Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Faith

Is Social Media Key to Securing the Catholic Church’s Future?

Jan. 24, 2013 7:47am Billy Hallowell

VATICAN CITY (TheBlaze/AP) — Pope Benedict XVI put Catholic Church leaders on notice Thursday, saying social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter aren’t a virtual world they can ignore, but rather a very real world they must engage if they want to spread the faith to the next generation. His push causes one to wonder: Is social media the answer to alleviating religious apathy and attracting new adherents?

The 85-year-old Benedict, who tweets in nine languages, used his annual message on social communications to stress the potential of social media for the church as it struggles to keep followers and attract new ones amid religious aloofness, competition from other churches and scandals that have driven the faithful away.

Pope Benedict: Social Media Is Key to Spreading the Catholic Message

Pope Benedict XVI attends his weekly general audience in the Paul VI hall at the Vatican, Wednesday Jan. 23, 2013. At left is father Leonardo Sapienza, regent of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, and at right is Rev. Georg Gaenswein. Credit: AP

Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli, head of the Vatican’s communications office, cited a 2012 study commissioned by U.S. bishops that found that 53 percent of Americans were unaware of any significant presence of the Catholic Church online.

Other studies, Celli said, made clear that the “millennial generation” of people born after 1982 use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube far more than their parents as primary sources of information, entertainment and sharing political views and community issues.

“The digital environment is not a parallel or purely virtual world, but is part of the daily experience of many people, especially the young,” Benedict said in his message. “Social networks are the result of human interaction, but for their part they also reshape the dynamics of communication which builds relationships: a considered understanding of this environment is therefore the prerequisite for a significant presence there.”

Benedict himself still writes longhand but he is a superstar online, with 2.5 million Twitter followers, nearly 11,000 of them following his Latin tweets alone.

Pope Benedict XVI, center, delivers his blessing during his weekly general audience in the Paul VI hall at the Vatican, Wednesday Jan. 23, 2013. At left is father Leonardo Sapienza, regent of the Prefecture of the Pontifical Household, and at right is Rev. Georg Gaenswein. Credit: AP

And under his pontificate, the Holy See has greatly increased its presence online, with YouTube channels, papal Apps and an online news portal that gathers all Vatican information in one place.

Celli acknowledged that much of the pope’s message this year repeated exhortations from previous years about the need for respectful dialogue online, for users to present themselves authentically and to listen, not just preach.

“At first look it could sound like reheated soup,” Celli conceded. But he said that sometimes, messages need repeating. “I don’t want to make any particular revelations here, but don’t believe that everything that is said is absorbed at the ecclesial level.”

Celli noted, for example, that at a recent Vatican meeting of the world’s bishops on spreading the faith, the recommendations for the church’s social communications strategy “could have been written 30 years ago.”

“That means that he who is intervening doesn’t have the perception of what is happening today, in the sphere of social networking,” Celli said. “That’s a problem for us.”

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (61)

nickg2003
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 8:53am
Let’s keep fighting the fight and teach our children what is evil and what is good. Soon they will become adults.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 1:19pm
“IS SOCIAL MEDIA KEY TO SECURING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S FUTURE?”
More likely the broader dissemination of information will undermine religion (as a social and political institution, not merely the ideological content, if nothing else) than strengthen it. My guess is that innovations in communications technologies have had a LARGE part in the rapid growth of irreligion that’s got the theologians quaking in their boots.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Remember_Benghazi
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:22am
As long as the Church safeguards its members who engage in institutionalized child rape, I am happy to know that church attendance is steadily declining. Tweet your protection of pedophiles in as many languages as you like. And these same child rapists have the nerve to publicly speak out about the immorality of gay people. It’s a shame there’s not a hell for these people to go to.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JEANNIEMAC
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:00am
  The church does not safeguard members who engage in child abuse. Some bishops thought they were protecting the church from scandal, but that was a big mistake. Now, there is a zero tolerance policy in place. Homosexuals at one time had been allowed into the seminaries with the understanding they would be celibate and chaste. Apparently many homosexuals saw this as their chance to get access to trusting young boys. They are no longer allowed into the seminaries and there is rigid background checking.
  
  Report this comment
- JGraham III
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 12:07pm
  While social media may be a convenient way of “reaching” people with the Gospel, nothing will ever truly replace in person, one on one conversation about the Lord Jesus Christ. So called Christian radio and television have been around since their respective inceptions but they have not replaced the value of one on one conversations either. This is not to say that these media methods don’t have good results because certainly they do, but if the book of Acts is to be believed, “all Asia heard the word of God” in a little over 2 years and 3 months (Acts 19:8-10) My preference is to do it the way the Book describes and leave the tweeting to the Pope.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 1:21pm
  “The church does not safeguard members who engage in child abuse.”
  No, that’s the Pope’s job.
  
  Report this comment
- JimmyP
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 2:01pm
  Oh, dear God in heaven, let’s trot out this horse so we can whip it some more…
  
  Speaking of God in heaven, I’m kinda thinking He has assured His church prevails against the gates of hell, social media notwithstanding.
  
  Report this comment
Locked
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:48am
I have plenty of theological differences with Catholicism, but I will be the first to admit that they’re actually pretty effective at getting their message out and reaching their members. Social media is indeed an important messaging tool, and any church that is trying to reach the younger generations would be foolish to ignore utilizing it.

Decrying technological advancements when it can help spread the Good News is akin to someone mocking the telephone to transmit news when you could just send a letter. You don’t help spread God’s word by being disdainful of technology.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
marybethelizabeth
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:28am
Thanks again to theblaze for provide a forum for the anti-papists.
If hate exists, theblaze will facilitate it.

The days of “we are all Catholics now” ended when the Supreme Court did not strike down the Affordable Health Care Act.

Mr. Beck tried to ally himself with Catholics when he thought it was politically expedient. Now it is back to normal; attack from heretics and others.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:36am
  BARYMETH: You criticize the Blaze the way our radical atheists smear the Catholic Church. Opposite sides of the same coin : so much intolerance for diversity … my way or the highway…
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:43am
  “The days of “we are all Catholics now” ended when the Supreme Court did not strike down the Affordable Health Care Act.”
  
  I always rolled my eyes when I saw this. I was staunch in my criticism: no, Mr. Beck, we’re Christians. If I believed Catholic dogma, I’d be a Catholic. I have no problem calling Catholics brothers in Christ, but I’m not more a Catholic than I am a Mormon. I’m a Christian, and I won’t unabashedly align myself with a group whose views on Christ differ sharply from the Bible; though I will always support their right to believe what they will.
  
  That said, I don’t think Beck is anti-Catholic. I think that most of the Christians on this forum are like me: leary of Catholic dogma and traditions that have little to no relation to the Bible itself. That’s not an excuse to insult Catholicism (they are the largest and longest-lasting branch of Christianity, by far), but it is legitimate grounds to disagree on several issues, such as the immorality of birth control, or the unscientific nature of the Eucharist, or the dubious nature of papal infallibility.
  
  Report this comment
- marybethelizabeth
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:48am
  Hate disguised as free speech and tolerance.
  
  Read Martin Niemoeller, or read him again.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:04am
  immorality of birth control?
  Protestant views on birth control are markedly more pluralistic than the views expressed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
  
  However, ALL Christian religions condemned birth control as a violation of God’s procreative purpose for marriage…until 1930.
  
  In 1930, at the Seventh Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion, after years of considerable internal debate, issued the first statement permitting birth control “when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence.”
  It took a little over 40 years to get to abortion on demand.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:19am
  unscientific nature of the Eucharist?
  
  I thought your issue was based on biblical issues not science
  
  The New Testament Greek in Mark 14:22, Matthew 26:26, and Luke 22:19 reads this way—transliterated, of course, into English characters: ” Touto estin to soma mou. ” (The very earliest account of the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is slightly different. Paul has it as: ” Touto mou estin to soma. ” In either case, the translation (as opposed to transliteration) is “This is my body.”
  Philologists tell us that the verb estin can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” But Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper clearly reflects his belief that the Presence is real, not figurative. Paul’s discourse may antedate the earliest Gospels by as much as eight years. It is hardly likely, in view of that, that Matthew or Mark meant estin to be taken figuratively.
  Furthermore, the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is sarx, which means quite specifically and only “physical flesh.” The Aramaic scholars I have spoken to tell me that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used.
  Even more evidence from the very earliest Church comes from Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, 10 years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about “certain people” who were beginning to hold to “heterodox opinions” that he deemed “contrary to the mind of God”—strong language for the personal disc
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:19am
  As nearly as I can come to it, Ignatius says: “These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).
  Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine antithetical to what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:29am
  “Philologists tell us that the verb estin can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” But Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper clearly reflects his belief that the Presence is real, not figurative.(http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/are-we-really-eating-jesus-in-the-eucharist-or-is-it-only-symbolic)”
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:36am
  Papal Infallibility
  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility (Audio)
  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility (Written matterial)
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:43am
  @By Faith
  
  “immorality of birth control?
  Protestant views on birth control are markedly more pluralistic than the views expressed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. ”
  
  Birth control is not a biblical issue… because the concept did not exist in the vein that does today. I find the Catholic idea of “no birth control, ever, for anyone” to be a gross hijacking of the Holy Bible. It’s akin to the idea “was Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?” It’s applying an unknown, unforeseen concept to an ancient text.
  
  “”I thought your issue was based on biblical issues not science”
  
  It’s both. The Catholic church is remarkably forward-thinking in some scientific respects (if I remember correctly, Pope John Paul II fully embraced the validity of evolution and due to NOMA saw no threat to theology; I agree with that example). But then the Church still maintains that a wafer and wine become human body and blood… despite clear scientific evidence that it never does.
  
  The theological discussions of non-apostles don’t influence my beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:45am
  @By Faith
  
  On infallibility: your tract’s strawmen presuppositions don’t apply to my faith or my understanding what constitutes infallibility; ergo their explanations don’t address my concerns with it, nor my lack of belief in such a doctrine.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:56am
  Mr Huffman
  As a self-professed Lutheran, I must ask: Did Martin Luther believe in the real presence?
  Answer: Yes. He became indignant when groups, who had followed him out of the Catholic Church, rejected the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.
  His own words:
  Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
  Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
  –Luther’s Collected Works p, 391
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:09am
  If by “birth control” you meant contraception, then you are incorrect.
  Contraception is morally unacceptable. This position was held by ALL Christian religions until 1930
  Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor. It’s not a question of science, it’s a question of faith.
  On infallibility, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach infallibly when speaking about the faith (as Jesus promised and the Holy Spirit guides) because those teaching differ with your own personal infallibility
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:09am
  Please do not regurgitate another’s words at me.
  
  https://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/
  
  Moderator, please observe the Comment Policy,
  Are not “on topic” or are not responding to other comments or the content in the article
  Insult or personally attack other members
  Are excessively long
  Are copy and paste of articles from other sites – please provide your summary of the article instead.
  
  Further, please demand respect of copyright
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:17am
  “If by “birth control” you meant contraception, then you are incorrect.
  Contraception is morally unacceptable.”
  
  Noted. I am talking about contraceptives. And no, I don’t find the Bible saying they’re morally unacceptable; we may be commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” but we aren’t told that all monogamous sex must lead to procreation, nor that every pregnancy must lead to birth.
  
  If your argument is “well, religions used to say so!”… that’s spiffy, but has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. 40 years ago Evangelical denominations were defending safe and legal abortions. Now they’re the staunchest pro-lifers out there.
  
  What religions say changes over time.
  
  On infallibility, your response doesn’t change what I said before nor address my disbelief of such a doctrine.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:21am
  Mr Huffman
  
  I see you would rather stick you head back in the sand than deal with facts.
  
  Interesting, since I did not begin this conversation with you, I responded to you.
  So now you want to tattle to the teacher and make me stop? Cry me a river.
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:23am
  @By Faith
  
  “It’s not a question of science, it’s a question of faith.”
  
  “Does the Eucharist change into human flesh?” is within the magisterium of science, not faith. The answer is no. To quote Stephen Jay Gould on Jonh Paull II: “(if) it has been proven true; we always celebrate nature’s factuality, and we look forward to interesting discussions of theological implications.” Denying reality and factuality in favor of stubbornness or ignorance is not “faith”; it’s stubbornness or ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:34am
  Locked
  
  When a person is baptised, there is no physical change.
  Your argument would require a visible physical change so all can see the person is a baptised Christian. I assume this would also apply to marriage.
  No physical change occurs, yet in the eyes of God the individual is forever changed
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:49am
  Doughuffman
  Copyright? Why do you assume I do not have permission to use these quotes?
  You show your ignorance sir.
  I’m glad to see the Blaze has self-appointed policy police.
  You wrote: “The Middle East is not the threat that is John Kerry.” That sounds like a personal attack. Shame on you, you know that’s not allowed.
  Also “That is amusing, a protestant Catholic accusing a confessed Lutheran of apostasy. Worse, while presuming MOLON LABE “reserved for homegrown anti-gun advocates.” Wotta maroon.” Hypocrite much?
  
  Crawl back in your hole, Troll
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 1:23pm
  @By Faith
  
  “When a person is baptised, there is no physical change.
  Your argument would require a visible physical change so all can see the person is a baptised Christian.”
  
  Not remotely true. What kind of physical change does being “saved” entail? Nothing. Sin, salvation, etc are all in the magisterium of faith and the supernatural; they are (by definition) unable to be tested through natural methods. If the Bible said “When baptized, you will sprout wings like an angel” then you might have a point. I don’t recall that happening to Jesus when John the Baptist dunked him, however.
  
  Saying that a wafer becomes human flesh, however, is very much a falsifiable hypothesis. And every test shows it to be false.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 3:13pm
  You do realize you have one critical problem.
  The Bible, quoting Jesus does say “This IS my Body…This IS my Blood”
  Did the Apostles see bloody flesh in front of them? No they did not. But they understood what he said. They were even willing to accept death rather than change their beliefs.
  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” (John 6:53-55).
  In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
  But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
  This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons.
  You do not believe, because your eyes do not see.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 3:18pm
  The concept and practice of contraception is discussed in the Bible, but you are correct there is no prohibition in the Bible which expressly says no to contraceptives. You are splitting that **** pretty thin. The Bible also says nothing about taking a pill that will end your life. Yet I would hope you don’t also justify doctor assisted suicide by the same criteria.
  
  Does this also apply to all things not listed in the Bible? Cause that is a long list.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 3:45pm
  @By faith
  
  “You do realize you have one critical problem.
  The Bible, quoting Jesus does say “This IS my Body…This IS my Blood”
  Did the Apostles see bloody flesh in front of them? No they did not. But they understood what he said. They were even willing to accept death rather than change their beliefs.”
  
  It’s not a problem at all. It’s a metaphor. Christ was not literally ripping off his body parts or draining his blood for his apostles to eat. “They understood what he said” indeed. They didn’t think they were suddenly becoming cannibals.
  
  “You do not believe, because your eyes do not see.”
  
  Oooo, spooky words. I say instead that you lie to yourself and your senses despite the truth being in front of you. God gave us a brain; your own former pope said we shouldn’t ignore factuality for the sake of winning theological debates. On that, I agree with JPII.
  
  “The concept and practice of contraception is discussed in the Bible, but you are correct there is no prohibition in the Bible which expressly says no to contraceptives.”
  
  Exactly what I said.
  
  “You are splitting that **** pretty thin.”
  
  Better to have a small amount of **** left than to scalp yourself by taking away too much, no?Numbers also talks about creating a mixture to induce miscarriage to test a woman for adultery. By your own criteria, does this mean that God approves of abortion? Of course not. It means that adultery was a sin worthy of death and a serious issue.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 4:22pm
  The charge of cannibalism does not hold water for at least three reasons. First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way.
  Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.
  Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at h
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 4:24pm
  @By faith
  
  Also, one last note:
  “They were even willing to accept death rather than change their beliefs.”
  
  There have been martyrs for their faith throughout all of history. A recent example? Joseph Smith was killed by a mob while in prison for refusing to recant his testimony.
  
  Willingness to accept death rather than changing beliefs (even for those who were primary witnesses to their faith, like the apostles) has absolutely no bearing on the factuality of that belief. It’s a fallacious argument.
  
  Also, it’s highly unlikely that all the apostles were martyred. The earliest stories of their fates indicate only a few were indeed executed or murdered for their faith. Just a clarification.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 8:46am
  @By faith
  
  “Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form… The cannibal kills his victim… Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion.”
  
  Blatantly false. Cannabalism does not need to involve killing someone.
  
  “Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed.”
  
  Also false. As said before, there is no physical change. There is no body or blood. Soul and divinity, I can see you arguing… but that’s not Catholic doctrine.
  
  “Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral.”
  
  Not at all. I can watch stage plays where someone is murdered, and it’s not immoral. I can put up a cross; an idol, if you will; and it’s not immoral despite being symbolic of Christ.
  
  “Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew.”
  
  Indeed: symbolic. See? There’s the problem. It’s symbolism, but you’re arguing literalism. If a wafer becomes human flesh we can test that… and it has been tested. It doesn’t happen.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 31, 2013 at 10:33am
  Oh you want physical, scientific proof:
  http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
  
  So in your world, Jesus didn’t specifically say “birth control PILLS” are immoral. So therefore they are not immoral. But He did literally say “eat my flesh and drink my blood”
  In order to maintain your dilution regarding your personal view of Christianity. Literal on one that is not said, but symbolic on the direct quote?
  
  Report this comment
Jezreel
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:06am
Roman Catholocism is a perversion and abomination. It will not be too long when the Lord Jeshua will come as KIng of King and Lord of Lords. He is wearing his vesture dipped in blood. It is not his own blood he is wearing. It is the blood of his enemies. Upon his thigh is written his name, THE WORD OF GOD.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:21am
  Matthew 16:17-19
  
  17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
  
  “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
  So Jesus was wrong? His church has failed?
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:22am
  JEZREEL : Are you for real ? I noted you came on the Blaze when we had the Tea Party revolution and Trolls came here in droves…..2010…
  
  Report this comment
Gonzo
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:51am
Call me old fashioned but, I would think Christ would be the future of any Christian church. How you disseminate the Gospel should of course change with the times.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:43am
He tweets in Latin? Anybody else think that’s not gonna reach the kiddies? How’s he thinking he will reach the next generation using a dead language?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:17am
  “The 85-year-old Benedict, who tweets in nine languages”
  
  9 languages, not 1 dead language.
  
  You either didn’t read the whole article, or you just focus on the issue with which you can attack the church
  
  Report this comment
hauschild
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:33am
If you have to resort to gimmicks, you should realize the gig is pretty much up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:37am
  Would you consider mass printing of the Bible a gimmick also?
  After Jesus’ resurrection, the apostles and their successors taught by oral tradition.
  AD 367 The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which Catholics presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria.
  The Gutenberg Bible was the first major book printed with movable type in the West. It marked the start of the age of the printed book in the West.
  Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany, in the 1450s. The 36-line Bible, believed to be the second printed version of the Bible, is also sometimes referred to as a Gutenberg Bible, but is likely the work of another printer.
  Oral tradition with hand written books and letters for nearly 1,400 years. Then social and technological changes allowed for the word to be spread by a “new” medium, printed mass produced books.
  I wonder if people in the 15th century said: “If you have to resort to gimmicks, you should realize the gig is pretty much up.”
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:45am
  How is social media a gimmick? That’s like making fun of a telephone call when you can send a letter instead.
  
  Report this comment
- JGraham III
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:47am
  The Latin Vulgate scriptures existed along side of the Greek and Aramaic versions, but as Rome had the greatest influence throughout Europe for centuries, it isn’t surprising to learn that the Gutenberg Bible printers used the Vulgate as their “text”. Availability not necessarily some undercurrent of belief that it was somehow more accurate. At the time of the printing of the King James Version, bible scholars had access to many more manuscripts than just the Vulgate.
  The problem for Rome brought about by Gutenberg and Luther was that the Bible was no longer chained to the pulpit, and became accessible to the ‘common ploughboy’ rather than just the Roman Catholic clergy thereby freeing Christianity from the medieval chains that held it prisoner since the close of the first century.
  
  Report this comment
- Sugabee
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 2:25pm
  They were chained to the ambo to prevent stealing before the printing press because they were so valuable, being written/illustrated by hand over the course of years. No-one had them other than churches because they were either a) too poor to buy one or b) were illiterate. Once the printing press made the product cheaper, people could have them more easily. The Church NEVER forbade its parishioners from reading the Bible.
  
  Report this comment
- by faith
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 3:50pm
  Funny how you bring up Luther.
  Martin Luther deplored the fact that every milkmaid and farmhand thought they could interpret scripture correctly.
  His own words:
  Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture?
  
  Sugabee
  Let’s not confuse JGraham III with too many facts, he’s already got his mind made up
  
  The Catholic Church has to be corrupt and evil or else all protestants would have to admit they are wrong.
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:23am
I’d start with stop harboring pedophiles, supporting gun control and abandoning free market principles before I took to twitter.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:17am
  The Obama crew and the New York Times thank you for running one of their favorite smears…Rush Limbaugh…Sara Palin..the Catholic Church..and the Tea Party are some favorite Lefty targets !
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:12am
What Doug said – Catholics have a ways to go to rid themselves of infiltrators. Those are well entrenched in the communication chain between the States and the Vatican.

As to social media being the key, I don’t know. I think it’s better passed on by example from parent to child and generation to generation. Too many in the current generation have been cowed by political correctness, peer pressure and outright abuse from teachers and the students they encourage; the media focusing on the few to disparage the many, and local Churches who preach obedience to government, unless of course, the flock is made up of law-breaking illegal aliens, in which case the priests find some kind of calling to defend law-breakers…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sharon Rose
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:31am
  I say we rid our government of “infiltrators” before picking on a religous orginizations.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:53am
  SHARON: Agree. The atheists in the radical Democrats plan to Divide conservatives again. All Christians had better unite !
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:11am
Just as long as they aren’t advocating any freedom from the state or supporting capitalism that they equate to terrorism, right? At least they have some things in common with the Facebook Admins.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 7:58am
No. Progressivism is Roman Catholicism’s auto-da-fé and “social media” raison d’être.

Protestant Lutheranism was born in battle. MOLON LABE papists.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:09am
  The Pope twittering Ex Cathedra is a virtual oxymoron, like seeking enlightenment in commercial click-through advertisements.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:17am
  You sound like one of our angry Trolls. Down, boy.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:44am
  MOLON LABE papists?
  
  Isn’t Molon Labe reserved for homegrown anti-gun advocates?
  
  Gee, I am Catholic and must be in second place of those you hate. First place is reserved for muslims. I graduated from a Lutheran University. While there some confusion regarding my faith, I found most Lutherans were pretty nice folks.
  
  Your offer of “come and take it” is idiotic. You have nothing I would want to take, apostate.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 8:50am
  “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” And you ain’t no Joe McCarthy.
  
  Report this comment
- DougHuffman
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:04am
  That is amusing, a protestant Catholic accusing a confessed Lutheran of apostasy. Worse, while presuming MOLON LABE “reserved for homegrown anti-gun advocates.” Wotta maroon. FOAD
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:04am
  Dough
  
  I am 3rd generation Army. My son is 4th generation. Since my family immigrated we have served this country is the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan. Admittedly, we are a family of stupid Micks who believe that the Consitution gives us something we didn’t have—Freedom
  
  And you are still an apostate.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:24am
  Dismayed: Keep an eye on Doug. Remember the video dude ? Would love to know the real story behind that one…
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.