Theology Thursdays: Anti-Catholic Bias and the war on Christmas

A friend I admire posted THIS blog the other day on her facebook page because she clearly found it profound, alongside all the people who commented. In particular because I've been fascinated with what appears to be a rising trend this year NOT to celebrate Christmas among "Bible Christians," I read it. And my head nearly exploded on so many levels. Were the intentions "good?" Sure. Absolutely. The author's heart is to proclaim what he has learned about Jesus, and he appears to be some kind of pastor, although for "whom" is a bit fuzzy.... there are allusions to previous pastoring experience as well as a statement of desire to start a new church, which I admit, I always find a bit troubling, having been there myself and knowing that isn't a good place to be - Out of the thousands of Christian denominations out there, not a one suits your beliefs or standards? Hmmm.  This should worry any avid reader of his blog. Obedience, at least in my opinion, is the sure path to sanctification.

That being said, I had a very nice subesequent conversation with "Pastor" Gregg and I felt that he was sincere and well-intentioned, operating from a place of genuine concern, if you will, despite his lack of understanding with regards to Christian history and his inadequate theology.We are still chatting, with the understanding that he believes Catholics must be redeemed from the "idolatry" of Catholicism, as I had suspected, which for some reason he preferred to share with me privately rather than acknowledge openly on his blog. I plan on continuing the discussion because, quite frankly, I find it fascinating.

Anyways, in this particular blog, he explains his frustration at people who express concern that we don't say "Merry Christmas" anymore. His point is twofold: First, that we should be so focused on Jesus at all times and in all seasons and so aware of the fact that earth has gone to hell in a handbasket that nothing should surprise us anymore and we should be focused elsewhere-- on heartfelt worship. Second, that saying "Merry Christmas" irritates him because it's Catholic, and Catholics are pagans and we shouldn't do anything "they" do. Or rather, he couldn't understand why Christians would want to imitate Catholics.

Alright, hold the phone.
So let me get this straight: FIRST, Satan has been so effective at attacking Christmas and downplaying the incarnation (as you can read in my last post) that now not only secular institutions and our government are attacking Christmas but CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES. True story. Each passing year an increasing number of nondenominational Christians cease celebrating Christmas.
SECOND, these same Christians can only do so by completely severing their only ties to the Catholic Church... by attacking fundamental Catholic doctrines that have, since the time of Christ, defined Christianity. In doing so, they are in essence placing themselves outside the confines of traditional Christianity entirely, while claiming it for themselves, even though they have absolutely NO historical proof that this is so. It's wildly brilliant in it's own crafty way, and clearly indicative of the type of evil genius that only the Father of Lies could conceive! Doctrines such as the Trinity, the Lord's Day, or the Incarnation, etc are going out the window more and more each passing year, being replaced with new rites and rituals or with old ones that put them right back under the Law of the Old Covenant. Everywhere I turn, I see it happening like a sweeping plague upon the face of modern "Christianity." (excluding, of course, the unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church. And, to be fair, many of the mainline protestant Churches as well, although they seem to be going the route of "meaningless ritual" more and more to prove the fundamentalists right.)
The war on Christmas from Christians themselves is DIRECTLY related to the war on Catholicism, so let's expose the works of Satan, shall we?

First, a disclaimer: Catholicism in no way teaches that the only path to salvation is via the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, we acknowledge that we are the surest path, since we have the fullness of the Truth, but that there are other paths which enjoy enough "pieces" of truth to point a person in the correct direction. Personal salvation is not linked to one's adherence in the Roman Catholic Church, although this is ideal, but rather to one's response to Holy Spirit given promptings in the conscience that lead one towards repentance and faith in Christ. This means that we don't NEED to pressure other people into becoming Catholic, and we have absolutely no need of berating other churches, nor even other religions, unless they come swinging at us, in which case we have the responsibility to correct false ideas or attitutes towards Roman Catholicism. In other words, I'm not correcting this guy's blog because I want him or his readers to become Catholic... rather, because I'm concerned that a Catholic person might read his blog and think "Hey, he's right, my Church doesn't get it," or that a non-Catholic person might read his blog and think: "Geez, Catholics sure do need to read their bibles more so they stop being Catholic." Most importantly, I'm concerned here with giving credit where credit is due, not because I'm Catholic but because an accurate historical picture is the ONLY way to build a vision for the future. My days of "coming out swinging with both fists" are over, mostly because if you are headed towards Jesus, I'm confident that He will meet you and that I don't have to "worry" about your salvation. Tough lesson, I know. On the other hand, if YOU come out swinging, I'm not gonna duck. I'm gonna take it, and then I'm going to show you that you are swinging for NO REASON.

Alright, now that that's out of the way, let's see. We begin with history.  Many protestants claim that the "true" Church is not Catholic since they don't agree with any of the massive scriptural evidence we present that states that Jesus gave spiritual authority to Peter as head of the 12, who then handed it on as they saw fit. Others claim that the Church and Peter "apostasized" during the time of Christ (??!!) and others still that it wasn't until many years later that the Catholic Church "fell away" and began practicing meaningless ritual. The truth is that the Bible itself tells us that even the name "Christian" wasn't in existence until later, since it delieneates the first time the word is used. The Word "Catholic" was used in the book of Acts for the first time in the greek  (Acts 9:31) and historically can be traced back to it's first mention in an apostolic letter, written by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, circa 110 AD.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Thus we can see that the "Catholic Church, and the Mass, was in existence and protected by shepherds in 110 AD. In fact, though the early Church fathers certainly battled many a heretic in their day, it wasn't until old Henry the 8th decided to get rid of some wives that a "new" Church was birthed. We all know, of course, the story of the German Reformation, and so we can say that effectively 1500 years after Christ came is when we REALLY began to see the church split and separate into divisions upon divisions. The Catholic Church IS the mother of every Christian Church on the planet. The message of the Gospel was first proclaimed through her, and protestants who deny this are literally covering their eyes and saying "I don't believe facts! Lalalalalaala, I'm not listening!" If this is true, then it makes virtually no sense, considering the very premise of the Catholic Faith, which is that our teachings CAN. NOT. CHANGE, to say that we are fundamentally evil or headed in the wrong direction or "unchristian." 

Furthermore it is an unarguable FACT that the Bible came to the world via the Catholic Church.... another story altogether but certain worth noting when Catholics are perpetually being accused of acting in an "unbiblical" manner. 

Lastly, when you are attempting to deconstruct a religion, my suggestion is that you look to the actual DOCTRINES of said religion and not the people who practice it, who will vary greatly in their "putting to practice" the actual teachings of their religion. In particular, as Christians, we know we "war not against the flesh but against powers and principalities." So if you have a war with the Catholic Church, address what the Church teaches, not what your Catholic neighbor says or does. Being a "good Catholic" is tough-- and the road is narrow. Many-- most-- will not even stay on the path very long. 

One more thing to keep in mind is this: if Catholicism actually IS what it claims to be, wouldn't it make sense that Satan would go out of his way to attempt to demolish it in any way he could-- through the media, through the inside, through other religions, through Satanism, through witchcraft, and through self-proclaimed "Christian" religions all the more? See for yourself whether these things are true by whom the Catholic Church's enemies are. Do not Satanists perform black masses, a mockery of our Catholic Mass? Have not Feemasons, through the ages, attempted and almost succeeded at silencing the Catholic Church? Do not muslims and hindus DAILY destroy Catholic Churches, and kill Catholic people, driving them out of the land? Does not the media attack the pope and the Catholic priesthood on a regular basis? Is the noble word "priest" not synonomous with the word "pedophile" in many circles today? Who is really under attack here? 

"Pastor" Gregg's first point is valid: that God desires sincere worship above all things, not a mere "show" of that worship. This indeed is a good reminder.

His second point, also, is valid. Jesus Christ was "probably" not born on December 25th. While this may be news to some of you, I ask whether it is really that important. ..It is the day chosen by the Church to celebrate the Incarnation for many different reasons, not the least among them being that December 25 may have been deemed suitable is its proximity to the winter solstice. After that date the days start to become longer, and thus it is at the beginning of a season of light entering the world (cf. John 1:5). The summer solstice—after which the days start to get shorter—falls near June 24, on which the Church celebrates the birth of John the Baptist, who declared of Christ, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30) 

The incarnation is an event, as I blogged earlier, which is certainly worthy of praise! Why NOT celebrate Christ's birth, regardless of the selected day?? However, that isn't my problem with his post. Here is my problem:

the "mass" is not even a biblical or Christian term or biblical event. In essence, the Mass is the ceremonial slaying of Jesus Christ over and over again, followed by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood.  The Mass is the death sacrifice, and the "Host" is the victim.  This is official Roman Catholic doctrine, and "Christmas" is a word that they invented.  Again, I ask, what is so merry about the pain, bleeding, suffering and death of Jesus Christ? Satan has done quite a job of getting millions of so-called "Christians" to blaspheme.  What a deceiver he is.

The Mass is not a Christan term? Except that Christians have been present at Mass since the dawn of the Church, as we saw earlier with St Ignatius in 110 AD. This quote upset me on so many levels. Many years ago, I heard this teaching from a Pastor and decided that it was true without investigating myself. Thus I left the one thing that was SURE to lead me away from error at all times. The problem with this quote, of course, is that "Pastor" Gregg says about his take on the mass that "this is official Roman Catholic doctrine." This is a lie.... a lie which I attempted to graciously correct in a comment by stating the following:

Just to clarify: the "Mass" is not the re-sacrificing of Christ according to Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine states that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Once and for all sacrfice of Christ on Calvary as per John 6 and Matthew 28 and Rev 1-22, etc etc. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in 1366: "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial (-my addition--as in the passover, the events memorialized are made present to those participating) and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit." and again in 1367 "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."
That is correct Catholic teaching, not what you have said above. Thought you might want to know so that you did not mislead your readers or stir them into an anti-Catholic frenzy. 

I always want to assume the best in people, that they mean well and aren't intentionally misleading others to further their own agenda. By gently correcting him with a direct quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a compendium of official Roman Doctrine, that directly contradicts his statement, I hoped he would retract his statement and take initiative to fix it, or at least to take his tone down a notch. At the end of the day, he was upset that someone attributed to Jesus a quote that he felt represented Catholicism and not Christianity. Meaning, Catholicism is NOT Christianity, but a dangerous deception in his eyes. Since he is determined to believe this despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, I can  not change his mind, but in reading the comments, I felt someone needed to say something to correct the misrepresentation! 

However, I don't want to invade his page with my responses, and since each of his statements and the comments were pretty representative of the general war on Christmas and on Catholic Christianity, I thought other readers,  my readers, especially, who are interested in this sort of topic, would benefit if I posted the comments and their responses. His response to my correction was not to apologize for misrepresenting Catholic teaching and condemning the Holy Mass, which is Sacreligious and Satanic, but instead to "stand by his comment" despite evidence that he was lying about the Mass, to call Catholicism "ecclectic and diverse, changing faces according to the culture and customs of the people it serves in each nation" (Um, No. That 's why we have ONE Pope for the whole world, and ONE Catechism, for the whole world. We have ONE Mass, ONE "proper" way to worship, for the whole world. ONE Canon Law. The entirety of Catholicism is based on that unity, and it is in fact protestants who are ecclectic and diverse, picking and choosing from various base doctrines  already in existence, sometimes inventing new ones, and organizing and re-organizing themselves as a diverse disunified body with variable styles, methods, and beliefs. To assert the opposite to be "fact" is astounding to me. How can he prove this?? He simply cannot. To stand by his comment, then, in the face of correction, is.... wow.)

Further, he made his point very clear: 

My point is my do we even want to say Merry Christmas when it is not a Christian sentiment but a Roman sentiment?

Once again, if the majority of protestants understood that their very beliefs and teachings ORIGINATED with the Catholic Church, they would have no need to fear her. Instead they fight and attack, squabble and peck, and act as if we Catholics are off our rocker. We haven't changed. We are still sitting here, 2000 + years later, doing and teaching the same things. Whereas the protestant churches and most of the Christ-proclaiming cults, all of them, exist by virtue of well-meaning (and, let's face it, some not so well meaning) very sincere persons who tried to reinvent the theological wheel.
I am CONVINCED that, as displayed here in this blog, the attack on Christmas which most of my nondenominational friends seem to be assimilating this year as "biblical" teaching, is an extension of the attack on Roman Catholicism. One commentator on this blog said:  "What a great history lesson on the common holiday greeting we hear everywhere we go this time of the year. Thanks for helping me to understand something I've never really given much thought about. I'll never hear the words Merry Christmas again without thinking about what you said." And that, right there....that... is a successful battle for the kingdom of Darkness. Why? Because where there is no Christmas there is no proclamation of the Incarnation. Where there is no proclamation of the Incarnation, there is no theological set up to understand the significance of the Eucharist. Where there is no understanding of the Eucharist, there is a a fundamental lack of the Real Presence of Christ and of the idea of true and actual spiritual authority to make present Christ to us-- the Church..

As I said, one need not be Catholic to find the way to the Kingdom of Heaven... But the purpose of the Catholic Church is to lead, guide, and direct the people towards the King. When you attack the Church, you attack the King. When you attack the King, you side with His enemy. Do you really want to do that?
Why not just acknowledge that your beliefs are BUILT on the foundation of the Church, which is BUILT on the rock of Peter, who built on Christ, the cornerstone. In doing so, why not seek PEACE with Christians around the world who have been proclaiming Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection for the salvation of souls since the days of Jesus Himself??
Nothing makes me sick like division in the name of Christ-- the same Christ who prayed that we be ONE, as He and the Father are one. If you're going to talk about Catholicism, make decisions based on Catholicism, or otherwise have opinions about Catholicism, make sure they are based on FACT, and not fabrication.


My point is, then, why WOULDN'T we want to say Merry Christmas, when it is a Roman Catholic tradition that has been the root and basis of all Christian tradition for more than 2000 years? When you attack Christmas, you attack the Church who, through the inspiration and protection of the Holy Spirit, gave you everything you need to know today about Christ and Salvation.