New Fatima Movie To Be Screened In Major U.S. Cities

Faith's answer to the Da vinci Code:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17273

The trailer is here:
http://www.the13thday.com/the-film/trailers/

September 12th is the Feast Day of The Most Holy Name of Mary

In fine, "thy name, O Mother of God, is filled with divine graces and blessings," as St. Methodius says. So much so, that St. Bonaventure declares, "that thy name, O Mary, cannot be pronounced without bringing some grace to him who does so devoutly.". . grant, O Lady, that we may often remember to name thee with love and confidence; for this practice either shows the possession of divine grace, or else is a pledge that we shall soon recover it.
On the other hand, Thomas a Kempis affirms "that the devils fear the Queen of heaven to such a degree, that only on hearing her great name pronounced, they fly from him who does so as from a burning fire." The Blessed Virgin herself revealed to St. Bridget "that there is not on earth a sinner, however devoid he may be of the love of God, from whom the devil is not obliged immediately to fly, if he invokes her holy name with a determination to repent." On another occasion she repeated the same thing to the saint, saying, "that all the devils venerate and fear her name to such a degree, that on hearing it they immediately loosen the claws with which they hold the soul captive." Our Blessed Lady also told St. Bridget, "that in the same way as the rebel angels fly from sinners who invoke the name of Mary, so also do the good angels approach nearer to just souls who pronounce her name with devotion."
Richard of St. Laurence states "there is not such powerful help in any name, nor is there any other name given to men, after that of Jesus, from which so much salvation is poured forth upon men as from the name of Mary." He continues, "that the devout invocation of this sweet and holy name leads to the acquisition of superabundant graces in this life, and a very high degree of glory in the next."
After the most sacred name of Jesus, the name of Mary is so rich in every good thing, that on earth and in heaven there is no other from which devout souls receive so much grace, hope, and sweetness.
Hence Richard of St. Laurence encourages sinners to have recourse to this great name, "because it alone will suffice to cure them of all their evils;" and "there is no disorder, however malignant, that does not immediately yield to the power of the name of Mary." The Blessed Raymond Jordano says, "that however hardened and diffident a heart may be, the name of this most Blessed Virgin has such efficacy, that if it is only pronounced that heart will be wonderfully softened." Moreover, it is well known, and is daily experienced by the clients of Mary, that her powerful name gives the particular strength necessary to overcome temptations against purity.

A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic

This was originally posted by myself on the Catholic Answers Forum:

One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology. Protestants act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry. As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic. By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. Not a Baptist among them.I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There are people still alive to remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but its pretty close:

c. 30-33 - The death and resurrection of Jesus
c. 35 - The conversion of Paul
40s or 50s - James c.
45-49 - Paul's first missionary journey
Sometime between 48 and 58 - Paul writes Galatians
c. 50-53 - Paul's second missionary journey
50s - Paul writes Titus
50s or 60s - Mark written (based on oral tradition set down by Peter).
50s or 60s - Matthew written
51 - Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians
c. 53-57 - Paul's third missionary journey
Spring of 55 - Paul writes 1 Corinthians
56 - Paul writes 2 Corinthians
c. 57 - Paul writes Romans
c. 60 - Paul writes Colossians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Philemon, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 60 - Paul writes Ephesians, probably while in prison in Rome
c. 61 - Paul writes Philippians, while in prison in Rome
Early 60s - Luke written
c. 60-70 - The Didache is written.
c. 62 - Paul is free
c. 62-64 - Luke writes Acts
c. 62-64 - Paul writes 1 Timothy July 18-19,
64 - The Great Fire of Rome. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians, and a great persecution ensued.
Mid 60s - 1 Peter written
c. 64-68 - Paul writes 2 Timothy from prison
c. 67-68 - 2 Peter
c. 68 - Hebrews is written June 9,
68 - The death of Nero. Sometime between the Great Fire of Rome and the death of Nero, both Peter and Paul were martyred.
c. 69 - Jude
70 - The Seige of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
c. 70-80- The Epistle of Barnabus is written.
c. 85 - John written Late First Century - 1, 2, and 3 John
95- The Epistle of Clement is written..
c. 95-96 - John writes Revelation
c. 60-120- The writings of Papias (only fragments remain).
c. 105- The Epistles of Ignatius are written as he heads for Rome for execution.
c. 105-125- The Epistle of Polycarp is written.
c. 125-130- The Letter to Diognetus is written.
c. 125-130- The Epistle of Aristides is written.
c. 130- The Martyrdom of Polycarp is written.
c. 130-150- The Shepherd of Hermas is written.
c.100-165- The writings of Justin Martyr, much of it written in the 130s.

Of Fightin' Fundamentalists and Cheatin' Preachers

This past month I learned of yet another fundamentalist preacher caught up in a sex scandal.
He resigned after a year long affair was discovered. It was discovered, as it always seems to be, by the children of the church. He moved and began to wreck revenge on those who exposed him, young people included. He revealed certain details held, in what is supposed to be, pastoral confidence. This soap opera is being played out for all the world to see on a site called the 'Fighting Fundamental Forums'.
From where I am now across the Tiber, I am truly saddened that a church, a marriage, and especially children are going through this. I've seen this re-run before countless times and it is not pretty. To get up into a pulpit every Sunday, after being with your mistress the night before is mind-boggling. For the mistress, to walk into the church, clutching her King James Bible, to hear her married lover preach is equally mind boggling. What creates this obvious contridiction?
Jesus said we must be 'doers of the word, not hearers only'. The glow of being with other 'born again' people will only last so long.
I have seen it a million times over. It's usually the children who notice first that these 'regenerated' christians are not what they appear to be. What happens? At best they don't give up their faith in God, they just stop going to any kind of church.
At worst, they become atheist. I've seen this rerun so many times I can recite the dialogue.
The problem is the whole structure of what these fundamentalist/evangelical churches are based on. The centerpiece of worship is a pulpit for a man. And if that man is immature emotionally, it's inevitable that these things occur. They are almost set up for a fall because of the man-worship.
Does the Catholic Church have scandals in this sex-soaked society? Yes. But the priest is not the center of worship in the Catholic Church. When the priest approaches the altar, the Tabernacle is there with the Eucharist. Jesus is the center of worship, The priest is an instrument. If he falls into sin it does not negate the Eucahistic Sacrifice.
But in fundamentalism, the pulpit is in the center of the church. Oh yes, they will say 'its God we worship and is taught from the Bible. To even suggest that Communion is the center of worship turns fundamentalists into a tailspin. Yet it is the ONE worship COMMAND Jesus gave to His Church, not preaching. A good homily or sermon is important, but that is not the centerpiece of worship.
When a pulpit is the center, for a man who gives his 'interpretation' of the Bible, its inevitable he is puffed up with pride. He is a little messiah with followers, and he begins to believe he is invincible.
Once that pulpit is worshipped, a preacher naturally can reason his way into anything, even the most heinous contridiction of his 'born again' state.
Take that pulpit down, and it must be replaced with something. I've never had a desire to return to that pulpit because I found something greater than a pulpit: the Lord Jesus Christ feeding me with Himself.
People have expressed a desire to pray for the former preacher, his mistress, and their respective spouses.
Who they really need to pray for are the children. They see things far clearer than the adults do.
Pray they take the right path after seeing the hypocrisy of their parents religious error.

The Latin Mass is a Bridge in Time

While on vacation in Pittsburgh recently I attendend a Latin Mass at St. Boniface. One thing I was struck by was that the church was PACKED. And not with people 50+, but with many young people.
Attending Mass there changed my perspective in many areas.
I keep hearing that traditionalists want to 'return to 1962' because they are 'locked in a time warp'. They are 'dinosaurs'.
Baby Boomers are a narcissistic lot. We act as if all history awaited our coming. Indeed, in the secular world, history seems to start with the Kennedy era.
No doubt there was a wind of change in society and culture in the 1960s that affected the religious world as well. When I was a Baptist, I kept hearing the phrase 'old fashioned' hymns or preaching. This cultural shift crossed the Tiber and denominational lines. In the Catholic Church it was called the 'spirit of Vatican 2'.
But who is truly 'stuck in a time warp?
Many modern 'liberal' Catholics cannot seem to fathom a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic Church. 'Folk Masses' seem to be nostalgiic trips back to the 1960s and 70s.
I think the time has come for Catholics to start thinking generationaly. What legacy do we have to carry on for our children? The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. The late 20th century is only one tiny segment of the vast history we are a part of. The 'spirit' of Vatican 2 (as I see it) is already fading. We need to replace it with what we know has worked for two millenium.
At a Latin Mass, I feel as if I have walked into eternity, a place that transcends time and generations. The reverance, and the awe of the Latin Mass provides that 'bridge in time and space'.
Our Pope has opened the floodgates, and I believe we will see more St. Bonifaces all over the world.
Time passes, the Mass remains the same.

Queen Mary

In the ancient world, because the king had many brides, a woman did not receive the title of queen until her son took the throne. The queen was not married to the king, because there were far too many wives vying for such a title. And they couldn’t all be called queen. The position of queen was held by the king’s mother. She was known as the queen mother. If Mary’s Son has become the King of Kings (of both heaven and earth) then the Mother has become the Queen of heaven and earth
Pope Pius XII stated, “Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest and by singular election. And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.”
Our Lord also gave to the Church and each individual soul His Mother, the Queen of Heaven. For many centuries Christians have been accustomed to meditate upon the ruling power of Mary which embraces heaven and earth, when they consider the fifth glorious mystery of the rosary which can be called the mystical crown of the heavenly Queen.
To love Jesus is to also love His mother.

Letter from an ex-Protestant

This was posted on the Catholic Answers Forum yesterday. Not sure who the author is, but it sums up everything I feel as well.

Letter from an ex-Protestant

This is a letter to all the pastors, evangelists, and other assorted leaders in Protestantism whom I listened to at one time:

Dear _________ :

I just want to write you to tell you that I think you should be ashamed of yourself for giving your people only half (or even less) of the truth of the Bible regarding the Christian Faith and how that Faith is lived out. As a professing follower of Christ, the TRUTH should be very important to you. But the things you have said and the way you have said them have not been truthful at all:

1. You talked about your denomination as if it went back all the way to the days that Jesus walked the earth. You act as if Jesus Himself was a Baptist/Fundamentalist/Evangelical (take yer pick). I didn't know any better and I trusted you!

2. You never told me about the writings of the Early Fathers. You never encouraged me to examine them for myself to see what the disciples of the apostles believed. You acted as if they were all Protestants back then. I didn't know any better, and I trusted you.

3. You taught me that the Church was taken over by a false gospel sometime in the fourth century and the Gospel all but disappeared from the earth until the Reformation. It never occurred to me to connect 2 + 2 and realize that this is exactly what the JW's and the Mormons teach, because I thought you were telling me the truth and I trusted you!!

4. You never taught me about a covenant, even though the Bible speaks of the New Covenant and Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my Blood". Since we live in a covenant relationship now (like the Jews did in the Old Covenant) and since the word "covenant" appears over 280 times in the scriptures, I would think that concept would be very important for a Christian to learn about. But you never taught it at all and I trusted you!!

5. What you did tell me about was something called a "dispensation" which appears only 4 times in the scriptures and that only in the NT. But you acted like this is the way God deals with people and I trusted you!!

6. You never told me about the many and numerous translation errors in the Bible which have given rise to many of your Protestant false doctrines, such as the mistranslation of the word "aion" in Matthew 24: 3 and the mistranslation of "logizomai" in Romans 3 & 4. I though that since you went to Bible College you were profoundly smart and therefore understood these translations to be correct, so I trusted you.

7. You never once told me that the Catholic Church, which you despise, was the Body which gave us the Holy Scriptures. To hear you talk, the Bible just dropped out of thin air some day. Some of you act as if the Reformers invented the Bible after years of pagan ignorance and superstition. And I trusted you.

8. You never told me that anything orthodox I believe about the natures of Jesus, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus the Christ, and all other understandings necessary to salvation, came from the councils of the Catholic Church. Why? Were you afraid that I would realize that perhaps the Church is not the demonic institution you have painted it to be? Or were you afraid that I would realize that any truth you Protestants have is only that which the Church defined in Her councils. But I trusted you.

9. You never once took the time to really talk about the teachings of the Catholic Church. You simply made your accusations from your pulpit and either told or inferred to everyone that ALL Catholics are going straight to hell, with the pope in the front row seat. Were you afraid or unable to defend what you Protties believe? Slander and ad hominum attacks are not a defense, but I thought so and I not only trusted you, I parroted your nonsense to all who would listen.

10. You told me that the Church was some sort of "invisible Church" that no one could see because it is made up of all "true believers" from everywhere and every denomination (even though you also taught that only "we" really had everything "right"). I didn't know what I was missing. I thought I was in the Church and that I was getting every good thing God had for me because I trusted you.

You better think a long time about what you are doing and what you are teaching. It is bad enough that you make false accusations (which the Lord hates) against our Lord's Church, but you are out there aggressively stealing His sheep from His flock which He put on earth. You seem to think think that since you "accept Jesus", you won't have to answer for anything at all because you are "covered by the Blood of Jesus".

Well, I have news for you, it took me a while (too long, actually), but I finally had my eyes opened, and that is not what the Holy Scriptures teach. They teach that at the Resurrection, Jesus will judge ALL MEN (you get that? -- ALL!) BY THEIR DEEDS, and based on what they have done, they will either live or die eternally!! That is what Jesus taught in John 5: 28 - 29 and guess what, that is what the Catholic Faith teaches us also, because the Catholic Faith teaches what Jesus taught!!

I would gladly sit down with you and show you what I have learned from both my own studies and Catholics who really know the Faith, but sadly, you have a severe case of "presuppositional blindness" and Evangelical deafness and wouldn't listen anyway.

Sincerely yours,

Your former member

I have yet to identify who the author of this is, but it speaks to everything I felt when I re-crossed the Tiber. I have redescovered the joy of belonging to the Church Jesus founded.