Catholics: Ash Wednesday Tomorrow

[A Faithful Catholic]

So, I kind of have been following this and have a question:

 

Where in the Bible does it exactly say the word "Catholic"?

 

TWS

 

Doesn't need to. The CC existed BEFORE the bible did. Catholic means universal. The bible is a document of the CC. There was NO OTHER CHURCH in existence UNTIL 1054 AD that the CC needed to distinguish itself from. NONE. Every other 'church" was BORN sometime after 1511 ad when their innovator brought up his errors.

 

Here is where the word Catholic was FIRST used. These are WITNESSES to what actually took place in those days:

 

"Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for 'he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.' In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. Be ye subject to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons.” St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)

 

"The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning inSt. Polycarp Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place." St. Polycarp ("The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D.)

 

"Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world." St. Polycarp ("The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D.)

 

"The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone except in the church." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Letter 61," c. 250 A.D.)

 

"There is no salvation outside of the church." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Letter 72," c. 250 A.D.)

 

"The Catholic church is one." St. Victorinus ("Against Arius," c. 280 A.D.)

 

"It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the Earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one end and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness and the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul and body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts." St. Cyril of Jerusalem ("Catechetical Lectures," c. 350 A.D.)

 

"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian." St. Athanasius ("Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc," c. 360 A.D.)

[A Faithful Catholic]

Nice list of quotes. Only one little problem, they fail to address Hunter's references to the actual Holy Scriptures. What you've quoted are the views of men who came after the time of the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. As Hunter noted, James was the indicated leader in Acts, and Peter himself never claimed to hold the leadership position. You're trying to tell us the opinions of men in post-Apostolic times overrules the Apostles themselves? That is a tough sell, even for a windbag like you.

 

 

I also guess that you do not believe in WITNESSES to what actually happened in those days. Most prots have to ignore the Early Christian Fathers. As a matter of fact most converts to the CC point out the ECFs as the reason why they left their rebellious church. They realized that protestantism does not reflect early Christianity in doctrine nor practice.

[Guest Guest]

Can someone answear a simple question??

 

Was the wine mentioned in the Bible real wine, like we know it today with some alcohol content?? (The reason I ask this is because I have heard some Protestants claim that the Wine mentioned in the Bible is only grape juice because back then they did not know how to ferment wine.)

[A Faithful Catholic]

Can someone answear a simple question??

 

Was the wine mentioned in the Bible real wine, like we know it today with some alcohol content?? (The reason I ask this is because I have heard some Protestants claim that the Wine mentioned in the Bible is only grape juice because back then they did not know how to ferment wine.)

 

I have heard that too. Fermentation is a NATURAL process with wild yeast spores in the air. Fermentation starts almost immediately if the juice is exposed to air. The ANCIENT Egyptians had even a form of BEER. Wine was a COMMON drink back then and it was alcoholic.

[Guest Knight of Darkness]

Peter DIDN'T need to claim ANYTHING. Jesus CHOSE PETER HIMSELF. HIS VERY OWN WORDS. Are you telling me the APOSTLES can OVERRULE Christ and His words in regards to the Keys of Heaven? Everybody is SKIPPING around that passage but me.

 

Actually, I heard a Protestant minister discuss that passage, and lay out the reasons why Protestants feel it was misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. Oh that's right, you don't believe in reason.

 

[Guest Knight of Darkness]

YOU ARE A LIAR: I have never said "what dreadful people Protestants are" NEVER. I attack FALSE TEACHINGS and ERRORS, not the people. I had said this a million times. I guess you are getting desperate to have to lie! You're a cheap liar. That is being nice about it.

 

Well Jon, you've now had the special "privilege" of being called a liar by a deceitful dirtbag like AFC.

 

AFC, you have committed the sins of pride and lying, so to use one of your own favorite phrases, pot, meet kettle. Between your selective memory and cheap sophistry that you pass off as clever debating tactics, you're not exactly on the moral high ground when it comes to truthfulness. Keep it up, and you'll be in the eternal frying pan.

 

[Guest Knight of Darkness]

I also guess that you do not believe in WITNESSES to what actually happened in those days. Most prots have to ignore the Early Christian Fathers. As a matter of fact most converts to the CC point out the ECFs as the reason why they left their rebellious church. They realized that protestantism does not reflect early Christianity in doctrine nor practice.

 

What I don't believe is you felt compelled to reply not once, but twice to my posting. I was wrong, you're not a windbag, instead you're a gasbag.

 

 

Also, to answer your question, I don't believe anything ECFs have to say overrides statements in Acts.

[Guest Knight of Darkness]

I have heard that too. Fermentation is a NATURAL process with wild yeast spores in the air. Fermentation starts almost immediately if the juice is exposed to air. The ANCIENT Egyptians had even a form of BEER. Wine was a COMMON drink back then and it was alcoholic.

 

Another I can't believe it. You actually know some non-religious history? Amazing, did someone tie you up on your couch, and flip on the History Channel? Perhaps the 300 lb harridan warthog when she got sick of you trying to make her pregnant again?

 

Anyway, I think fermentation is what goes on inside your head as well as your bowels. You certainly produce enough gas.

 

[Guest Guest]

AFC was right wine will naturally ferment and therefore has alcohol content:

 

Fermentation is indeed the magic at play in the making of wine. If left to its own devices must or juice will begin fermenting naturally within 6-12 hours with the aid of wild yeasts in the air. In very clean, well-established wineries and vineyards this natural fermentation is a welcome phenomena.

 

Therefore the wine in the Bible is REAL WINE as we know it today with some alcohol content... Therefore those Protestent people who claim the wine in the Bible is only GRAPE JUICE (Because people did not know how to ferment wine back in those days) ARE WRONG.

 

If they are wrong about the Wine - One wonders what else they are misled into beleiving??

 

[Jon]

YOU ARE A LIAR: I have never said "what dreadful people Protestants are" NEVER. I attack FALSE TEACHINGS and ERRORS, not the people. I had said this a million times. I guess you are getting desperate to have to lie! You're a cheap liar. That is being nice about it.

 

For the MILLIONS of souls the "reformation" has damaged and CONTINUES to damage, that word is very kind.

 

Now respond to my posting

1. A Faithful Catholic, you have not factored into your comical overreaction my normal competence in handling punctuation. You alone have put my words in quotation marks as if to suggest that I was quoting you directly, or that I was claiming to do so.

 

I was not.

 

I merely used my own words to describe the nature of your references to Protestants. I was not quoting your exact words. If I had been quoting you verbatim, then you know perfectly well I would have taken great pleasure in presenting that passage as a quote unmistakably. I have never omitted to do so before, nor now.

 

2. By falsely dressing up my statement as a direct 'quote' of you, you award yourself an artificial excuse to call me a 'liar'. That is another childish ploy of yours which we can add to your others. I guess it is you who are 'getting desperate'. In all the time we have been communicating I have never given you the slightest excuse to call me a liar. You have been itching to apply that label to me so much that in desperation you've finally thrown caution to the winds and manufactured a pretext to do so. I'm willing to bet that there's not another poster here who hasn't seen straight through your mendacity in this, and factored it into their opinion of you.

 

I now turn to the truthfulness of my reference to your contempt for Protestants as people:

 

From: "The Pope gets dis-invited". page #4

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008

So what other justification for typing disrespectfully can you come up with that I don't?

That doesn't do it for me. I use it on other boards. Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot....

So you now admit to using a cheap slur, even though with no better typing skills than yours I always show the common courtesy to name your Catholic Church respectfully?

 

Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot....

As I expected: "Linguistic engineering precedes Social engineering".

 

So much for your earlier excuses about limited typing abilities.

 

Just so we all know.

That was one of your kinder sneers at Protestants. There are worse. Would you like me to go on?

[cupkate]

This is the first time I've ever read an AFC post and I have to ask one question, aren't catholics supposed to be kind an accepting of everyone? I'm pretty sure my parents and my teachers at catholic schools taught me to be kind to everyone. You certainly are not a very nice person. You kind of seem like one of those people from different religions that you bash every day; I've never known a catholic to try and push thier beliefs on anyone else before. Faith should be a personal thing and everyone should believe in what they want to without having to hear your ramblings.

[LunaC]

The CC's dogma and doctrines ARE indeed PERFECT. The people ARE not. The pope is ONLY infallible on Church teachings when pronounced ex cathedra and at no other time. No pope has erred in this area for 2,000 years. Not one dogma or doctrine was reneged. Limbo was not a doctrine nor dogma, just a theory.

 

 

Infallibility

 

Mary Ann Collins

(A Former Catholic Nun)

 

February 2002

 

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. This means that whenever they make official declarations concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future. [Note 1] "Webster's Dictionary" defines "infallible" as "not capable of erring". It says that "infallible" as used by the Roman Catholic Church means "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals".

 

What happens if a pope or a Catholic church council makes an "infallible" declaration which directly contradicts the "infallible" declaration of another pope or church council?

 

Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore, if the "infallible" pronouncements of the popes and Catholic church councils really are infallible, they will never contradict other "infallible" pronouncements. So if there is even one contradiction, then the doctrine of infallibility cannot be correct.

 

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Honorious made doctrinal statements which are contrary to the Roman Catholic faith.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have "infallible" popes condemning another "infallible" pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished "infallible" papal decrees and the decrees of two "infallible" councils. [Note 2]

 

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

 

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here we have "infallible" popes declaring a doctrine to be a heresy. Then on November 1, 1950, we have Pope Pius XII (another "infallible" pope) declaring the same doctrine to be official Roman Catholic doctrine, which all Catholics are required to believe. [Note 3]

 

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of "infallible" declarations of popes). But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the "infallible" declaration of Pope Pius XII).

 

In 1864, Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate". He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII "infallibly" declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.]

 

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled "Declaration on Religious Liberty" which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5]

 

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the "infallible" declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of "heretics," the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.

 

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with "a just penalty" if they allow their children to "be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion". The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, "a just penalty" included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article "Hunting 'Heretics'".)

 

Here the Catholic Church is on the horns of a dilemma. If it says that people have a right to freedom of religion, then it admits that it is not infallible. If it says that it is infallible, then it admits that it really does not believe that people have a right to freedom of religion.

 

The Catholic Church can claim infallibility, or it can claim that it has seen the error of its ways and it now supports freedom of religion. But it can't have it both ways.

 

Two Roman Catholic organizations have found contradictions between "infallible" doctrinal declarations of the Second Vatican Council and "infallible" doctrinal pronouncements of Pope Pius IX. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles dealing with these contradictions.]

 

The conservative group (True Catholic) concludes that, therefore, the Second Vatican Council must not be legitimate. The liberal group (Women Priests) concludes that, therefore, Pope Pius IX taught "errors". Either way, there are contradictions between official doctrinal declarations of an "infallible" pope and an "infallible" church council.

 

True Catholic also claims that Pope John Paul II has taught 101 things which are contrary to "infallible" Catholic doctrines which were declared by "infallible" popes and church councils. They conclude that John Paul is therefore a heretic, which, according to Canon Law, means that he is not a valid pope. So they call him an anti-pope. [Note 8 gives the address of an on-line article.]

 

If John Paul II is not a valid pope, then the papal chair has been vacant. In order to rectify this situation, True Catholic has elected a pope. On May 20, 1998, Pope Pius XIII was elected. [Note 9 gives the address of an on-line article.]

 

So we now have two men who claim to be Pope: John Paul II and Pius XIII. It seems that having two popes at the same time is not confined to the Middle Ages.

 

SUMMARY

 

There are "infallible" doctrinal declarations which contradict one another. Therefore, the doctrine of infallibility is not valid.

 

The contradiction of "infallible" doctrines has caused some very conservative Catholics to believe that John Paul II is not a valid pope, and the Second Vatican Council was not a valid council. It has also caused some very liberal Catholics to believe that Pope Pius IX taught doctrinal errors.

 

USE OF THIS ARTICLE

 

I encourage you to link to this article. You have permission to quote from this article, as long as you do it fairly and accurately. You have permission to make copies of this article for friends and for use in classes.

 

NOTES

 

1. “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Conference, 2000), paragraph 891. This book comes in numerous editions and languages. Because it has numbered paragraphs, statements can be accurately located in spite of the variety of editions. You can get the book in regular bookstores and at Amazon.com

 

2. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 63-71.

 

3. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History," pages 81-85.

 

4. Pope Pius IX, “Quanta Cura” (“Condemning Current Errors”), December 8, 1864. The “error” is given in Section 3, second paragraph. (Most numbered sections consist of only one paragraph. This section has two paragraphs.) The condemnation of all of the “errors” described in the encyclical is given in paragraph 6. [To read this online, search for “Pius IX” + “quanta cura”]

 

Pope Pius IX, “The Syllabus of Errors,” December 8, 1864, paragraphs 15, 77, and 78. The “Syllabus of Errors” accompanied the encyclical “Quanta Cura”. In reading it, remember that Pius condemned every statement that you are reading. [To read this online, search for “Pius IX” + “syllabus of errors”]

 

Pope Leo XIII,”Libertas Praestantissimum” (“On the Nature of Human Liberty”), June 20, 1888, paragraph 42. [To read this online, search for “Leo XIII” + Libertas]

 

5. "Dignitatis Humanae" ("Declaration on Religious Liberty") in Austin Flannery (editor), "Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents," New Revised Edition, Volume 1 (Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975, 1996), pages 799-812.

 

6. Canon 1366, "Code of Canon Law," Latin English edition, New English Translation. (Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1988), page 427. Canon Laws provide the legal basis for everything that the Roman Catholic Church officially does. Even the Inquisition and the persecution of Protestants were supported by Canon Law.

 

7. "The Errors of Pope Pius IX". This article gives extensive quotations, with references to Pope Pius IX's encyclicals and documents from the Second Vatican Council. It is on-line.

 

 

 

[Jon]

'A Faithful Catholic',

 

Here you cite other boards you say you visit that permit your slur on Protestants:

So what other justification for typing disrespectfully can you come up with that I don't?

That doesn't do it for me. I use it on other boards. Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot....

 

Here you trivialize another board that would forbid your slur on Protestants:

"Insulting another member by calling that person a "prot," "fundie," "radtrad," "heretic," or anything else is not permitted on these boards. This rule will be rigorously enforced. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=127816 "

First of all, that is not this board. That is just the opinion of others.

You seek to defend your willful abuse here by citing your use of it on other boards as if that somehow makes it alright. But when you're confronted with any board that forbids such abuse, all of a sudden you downplay that board's Administration Policy as "just the opinion of others".

 

When it suits you, other boards' policies matter. When it doesn't suit you, their policies don't matter.

 

You respect boards that allow your sectarian hatred, and devalue those that don't. Even putting aside the embarrassing fact that the board that forbids your kind of hatred is a prominent Catholic Information website, your "double-standards of convenience" are breathtaking.

 

No wonder you have no credibility!

[Jon]

Infallibility

 

Mary Ann Collins

(A Former Catholic Nun)

 

February 2002

 

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. ..... [...] .....

7. "The Errors of Pope Pius IX". This article gives extensive quotations, with references to Pope Pius IX's encyclicals and documents from the Second Vatican Council. It is on-line.

'LunaC', that is a substantial account! Thank you! Do you also have a link to its source?

[A Faithful Catholic]

Actually, I heard a Protestant minister discuss that passage, and lay out the reasons why Protestants feel it was misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. Oh that's right, you don't believe in reason.

 

I do believe in reason. It doesn't trump FAITH nor the Word of God.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

Well Jon, you've now had the special "privilege" of being called a liar by a deceitful dirtbag like AFC.

 

AFC, you have committed the sins of pride and lying, so to use one of your own favorite phrases, pot, meet kettle. Between your selective memory and cheap sophistry that you pass off as clever debating tactics, you're not exactly on the moral high ground when it comes to truthfulness. Keep it up, and you'll be in the eternal frying pan.

 

I am not a liar, nor have committed the sin of pride.

[A Faithful Catholic]

Also, to answer your question, I don't believe anything ECFs have to say overrides statements in Acts.

 

The Lord's OWN Words in MATHEW 16 are MORE important then the church council in Acts!

 

"Man shall not live on bread alone, but EVERY Word that flows from the mouth of God" Jesus Christ

 

God HIMSELF chose Peter to lead and shepard His Church.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

1. A Faithful Catholic, you have not factored into your comical overreaction my normal competence in handling punctuation. You alone have put my words in quotation marks as if to suggest that I was quoting you directly, or that I was claiming to do so.

 

I was not.

 

I merely used my own words to describe the nature of your references to Protestants. I was not quoting your exact words. If I had been quoting you verbatim, then you know perfectly well I would have taken great pleasure in presenting that passage as a quote unmistakably. I have never omitted to do so before, nor now.

 

2. By falsely dressing up my statement as a direct 'quote' of you, you award yourself an artificial excuse to call me a 'liar'. That is another childish ploy of yours which we can add to your others. I guess it is you who are 'getting desperate'. In all the time we have been communicating I have never given you the slightest excuse to call me a liar. You have been itching to apply that label to me so much that in desperation you've finally thrown caution to the winds and manufactured a pretext to do so. I'm willing to bet that there's not another poster here who hasn't seen straight through your mendacity in this, and factored it into their opinion of you.

 

I now turn to the truthfulness of my reference to your contempt for Protestants as people:

 

From: "The Pope gets dis-invited". page #4

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008

 

That doesn't do it for me. I use it on other boards. Prots are not equivalent to Catholics by any shot....

So you now admit to using a cheap slur, even though with no better typing skills than yours I always show the common courtesy to name your Catholic Church respectfully?

 

 

As I expected: "Linguistic engineering precedes Social engineering".

 

So much for your earlier excuses about limited typing abilities.

 

Just so we all know.

That was one of your kinder sneers at Protestants. There are worse. Would you like me to go on?

 

Protestant DOCTRINES are what is wrong with them, not themselves. If they got rid of their erroneous doctrines, what would I have? I am still trying to figure out how they can justify homosexual acts and abortion. I just can't figure out how some of them do it.

[A Faithful Catholic]

This is the first time I've ever read an AFC post and I have to ask one question, aren't catholics supposed to be kind an accepting of everyone? I'm pretty sure my parents and my teachers at catholic schools taught me to be kind to everyone. You certainly are not a very nice person. You kind of seem like one of those people from different religions that you bash every day; I've never known a catholic to try and push thier beliefs on anyone else before. Faith should be a personal thing and everyone should believe in what they want to without having to hear your ramblings.

 

1. TRUTH before all else. Without truth, all you have is LIES. Accepting and tolerating ERRORS was never in the Lord's plan.

 

2. I never FORCE anything on anyone here. They click on my threads.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

Infallibility

 

Mary Ann Collins

(A Former Catholic Nun)

 

LunaC, I didn't think you will be debating me? The key words are that "A former catholic nun" A nun has NO teaching authority when it comes to faith teachings. She is just another fallen away Catholic. I would love to see what religion she is now!

 

This heretic woman uses that word INFALLIBLY many times. Yet, infallible DECLARATIONS are not very numerous. Pope Benedict 16h has yet to use INFALLIBILITY.

 

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

No wonder you have no credibility!

 

Credibility in terms of what? Christianity? I have plenty there. Nothing else matters to me.

 

[A Faithful Catholic]

'LunaC', that is a substantial account! Thank you! Do you also have a link to its source?

 

From a former, heretic, nun.

[Guest BC Voice of Reason]

Credibility in terms of what? Christianity? I have plenty there. Nothing else matters to me.

 

"You say so"

[Guest BC Voice of Reason]

From a former, heretic, nun.

 

 

What, no long-winded retort? Or are you going to just gloss over the post like you do whenever anyone else has a point you can't prove with your so called "perfect doctrine"?

[A Faithful Catholic]

What, no long-winded retort? Or are you going to just gloss over the post like you do whenever anyone else has a point you can't prove with your so called "perfect doctrine"?

 

I can't prove? You are funny! She is just a FAKE.

 

Will the real Mary Ann Collins please stand up?

 

Critically questioning the existence of ex-nun Mary Ann Collins

 

Monday, August 15, 2005 By Julie Davis

 

"I joined the Roman Catholic Church because I was looking for God. I entered the convent because I wanted to be close to God and to serve Him with radical devotion. But it wasn’t until after I left Catholicism that I found the kind of relationship with God that I had been looking for all along. You can read about it in my poems."

 

Thus begins the biography of Mary Ann Collins who tells a tumultuous story of seeking God in the Catholic Church but finding false teachings and faithless priests. This led to her seeking God in her parents' "Scripturally based Protestant Church" where thanks to Bible study she realized, "As I learned more about the Bible, I began to realize that some Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture. This was disturbing, but I kind of pushed those contradictions to the back of my mind and didn't deal with them. They made me uneasy, but I wasn’t emotionally able to handle the idea that there might be something wrong with the Catholic Church." Eventually she left the convent where she was a novice for over two years in the 60s. She wasn't heard from anyone until later when she began a web site (catholicconcerns.com) where she self-publishes books she claims show the errors of Catholicism.

 

Taken as a simple testimony, there is nothing unusual in Mary Ann Collins’ biography she publishes on her website. A cursory search of the internet reveals many sites containing personal stories of disillusionment with Catholicism, exposés claiming that Catholic teachings are not scripturally based, and declarations of personally held beliefs of foundational Christian doctrine. Many of them contain one or more of Collins' works as proof that their beliefs about Catholicism are valid. Their view, which would seem quite reasonable, is that if a former nun says something about Catholic beliefs, then it must be true. As a result, Mary Ann Collins' books and writings are widely distributed and believed among Fundamentalist Christians.

 

Where in the world is Mary Ann Collins?

 

What is unusual is that Mary Ann Collins cannot be located other than on her web site. She states on her web site that her father and pastor cautioned her not to give any personal information. Collins obeyed them with such zeal that many Catholics and Protestants alike now question whether she exists at all or is actually a creation devised by a person or people to credibly spread disinformation about the Catholic Church. In this information age it is fascinating to find someone about which there is no concrete information. No one has admitted ever knowing or seeing her. No one knows where she lives or what she does for a living. She has never given an interview, including anything as innocuous as speaking at a local church to promote her discoveries or books. This is a level of privacy not achieved even by Jack Chick, a famous and notoriously reclusive distributor of anti-Catholic materials. Despite all his efforts at concealment, because of his belief that the Catholic Church pursues ex-Catholics, basic details of Chick’s life and career have gradually trickled into public knowledge. Furthermore, he occasionally has been seen in public which has resulted in a hand-drawn sketch.

 

Which Story Do We Believe?

 

Collins' own biography contributes to her elusiveness. For example, since she attended a convent for over two years and was asked to leave, it is reasonable to think that someone could be found who remembers her and could identify its location. However, this has never happened. Perhaps if one could find the mysterious convent, then the question could be answered as to which of Collins’ different versions of her dismissal is accurate. The 2001 version says that her mother superior decided she should not take vows. Collins goes on to say that she felt God’s protection led to her leaving the convent as a regular health check up (not provided by the convent) discovered precancerous polyps in her colon. A few years later, a doctor found lumps in her breasts during a routine physical exam. Collins stated, "If I had stayed in the convent, I would have died of colon cancer and breast cancer." Her current biography has been edited to rephrase the reason she left. In this version, the mother superior’s questions about Collins' calling led to the final decision being made by both the mother superior and the convent leadership. Strikingly, the compelling testimony about this being proof of God’s protection has been removed. Additionally, the date at the top of the current version indicates it was written in 2002, when it is a revision of the 2001 version.

 

Show Me the Money

 

Aside from the discrepancies in Collins’ biography, her public website is another lesson in the sort of privacy that Howard Hughes would have envied. Collins’ website information is private and there is no address. Her e-mail correspondence are form letters and she always invites the correspondent to distribute her information. There are trends in Collins’ materials distribution which, while not damning in themselves, point toward a level of funding beyond the simple nun who wants to tell her story. In 2003, there was a flurry of her writings distributed throughout the internet. She freely gives them away to people who need content. She maintains eight or more domain names, all purchased for ten years each, which is an unusually long time compared to most small enterprises. These domains connect to her different writings as an effective tool to distribute content through the search engines. There are many large companies who don’t go to this much trouble to cross reference domains in an attempt to reach paying consumers, much less the free apostolate that Collins is providing.

 

The information behind her domain names and sites are private. A separate fee is charged for each domain that is not listed publicly. While the privacy and expenditures are reasonable in themselves, one wonders what the motive would be for a private person to take such measures. Taken in conjunction with the other information, this seems to corroborate the idea that Mary Ann Collins may be fictitious.

 

The Big Surprise

 

There is nothing to say conclusively that Mary Ann Collins is either a real person or a pseudonym. If she is real, she is highly focused and does not deviate from her mission to distribute her writings on the internet. However, after reviewing the evidence, it seems more than likely that there is a "Mary Ann Collins Mission" with one or more people who write and manage contacts in her name, whether she’s a real person or not. What is staggering is that someone so widely quoted and believed by a large portion of Fundamentalist Christianity does not seem to have registered at all with mainstream Christianity or the media. In the course of Spero News’ research, there was not a single reference, other than Spero News' own, to formally question or refute Collins' claims. Compare this with the previously mentioned recluse Jack Chick. Despite his best efforts, he has a substantial page on Wikipedia complete with links both for and against his apostolate. Mary Ann Collins exists only on the internet and those sites that link to her. Ironically, the sites that link to her are open about their locations and identities, at least to some degree. She, or whoever is using the pseudonym, has successfully been flying under the radar for some time. How a simple ex-nun has achieved this and why she would go to the expense and extreme effort necessary to do so adds mystery to what is essentially still a simple story.

 

Collins disseminates information asking people to question their Catholicism without allowing them to question her in turn. She has an iron-clad policy against discussing theological questions and says that people must simply accept her books as true. That take-it-or-leave-it policy would seem to tie in with her rigid requirements for extreme personal privacy. On the other hand, if Collins' identity is a construct used by people with a particular mission in mind it is far from being a simple story. That would mean a lot of effort is being made to lie and mislead others to innocently spread their disinformation. It wouldn't be the first time a fake-nun story was invented to discredit the Catholic Church.

 

Maria Monk in the 19th century claimed to be a nun that escaped after years of torture and sexual degradation at a convent in Canada. According to William Donohue, President and CEO of the Catholic League, she "popularized so many of the anti-Catholic stereotypes that would persist in the American consciousness well into the 20th Century." Even after Maria Monk was exposed as a fraud by Protestants -- she never was a nun and never set a foot in the convent -- she remains popular today among Fundamentalist Christians who still read her book.

 

In the summer of 1869, newspapers throughout Europe and the United States were filled with graphic accounts of the torture and imprisonment of Barbara Ubry, a nun in the Carmelite convent of Cracow. She was allegedly held for twenty-one years for fear that she may expose the sexual crimes committed by the Father Confessor of the convent. Her story also turned out to be false without any evidence that she existed. Historians point to the anti-clericalism in Europe and the US that fed this story. The most recent fake nun is Sister Charlotte, who died in 1983, whose story bears similarities to Maria Monk.

 

Will Mary Ann Collins be the new addition to the canon of fake nuns? Her story will continue to be investigated.

 

(Spero News sent several emails to Mary Ann Collins but never received any answer. If she does exist, we invite Ms. Collins to contact us with information besides a link to her biography on the internet. We would welcome the opportunity to settle the identity of the elusive distributor of these materials.)

 

Note: There is a Dominican nun named Mary Ann Collins who is very visible, active in her order, and should not be confused with the Mary Ann Collins described above.

 

 

 

 

 

Julie Davis works with her husband in their graphic design business. They have two teenage daughters and live in Dallas, Texas. Julie writes at Happy Catholic.