D: "But I feel that as long as the truth remains,(that women cannot be ordained) there is not a big deal with female altar servers.."

I guess that's my point. Only a few years ago, the same thing would have been said about women severing at the altar. Of course, only the Vatican can make that decision.

D: "The Church does not "misuse" Scripture. If you believe so I would like for you to give me an example of actual "misuse" not misunderstanding."

Well, I disagree with that one, especially the use of the sin of Onan. There is no genius needed to figure out that one. They vastly stretched the meaning. Afterall, Judah thought he was went unto a prostitute. He did that for reasons. Hint , Hint. There was no condemnation for Judah.

D: "As for no meat of fridays, it isnt a sin at all and there is no sin less than venial. ( "only venial sins or less")
American Catholics are only obliged to abstain from meat and fast on specific days altough it is encouraged to maintain a "meatless Friday" devotion."

I think you missed my point. Until recently, it was a "mortal" sin to eat meat on Fridays. And yes, I know that there is no lesser sin than Venial. But to go from mortal to no sin. Wow!

D: "True, but it is helpful to note that as Catholics we belive that the Euchorist IS LITTERALY the Body and Blood of Christ. So He really is present. But I agree there is much to be explained on proper Euchoristic Adoration."

That is the problem, this kind of thing is done and promoted without much explanation. It is a long way from blessing, offering, eating to.....woshiping. When contrasted with the Corinthians in 1Cor.11, you see the other end of the pendulem. They treated the Eucharist as if it were mere bread, (far left). However, the far right of the other side of that is worshiping the Eucharist. You can see both ends of the pendulem.

I share your concerns for the church, it is tending to be a bit undulant at this time. Though, in the end we know it will get it sorted out. Thanks for the earnest replies. We share a lot in common. We are all praying for the Pope and for the Church and all those who love Christ and hope in His coming.

Thank you. I am glad to see that we can agree on some issues and disagree on others in a polite manner. It is nice to have a good diolague with someone.
As I've said before, I am no expert on Scriptures nor am I a Theologian, just a man who attempts to expalin why Cathoics and other Christians in general feel the way they do and why we believe what we do.
A bit of history:
I was born and "Baptised Catholic". I was initally raised in the Church and, becuase of my grandfather and CCD, I developed a good foundation in our Faith.
My mother divorced my biological father and got remarried, so to speak, and then divorced my second father as well. She then moved around quite a bit, from the west coast to the east coast and back.
She belived, sort of, in the Catholic Faith, but did not pratice it nor let me attend Religious Education.
I fell away from the Church in my mid teens. I wanted to find a "better" religion. I studied paganism (general and specificly Druidism). I attended and learned about various main stream Protestant faiths. (my biological grandfather is a Protestant Minister). Then I decided to study and research WHY I was supposed to belive in this or that Catholic teaching. You know, how did these teachings and beliefs develop.
I went to various anti-Catholic web sites and copied all of the primary complaints and accusations against the Church and checked them out, obviously from an objctive stand point ( I was not sure what to belive at that time). I found not a single instance where those accusations were correct.
I studied further and deepr. All the while praying ( to God whom I did not know really) for guidance. Eventually I decided, based upon the facts I uncovered, to become a "born again Catholic."
Of course I still did not pratice what I belived, a hypocrite for sure. Then my first son was born. My wife begain to attend Mass with him and said "I dont care if YOU go with us but we are going anyway." So my pride as a man said to me "to hell with that, if she is going with my son then so the hell am I"
And I did. From then on out I have grown more and more mature in my faith.
( this all started six years ago)
Now I am more happy and content in who I am and what I believe. Firmly confident that I have found the Truth.
That is why I aspire to become an Apologist.
To learn and grow more in my faith, and to help others who may feel like I did at one point in time.

Thank you. I am glad to see that we can agree on some issues and disagree on others in a polite manner. It is nice to have a good diolague with someone.
As I've said before, I am no expert on Scriptures nor am I a Theologian, just a man who attempts to expalin why Cathoics and other Christians in general feel the way they do and why we believe what we do.
A bit of history:
I was born and "Baptised Catholic". I was initally raised in the Church and, becuase of my grandfather and CCD, I developed a good foundation in our Faith.
My mother divorced my biological father and got remarried, so to speak, and then divorced my second father as well. She then moved around quite a bit, from the west coast to the east coast and back.
She belived, sort of, in the Catholic Faith, but did not pratice it nor let me attend Religious Education.
I fell away from the Church in my mid teens. I wanted to find a "better" religion. I studied paganism (general and specificly Druidism). I attended and learned about various main stream Protestant faiths. (my biological grandfather is a Protestant Minister). Then I decided to study and research WHY I was supposed to belive in this or that Catholic teaching. You know, how did these teachings and beliefs develop.
I went to various anti-Catholic web sites and copied all of the primary complaints and accusations against the Church and checked them out, obviously from an objctive stand point ( I was not sure what to belive at that time). I found not a single instance where those accusations were correct.
I studied further and deepr. All the while praying ( to God whom I did not know really) for guidance. Eventually I decided, based upon the facts I uncovered, to become a "born again Catholic."
Of course I still did not pratice what I belived, a hypocrite for sure. Then my first son was born. My wife begain to attend Mass with him and said "I dont care if YOU go with us but we are going anyway." So my pride as a man said to me "to hell with that, if she is going with my son then so the hell am I"
And I did. From then on out I have grown more and more mature in my faith.
( this all started six years ago)
Now I am more happy and content in who I am and what I believe. Firmly confident that I have found the Truth.
That is why I aspire to become an Apologist.
To learn and grow more in my faith, and to help others who may feel like I did at one point in time.

Thank you. I am glad to see that we can agree on some issues and disagree on others in a polite manner. It is nice to have a good diolague with someone.
As I've said before, I am no expert on Scriptures nor am I a Theologian, just a man who attempts to expalin why Cathoics and other Christians in general feel the way they do and why we believe what we do.
A bit of history:
I was born and "Baptised Catholic". I was initally raised in the Church and, becuase of my grandfather and CCD, I developed a good foundation in our Faith.
My mother divorced my biological father and got remarried, so to speak, and then divorced my second father as well. She then moved around quite a bit, from the west coast to the east coast and back.
She belived, sort of, in the Catholic Faith, but did not pratice it nor let me attend Religious Education.
I fell away from the Church in my mid teens. I wanted to find a "better" religion. I studied paganism (general and specificly Druidism). I attended and learned about various main stream Protestant faiths. (my biological grandfather is a Protestant Minister). Then I decided to study and research WHY I was supposed to belive in this or that Catholic teaching. You know, how did these teachings and beliefs develop.
I went to various anti-Catholic web sites and copied all of the primary complaints and accusations against the Church and checked them out, obviously from an objctive stand point ( I was not sure what to belive at that time). I found not a single instance where those accusations were correct.
I studied further and deepr. All the while praying ( to God whom I did not know really) for guidance. Eventually I decided, based upon the facts I uncovered, to become a "born again Catholic."
Of course I still did not pratice what I belived, a hypocrite for sure. Then my first son was born. My wife begain to attend Mass with him and said "I dont care if YOU go with us but we are going anyway." So my pride as a man said to me "to hell with that, if she is going with my son then so the hell am I"
And I did. From then on out I have grown more and more mature in my faith.
( this all started six years ago)
Now I am more happy and content in who I am and what I believe. Firmly confident that I have found the Truth.
That is why I aspire to become an Apologist.
To learn and grow more in my faith, and to help others who may feel like I did at one point in time.

Dysmas, In some ways we have a similar background. I was reared Catholic though my mom had married a Protestant. She was from the south, my dad from the north. Opposites attract but opposites attack too. They didn't get along very well. My dad became a major anti-Catholic. My mom remained Catholic. They divorced after 25 years. My mother did send me to a Catholic schools through the eighth grade. It was a great education. Though, around the house the religious bickering got a bit rough sometimes. Anyway, In college I looked around at the eastern religions, studied some but found them pretty empty. I married a Baptist and attended there for a while before becoming involved with the Armstrongs in the 1970's .

A few years of that, I got a periferal view of the scriptures. Enough, to know, they were out, far out. My wife and I and family left that group and became Presbyterians. During the next 20 years I studied a great deal of church history and the scripture, I mean a lot. Like you, I became a Catholic apologist. I read all of the Ante-Niciene Fathers along with intense bible study. I decided that for certain, the Catholic Church most favorably worshiped like the first century Christians. They held to all the same doctrines, except that the Church had embellished or matured in a fuller manner to make a more systematic theology. Having been a strong Catholic apologist for now 15-17 years, I can say I have a very strong understanding of Catholic Beliefs and Biblical reasons for their belief and creeds.

It's interesting, we both feel compelled to help others understand Catholic beliefs. I do because, "back in the day" as they say, there were very few Catholic Apologist. The internet was not available and finding books on the subjects were very difficult, especially in the south. Consequently, I have an overflowing library of both Catholic , Baptist and other books where I had to sort through scores of doctrinal beliefs and find out what the essential truth was. Thus, I arrived at the first church and the only one which was from the first century until now, holding the same beliefs. During the history of the church, it has at times gone to extremes. Gradually, it comes out of them. I try to avoid the extremes and stay close to stay within the hash marks. Obviously, I'm fairly unbias. I tell people what I believe, but I don't defend what cannot be truly defended in clear conscience. I love all Chrisitanity in general but do despise those cults that rip off the unlearned. I truly believe the core doctrines of the church, not only because the church says I should but because I know from my own learning they are rooted in the scripture and in the teachings of the church from the first century. That being said, I don't care for the superstition that has sometimes developed by some and things that get too far from the middle hash marks. As you can see, I don't mind saying so, either.

I've had several articles published on Catholic websites and I plan to do some here. I think you'll find some of them a bit interesting and unique. I hope to do one on purgatory that should be an eyeopener for my non-Catholic readers. Not because it is something new, but because it is refreshingly realistic. Likewise, with the sacrifce and prayers for the dead. Good writing and corresponding with you.

I have a question about the Holy Trinity. According to the Trinity, Jesus is God. And it is also said that God cannot take the form of anything he created. How, then, can Jesus be God if he took the form of a human?

JN, would you please quote the scripture where it says, "God cannot take the form of anything He created"?

I am afraid I don't know where it is in the scripture, I was tought this in CCD. Perhaps He can. It was just something I had pondered since I heard it.

I understand, that scripture would have been a new one on me, NJ.. But, thanks anyway.

Reminds me of the old question "Can God create a rock He cannot lift?"

The blindfold has been removed from my eyes.
I have been thinking for quite some time, yes it is a dangerous thing for me to do.
Catholic mean 'universal'.
Unfortunatly the identity of my faith is slipping and the more I look the more I realize that to be true.
I do not remember the days, though I wish I did, when the Catholic Church was universal.
No matter where you went, the Mass was said the same ( in Latin ) and no matter what you knew what to expect. One would know what to do and when to do it. Now, in many places, Mass is like a box of chocolates...you never know what you are going to get.
Thankfully the basics are the same but as for the rest.....it is not. Since I moved here to the south I have noticed that each and every Priest that I have seen presiding at Church has decided, on his own, to add or omit something from the Liturgy.
It is disconcerting and it is simply not right.
Im at a loss as to what to do. There is no way that I can make a difference. But I realize something important. This scandal is affecting my 'training' to become an Apologist.
How can I explain things to people if they keep changing. How can I adequetly show the uniqe nature of the Catholic Church if more and more, it is not so unique.
I can just pray and try to do my best.
But at the end of the day I am greatly saddened by this festering wound on the RCC.

Dysmas, do not be discouraged. There have always been some differences among the Catholic Church. It is "Catholic" because it is "in all nations" as Christ commanded that they make disciples in Mt.28. These things tend to sort themselves out. The problem for the Catholic Church is that it is a big ship, and big ships turn slowly. However, its in a world that turns rapidly. Oh trust me, the Catholic Church is unique. There isn't any other churches out there wanting to imitate her, either. So, I don't think you have to worry about it being unique. We should hold the confidence of Christ, that what He has started he will finish. And remember the words, "Lo, I am with you, even unto the end of the world" . There we find consolation in the midst of the turbulent seas.

Sabbatismus, thank you for your words of consolation. It means a lot to me to hear some support at this time. I am not feeling well, my doctors have been adjusting my medications, which is why I have not posted very extensivly. I am sure that soon I will be feeling better and will be able to resume this thread.
thanks again.
Your brother in Christ,
Dismas

As I am feeling a bit better again I am going to begin a new topic here on Liturgical Abuses.
Some of the most common ones, and those that just annoy me, well intentioned or not, are:

Holding hands during the Our Father:
Concerning holding hands in the Eucharistic Liturgy the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome responded as follows:

The prolonged holding of hands is of itself a sign of communion rather than of peace. Further, it is a liturgical gesture introduced spontaneously but on personal initiative; it is not in the rubrics. Nor is there any clear explanation of why the sign of peace at the invitation: "Let us offer each other the sign of peace" should be supplanted in order to bring a different gesture with less meaning into another part of the Mass: the sign of peace is filled with meaning, graciousness, and Christian inspiration. Any substitution for it must be repudiated: Notitiae 11 (1975) 226. [Notitiae is the journal of the Congregation in which its official interpretations of the rubrics are published.]

While this addresses the holding of hands at the Sign of Peace the reasons given apply also elsewhere in the Mass, including at the Our Father.

1) It is an inappropriate "sign," since Communion is the sign of intimacy. Thus, a gesture of intimacy is introduced both before the sign of reconciliation (the Sign of Peace), but more importantly, before Holy Communion, the sacramental sign of communion/intimacy within the People of God.

2) It is introduced on personal initiative. The Holy See has authority over the liturgy according to Vatican II's "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" #22 and canon 838 of the Code of Canon Law.

This gesture has come into widespread use, often leaving bishops and pastors at a loss as to how to reverse the situation.

This answer was provided, in part by, a Catholic Liturgical Expert, Colin B. Donovan, STL
I chose to copy and paste parts of his answer because it is a very 'involved' kind of abuse and I am not up to typing the same thing, in my own words. This kind of abuse is actually quite minor when compared with what other things that are happening but it is an abuse nevertheless. I do understand that it is ment well and is not intended to scandalize anyone attending Mass.
However it is not included in the Rubrics of the Mass so I choose not to do it. Some may say, "well the Rubrics don't say you can't do it."
My response is often the same. "True but the Rubrics also don't say that you can't do jumping jacks and wear sword but we don't do that." The Rubrics of the Mass are Positive/Affermitive.....they say what you are required to do, not what you cannot do.

Another disturbing trend that I see is the removal of Holy Water during Lent. Or worse, the replacment of Holy Water with sand or "blessed rocks"
This makes absolutly no sense. Holy Water is NEVER to be removed or replaced by any substance, nor should the Fonts be covered by cloth. They only approved custom for a TEMPORARY removal of Holy water is that the Holy Water is not to be removed for all of Lent, but "only from before the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday, until after the Mass of the Easter Vigil". According to Notitiae, the official publication of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Prot. N. 569/00/L
Basicly Holy Water is only supposed to be removed during the Paschal Tridium (Holy Thursday through Easter Sunday)

This is a good one. Dancing during Mass.

Introducing dance into the liturgy in the United States would be to add "one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements" leading to "an atmosphere of profanity, which would easily suggest to those present worldly places and profane situations. Nor is it acceptable to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because it would reduce the liturgy to mere entertainment" (Notitiae 11 [1975] 202–205).
I don't know about you but if you are a Catholic and attend Mass to revere and worship the Lord, dancing just might, mabye, lack the reverence due to Jesus.

Of course there are many others. In my parish I have encounterd many. ( Obviously I have to attend a 'liberal' Parish here on Fort Campbell.
Some other abuses include:

Dictating the manner of reception of the Eucharist.
A Priest, Deacon, or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion ( there is no such thing as 'extarordinary minister of the Euchorist, although it is a very common 'title'.) can not deprive you of recieving the Host on the toung. Among other things.
Dictating posture.
The Priest or Deacon cannot tell you how and when to sit, stand, or kneel during Mass. Those guidlines are already in place and cannot be changed without proper authority. i.e the Holy See

Interrupting the Mass.
This happens quite often. During Mass the Priest may announce that he has a special guest who would like to speak for a few moments on something. ( Knights of Colombus, Catholic Relief Services and so on. ) This is NOT t be done. Announcements can be done AFTER the Final Blessing. NOT during the Liturgy of the Mass.

Aside from grave abuses, which I will get into later, most of these are basicly minor and actually mean well.
One thing I learned from a friend of mine in the Semminary is that the triple Trinitarian Blessing at the beginning of the Gospel reading ( trace the sign of the cross on forehead, mouth, and heart) is actually NOT in the Rubrics.
Again it is very widespread and well intentioned and to be honest I do it. Im not a Liturgical 'purist' I am only trying to point out that the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, Roman Rite for me, should be preserved at all costs.

May God bless any readers or responders.

Along with the aformentioned Liturgical abuses there seems to be a growing confusion among some as to the roles of the Ordained and layity. This is a problem for everyone involved. Too many times I see members of the layity doing things to which they are either unqualified for or not allowed to do.
Lay persons using the same Trinitarian blessing formulas to bless individuals as a Priest or Deacon does. I am at a loss as to why a person would assume that because they are in a role 'above' that of participating layity, that they feel they can bless as one who is Ordained can bless.
There are rules to these things and they are not at all hard to find. The only real blessing a layman can bestow is that of parent to child. This type of blessing is very powerful and is a special privilage provided to parents. It is arguably as powerful a blessing as that of a Priest or Deacon. But ONLY to ones own children.
Layity can not bless water, oil, salt, objects and so on. They can ASK God to bless people but can not bless as one who has recived Holy Orders can. Often I am asked if there is an exception to this when, in case of extreme emergency, a layman performs a Baptisim, if by doing the Sacrament he or she would then actually be blessing the water to become Holy.
The answer is no. In that case we would petition God to bless the water in liu of a Priest or Deacon.
For those interested in blessings, who, what, when, and where, I would suggest looking at the "Book of Blessings" or, of course, one can simply research it online.

My next post, save responses, will be about the roles of special ministries in the RCC and the special role of a Deacon.

Deacons:
First, Deacons are members of the Clergy due to thier recieving Holy Orders. Thier role in the Clergy is to "serve those who serve". Permanent Deacons assist Priests with tasks that would normaly take them away from thier primary duties. Deacons serve Bishops for the same reasons. Some can be found as teachers, financial planners, administrative coordinators of a parish.
Permanent deacons can also be normaly found ministering to the sick, among widows and orphans, serving immigrants and exiles, serving abused children, the aged, single parents, the handicapped, the divorced, alcohol and drug addicts, the homeless, prisoners, refugees, the poor, the street people, victims of racial and ethnic discrimination.

As well as these duties, there are liturgical activities which include proclaiming the Gospel, preaching, voicing the needs of the people in the general intercessions, assisting in the presentation of the gifts and distribution of communion.

The deacon also solemnly baptises, brings Viaticum to the dying, is an official witness of the Church at marriages, officiates at funerals and burial services, gives Benediction with the monstrance or ciborium, and guides and administers the community when no priest is resident.

In the USA, this last mentioned function has been one which has been receiving increased attention as the permanent diaconate has matured; that is, to promote and sustain the apostolic activities of the lay faithful.

With the exception of celebrating Mass, absolving sins and anointing the sick, all of which are reserved to priests, deacons are given authority by the bishop, with consent of the pastors with whom they minister, for a full range of liturgical functions which sometimes may appear indistinguishable from those of the priests.

Upon reflection of liturgical abuse, which I encounter on a daily basis)be it Pier One basic stemware used to contain the precious blood, or a free for all during the sign of peace) I recently set my mind to a number of stories related to the late James Cardinal Hickey (who died this past october at age 84) , who may very well be the unofficial patron saint of those who suffer from liturgical abuse. I would like to share two of those stories now. As far as I know, both of these stories take place upon the archbishop’s visits to parishes to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

The first story is thus, when the Cardinal, along with the pastor received the gifts of bread and wine at the offertory procession, the Cardinal noticed that the bread was "substantial" (a buzzword used by dissenters to refer to illicit, and often invalid matter used for the Eucharistic Celebration) the Cardinal looked at the pastor and said something along the lines of "Oh, no Father this will not due at all." The pastor informed the cardinal that it was all they had. The Cardinal recalled that a nearby parish used licit matter (i.e. hosts) and that the pastor was to go and borrow some from that parish, while the the Archbishop lead the congregation in the rosary.

The second story, as stated above also takes place at a confirmation. At some point during this Mass a woman began dancing in the sanctuary. At one point she was caressing the book of gospels, well as the story goes, the Cardinal was sitting next to the pastor, leaned over and said to him: "Father, I am not sure where you found her, or what exactly this nonsense is supposed to be about, but I tell you, if she asks me for your head on a platter, its hers!" Of course the Cardinal was obviously alluding to the story of St. John the Baptist.

While these stories are humorous, they are also a very powerful witness to us as well as an example to the bishops of today. Cardinal Hickey well understood, even before it was clearly spelled out in Redemtionis Sacrementum that “it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms.” (RS 12) It is my prayer, and the prayer of other faithful Catholics who are suffering as a result of Liturgical abuse, that the example of James Cardinal Hickey will inspire more bishops to rise up to the challenge of protecting the right that every catholic has to Holy Mass being celebrated the way the Church intends.

Laudatur Jesu Christi, In Aeternum!

Casey

Upon reflection of liturgical abuse, which I encounter on a daily basis)be it Pier One basic stemware used to contain the precious blood, or a free for all during the sign of peace) I recently set my mind to a number of stories related to the late James Cardinal Hickey (who died this past october at age 84) , who may very well be the unofficial patron saint of those who suffer from liturgical abuse. I would like to share two of those stories now. As far as I know, both of these stories take place upon the archbishop’s visits to parishes to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

The first story is thus, when the Cardinal, along with the pastor received the gifts of bread and wine at the offertory procession, the Cardinal noticed that the bread was "substantial" (a buzzword used by dissenters to refer to illicit, and often invalid matter used for the Eucharistic Celebration) the Cardinal looked at the pastor and said something along the lines of "Oh, no Father this will not due at all." The pastor informed the cardinal that it was all they had. The Cardinal recalled that a nearby parish used licit matter (i.e. hosts) and that the pastor was to go and borrow some from that parish, while the the Archbishop lead the congregation in the rosary.

The second story, as stated above also takes place at a confirmation. At some point during this Mass a woman began dancing in the sanctuary. At one point she was caressing the book of gospels, well as the story goes, the Cardinal was sitting next to the pastor, leaned over and said to him: "Father, I am not sure where you found her, or what exactly this nonsense is supposed to be about, but I tell you, if she asks me for your head on a platter, its hers!" Of course the Cardinal was obviously alluding to the story of St. John the Baptist.

While these stories are humorous, they are also a very powerful witness to us as well as an example to the bishops of today. Cardinal Hickey well understood, even before it was clearly spelled out in Redemtionis Sacrementum that “it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms.” (RS 12) It is my prayer, and the prayer of other faithful Catholics who are suffering as a result of Liturgical abuse, that the example of James Cardinal Hickey will inspire more bishops to rise up to the challenge of protecting the right that every catholic has to Holy Mass being celebrated the way the Church intends.

Laudatur Jesu Christi, In Aeternum!

Casey

I have created an account so I am not an "Anonymous User" anylonger, I am the author of the previous post and welcome comments.

Thank you for your insight and knowladge.
It is an unfortunate reality that in many, if not most, of the Catholic Churches in the United States that these abuses take place.
While understanding and realizing that, in the end, things will work themselvs out it is still a troublesome time for faithful Catholics at this time.
Luckily a feel that there is a growing light at the end of the tunnel in the Church in America.
In my next post I will pose some random Q&A.
Thank you readers and responders for your time.
God bless.

There is some misunderstaning of the Catholic use of Votive Candles.

Many people, including Catholics, have a strange or misunderstood knowladge of the use and function of Votive Candles.
When someone decides to use a Votive Candle it is normally for a 'special' or 'important' reason. The reason someone for some one to light a Votive Candle is becausue it represents a kind of continuation, or prolongation of thier prayer. Since the person would not be able to stay or activly continue to pray beyond a particular time frame, they light the Votive which remains to symbolize thier wish that thier prayer contiunes.
It is along the same lines as an Orthodox Jew who prays at the Wall. They write down thier prayers and place them in the cracks of the Wall so thier petitions can be availiable to God even when they are not activly praying.
Often people who don't understand Traditions such as this or Sacramentals will point and say 'magic'.
It is important to note that the use of Votive Candles is not to be viewed as any type of magic. Again they symbolizes the persons wish for thier prayer to continue.

What is the authentic Bible?

"Before a word of the Hebrew scriptures was written, the people of Israel existed for centuries. Gradually, the community came to regard certian writings as reflecting their faith in a unique way, and so they accorded these works a unique status in the life of the people. As the Hebrews migrated to other lands, they took thier Scriptures with them. Eventually, they were translated into Greek, ( known as the "Septuagint" because Jewish traditio holds that seventy inspired scholars produced it).
The listing of accepted or canonical books was slightly longer in the Septuagint version than in the original "Palestinian" Cannon, including the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and 1and 2 Maccabees.
By A.D. 100 the Church was already using the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures, since it was by then, operating in non-Jewish environments. As a result, Christianity, both in the West and East, always maintained the longer cannon.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther challenged its use and argued for the shorter, Palestinian cannon. His position was formulated largely by his desire to evade the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead, clearly taught in the Second book of Maccabees.
One he had excised those books, [using his own self-given authority], from the Old Testament, he then questioned the canonicity of several New Testament books: Hebrews, 2and3 John, James, Jude, 2 Peter, and Revelation. Again, certain doctrines contained in those [long established] books were problematic for Luther.
It should be noted that Eastern Orthodox Christians still accept the same cannon as Roman Catholics and, further, that many non-Catholic scholarsare now willing to give some acknowledgment to the disputed books, refering to them as "apocryphal" and often reincluding them in thier Bibles, usually at the end."

[ my comments]
Provided by Father Stravinskas

http://www.catholicity.com/maryfoundation/
free information regarding the Catholic faith.
"Conversion of Scott Hahn" and the "truth about Mary", for Protestants, ( as for my suggestion)
take a look. I have recovered almost well enough to begin again. God bless.
Dismas M.I.