Postscripts From The Catholic Spitfire Grill

As a Protestant there were many parts of the Bible that troubled me. Mostly it was a nagging feeling of unease because it just didn’t make sense. The angelic visitations to Zechariah and Mary was one of those things that troubled me. I didn’t spend a lot of time meditating on it because I figured that if it was a big problem, there would be other people talking about it and nobody in my Protestant world seemed to think it was worth discussing. I thought Zechariah got a raw deal! He has an angel visit him (Luke 1:5-25), tell him that his elderly barren wife was going to have a baby, he says “No way!” and in punishment he gets to be struck speechless until the baby, John the Baptist, is named. Mary has a visit from an angel (Luke 1:26-38), gets told she is going to have a baby and says “No way!” and gets let off without so much as a handslap. What’s the deal? This was just one of the many places in the Bible that I didn’t understand, had no explanation for, and was forced to look away.

As a Catholic, I understand those passages much differently.

Zechariah’s answer to the angelic messenger “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.” expressed disbelief for which he was punished.

If Mary’s answer, “How shall this be since I do not know man?” had expressed disbelief, she would have been punished as well. If she had been planning to have sex with Joseph after their marriage, she wouldn’t have had a question. So what’s she asking? Where babies come from? That’s not likely. Catholics believe that Mary’s question to the angel reflects a vow of perpetual virginity taken by Mary. Mary was curious about how conception was to take place given her vow.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

When the canon was set by the Catholic Church there was never any idea that it was to be the “sole rule of faith” why would there have been a need to include a document such as the Protoevangelium? The Church was the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and the canon itself was part of that deposit…why accept that men who were so full of the Holy Spirit they could accurately discern what was and was not Sacred Scripture then reject what they believed was revealed by Sacred Scripture and supported by the earliest commentaries and documents of the Church?

And for the record, the same word used to describe Jesus “brothers” was also used to describe Abraham’s relationship to Lot and there were most decidedly not brothers. There’s more to that explanation for another day. 

Catholic Answers: Mary Ever Virgin

Scripture Catholic: Blessed Virgin Mary

It never ceases to amaze me, how much of the Bible I didn’t believe as a Protestant. And no, this isn’t about John 6 or the Last Supper; although, it could be. What I have in mind today is three other scriptural principles and their implications.

1. We are part of ONE Body of Christ. (There isn’t a Body of Christ in heaven and another one on earth.) (Romans 12:4-5; Col 1:18; Eph 5:30; John 10:36; Eph 4:3-6; etc.)

2. As Christians, when we finish this earthly life we will be alive with Christ. In other words, when we “die” we do not stop being part of the ONE body. (It’s that Catholic Unity thing again.) (Luke 23:43; Mark 12:26-27; Phil 1:21-23)

3. We are to pray for one another. Period. (Romans 15:30; Col 4:3; James 5:13-16; Eph 6:18-19)

So many times I have heard that Catholics shouldn’t ask the Saints to pray for them. Why? Because they’re dead. ( Luke 23:43; Mark 12:26-27; Phil 1:21-23…so much for our hope in Christ.) We aren’t TOLD to ask them to pray for us. Well then either we or they are not part of the body. OR we aren’t really supposed to pray for each other as commanded in the scriptures. Frankly, I don’t see any exceptions in Sacred Scripture. Pray for one another EXCEPT for when you can’t see each other any more? Don’t think so. But there is only one mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5)…I believe that 100%….but that can’t apply to prayer or we wouldn’t have so many commands to pray for each other.

We are told by Sacred Scripture to pray for one another. We pray for them. They pray for us. Period. No exceptions. Death is irrelevant to the believer because we are believers. Christ conquered death. Now. For all believers.

Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.  Hebrews 11:1

What part of that didn’t I believe?

Jesus quoted from writings inspired by God, but his quoting from them was not what then nor is it now, what raises the opinion of Church to grant canonical status to that writing? Of course, He could not quote from the New Testament because it wasn’t written. He quoted from some, but not all, of the books of the present OT canon so we can’t say that His simply quoting from something made it canonical. In fact one of the strongest evidences I find against sola scriptura is the action of Jesus himself and the actions of the Apostles themselves following Jesus’ Ascension.

If Jesus meant for the church to be sola scriptura, why did He not explicitly say so? Why did He not write a book? Why did He say He was going to found a Church on Peter instead of a book? Why is there not explicit instruction from Jesus with regard to the place of Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith? Sacred Scripture itself says scripture is beneficial for teaching, reproof etc but it never says that ONLY scripture is appropriate for those things.

If Jesus meant for Sacred Scripture to be the sole rule of faith, why did He not instruct the Apostles to immediately begin recording the gospels and establishing a canon? If if He did instruct them that way, why did they not do it? Why weren’t the gospels written right away to provide that rule of faith for the earliest Christian? If sola scriptura was meant to be the sole rule of faith how did the early Christians do it with neither a complete copy of Sacred Scriptures or an undisputed canon? Sola Scriptura was simply NOT POSSIBLE until at least the 4th century.

If the canon was self-evident why didn’t the early church agree completely? Why have councils to settle the question? And if these men were so full of the Holy Spirit that they could recognize what was and was not Sacred Scripture, why not accept their interpretation of those Sacred Scriptures? They explicitly did NOT believe in sola scriptura. They did believe in apostolic succession. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In the authority of Bishops, and priests, and Baptism for the remission of sin, and…..

Why does Sacred Scripture explicitly teach that both oral and written teachings of the Apostles were binding? And that the church (not Sacred Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of our Truth?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503sbs.asp

http://www.infpage.com/concordance/dtbooks.htm

Might it be that one of the defining marks of Heroic Virtue is that many people are ready to find fault with it? Here’s something that I saw someone inquire about recently:

I just found out about what a re-married catholic couple agreed to do so that they are allowed to be part of the church and receive holy communion. They agreed to maintain sexual abstinence during their marriage. That way they are not committing sin and can continue to participate in the holy communion.

The response? Well I’ll give you a hint. They were not praised for their commitment to both marriage, purity, and the Eucharist. No they were “sick”, “unhealthy”, ”deluded” and “misguided.” The Catholic Church was all kinds of legalistic. The Church’s ideas were antique. (Like the 10 Commandments? Those are pretty old too.) And didn’t that poor couple know that God Just wanted them to have good sex?

For the record the Catholic Church is all in favor of good sex provided the marriage is sacramental and it is open to life. However, the Catholic church believes that a sacramental bond once formed can be broken only by death. Therefore, the good sex must remain in that relationship. If you must separate for any reason other than death, you must give up the good sex if you wish to receive Holy Communion. A few people brought up St. Paul’s words that couples were not to abstain from sexual relations. Here’s that reference:

1 Corinthians 1:5-6 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

Now let’s examine that scripture. The very first point it that St. Paul explicitly states that it is not a command. This couple have mutually agreed to give up marital relations in order to be able to partake in Holy Communion….that’s a form of prayer in the Catholic mind. They have not given up marital relations forever. They have given them up until their previous Sacramental marriages are dissolved by death. As far as I can see they plan to return to each other, the timing for that is in the Lord’s hands. Even if it WAS a command by St. Paul (and it wasn’t) this couple has mutually  consented to give up marital relations for a time for the purposes of prayer. The only scriptural quibble that I can possibly see is that they don’t know exactly how long it will be…something wrong with leaving that in the Lord’s hands?

You know, you’d expect that heroic virtue would make those who hate the church mad but why is it so often that the flack these people get (I do NOT possess heroic virtue and so I have learned this from observation not from experience) from their “brothers and sisters” in Christ!? St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernadette, the Children of Fatima, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Joan of Arc were all in the cross hairs of fellow Christians of their day. I guess I shouldn’t find it amazing that to the world one of the greatest examples of selfless Christian giving is excoriated by many of her “brothers and sisters” and Christ. Not that she needs it but I found myself defending her yet again this last week from charges stem from her well-known (on anti-Mother Teresa sites anyway) quote:

What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one’s conscience. What God is in your mind you must accept.

Here’s what I said in response…..”Mother Teresa’s love and compassion had them BEATING DOWN THE DOORS to become Christian and even to become Catholic and she NEVER refused a convert. In a country (and eventually countries) where too often Christian Charity came with so many strings that the general attitude of the poor was “You aren’t here to help us. All you want to do is baptize us.” her attitude stood in stark contrast. She contended that you should meet the needs of every human regardless of the religious choices that they have made. She could say those quotes you find so offensive because Christ living IN HER was such a powerful example that people ASKED her about her faith. And I must say that if we are not living a lifestyle so exemplary of Christ that we don’t have people beating down our doors to become Christian; then, it is WE who are wrong and not her. Mother Teresa had a unique apostolate (see Corinthians about the body being made up of many parts) her specific calling was to being a servant of the poor and by her example teach us to do the same. She wasn’t called to be a preacher or a teacher. And while there are quotes such as you have referenced in the context of what she wrote and more importantly in the context of HOW SHE LIVED, they tell us that to meet each person where they are and treat them with dignity and respect and to honor the choices they made (even if she disagreed with those choices) is one of the most Christ-like things we can do. If she meant by those quotes that people shouldn’t convert to Christianity; then why on EARTH are there so many former atheists, and former Muslims, and former Hindus, etc. in the convents and monasteries she founded? Add in all of the people who were inspired to become Christian all over the world by her example and I think that what we have here is a case of a LIFE and ACTION trumping a few quotes.

In my own life, I understand exactly what she means. I have seen too many times when a non-Christian is reluctant to become friends with me because they are afraid my friendship will be contingent on their conversion. It is only AFTER I have proved myself in the relationship (sometimes after many years) that they will allow my example to speak for itself and begin to ask the questions that lead them home.”

I think it is probably more important to see what a self-described non-religious person said in response to the exchange.

I  hadn’t looked at these forums in a long while until the last two days when I’ve read through many posts. Now I have an explanation for the malaise and almost-anxiety I feel. Seriously. Given what some will post here, I’m left to wonder what some people say when they’re among “like-minded” people, cozily cloaked in their moral and religious superiority. And most importantly, if their children are listening.

I am irritated, saddened and disgusted that religion, even the same religion, engenders such divisiveness among people. For those posters who think they have a charge to bring others to Christ, take it from a “non-believer”, this ain’t the way…

Who would have thunk you could bash Mother Teresa under the guise of belief in Jesus Christ?

There’s nothing to learn here.

Here are the words of Our Lord:

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me. Matthew 25:40

Her words:

Jesus is the one we take care of, visit, clothe, feed, and comfort every time we do this to the poorest of the poor, to the sick, to the dying, to the lepers, and to the ones who suffer from AIDS.

She also said:

It is very compelling that before Jesus explained God’s words, before he explained the beatitudes to the crowd, He felt compassion for them and fed them. (Matthew 5) Only after they were fed did he start to teach them.

So what is it that crawls under our skin and makes us criticize those who serve Our Lord in a heroic way? Is it some form of covetousness taken to a new level? Do we somehow think that we’ll be more holy if we can just knock that holier someone else off their pedestal? We’ll yes on the surface she tried to live out the gospel message in a heroic way, but did you see what she said?

Perhaps we have something to learn from the official sent to close Mother Teresa’s Home for the Dying in Calcutta? After touring the facilities, he went out into the crowd rioting outside and said that he would close down her work when they sent their own mothers and sisters to do what Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity were doing.  

I currently have Heretics by G. K. Chesterton close enough to the top of the bedside reading pile that it is getting frequent attention. Reading Chesterton causes much the same in waking thought as too much pepperoni pizza is reputed to cause in dreaming thought. (I don’t know. I don’t eat pepperoni anything.) Perhaps I should clear my bedside of Chesterton, I might actually get more sleep. Anyway. I was stuck by something this evening. In this day and age, we easily condemn those who killed others in the name of their religion. In fact, I make it a point to tell the stories of Catholic Martyrs of the English Reformation on a regular basis on this blog. I do not believe we should kill…especially in the name of Our Lord. That said. Does it follow that because others sinned in the vigorous defense of their fath, that we are more holy because we do not share that particular sin? I don’t think so.

Are we unwilling to vigorously fight heresy because we have greater charity than our brothers and sisters who killed in the name of religion? If that is the case, wouldn’t we see greater evidence of that in the way we treat each other?

Or are we are more tepid in our beliefs?

What does it say about us and the passion of our faith if Satan cannot at least tempt us to kill in defense of it? Are we tepid because we recognize in ourselves that to be more fervent would be to live with the temptation to uncharitable behavior? Are we better off as tepid believers?

What would true Unity with our brothers and sisters in faith free us to do?

There are many Protestants who are convinced that a Catholic Christian is a rare thing indeed and many who believe that it is an impossibility. In some cases it is not openly taught, in others anti-Catholic vitriol comes from the pulpit and in official denominational teaching. For Protestants in those cases, it is a tough thing to do to even dip ones toe in the Tiber much less jump in, swim across, and get out on the other side. How does one go from thinking that the Catholic Church IS the “Whore of Babylon” to believing in One, Holy, Catholic (with a capital ‘C’), and Apostolic Church? In my case, the Lord needed to deal with the sin of idolatry in my life. In order to break the hold that the idolatry of my personal intellect had on my life, it was necessary for the Lord to call me to the Catholic Church ahead of my understanding of (and agreement with) most Catholic doctrine. I came to the Catholic Church because the Lord made. me. Had an actual burning bush been involved it would have only been slightly more clear. Among my friends who will be reconciling to the Catholic Church this coming Easter Vigil and are several coming from the more anti-Catholic part of the Protestant spectrum and they have had to endure unspeakable insults to their intellect, integrity, and faith. Their willingness to follow the Lord no matter what has been a true blessing to me. One of them has written in her blog Profound Gratitude about the things that were most compelling to her in her journey.

Once again my blog is providing me an outlet to ask those questions that leap unbidden to my mind but might cause too much trouble if I asked them on the Protestant homeschooling forum I spend so much time on. As I indicated in an earlier post it’s been quite the week (or more) on that board. My Catholic sisters and I have spent a considerable amount of time defending Catholic practices and Marian doctrines and the area where the two intersect. My Catholic sisters and I have been told repeatedly that bowing is worship. When we point out that in Sacred Scripture that bowing does not always equal worship, we are told that well it might not always be worship but that they will never bow except in worship to the One True God.

So I’m led to this question. If they (these Protestants who have told me that) never bow except in worship to the One True God; then, where is it that they do that in their worship services? I have been to hundreds and hundreds of Protesant worship services.  Not. One. Time. Have I ever bowed in adoration, in humility, in respect, or anything else….much less worship.

Perhaps those who do not bow at all should stop telling those of us who do what it means. 

On a forum that I frequent, the ideas of praying in communion with the Saints, Mary as the Mother of God, and the Real Presence have all come up in the last week or so.  and I have found myself grieving for my separated brothers and sisters because of the greatly diminished presence of the miraculous in their lives. I have also mused on how what we believe colors what we can receive from Our Lord. Let me explain what I mean. In my anti-Catholic past, I was firmly convinced that the rosary was a repetitious, idolatrous prayer to Mary. Statues and icons were idols period. There might be a FEW Christians in the Catholic church but they were few and far between. (And if they were really Christian, they’d get themselves out of that place toute suite. Can I get an “Amen”?) Marian apparitions were probably the raving imaginations of women and children and more likely schemes to extort money from the deluded Catholic faithful. Eucharistic miracles? Who are you kidding? Haven’t you read about all the fakes in the Middle Ages? And if they weren’t fakes perpetrated by the Catholic Charlatans in league with the corrupt bishops and  priests looking to extort a little money and sell a few more indulgences; then, we all know that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. Frankly, it was all a lot of hooey in my opinion. In charity, I must say that I am writing from my own personal perspective and that if Protestants reading these words do not see themselves and are (justifiably) horrified at my past uncharitable opinions, please know that I am grateful for the charity you extend to Catholics that I most assuredly did not.

Now as a Catholic I am in the presence of the miraculous all of the time and I am profoundly grateful that God called me home to Rome (over my vociferous objections I should add). Every Mass I receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord. Every time I step into our Adoration chapel, I kneel in the living presence of my risen Lord. (I was pondering the other day how to explain the difference between the ordinary presence of Jesus because of his omnipresence and His Sacramental presence. The best I could come up with was that it is like the difference between being wet from standing in the rain and being wet from standing in front of an open fire hydrant.) I draw on a rich heritage of the miraculous. Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe Our Lady of La Vang and more and it encourages me to persevere in service to Our Lord.

But what if you don’t think Catholics are Christians?

Well then the unmistakable stamp of the Holy Origin of the apparitions and image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, that 10,000,000 Indians converted to Catholicism in the 10 years following the apparition (page 80, A Handbook on Guadalupe) causing the collapse of a pagan religion steeped in the blood of human sacrifice means nothing! You aren’t even going to be interested enough to look at the other less miraculous aspects of the miracle (See Mark 2:8-11 where Jesus says what is easier? Forgiving sins? or healing?) Like the fact that the tilma stays at body temperature no matter what the temperature of the surroundings. The cactus fiber cloth on which the image of the Blessed Virgin should have decayed about 400 years ago? That when an ophthalmoscope is shined into the eye, it fills with light like a real eye? That the image itself defies reproduction under any circumstances by human artists? There’s more but it doesn’t matter. If you can say that Catholics aren’t Christians, then the divine meaning of the image which is like a gospel tract written specifically for the Aztecs, which caused them to convert by the MILLIONS is lost.

What if you think that the rosary is an idolatrous prayer to a pagan goddess (I’m sorry but I was told by a Protestant this week that The Queen of Heaven in Catholic Theology is “really” an Egyptian goddess.) instead of a scripture-filled meditation on the gospel? (She’s mother to the King of Heaven, that’s why we call her Queen btw)

Well then, the central message of Fatima, that meditating and praying on the gospel (aka “saying the rosary”) is the secret to world peace is LOST! The details, that the children were beaten and jailed rather than recant, that Portuguese Catholics that were suffering horrendous persecution were given comfort, that Catholics worldwide have been encouraged in the practice of their faith, and that even the New York Times publishes a picture of the “miracle of the sun” means nothing.

What if you think Holy Communion is just a symbol and that Catholics have been “blindly following” the Catholic doctrine and denying what they can “plainly see” isn’t true?

Well then, the miraculous confirmation of what the Apostles themselves called a “hard teaching” is lost and so is your invitation to partake of the Body and Blood of Our Lord who said that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” And you completely write off the miracle of the Catholic Mass, every single one of the for the last 2,000 years, and you don’t even give a second glance to Eucharistic miracles. (and this book).  The miraculous reception of the Eucharist by Blessed Imelda who then died of joy is meaningless.  Hosts that have bled or miraculously turned to visible flesh are written off as pagan, or cannibalistic, or wishful thinking, or lies or who knows what else. But the truth is this. The miracles that the Roman Catholic Church has declared are genuine are very thoroughly documented. This isn’t the witness of one hysterical priest looking to make a buck for his parish. In many cases, even in the case of extremely old miracles involving the presence visible blood and flesh, the RC has been able to type the blood involved. It’s type AB in ALL approved miracles. Amazing how even in the 7th, 12th  or 18th centuries, those Catholic charlatans knew to get (the rare) type AB blood for their hoaxes. When was the last time you heard of someone who embraced an only-symbolic understanding of Holy Communion received commuinon from the hand of an angel? Or was healed upon reception of the symbol? But if you aren’t willing to even concede the possibility that the Roman Catholic Church might be right and the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Our Lord, you have cut yourself off from even the possibility of the witness these miracles provide and worse the soul-feeding life-giving Sacrament of the Eucharist.

All that said. I want to state plainly that miracles and apparitions are considered private revelation and as such are not binding on ANY Catholic. While they may provide miraculous confirmation of Catholic dogma and doctrine, dogma and doctrine are NEVER drawn from it. Contrary to rumors from the Middle Ages that persist to this day, the Catholic Church rigorously investigates claims of the miraculous including the possibility that the source may be diabolical before considering a miracle “official.” Nevertheless, where are the claims of the Protestant traditions of the Divine stamp of approval (by the presence of the miraculous) on the distinctly Protestant doctrines? The miraculous surrounds the Eucharist as through the centuries miracles large and small have been associated with it. The miraculous surrounds Mary and over and over those who see her in visions spectacular and not are told to repent, and confess, and turn from their sin. To pray and to meditate on the gospel. (Sound like Satan?) And the miraculous is infused with the Catholic doctrine of the Communion of the Saints. Not just healings and the little things but repentance and conversion which are the real miracles. But if you don’t believe that Catholics are Christians, then the door is slammed shut to all of it.

If you’re Protestant, I’d like to challenge to put aside some of your notions about Catholics, Catholic practice, and Catholic doctrine and look at the way God, through the miraculous, has confirmed those Catholic doctrines and practices you thought were so terrible. Take some time to learn the difference between Catholic vocabulary and Protestant vocabulary and ask yourself, “If I assume that Catholics are Christians, what is the message here and is it consistent with increasing God’s Grace in the world?” And if you’re Catholic and haven’t looked at the miraculous way that God has blessed His Church with abundant miraculous graces from heaven, then DO IT! Maybe it’s a good project for Lent so that you can prepare for Easter with renewed gratitude for all God has done for us.