a serious sin. It was always seen as a sin at any point. The degree is what was in question, but that was based off of a faulty knowledge of science.
Extra ecclesiam nulla sallus is an infallible teaching, and as I stated in another post, it is one that most Protestant’s I’ve met adhere to. The difference, once again, is how you define “church.” Is it the visible one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, or is the invisible fellowship of believers? Likewise, most Protestants I’ve met hold that there are exceptions to the rule: although ideally we want all people to know Christ in this life, that is why we do mission work, those who, by no fault of their own, do not know Christ are not necessarily damned. But again, maybe you do not accept that.
You miss my point. I pointed out the timing of the proposition of the importance of Mary as an example of Catholicism discovereing new truths that are not biblically founded. The various examples you cite are not applicable because these are examples of the Church defining points in contradistinction to a heresy, not discovering something utterly without biblical precedent.
Regarding my being Trinitarian or not– it is irrelevant. Argue with the argument. Not a straw man. Your suggestion that I might not believe in the divinity of Christ speaks volumes about you personally. Why the need to resort to insults? Do you fear your arguments are weak? That would be like me suggesting your believe in the pope, adoration of the eucharist, the eucharist itself and various other Catholic teachings which are not biblical means you don’t believe in the bible.
There is a great difference between development of understanding and creating things out of thin air. Catholic teachings are the latter, developing understanding is exemplified by someone re-reading the epistles of Paul and discovering new ways they apply in their lives.
The “doctrine” of the Immaculate Conception was created by Pius IX. Debating something is hardly declaring it a doctrine. If the Doctrine of the IC existed before Pius IX decreeed it why did he need to decree it? You are far too loose with your use of words.
I have no idea why you bring up the convolulted remarks about Pius and Vatican II. Essentially you have argued that Catholics have and do contradict Pius, but then again, that is only in the context of pastoral, not doctrinal teaching. If that is so, the contradictions dont matter.
Catholic theologians are not usually the problem. Catholic churchmen trying to protect the earthly interests of the church are. There is absolutely no scientific issue when it comes to the Church’s position on abortion. No misunderstanding of any fact of embryology is involved. The sanctity of life is a moral position. Not a scientific. I can’t see how anyone could attack the Church’s position on abortion on scientific grounds. If they do, then they demonstrate a lack of both theological and scientific understanding.
My point regarding extra ecclesiam was that it is patently absurd. In explaining this doctrine, even recently the Church has reaffirmed the position that all who willfully stay outside the church (one holy and apostolic) are damned. Rome interprets Church as RCC. Benedict is not about to say that its ok to be a Lutheran. Luther, I remind you, is still viewed as a heretic and his followers are simply more heretics– according the the RCC. (BTW: if you are trying to play to an imagined Protestant loyalty on my part by so bigheartedly citing all your Protestant friends, refer to my comments at the start of this.)
Protestant adherance to Extra ecclesiam is irrelevant. They are the one’s condemned. Mind you, you had better adhere to that or you’ll be crisping right along with those nasty protestants– or so your RCC would have us believe.
Perhaps you realize how untenable these extreme views are and you want to excuse yourself out of them. If so, I understand. However, you are being dishonest and you are not reflecting the positions of the Church.
Finally, Do not feel you need to defend yourself to me. I understand you disagree. Believe me, I have assumed your mind was cast in stone and unlike your assumptions about me, I know I’m dead on.
My comments about your beliefs were to avoid assumptions. I told you before that my first assumption about you was wrong. Regarding the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, I did not say what I did to insult you, but to avoid a conversation like this: “Pope Pius IX created the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. // No, the doctrine developed, and he formally defined it. The same thing happened with the Trinity. // Well, I don’t believe in the Trinity anyway! How dare you assume that I believe in such an biblical doctrine!”
If you read my statements again, you will see that I was assuming you were a Trinitarian, but I was making allowance for the possibility that you are not.
Marian doctrines were not created out of thin air. The issues in the council of Ephesus arouse out of some small heretical groups such as the Collyridians which were deifying Mary.
The declaration of the Immaculate Conception was result of about 7 centuries of debate, and yes, debate always precedes the definition of a dogma. Pius defined it in order to officially end the debate, in the same manner as the Nicene fathers defined the Trinity in order to end the debate on that subject.
But please clarify what you mean in this paragraph:
“Protestant adherance to Extra ecclesiam is irrelevant. They are the one’s condemned. Mind you, you had better adhere to that or you’ll be crisping right along with those nasty protestants– or so your RCC would have us believe.”
I’m a bit confused. My point in bringing up the Protestants believe is to show that they believe in a variation of EENS. It is not identical to the Catholic teaching, obviously. Rather, they say, “The church is the invisible fellowship of believers in Christ. If we want to be saved, we must believe in Christ. If we believe in Christ, we are a member of the church. Thus, if we want to be saved, we must be a member of the church.”
William. Thanks for your comments. It seems its you and I who are left alone in this little discussion. Every dog has his day and I believe every argument/conversation does too. I see we are going round and round here. You insist on using development as an actual historically verifiable process. How does the belive that Mary is not the vergin mother of god develop into one that she is? that’s not development. that creation ex nihilo. My point about the protestants is that what they think about extra ecclesiam is that it is irrelevant. I am talking about your RCC. According to your RCC they are damned. Period. You can play around with what they do or do not believe but in the RCC it is clear. Damned, damned damned. No additions. No subtractions. Considering that almost all of mankind is NOT catholic, that’s extreme.
Thanks and goodby. I think you’ve made yourself no clearer than when we started and I am sure to you I have done the same. You remind me that among the factions of mankind there are only causes, not dialog. Rhetoric, not argument. I admit it my mistake.
Good day to you.