Jewish Roots of Catholicism

I would love to discuss this topic more with you!  Watch the video (below) and enter your comments in the comment section.

This comes from an EWTN series, first aired in 2001.  You can purchase all 4 hours of this series by clicking here.

At the time this blog/article was published, the cost was $25.00  Well worth it!

More links?  Sure!  It's not the full 4 hours, but a good taste of the whole series...

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

Bugay On Catholicism and the Early Church

I stumbled across this article a few weeks ago which was listed as the current "featured article" on Triablogue.  It's an older article, but seeing as how they wished to "feature" it, (it is no longer the "featured" article) I figured it would be good to answer it.

John Bugay on Catholicism: What was the ancient church in Rome like?

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/john-bugay-on-catholicism-what-was.html

Some time ago, I spent some time summarizing what some of the major commentators have been saying about the people and the network of house churches found in early Rome in the first century. This is the Rome to which Peter supposedly traveled, where it is thought that he may have died (though historically, there is practically no mention of him at all being in Rome; when Irenaeus talks about “…the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome …” this is the reality to which he was referring, and it is this reality of which we can say he was not an entirely accurate reporter of history).

There is a reason why I’m going into such detail on this. Recently, I’ve been citing from the James Puglisi work How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? In that work, I’ve quoted Herman Pottmeyer saying that “anyone who wishes to come to an understanding of the papal ministry cannot avoid dealing with the history of this ministry. The historical facts are not disputed...” In an earlier article from that same work, John P. Meier, a leading Catholic Biblical scholar, pointed out, “A papacy that cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins can hardly hope to be a catalyst for unity among divided Christians.” So the implication is that, until this point, the papacy has not given a “credible historical account of its own origins.”

I find it interesting that these Protestant apologists can't see the forest for the trees.  All we need point to is Scripture in this regard.  Jesus gave to St. Peter, alone, the authority to bind and loose whatsoever he chose in Matthew 16:18-19.  In John 21:15-17, just before Jesus ascends - in threefold manner He commands St. Peter to take care of His sheep.  The Good Shepherd was passing the reins to His Vicar.  We must say, Scripture is a "credible historical account of (the papacy) origins."

The recent book The End of Christianity begins (Chapter 1) with this little but bold proclamation:

The end of Christianity is not some far-off dream, nor is it on the verge of occurring. Instead, it happened two thousand years ago—in fact, Christianity never even began; it was stillborn….there is no such thing as the religion of Christianity; at best it is a multitude of related but distinct and often-enough opposed traditions, shifting and swaying with the winds of local culture and passing history … (Dr. David Eller, “Christianity Evolving: On the Origin of Christian Species”, Chapter 1 in Loftus, ed., ©2011“The End of Christianity”: Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, pg. 23.)

There’s no need to fear Eller. With this statement he immediately shows himself to be a hack, given that the life of Christ and the origins of Christianity are extraordinarily well attested in history.

But on the other hand, it is the Roman Catholic church and its constant protestations of its own authority, which are extraordinarily poorly attested in history, which give individuals like Eller the kind of toe-hold they need to bloviate and sell books. Eller’s statement is true about Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism was stillborn. That’s what Eller and the others can attack freely; it’s the falseness of Roman Catholicism that gives people like Eller the opportunities they have to attack Christ and Christianity.

Wow!  In reality, the Catholic Faith does not begin with Jesus Christ and the Apostles, for it was born out of Judaism.  If one takes, even a little time, to study Jewish culture and religion, and objectively looks at the culture of Catholicism - he/she would be astounded at how similar the two faiths are in many ways.  We must remember, ALL the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself were all Jews.  They did not totally abandon Judaism when they became Christians - that would be foolish!  Our foundations are deeply rooted in Judaism.  

My wife and I took a course in Judaism, taught by a rabbi, at our local college.  At one point, after five straight weeks of Torah readings after Passover about how God desired His place of worship to be (the altar, candlesticks on the altar, angels on either side, incense, even the vestments of the priests) and my wife commented, "Wow, that's SO Catholic!"  Rabbi responded, "Where do you think you got it from?!"  It would appear that Eller and Bugay are attacking that which they really know little about.

But again, the historical work that is being done on the earliest church is going to be immensely helpful in sorting out fact from fiction. This historical work is going to be like Trigonometry and Calculus: these things will always be taught, so long as the subject is taught. But the question going forward will be, will anyone care to understand them?

And that is precisely MY point!  I do not believe folks like Bugay really understands what he's attacking.  The Trig and Calc (historicity) of the Christian (Catholic) faith has brought many great anti-Catholics TO the Catholic Faith - not away from it!  John Cardinal Newman, for one, comes to mind who fought against the Catholic Church and was looking for historic justification to remain Protestant - and one of his famous quotes is:  "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Introduction and Summary
The nonexistent early papacy

In this article, Bugay links to yet another one where he refers to the papacy as "dishonest."  I find it interesting that one of the "scholars" he cites is none other than "Raymond Brown."  That would be "Fr. Raymond Brown, who was a bit of a dissenter and revisionist - OK, more than just a bit.  Bugay doesn't really demonstrate the "nonexistence" he claims - he pretty much just claims it.  

House Churches in the New Testament

I would not deny that early celebrations of the Mass took place in people's homes.  They also took place in the Catacombs.  Just a brief and objective look at history is all it takes to remind us - for the first 300 years of Christendom, the Church was under near constant persecution (with brief periods of "peace").

Households in Ancient Rome
Part 1: Households in Ancient Rome: An Introduction
Part 2: Christians and Jews in First Century Rome
Part 3: Commerce and Household Communities
Part 4: Household Leadership as Church Leadership
Part 5: Patronage and Leadership

The People of Romans 16
Aquila, Priscilla, Acts 18:2 and the Edict of Claudius
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, διάκονον and προστάτις” 
Andronikos and Junia, Part 1 
Andronikos and Junia, Part 2

Again, we do not deny that even into the 4th century that the meeting place for Mass was often in people's homes.  As mentioned earlier too - they also met in the catacombs where they buried so many Christian martyrs.  In those catacombs they had places of worship literally carved into the walls.  I've been to one of those sites, the Catacombs of St. Callixtus.  The catacombs became places of worship as early as the 2nd century - long before Rome converted to Christianity in the 4th century.

What the early Catholics had to go through to find places to worship is quite a testimony to their dedication to Christ.  Within those catacombs too there were poisonous gases coming in through the walls, poisonous due to volcanic activity (we're not too far from Pompeii and Mt. Vesuvius) so much so that one could not stay inside the catacombs for much more than an hour.  Even with better ventilation, to this day, they have to monitor and not permit visitors to stay inside for extended periods.  It's actually amazing just how much work they did to create the catacombs and incorporate places of worship within them in light of the fact that they could only stay inside them for short periods of time.  Anyway, this is what the early Church in Rome REALLY looked like - and we can still visit sites like this to this day.

Moving forward, my hope is, Lord willing, to continue to expand on this list and this material, and to make it available in an easy to digest form. In the same way that the printing press aided Martin Luther and helped the Reformation sweep across Europe, the Internet and its ability to make accurate information available immediately around the world, is only going to help to clarify the misunderstandings about Christianity and what it means to have faith in Christ.

While I agree, the printing press helped aid Luther's spread what he was teaching, what he taught was dissent, disrespect and counter to what has preceded him from some 1500 years.  The Internet, while it can be used to make accurate information available - like Luther and the dawning of the printing press, it also makes it easier to spread falsehood and lies.  As folks like Bugay "moves forward" I will continue to present counter-arguments in hopes to shed some light on what they say, and hopefully, one day, bring them home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  I do thank Bugay for this opportunity to share how the Early Church did indeed worship.  While undeniable that some of that worship took place in private homes - it also took place semi-publicly in the catacombs.  

When may a Catholic disagree with Pope Francis?

Cathmom5's introduction: The following post was used in the Catholic Debate Forum discussion on whether or not Catholics are allowed to disagree with the opinions or non-infallible writings of Catholic magisterium. Mr. Conte’s post on When May a Catholic Disagree with Pope Francis? was used to dispute an atheist's argument that if a Catholic work has an imprimatur by a member of the Papal Biblical Commission, a Catholic had no right to disagree with it. As many members tried to point out, an imprimatur simply means "it may be printed." It basically means the bishop gave permission to the author to go ahead and print the project.  A Nihil Obstat says that there is nothing offensive or nothing to offend a Catholic in the book. Neither is a stamp proclaiming the work as  official Catholic teaching, but nothing seems to convince the atheistic of the error of his interpretation of Catholic phrases, documents, and doctrine. He believes he knows everything there is to know about what Catholics believe, and no one can tell him otherwise. The point several people have tried to make is that Catholics are free to disagree with a commentary; a commentary is not compulsory belief. All that aside, even if were "official" Catholic Teaching, I would not agree with his interpretation of what it said in the JBC or how he tried to apply it to an issue that had nothing to do with the commentary entry.

Anyway, I thought this article by Mr. Ron Conte was an excellent explanation of how and when a Catholic may disagree with the Catholic Magisterium (Pope Francis specifically, but it can and does apply to the magisterium in general).  I will make some comments to Mr. Conte's post just for purposes of pointing out some anti-Catholic people (Protestant, atheist, what have you) who like to claim that Catholics are mindless drones, or at the very least not allowed to think for themselves.

When May a Catholic Disagree with Pope Francis?

Posted on 11 November 2014 by Ron Conte

Pope Francis is a valid Pope. He is currently the only Roman Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI validly resigned, and so he is no longer the Pope; that is why he is called “Pope emeritus”. Any Catholic who rejects Pope Francis as the valid and sole current Pope of the one true Church is in a state of formal schism, is automatically excommunicated, and may not receive any of the Sacraments (except Confession, once he is repentant). If you reject the Pope, you have separated yourself from formal communion with the Catholic Church.

One thing that Catholics are not allowed to disagree on is the Pope. The pope is elected by the College of Cardinals through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The process has been formalized and streamlined over the centuries but the ceremony does not take away the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, Catholics are not allowed to disagree with the Holy Spirit. As Mr. Conte said, the Catholic who does not recognize the current, validly elected pope is in schism (no longer a Catholic). Unfortunately, there are many of them out there now--claiming to be Catholic but claim there is no valid pope. They are wrong and no longer Catholic.

For Catholics who accept Pope Francis as the valid Roman Pontiff, some disagreement is possible without heresy, schism, or other grave sin.

So here Mr. Conte wants to make it clear that not all of what the pope says is binding on all Catholics. Not everything he says is infallible. In other words, we are allowed to use our own brain. The following are conditions under which we may disagree.

1. Personal Opinion

When Pope Francis expresses his personal opinion on a matter of faith or morals (or any other topic), and given that the Magisterium has no definitive teaching on the subject, the faithful Catholic is free to disagree.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote and published a book entitled, Jesus of Nazareth: from the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. In the preface of that book, he writes:

“It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.” [1]

Here Pope Benedict XVI gives us a good example to follow concerning the expression of theological opinions by the Bishops and the Pope. Such expressions, no matter how emphatically they may be phrased, are not an exercise of the Magisterium, and so are not binding on the faithful. All are free to disagree with the Pope in any personal opinion that he expresses: about Jesus, about matters of faith and morals, and certainly on other matters.

Caveat: In all likelihood, the opinion of the Pope on any matter pertaining to faith or morals is better than your opinion. The mere opinion of the Pope is fallible, but so are all your opinions.

The pope's personal opinions, personal devotions, prayers, etc. are his own. Of course, I'd think that his opinion pulls much more weight than mine. Pope St. John Paul II's opinion on the death penalty made me look at it differently, and I eventually changed my opinions in line with his.  Eventually, he included his teaching on the subject in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life) in 1995. This encyclical lends even more weight to his teaching. See below under prudential judgment.

2. Prudential Judgment

When Pope Francis issues a judgment of the prudential order, under his authority as Pope, but as a judgment not a teaching, the faithful Catholic is free to disagree.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” [2]

Caveat: An official decision of the Pope under his temporal authority (the type of Church authority that exercises prudential judgment) may still be binding on you as a Catholic. So, for example, if the Pope changes the form of the Mass, you are free to think that the changes are imprudent, but you are not free to reject the Mass on that basis. Or if the Pope changes the rules for reception of Communion, you are free to argue that the changes are imprudent, but you are not free to reject the Mass or the Pope on that basis.

The changes in the Mass since Vatican II have been the basis of much disgruntlement among "radical traditionalists" sometimes called "rad-trads". These people refuse to go to Mass when the novus ordo (new order) Mass is said. They seek out traditional Latin Mass for the most part. The Latin Mass, per se is certainly not a bad thing, but neither is the Novus ordo. Since the radical changes to the new Mass in the 70's, the American Bishops have been working on tweaking the Mass, making it closer to the Latin Mass. The updates have been good. The point is that no practicing Catholic is allowed to forego Mass because there is not a Mass nearby that they believe is the right one. Even if you believe that everyone should attend a Latin Mass, you cannot skip Mass while on vacation just because you can't find a Latin Mass.

3. Non-infallible Teachings

Each and every teaching of the Magisterium falls into one of two categories: infallible or non-infallible. It is a common misunderstanding to think that all teachings of the Magisterium are entirely without error.

Pope John Paul II: “With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” [3]

The non-infallible teachings are reliable and have only a limited possibility of error, but they are NOT infallible. The errors possible in non-infallible teachings never reach to the extent of leading the faithful away from the path of salvation. But non-infallible teachings are non-irreformable. They are subject to a limited possibility of correction, improvement, and change.

“There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent.” [4]

Here we see a very specific statement on when we have freedom of thought! from Pope St. John Paul II. "There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and thought and also general noms of licit dissent." There is no doubt we are allowed to think for ourselves.

Non-infallible teachings are subject to a limited possibility of error and reform; therefore, they do not require the full assent of faith, but a lesser type of assent called the “religious submission of mind and will” [5]. What this means is that you are generally required to believe the non-infallible teachings of the Church. But there is some room for faithful dissent, called “licit theological dissent” [4]. To whatever extent a teaching might err, the faithful are free to disagree. God who is Truth never requires assent to false or erroneous ideas.

The non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium are full of truth. The number, type, and extent of the possible errors is quite limited.

An example of an error in a non-infallible teaching is found in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the definition of lying, which erroneously stated that an assertion is only a lie if the person (to whom you are speaking) has a right to the truth. That claim was removed from the second edition.

Caveat: The basis for the disagreement must be Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, or teachings of the Magisterium of greater authority. Most Catholics who reject a non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium have no legitimate basis for that rejection.

Pay attention to this caveat. Well stated Mr. Conte.

4. Infallible Teachings

The infallible teachings are free from all possibility of error due to the work of the Holy Spirit. The infallible teachings require your full assent with the virtue of faith; obstinate disagreement is the grave sin of heresy.

The infallible Magisterium is exercised in any of three ways:

a. Papal Infallibility

b. Conciliar Infallibility

c. the ordinary and universal Magisterium

To reject an infallible teaching of the Magisterium is material heresy. To do so knowingly and deliberately is the grave sin of formal heresy, which includes the penalty of automatic excommunication. If Pope Francis or any other valid Pope teaches something under any type of infallibility, you are required to give that teaching the full assent of faith. Otherwise, you commit heresy and formally separate yourself from the one true Church.

Caveat: Do not be fooled by those blind guides who claim that the Pope can commit heresy himself, and thereby lose his authority. Doctor of the Church Saint Robert Bellarmine held it to be “probable” that the Pope could never commit heresy personally, nor teach heresy in any way. He also held it to be “certain” that the Pope could never define a heresy as a teaching to be believed by the whole Church.

The foolish today claim that IF a Pope teaches heresy in a way that would seem to fall under infallibility, the teaching is nullified because the Pope fell into heresy. To the contrary, Saint Bellarmine believed that a Pope could NEVER teach heresy in a way that would seem to fall under infallibility.

If all of this is true of the pope, so much more so does it apply to priests, bishops, archbishops, and Cardinals. We are free to disagree on opinion. 

What Saint Bellarmine really said about Popes and Heresy

by Ronald L. Conte Jr.  Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.

Endnotes:

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, p. xxiv.

[2] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles (sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and made public in July, 2004), n. 3; http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

[3] Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops from the United States on their ‘Ad Limina’ visit, 15 October 1988, n. 5.

[4] National Conference of Catholic Bishops (predecessor to the USCCB), Human Life in Our Day, “Norms of Licit Theological Dissent” n. 49 to 54; http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/68-11-15humanlifeinourdaynccb.htm

[5] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, n. 25.

 I received permission by email on 6/26/2016 to reprint Mr. Conte’s post. 

Recently the pope made comments about marriage and co-habitation. Some of his comments were misunderstood, but some of them were outright wrong. Here is a discussion about the pope's comments on The World Over, a news program on EWTN:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLFyB-DxzmQ
Just in case it resets, the discussion starts about 27:51. Both guests Robert Royal, and Fr. Gerald Murray, disagree strongly with the pope's words. Guess what, they are free to do so, and under the category of "non-infallible teachings we see that they do have legitimate reasons to disagree with him. The pope was not making an official proclamation nor was he teaching on faith and morals from the chair of Peter. We are allowed to disagree with the pope when his teaching seems to conflict tradition Catholic teaching. We have had unorthodox popes in the past, and the magesterium has disagreed with a pope or two in the past, but the Church's dogmas and doctrines have never been changed in any material way by any reigning pope.

Progress Toward Eastern Rite Married Priest Ban to be Lifted

June 6, 2014 - One of the things affecting reunification of Orthodoxy with Catholicism is the Latin Church's "ban" on allowing married priests of the Eastern Rites in primarily Latin Rite jurisdictions.  The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has published an article stating:

WASHINGTON—The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation voted in early June to encourage the “lifting of the restrictions regarding the ordination of married men to the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Churches of North America.”
“This action would affirm the ancient and legitimate Eastern Christian tradition, and would assure the Orthodox that, in the event of the restoration of full communion between the two Churches, the traditions of the Orthodox Church would not be questioned,” the consultation said in a statement released June 6.
“We are convinced that this action would enhance the spiritual lives of Eastern Catholics and would encourage the restoration of unity between Catholic and Orthodox Christians,” the statement said.   

Now this is not stating the "ban" is lifted, but the recommendation of the USCCB is that it should be lifted, which is progress and could lead toward more productive talks about reunification of Orthodoxy and Catholicism - a wound which has been open far too long in the Church.

Let us pray!

A Catholic Layman's Take on the "Twelve Differences Between Catholics and Protestants"

In researching a paper, I came across an article titled  Twelve Differences Between Catholics and Protestants.  The author did not say, in the article, what her affiliation was but claimed to be neutral for this article.  Here are her 12 "simple differences" and some clarifications from a Catholic layman.

Pope Francis

1. The Pope. Catholics have a Pope, which they consider a vicar for Christ — an infallible stand-in, if you will — that heads the Church. Protestants believe no human is infallible and Jesus alone heads up the Church.

Of course the pope is a "difference" between Catholics and Protestants.  The very name "Protestant" bespeaks of the protest of certain men and their followers in the 16th century who left the Church and founded churches on their own feelings, opinions, and personal interpretation of Scripture, and protesting against the authority and doctrine of the Church.

The pope is the vicar of Christ.  It is a title of honor as well as jurisdiction meaning that he is the earthly head of the Church, representing our true Head, Jesus Christ.  Christ Himself appointed Peter as His vicar when He said, "Feed My lambs...feed My sheep" (John 21:16-17).  This authority has been placed in the hands of subsequent popes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit and soul of the Christ's Church.

The pope however is not infallible in the way Protestants believe the word to mean.  Infallible does not mean he is sinless or never makes mistakes.  The pope goes to confession just like every other practicing Catholic does.  He is not perfect; he does sin.

Actually, infallibility is a charism (a gift or grace from God in order to do something God asks of us) given to the  pope which makes it impossible for him, as pope, to declare any error in doctrine.  This infallibility only applies to proclamations of doctrine that he has prayed over, has run by many theologians and bishops, and declared or proclaimed from the "chair of Peter."  While the pope's other writings and teachings are considered authoritative, they are not all infallible.

An example of an infallible declaration is the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854:

...for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." [emphasis mine]

Notice the declaration (in quotes) and how it is meant to be for "all the faithful."  This type of proclamation is protected by the Holy Spirit.

St. Patrick's Cathedral, NYC

2.  Big, Fancy Cathedrals. Catholics have them; Protestants don’t. Why? Catholicism says that “humanity must discover its unity and salvation” within a church. Protestants say all Christians can be saved, regardless of church membership. (Ergo… shitty, abandoned storefront churches? All Protestant.)

I can only address some of the many reasons for the "big, fancy" Catholic Cathedrals.  1) They were meant to model the Church after the Kingdom of Heaven.  When one steps into a cathedral (especially the vaulted, medieval ones) you are meant to feel as if you stepped into that Heavenly place.  2) The stained glass windows, statues, wall paintings, mosaics and tapestries of the medieval and middle ages Cathedrals were there to tell the stories of Scripture to illiterate worshipers.   The vast majority of the population lived just above poverty level, with no time to sit and learn to read.  (Even Emperor Charlemagne was illiterate.)  Statues and pictures of saints tell the stories of these wonderful Christians who are a part of the family of God.  In other words, they are family portraits.  3) The artwork in the cathedrals was both education for the people and gifts from the artists (or patrons of the artists).  4) The cathedrals, generally, were built by the people over a century or more as  a gift to God--a form of worship to God.

I would like to know where the quote "humanity must discover its unity and salvation" within a church came from.  I'm not sure what the author is trying to imply here.  The Catholic Church believes that Christ founded one Church and meant it to stay one ("...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.").  So, that is the unity, but it is not about the building.  The Church believes that salvation comes through the Church, however tangentially.  There is the salvation part, but that is not about the building either.  Maybe this is just a case of a Protestant not understanding Catholic vocabulary.?  Who knows.

While it is true that there are crappy store-front Protestant churches, there are also some pretty spectacular Protestant Churches such as the Washington National Cathedral, the Episcopalian Cathedral in DC which took over a century to build in modern times.

St. Walburga

3. Saints. Catholics pray to saints (holy dead people) in addition to God and Jesus. Protestants acknowledge saints, but don’t pray to them.

It is important to clarify here that Catholics do not pray to "holy dead people".  We talk to our living family members.  When we pray to the saints, it is indeed in addition to praying to God, but it does not replace praying to God.  One, we believe the saints to be alive ("He is not the God of the dead but of the living" Mark 12:27) and with Christ their Savior.  Two, we pray to them to talk to God for us, just as we ask the other members of the family of God on earth.

I don't know which Protestants acknowledge saints (except in the generic we're-all-saints way) apart from Orthodox and Lutherans, at least not in the same context.  Many Protestants believe that all "believers" (In quotes, because believers is whatever their personal definition of a believer might be) to be saints.  Therefore, the meaning of the word doesn't even correlate. 

Holy Water font

4.  Holy Water. Catholics only.

Here the author did not even explain if or why holy water is a problem.  Why holy water?  Yeah, that's a difference, of sorts...

Here are some points on holy water:
--Water was used to ceremonially wash the body before entering the Temple in Jerusalem and it was a custom in the early Church as well.
--Holy water is used for baptism.
--Holy water fonts are available in Catholic Churches to remind us of our baptism and ceremonially cleanse us upon entering the nave (the main body of the Church).
--Catholics are sprinkled with water at certain Masses, reminding us of our baptism and our baptismal promises.
--On the altar, the priest pours a small amount of holy water in the chalice, indicating the water which came from the side of Christ along with His blood.
--The priest purifies his hands (ceremonially washes) before the Eucharistic prayers.
--It is a sacramental, not magic.

Fr. Morris, seen on TV

5. Celibacy and Nuns. Catholics only.

Celibacy was advocated by Christ and soon followed by the Early Church.

The disciples said to him, 'If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.' But he replied, 'It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted. There are eunuchs born so from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.'  (Matthew 19:10-12; emphasis mine)

The writings of the Church fathers show that, in the early Church, married priests were not the accepted norm in the main centres of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. They were considered a "problem" that existed in the outlying regions. By the third century there were almost no married priests and several councils put the issue to rest until around the 9th century when many bishops and priests took wives and had children. The state of the priesthood fell to an all time low.  A huge problem emerged with priests "willing" Church property to their families. Up to that point, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the Church. In 1123, celibacy was made official. Although, throughout history there have been scattered instances of abuses of the Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently stuck to this position on celibate priests.  (Catholic Bridge, "Why Can't priests get married?")

Ingrid Bergman in Bells of St. Mary's

In this day and age of clergy divorce, adultery, and "Preacher's daughters", the importance of singular dedication to God and their calling should be very apparent.  What some anti-Catholics do not understand is that there are married priests in the Catholic church.  Yes, they are the minority, but they do exist.  Celibacy is a discipline in order for priests and other religious to dedicate their whole lives to God without the distractions of spouse, children, and family responsibilities.  Men who become priests are responsible for a much bigger family--Christ's family.

In point of fact the Catholic Church is not the only church with nuns.  Both the Anglican church, and the Orthodox church have nuns, and the Lutheran church has "deaconesses".  I don't know much about Protestant nuns but Catholic nuns are women dedicated to Jesus Christ alone.  They spend their days praying for the salvation of the world and doing good (humanitarian) works.  This can only be a good thing.

6. Purgatory: Catholics only.

Yes and no.

Purgation  or Purgatory is not only Scriptural but traditional.

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.  (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Revelations 21:27 tells us that nothing impure will enter Heaven.

Purgatory is simply a place or state of being in which Christians are cleansed or purged of all stain of sin before entering Heaven.  It is neither a second chance, nor a place or state without hope.  Anyone who is in Purgatory or in the state of purging knows that they will be in Heaven once the cleansing is complete.  Since it is after this life, time does not exist there, so we cannot say that you spend a certain amount of "time" there because time doesn't exist there.

There are other Christian sects that believe in purification before Heaven but will not call this state or process Purgatory in opposition to the Church.  So, actually there are Protestant sects that do indeed believe in it, they just don't call it that.

  

7. Scripture: The be-all, end-all for Protestants is “the Word of God.” For Catholics, tradition is just important as scripture — maybe even more so.

What the blogger fails to point out is that Scripture is part of Catholic Tradition. It is the most important part of the Tradition of the Church.  It is extremely important to the Church and her members.

 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."  (CCC 132)

Protestantism that I have personally experienced has traditions of their own that is every bit as important as Scripture.  Scripture alone as the "be-all, end all" is a protestant tradition not based in Scripture.

One of my favorites for Children

8. Catechism: Protestant kids memorize the Bible. Catholic kids get catechism.

It is not quite as black and white as that.  The "catechism" that Catholic kids "get" includes Scripture.  While Catholic Children don't memorize large chunks of Scripture word for word, they learn whole sections and stories by heart.  Ask any Catholic kid about Creation, Moses,  the Prodigal Son, or the Wedding Feast at Cana, the Last Supper, or the Passion of Christ, I bet you'd be impressed.  The catechism is a concise outline of the Faith passed down for twenty centuries which includes Scripture.  Children learn their Faith and learn why the Church believes what it believes.  The Catechism, including the children's version, is filled with the rich gift of Scripture. While many Catholic children can't spout memorized Scripture on demand, properly catechized children can tell others about what is in the Bible and what we believe about it.

Vatican Council II

9. Authori-tay: In Catholicism, only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret the Bible. Protestants hold that each individual has authority to interpret the Bible.

 Yes, the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture.  Christ sent the Holy Spirit to His Church at Pentecost for this very reason.  He guided and inspired men who wrote the Scriptures, who taught the Scriptures, and interpreted the Scriptures.  The Holy Spirit-guided Church gave the Bible as we know it to the world--even the Protestants.  And, there has been nearly 2,000 years of Catholic theologians, scholars, and councils studying and interpreting Scripture, why would an individual believe they've come up with something new?  That is the height of hubris.

The error of individual interpretation of Scripture is what gave us the "33,000!" (I'm quoting the blogger, now) different Protestant denominations, churches, or communities--however they want to distinguish or name themselves.  There are protestants fighting protestants.  Just one example would be the importance of baptism for salvation: one groups says it is necessary, others say you're just getting wet.

10. Sacraments: Catholic are the only ones to have the concept of the seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, anointing of the sick, holy orders, and matrimony). Protestants teach that salvation is attained through faith alone.

Ironically, those that claim that their only authority is Scripture don't or won't understand that the only place that the words "faith alone" are found in Scripture, they appear in the negative.   

"So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17, NAB)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17, KJV)

Faith produces fruit or it is dead, after all, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19, KJV)     

These sacraments are beneficial in the order of grace and all seven were instituted by Christ.  God's free gift of grace helps us with our faith, and our faith gets stronger with each sacrament we partake in.

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. (CCC 1131)

Mary, Mother of God

11. Holidays: Catholics have 10 Holy Days of Obligation (which mean they must go to Mass). Protestants are more like, “Just come to church on Christmas, that’s all we ask.”

This blanket statement is much too general.

Yes, the Catholic Church in America has 8 Holy days of Obligation (2 of the original 10, Epiphany and The Body and Blood of Christ, have been transferred to Sundays) in addition to our Sunday obligation.  The reality is that all Catholics are obligated to go to Mass every single Sunday of the year.  The other eight days are in addition to the Sunday obligation.

The Nativity (Christmas)

The ten (the eight with the other 2 now on Sunday) days are:  Mary, Mother of God (January 1), Epiphany (Sunday after January 1), Ascension (either the sixth Thursday of Easter or the seventh Sunday of Easter depending on the diocese), Body and Blood of Christ (Second Sunday after Pentecost), The Assumption of Mary (August 15), All Saints (November 1), Immaculate Conception of Mary (December 8) and Christmas Day (December 25).

As for Protestants, I don't agree with the blogger's blanket statement.  In the Baptist church in which I grew up, it was expected, if not an outright rule, that all good members of that church went to church on Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evenings.  Also expected was attendance to any "revivals" and extra prayer meetings.  You were told in the minister's message how you couldn't be a good Christian if you didn't give time and money to God.  I'm sure that this "obligation" is still true in many Protestant churches today.

 

The Eucharist and Heaven

12. Communion: In Catholicism, the bread and wine “become” the body and blood of Jesus Christ, meaning that Jesus is truly present on the altar. In Protestantism, the bread and wine are symbolic.

While true, this is a broad generalization.  The Catholic Church does believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  The main reason is because we believe Christ words literally.  We believe He meant what He said:

Then he took bread, ...saying, 'This is my body given for you'...He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.' (Luke 22:19,20)

Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28)

Also, in the Orthodox and Lutheran traditions the bread and wine are more than symbolic, but expressed in a different way than the Catholic Church.

I, personally, feel sorry for Protestants who claim they believe in what Scriptures say, yet ignore what Scripture actually says.  If communion is just bread and wine (actually grape juice in most Protestants circles), what was the point of doing it in the first place?  Just going through the motions seems a lot less efficacious than believing in Christ's words.  

Conclusion: Christians have a lot more commonality than differences.  We all are sincerely trying to follow Christ and His teaching. Our Lord taught us to love God and love one another. Do I think Protestants are wrong on many levels?  Yes or I would not be a Catholic today.  I have found Christ, His Church, His family.  I am completely in love with my Savior and I believe that I am doing my best to follow Him and help my children know and follow Him.  Other Christians waste a lot of time, money, effort, and hatred on fellow Christians.  It is sad, really, because that is not what Christ intended. We are all God's children and we all deserve respect.